Our current housing crisis: don't blame the consumer

The current housing crisis seems to have many theories but very little accountability. Let's ask ourselves who's been in positions of authority throughout the decades of our decline in affordability and insufficient efforts in sustainability. Our democratically elected governments are the ones who have been creating questionable policy (monetary, land use, building codes, etc). Our urban planners have brought these policies into action. And our housing industry hasn't really done a great job of planning for demographics or sustainability. The consumer in large cities is left with a dwindling supply of inventory, which unfortunately has caused bidding wars and a crisis in affordability.

Who's to blame? The consumer, the one left struggling to make ends meet because of rising costs which far outpace their salaries? Or is it our leaders who are ineffectively reacting to crises rather than seeking out global best practices?

I've tweeted many times on the subject of Canada's adoption of the United Nations New Urban Agenda 2030 (which happened on October 20/16) by using the hashtags #NewUrbanAgenda2030, #NUA2030 and #NUA. Habitat III was the UN's largest conference in history (35,000 attended) and many countries adopted the NUA2030. Here's it is as a download: https://www2.habitat3.org/bitcache/97ced11dcecef85d41f74043195e5472836f6291?vid=588897&disposition=inline&op=view

What I like about the New Urban Agenda, and its associated Sustainable Development Goals, is the fact that thousands of experts have collaborated in its creation, and thousands more are involved in ensuring its successful implementation (see @urbancampaign). I also like that sustainability in the New Urban Agenda is environmental, financial and social, and encompasses 17 goals to transform our urban landscape (see http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals.html). I'd much rather put my faith in thousands of experts, drawing on global best practices, than on our current system of reactive policy that's failed consumers miserably.  My hope is that Canada's National Housing Strategy, due some time in November, will have a heavy emphasis on the wisdom within the New Urban Agenda. Let's keep in mind that the World Bank is monitoring sustainable development (http://datatopics.worldbank.org/sdgs/) so this will have a bearing on monetary policy at some point in the near future.

I look forward to the next few months to see how our policy makers, urban planners and the housing industry respond and adapt to transformative change in new housing that is so desperately needed because consumers are at a breaking point. 

Architectural barriers in new dwellings versus human rights in housing

Here's a brief explanation of the basis for my advocacy/activism in removing architectural barriers in new dwellings.

Municipal:

-The City of Ottawa Older Adult Plan had a 2016 mandate to promote adaptable, age-friendly homes, which has yet to be fulfilled. There's a clear correlation between aging and an increase in disabilities (or decreased physical abilities) which should actually encourage a clear action plan in housing.
-The World Health Organization certified Ottawa as an Age-Friendly City so architectural barriers in new dwellings seem to put this certification in question.
-The City of Ottawa Accessibility Design Standards (2015 update) encourage VisitAbility for the residential sector on page 194 but how is this actually happening in private dwellings? The one section of the Ontario Building Code that actually requires VisitAbility [OBC 3.8.2.1 (5)] in one type of dwelling is facing exemptions in some Ottawa projects. I've alerted Mayor Watson to this fact by making reference to building permits issued since January 1, 2015, when this became law. I have yet to receive a satisfactory response on the evidence that I've provided (see #OBC38215 on Twitter for some of the information if you're curious).

Provincial:

-The Ontario Human Rights Code forbids disability discrimination and also speaks of the Occupancy of Accommodation. Seeing as the Ontario Human Rights Code has primacy over the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and the Ontario Building Code (and their limitations and failures), why are architectural barriers in new dwellings allowed to continue? The Ontario Human Rights Commission has also published information regarding disability discrimination in housing yet fails to enforce its mandate against discriminatory policy like Ontario Building Code section 3.8.1.1, which exempts houses from barrier-free design requirements.

Federal:

-The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms forbids disability discrimination in section 15 since 1985. 2017 being Canada's 150th anniversary, it would be an opportune time to end 32 years of discriminatory federal policy, like our National Building Code section 3.8.1.1.
-My Code Change Request #964 with the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes has hundreds of documents attached that substantiate my request to abolish NBC 3.8.1.1 in houses and offer VisitAbility in new dwellings (submission on June 30, 2015 and ongoing).

United Nations:

-Canada ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2010 (yet continues to omit the Optional Protocol, the real power behind this convention). Architectural barriers in new dwellings violate Articles 9 (which speaks of accessibility of housing) and 19 as two examples from this convention, among others. A recent review of Canada by the UN wasn't very flattering, here's their report if you'd like proof:
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRPD%2FC%2FCAN%2FCO%2F1&Lang=en

-Canada adopted the New Urban Agenda 2030 on October 20, 2016. Within the NUA 2030 is the Sustainable Development Goal #11 (Inclusive Cities and Communities) and their emphasis on disability-inclusive development and Universal Design of the built environment (which includes housing). Canada's commitments at the UN should compel us to act promptly but delay tactics reinforce status quo.

Conclusion:

All countries are struggling with aging populations, and the impact that this will have across many sectors, which includes housing. To continue building new dwellings with architectural barriers brings forward the following concerns:

-There are the obvious human rights violations against persons with disabilities (also persons with activity limitations). Excluding Canadians with disabilities or activity limitations from the majority of our new housing stock is inexcusable The need is growing for dwellings that adapt to our changing abilities and needs so current policy that ignores this fact seems contrary to logic.
-The strain that is added to our public health system by injuries sustained in our unsafe dwellings: falls in Canada cost 2 billion dollars per year, roughly 50% of those exorbitant costs are for seniors falling in their homes. Our Canadian Standards Association B651-12 has wonderful standards for accessibility, which includes residential in section 7, so why wouldn't we improve section 3.8 in our provincial and territorial building codes and ensure that the residential sector uses CSA B651-12?
-Domestic and international research has clearly stated that Universal Design features in new construction are low to negligible in cost (VisitAbility being the cheapest and easiest to accomplish). I have personally seen beautiful design that dispels the ongoing myths and biases.
-Continuing with architectural barriers in new dwellings exposes our housing industry to the risk of litigation on the basis of discrimination and injuries and deaths. Why would they risk this when there are best practices within our own borders that they could easily implement? And why does our insurance industry not realize that removing architectural barriers in new dwellings would actually decrease their liability to claims and their clients' risk of litigation.

We need strong leadership to correct all of the above, I have yet to see any level of government act promptly on abolishing human rights violations in new dwellings. It's shameful, we must to better.

After ten years of advocacy for human rights in housing, I'm tired and admitting that it's time for a break.

-I'm tired of spending thousands of hours and thousands of dollars on advocacy when only a small minority of Canadians care about human rights in housing. It's been a hard pill to swallow.

-I'm tired of rhetoric by all levels of government in Canada. I judge leaders on their actions...what I've seen in ten years is that our weak leaders are perfectly content with status quo and token efforts/programs. There continues to be thousands of human rights complaints per year, even though we've forbidden disability discrimination since 1985 in section 15 of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The simple fact that government policy is often contrary to section 15 of our Charter speaks volumes. Case in point, our building codes that continue to exempt homes from barrier-free design requirements, flat out shameful.

-I'm tired of our housing industry who in large part is perfectly content in continuing to deliver dwellings that are full of architectural barriers which exclude a growing percentage of our population, and are missing the business case for accessibility (that it can actually increase your profitability if done properly). There are innovators and entrepreneurs who get it, so it's not all bad.

-I'm tired of collecting domestic and international research documents, which provide clear evidence of best practices, that largely get ignored. The same goes for photos of Universal Design that prove that it can be done beautifully when you have skilled individuals.

-I'm tired of Canadians who seem perfectly content in being reactionary rather than proactive. There's wisdom in planning for changing needs and abilities; it seems to be the norm to wait for a crisis before acting, which unfortunately compounds the stress and expense.

-I'm tired of Canada's credibility evaporating at the United Nations. We've made commitments to a number of Conventions that see little to no concrete action, yet again rhetoric by weak leaders.

After ten years, I've finally gotten discouraged by the facts listed above. It's time for a break, I'm tired of banging my head against the wall.

Commentary on Canada and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

You may wish to be sitting down for this commentary because it will be a factual rant, one based on years of advocacy.

Here are some facts:
-Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has forbidden disability discrimination since 1985. Our provincial and territorial human rights commissions and tribunals face regular human rights complaints based on this one section of our Charter.
-Canada ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2010 but omitted the Optional Protocol, the accountability portion of the CRPD. Canada announced on December 1, 2016 that it was reviewing the accession of the Optional Protocol, with a public consultation concluding on March 16, 2017. Consultations with provincial and territorial governments are still ongoing.
-Canada's first review by the United Nations CRPD Committee was this week, April 3rd and 4th in Geneva. If you wish to view 6 hours of video for the open portions of this review, here are the links (some of the questions by the CRPD Committee members are unflattering to say the least, in some cases an embarrassment to our human rights credibility):
Day 1, April 3rd: http://webtv.un.org/watch/consideration-of-canada-318th-meeting-17th-session-of-committee-on-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/5384573989001

Day 2, April 4th: http://webtv.un.org/watch/consideration-of-canada-contd-319th-meeting-17th-session-of-committee-on-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/5384573987001

If you're not already aware of what the Convention and Optional Protocol are, please see the following: http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf

If you wish to read the many reports leading up to this week's review, please scroll down to the section on Canada, which also includes two reports from the Canadian Human Rights Commission (see "Info from Civil Society Organizations (for LOI's)", which is the List of Issues and "Info from NHRIs (for the session)":
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/SessionDetails1.aspx?SessionID=1141&Lang=en

I hope you're sitting because my tact filter is now officially off.

Let's start with section 15 of our Charter. Our very own Canadian Human Rights Commission submitted a report to the United Nations on human rights complaints which highlights some significant concerns with the chronic abuse of section 15 in every province and territory. Here's that report, which highlights thousands of human rights complaints per year, precisely 41, 728 complaints between 2009 and 2013 (which doesn't account for the fact that many Canadians didn't bother going through this painfully long process, so the numbers are higher than reported):
https://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/eng/content/rights-persons-disabilities-equality-and-non-discrimination

Let's move on to systemic discrimination, such as ignoring legal precedent from the Supreme Court of Canada. like their decision on Eldrige v BC (1997):
http://ojen.ca/en/resource/landmark-case-eldridge-v-british-columbia-attorney-general

Further systemic discrimination, which is the main basis of my years of advocacy, is the National Building Code of Canada, section 3.8.1.1 which continues to exempt houses from barrier-free design requirements (where we spend the greatest portion of any day, where the vast majority of Canadians wish to remain as they age (85%), where injuries from falls have cost billions to our health care system, and where hundreds of deaths per year occur due to poor design which makes our homes unsafe). Here's an excerpt from the 2010 edition of the NBC:

Rather than simply continue complaining about our NBC 3.8.1.1, I brought forward a Code Change Request (CCR964) on June 30, 2015, which is still ongoing as you'll see for this upcoming May 1-3/17 meeting in Ottawa:

If you wish to know more about the content of this Code Change Request, please see the following summary document from my Dropbox:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/btuyd00f19zlic6/CCR%20964%20Visitability%20Package.pdf?dl=0

My Code Change Request is based on domestic and international research documents and best practices of Universal Design (VisitAbility is the most basic and economical form of Universal Design, the primary goal is to remove architectural barriers that discriminate by excluding a growing percentage of Canadians). It's also important to highlight that our National Building Code section 3.8.1.1 not only violates section 15 of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which forms part of our Constitution Act 1982) but also Article 9 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (which includes accessibility of housing). I take all of this very seriously as you can see.

Back to the CRPD review of Canada earlier this week. I mentioned that the CRPD Committee asked some tough questions, including matters pertaining to our hundreds of murdered and missing aboriginal women, administrative segregation of prisoners with mental health disabilities, the federal government's efforts to implement the CRPD with our provinces and territories, and the list goes on. There were some very important questions asked, which brought embarrassment to our international reputation as a human rights leader. We must remember that two political parties have been in power since we ratified this Convention in 2010, the PCs and Liberals, yet status quo is ongoing. In my opinion, it's shameful and a true testament of our lack of political will on disability rights in Canada. Our history is not flattering when you consider institutionalizations, abuse/neglect, and current issues with poverty and low employment rates, inadequate housing options, etc.

In order for Canada to regain some of its clout on the international stage, we must act immediately to accede/ratify the Optional Protocol, we must ensure that the CRPD forms an important function in the creation of our Canadians with Disabilities Act (tentatively 2018), our 2017 National Housing Strategy must be based on our recent commitment to the United Nations New Urban Agenda 2030 (and the associated Sustainable Development Goal #11 for sustainable cities and communities), and we must put an end to systemic discrimination at all levels of government that perpetuate discriminatory policy, such as our National Building Code section 3.8.1.1. Prime Minister Trudeau's omissions in 2017 will weigh heavily on his government if this is allowed to persist any longer. We must end chronic violations of section 15 of our Charter and of the CRPD, enough is enough. We need decisive action...immediately.

Effective marketing of VisitAbility

I recently found an excellent YouTube video of a VisitAble home in Winnipeg's Bridgwater neighbourhood (I'm a huge fan of the 50% mandate for VisitAbility). Here's the video for your review:

While looking through the real estate agent's website, I noticed that it was listed at $688,800 and sold in 3 days.
http://www.scottmoore.ca/103-lake-bend-road

Equally interesting was the fact that it didn't mention anything about it being a VisitAble home, or the features that make it a great home to purchase. Instead, it spoke of the usual features of a home and neighbourhood because the VisitAbility features are very subtle (it shows the success of its great design because few people would be able to notice anything different about it). Here are some of the features (VisitAbility, plus others) according to the timing from the video:

00:03 - Unrelated but the wide sidewalks and a barrier-free path means that all are welcome on the trails: walking, biking, skateboards, walkers, scooters, wheelchairs...
00:22 - No step main entrance, covered from the elements.
00:24 - Wide front door, with the adaptability to wider if needed, thanks to the side window.
00:33 - Open concept design; low resistance flooring; and lots of natural and artificial lighting (safer).
00:40 - Clear space under the counter; D handles on the cabinetry; drawers for some of the bottoms (easier to reach items); ample clear space by the fridge.
00:42 - French door fridge (easier if using a mobility device); optimal stove height.
00:58 - Large, lower-set windows (easier to see out if seated / mobility device, and easier to exit if trapped in that area during a fire).
01:17 - Clear transfer space next to the toilet (where the flower stand is).
01:19 - Lever faucets; step-in shower (roll-in is better); low effort hardware to open the shower door.

There's also another great video about a bungalow with a walk-out basement, again with very subtle features:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy60KXRAnOc&t=92s

Here are some of the features (VisitAbility, plus others) for this second home:

00:04 - No-step main entrance, covered from elements

00:25 - Wide front door (adaptability to wider); lever door handle; Decora light switches

00:30 - Wide hallways
00:33 - "D" handles on cabinetry (easier than knobs)

00:33 - Ample clear space in front of the stove and fridge; low resistance flooring.
00:39 - Alternate heights for ovens, not low to the floor like standard ovens.
00:39 - French doors on the fridge are much easier for someone using a mobility device.

00:39 - Some drawers for the bottoms, rather than doors (more practical for accessing items).
00:41 - Ample clear space between the island and the cabinets.
00:44 - Single lever faucet (easier to use; dual lever faucets are ok as well).
00:48 - Front stove controls, colour contrasted (safer, easier to see).

1:00 - Open concept kitchen, dining, family areas

1:17 - Step-in shower (roll-in would be better), ample clear floor space, single lever faucet

1:22 - Not a fan of soaker tubs for safety reasons, prefer a standard bathtub with full length access like at 1:38

1:28 - Adjustable height shower head

1:52 - Great emergency egress thanks to walk-out, and lots of natural light too.

Obviously, there's ample natural and artificial light throughout, with low glare/shadows. There's always more that can be done but kudos to what they achieved.

My point to all of this is to highlight the fact that both of these homes are beautiful AND VISITABLE! The first home sold in 3 days at a price point of $688,800 so these homes are very marketable (contrary to what the majority of the housing industry thinks, in large part because of myths and biases against VisitAbility). If it can be done in Winnipeg (a northern climate, with full basements) and sell quickly, then what's the resistance really about?

If you'd like to know more about the Bridgwater neighbourhood, here's a Case Study from the national project that I was involved in:
http://visitablehousingcanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Final-Bridgwater-Case-Study-Report.pdf

Ontario Building Code 3.8.2.1 (5) to (8) as of January 1, 2015

I've had a problem with our Ontario Building Code for quite some time.

My first concern is with section 3.8.1.1 which exempts houses from barrier-free design requirements. Continuing to build new housing with architectural barriers violates our Ontario Human Rights Code (Part 1, sub 2), our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (section 15), and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Article 9). Canada adopted the UN New Urban Agenda 2030 on October 20th so it looks like we're well on our way to breaching that too (Sustainable Development Goals, which include Universal Design). I guess we might as well be consistent in our discriminatory policies, as it relates to the millions of Canadians with disabilities. Our Charter has forbidden disability discrimination since 1985 (delayed by three years, as part of our Constitution Act 1982) but I guess this doesn't apply to housing, where we all spend the greatest portion of any 24 hour period, and where billions in health care costs are spent yearly on injuries in the home (according to the Public Health Agency of Canada). But yes, let's keep up with status quo... discrimination and preventable injuries (and tragically, thousands of preventable deaths as well).

My second concern is with the loopholes that have allowed major developers to avoid the changes to section 3.8.2.1 (5) to (8) that occured on January 1, 2015. For the sake of a relevant example, let's use Ottawa's tallest Mixed Use building, the Claridge Icon (10 levels of underground parking + 47 storeys). Here's a photo of their Sales Office and site, earlier today, on Preston Street in Ottawa.

Changes to the OBC on January 1, 2015 required 15% of units to have basic accessibility features, as an excerpt from our Ontario Building Code shows here:

So here's the problem, it's called Phased Building Permits. On January 28, 2015, Permit #1500335 was issued for excavation only (for 10 levels of underground parking and 46 storeys). Then on August 31, 2016, Permit #1606066 was issued to "Construct a 47 storey mixed use (retail, office, residential) building with 10 levels of underground parking". By submitting a very limited permit application in 2014, for excavation only, this entire project was grandfathered under the older rules of OBC 3.8.2.1 (5). So here we are approaching two years since the code change and they haven't built one storey above ground yet (as my photo shows). 15% of units in this project would have added a number of VisitAble units to Ottawa's limited inventory of private dwellings with these basic accessibility features. But instead, we've continued the pattern of architectural barriers in Group C buildings, where these features are the most cost effective (and most cost effective in new construction as well, up to 20 times more economical than renovating for accessibility). And it's the only dwelling type not exempt in 3.8.1.1. Is it any wonder that our inventory is so low? Is it any wonder that I've brought my concerns to the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, via Code Change Request 964? Am I justifiably annoyed as an advocate/activist interested in Universal Design for new housing?

You be the judge.

Transformative change in housing looks imminent

Recent events seem to be pointing to some transformative change in housing. The first significant event was Canada's adoption of the New Urban Agenda 2030 on October 20th in Quito, Ecuador. It was the most successful United Nations conference in their history, with 35,000 participants, which included a large Canadian delegation.

Of particular interest in the New Urban Agenda is their focus on inclusion and sustainable development goals. They go as far as to state on page 5 "To fully harness the potential of sustainable urban development, we make the following transformative commitments through an urban paradigm shift grounded in the integrated and indivisible dimensions of sustainable development: social, economic, and environmental." Sustainable development goals not only have a positive impact on our environment (eg. Paris Agreement), they also positively impact our financial and social sustainability. In the built environment, Universal Design of new projects means that accessibility is done right from the planning stage of a new building/dwelling, which is far more economical than renovating for accessibility later on (up to 20 times more economical). Universal Design in all new buildings and dwellings also means avoiding renovations or avoiding being forced to move (if your abilities change); renovations and moving both have carbon-intensive impacts. Social sustainability is achieved when ALL can be included in live, work and play daily activities, which have a very positive impact on each individual (when they don't need to struggle with barriers, such as architectural barriers in our buildings, dwellings and public spaces). Equal opportunities to participate have an extremely positive impact on an individual's quality of life, in order to reach their full potential.

A second event of significance has been Canada's announcement that we're moving forward with the accession of the Optional Protocol of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

As I've previously commented, Article 9 of the CRPD speaks of Accessibility, which includes Housing. I have been advocating for accessibility of housing for a number of years, which includes a Code Change Request with the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes (CCR 964 for VisitAbility of new dwellings, which is still ongoing). Moving forward with the Optional Protocol of the CRPD means that a formal complaint can eventually be submitted to the CRPD Committee if Canada's discriminatory building codes are allowed to continue (section 3.8.1.1 exempts homes from barrier-free design requirements, which actively discriminates against millions of Canadians with mobility disabilities, thereby excluding them from the majority of housing stock due to these preventable architectural barriers). VisitAbility is a simple and cost-effective approach of removing architectural barriers in our built environment and allows for inclusion of all. 

A third recent event has been the publication of the Ontario Human Rights Commission Strategic Plan for 2017-2022. Chief Commissioner Renu Mandhane has made it very clear in this document that systemic discrimination will be confronted, including in the judicial system (on page 15).

Given that our Ontario Building Code, section 3.8.1.1, also exempts homes from barrier-free design requirements. I suspect that this will become an issue for its violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code, which has primacy over the Ontario Building Code.

As you can see from the above examples, I believe that transformative change in how we design and build our new dwellings will hopefully become a more inclusive and sustainable system, one that responds to the changing demographics and abilities of Canadians. I look forward to future announcements from our federal and provincial governments.