Municipal governments often play a sneaky game: They claim to support affordability, but impose what experts call “exclusionary zoning,” various regulations and fees that impede lower-cost housing development.
It’s like a game of hot potato in which each neighbourhood tries to foist affordable housing elsewhere. As long as this continues, the provincial government is justified in pre-empting local control, like a referee preventing players from cheating in a game.
The math is simple: considering land, construction, operating and transportation costs, moderate-density infill, often called “missing middle housing,” is most affordable overall.
Townhouses cost a third less, and low-rise multi-family dwellings cost half as much to develop as comparable single-family homes. In addition, households in walkable neighbourhoods drive far less and save on transportation costs.
Everybody benefits if our region allows more missing middle infill that increases affordability, public-health and environmental goals.
The academic research is clear; building more moderate-priced housing increases affordability. Even if new homes are initially too expensive for lower-income households, they contribute to affordability by freeing up existing supply as some families move from lower-cost apartments into the new units, a process called filtering, and over time as the new units depreciate and add to the stock of low-priced homes.
My favorite example is Montreal, nicknamed “la plus belle ville au monde” (the world’s most beautiful city), although it could also be named “la ville la plus abordable du sa国际传媒” (sa国际传媒’s most affordable city).
Montreal’s housing costs 20-40 per cent less than in peer cities — many apartments still rent for less than $1,000 a month — and because its neighbourhoods are so walkable, transportation is also very affordable. As a result, it is a haven for workers, students, seniors and artists.
What is Montreal’s magic? It’s simple: The city allows multi-family housing on 54 per cent of its land, more than twice as much as here in the Capital Regional District, and has minimal development fees, a recipe for abundant missing middle infill. As a result, Montreal has diverse housing and people living side-by-side, creating a friendly European vibe. C’est bon!
A March 30 commentary in the sa国际传媒, “Oak Bay aiming for best answers to housing crisis,” illustrates the problem. Two Oak Bay councillors say they support affordable housing but oppose a 14-unit condominium because it would be one storey taller than adjacent buildings. By that logic, two-storey homes should never be built if they “tower” over nearby single-storey homes, and neighbourhoods should never change. No wonder Oak Bay is losing population.
Objections to infill housing are greatly exaggerated. Adding a few more homes in a neighbourhood will not cause traffic or parking gridlock, and the number of trees displaced is far fewer then what would occur if the same number of homes are built on urban-fringe greenfields.
Adding moderate-density housing will certainly not destroy a neighbourhood, as critics sometimes claim; a neighbourhood ultimately consists of people, not buildings, and accommodating more diverse families is an enhancement, not a detraction.
Our region is growing in households, jobs and education facilities. We should welcome rich and poor, old and young, workers and students, retirees and refugees. These families enhance our communities, but they need homes. It’s time for our communities to take responsibility for unmet housing needs by literally growing up.
Our region’s population is increasing about 1.5 per cent annually; to accommodate their share of growth, larger municipalities like Saanich and Victoria must add at least 600 new homes, and smaller municipalities like Oak Bay must add at least 100 new homes each year.
These targets are achievable if municipal governments reform development policies to support moderate-priced infill development.
The exclusionary game is up! Affordability and fairness require infill-friendly policies. If local councils don’t act, it’s time for provincial intervention.
• To comment on this article, write a letter to the editor: [email protected]
