Policy Born Out of Panic

April 26, 2024

It is astonishing how the federal and Ontario governments announced a fifteen billion dollar incentive to Honda to set up a car battery plant in Ontario yesterday while they encouraged the municipalities last week to eliminate the requirement for parking for multiple unit developments. So, the message is to make more cars but provide no parking! Let me describe what happened.

Camada’s three levels of government hastily introduced a cobbled together housing policy this month, a move that could have significant repercussions. Upon learning that our City Council, under pressure from senior government levels, is considering approving quadruplexes or four units on a residential lot and eliminating parking requirements for highrise or multiple-unit buildings, I couldn’t help but worry. These are just a couple of the many proposals aimed at addressing the severe housing shortage that has led to the emergence of tent cities in all metropolitan areas.

With all the recent announcements, the federal government promises to double housing starts for the next seven years from the current pace of 250,000 units per year, by pouring billions of dollars into municipal budgets, providing local city councils agree to change zoning codes, including the above two proposals.

While this could alleviate the housing shortage and provide more affordable housing options, it raises concerns about the quality of these new units and the impact on existing neighborhoods.

Yes, the recent surge in international migration created the housing shortage; statistics show that the Canadian fertility rate is way below the replacement rate, and the increase in population and the consequent surge in housing demand can be attributed directly and totally to immigration.

But wouldn’t it be more prudent for the federal government to address the demand for housing as well instead of focusing solely on the supply side? Would it not be faster and easier to restrict immigration in the short term than build housing that takes years to complete? A more balanced approach would be advisable in considering both supply and demand for housing.

A panic reaction is not a good incubator for developing thoughtful housing policy. For example, consider the proposal for building four housing units on a residential lot. A quarter-acre lot measures seventy by one hundred feet (excluding space for roads). Yes, one can build four units on such a lot; it could be two side by side units on the main level and the same upstairs, or one unit per floor in a four-storey building. It would be a dense development, especially considering the parking space for each unit.   But, oops! Are parking spots still required?

However, more recent developments have much smaller lot sizes; some are thirty-five by one hundred feet. To put four units in such a small lot would be a design challenge. And where would the parking be? On the neithborhood streets? As much as good public transit, which we do not have, may negate the need for cars, most individuals and families like to have a car to get around on weekends and at nights when public transit is sporadic at best.

In the suburbs, there are one-acre and larger lots where four units per residential lot are reasonably achievable, but would people desire it? They moved to the suburbs because they wanted bigger lots so why would they now build three additional units on their land? Not likely.

Although four units per residential lot is an attractive slogan, it behooves the government to specify what a “residential lot” means. For example, it would be helpful to identify a minimum lot size to utilize this concept fully.

While the first proposal for densification relates to the efficient use of an urban lot (four units on a lot), the second proposal to eliminate parking refers to cost; by not building garages, the government claims the cost savings would benefit renters/buyers. However, consider the potential impact of this idea on different demographic groups. For instance, families with children, the disabled or elderly individuals may still require parking spaces, and the lack of these amenities could disproportionately affect them.

Before believing government claims that eliminating parking spaces will reduce the cost to the buyer/renter, consider vacancy rates. With vacancy rates so low today that people immediately take up any vacant rental unit, why would developers not charge market rates even though their costs would be lower by not providing parking? And when people buy condominiums, they buy garage spaces in addition to the unit’s price. As a consequence, I do not see why multiple unit residential buildings with no parking would save money for renters/buyers.

To implement the no parking proposal, the City Council proposes to do away with the current policy of requiring parking as a ratio of the number of units in the building and let developers decide on the number of stalls provided based on market forces. While in some areas of the city, developers may choose to skimp on parking spaces, assuming that people could park on neighboring streets, it may not be the case downtown, where office towers dominate, and street parking is not available. I am concerned that not providing parking would exacerbate congestion on the streets and create a huge problem during the winter months when parking is prohibited on the streets for snow clearing.

What further concerns me and find astonishing is when I see that the two higher levels of government are actively pursuing car manufacturers to set up shop in Ontario.  They announced yesterday a multi-billion-dollar incentives package for Honda, after providing incentives for Volkswagen and Stellantis, last year. Is this not a huge contradiction: do not provide parking but encourage the manufacture of cars?

Quadruplexes on quarter-acre lots and highrise buildings without parking do not reflect what people want today; to me, it appears that governments are attempting to modify behavior to solve a housing shortage, without dealing with any of the basic issues that contributed to the problem – that is, an unprecedented increase in immigration levels, and the capacity of the country in both labor and supplies to accelerate any construction. Despite all good intentions and even beyond the questionable objectives of these ideas, the pace of housing construction cannot and will not double for the next few years due to the lack of skilled labor.