I recently commented on Twitter that the City of Ottawa affordable housing sector has had environmental, economic and social sustainability figured out for years; the proof is in the projects that have been built in the last few years, like Salus Clementine and The Haven to name two. But I'd love to see this type of innovation transferred over to the private housing sector, especially passive house techniques (net zero) and Universal Design (VisitAbility being the minimum acceptable standard but more features would be advisable).
In reading the City of Ottawa Official Plan discussion paper for housing, as well as Ontario's More Homes, More Choice Housing Supply Action Plan, I'm not seeing a satisfactory level of prompt and effective leadership when focusing in on Inclusionary Zoning and Universal Design. The Province of Ontario started allowing Inclusionary Zoning in 2018 but I have yet to hear of one municipality leading in it. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation published a great report about IZ that clearly showed its positive impact on increasing affordable housing stock in jurisdictions that acted on it, some were decades ago. Unfortunately, we're not there yet. We're also not there yet on Universal Design even though our National Housing Strategy has recognized housing a human right (2017) and is looking to ensure it in Bill C-98, the National Housing Strategy Act. When discussing housing as a human right and adequate housing, I often highlight the fact that both our Ontario Building Code and the National Building Code of Canada continue to exempt houses from barrier-free design requirements (Part 9 of building code deals with houses and small buildings, which is the bulk of new residential development. Architectural barriers continue to be created daily in new housing because of this exemption, a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities).
Recommendations for inclusion, sustainability and health & safety:
-Change Official Plans and Zoning by-laws to move forward more aggressively with 6 storey wood-frame residential construction anywhere in a community, especially ones serviced by transit routes (to increase density & intensification and to improve sustainability). Wood is more cost-effective than concrete and steel and certainly more sustainable. And fire prevention is far better than it was 50 years ago.
-These six storey multi-units must be mixed-use by ensuring that the main floor has retail and services, rather than constantly having to travel all over our communities to get the things we need/want. They must also be mixed income (thanks to inclusionary zoning, which would require a percentage of units to meet affordability criteria within any new development rather than be in segregated affordable housing projects). They must also be universally designed to ensure that our homes meet the needs of everyone, regardless of age or level of ability. They must also offer a variety of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units because not everyone needs a bachelor, 1 or 2 bedroom unit.
-They must be resilient as we've seen far too many environmental disasters destroy homes and lives. They must be either net zero or passive house for energy-efficiency. And finally, they must be safe (indoor air quality; fire resistance; great lighting; and other logical features to reduce injuries and deaths)
As the news and social media headlines have shown, Ontario isn't immune to the global affordability crisis and I can assure you that we're not immune to the global accessibility crisis either. Both are already happening here and this is why I suggest the recommendations above (and others thrown in for good measure). We can't keep designing and building housing the way we have been and expect it to sort itself out by market demand. It isn't logical to continue down this dysfunctional path, innovation in housing is desperately needed for private development. Our building codes need to move away from minimum standards and encourage best practices that are readily available globally. It just isn't acceptable to continue with minimum standards in housing and think that being reactive to problems is a sustainable mindset to continue. Cost inevitably comes up as an excuse on a regular basis to quash best practices (that's evidence-based best practices) but history has shown us that being reactive to poor design and policies costs us far more. Ask the insurance industry, claims relating to homes cost billions per year; as consumers, this is reflected in the higher premiums that we pay.
That's my two cents worth for today. All the best.
