The problem is people in the suburbs are quite misinformed. They want low taxes, low density, and stable city services all at the same time which is impossible. Want stable services and low taxes? You better put up with higher density then. Want low taxes and low density? Better put up with unstable city services. Want low density and stable services? Better put up with higher taxes then!
Sometimes called the "contractor's triangle". You can build it good, fast, or cheap. And you can only pick 2. Like if it's good and fast, it's definitely not cheap.
as we discussed in my thread, the solution to Toronto's problems would be with what Mumbai/ Shanghai have done....spread out industry, then people would move.......todays suburbs need to become tomorrow's cities (if we want hyper-immigration to be the norm) there might be another solution, but from what Ive seen in Asia, and even from our next door neighbours (USA), thats what they did with a rising population
They are all missing local cafes, stores, etc. Something that make walkable neighborhoods truly walkable. More smaller locally owned stores, more local cafes, more local restaurants. Less of major big block chain locations too far to go walking
Because they are talking about residential housing, not commercial. Most of the options for low income housing could have a street level commercial component.
True the topic is very important. Unfortunately the slant is towards keeping the public under the thumb of developers. Provincial assessments show that land value increases as buildings depreciate year over year.
@@kevinb4438 a very frustrating reality to say the least, especially since as it stands for my generation, even just living in an "affordable" apartment is more of a pipe dream than reality
@@crimsonfoxx2997 Right? Its either these mega developers like Minto or Mattamy, build 100s of cheaply constructed single homes (that get bought up by people looking for income properties) or its a giant "luxury apartment" rental so the developer can make money because permits and contruction on large apartments takes forever...its unprofitable for them to build a duplex. I feel like we need to promote small scale developers. Incentiize the smaller developers in building multiuse "low-rise"/ 'plexes. Encourage communities to get involved in the development process, so they have a say in what happens (and ensure is regulated properly so people dont take advantage). An engaged community that gets a small say in their neighbourhood is a good thing.... sigh...
That coverage will probably be lost if Mr. PP gets in and follows through on his goal of defunding CBC. The National, W5, any and all investigative journalism will disappear or at least be severely cut back because corporations don't want to buy advertising on programs that are slamming or even questioning, what they do.
I believe the retirement crisis will get even worse. Many struggle to save due to low wages, rising prices, and exorbitant rents. With homeownership becoming unattainable for middle-class Americans, they may not have a home to rely on for retirement either.
Consider buying stocks when the economy is not doing well, like during a recession. It could be a chance to buy them at a lower price and sell later when prices go up. Just keep in mind, this isn't financial advice, but sometimes it's better than keeping a lot of cash.
Home prices will come down eventually, but for now; get your money (as much as you can) out of the housing market and get into the financial markets or gold. The new mortgage rates are crazy, add to that the recession and the fact that mortgage guidelines are getting more difficult. Home prices will need to fall by a minimum of 40% (more like 50%) before the market normalizes. If you are in cross roads or need sincere advise on the best moves to take now its best you seek an independent advisor who knows about the financial markets.
Finally people are waking up to the missing middle problem you can't just keep building single detached family homes and and expect the housing crisis to be solved
90% of our population lives within 150kms of the US border. It's time to build cities/towns elsewhere on land - not all of it can be used for farming, or is environmentally significant. We need to get rid of this, "We need to live in Toronto" mindset.
There are no net-new single family homes being built in Toronto proper anymore. Said differently, there will never be more detached single family homes in Toronto proper than there are right now. To build a missing middle, old existing neighborhoods will have to be bought and bulldozed. And that is part of the issue.
Living in Montreal, it's great to see and be a part of the "missing middle". Andrew Chang had better and more convincing statements here than the expert he talked to, in my opinion. And that's probably because of him living in Montreal. He mentioned these plex houses in Montreal as a combination of density, walkability, amenities and public transit. I totally agree with that here. I visited a few friends in Toronto, Mississauga, Scarborough and Brampton and saw NONE of it there. Public transit is either next to your house and a large highway, or is miles away. It's either separated houses which are fine, but far away from amenities. Or it's all tall buildings with building management companies, which convert the personal touch of neighbors into a business/commerce-oriented lifeless "home". Amenities are in these HUGE (again) lifeless yards which are essentially large car parks with a few enormous supermarket chains around. Totally UN-live-able! Even Montreal downtown is basically the same with "missing middle" but that's a very very small portion and I am glad for that. But all around the downtown, there's the Old Port, Griffintown, The Village, McGill Ghetto, Plateau Mont-Royal, Mile end, and few more further out from downtown. All these places are FILLED with these integrated plex houses, giving these neighbourhoods a cute, cozy, safe and walkable vibe. And now we even know that they help out with the housing crisis.
@@shauncameron8390 it's really inexpensive compared to any tiny city in Ontario (for example). I'm comparing other city prices to Montreal prices. If you plan to live in a town or suburb away from the city, you already choose to be away from the buzz so it is an entirely different lifestyle.
And yet Montreal now has a housing crisis. Turns out having a million new comers per year also has costs. I say that as a son of immigrants. If you are going to bring a million people you had better build the homes to accommodate them
Montreal (and Quebec more broadly) builds far more plexes than most Canadian cities. Look at some of the 3-6 storey developments outside of the urban core, whether in neighborhoods like Villeray or even off-Island. We've been shifting from detached homes back to various forms of middle density since the 1980s.
The city planning in Toronto is an embarrassment. Years of poor decision making has resulted in unnecessary congestion. But even if there was more middle range housing, it would still be overpriced and unaffordable for many people.
We live in a 5-plex building and we have a backyard and private parking, but we also have wonderful neighbours who we see all the time! I moved from Edmonton to Montréal and I was amazed by how much the medium density neighbourhoods create so much more interaction between people and a much stronger sense of community. I think about how great it must be for kids to grow up that way instead of being isolated all the time.
Until one of your neighbors goes off the rails. Then you need to move or they need to move but insane people often don't realize they're crazy. That's the draw to a house.
There is one issue that people are neglecting to mention - much of the housing stock is snatched up by investors (I read somewhere in BC, more than half of the condos are owned by investors). We have been blinded by the free market to a point where we failed to realize that housing should foremost be a human right, rather than a commodity. Start limiting the number of homes that people can own, and see how far the real estate market will tumble.
Exactly, sooner or later we will have to do just that. There is no reason why anyone should own 8 houses, that creates an artificial scarcity of houses cuz a few people own almost half of the properties.
You limit the number of homes people can build and you limit the number of homes that can be built. The problem is that we're running out of land worth developing.
Still doesn't solve the shortage problem though. Doesn't matter who owns it. We don't have enough homes for everyone in the cities people want to live in.
People seem to forget that a looooot of houses in Toronto are no single family dwellings, but instead house roommates or multiple families if they Toronto houses are subdivided into suites by floor.
Andrew, this new program is fantastic and you're doing great work. This topic is perfect for our times, excellent topic and indeed we need to go from discussion to action. Thank you.
My residential street in East York had a 4-plex and a 6-plex on it, completely integrated with the single family homes. I agree, a small multi unit could be built in every block.
Add all the density you want but they still won't be affordable because Torontonian property owners and corporations have cemented housing as commodities and investment rather than places for living!
But if supply of living spaces increases enough and corresponding demand decreases, there could be a significant decrease in housing costs because of market forces. I understand that many homes are scooped up for investment purposes which results in an artificial price floor but even then, they can't just hold forever and they might be more willing to sell if they foresee a market crash. If enough ppl sell, the predicted market crash becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is kinda why NIMBYism exists. If homes are built in an area, people expect their own property prices to go down so they oppose it.
yep ... was recently reveled. analyst are now saying that. You can build all you want, but nothing will change as Housing and especially rental housing became an investment system in Toronto and many other cities. Only think that will change it is putting in laws to control it, and putting it laws to make it affordable.
I'm living in very similar building to that on the last picture. 4 stories, around 50 apartments. It's great. Close to the city center, but far enough to be silent neighbourhood. Everything I need in close proximity. I can walk everywhere. It's great living in Europe.
"Higher density developments will reduce property values in my area." I was looking at that trying to figure out how this is not a positive for affordability. Then I realized that was a COMPLAINT 😂😂
People are lying or they are just misinformed, because a quick search on prices of properties says, the ones close to the suburbs are valued less than the ones close downtown where high density developments are everywhere.
@@joshbobst1629 I mean, to clarify, all the downtown single family housing is many times more expensive than dense housing right next door. Prices are just high because it's downtown and closer to amenities, not because density doesn't help.
In Vancouver, the Vancity credit union was the first "bank" to offer mortgages East of Cambie Street. The history of the wealth divide between the East & West sides of the city is pretty obvious.
Very insightful video. The key to solving the housing crisis in Canada is removing the gatekeepers, the unnecessary restrictions, and promoting more plex housing units.
Parking requirements are raising the construction costs and minimizing middle housing. We need to implement Parking Maximums (a cap on parking spaces per unit) to reduce cost, expedite construction, and build more housing.
And with that, reduce the overall need for cars especially within the cities. But god forbid we get more public transport lest you want the NIMBYs shrieking.
Sure. Einstein. You are in Canada where -30 is a Normal and huge distances between anything that you need. In Europe you have small Shops everywhere.Not only big Shopping Centers.So YES you can walk or take the bus. Here you will freeze while waiting for the bus or the Train if is not broken because the weather.
@@paco1443half of the country lives in the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor. A literal straight line connecting 18 million people. You couldn’t dream of a better scenario for high speed rail-public transport.
@@paco1443 So the solution is the fix how businesses are zoned in North American cities back to how it was in the early 20th century and not to keep doing what is broken by building more car infested malls.
@@paco1443they’re not talking about the suburbs. They’re talking about urban settings. You shouldn’t need a car to travel a few kilometres around a city; with proper infra that task can be quickly and easily accomplished with bus or rail networks, and even by biking.
Montreal is one of the most beautiful & livable cities in the world, in large part because of the plexes & 3 or 4 storey buildings. Many of them are older buildings, built before the middle of the 20th century, & that older architecture is also more liveable, on a human scale, & visually appealing.
I remember the first time I visited the "New World" from Europe and suddenly realised how our Western World actually consists of two parts with very different public spaces. In North America the city centres tend to consist of very tall tower blocks that immediately drop off and yield to low, open quarters with detatched houses. In Europe the centres are lower but the building height tends to stay the same in the surrounding quarters, only dropping off several kilometres further out. I am beginning to wonder if the legislative aspect - the missing middle housing - might also have exacerbated a historical tendency that was already existing in the English-speaking world. At one point I became interested in the rise of this typical kind of quarters surrounding the medieval core in European cities. I.e. the kind of quarter that is not really the city centre but not really a suburb either, and which is characterised by high density with relatively narrow streets surrounded by blocks of, say, 3 to 6 floors with flats. It typically has shops in the main streets and is often served by tramways. This would be the "missing middle housing". In French it is usually called a faubourg, and in German the term is Vorstadt. In Eastern Europe you often have equivalent terms, either translated (Polish: przedmieście, Russian: предместье) or in the German form (Latvian: forstate). In Danish you can call it a brokvarter, and in Swedish it is sometimes known as a malm. However, I have not been able to find an English equivalent of this term. Maybe the reason is simply that these quarters are already rarer and/or less extensive in these countries. If I zoom out from a city centre in the UK, the dense part of the city relatively quickly yields to more open quarters with terraced houses. When I look at North America, the situation seems to be similar, although I have walked faubourgs in Québec. But it seems that the concept is less prevalent in the Anglo-Saxon part of the world at the outset, both in the Old and the New World. And apparently this is perpetuated by the legislation. I have searched high and low for a historic term for the missing middle housing. What *would* the English equivalent be in the (maybe somewhat schematic) overview below? German: Innenstadt - Vorstadt - Vorort Dutch: binnenstad - voorstad - buitenwijk French: centre-ville - faubourg - banlieue Swedish: stadskärna - malm - förort Danish: bykerne - brokvarter - forstad English: city centre - ??? - suburb Could you call it an 'inner borough'? Or rather an 'outer borough'? (middle borough?). Or is the French term "faubourg" used? I saw someone somewhere rendering the German term as 'fore-city' but that is not an actual English word, is it? I would be really interested in inputs because it is a bit of a conundrum to me.
Another factor is the method of constructing that makes flat/apartment/condo density living feasible. Altbau buildings, in my experience, are made of stone or concrete and insulate well and block a lot of sound. The apartments I've lived in in the US are wood frames with sheet rock: thin walls, low ceilings, hear everything from the neighbors, etc.
Thanks for this extensive post, I really enjoyed reading it. As a Dutch person I never noticed that the lack of the middle borough in the UK is kind of similar to the situation in NA (I always thought the sitution in the UK was similar the rest of the EU).
In the UK the closest thing would probably be what's called the inner city. These are fairly dense working class areas, usually near the city centre, which are made up of pre-WWII terraced houses. You can recognise these areas on a map by their parallel streets which are close together.
I'm an architect and I absolutely agree that way more missing middle housing and mixed use development should be constructed in Canadian cities. That being said, the way that the architect in this video addressed concerns from residents about the construction of denser housing bothered me. The dismissive attitude, and outright denying those issues exist is not the way to win people over. A 4 story building, set back 1.5m off of a property line, is going to overshadow and overlook a 2 story single family dwelling. That's the truth. We need to be up front and honest about this - a person's backyard and their privacy in their backyard isn't a priority for planners anymore. I personally have practiced in the UK, a place where very dense construction is permitted, but they have planning requirements there that address overlooking and overshadowing - here are some examples: If you are building close to a property line then the type of cladding you use needs to reflect sunlight (i.e. it should be white, or of a lighter material.) Another example: if you are putting a window in that overlooks an adjacent property, that window needs to be set at a 45 degree angle so that it doesn't directly overlook. These are very simple ways to address the concerns of adjacent residents, without entirely dismissing them.
To all the NIMBY's out there. The time for debate is over, you've stalled for way too long and this NEEDS to happen now. Move somewhere else if you don't like it.
How vitally important this topic is. Cities from Vancouver to Vienna and Toronto to Tel Aviv are facing similar issues - how to house middle-income families affordably. Nobody wants to see urban sprawl and create another SoCal, and few want to bring up a family in a high rise. Housing with a sense of community is not created by gated, home association ruled neighbourhoods. It isn't nostalgia which drives the urge to see a return of mixed-use communities with low-rise and terraced housing. It's common sense. Your thoughtful piece is long overdue. Thanks.
At least if you can’t find place to live in Tel Aviv, you can always go steal more Palestinian land and build your very own Zionist settlement & claim God gave you that land 😅
Absolutely,but urban sprawl did not create the problem as the mix of housing you describe could sprawl just as far. Instead it’s the lack of urban planning that caused the mono design stagnation of So Cal.
What's wrong with a family in a high-rise? So long as there are good amenities nearby and neighbour-friendly designs surrounding the building it's great!
Single family home owners feel entitled to what is done beyond their property line. Including what their fellow single family home neighbors are doing in their own properties. This needs to be treated as what it is, entitled privilege. In a city like Toronto, these owners are the most affluent, with the most political influence. This is why the change in legislation required to increase supply is extremely slow.
Thank you the audacity of people to tell others what to do with their properties is disgusting you don’t like what your neighbors doing or the neighborhood is changing then move somewhere else 🤷
Totally agree, it has never made any sense to me that neighbors feel like they schould have any say over what someone else does on their own property. This is a big reason why I moved into the countryside where we had no zoning and home prices are 1 third or less what they are near the city.
Coming from Italian cities, it always struck me how Toronto, and all of North America, has these massive swaths of low rise, detached or semi-detached homes. The avergae height of buildings in Italian cities is 4-5 stories, with most people living in apartments.
Italy has solved for the land capacity and heritage components of the country. Canada has the advantage of land - though large corporations, enterprise buildings and banks determine where you live.
I've often thought rooftop community greenhouses would be an excellent fifth floor sanity check. Cold weather construction should include some sort of integrated rooftop heat and water recovery systems,,, greenhouse/sanctuary.
@@kevinb4438 Suburban people knowing and talking to each other? Now I know you lying lol. Without reliable third spaces you only get to know the people around you if they go to the same church or country/social club, not because they actually live near you.
@@kevinb4438 LoL people drive into their garages and lower the door before getting out and going straight into the house. The whole point of owning a home like that is so you can pretend it's just you and your castle.
There's a reason east Asia for a half century has been taking up most of the world's manufacturing and entertainment increasingly. It kind of helps to have people live closer together, and if you have a culture that makes socializing in high density frictionless and appropriate public infrastructure, you're golden.
Well... Lack of human rights and government subsidy have played a MASSIVE role. One example. Famously whole cities were built from American garbage. American "recycling" programs just sent masses of materials like plastic and electronics waste to places like rural China. Poor rural villagers living in terrifying conditions would pick through the garbage to feed industrial centers. Industry would turn that waste back into industrial products, and sell it back to America. See the South Park episode about QVC. People sell their old jewelry for money online. That jewelry goes to a sweatshop in East Asia. Children reassemble the materials into new jewelry. People buy that jewelry... The circle goes round.
@@KevinJDildonik I was thinking more of the democratic ones. But the Chinese Economic Zone I think are an interesting idea. They're not all just sweat jobs, though those do exist.
Even if we rezone more SFH to mix use, it still won't really have much effect as long as there are minimum parking requirements. Parking requirements creates a huge waste of land for parking. It favors expensive larger units over smaller cheaper units as the cost for parking is the same for both. It practically prohibits the usage of a big portion of the buildable airspace as the parking costs weigh down buildings to be smaller than they could have been. If they do get to build tall by providing underground parking, then the added costs makes it so that only rich people and luxury businesses can afford such places.
Yeah parking lots are 100% the issue. You can't just have density, you need a social environment cars don't dominate. One of the only perks of covid was realizing how many neighborhoods are far nicer when they aren't overrun with traffic.
Then we need to revise the parking requirements. Doing that in conjunction with resetting zoning just makes sense and it seems like its something that would roll nicely into that same legislation.
Build housing co-ops. 40% of new construction in Vancouver is bought as investment. Nobody lives in it full time! We need to remove housing from the equity market. Housing co-ops use mid range buildings to house people at an affordable rate. They also create community.
She didn’t seem to understand what Andrew was getting at with his last question. We’re talking about increasing density in existing Toronto neighborhoods - so either re-zoning commercial property to residential or buying single detached units and rebuilding. Here’s an extreme example to make things clear. Take a neighborhood in the Danforth area with 100 single detached homes, all on large 35’x140’ lots. Currently 300 people live there. We will fill in the middle by tearing down all 100 homes and building 100 three-story multiplexes. Each one has nine units. So after construction is finished there will be 100 nine unit buildings (900 apartments in total). If two people move into each apartment, we will have increased the population from 300 to 1,800. But the parks and street parking has not changed.
But nobody is saying you can't have any regulations for what kind of amenities get built along with the housing, right? Maybe you require parking garages underneath the buildings, (which should include bike parking by the way, because driving a car through a city is a whole other problem in its own right :[]), a bus stop, a corner store, a child care facility and an extra park and that way there is still space for 70 x 9 units. That's a whole extra lot of housing, the parking problem is addressed, there is park space and a bonus corner store, child care and bus stop. Instead of forcing EVERY type of housing project in an area to have high minimum parking and wasteful land use, you can put more useful regulations into your zoning. And maybe they can update the regulations for single-family zoned areas as well, so that the residents there also park in their underground garage, have access to a sidewalk and bike path and that require some basic amenities (corner stores, public transport, playgrounds) so these neighbourhoods don't have to be dead zones where you can only drive either. Of course, the problem with maintaining these amenities in an area with low density remain and are part of the reason why middle housing should be allowed.
She answered the parks part. When you build denser, you get MORE room for more parks. Look how many parks Manhattan has for example, not just central park but tons of others all over. It's easy for a community to say "okay you can redevelop this block, but allocate 20% of the space for a new park". This sort of bargaining with developers happens all the time (at least in the US). As for street parking - the honest answer is it doesn't matter. Street parking is one of the biggest wastes of spaces we have. We're talking land inside a major city. Prioritizing street parking over people being able to live is immoral. Greater density makes car-free living much easier, as things will be closer and transit more effective, solving the issue anyway. Feel free to park on your own property, but opposing much-needed housing because your concerned someone there will park on the street near your place? Ridiculous.
I live on a street of single dwelling units and most have converted their basements to income properties. We now have so many cars parked on the street that emergency vehicles have a challenge getting down the road of our cul-de-sac. Greater density without infrastructure is choking our neighbourhoods.
It would be really difficult to retrofit cul-de-sac type suburbia. At the end of the day, it's still zoned as single family housing only. No commercial/employment spaces are allowed in such type of zoning which means everybody needs a car for everything they need.
@@jose.austria that's an issue, not allowing commercial space and retrofitting homes. Suburbia can be expanded and allowing dupplex, tripplex and commercial space. Why. Wouldn't they do this? Just change the zonning. It will create more space, development, employment and tax revenue. Much of the infrastructure is already in place. This could mean as less travel, possibly less commuting.
@@elena2125 it took 12 years to amend a bylaw to permit the development of laneway houses. And laneway housing is the gentlest form of densifying. If it took 12 years to allow the gentlest form, how long will it take to restructure the whole? The best thing to do is to raise awareness about the importance of city planning in order to create a political will to change the status quo faster. Educate our younger generations, particularly the ones who are entering voting age, so they can make more informed decisions when choosing leaders.
We need better zoning. Less single family homes but overall less allowing of the developpers to propose rezoning to produce ultra high dense buidlings.
@@wewantmoreboomboom8313 Developers are not the ones proposing rezoning to build ultra-high density buildings. This is what current local zoning laws allow. And luxury condos are the only housing allowed to be built within city limits that have a decent ROI.
Canada builds 140,000 housing units a year but has an immigration rate of 500,000 per year (2023). PLUS 70,000 irregular immigrants (refugees at Roxham road), 200,000 students with path to citizenship and a growing birth tourism problem. Please explain to me how this is not the direct cause of the housing crises?
Simply put, we've failed to build enough housing for the number of people we're taking in. Immigration isn't the problem...our ability to plan in a systemic manner across three levels of government very much is.
It's easy to blame immigrants (not saying thats what you are doing). When it's our government that messed up. They stopped construction of public housing, let large numbers of people in. What do you expect is going to happen. People are getting angry at immigrants instead of the actual people that failed them.
I’m retiring and downsizing, fleeing suburbia, and I want to live in a “missing middle” community. Wish there were some around! NIMBYs will have a coronary though, if we build more of these, especially as infill projects.
I am presently living alone in a very old three bedrooms little single family house on a very tiny lot in the neighborhood of Montreal because I want it and have enough money to do so. Few years ago, I met an old resident of my house who told me than when he was young, he was living with his parents, his grand-parents and 9 sisters and brothers! So the density is not only a question of typology but a question of living space! Fortunately, the housing crisis will force some of us to reduce our envy of bigger houses or to share space with other people as our parents did 40 or 50 years ago. It is not the end of the world to reduce our living space! I do not need a more spacious house. I am just happy with my little tiny house and thinking to modified my existing shed into a new small housing unit and use it to help people in search of a rental unit and help reducing the actual housing shortage…😮
It would be interesting to know how much of Toronto has gigantic mansions on a 1+ acre lot, vs smaller single family homes. Why is the City allowing the gargantuan single family mansions to be built?
If we look at it in terms of cars, it seems as if we're only building Cadillac Escalades (mcmansions) or Smart cars (condos/towns). The average family can't afford a Cadillac escalade, and can't fit appropriately within a Smart car. And when we pretty much only build these two types of cars (homes), it puts the already existing family sedans/vans/suvs (smaller single family homes) up in value because they are needed/wanted most. And especially if trash the vans/etc. and build an escalade it it's place - it's ridiculous. So many more affordable types of single family homes are being greelit for teardown everyday to build mcmansions (which end up being sold again and again because ppl can't afford the ridiculous mortgages...)
This is the dumbest idea I’ve heard It’s a waste of space when there isn’t much in the first place We need way more homes, which condos will provide on the same footprint It’s simple common sense
I lived in another country. We had 4 condo buildings each 5 stores hight 3 bedroom with separate kitchen, all looking into one big park in the middle surrounded by these buildings. There were playground, small soccer field, small green park and lots of benches. All neighbors knew each other. Kids were playing together outside. It was an amazing community. Here all condo or apartment buildings have very small 2 bedroom units and face roads. It is not attractive for families to live. So families with kids especially have to move to single houses. The whole city design support only this life style.
This is indeed how we should be doing it. For some (ridiculous) reason all the apartments and condos are built along busy arterial roads. In this way the maximum number of people suffer from the pollution and noise of a busy street, while one block over the neighborhood is all single family homes. If we were to look at things from a fresh and objective perspective we'd see that this is the exact opposite of the how our neighborhoods should be arranged. Give the most people possible the good air and quite and put as FEW people as is possible next to the busy, dirty roads. We have a lot to learn from the rest of the world! I'm glad there are so many immigrants coming to Canada and sharing their opinions on how we should design our cities as we need all the international help we can get!
@@bradcomis1066 As someone from Montreal, these kind building, even if they look nice on the outside made of stone facade and even in Westmount which is the most posh neighbohood right at somewhat the center, they age very very poorly, lots of trouble, depressing and inflexible layouts. It is almost an inherent quality that it will be really really poor quality, or at least cheap bad quality is bound to happen and will age really badly. I guess we collectivelly decided to go for quantity rather then quality and hope on the decision without thinking the details as always. At least update the building code and quality to the suiss stnadard. If we even have a quality code that is right now. It is worrying because once youaccept, expect and mentality shift it will spread to all aspect resulting in lower standard for all things and not necessarily bang for the buck without being necessarily all that cheaper. it will be worrying for sure
As someone from Montreal, these kind building, even if they look nice on the outside made of stone facade and even in Westmount which is the most posh neighbohood right at somewhat the center, they age very very poorly, lots of trouble, depressing and inflexible layouts. It is almost an inherent quality that it will be really really poor quality, or at least cheap bad quality is bound to happen and will age really badly. I guess we collectivelly decided to go for quantity rather then quality and hope on the decision without thinking the details as always. At least update the building code and quality to the suiss stnadard. If we even have a quality code that is right now. It is worrying because once youaccept, expect and mentality shift it will spread to all aspect resulting in lower standard for all things and not necessarily bang for the buck without being necessarily all that cheaper. it will be worrying for sure
I wonder how many people realize that our current NIMBY policies are not just driving prices up, but inflation as well. And yeah, maybe the potential for a shadow in your yard isn't as important as people being able to afford to live.
One way to encourage higher density is to tax low density low occupancy at a higher rate. In addition new houses should be designed in such a way that they can be easily subdivided into smaller units. The newer large open concept houses now being built are very difficult to subdivide. Of course we can simply carry on the the current course and all our cities will look like downtown Shanghai
The uneven taxation is indeed a huge problem. If taxes were calculated on the basis of services and infrastructure need for each unit then suburban homes would see a HUGE increase in taxation and dense inner city condos would see a drop. It is a well researched subject: The subsidization of the suburbs by dense inner city cores.
Problem is that land values are too high so it’s difficult for developers to purchase the land and build these types of homes. The land value pushes them into constructing apartments so they can recover the cost of the initial land purchase.
People just need to accept that most of us will be living in storage unit sized "apartments" within the next 30 years. Meanwhile the politicians and corporate leaders will live in even more luxurious homes than they do now.
when you go to Seoul, most of family lives in 1000~1500 Sqft (3-4 bedrooms) apartment. I don't think that considers as a "strong unit size" & they live very comfortably you can build apartment for apartment. in fact most of european countries + asian countires are living in that way. You can learn lots of lesson from there
@@sihyeonkim6895 You are correct, the cities in Korea and Europe are much denser. It is part of the culture there. In Canada, many of the people that live here generally enjoy and appreciate the space, and many people come here for the space. It is part of the culture in Canada.
@@tomanderson4131 A lot of the time densification happens in these areas because of land constraints. Make no mistake though, there is plenty of cheap SFH's in Europe.
Now if they couldn’t only tackle the missing parking problem because they never provide enough parking for the residents of a condo or apartment. And delivery vehicles end up blocking streets because they didn’t even accommodate temporary parking.
Thank you, The problem is banks and lender who are providing easy accessible mortgages to INVESTORS ( Uninsured Mortgages), they are the ones increasing the demand!!! Restricting the uninsured mortgages , higher rates , higher taxes on investment properties, higher land transfer tax, higher property tax ,…… will reduce some of the extra demand created by investors!!! Current system is to benefit the banks and lenders!!! 👍🏻👏🤔🤔
A major reason for the missing middle is that these buildings really appeal to small investors-an owner who buys the property, lives in one unit, and rents out the rest. But tenant/landlord legislation is SO heavily anti-landlord that it doesn’t appeal. A non-compliant tenant can take months or a few years to evict, during which time he pays no rent. Small landlords can’t afford that. A big landlord-commanding 500 units, say-can afford to absorb that non-compliant loser because he’s offset by 100 compliant tenants. But a small landlord, with three units in a triplex, can easily be bankrupted by that non-compliant tenant. It’s just too hard to be a small time landlord.
As someone from Montreal, these kind building, even if they look nice on the outside made of stone facade and even in Westmount which is the most posh neighbohood right at somewhat the center, they age very very poorly, lots of trouble, depressing and inflexible layouts. It is almost an inherent quality that it will be really really poor quality, or at least cheap bad quality is bound to happen and will age really badly. I guess we collectivelly decided to go for quantity rather then quality and hope on the decision without thinking the details as always. At least update the building code and quality to the suiss stnadard. If we even have a quality code that is right now. It is worrying because once youaccept, expect and mentality shift it will spread to all aspect resulting in lower standard for all things and not necessarily bang for the buck without being necessarily all that cheaper. it will be worrying for sure
Ideas like this are nice, but there are real costs to packing people together that always seem to get ignored with these discussions. Chief among them are that people are (mostly unintentionally) noisy, and no one in the history of multi-family housing construction, has ever built a building that isolates inhabitants from the noise of their neighbors. You also have to be careful that when you do build moderate density housing like this, that you also build the infrastructure to support all of those extra people. I've been on the other end of this - living in a community that saw a massive explosion of mid-density housing - and it wreaked havoc on the local infrastructure. Water and sewer systems were overloaded, the schools were overcrowded, streets couldn't handle the extra traffic... They also didn't make housing any more affordable either.
Beautiful work of journalism. I look forward to a follow-up report about how these changes could (and presumably in most cases will) result in lower taxes and increased viability of small businesses.
Building LUXURY AP.BUILDINGS is NOT THE SOLUTION. In OTTAWA all new ap.buildings rents start at 2190$ for one bedroom and 1 parking. Still 70% of the NET INCOME for the Middle class single person.
It increases supply, driving down prices elsewhere. That's what people often ignore about the market. For more affordable apartments to be built they have to be allowed everywhere.
Not that many...they quickly went from duplexes in the mid 60's to to the ubiquitous 20 floor slab apartment buildings Ask your provincial government what happened to the 60's duplexes and beautiful 3 floor walk up buildings. Developers in Toronto are currently on a rampage to destroy them so they can build 40 floor condo towers....because they government is telling them we need more density...and of course they cannot build anywhere else except where these building exist.
Pricing, availability, access and restrictions on mortgages keep most from home ownership and rentals are affected likewise. Government changes to mortgage requirements may have protected mortgage companies and banks but it hurt those seeking home ownership, forcing them into an overpriced rental market which is short on availability. Many pay more for rent than a mortgage for ownership would cost but altered rules prevent their consideration from lenders.
We need higher density and we need it last year. These 12 year timelines are unacceptable. Too long. People will be on the street for 12 years. Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall. Unacceptable timeline. There has to be a better way. A faster way.
FYI.... living in Toronto is BLEAK and sad....I lived there for almost two years and people are as cold as the weather!! After I moved to LA and I made more friends (and girlfriend) in 2 weeks than in Toronto in two years!!
This is a good piece. First step in solving this housing crisis is educating people and teaching them the real root of this problem. Way more productive than blaming individual/corporate landlords and their greed.
After watching the whole thing, Ive realized that Im mistaken. This is not a good piece. This is an excellent piece. Awesome job by these CBC producers.
All of this is a great idea but there are many sides to the issue and all of them need to be addressed and the projects need to done right in order for it to work and so far, in the city where I live, these types of projects have NOT been done correctly and the city has NOT improved the utilities and services even though that was part of the deal and they promised to. These architects are talking about what "could be" as opposed to what "will be" You can't solve a problem by way of 1/2 solutions and this is what I see in my city which is why you have so many NIMBYs. What politicians promise is far above what they deliver.
Thanks for explaining this better. B.C. did a blanket re-zoning so we shall see if we can catch-up for the last 50 yrs. of illegal missing middle. Mobile home type prefabricated systems story next?
As someone from Montreal, these kind building, even if they look nice on the outside made of stone facade and even in Westmount which is the most posh neighbohood right at somewhat the center, they age very very poorly, lots of trouble, depressing and inflexible layouts. It is almost an inherent quality that it will be really really poor quality, or at least cheap bad quality is bound to happen and will age really badly. I guess we collectivelly decided to go for quantity rather then quality and hope on the decision without thinking the details as always. At least update the building code and quality to the suiss stnadard. If we even have a quality code that is right now. It is worrying because once youaccept, expect and mentality shift it will spread to all aspect resulting in lower standard for all things and not necessarily bang for the buck without being necessarily all that cheaper. it will be worrying for sure
about “duplex and multiplexes “ yes. don’t get me wrong great option to start. I did too used to live in one of those; you said you loved it. I didn’t. you must have lived in the top of the unit; any other floor below is a pain. lots of highhills and shoes sounds constantly. smoke odours … no thank you… condos on the other hand are better isolated and rules are more stringent.
And where are the affordable 400sqft to 1200sqft small houses with yards, that people can afford to live in and maintain? Why doesn't the government build hundreds of thousands of those and sell them at low prices to everyday Canadians to live in as their only and primary residence?
First: English is not my first language, so I may have misunterstood what you were saying Because these takes space All the single family house with yard demands a lot of infrastructures. You need to cut trees or de-zone agricultural lands, build roads and jist taking care of the roads cost money. Single unit home don't bring enough revenu in taxes to maintain the infrastructure needed. Single family home suburbs are usually costing more than what they bring in taxes revenue. By having many family in the same surface, you increase taxe revenu without incresing the infrastructure spending. The small affordable family home doesn't bring enough taxe revenue in general.
@@elena2125 because two familly unit building counts as 2 adresses and taxes are per adresses. I'm no expert so I'll go with my understanding. Let's say you have a 1 family unit (the classic suburb house) on a 9000 sqfeet yard Municipal taxes are around 2 500$ a year. Now a side by side Duplex type, so Two family units on a similar surface (so divide the yard by two for private use) Municipal taxes for one unit of the Duplex would go around 2 250$ per year. There are two unit so the total for the city goes to 4 500$ for the same surface. Of course if the two famillies both lived in the same One family home that would be different as it's one adress, but the point of the video was about plex type of building and densification Ps: I used taxe estinated from older house of similar construction year in my area so not fully accurate
@@elodiemercier2502 So they are going to be taxing people not property since everyone is using the same land. So what's the incentive for property owners ? Invest to be taxed ? Or for anybody else to be taxed for occupying the same terrain.? There is no expantion , it is conglomerating lots of people on the same living area where everything becomes contracted and taxes increase, demand of everything increases, making everything more expensive. How is this a solution ? Let alone privacy, distancing for viruses and diseases. It is exactly what's happened in large American cities where people are not able to afford rent, and the basics, there is more crime, the pandemic hit hard, bodies were put into refrigeration trucks. Is this the future for more densed large Canadian cities given the state of our health care system? The same thing can be said for other cities around the globe. Beautiful Paris where people live in beautiful buildings but inside it is devided into , tiny aparmnts that are realy rooms where to use the washroom and showers people have to share. Asian cities we're so many live in tiny spaces. For now the solution is to build on the same space that has already been built cramming everybody up, increase taxes, make everything more expensive because of competition for space and devalue homes that have large buildings next to it. We are are incredible.
Low income houses are going to be in lots of trouble. The More vulnerable can loose their homes once the wolves start smelling for the weak. Hope we don't go that route and municipal and provincial governments don't allow it. Let's wait and see, and wish they don't pray on the vulnerable.
Purpose built rentals please! All the luxury micro-condos in the world can't house a family, and suffering under the whims of private landlords, we're forced to move when they decide, rather than being able to plan for the future.
Brooklyn is part of New York. Most sections have Paris density. The provincial government destroyed Toronto by encouraging Manhattan type tall condo building and density...when all they had to look at is right outside of Manhattan...to Brooklyn... and copy that...or PARIS. This country is filled with morons....everthing they need to copy New York.
@@elena2125 They are talking about physically how the buildings are built. 6-8 story max height, they turn in on themselves and have a court yard, You pack in a lot more in the space and dont need towers. Since its not from the 1800's you build the interior to modern standards or according to your country standards.
I appreciate her complaint about developers being willing to come to the table. But why do we have to rely on developers at all for something as important as housing the population, especially when they've not shown themselves equal to the task up until now? Couldn't we build housing ourselves? Issue bonds and build them as public land trusts?
Realize that they need to sell a product to you. Don’t be a slave be an owner of land. Houses depreciate, land appreciates. That’s the basis for location location location.
@@kevinb4438 I don't believe in ownership of land. It's a scam the capital system we live in is trying to get us to invest in. In another sense, it's a way to buy off the working class and prevent us from demanding real participation in the economy and the huge wealth we create with our labor by allowing us to pretend we're participating in the ownership racket of the oligarchs. But if the big boys want the property they allow us to pretend we own, they'll take it, as we saw in the 2009 recession.
As someone from Montreal, these kind building, even if they look nice on the outside made of stone facade and even in Westmount which is the most posh neighbohood right at somewhat the center, they age very very poorly, lots of trouble, depressing and inflexible layouts. It is almost an inherent quality that it will be really really poor quality, or at least cheap bad quality is bound to happen and will age really badly. I guess we collectivelly decided to go for quantity rather then quality and hope on the decision without thinking the details as always. At least update the building code and quality to the suiss stnadard. If we even have a quality code that is right now. It is worrying because once youaccept, expect and mentality shift it will spread to all aspect resulting in lower standard for all things and not necessarily bang for the buck without being necessarily all that cheaper. it will be worrying for sure
Apparently one of the factors instigating this housing crisis is that there are not enough men employed in construction or simpler way of putting it a lack of necessary manpower. Perhaps two solutions is one, have guidance counsellors in high schools advise students who do well in shop class to consider getting a job in construction to funnel more young people into the housing industry, and two perhaps lure the necessary manpower from other countries with the promise of a better life if they get employed in construction.
hi andrew we live in kitchener everyone from toronto has come here and now e cant afford to live here anymore why isnt the government intervening? will we have tent cities everywhere like los angeles?
@@sm3675 Every city in Ontario has them, Allan Gardens in Toronto, Victoria Park and street in Kitchener, as well as Cambridge, Oshawa, Hamilton, London, Peterborough and Brockville have had recurring encampments.
Another shallow report that avoided the real issues, government will, regulation, zoning, & forcing developers to build a certain percent of their projects or their business as affordable housing.
It seems to me like the real issue is that we have this system where housing is seen by a whole hell of a lot of people as the means to build wealth. It's a commodity that they have invested it. The Logical consequence of that is that that's going to put them at the throats of the rest of us, who just need somewhere to live.
This is not necessary. If there is enough supply then housing becomes affordable. For example, people living in older units but can afford to move to newer construction will relocate. Leaving the older units available. And those older units will become the new affordable housing for lower incomes. And if the new units are so plentiful that the developers have trouble filling them, then the developers have to lower their prices to make the units more attractive. Thereby making the new units more affordable.
I'd be glad to just to see tiny homes become a thing. There are tons of people renting rooms these days. A tiny home would be the size of a room, but it would be yours alone.
More focus needs to be put on to REITS or institutions. It's not fair that we have to consistently compete against them . Plus it's impossible when there's so much control over houses where we can't build something more affordable
@@alexarzamendi9475 how far would you like to take this concept you can only work so much before you are priced out and be in need of a voucher from the gvmt 😂
I think we need to stop talking about what houses we need to build and how many residential properties a since person or corporation can own. Limit them to one or two. Limit them to one per 250km (as an example) Once you take out investors with deep pockets out of the equation, housing becomes more affordable. Let those with deep pockets Buy land, build an apartment to rent.
I love the idea to build more middle-mixed houses to improve the housing crisis, however, the builder next door damage my property and I have to resolve it through a small claim court. Which is a very stressful and pricy option. There should be a better protection policy( instead of going to court) in between to support the neighbor who has been affected by the new construction. such as the builder needs to put in a deposit with the city. If the damage is done, the city should be able to pull the deposit to the victim instead of going through the small claim court. Now you see why the neighbor is so frightened of a new builder in their neighborhood, as not all builder has a good moral standard to minimize the damage to your next-door neighbor. There should be a protection mechanism in between to reduce the conflict. The new construction in next door is a nightmare.
This is a huge point. Builders and investors are also usually not responsible for increased demand on roads, sewer, parking, etc. These costs end up being paid by taxpayers with increased property or sales taxes down the line.
The problem is people in the suburbs are quite misinformed. They want low taxes, low density, and stable city services all at the same time which is impossible. Want stable services and low taxes? You better put up with higher density then. Want low taxes and low density? Better put up with unstable city services. Want low density and stable services? Better put up with higher taxes then!
Suburban planning is the cause of all of this
FACTS
You want 3, can only get 2. Exactly . That problem occurs in a lot of other areas of life too!
Sometimes called the "contractor's triangle". You can build it good, fast, or cheap. And you can only pick 2. Like if it's good and fast, it's definitely not cheap.
as we discussed in my thread, the solution to Toronto's problems would be with what Mumbai/ Shanghai have done....spread out industry, then people would move.......todays suburbs need to become tomorrow's cities (if we want hyper-immigration to be the norm)
there might be another solution, but from what Ive seen in Asia, and even from our next door neighbours (USA), thats what they did with a rising population
They are all missing local cafes, stores, etc. Something that make walkable neighborhoods truly walkable. More smaller locally owned stores, more local cafes, more local restaurants. Less of major big block chain locations too far to go walking
Because they are talking about residential housing, not commercial. Most of the options for low income housing could have a street level commercial component.
yeah, mixed use. bottom floor is stores.
We’re in the future now, they should be called scootable neighborhoods - scoot down a mile away to get convenience. Lol
@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 You are right but heck why not for middle income housing too?! A mixed use walkable neighborhood sounds excellent to me.
Yes more mixed use zoning would be a good start
This is truly amazing, it's such a breath of fresh air to see mainstream media covering this topic
True the topic is very important. Unfortunately the slant is towards keeping the public under the thumb of developers. Provincial assessments show that land value increases as buildings depreciate year over year.
@@kevinb4438 a very frustrating reality to say the least, especially since as it stands for my generation, even just living in an "affordable" apartment is more of a pipe dream than reality
@@crimsonfoxx2997 Right? Its either these mega developers like Minto or Mattamy, build 100s of cheaply constructed single homes (that get bought up by people looking for income properties) or its a giant "luxury apartment" rental so the developer can make money because permits and contruction on large apartments takes forever...its unprofitable for them to build a duplex.
I feel like we need to promote small scale developers. Incentiize the smaller developers in building multiuse "low-rise"/ 'plexes. Encourage communities to get involved in the development process, so they have a say in what happens (and ensure is regulated properly so people dont take advantage). An engaged community that gets a small say in their neighbourhood is a good thing.... sigh...
That coverage will probably be lost if Mr. PP gets in and follows through on his goal of defunding CBC. The National, W5, any and all investigative journalism will disappear or at least be severely cut back because corporations don't want to buy advertising on programs that are slamming or even questioning, what they do.
I believe the retirement crisis will get even worse. Many struggle to save due to low wages, rising prices, and exorbitant rents. With homeownership becoming unattainable for middle-class Americans, they may not have a home to rely on for retirement either.
Consider buying stocks when the economy is not doing well, like during a recession. It could be a chance to buy them at a lower price and sell later when prices go up. Just keep in mind, this isn't financial advice, but sometimes it's better than keeping a lot of cash.
Home prices will come down eventually, but for now; get your money (as much as you can) out of the housing market and get into the financial markets or gold. The new mortgage rates are crazy, add to that the recession and the fact that mortgage guidelines are getting more difficult. Home prices will need to fall by a minimum of 40% (more like 50%) before the market normalizes. If you are in cross roads or need sincere advise on the best moves to take now its best you seek an independent advisor who knows about the financial markets.
Could you kindly elaborate on the advisor's background and qualifications?
The advisor that guides me is Sonya lee Mitchell, most likely the internet is where to find her basic info, just search her name. She's established.
thank you for the lead. I searched her up, and I have sent her an email. I hope she gets back to me soon.
Finally people are waking up to the missing middle problem you can't just keep building single detached family homes and and expect the housing crisis to be solved
90% of our population lives within 150kms of the US border. It's time to build cities/towns elsewhere on land - not all of it can be used for farming, or is environmentally significant. We need to get rid of this, "We need to live in Toronto" mindset.
@@mr.m2545 density is good and we can’t exactly tear down a entire city that would make things worse
There are no net-new single family homes being built in Toronto proper anymore. Said differently, there will never be more detached single family homes in Toronto proper than there are right now. To build a missing middle, old existing neighborhoods will have to be bought and bulldozed. And that is part of the issue.
@@Lumberjack_king the US did it to build highways. We can do it again to build walkability.
@@BlueGrovyle yes
Living in Montreal, it's great to see and be a part of the "missing middle". Andrew Chang had better and more convincing statements here than the expert he talked to, in my opinion. And that's probably because of him living in Montreal. He mentioned these plex houses in Montreal as a combination of density, walkability, amenities and public transit. I totally agree with that here.
I visited a few friends in Toronto, Mississauga, Scarborough and Brampton and saw NONE of it there. Public transit is either next to your house and a large highway, or is miles away. It's either separated houses which are fine, but far away from amenities. Or it's all tall buildings with building management companies, which convert the personal touch of neighbors into a business/commerce-oriented lifeless "home". Amenities are in these HUGE (again) lifeless yards which are essentially large car parks with a few enormous supermarket chains around. Totally UN-live-able!
Even Montreal downtown is basically the same with "missing middle" but that's a very very small portion and I am glad for that. But all around the downtown, there's the Old Port, Griffintown, The Village, McGill Ghetto, Plateau Mont-Royal, Mile end, and few more further out from downtown. All these places are FILLED with these integrated plex houses, giving these neighbourhoods a cute, cozy, safe and walkable vibe. And now we even know that they help out with the housing crisis.
100% agree! They are just getting really old in Montréal and it would be nice to see new ones all around Montréal.
@@shauncameron8390 it's really inexpensive compared to any tiny city in Ontario (for example). I'm comparing other city prices to Montreal prices. If you plan to live in a town or suburb away from the city, you already choose to be away from the buzz so it is an entirely different lifestyle.
And yet Montreal now has a housing crisis. Turns out having a million new comers per year also has costs. I say that as a son of immigrants. If you are going to bring a million people you had better build the homes to accommodate them
Montreal (and Quebec more broadly) builds far more plexes than most Canadian cities. Look at some of the 3-6 storey developments outside of the urban core, whether in neighborhoods like Villeray or even off-Island. We've been shifting from detached homes back to various forms of middle density since the 1980s.
The city planning in Toronto is an embarrassment. Years of poor decision making has resulted in unnecessary congestion. But even if there was more middle range housing, it would still be overpriced and unaffordable for many people.
We live in a 5-plex building and we have a backyard and private parking, but we also have wonderful neighbours who we see all the time! I moved from Edmonton to Montréal and I was amazed by how much the medium density neighbourhoods create so much more interaction between people and a much stronger sense of community. I think about how great it must be for kids to grow up that way instead of being isolated all the time.
These interactions probably are good for people's mental health too instead of being isolated in large single family homes in the suburba.
Sounds great
Until one of your neighbors goes off the rails. Then you need to move or they need to move but insane people often don't realize they're crazy. That's the draw to a house.
@@FreshAirRulesyou must live in Toronto or Vancouver ... 2 crazy high crimes cities
@@jeanbolduc5818 Most cities have their bad areas.
There is one issue that people are neglecting to mention - much of the housing stock is snatched up by investors (I read somewhere in BC, more than half of the condos are owned by investors). We have been blinded by the free market to a point where we failed to realize that housing should foremost be a human right, rather than a commodity. Start limiting the number of homes that people can own, and see how far the real estate market will tumble.
Exactly, sooner or later we will have to do just that. There is no reason why anyone should own 8 houses, that creates an artificial scarcity of houses cuz a few people own almost half of the properties.
How is housing a human right when it can be denied or taken away from you?
You limit the number of homes people can build and you limit the number of homes that can be built. The problem is that we're running out of land worth developing.
Still doesn't solve the shortage problem though. Doesn't matter who owns it. We don't have enough homes for everyone in the cities people want to live in.
People seem to forget that a looooot of houses in Toronto are no single family dwellings, but instead house roommates or multiple families if they Toronto houses are subdivided into suites by floor.
Andrew, this new program is fantastic and you're doing great work. This topic is perfect for our times, excellent topic and indeed we need to go from discussion to action. Thank you.
Townhomes and Brownstones and duplex/triplexes/fourplexes should be considered in a lot of urban neighborhoods
My residential street in East York had a 4-plex and a 6-plex on it, completely integrated with the single family homes. I agree, a small multi unit could be built in every block.
About That segments are really, really good. Keep these coming.
Add all the density you want but they still won't be affordable because Torontonian property owners and corporations have cemented housing as commodities and investment rather than places for living!
But if supply of living spaces increases enough and corresponding demand decreases, there could be a significant decrease in housing costs because of market forces. I understand that many homes are scooped up for investment purposes which results in an artificial price floor but even then, they can't just hold forever and they might be more willing to sell if they foresee a market crash. If enough ppl sell, the predicted market crash becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This is kinda why NIMBYism exists. If homes are built in an area, people expect their own property prices to go down so they oppose it.
I get the frustration. But is there a better solution?
Then we must prevent them. It could he relatively easy for our government, but no.
@@chrislyonm Deleverage the system by keeping rates elevated for longer.
yep ...
was recently reveled. analyst are now saying that. You can build all you want, but nothing will change as
Housing and especially rental housing became an investment system in Toronto and many other cities.
Only think that will change it is putting in laws to control it, and putting it laws to make it affordable.
I'm living in very similar building to that on the last picture. 4 stories, around 50 apartments. It's great. Close to the city center, but far enough to be silent neighbourhood. Everything I need in close proximity. I can walk everywhere. It's great living in Europe.
"Higher density developments will reduce property values in my area." I was looking at that trying to figure out how this is not a positive for affordability. Then I realized that was a COMPLAINT 😂😂
Let someone else pay for it?
People are lying or they are just misinformed, because a quick search on prices of properties says, the ones close to the suburbs are valued less than the ones close downtown where high density developments are everywhere.
@@jose.austria Who would've guessed most people want to live close to amenities? 😅
@@jose.austria Yeah, I was thinking that didn't sound realistic.
@@joshbobst1629 I mean, to clarify, all the downtown single family housing is many times more expensive than dense housing right next door. Prices are just high because it's downtown and closer to amenities, not because density doesn't help.
In Vancouver, the Vancity credit union was the first "bank" to offer mortgages East of Cambie Street. The history of the wealth divide between the East & West sides of the city is pretty obvious.
Very insightful video. The key to solving the housing crisis in Canada is removing the gatekeepers, the unnecessary restrictions, and promoting more plex housing units.
It's quite literally their country, they literally have control over the land. You can't win this fight.
Parking requirements are raising the construction costs and minimizing middle housing.
We need to implement Parking Maximums (a cap on parking spaces per unit) to reduce cost, expedite construction, and build more housing.
And with that, reduce the overall need for cars especially within the cities. But god forbid we get more public transport lest you want the NIMBYs shrieking.
Sure. Einstein. You are in Canada where -30 is a Normal and huge distances between anything that you need. In Europe you have small Shops everywhere.Not only big Shopping Centers.So YES you can walk or take the bus. Here you will freeze while waiting for the bus or the Train if is not broken because the weather.
@@paco1443half of the country lives in the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor. A literal straight line connecting 18 million people. You couldn’t dream of a better scenario for high speed rail-public transport.
@@paco1443 So the solution is the fix how businesses are zoned in North American cities back to how it was in the early 20th century and not to keep doing what is broken by building more car infested malls.
@@paco1443they’re not talking about the suburbs. They’re talking about urban settings. You shouldn’t need a car to travel a few kilometres around a city; with proper infra that task can be quickly and easily accomplished with bus or rail networks, and even by biking.
Montreal is one of the most beautiful & livable cities in the world, in large part because of the plexes & 3 or 4 storey buildings. Many of them are older buildings, built before the middle of the 20th century, & that older architecture is also more liveable, on a human scale, & visually appealing.
I love my 11 foot high ceilings, ain't going back to anything less than 10!
Even Montreal is beginning to have shortages of units, the rents getting high and unaffordable for low and middle income people…sadly.
I remember the first time I visited the "New World" from Europe and suddenly realised how our Western World actually consists of two parts with very different public spaces. In North America the city centres tend to consist of very tall tower blocks that immediately drop off and yield to low, open quarters with detatched houses. In Europe the centres are lower but the building height tends to stay the same in the surrounding quarters, only dropping off several kilometres further out.
I am beginning to wonder if the legislative aspect - the missing middle housing - might also have exacerbated a historical tendency that was already existing in the English-speaking world.
At one point I became interested in the rise of this typical kind of quarters surrounding the medieval core in European cities. I.e. the kind of quarter that is not really the city centre but not really a suburb either, and which is characterised by high density with relatively narrow streets surrounded by blocks of, say, 3 to 6 floors with flats. It typically has shops in the main streets and is often served by tramways.
This would be the "missing middle housing". In French it is usually called a faubourg, and in German the term is Vorstadt. In Eastern Europe you often have equivalent terms, either translated (Polish: przedmieście, Russian: предместье) or in the German form (Latvian: forstate). In Danish you can call it a brokvarter, and in Swedish it is sometimes known as a malm.
However, I have not been able to find an English equivalent of this term. Maybe the reason is simply that these quarters are already rarer and/or less extensive in these countries. If I zoom out from a city centre in the UK, the dense part of the city relatively quickly yields to more open quarters with terraced houses. When I look at North America, the situation seems to be similar, although I have walked faubourgs in Québec. But it seems that the concept is less prevalent in the Anglo-Saxon part of the world at the outset, both in the Old and the New World. And apparently this is perpetuated by the legislation.
I have searched high and low for a historic term for the missing middle housing. What *would* the English equivalent be in the (maybe somewhat schematic) overview below?
German: Innenstadt - Vorstadt - Vorort
Dutch: binnenstad - voorstad - buitenwijk
French: centre-ville - faubourg - banlieue
Swedish: stadskärna - malm - förort
Danish: bykerne - brokvarter - forstad
English: city centre - ??? - suburb
Could you call it an 'inner borough'? Or rather an 'outer borough'? (middle borough?). Or is the French term "faubourg" used? I saw someone somewhere rendering the German term as 'fore-city' but that is not an actual English word, is it? I would be really interested in inputs because it is a bit of a conundrum to me.
Very good point, it always amazes me how London can be so low density yet so walkable
Another factor is the method of constructing that makes flat/apartment/condo density living feasible. Altbau buildings, in my experience, are made of stone or concrete and insulate well and block a lot of sound. The apartments I've lived in in the US are wood frames with sheet rock: thin walls, low ceilings, hear everything from the neighbors, etc.
Thanks for this extensive post, I really enjoyed reading it. As a Dutch person I never noticed that the lack of the middle borough in the UK is kind of similar to the situation in NA (I always thought the sitution in the UK was similar the rest of the EU).
In the UK the closest thing would probably be what's called the inner city. These are fairly dense working class areas, usually near the city centre, which are made up of pre-WWII terraced houses. You can recognise these areas on a map by their parallel streets which are close together.
Was there a sale on words?
I'm an architect and I absolutely agree that way more missing middle housing and mixed use development should be constructed in Canadian cities. That being said, the way that the architect in this video addressed concerns from residents about the construction of denser housing bothered me. The dismissive attitude, and outright denying those issues exist is not the way to win people over. A 4 story building, set back 1.5m off of a property line, is going to overshadow and overlook a 2 story single family dwelling. That's the truth. We need to be up front and honest about this - a person's backyard and their privacy in their backyard isn't a priority for planners anymore.
I personally have practiced in the UK, a place where very dense construction is permitted, but they have planning requirements there that address overlooking and overshadowing - here are some examples: If you are building close to a property line then the type of cladding you use needs to reflect sunlight (i.e. it should be white, or of a lighter material.) Another example: if you are putting a window in that overlooks an adjacent property, that window needs to be set at a 45 degree angle so that it doesn't directly overlook. These are very simple ways to address the concerns of adjacent residents, without entirely dismissing them.
To all the NIMBY's out there. The time for debate is over, you've stalled for way too long and this NEEDS to happen now. Move somewhere else if you don't like it.
How vitally important this topic is. Cities from Vancouver to Vienna and Toronto to Tel Aviv are facing similar issues - how to house middle-income families affordably. Nobody wants to see urban sprawl and create another SoCal, and few want to bring up a family in a high rise. Housing with a sense of community is not created by gated, home association ruled neighbourhoods. It isn't nostalgia which drives the urge to see a return of mixed-use communities with low-rise and terraced housing. It's common sense. Your thoughtful piece is long overdue. Thanks.
At least if you can’t find place to live in Tel Aviv, you can always go steal more Palestinian land and build your very own Zionist settlement & claim God gave you that land 😅
Absolutely,but urban sprawl did not create the problem as the mix of housing you describe could sprawl just as far. Instead it’s the lack of urban planning that caused the mono design stagnation of So Cal.
What's wrong with a family in a high-rise? So long as there are good amenities nearby and neighbour-friendly designs surrounding the building it's great!
Los Angeles was intended to be a sprawl as its founders wanted nothing to do with the Chicago/NY way of doing things.
Single family home owners feel entitled to what is done beyond their property line. Including what their fellow single family home neighbors are doing in their own properties. This needs to be treated as what it is, entitled privilege.
In a city like Toronto, these owners are the most affluent, with the most political influence. This is why the change in legislation required to increase supply is extremely slow.
Thank you the audacity of people to tell others what to do with their properties is disgusting you don’t like what your neighbors doing or the neighborhood is changing then move somewhere else 🤷
Totally agree, it has never made any sense to me that neighbors feel like they schould have any say over what someone else does on their own property. This is a big reason why I moved into the countryside where we had no zoning and home prices are 1 third or less what they are near the city.
All the answers for every question are out there. Getting all the answers together is the easy part. Convincing them is the hard part.
Coming from Italian cities, it always struck me how Toronto, and all of North America, has these massive swaths of low rise, detached or semi-detached homes. The avergae height of buildings in Italian cities is 4-5 stories, with most people living in apartments.
Italy has solved for the land capacity and heritage components of the country. Canada has the advantage of land - though large corporations, enterprise buildings and banks determine where you live.
Your comments does not apply to Quebec and we are in north america ... Toronto has a USA culture ... nothing canadian
@@jeanbolduc5818 it does apply to quebec, the same way the us builds homes is how quebec does lol.
I've often thought rooftop community greenhouses would be an excellent fifth floor sanity check.
Cold weather construction should include some sort of integrated rooftop heat and water recovery systems,,, greenhouse/sanctuary.
Or live in a single family home with a back yard and neighbours that you actually know and they know you.
@@kevinb4438 and where do the other 70% that could never afford that live?
@@kevinb4438
Suburban people knowing and talking to each other? Now I know you lying lol. Without reliable third spaces you only get to know the people around you if they go to the same church or country/social club, not because they actually live near you.
@@kevinb4438 LoL people drive into their garages and lower the door before getting out and going straight into the house. The whole point of owning a home like that is so you can pretend it's just you and your castle.
@@kevinb4438 where exactly is your utopia? I want you to be my neighbor.
There's a reason east Asia for a half century has been taking up most of the world's manufacturing and entertainment increasingly. It kind of helps to have people live closer together, and if you have a culture that makes socializing in high density frictionless and appropriate public infrastructure, you're golden.
Well... Lack of human rights and government subsidy have played a MASSIVE role. One example. Famously whole cities were built from American garbage. American "recycling" programs just sent masses of materials like plastic and electronics waste to places like rural China. Poor rural villagers living in terrifying conditions would pick through the garbage to feed industrial centers. Industry would turn that waste back into industrial products, and sell it back to America. See the South Park episode about QVC. People sell their old jewelry for money online. That jewelry goes to a sweatshop in East Asia. Children reassemble the materials into new jewelry. People buy that jewelry... The circle goes round.
@@KevinJDildonik I was thinking more of the democratic ones. But the Chinese Economic Zone I think are an interesting idea. They're not all just sweat jobs, though those do exist.
Canada is cold, rain, snow most of the year and is basically an indoor culture. Nothing at all like India, China, or other warm and sunny places.
@myleshagar9722 those countries all have winter's as well, Nordic who have also winter's do much better at higher density as well
@@myleshagar9722 there are places in east Asia that have snow while still urban.
Keep investment out of housing, except for apartment buildings with rental controls.
Even if we rezone more SFH to mix use, it still won't really have much effect as long as there are minimum parking requirements. Parking requirements creates a huge waste of land for parking. It favors expensive larger units over smaller cheaper units as the cost for parking is the same for both. It practically prohibits the usage of a big portion of the buildable airspace as the parking costs weigh down buildings to be smaller than they could have been. If they do get to build tall by providing underground parking, then the added costs makes it so that only rich people and luxury businesses can afford such places.
Yeah parking lots are 100% the issue. You can't just have density, you need a social environment cars don't dominate. One of the only perks of covid was realizing how many neighborhoods are far nicer when they aren't overrun with traffic.
Then we need to revise the parking requirements. Doing that in conjunction with resetting zoning just makes sense and it seems like its something that would roll nicely into that same legislation.
Build housing co-ops. 40% of new construction in Vancouver is bought as investment. Nobody lives in it full time! We need to remove housing from the equity market. Housing co-ops use mid range buildings to house people at an affordable rate. They also create community.
She didn’t seem to understand what Andrew was getting at with his last question. We’re talking about increasing density in existing Toronto neighborhoods - so either re-zoning commercial property to residential or buying single detached units and rebuilding.
Here’s an extreme example to make things clear. Take a neighborhood in the Danforth area with 100 single detached homes, all on large 35’x140’ lots. Currently 300 people live there.
We will fill in the middle by tearing down all 100 homes and building 100 three-story multiplexes. Each one has nine units. So after construction is finished there will be 100 nine unit buildings (900 apartments in total). If two people move into each apartment, we will have increased the population from 300 to 1,800. But the parks and street parking has not changed.
But nobody is saying you can't have any regulations for what kind of amenities get built along with the housing, right? Maybe you require parking garages underneath the buildings, (which should include bike parking by the way, because driving a car through a city is a whole other problem in its own right :[]), a bus stop, a corner store, a child care facility and an extra park and that way there is still space for 70 x 9 units. That's a whole extra lot of housing, the parking problem is addressed, there is park space and a bonus corner store, child care and bus stop.
Instead of forcing EVERY type of housing project in an area to have high minimum parking and wasteful land use, you can put more useful regulations into your zoning. And maybe they can update the regulations for single-family zoned areas as well, so that the residents there also park in their underground garage, have access to a sidewalk and bike path and that require some basic amenities (corner stores, public transport, playgrounds) so these neighbourhoods don't have to be dead zones where you can only drive either. Of course, the problem with maintaining these amenities in an area with low density remain and are part of the reason why middle housing should be allowed.
She answered the parks part. When you build denser, you get MORE room for more parks. Look how many parks Manhattan has for example, not just central park but tons of others all over. It's easy for a community to say "okay you can redevelop this block, but allocate 20% of the space for a new park". This sort of bargaining with developers happens all the time (at least in the US).
As for street parking - the honest answer is it doesn't matter. Street parking is one of the biggest wastes of spaces we have. We're talking land inside a major city. Prioritizing street parking over people being able to live is immoral. Greater density makes car-free living much easier, as things will be closer and transit more effective, solving the issue anyway.
Feel free to park on your own property, but opposing much-needed housing because your concerned someone there will park on the street near your place? Ridiculous.
@@Snowshowslow Just remember not to build enough parking for every apartment. Put the money towards transit
YES CBC :D I’m so happy you covered this topic!!!
I appreciate how calm Andrew Chang is and how he lets the experts speak at their own pace. I gained a lot from this video.
Andrew is awesome.
Say no to the new belt highway, and further expending the norther surburbs. Ford’s plan is a nonsense
I live on a street of single dwelling units and most have converted their basements to income properties. We now have so many cars parked on the street that emergency vehicles have a challenge getting down the road of our cul-de-sac.
Greater density without infrastructure is choking our neighbourhoods.
100% there needs to be HUGE investment into public transit.
It would be really difficult to retrofit cul-de-sac type suburbia. At the end of the day, it's still zoned as single family housing only. No commercial/employment spaces are allowed in such type of zoning which means everybody needs a car for everything they need.
@@jose.austria that's an issue, not allowing commercial space and retrofitting homes. Suburbia can be expanded and allowing dupplex, tripplex and commercial space. Why. Wouldn't they do this? Just change the zonning. It will create more space, development, employment and tax revenue. Much of the infrastructure is already in place. This could mean as less travel, possibly less commuting.
@@elena2125 it took 12 years to amend a bylaw to permit the development of laneway houses. And laneway housing is the gentlest form of densifying. If it took 12 years to allow the gentlest form, how long will it take to restructure the whole? The best thing to do is to raise awareness about the importance of city planning in order to create a political will to change the status quo faster. Educate our younger generations, particularly the ones who are entering voting age, so they can make more informed decisions when choosing leaders.
@@jose.austria 12 yrs for something simple. Sad. It seems that there is no political will.
TH-cam pages like “about here” and “not just bikes” do a great job addressing issues like this. Great 🇨🇦 content
Maybe they’ll finally be able to repeal zoning to densify areas
We need better zoning. Less single family homes but overall less allowing of the developpers to propose rezoning to produce ultra high dense buidlings.
@@wewantmoreboomboom8313 what I had in mind was to change the zoning to allow for townhouses and brownstones and duplexes
@@wewantmoreboomboom8313
Developers are not the ones proposing rezoning to build ultra-high density buildings. This is what current local zoning laws allow. And luxury condos are the only housing allowed to be built within city limits that have a decent ROI.
Canada builds 140,000 housing units a year but has an immigration rate of 500,000 per year (2023). PLUS 70,000 irregular immigrants (refugees at Roxham road), 200,000 students with path to citizenship and a growing birth tourism problem. Please explain to me how this is not the direct cause of the housing crises?
Simply put, we've failed to build enough housing for the number of people we're taking in. Immigration isn't the problem...our ability to plan in a systemic manner across three levels of government very much is.
It's easy to blame immigrants (not saying thats what you are doing). When it's our government that messed up. They stopped construction of public housing, let large numbers of people in. What do you expect is going to happen. People are getting angry at immigrants instead of the actual people that failed them.
Please do a story on co-operatives… we need these now.
th-cam.com/video/sKudSeqHSJk/w-d-xo.html
I’m retiring and downsizing, fleeing suburbia, and I want to live in a “missing middle” community. Wish there were some around! NIMBYs will have a coronary though, if we build more of these, especially as infill projects.
Montreal is such a beautiful place!
Growing up in Montreal area our first place when I was little was a walkup duplex that I believe was part of an actual 4plex
Mixed use missing middle housing would be my favorite.
I am presently living alone in a very old three bedrooms little single family house on a very tiny lot in the neighborhood of Montreal because I want it and have enough money to do so. Few years ago, I met an old resident of my house who told me than when he was young, he was living with his parents, his grand-parents and 9 sisters and brothers! So the density is not only a question of typology but a question of living space! Fortunately, the housing crisis will force some of us to reduce our envy of bigger houses or to share space with other people as our parents did 40 or 50 years ago. It is not the end of the world to reduce our living space! I do not need a more spacious house. I am just happy with my little tiny house and thinking to modified my existing shed into a new small housing unit and use it to help people in search of a rental unit and help reducing the actual housing shortage…😮
It would be interesting to know how much of Toronto has gigantic mansions on a 1+ acre lot, vs smaller single family homes. Why is the City allowing the gargantuan single family mansions to be built?
If we look at it in terms of cars, it seems as if we're only building Cadillac Escalades (mcmansions) or Smart cars (condos/towns). The average family can't afford a Cadillac escalade, and can't fit appropriately within a Smart car. And when we pretty much only build these two types of cars (homes), it puts the already existing family sedans/vans/suvs (smaller single family homes) up in value because they are needed/wanted most. And especially if trash the vans/etc. and build an escalade it it's place - it's ridiculous. So many more affordable types of single family homes are being greelit for teardown everyday to build mcmansions (which end up being sold again and again because ppl can't afford the ridiculous mortgages...)
This is the dumbest idea I’ve heard
It’s a waste of space when there isn’t much in the first place
We need way more homes, which condos will provide on the same footprint
It’s simple common sense
I lived in another country. We had 4 condo buildings each 5 stores hight 3 bedroom with separate kitchen, all looking into one big park in the middle surrounded by these buildings. There were playground, small soccer field, small green park and lots of benches. All neighbors knew each other. Kids were playing together outside. It was an amazing community. Here all condo or apartment buildings have very small 2 bedroom units and face roads. It is not attractive for families to live. So families with kids especially have to move to single houses. The whole city design support only this life style.
This is indeed how we should be doing it. For some (ridiculous) reason all the apartments and condos are built along busy arterial roads. In this way the maximum number of people suffer from the pollution and noise of a busy street, while one block over the neighborhood is all single family homes. If we were to look at things from a fresh and objective perspective we'd see that this is the exact opposite of the how our neighborhoods should be arranged. Give the most people possible the good air and quite and put as FEW people as is possible next to the busy, dirty roads. We have a lot to learn from the rest of the world! I'm glad there are so many immigrants coming to Canada and sharing their opinions on how we should design our cities as we need all the international help we can get!
@@bradcomis1066 As someone from Montreal, these kind building, even if they look nice on the outside made of stone facade and even in Westmount which is the most posh neighbohood right at somewhat the center, they age very very poorly, lots of trouble, depressing and inflexible layouts. It is almost an inherent quality that it will be really really poor quality, or at least cheap bad quality is bound to happen and will age really badly.
I guess we collectivelly decided to go for quantity rather then quality and hope on the decision without thinking the details as always. At least update the building code and quality to the suiss stnadard. If we even have a quality code that is right now.
It is worrying because once youaccept, expect and mentality shift it will spread to all aspect resulting in lower standard for all things and not necessarily bang for the buck without being necessarily all that cheaper. it will be worrying for sure
As someone from Montreal, these kind building, even if they look nice on the outside made of stone facade and even in Westmount which is the most posh neighbohood right at somewhat the center, they age very very poorly, lots of trouble, depressing and inflexible layouts. It is almost an inherent quality that it will be really really poor quality, or at least cheap bad quality is bound to happen and will age really badly.
I guess we collectivelly decided to go for quantity rather then quality and hope on the decision without thinking the details as always. At least update the building code and quality to the suiss stnadard. If we even have a quality code that is right now.
It is worrying because once youaccept, expect and mentality shift it will spread to all aspect resulting in lower standard for all things and not necessarily bang for the buck without being necessarily all that cheaper. it will be worrying for sure
I wonder how many people realize that our current NIMBY policies are not just driving prices up, but inflation as well. And yeah, maybe the potential for a shadow in your yard isn't as important as people being able to afford to live.
One way to encourage higher density is to tax low density low occupancy at a higher rate. In addition new houses should be designed in such a way that they can be easily subdivided into smaller units. The newer large open concept houses now being built are very difficult to subdivide. Of course we can simply carry on the the current course and all our cities will look like downtown Shanghai
The uneven taxation is indeed a huge problem. If taxes were calculated on the basis of services and infrastructure need for each unit then suburban homes would see a HUGE increase in taxation and dense inner city condos would see a drop. It is a well researched subject: The subsidization of the suburbs by dense inner city cores.
Problem is that land values are too high so it’s difficult for developers to purchase the land and build these types of homes. The land value pushes them into constructing apartments so they can recover the cost of the initial land purchase.
Want to solve the housing crisis? Kick the investors buying multiple homes out of the market.
How about allowing more medium-density housing to be built?
Andrew is so good at his job...i enjoy his segments everytime.
People just need to accept that most of us will be living in storage unit sized "apartments" within the next 30 years. Meanwhile the politicians and corporate leaders will live in even more luxurious homes than they do now.
when you go to Seoul, most of family lives in 1000~1500 Sqft (3-4 bedrooms) apartment. I don't think that considers as a "strong unit size" & they live very comfortably
you can build apartment for apartment. in fact most of european countries + asian countires are living in that way.
You can learn lots of lesson from there
@@sihyeonkim6895 what?
@@sihyeonkim6895 or we could just stop immigration and not have to turn Canada into Asia.
@@sihyeonkim6895 You are correct, the cities in Korea and Europe are much denser. It is part of the culture there. In Canada, many of the people that live here generally enjoy and appreciate the space, and many people come here for the space. It is part of the culture in Canada.
@@tomanderson4131 A lot of the time densification happens in these areas because of land constraints. Make no mistake though, there is plenty of cheap SFH's in Europe.
Now if they couldn’t only tackle the missing parking problem because they never provide enough parking for the residents of a condo or apartment. And delivery vehicles end up blocking streets because they didn’t even accommodate temporary parking.
Thank you, The problem is banks and lender who are providing easy accessible mortgages to INVESTORS ( Uninsured Mortgages), they are the ones increasing the demand!!! Restricting the uninsured mortgages , higher rates , higher taxes on investment properties, higher land transfer tax, higher property tax ,…… will reduce some of the extra demand created by investors!!! Current system is to benefit the banks and lenders!!! 👍🏻👏🤔🤔
Higher taxes = higher overall prices as the costs are passed down to the end consumer.
A major reason for the missing middle is that these buildings really appeal to small investors-an owner who buys the property, lives in one unit, and rents out the rest. But tenant/landlord legislation is SO heavily anti-landlord that it doesn’t appeal. A non-compliant tenant can take months or a few years to evict, during which time he pays no rent. Small landlords can’t afford that. A big landlord-commanding 500 units, say-can afford to absorb that non-compliant loser because he’s offset by 100 compliant tenants. But a small landlord, with three units in a triplex, can easily be bankrupted by that non-compliant tenant.
It’s just too hard to be a small time landlord.
As someone from Montreal, these kind building, even if they look nice on the outside made of stone facade and even in Westmount which is the most posh neighbohood right at somewhat the center, they age very very poorly, lots of trouble, depressing and inflexible layouts. It is almost an inherent quality that it will be really really poor quality, or at least cheap bad quality is bound to happen and will age really badly.
I guess we collectivelly decided to go for quantity rather then quality and hope on the decision without thinking the details as always. At least update the building code and quality to the suiss stnadard. If we even have a quality code that is right now.
It is worrying because once youaccept, expect and mentality shift it will spread to all aspect resulting in lower standard for all things and not necessarily bang for the buck without being necessarily all that cheaper. it will be worrying for sure
Ideas like this are nice, but there are real costs to packing people together that always seem to get ignored with these discussions. Chief among them are that people are (mostly unintentionally) noisy, and no one in the history of multi-family housing construction, has ever built a building that isolates inhabitants from the noise of their neighbors. You also have to be careful that when you do build moderate density housing like this, that you also build the infrastructure to support all of those extra people. I've been on the other end of this - living in a community that saw a massive explosion of mid-density housing - and it wreaked havoc on the local infrastructure. Water and sewer systems were overloaded, the schools were overcrowded, streets couldn't handle the extra traffic... They also didn't make housing any more affordable either.
Beautiful work of journalism. I look forward to a follow-up report about how these changes could (and presumably in most cases will) result in lower taxes and increased viability of small businesses.
Building LUXURY AP.BUILDINGS is NOT THE SOLUTION. In OTTAWA all new ap.buildings rents start at 2190$ for one bedroom and 1 parking. Still 70% of the NET INCOME for the Middle class single person.
It increases supply, driving down prices elsewhere. That's what people often ignore about the market. For more affordable apartments to be built they have to be allowed everywhere.
So developers should foot the bill to provide housing for the middle class?
There isn't much land left in Canada!?... Riight.
Toronto used to have tons of duplexes what happened
Greedy developers turn into business buildings
Not that many...they quickly went from duplexes in the mid 60's to to the ubiquitous 20 floor slab apartment buildings
Ask your provincial government what happened to the 60's duplexes and beautiful 3 floor walk up buildings.
Developers in Toronto are currently on a rampage to destroy them so they can build 40 floor condo towers....because they government is telling them we need more density...and of course they cannot build anywhere else except where these building exist.
It still does, as well as many townhouses and rowhouses. The missing middle is not missing at all in the old core of Toronto.
@@saidibrahim5931
No. Zoning restrictions in favor of SFH's.
4 storey blocks, 1 at the front, 1 each side, 1 an the back, with an inclosed open air courtyard in the middle, like vienna or berlin
And who should build "these"? The government shouldn't be, and developers will build what the market demands, not what the government tells them to.
More education is needed to help these developers because what they have now is obviously not working
This is the best show on cbc right now - keep up the great work Andrew and team!
Great content. I just discovered this show. Keep up the good work!
I love this because I don’t want to own a house but I’d like to own a condo but not a condo in the sky lol just something normal in a nice community
This exists in East York, Leslieville, Corktown. Infill townhouses, mid rise buildings, co-ops. Mixed with detached homes.
Pricing, availability, access and restrictions on mortgages keep most from home ownership and rentals are affected likewise. Government changes to mortgage requirements may have protected mortgage companies and banks but it hurt those seeking home ownership, forcing them into an overpriced rental market which is short on availability. Many pay more for rent than a mortgage for ownership would cost but altered rules prevent their consideration from lenders.
We need higher density and we need it last year. These 12 year timelines are unacceptable. Too long. People will be on the street for 12 years. Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall. Unacceptable timeline. There has to be a better way. A faster way.
FYI.... living in Toronto is BLEAK and sad....I lived there for almost two years and people are as cold as the weather!! After I moved to LA and I made more friends (and girlfriend) in 2 weeks than in Toronto in two years!!
Yuk. La La Land....🤮
This is a good piece. First step in solving this housing crisis is educating people and teaching them the real root of this problem. Way more productive than blaming individual/corporate landlords and their greed.
After watching the whole thing, Ive realized that Im mistaken. This is not a good piece. This is an excellent piece. Awesome job by these CBC producers.
All of this is a great idea but there are many sides to the issue and all of them need to be addressed and the projects need to done right in order for it to work and so far, in the city where I live, these types of projects have NOT been done correctly and the city has NOT improved the utilities and services even though that was part of the deal and they promised to.
These architects are talking about what "could be" as opposed to what "will be" You can't solve a problem by way of 1/2 solutions and this is what I see in my city which is why you have so many NIMBYs. What politicians promise is far above what they deliver.
You called them “projects”. Yup that’s what the majority of apartments and condos become. Own the land as buildings depreciate.
Thanks for explaining this better. B.C. did a blanket re-zoning so we shall see if we can catch-up for the last 50 yrs. of illegal missing middle.
Mobile home type prefabricated systems story next?
As someone from Montreal, these kind building, even if they look nice on the outside made of stone facade and even in Westmount which is the most posh neighbohood right at somewhat the center, they age very very poorly, lots of trouble, depressing and inflexible layouts. It is almost an inherent quality that it will be really really poor quality, or at least cheap bad quality is bound to happen and will age really badly.
I guess we collectivelly decided to go for quantity rather then quality and hope on the decision without thinking the details as always. At least update the building code and quality to the suiss stnadard. If we even have a quality code that is right now.
It is worrying because once youaccept, expect and mentality shift it will spread to all aspect resulting in lower standard for all things and not necessarily bang for the buck without being necessarily all that cheaper. it will be worrying for sure
This was really interesting!
no developers would be willing to sell in low prices.
The same story in Vancouver.
about “duplex and multiplexes “ yes. don’t get me wrong great option to start. I did too used to live in one of those; you said you loved it. I didn’t. you must have lived in the top of the unit; any other floor below is a pain. lots of highhills and shoes sounds constantly. smoke odours … no thank you… condos on the other hand are better isolated and rules are more stringent.
And where are the affordable 400sqft to 1200sqft small houses with yards, that people can afford to live in and maintain? Why doesn't the government build hundreds of thousands of those and sell them at low prices to everyday Canadians to live in as their only and primary residence?
First: English is not my first language, so I may have misunterstood what you were saying
Because these takes space
All the single family house with yard demands a lot of infrastructures. You need to cut trees or de-zone agricultural lands, build roads and jist taking care of the roads cost money.
Single unit home don't bring enough revenu in taxes to maintain the infrastructure needed. Single family home suburbs are usually costing more than what they bring in taxes revenue.
By having many family in the same surface, you increase taxe revenu without incresing the infrastructure spending.
The small affordable family home doesn't bring enough taxe revenue in general.
@@elodiemercier2502 How do you increase taxation by having many families in the same surface are?
@@elena2125 because two familly unit building counts as 2 adresses and taxes are per adresses.
I'm no expert so I'll go with my understanding.
Let's say you have a 1 family unit (the classic suburb house) on a 9000 sqfeet yard
Municipal taxes are around 2 500$ a year.
Now a side by side Duplex type, so Two family units on a similar surface (so divide the yard by two for private use)
Municipal taxes for one unit of the Duplex would go around 2 250$ per year.
There are two unit so the total for the city goes to 4 500$ for the same surface.
Of course if the two famillies both lived in the same One family home that would be different as it's one adress, but the point of the video was about plex type of building and densification
Ps: I used taxe estinated from older house of similar construction year in my area so not fully accurate
400 sf house? haha
1200 sf houses exist. the older ones. no one does it anymore because it doesnt make financial sense. its not the best use of land.
@@elodiemercier2502 So they are going to be taxing people not property since everyone is using the same land. So what's the incentive for property owners ? Invest to be taxed ? Or for anybody else to be taxed for occupying the same terrain.?
There is no expantion , it is conglomerating lots of people on the same living area where everything becomes contracted and taxes increase, demand of everything increases, making everything more expensive. How is this a solution ? Let alone privacy, distancing for viruses and diseases. It is exactly what's happened in large American cities where people are not able to afford rent, and the basics, there is more crime, the pandemic hit hard, bodies were put into refrigeration trucks. Is this the future for more densed large Canadian cities given the state of our health care system? The same thing can be said for other cities around the globe. Beautiful Paris where people live in beautiful buildings but inside it is devided into , tiny aparmnts that are realy rooms where to use the washroom and showers people have to share. Asian cities we're so many live in tiny spaces.
For now the solution is to build on the same space that has already been built cramming everybody up, increase taxes, make everything more expensive because of competition for space and devalue homes that have large buildings next to it. We are are incredible.
I'm so glad to see these issues finally hitting the mainstream.
The missing middle housing units will be bought by rich investors, leaving low income people in the lurch.
Low income houses are going to be in lots of trouble. The More vulnerable can loose their homes once the wolves start smelling for the weak. Hope we don't go that route and municipal and provincial governments don't allow it. Let's wait and see, and wish they don't pray on the vulnerable.
It seems inevitable, right, judging by all the shenanigans we've seen since the Great Recession?
More homelesness in the future??
False. Adding more housing lowers prices.
@@Free-g8r Dwight?
Purpose built rentals please! All the luxury micro-condos in the world can't house a family, and suffering under the whims of private landlords, we're forced to move when they decide, rather than being able to plan for the future.
We need Paris in Toronto, not New York. Paris Paris Paris.
Brooklyn is part of New York. Most sections have Paris density.
The provincial government destroyed Toronto by encouraging Manhattan type tall condo building and density...when all they had to look at is right outside of Manhattan...to Brooklyn... and copy that...or PARIS.
This country is filled with morons....everthing they need to copy New York.
Have you seen the tiny mini rooms people live in Paris and how much they cost? Some of them don't even have washrooms they all share. 😂 Nice try.
@@elena2125 They are talking about physically how the buildings are built.
6-8 story max height, they turn in on themselves and have a court yard, You pack in a lot more in the space and dont need towers.
Since its not from the 1800's you build the interior to modern standards or according to your country standards.
Close the border
I appreciate her complaint about developers being willing to come to the table. But why do we have to rely on developers at all for something as important as housing the population, especially when they've not shown themselves equal to the task up until now? Couldn't we build housing ourselves? Issue bonds and build them as public land trusts?
Realize that they need to sell a product to you. Don’t be a slave be an owner of land. Houses depreciate, land appreciates. That’s the basis for location location location.
@@kevinb4438 I don't believe in ownership of land. It's a scam the capital system we live in is trying to get us to invest in. In another sense, it's a way to buy off the working class and prevent us from demanding real participation in the economy and the huge wealth we create with our labor by allowing us to pretend we're participating in the ownership racket of the oligarchs. But if the big boys want the property they allow us to pretend we own, they'll take it, as we saw in the 2009 recession.
As someone from Montreal, these kind building, even if they look nice on the outside made of stone facade and even in Westmount which is the most posh neighbohood right at somewhat the center, they age very very poorly, lots of trouble, depressing and inflexible layouts. It is almost an inherent quality that it will be really really poor quality, or at least cheap bad quality is bound to happen and will age really badly.
I guess we collectivelly decided to go for quantity rather then quality and hope on the decision without thinking the details as always. At least update the building code and quality to the suiss stnadard. If we even have a quality code that is right now.
It is worrying because once youaccept, expect and mentality shift it will spread to all aspect resulting in lower standard for all things and not necessarily bang for the buck without being necessarily all that cheaper. it will be worrying for sure
Apparently one of the factors instigating this housing crisis is that there are not enough men employed in construction or simpler way of putting it a lack of necessary manpower. Perhaps two solutions is one, have guidance counsellors in high schools advise students who do well in shop class to consider getting a job in construction to funnel more young people into the housing industry, and two perhaps lure the necessary manpower from other countries with the promise of a better life if they get employed in construction.
Trying to find my NJB people here.
OMG are you saying that building housing would solve the housing crisis???!! 😮
De-restrict zoning. Look at Japan, no housing crisis there
Japan also has a rapidly declining population…
They need more people, not more housing
But they have a demographic crisis as there too many old people.
hi andrew we live in kitchener everyone from toronto has come here and now e cant afford to live here anymore why isnt the government intervening? will we have tent cities everywhere like los angeles?
Omg, I never knew there were tent cities. Where are they?
@@sm3675 Every city in Ontario has them, Allan Gardens in Toronto, Victoria Park and street in Kitchener, as well as Cambridge, Oshawa, Hamilton, London, Peterborough and Brockville have had recurring encampments.
Why isn’t the government intervening? Because Ford doesn’t care.
@@NarutoUzumaki-jw4kw
And government intervention have done plenty to worsen the situation.
“There isn’t much land left” I have never heard of anything more proposterus in my life.
Another shallow report that avoided the real issues, government will, regulation, zoning, & forcing developers to build a certain percent of their projects or their business as affordable housing.
Plus the land and permit fees.
We don't like going into depth, it's too much. We like simple and sweet.
It seems to me like the real issue is that we have this system where housing is seen by a whole hell of a lot of people as the means to build wealth. It's a commodity that they have invested it. The Logical consequence of that is that that's going to put them at the throats of the rest of us, who just need somewhere to live.
This is not necessary. If there is enough supply then housing becomes affordable.
For example, people living in older units but can afford to move to newer construction will relocate. Leaving the older units available. And those older units will become the new affordable housing for lower incomes.
And if the new units are so plentiful that the developers have trouble filling them, then the developers have to lower their prices to make the units more attractive. Thereby making the new units more affordable.
@@Free-g8r but why would developers build new units if the price is below what they want work for?
I'd be glad to just to see tiny homes become a thing. There are tons of people renting rooms these days. A tiny home would be the size of a room, but it would be yours alone.
More focus needs to be put on to REITS or institutions. It's not fair that we have to consistently compete against them . Plus it's impossible when there's so much control over houses where we can't build something more affordable
Just because you can't afford them doesn't mean others can't. Get a better job.
@@alexarzamendi9475 how far would you like to take this concept you can only work so much before you are priced out and be in need of a voucher from the gvmt 😂
@@biniji9377
The poster is right. That's just the price to pay for the privilege of living in the city. Especially a city that happens to be popular.
I think we need to stop talking about what houses we need to build and how many residential properties a since person or corporation can own. Limit them to one or two. Limit them to one per 250km (as an example) Once you take out investors with deep pockets out of the equation, housing becomes more affordable. Let those with deep pockets Buy land, build an apartment to rent.
I love the idea to build more middle-mixed houses to improve the housing crisis, however, the builder next door damage my property and I have to resolve it through a small claim court. Which is a very stressful and pricy option. There should be a better protection policy( instead of going to court) in between to support the neighbor who has been affected by the new construction. such as the builder needs to put in a deposit with the city. If the damage is done, the city should be able to pull the deposit to the victim instead of going through the small claim court. Now you see why the neighbor is so frightened of a new builder in their neighborhood, as not all builder has a good moral standard to minimize the damage to your next-door neighbor. There should be a protection mechanism in between to reduce the conflict. The new construction in next door is a nightmare.
This is a huge point. Builders and investors are also usually not responsible for increased demand on roads, sewer, parking, etc. These costs end up being paid by taxpayers with increased property or sales taxes down the line.
@@KevinJDildonik But single family homes are currently being subsidized by other areas of the city. Watch the NotJustBikes video about it.
@Steven Rodger not always. Until 50 years or so.
@@KevinJDildonik The new building with more density mean more taxpayer per miles of infrastructure.
CBC should have more practical shows like this instead of all the other ones that're common to other tv stations
The architect lady sounded so dead inside. I would be too if it took 12 freaking years for red tape.
Stoked that ideas about reintegrating the ‘missing middle’ are becoming mainstream