These are the responses to…

These are the responses to the questions you posted on your website:

A1: The biggest barriers and delays to diversifying the types of housing in existing neighbourhoods are insufficient tax breaks, incentives and other support measures to existing home owners to add secondary units in and/or on their current properties. There are many home owners who would want to do this, but cannot due to high costs, lack of expertise, and potential of losses that cannot be written off like a business can. There are even more costs if one is to meet government goals to sustainably improve homes. Making it easier for homeowners to add units to their existing properties is a more sustainable approach. Houses do not have to be demolished and sent to the dump, but can be added to. Renos can be planned and implemented far quicker than new builds, particularly if a unit is added to a lot. Renos would put less strain on the supply of materials and labour, that currently limit construction and make for longer delivery times. It also preserves green space and trees that are often lost when lots are redeveloped. Supporting existing owners to add secondary units will lead to housing relatives and others, at low to no rents, continuing and building multigenerational neighbourhoods with a diversity, income levels and ages. Another benefit would be less need for student and old-age home accommodations elsewhere. Looser zoning rules and regulation will mainly allow greater commercialization of housing stock owned by corporate entities, leaving less properties to be owned by families. This would maintain and increase the competition, raising prices on housing even more as additional developers and investors enter the market under conditions that are more favourable to business. This is not supporting the objective of providing affordable housing. An unrestrained commercialized approach would negatively affect neighbourhood integrity, and also restrict diversity, by catering to only those who can afford high rents. Rents in commercial builds are higher and increase regularly as there are no rent controls. Where more businesses or the same businesses own properties in the same neighbourhood, there is less competition and variation in rental rates. Having more homeowners with secondary units increases competition and would keep rental costs down and more varied. Owners who also occupy their properties tend to spend more on their properties over time than business owned properties, which is better for the economy. Diversification can be more quickly developed on underused properties such as many land-banked properties currently held and locked up by developers and investors. Allowing the continued tying up of properties in land banks that could be developed now instead of waiting for a time to maximize profit, puts unneeded pressure on existing neighbourhoods to provide the additional housing.

A2: To make it easier to support gentle density and build missing middle housing and multigenerational housing, in Ontario, I suggest changing planning and development process to obligate developers and investors to develop properties they hold in land banks as a priority over acquiring additional properties in neighbourhoods. Existing building properties should not be allowed to be run down, vacated and/or demolished until a project is ready to go. There should be penalties in the process for developers and investors who do not implement their projects once approval is given, to motivate them to proceed with the development or sell it to others who will. There should be incentives and mechanisms to encourage owners to develop their properties in areas that are kept vacant or used for parking lots that could be built on, particularly if they once had buildings on them. Do not allow the redevelopment of single-family dwellings for larger homes that only provide housing for the same number or less people.

A3: An innovative approach to land use planning and community building from other jurisdictions that would help increase the supply of missing middle and multigenerational housing is to support and provide incentives for co-housing as is done in Europe. More public and social housing that is comfortable to live in should be provided as done in Scandinavian countries.

A4: Another change that would help support opportunities for missing middle and multigenerational housing is to not allow the demolition of houses that can be lived in as they are or can be adapted and expanded with minimal effort. Not all middle and /or multigenerational families have the same expectations for house sizes and features that have been marketed in North America. There is a greater move to smaller homes and tiny homes as a polar opposite to the McMansion. Further to this, only allow the purchase or renting of housing that will be occupied by those who will live in them, and do not own other housing. This will make more housing available, reduce competition, and reduce prices.