Educational Resources

Key insights:

The United States foreign-born population has quadrupled since the 1960s. In 2021, one in seven US households were headed by a foreign-born resident. Around half of these foreign-born residents have naturalized as citizens. Foreign-born residents comprise a growing share of the United States housing market: research projects that foreign-born households will become the primary source of new housing demand by 2040.

This literature review synthesizes previous research on the key barriers to and strengths of immigrants in becoming homeowners.

This report was authored by Sharon Cornelissen and Livesey Pack.

Key insights:

Manufactured housing holds promise as an affordable form of housing that could expand homeownership opportunities for low- and moderate-income households.

This report, from the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, reviews the available literature to assess the principal barriers to greater adoption of manufactured housing, including:

• lingering negative perceptions of the quality of the homes despite notable improvements in quality over time;
• zoning and other land use regulations that limit the ability to site these homes in many communities;
• market conditions that erode the cost advantage of manufactured homes; the unique nature of the supply chain for these homes that makes it difficult for consumers to obtain homes in many urban areas;
• and limits on access to affordable financing.

This report was authored by Christoper Herbert, Alexander Hermann, Daniel McCue & Chadwick Reed.

Key insights:

This report investigates the potential for infill development in Mississauga to accommodate the region’s population growth projections and ensure that new development does not infringe on the urban greenbelt.

The report outlines:

• Mississauga could add approximately 174,000 new residential units (at an average unit size of over 1,000 sq.ft.) via low- and medium-density intensification.
• Through this approach, Mississauga could accommodate 435,000 new residents.
• This is enough housing to support Mississauga’s growth projects, and to also accommodate approximately 85% of Peel Region’s assigned growththrough to 2041.
• This housing can be delivered without the consumption of new greenfield land, reducing the need to encroach into the Greenbelt

This report is authored by Graham Haines and Brianna Aird of Toronto Metropolitan University.

This Small Housing Guidance Paper examines the viability of redeveloping houses in single family neighbourhoods with more homes on the same property, presenting recommendations that will assist various actors involved in setting financial and cost recovery policies as it relates to new gentle density development.

Key policy considerations explored include:

Enabling Tenure Options (Rental & Ownership)

Allowing individual ownership, or strata-titling, for each home on a lot will encourage more new units to
be constructed versus requiring that a property have a single owner (i.e. the owner rents out the additional units, or all residents share a single mortgage).

Leveling the cost playing field and reducing risk

Constructing multi-unit buildings is more complex and costly than single family homes; by offering standardized designs and simplifying approval processes it is possible to reduce the uncertainty and costs involved.

Building in affordability

Given the small number of units involved in these projects, it is administratively simpler and more financially viable to take any affordability requirements or financial contribution (if required) and combine them for affordable housing on a larger site.

For the comprehensive suite of Small Housing Guidance Papers, check them out in the Toolbox Resource Library. Simply search for “Guidance Paper”.

This Small Housing Guidance Paper presents recommendations that will assist various actors involved in planning for and financing growth related infrastructure, especially as it relates to new gentle density development.

With Provincial policy set to increase development potential as-of-right in many residential areas, Small Housing – with support from consulting firms Urban Systems and ECONorthwest – convened a roundtable discussion to explore the relationship between gentle density housing types and local infrastructure.

This Guidance Paper presents recommendations that will assist various actors involved in planning for and financing growth related infrastructure, especially as it relates to new gentle density development. It provides background information and identifies challenges and recommendations in seven key areas:

1. Development finance tools
2. Local government capacity and understanding
3. Other order of government funding
4. Water and fire protection
5. Sewer system capacity
6. Stormwater management, and
7. Electrification

Key insights:

• The Province may consider a phased implementation of the Homes for People legislation. The first phase may be applied to areas of the community that have known infrastructure sufficiency, access to transit, and are not located in sensitive or hillside areas, until infrastructure impacts are better understood and regulations can be put in place.
• Local governments have expressed a desire to “speak a common language” when it comes to implementing the new legislation. It is recommended that the Province provide guidance for infrastructure and development planning with consistent definitions for communities throughout; including land use definitions, development standards, road standards, etc.
• Throughout the roundtable discussion, it became clear that additional planning and consultation needs to occur between government and other sectors who will be involved in implementing Homes for People.

This Small Housing Guidance Paper identifies existing and emerging tools for local governments to increase the supply of gentle density and enhance its affordability.

This guidance paper brings together insights and perspectives collected through two expert roundtables where participants identified existing and emerging  tools for local governments to increase the supply of gentle density and enhance its affordability.

Key insights:

• Gentle density housing is more attainable than single-detached homes due to shared land costs, smaller square footage per unit, and shared building surfaces.
• The local government tools (see below) can make it easier to build this form of housing, and can help to bring down the costs of development. This, in turn, will help to incentivize the production of new supply. As more supply comes online, housing prices cool.
• If local governments stack the tools (and their related cost reductions), they may be able to create sufficient incentives to make the inclusion of below-market units viable within a development.
• There are additional tools that can be leveraged by community partners, such as non-profits, lenders, and other levels of government, that can further support the creation of new and affordable gentle density homes.

Tools for Local Government to support affordability:

• Pre-Approved Plans; Pre-Zoning Allowing for Ownership Tenure: Strata or Freehold; Regulatory Relaxations; Cash-in-Lieu Infrastructure Fund; Limiting Greenfield Development; Parking Reductions; Expedited Project Streams; Delegated Approvals; Certified External Professional Review; Density Bonusing; Reduced Fees; Tax Exemptions

Tools for Non-Profits, Lenders, and Senior Governments to support affordability:

• Create and resource a central knowledge holder; Provide administration support for housing agreements and affordable rentals or ownership; Oversee pre-approved plans; Develop supportive lending products; Create additional services and supports for local governments; Provide greater authority for local governments to enable gentle density; Develop new tools to incentivize gentle density

This report from the Terner Center for Housing Innovation, part of UC Berkeley, highlights barriers faced by developers working in states that have enabled multiple units to be built on traditionally single-family zoned lots.

Key insights:

The report details that Middle Housing delivers many benefits to communities:

• Increases racial equity in housing and neighbourhood access
• Providesentry-level homeownership opportunities
• Creates lower greenhouse gas emissions per household).

The following developer challenges are highlighted:

• Design requirements need to be flexible/supportive of missing middle housing;
• Larger projects of 8-12 units need to be permitted to make projects financially viable; that complicated utility and subdivision rules deter small-scale development;
• Approval timelines need to be more efficient; and that there is currently a lack of traditional financing tools to create a funding package for projects.

Key recommendations:

• Introducing development code changes beyond zoning reforms, including updating design requirements and assessing current impact fees and utility requirements
• Allocate dedicated resources to streamline permitting and approval processes
• Considering more ambitious land use changes, such as increasing the maximum units that can be developed per lot, to help foster increased missing middle housing development.