Brian doucet, University of Waterloo
It seems like everyone is talking about housing these days. For many, it is in a state of crisis. But for others, it is a market that does exactly what it should do: earn money. The crux of the housing problem is that it is a basic problem human right and a merchandise from which to extract wealth.
Most housing debates largely ignore this contradiction. Those who oppose new developments and those who believe we need more housing focus on number, layout, zoning, and density. These insights overlook key questions about housing for whom, Against whom, who benefits and who is excluded.
Upzoning and affordability
In many neighborhoods in Canada, zoning rules dictate that the only type of development allowed is demolition of a small house to replace it with a large one.
This has no net effect on supply and can increase prices dramatically. It is not uncommon for Desirable neighborhoods to gentrify and decrease population., while the number of dwellings remains static.
As a result, there have been calls for changing zoning rules to increase density in neighborhoods where only single-family or semi-detached homes are allowed. Known as upzoning, this allows for taller buildings and more housing units, including triplexes, townhouses, or small apartments, often referred to as “half missing. “
There are many good reasons to do this. Zoning rules have historically restricted opportunities for racialized and low-income populations. Older neighborhoods, in particular, tend to have good transportation options, but fewer housing options for low-income populations.
Increasing density in the city can slow down expansion in the periphery, preserving valuable farmland. This was an important aspect in the recent decision made by councilors in Hamilton, Ontario., to stop the growth of urban limits.
TO number of cities, Our states Y New Zealand All have eliminated single-family zoning. Although, in each case, the question of what to build (and for whom) has been left to the market.
While there are many good reasons for elevating the zone, there is little research to indicate that, on its own, market-driven zoning produces the types of housing cities need in sufficient quantity to address affordability issues.
There is also evidence to suggest that subzoning can increase prices without actually adding new offer, further fuel speculation and lead to development of more luxury units.
Despite this, there is still a persistent belief that targeted zoning and increased supply more broadly are the key to solving the affordability crisis.
Offer and demand?
There is growing evidence that in Canada, new housing supply meets or even exceeds population growthespecially in the biggest cities and the most popular real estate markets. Some of the largest price increases recorded have occurred in the last quarter, when 18 homes were completed for each new person.
But we have to go beyond just focusing on the number of new homes and how this relates to population or household change. Responses to the housing problem are much more complex and require a deeper understanding of what kind of supply is built, what is not, and what is lost as cities grow and rebuild.
Reducing the demand from speculators is key. In Ontario, a quarter of all home buyers are investors. A recent survey found that 20 percent of homeowners under 35 in the greater Toronto area own more than one property. The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation links skyrocketing housing costs to speculative investment. Even the Bank of Canada is now concerned about the role that housing commodification plays, and has pointed out how Investor purchases have doubled in the last year.
Therefore, simply adding supply is not the solution. Speculators increase the demand for housing and shape the supply that is built. Investors love small condos, which is why most of the new towers being built in our cities contain small studios and one-bedroom units. This does little to address the demand for housing, particularly for those with low to moderate incomes, or families looking for larger homes in urban neighborhoods.
This fixation on uncritically adding new market-driven supply also ignores existing affordable homes that are lost when neighborhoods are gentrified or subzoned. Some of this occurs when Small apartments and pensions are demolished., a process known as “demoviction. “My research team, in close collaboration with the Waterloo Region Social Development Center has been Document the rapid erosion of affordable low-income housing..
Renovations they also contribute to this loss. This is a process in which landlords evict tenants, renovate their units, and rent them at higher rates. As planning scholar Martine August has discovered, this is often done in general, financialized owners who has been acquiring apartment buildings across Canada for many years.
Decommodify the house
For cities to be affordable, upper zoning will need to consist primarily of new social housing and other forms of property such as cooperatives and rent-controlled apartments that are off-limits to speculators.
Fortunately, there are many examples in Canada and beyond that treat housing like homes, not investments. Private developers do not have a monopoly on adding supply. Community land trusts Y housing authorities offer possibilities to de-commodify housing by taking it out of the speculative market in a creative and sustainable way.
Publicly owned land provides the spaces to create the type of housing that the market does not want or cannot build. It should not be sold to private developers, especially in discounted prices, for a quick profit.
Zoning changes must also be accompanied by proactive policies to shape what is built and for whom. Montreal has new rules stipulating that many developments must consist of at least 20% of social housing, 20% of affordable housing and 20% of family units.
Other approaches include primary residence requirements for owner-occupied units to restrict investors, speculation taxes for investment properties and specially designed rental incentives. After implementing the latter, Burnaby, BC, has seen a increase in new off-market rentals.
To protect existing affordable housing, strong rent controls, including when a unit becomes vacant, they also have an important role to play. Rental controls on vacant units were removed in Ontario in 1996; this creates an incentive for landlords to evict tenants, even during the pandemic.
Other examples include rules in New Westminster, BC, which good landlords who do not provide temporary accommodation while their apartments are being renovated. The city of Montreal also has Right of first refusal of any property that goes up for sale.
Housing for whom?
To make housing more affordable, we must address its functions as a home and as a basic product. The supply of housing must grow with our population, but it must address the need and not the demand of investors. All levels of government can implement proactive policies to make existing and new housing affordable. Provincial and federal governments must refinance new off-the-market housing, like they did until the early 1990s.
Solutions must focus on the de-commodification of housing while supporting its role as a human right. This means that the rights of some to benefit from housing will have to be reduced so that all have the right to live in cities. Decades of housing research They have shown that leaving the question of supply to market forces, developers and speculators will add some new homes and generate a considerable profit for some people, but will do little to address the crisis facing a growing number of Canadians.
Brian doucet, Canada Research Chair in Urban Change and Social Inclusion, University of Waterloo
This article is republished from The conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the Original article.
Reference-ygknews.ca