Before you read this post, I’d like to be clear that I am in no way a housing expert. BUT I am looking forward to learning more about the many complexities of the problem once Kilo is announced as a semi-finalist in the CMHC housing supply challenge round 5 in February/March!
Although housing specifically hasn’t been my area of focus, people are my jam. I absolutely love people, and have spent the last four years on some sort of quest for better buildings trying to make the world a better place for all the people (and the planet, but we’ll set that aside for today).
This post is meant to be a conversation starter, not a solution teller. If you’d like to further this conversation, let’s talk.
Is it a housing supply problem? or a collective mindset problem?
I truly believe that if we took a holistic look at our building stock, there is more than enough room for everyone to live, work, play and learn…we just need to look at things more creatively.
One obvious shift we can make is focusing on office to residential conversions as the nature in which we work has drastically changed since covid. Last February, Kilo published Canadian codes and existing buildings as a supplementary document to the study completed by Canadian Urban Institute (CUI) through the Case for conversions: understanding opportunities for conversions of office space to housing in canadian downtowns. The CUI study looked at opportunity in six cities: Victoria, Regina, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Moncton, and Halifax.
INcemental Development is another option we should put more focus towards. The industrial revolution led to a ridiculous amount of infrastructure being built to get all the things to the people (which we are still doing). Wide roads, massive parking lots, etc. It also led to an individualistic mindset where everyone needed their own things, which meant bigger houses and spaces between houses for more individual yards. I could go on forever how garages were the downfall of society (drive in, go inside, stop engaging with neighbours) and the impact this has had on mental health, but I’ll stop there. If you’ve never heard the term incremental development or the organization Strong Towns, I highly recommend going on a deep dive. And if you live in my hometown and would like to learn more about Strong Towns Regina, please reach out. I’m an official hypewoman of our local group.
Multigenerational living is an option that is not considered by many, but has an incredible amount of benefits. Many hands make light work, and it takes a village. I don’t know about you, but I think it is almost impossible these days to work full time, take care of a house and yard, have young children and/or family members who need support, and still keep up with what your soul needs to stay healthy. Most people are surviving and not thriving, and it breaks my heart. Multigenerational living also allows for one to age-in-place, which is something our current collective mindset does not allow to easily happen. Which also breaks my heart.
Are we over regulated? Or do we not understand our options?
It is no secret that the Building Code is a major source of frustration to the construction industry. In order to understand where to find requirements, one must spend most of their time in the rule book…which I’ve heard is not a fun thing for most.
I serendipitously stumbled upon the Building Code in 2015, and (like most things in my life) jumped in feet first. Demystifying it was a blast, and once I developed a mental map of the riddle, I began teaching others. Although the Building Code is a barrier as it is poorly organized, difficult to navigate, and does not have guidance for its application to existing buildings (which is most of our building stock), once you have a roadmap, it really isn’t so bad.
Even though the rules may seem like a bit much, they are what we have and to me there is no sense trying to argue for them to be changed on a project specific basis (if you’d like to get involved with the code development process, all the power to ya! It is needed).
The Code has a second path to compliance, called Alternative Solutions, which are a lovely way to allow for innovation and flexibility in design. The problem is that Alternative Solutions are typically cost prohibitive because they require specialized knowledge, which is (currently) held by a very niche community of Building Code specialists. But all problems have solutions, and we’re working on growing the knowledge pool and democratizing the industry through quality education and industry leading tech solutions.
So. To summarize my thoughts on this one…I have many. A part of me does recognize there are likely too many rules, but a part of me also recognizes rules are needed. And all of me knows there is a better way to do things and make Alternative Solutions accessible on all projects. It’s just going to take some collaboration (and winning the CMHC Challenge)!
Are we doomed? Or is there something that can fix the problem?
Well, glad you asked. As much as I used to hate technology, I now see it as a magical little tool.
The housing crisis is a construction cost crisis, and the complexity of building regulation is always increasing. And everything ties back to the Codes, the center of a complex web, if you will. So it’s a good thing I’ve been gathering Canadian Code Enthusiasts who are also passionate about people and the planet. Through a community of practice, unmatched next-generation education, and a toolkit to exponentially increase time savings in the design process, our solution will provide more industry capacity and slash barriers created by a lack of understanding and outdated Codes. For the CMHC Housing supply challenge, we are focusing on residential conversions in existing buildings in locations where there isn’t a code or documented best practice approach (ie everywhere except Vancouver, Ontario and Quebec). But that’s only for Stage 1. Who know’s where we’ll get to when we make it all the way to Stage 3 and are one of three Game Changing Solutions!
If you’re interested in what we’re up to, don’t hesitate to reach out. I love to connect with those with aligned passions and missions.
To wrap things up
To me it’s much more important than just having structures people can live in, but how those structures support thriving as a human. All too often I see bandaid solutions that only allow people to continue surviving. Yes, those solutions are absolutely needed right now, but we need to look at them only as a bridge. We need system-level change. My eyes are on the other side and that is where I’m putting my energy.
There is so much more to the human experience than a roof over your head. We need to be designing our buildings and urban environments so people cross paths and have the opportunity to connect. And please can we bring back loitering? We seem to have forgotten how great just being is. I could go on forever about this as well, but that will have to wait for another day.
I’ve been told I see the world through rose-coloured glasses. And that the world is on fire and things will never change. And that I need to start being realistic with things.
But someone’s gotta wear the glasses or they will go to the landfill and further contribute to our problems.
So I volunteer as the rose-coloured glasses wearing tribute. If you’ve lost faith that the housing problem is fixable, I likely have enough hope for us all.
2 Responses
If we change our expectations for how dwellings are created, knowing that the result will remain the same, then perhaps we can finally get off the hamster wheel. New process, same result. Caveat being the process is exponentially faster and arrives at the same conclusion. Remove your head from the box the contemporary building industry has enclosed it in. We can do better, more sustainably, and faster. Some of us already know the answer and it’s only a matter of time before technology catches up.
It is my opinion that the codes are not the problem and must be adhered to unless there is an alternative solution that meets the objectives. Having said that I also feel homes are unaffordable not because of the codes but the greed of municipalities and the bylaws that are to restrictive. Most municipalities restrict housing to meet a certain size such as 850 ft2 or more. Why not allow people to have a house that is 240 ft2 as an example? The biggest reason is the loss of tax dollars for the municipality.
We hear so much about tiny houses but where are they allowed? So if people were allowed to build smaller homes that are in compliance with the code I believe we would see more affordable homes. Lets face it how many single persons or couples need a house that has to meet the minimum sizes prescribed by municipalities?