This Listen Up! guest post is by Hugh Holland. Hugh Mackenzie will be taking a break from Listen Up! over the next few weeks.
By Hugh Holland
We are hearing a lot lately about a housing crisis. What are the basic factors and issues creating this so-called “crisis”? The following chart of mid-2023 data shows Canada’s comparative standing on some of those basic factors.
More floor space requires more land, more building materials, more labor (fewer homes from the same limited number of tradesmen), more furnishings, more electricity, more heating fuel, and more maintenance. Average home sizes in the US and Canada have doubled since 1950. Older folks remember the smaller 3-bedroom, one-bath post-war homes of the 1950s. Many of them are still providing good homes right here in Huntsville. Could it be that our appetite for bigger homes is catching up to us and exceeding our ability to provide all the basic inputs?
Our lower average temperature requires much more expensive foundations, more insulation, and higher capacity heating systems. Many homes in warm areas like the southern USA are built on simple concrete slabs with no foundation.
Population densities affect land prices. Canada has one of the lowest overall population densities in the world, but in the more populated areas like southern Ontario, we are not that much different from many other countries.
Another factor in overall affordability is the emergence of the Internet in 1990. Many families are now spending as much or more on digital services (Internet, cell phones for everyone, TV with specialty channels for everyone) as they spend on food.
Do bigger homes and vehicles make people happier? A comparison of home sizes by country with the UN Happiness Survey indicates bigger homes don’t necessarily make people happier. Perhaps it’s the stress of all those higher costs and extra maintenance?
Our vehicles are also bigger than in most other countries. Bigger cars and trucks (in a low-density country with longer driving distances) and bigger homes (in a colder country) result in emissions per capita of 19 tonnes per year in Canada, compared to 18 tonnes in the USA, and 7 to 9 tonnes in most European and Asian countries including China. Oil and Gas companies say if they stop supplying oil and gas before consumers stop using it, there will be spiking prices and a crippling energy shortage. Indeed, Russia’s war on Ukraine (and Europe) demonstrates that fact.
Canada has the legitimate excuse of low population density and low average temperature for our high emissions numbers that are helping to drive climate change. But we also have many possibilities for getting to net-zero emissions. Along with adopting electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles and mobile equipment, moving to smaller and more energy-efficient homes is the next most fertile ground for reducing emissions. Smaller homes help to preserve precious farmlands, carbon-absorbing forests, and wetlands.
In 1965, the world’s population passed 3.3 billion and an international organization called The Club of Rome wrote an insightful report called “Limits to Growth”. It said the earth’s capacity to supply resources to a growing population is not without limits. Three per cent economic growth doubles everything in 24 years. Could it be that as the world population passes 8 billion, that truth is coming home to roost, and we may have to adjust our expectations, even in North America?
References
How Big is a House? Average House Size by Country – 2023 – Shrink That Footprint
Hugh Holland is a retired engineering and manufacturing executive now living in Huntsville, Ontario.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox so you don’t miss anything!
Click here to support local news
If we need funds to help the government create conditions conducive to the expansion of affordable housing here is a simple idea.
Generally we tend to tax consumption and luxury items. The new luxury tax on things like boats and planes and the somewhat irrational air conditioning tax on car air conditioning but the idea is the same.
So here is an idea. We truly only need ONE HOME and that is our principal residence and it is already taxed for municipal property tax.
So when a family has a second “home” or cottage (because many “cottages” today are incredibly large and expensive) we simply double the tax on the second home. We triple it on the third and so on with no limit.
This is easy to calculate, you just let MPAC and the government figure the “normal” tax on the second etc. home and then multiply the total to get the actual total tax that person is to pay.
Nobody with a city home can possibly say that their cottage is not a “luxury” item so the logic is that this is what to tax and multiple homes even more so.
The money so raised could be used to boost affordable housing and infrastructure where it is needed.
We could also look at various rates for fossil fuels.
For example, we could have three classes for gasoline or diesel.
1- would be the lowest possible cost and represent “essential” fuel used for running a business or municipal maintenance.
2- would be a middle price for “normal” commuting and family use. Slightly higher than essential to discourage unnecessary travel and emissions.
3-would be “recreational” fuel, used for things that are totally optional and of an entertainment nature. Things like big boats, snowmobiles, ATV’s and stuff that one could probably do without, luxury items once again. The price for this fuel could probably be raised 200 to 300 percent above the normal. Obviously anyone who can afford a multi hundred thousand dollar boat to go wake boarding can afford more for gas than the guy trying to get to and from work.
If you can figure out a simple, foolproof way to accomplish this, give the government a call as they seem not to be able to grasp concepts like this. They just apply a carbon tax across the board and then give a partial refund of it right back to us. Not much more than smoke and mirrors.
I think this understanding of the housing crisis and by extension the affordability crisis, completely misses the mark. By making the issue about people’s expectations being too high you fundamentally misunderstand what is happening and give our elected officials of all levels of government a pass for allowing things to become so dysfunctional.
People struggling to find a place to live are not turning down opportunities in an effort to find their dream home. That is a mischaracterization of reality. People are struggling to find the bare minimum of what constitutes shelter not only based on availability but cost relative to earnings.
I recall a recent article about a local front line medical worker that was camping in a tent because there was no housing available. Is this editorial suggesting that people would rather have no place to live than settle for less than their perfect home?
We live in an area where many people have more than one property, often renting out their secondary home in an effort to create income or pay for the added expense. Perhaps those people should change their expectations and settle for one property and list the other? Wouldn’t that help property availability? Based on this article the entire issue is based on people wanting too much.
The author of this article would do well to actually speak with people struggling to find a place to live and remember that his generation and those that came before it were also accused by their forbearers of not working hard enough or wanting too much.
As a side note, suggesting that paying for internet and cell phones are keeping people from saving for a home is pretty strange considering this is a digital publication likely read on a mobile device in an area where print media just closed up shop.
Mr. Bill Spring; I read Mr. Hutcheson’s post incorrectly. I took his statement about lots of land, so assuming a conclusion that – therefore, larger homes can be built, as one which he espoused.
Further to that view, I remarked on the size of Denmark and the ranking in happiness. Not everyone lives in castles. One does not need a huge home to be happy. I anticipated, incorrectly, that a common position is, “if you can afford it, buy large size”. Thank you for asking for clarification.
Mr Stevens: You have not provided a reference for your statistics which form a central part of your thesis….But allow me to correct you with referenced data from Stats Canada “Table: 14-10-0021-01 (formerly CANSIM 282-0005” In 2022, amongst Full time students aged 15 through 19, 43.5% worked. Similarly amongst part-time student in the same age group, 76.6 % worked……For the age group 15 through 24, these respective number rise to 47.2 and 79%
In 1980, these numbers were 32.8% (fulltime) and 88.3 (part-time)
I worked almst fulltime throughout university in order to survive becaus OSAP only covered books and tuition, not rent or food. I hav an arts degree and a diploma in social wrk….Im a cleaner now becaus it pays bettr and is more secure.
Iv wrked since I was 16yrs old, never been fired frm a job and hav a very strong work ethic as a kid who was raised on a farm and always had chores to do startng at the crack of dawn befor school and aftr.
My parents struggle so hav never supported me financially in any way, and iv never expected thm to nor do i feel its their job.
I dont hav substance abuse or gambling issues, i literally go to wrk, come home, hav supper, wrk on a creative projct, might watch an hr or 2 of tv and go to bed, repeat.
I wldnt mind havng a small car, I hav a midsized becaus its wht was avail for me to buy outright from someone for $5000. I once wanted children but hav given up on tht dream, I dont kno how people afford it.
I live in under 400 sq ft and rent is nearly $1000/mnth (im very lucky compared to many right now). I hav to listen to addicts yelling/fighting at all hrs, people drag racing dwntwn at 1am and share walls with hoarders who bring in bugs…all becaus if youre poor youre forced live in densely populated spaces/buildings with people who arent well.
I would LOVE to hav a home 600 sq ft or less, i would be over the moon to finally hav a place of my own but im in my mid 40’s and ive never qualified for a mortgage (evn tho i often paid more in rent, esp whn i lived in TO thn many friends paid in a mortgage).
Im accepting the reality tht Ill never own a home or land…it breaks my heart.
But Hugh, wake up, SO many of us just want peace and quiet and a very small place to call our own!!
I cant begin to tell u how sick I am of older generations who own at least one, oftn more properties tell me i mst not wrk hard enough or think i actually want all the rubbish they hav….i wrk my ass off, will till the day i die, i will not be able to retire (i doubt many of us will in the future), and i do not value THINGS, big houses, big cars, big vacations…..i go camping to save $ and to be in nature and i cant afford to take more than 2 wks off a yr, usually spread out and jst try to get long weeknds.
We want a place to LIVE, we dont want mansions!!
Security is what most of us desperatly want!
Fine Homebuilding, Issue #318, October 2023, page 52) presents an interview of Lloyd Alter by Aaron Fagan. For the most part it agrees with Hugh Holland. Lloyd Alter lives in Toronto, has been an architect, builder, developer, inventor, professor, public speaker, and author. He closes the interview with these words – “Just use less”. He is a proponent of smaller houses
I may be simple, but sometimes I struggle to interpret the point that some posts in the Doppler are trying to make.
For example, my takeaway on Drew’s post was that smaller houses are needed. One of the responses was “ clearly I’m not in the same social class as you”
I’m missing the point.
Thinking along the same lines as Mr. Markle. One word passes my mind..why..
Why do they have or need these monstrous size houses… which are still often referred to as cottages?
Few understand what a cottage is, True cottages often are for maybe three seasons and bring the feeling of living with nature. Enjoying the lake and paddling a canoe or rowing a boat with one hand scooping up the water and splashing your friend who is with you. Followed by laughter.
The monster cottage owners say they have the same fun as they rip their $250,000 boats along the shoreline explaining they are troll fishing. Due to their speed a fish could never catch their hook.
Catch their hook? Do you want to? Canada is growing so fast . Canadians who have lived here for years now have a shortage of food, housing, basic necessities and questionable health care, including retirement homes giving them the physical care they need.
Slow down Canada. We are becoming a country of pure greed. The population is growing too fast and the true Canada and empathy is disappearing. Some say Canada is gone. Maybe.
There is another word that comes to mind..STOP…but the greed will not let you. Sounds like an old woman or a positive reality gone?
A further comment on Allen Markle’s observation regarding the heat and hydro being on year round in the extravagent seasonal/secondary homes, is that now they also have generators for when the power goes out, and no one is home. As well as air conditioning for the summer months and I can’t help but wonder why. Too much energy consumption!
Hugh Holland: My comment is more with regard to the land and memory than to the numbers and the learned opinions of others. I grew up here in Huntsville in a small house. At one time, there were two families and 10 people in our home, but we lived well and got by. There were some large families back then, and a neighbor of ours used to say that if you banged a rock up against some of those homes, “kids would run out for at least twenty minutes.”
Drew Hutcheson says we have lots of land for homes and that sure is true here in Ontario and Canada. But a small home just east of Central Patricia or where the road ends just north of Pickle Crow doesn’t hold the same allure as a spot on the Muskoka River, within sight of the ‘swing-bridge’. Location. Location. Location. Those realtor know.
Even in the 60’s when my father was building on the local lakes, you could see change in what people were wanting for houses and summer ‘cottages’. Today’s homes are a far cry from the one I grew up in. Even my own, ‘though we have downsized considerably.
It will be a task to convince some that they have much more than most and maybe beyond what they need themselves. With a condo in the city, a cottage on a lake, plus maybe a mobile home in Arizona, some people have a wealth of choices. And if they should want to go remote, they may even have a 40 footer with ‘bump-outs’, hooked behind the ‘dooly’ to get them two or three miles from the blacktop. Wilderness! Just as long as there is still internet.
Most of these places have the heat and hydro on year round, but remain empty a good portion of the year. Maybe 3 or 4 thousand square feet of living space. If you can afford it, life is good. Brings to mind the commercial on television that states, you don’t need it , but you know you want it.
Some have so much, some cry out for just a little and as Dave Wilkin wrote, there are no easy fixes. And if our government believes that a bump in the minimum wage to a bit over sixteen dollars an hour will help the situation, then we really have a problem. I’m sure they know we/they really have a problem.
Mr. Hutcheson; Our family lived in a small post war home in Perth Ontario. It was affordable and fine for our needs. Ask single people if they need huge homes because there is space. Huge homes they cannot afford.
Why do you think Danes are # 2 on the UN Happiness list?
In part, it is because they live in a small country, with limited space, become accustomed to being satisfied and have a great care for their neighbours.
My husband and I began our married life in a storey and a half home in Huntsville, with 2 mortages.
I think you may be surprised at how little some people need in house size to be satsified.
It is very much a matter of expectations. Clearly, I am not in your social class.
International media as well as some Canadian media often fail to put Canadian’s emissions in context and fail to mention our super low GHG electricity supply.
Not only do most Canadians not produce unusually high emissions, Canada has always been among the countries with the lowest GHG emission electricity supplies.
We should be proud of that.
81% non-fossil fuel power and climbing due to mostly hydro and nuclear.
What would be the effect on climate change if ALL countries had 81% non-fossil fuel power like Canada?
And was switching to EVs and heat pumps to use it instead of fossil fuels?
Like Canada is doing?
Most countries and provinces are getting greener.
Not Ontario any more.
Ontario used to be 96% non-fossil fuel power.
Now it’s 92% non-fossil fuel and dropping fast due to Doug Ford’s many errors.
Nothing Ford has done is to be proud of.
Especially in the energy portfolio.
He ripped out functioning EV chargers at GO stations and eliminated the big EV rebate and other money and energy saving rebates Ontario used to have as well as cancelled 750 green projects already under construction..
Tesla even had to take Ford’s Ontario to court to be treated fairly.
And won.
Ford said “EVs are only for the rich.”
Ontario is EV hostile since Doug Ford.
Any new EV or battery business in Ontario is in spite of Doug Ford, not because of him.
Many errors listed in the comments..
https://doppleronline.ca/huntsville/combatting-the-climate-crisis-letters/
I am woefully ignorant about many of the things being spoken of but I wonder if we insist that for every one seasonal residence being built, that two houses are erected for the local population. That might help here.
The housing affordability crisis is driven largely by demand exceeding supply for years. It has worstened with the sharp increase in immigration and foreign student/work visas, the vast majority landing in a few large urban centers. Low interest rates for many years also stimulated demand. Supply can’t keep up. The widening shortfall requires an additional 3.5 million housing units by 2030 according to the CMHC.
The layers of regulation, space limitations and high/rising costs of materials & skilled trades shortages and now, elevated borrowing costs all contribute to higher building costs.
Smaller units and higher density will certainly help, but they come with tradeoffs and require planning to ensure they’re done properly, and that services/infrastructure is in place to handle it.
Government investment, planning and coordination has been inadequate, and in the Federal case, almost non-existent. Handing out more money to buyers will drive demand up, making things worse. Incentives and tax breaks to builders will help, but won’t make a big difference.
No easy fixes.
Mr. Holland, the Chinese Communist Party is on a pace of opening two new coal plants a week. Their emissions are more than double that of the USA, and they will only continue to grow. Steven Guilbeault went to China just last month, did nothing to criticize the CCP leadership there, and instead used the opportunity to criticize Canada’s energy producers. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is just woefully ignorant and naive, and not willingly acting against Canada by helping a dictatorship that recently took two of our countrymen hostage. Because it sure looks like he’s actively helping them
Greg, long term projections (58 years ago) are hard to make. Even next years projections are hard to make.
But are you saying there are no limits to growth? If that is so, what is causing the climate crisis? Don’t blame Steven Guilbeaut. He didn’t create the crisis. He is trying to help solve the crisis. We are lucky to have such a committed person on that job. An uncommitted person can’t accomplish anything.
Mac Redden, you are correct. Due to our oil and gas industries, per capita emissions in Alberta and Saskatchewan are around 67 tonnes per year because a full 1/3rd of Canadas natural gas in used to process bitumen in the oil sands. That compares to 12.6 in Ontario. Quebec is the lowest at 10.1.
But the international media only looks at the total country where (for example) China is around 9, France is at 7.7 and Sweden is at 5.9 tonnes per capita. We, along with the USA at around 19 tonnes, and Saudi Arabia, rank as top emitters. To be fair, all Canadians benefit from Alberta’s oil and gas revenues. And the industry can’t stop producing oil and gas until we consumers stop using it. But we as both consumers and producers can do much better, and the industry is working hard on ways to eliminate those emissions. Every country has reasons / excuses for their emissions, but the only thing that will solve the global climate crisis is if every country works to eliminate their emissions.
.
Good Stats Hugh.Very briefly,and to try to resolve the crisis more quickly,shouldn’t we be building many more high rise condos,as in Hong Kong(where land is limited)—but not the ugly “shoe boxes” we currently erect!.At the least the facades should be pleasing and attractive.It’s going to take a very long time before the relaxed single residential zoning laws help,what with N.I.M.B.Y always present.Thanks.
In fact, most Canadians do not produce unusually high emissions.
Little or nothing to do with cold temps, long distances, big houses or big cars.
GHG emissions per capita depend entirely on which province you are talking about.
In fact most of Canada is already BELOW the OECD average of 12.0 t/capita.
But then there is the oil and gas industry.
Without that industry’s massive emissions included Canada’s GHG emissions per capita are not unusually high.
Context matters, Hugh.
https://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/ghg-emissions-aspx/
Search “Greenhouse gas emissions in Canada in 1990, 2005 and 2019, by province” for trends.
I think it is really hard for a student to dream about owning a home… especially when they have not worked throughout high school and college/university. In 1980, 40% of students worked. Today 14% work. In 1980 less than 5% of students were driven to school or had a car at college/university. Today over half (56%) of all students are driven to school or have their own car at both high school and college/university. School parking lots are completely full.
The average parent/student spends $10,000 on cel phones throughout high school and university. Let’s add in Starbucks, dinner/lunch with friends, the latest apparel or running shoes… yah you will never own a home with these habits and no job.
Any student has the ability to earn $100,000 in the 8 years they attend high school and post secondary school. That amount of money combined with the discipline and real-life experiences you gained with this employment are priceless. I wish this kind of simple math and budgeting was taught in grade 9.
It’s interesting that Mr. Holland mentions the Club of Rome, they and Paul Erlich were pitching the Thanos solution way before Thanos himself came along. In 2016 the Club of Rome pitched a universal one child policy, just as China was beginning to abandon that plan because of the many unforeseen consequences. Fortunately for all of us, Erlich was long ago discredited, the CCP’s policies are failing, and the Avengers sent Thanos packing for good. I’m personally happy about all of this because I could totally see a zealot like Steven Guilbeaut forcing us all to eat Soylent Green.
All kidding aside, this article does a pretty good job of explaining why the Club of Rome et al are dead wrong
https://humanprogress.org/how-much-more-prosperous-would-the-world-be-without-chinas-one-child-policy/
Nonsense Hugh! You are so buried in detail you miss the obvious. We have enormous amounts of land but have built an industry of gatekeepers who limit its use, causing housing prices to skyrocket due to shortages. This is very profitable for developers and planners. If we tear down the barriers again, (as we did in the postwar 50s), little houses would be cheap and our oppressed younger generation would love them.