affordable building Archives

Sustainability February 27, 2017

Are shipping containers the future of affordable housing?

Building a home takes time and effort, a considerable issue considering North America is experiencing an affordable housing crisis. But, a non-profit in Columbus, Ohio might’ve discovered a possible solution— shipping containers.

Cargominium, as the project has been dubbed, is a three storey-building made out of shipping containers that is being constructed by non-profit Nothing into Something Real Estate. The housing development is being built as affordable housing and will include 25 apartments.

The building consists of fifty-four shipping containers that are stacked together. Each apartment has two bedrooms and will be accessible from an exterior stairways. Before the containers were shipped to Columbus, windows and doors were cut into the steel and then, upon arrival, the containers are placed on top of each other on site. The containers will have stucco siding to make it look like a regular apartment complex and the steel container will be well hidden once complete.

Shipping containers as homes are growing in popularity because they are cheaper to use than lumber or other building materials. They are durable, versatile and are upcycled, a process that takes used products and creates products of better quality for environmental use. Deforestation from housing development is a crucial environmental problem and using shipping containers saves wood, and other building materials used in framing houses. Building with shipping containers comes with its own set of issues, including the difficulty of getting the container up to building code in regards to insulation and air circulation. But, the perks tend to outweigh those complications. For example, the flat roofs can easily be used for a green roof garden and solar panels. This gives an added environmental bonus and possible energy reproduction to the shipping container homes.

Oneesan Container Housing Project. Photo from the Atira Women’s Resource Society.

Canadian companies are jumping on board as well, providing shipping container options for affordable housing in Vancouver and other clients in Western Canada. Edmonton-based company, Honomobo, builds prefabricated affordable housing shipping container homes and has received more than 12,000 inquiries from 74 countries for more homes. The Atira Women’s Resource Society in Vancouver also built a successful affordable multi-dwelling affordable housing development known as Oneesan, for vulnerable women aged 55 and over in 2013.

Private homeowners are also hopping on the trend, with local restaurant owner, Carl Cassell, recently using a shipping container to extend his Queen St. home. Development Company, Wonder Inc, is another Hamilton-based company designing and building a house completely made of shipping containers for writer and broadcaster, Geoffrey Young who has worked on international developments and has a passion for urban design and sustainability.

Shipping containers are not a permanent solution to affordable housing, but they are a good temporary one. They can be built quickly and provide immediate shelter for people who are desperate to find a home. However, municipalities that use shipping containers as a form of affordable housing must not rely on them as long-lasting, but using this building material will give city officials more time to find a better solution. Creative resolutions are the best way to solve the affordable housing crisis, and shipping containers are an inspiring start.

Sustainability August 27, 2016

Section 37 vs. inclusionary zoning: Which would you choose?

What is the best solution for affordable housing?

The city and province are at an odds yet again, with the City of Toronto rejecting the inclusionary housing proposal the province is pushing towards. Instead, the city wants to continue using Section 37 benefits, a part of the provincial planning act that allows cities to give developers permission to build outside of zoning laws in exchange for providing funding for a project that contributes to the community. In conjunction with Section 37, the city has been working on the Open Door policy that pairs up with voluntary developers who are willing to provide affordable housing in exchange for various incentives.

On the other hand, inclusionary zoning would mandate that any new development being built in cities across Ontario would have a certain portion built as low-to-mid-income housing. The province plans on giving the cities the power to mandate how to implement the inclusionary zoning policies in their respective regions. Though this is a complimentary policy for affordable housing, there is one small problem. The province has mandated that Section 37 cannot be used in conjunction with inclusionary zoning unless under specialized circumstances. They have not specified what the “special” circumstances would be either.

This policy is forcing Toronto to choose between providing essential community services and desperately needed affordable housing — and it appears politicians are at a loss on how to proceed. Quite honestly, both section 37 and inclusionary zoning have their pros and cons, but neither is sufficient to solve the plethora of housing and funding issues that plague Toronto.

Pros and cons of inclusionary zoning:

Inclusionary zoning has been a popular method of building affordable housing in many major US cities including Chicago, Montgomery County, Maryland and San Francisco. It speeds up the growth of affordable housing because it makes it mandatory for developments to build new units. It also creates mixed-income neighbourhoods, which allows children of low-income areas to avoid being marginalized in poor areas. Many people are worried that inclusionary zoning would drive up prices of the other units, but a report by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has determined that affordable housing doesn’t affect pricing as much as assumed. Critics are concerned that the cost of inclusionary zoning falls on new homebuyers rather than all of the taxpayers in a city, which they believe isn’t fair. Inclusionary zoning can also only be applied to new developments.

Pros and cons of section 37:

Section 37 gives the local councillor and community the opportunity to choose how to use development funds to benefit a particular neighbourhood, which makes the funding flexible. It helps to create good neighbourhoods and give people access to parks, public art infrastructure, and community centres. These types of infrastructure are often ignored by the city in light of other projects that need funding, and shouldering private developers with the burden is a good solution. On the other hand, section 37 can be misused if the local councillor chooses a project that isn’t effective in the community. Though community funding is important, families, seniors, and low-income individuals need homes to live in, and this trumps public art installations.

What is a possible solution for the city and province?

When the city rejected the inclusionary zoning proposal last week, they also said that if the zoning proposal were approved they would want a 10 per cent affordable housing mandate for the new developments going up, instead of just targeting inclusionary zoning at mid-to-low income households.

A potential solution is to have both options available for developers. By allowing them to choose between section 37 and inclusionary zoning, both community funding and affordable housing needs may be fulfilled. Most would choose section 37 as it stands, but if it were mandated that the community funding would have to equal the cost of building and maintaining 10 per cent affordable housing, it would even the playing field between the two policies. As well, Open Door could be maintained and continued alongside inclusionary zoning to the benefit of the 95,000 people on the affordable waitlist to obtain housing.

The state of affordable housing in Toronto is not of casual concern. It is a state of emergency. The staggering amount of people desperate for housing, and who are forced to resort to the streets or use most of their income to pay rent, is unacceptable. Instead of city and provincial councillors bickering over which policy is better, everyone need to bring all solutions to the table and create a viable plan to work together. After all, people’s lives depend on it.

Politics July 27, 2016

B.C implements foreign tax on housing in Vancouver

Buying an affordable house in Vancouver is often compared to living in the land of unicorns and leprechauns, but B.C’s new legislation may help make this far-away dream a reality once again.

British Columbia Premier Christy Clark announced a one-time 15 per cent tax on Monday, July 25 in Vancouver that would apply to foreign investors who are neither Canadian citizens, nor permanent residents, in an effort to cool the housing market. The new legislation applies to residential real estate in Metro Vancouver, from Bowen Island to Maple Ridge and Langley, and begins on Aug. 2.

With the new foreign tax, a $2 million home in Vancouver would accumulate an additional $300,000 if purchased by a foreign buyer. If a foreign buyer purchased a home for $10 million, this tax would raise to $1.5 million. On the other hand, if a foreign buyer tried to avoid the tax, “anti-avoidance” measures would be put in place that include $100,000 for individuals and $200,000 for corporations that don’t comply to the legislation.

The funds raised by the new tax will be put towards a new housing priority initiatives fund for provincial housing and rental programs that is set to be launched in the near future. This fund will receive an initial investment of $75 million from the government and then begin to accumulate revenues from the tax on foreign buyers.

In order to obtain the necessary information on buyers in Vancouver, Clark also announced the Real Estate Services Act, which officially ends the real estate board’s self-regulation or ability to govern itself. The government’s involvement in the industry will allow them to access information on buyers to see what homes will be charged the foreign tax. Finally, the province will also introduce a vacancy tax that targets empty rental homes of foreign investors to increase the number of available rentals.

There are possible issues with the foreign tax, though the response from B.C home buyers has been overwhelmingly positive. Investors could potentially avoid the tax by getting family members to purchase properties, highlighting a loophole in the legislation that relies on buyers reporting their nationality honestly. The tax may also hurt international recruitment because new immigrants won’t be able to purchase property tax-free until they are permanent residents or Canadian citizens.

Toronto’s housing market has skyrocketed and a foreign tax in Canada’s largest city would cool the hottest housing market in the east as well. Ontario Financial Minister Charles Souza reported he is looking at implementing a similar law in Toronto. Hopefully Toronto will follow Vancouver’s lead and take necessary steps to implement a foreign tax and cool the housing market for local buyers. The outcome of the foreign tax remains to be seen, but any effort to lower housing prices and give people access to homes is a step is a good move.