As both a practising architect and as the president of the governing Council of a provincial architecture regulator, I have been following the national housing design catalogue initiative with a lot of interest—as well as some hope and a little frustration.
The issue of housing affordability is absolutely critical right across Canada, and architects have an important role to play. Just a few months ago, in October 2023, Statistics Canada released alarming data about housing in our country, stating almost 17 per cent live in a home too expensive for their household income. Unfortunately, the numbers are even more alarming among newcomer Canadians (almost 23 per cent), visible minorities (25 per cent), and those living below the poverty line (69 per cent).
For more than a decade, the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) has engaged with all levels of government, allied organizations, and other parties to find new approaches to deal with this housing crisis in ways that do not compromise durability, affordability, climate resilience, or safety. It’s a hugely important issue, and one we have made the explicit theme of our Conference this May in Niagara Falls.
So while swift and innovative actions need to be taken to address housing affordability (and availability!), the federal government’s recent announcement it is commencing discussions about the creation of a house design catalogue does not seem to truly address the problem at hand. It could be that this is one tool in a toolkit of varied approaches, but it is certainly not a universal fix. I don’t see this as moving the needle forward significantly on housing affordability in the province.
Recent articles in the general media about this topic seem to be misunderstanding the core problems and suggesting that architects are responsible for rising costs and delayed timelines in building homes—whether condo high-rises or single-family townhouses. The erroneous claim goes that not only does architectural design significantly drive the cost of housing up, but also the implementation of this few-sizes-fit-all schematics will allow other hurdles to be more easily cleared.
Readers of Canadian Architect already well know that architect fees are a fraction of the overall costs to design and build a home, and that this investment will pay for itself over time. In November 2021, the Construction Design Alliance of Ontario (CDAO) released a report, “Impacts of Pre-project Investment & Quality of Documents on Project Delivery Efficiencies” that showed an error that costs $1,000 to address during the design phase, can cost $10,000 to address during construction.
The federal government’s creation of a home design catalogue could leave ample room for error. Standardized design does not consider specific user needs, multi-generational families, aging in place flexibility, site-specific conditions, local bylaws (zoning, drainage, fencing, fill, parking, etc.), or municipal planning approval processes (site plan control, infrastructure, forestry, heritage, etc.).
That said, a design catalogue can be an effective approach, when it is one of many. It may serve as a starting point between the client and architect to discuss fundamental requirements for the new home while also providing visual reference for typical room sizes and layouts to assist the design process to move more swiftly. Nevertheless, it should be understood that in most cases the design process only amounts to a fraction of the time it actually takes to have something built. Other lengthier processes like municipal approvals, development of the land, and construction itself take more time and money.
This national housing design collection idea is similar to the school catalogue that was developed by Ministry of Education to assist individual school boards in the design of new schools. In that particular circumstance, though, the concept is that these projects have been built and therefore thoroughly vetted at the provincial level to meet room size guidelines and costs. When it comes to K–12 projects, this approach can assist both the individual school boards and local architects to move more swiftly through the initial schematic design process and the required Ministry approvals.
With respect to residential design and construction delays, the OAA has long advanced recommendations to address housing affordability across Ontario with a particular focus on the lengthy development approval process that project proponents face. In 2013, our commissioned research found “approximately half of all applications took six months or more to obtain approval” in the province.
Pre-pandemic, the OAA has also noted in previous government submissions worrying statistics from various municipalities, such as the City of Ottawa who, in 2018, reported that even after setting a 105-day target for site plan approval, the City only managed to hit that target for 28 per cent of “standard applications.” Just because a design comes from a catalogue, it is no guarantee the design will not face regulatory and planning hurdles.
With recent legislative developments in Ontario, such as the 60-day timeline for approvals mandated through Bill 109, More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022 and the exemption of projects with 10 or fewer dwelling units mandated through Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, the government has started to chip away at the regulatory hurdles. However, more work is needed. It should also be noted that many municipalities are averse to adopting these changes, even with the guarantee of significant federal funding. I note that, as of this writing, my own city of Windsor is one such community.
Speaking as OAA president, effectively tackling the housing affordability crisis involves numerous approaches beyond a catalogue. These include:
- Increasing intensification in the yellow-belt areas of municipalities across Canada (Bill 23, for example, has allowed triplexes as-of-right across Ontario—the City of Toronto has taken this a set further by making fourplexes as-of-right) so all levels of government are encouraged to do their part to update zoning permissions to facilitate a diversification of housing stock;
- Addressing the levers government can pull to make housing more financially attainable (e.g. encouraging smaller entry-level units, housing alternatives for aging-in-place, and larger family-sized units in all building types), as well as promoting innovative design solutions to reduce project costs (e.g. pre-designing for intensification through the introduction of vertical additions that optimize the use of existing structures) and incentivizing developers to build purpose-built rentals by eliminating barriers such as HST; and
- Having all levels of government advance energy efficiency as a key to housing affordability—retrofitting existing homes and building new homes for energy efficiency is not only good for the environment, but also a key part to achieving housing affordability by lowering building operating costs.
A design catalogue can certainly offer an option, but it won’t solve the issue itself. Similarly, the architecture profession is not part of the problem, but rather a key partner in finding the solution.
As appeared in the April 2024 issue of Canadian Architect magazine