Hey everyone, and welcome back to Canada's Housing Crisis Podcast. I'm Alia, and wow... okay, so last week we dove deep into that viral red circle image and why building cities in the Arctic isn't exactly the housing solution we're looking for. And the response has been incredible - I mean, my inbox has been absolutely flooded with messages from you all.

But here's what's really interesting - and this is what we're gonna tackle today - so many of you wrote in asking basically the same question: "Okay Alia, if the solution is using our existing habitable land better, then why aren't we doing it? Why are some cities making these changes while others are... well, fighting them tooth and nail?"

And that, my friends, is exactly what we're digging into today. Because if you've been following Canadian housing policy lately - and honestly, who hasn't been, right? - you've probably noticed this really stark divide emerging. On one side, you've got cities like Vancouver, Toronto, even smaller places like Hamilton, that are actively reforming their zoning laws, allowing more gentle density, basically saying "yes, we need more housing options in our neighborhoods."

But then on the flip side, you've got communities - and we're talking everything from wealthy Vancouver suburbs to smaller Ontario towns - that are fighting these changes with everything they've got. I mean, we're talking lawsuits, we're talking council meetings that go until midnight, we're talking... well, honestly, some pretty intense local politics.

So today we're gonna break down why this divide exists, what's actually happening on the ground right now in 2025 - and trust me, I've got some numbers that are gonna surprise you - and then we're gonna talk about what Canada can actually do to bridge this gap and get more housing built where people need to live.

Alright, so let's start with the political psychology of this whole thing, because... honestly, it's fascinating and depressing at the same time.

You know, when I was researching this episode, I came across this polling data that just blew my mind. Abacus Data did this really comprehensive survey, and they found that only 29% of Canadians actually oppose gentle density - you know, duplexes, triplexes, small apartments - in their immediate neighborhood. Only 29%!

But here's the kicker - and this is where it gets politically interesting - that opposition isn't evenly distributed. It breaks down pretty predictably: homeowners are more opposed than renters, people over 60 are more resistant than younger folks, and... well, this won't shock anyone... Conservative voters are about twice as likely to oppose gentle density as Liberal or NDP voters.

But what really caught my attention was the regional breakdown. Alberta and the Prairie provinces show the highest resistance, which is... well, it's ironic, right? Because Alberta actually has some of the most affordable housing in the country, so you'd think they'd be less worried about new development. But apparently not.

Now, here's where it gets really interesting from a political strategy perspective. The same poll showed that support for gentle density drops dramatically when you ask people about their own neighborhood versus their city or province in general. Like, 53% support it provincially, but only 36% support it locally. That's a seventeen-point drop!

And this... this is the classic NIMBY psychology, right? "Not In My Back Yard." People can intellectually understand that we need more housing, they can support the concept in theory, but when it comes to their specific street, their specific neighborhood... suddenly it's a different story.

But here's what I find so frustrating about this whole debate - and maybe you'll relate to this - the loudest voices in the room aren't necessarily representative. I mean, think about it: who shows up to city council meetings at 7 PM on a Tuesday? Who has time to write detailed letters to their councillors? Who can afford to take a day off work to attend a public hearing?

It's disproportionately older homeowners with flexible schedules and strong feelings about neighborhood character. Meanwhile, the 28-year-old working two jobs who's desperate for affordable housing? They're... well, they're at work. Or they're at home exhausted. They're not at city hall making their voice heard.

And this creates this really skewed political dynamic where the people who are most negatively affected by housing shortages - young people, renters, families trying to get into the housing market - they're systematically underrepresented in the political process that determines housing policy.

Okay, so let's talk about what's actually happening on the ground right now, because the numbers for 2025 are... well, they're pretty sobering.

CMHC just released their fall housing supply report, and the picture is mixed at best. Combined housing starts across Canada's seven key metro areas were basically flat in the first half of 2025 compared to 2024. Which sounds okay until you realize that flat isn't nearly enough - we need massive increases to meet demand.

But here's where the regional differences become really stark. Calgary and Edmonton? They're on track for record-high housing starts this year. Calgary and Edmonton! Meanwhile, Toronto is heading for its lowest level of housing starts in 30 years. Thirty years!

And Vancouver isn't much better - they're seeing further declines in total starts, and while CMHC expects some gradual recovery by 2027, that's... that's a long time to wait when you're trying to find an affordable place to live right now.

The condo market is just... it's in rough shape, especially in Toronto. Condominium apartment starts fell 60% in the first half of 2025. Sixty percent! And it's not because people don't want condos - it's because pre-construction sales have collapsed. Investors, who used to be the main buyers of pre-construction condos, have basically walked away from the market because the returns just aren't there anymore.

And here's something that really drives home how backwards our priorities have gotten: Ontario - the province with the biggest housing affordability crisis - is the only province in Canada where housing starts are worse in 2025 than they were in 2024. The only one!

Meanwhile, their Housing Minister is admitting that homebuilding in the province is at a "standstill." A standstill! This is the same government that set a target of building 1.5 million homes by 2031, and they're... well, they're nowhere close to being on track.

But you know what's really interesting? When you look at the places that are succeeding - and there are some bright spots - they all have one thing in common: strong political leadership that's willing to override local opposition.

Take British Columbia. Now, I know BC gets a lot of criticism for their housing affordability crisis, and rightfully so. But their approach to gentle density has been pretty remarkable. The provincial government basically said to municipalities: "You will allow small-scale multi-unit housing, period. End of discussion."

And it worked! Nearly 90% of BC communities have adopted the required bylaws. When some places like West Vancouver tried to resist, the province issued non-compliance notices and threatened ministerial orders. Within months, even the most resistant communities fell in line.

Compare that to Ontario, where the provincial government has taken this much more hands-off approach, basically saying to municipalities "here are some incentives to reform your zoning, but you don't have to if you don't want to." And surprise, surprise - many of them chose not to.

Now, the federal government has been trying to fill that gap with the Housing Accelerator Fund, and... honestly, it's been pretty effective where it's been implemented. Cities that have signed on to zoning reform in exchange for federal funding are seeing real results.

I was just looking at Thunder Bay - Thunder Bay! - which achieved 102% of their year-one housing targets under the program. And it's not because Thunder Bay is some housing policy innovator. It's because they had clear benchmarks, federal funding tied to performance, and political cover to make changes that might be locally unpopular.

The federal government has signed agreements with 179 municipalities through this program, and they're projecting over 750,000 housing units over the next decade. That's... that's real progress. But it's still not enough, and it's still voluntary.

So this brings us to the big question: what can Canada actually do to bridge this divide and get more housing built?

And I've been thinking about this a lot, because... look, we know what works. We have examples of success both within Canada and internationally. The question is whether we have the political will to actually implement these solutions.

First thing - and this is probably the most important - we need provincial governments to step up and override municipal resistance. I know that sounds undemocratic, but hear me out. Housing is not just a local issue. When Oakville or West Vancouver restricts housing supply, that affects housing prices in Toronto and Vancouver. When small towns along commuter corridors refuse to allow gentle density, that forces more sprawl and longer commutes.

The British Columbia model should be replicated across the country. Every province should pass legislation requiring municipalities over a certain size - let's say 10,000 people - to allow at least four units per lot in residential neighborhoods. No exceptions, no grandfather clauses, no endless consultation processes.

And if municipalities don't comply? Well, the province steps in and makes the changes directly. Ontario already has something like this with Minister's Zoning Orders, but they've mostly used them for controversial developments. What if they used them systematically to upzone entire neighborhoods for gentle density?

Second, we need to completely rethink how community consultation works for housing, because... honestly, the current system is broken. Right now, the process gives veto power to the loudest voices, which are usually the most opposed to change.

I came across this really interesting research that showed consultation meetings attract disproportionately opposed participants who don't represent community demographics. Meanwhile, the people who would benefit most from new housing - young people, renters, families trying to move into the area - they're systematically excluded from these processes.

So what if we flipped the script? What if, instead of requiring public meetings for gentle density projects, we eliminated them entirely? What if we said "if your project meets the zoning requirements and building code, you get automatic approval, no questions asked"?

I know that sounds radical, but think about it: we don't require public consultation when someone wants to renovate their kitchen or add a deck. Why should we require it when they want to add a basement apartment or convert a house into a duplex?

Now, the federal government has been trying to use financial leverage to encourage zoning reform, and... that's good, but it's not enough. The Housing Accelerator Fund is a start, but $4.4 billion spread across the whole country? That's not game-changing money for most municipalities.

What we really need is for the federal government to get serious about using its fiscal power. Tie all federal infrastructure funding - not just housing funding, but transit funding, road funding, water and sewer funding - to municipal zoning reform. Miss your gentle density targets? You lose a chunk of your federal transportation money. It's that simple.

And while we're talking about federal policy, can we please get serious about immigration and housing coordination? I mean, it's great that Canada is welcoming newcomers - I'm all for it - but we can't bring in 400,000 new permanent residents a year and then act surprised when housing demand outstrips supply.

The federal government should tie immigration targets directly to housing construction data. If Toronto isn't building enough housing for its current residents, maybe we shouldn't be directing another 100,000 newcomers there each year. Spread the immigration to places like Calgary and Edmonton that are actually building housing at scale.

Now, here's where it gets really interesting - and this is something I've been thinking about a lot lately - we also need to completely rethink how we approach community opposition to housing.

Because here's the thing: most NIMBY opposition isn't really about the housing itself. It's about legitimate concerns that get channeled into housing opposition because there's no other outlet for them.

People are worried about parking, about traffic, about schools being overcrowded, about their property values. These are... well, they're not unreasonable concerns! The problem is that our political system forces them to express these concerns by opposing housing, because that's the only decision they get to weigh in on.

So what if we addressed those underlying concerns directly? What if new gentle density developments came with automatic investments in local schools and transit? What if we used some of the increased property tax revenue from densification to fund neighborhood improvements?

Better yet, what if we gave existing residents a direct financial stake in neighborhood densification? I know this sounds crazy, but hear me out: what if every time a neighborhood gets upzoned, existing homeowners get a small rebate on their property taxes for the next five years? Suddenly, densification isn't something happening to them - it's something benefiting them.

And you know what? We should be talking much more about the benefits of gentle density for existing residents. More neighbors means more customers for local businesses. More people walking around means safer streets. More housing supply means your kids might actually be able to afford to live in the neighborhood they grew up in.

But we never make these arguments! Instead, we let the conversation get dominated by fears about parking and traffic, without acknowledging that gentle density - when done right - can actually improve neighborhood livability.

Okay, let's talk about what this looks like in practice, because I think sometimes we get so caught up in the policy debate that we lose sight of what we're actually trying to accomplish.

Imagine you're living in a typical Canadian suburb - you know, mostly single-family houses, maybe built in the 1960s or 70s, nice mature trees, quiet streets. Now imagine that over the next decade, zoning rules change to allow gentle density throughout the neighborhood.

What does that actually look like? Well, first off, it doesn't mean your house gets demolished and replaced with a 20-story tower. It means maybe the house next door gets converted into a duplex when the elderly couple sells and moves to a retirement community. It means the large lot at the end of the street, where the old bungalow used to be, gets rebuilt as four townhouses instead of one giant mansion.

It means your neighbor builds a basement apartment for their adult daughter who's just graduated university. It means the empty lot that's been sitting vacant for years finally gets developed as a small apartment building - maybe three stories, maybe six units, with ground-floor retail that actually gives you somewhere to walk to buy groceries.

Over time, you've got more people in the neighborhood, but the character hasn't fundamentally changed. You've still got trees, you've still got front yards, you can still park on the street. But now there's a coffee shop you can walk to, the local school has enough enrollment to support more programs, and the bus comes more frequently because there are more riders.

And here's the kicker - because there's more housing supply in your neighborhood, housing prices across the region are a bit more stable. Your property value doesn't go down - in fact, it might go up because you're now in a more walkable, amenity-rich area. But housing becomes more accessible for the next generation.

That's what gentle density actually looks like. It's not radical, it's not scary, it's just... it's just a more efficient use of the land where people already want to live.

Now, I want to talk about something that I think gets missed in a lot of these housing discussions, and that's the generational aspect of this whole debate.

Because when you look at the polling data, the resistance to gentle density is heavily skewed toward older homeowners. And I get it - if you bought your house in 1985 for $150,000 and it's now worth $800,000, any change feels threatening. That house isn't just your home, it's your retirement plan.

But here's what I think a lot of older homeowners don't realize: their housing wealth is largely paper wealth that depends on continued housing scarcity. If their kids and grandkids can't afford to live in the same city, who's going to buy their house when they want to downsize?

More importantly, if we don't build more housing, we're basically guaranteeing that the next generation will be worse off than the current one. And I don't think most people want that, even if they're resistant to change in their own neighborhoods.

So we need to find ways to help older homeowners see gentle density not as a threat to their wealth, but as an investment in their community's future. And honestly? That might mean we need to have some uncomfortable conversations about intergenerational equity and what we owe to the people coming up behind us.

Alright, let's talk numbers for a minute, because I know some of you are probably thinking "Alia, this all sounds great in theory, but can we actually make the math work?"

And the short answer is: absolutely. In fact, I'd argue that not making these changes is what's economically unsustainable.

CMHC estimates that Canada needs to add about 3.5 million additional housing units by 2030 to restore affordability. That sounds like a lot, but here's the thing - we're already building about 250,000 units per year. So we don't need to triple our construction output, we need to increase it by maybe 30 or 40 percent.

And most of that increase can come from gentle density. Converting a single-family house to a fourplex doesn't require any new infrastructure - the water, sewer, and electrical capacity is already there. But it quadruples the number of households that can live on that lot.

Similarly, allowing laneway houses and basement apartments doesn't require new roads or transit lines. It just makes better use of existing infrastructure that we've already paid for.

The economic case gets even stronger when you factor in climate considerations. Densifying existing neighborhoods reduces per-capita infrastructure costs, reduces transportation emissions, and makes existing transit investments more viable.

And from a municipal finance perspective? Gentle density is a goldmine. Higher density means more property tax revenue per hectare of land, which means municipalities can better afford to maintain their infrastructure and services.

But here's where federal and provincial governments need to step up, because municipalities are facing some legitimate financial pressures that make them resistant to change.

Development charges - the fees that developers pay to municipalities to cover the cost of new infrastructure - have gotten completely out of control in some places. In parts of the Greater Toronto Area, development charges can add $80,000 or more to the cost of each new housing unit. $80,000!

Now, I understand why these charges exist - municipalities need to pay for new schools and sewers and fire stations. But when the charges are so high that they make new housing financially unviable, the system is broken.

The federal and provincial governments should step in and help municipalities fund growth-related infrastructure through grants and low-interest loans, instead of loading all the costs onto new housing buyers. Because ultimately, when we make new housing expensive, we're not just hurting developers - we're hurting everyone who needs an affordable place to live.

You know what else we need to talk about? The role of existing homeowners in blocking new housing, because... honestly, some of the tactics being used are pretty problematic.

I've been following some of these local council meetings and public hearings, and... wow. The level of misinformation and fear-mongering is just incredible. People claiming that a duplex will somehow destroy neighborhood character, or that allowing basement apartments will lead to crime waves, or that gentle density will tank property values.

And look, I get that change is scary. I get that people are attached to their neighborhoods the way they are. But we can't let unfounded fears override the legitimate housing needs of hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

This is where I think we need better public education campaigns about what gentle density actually entails. Most people's opposition is based on worst-case scenarios that just don't reflect reality.

Take property values. Study after study has shown that gentle density, when implemented well, either has no effect on surrounding property values or actually increases them slightly because of increased walkability and local amenities. But somehow the myth persists that any change will tank your home's value.

Or take the parking question, which comes up at literally every public meeting about housing. Yes, more units mean more residents, which could mean more cars. But gentle density is usually concentrated in walkable neighborhoods with decent transit, where car ownership rates are lower than in car-dependent suburbs.

And you know what? Even if parking does become a bit more challenging, is that really worth condemning thousands of people to homelessness or unaffordable housing? I mean, let's keep some perspective here.

Now, let me talk about something that I think could be a real game-changer but doesn't get nearly enough attention: the role of public land in solving the housing crisis.

The federal government has been doing this inventory of under-utilized public lands, and they've identified over 4,000 hectares of sites that could potentially be developed for housing. 4,000 hectares! That's enough land for hundreds of thousands of housing units.

But here's the key insight: instead of selling this land to private developers and just hoping they build affordable housing, what if the government kept ownership and leased the land at nominal rates?

This is how places like Vienna and Singapore have maintained large amounts of affordable housing over the long term. The government captures the long-term land value appreciation, which it can then reinvest in more housing, while private developers handle construction and management.

And because land costs are often 30 to 50 percent of total housing costs in expensive markets, removing that cost from the equation makes it much easier to deliver housing that's actually affordable to middle-income households.

The new Build Canada Homes agency that Prime Minister Carney announced is supposed to move in this direction, and... honestly, I'm cautiously optimistic. If they can deliver on their promise to build affordable housing at scale using public land, that could be a real breakthrough.

But they need to move fast and they need to be willing to override local opposition, because you know that every single one of these developments is going to face massive NIMBY resistance.

Okay, so we've talked about the politics, we've talked about the economics, we've talked about the specific policy tools. Let me try to bring this all together with what I think Canada actually needs to do - like, starting tomorrow - to bridge this divide between pro-housing and anti-housing communities.

First: every province needs to pass what I'm calling "Housing Supply Legislation" that overrides municipal zoning restrictions for gentle density. British Columbia has shown this can work. Other provinces need to follow suit immediately.

Second: the federal government needs to use its spending power much more aggressively. Make all infrastructure funding contingent on municipal zoning reform. Cities that don't allow gentle density don't get federal transit money. Period.

Third: we need to completely eliminate public consultation processes for gentle density projects. If it meets zoning and building codes, it gets automatic approval. No meetings, no appeals, no delays.

Fourth: create massive public land development programs that keep land in public ownership but lease it to private developers at below-market rates in exchange for affordability commitments.

Fifth: launch major public education campaigns to counter NIMBY misinformation and help people understand what gentle density actually looks like.

And sixth: start measuring success not just by housing starts, but by housing outcomes. Are prices becoming more affordable? Are more families able to live in the communities where they work? Are young people able to move out of their parents' homes? Those are the metrics that actually matter.

Now, is any of this going to be easy? No. Is it going to face massive political resistance? Absolutely. But here's the thing - we don't have a choice anymore.

The housing crisis is not some abstract policy problem. It's destroying people's lives. I get emails from listeners who are living in their cars because they can't find affordable housing. I hear from parents who can't afford to live in the same city as their kids. I hear from young people who have given up on ever owning a home, or even renting a decent apartment.

This is not sustainable, and it's not fair. We have the land, we have the technology, we have the financial resources to solve this crisis. What we're missing is the political will to override local opposition and make the necessary changes.

And you know what? I think we're starting to see that political will emerge. The federal Housing Accelerator Fund, British Columbia's provincial legislation, cities like Toronto and Hamilton actually reforming their zoning laws - these are all signs that the political consensus is starting to shift.

But it's going to take more pressure from people like you - people who understand that housing is a basic human need, not a luxury good. People who are willing to show up to council meetings and speak up for housing. People who are willing to vote for politicians who prioritize housing over neighborhood character preservation.

Because at the end of the day, that's what this divide really comes down to. On one side, you have people who think their neighborhood's character is more important than other people's ability to have a roof over their head. On the other side, you have people who think everyone deserves access to safe, affordable housing.

And I know which side I'm on. I hope I know which side you're on too.

The good news is that we're not starting from zero. We have examples of success, we have policy tools that work, and we have a growing recognition that the status quo is unsustainable. What we need now is the political courage to implement solutions at the scale and speed that the crisis demands.

That's a wrap for today's episode of Canada's Housing Crisis Podcast. I'm Alia, and I... honestly, I could have kept going for another hour, because there's so much more to dig into on this topic.

But I want to hear from you. Are you living in a community that's embracing gentle density, or one that's fighting it? What's the local politics like where you are? What solutions do you think would actually work?

Drop me a line at hello@micme.com - that's M-I-C-M-E dot com - and let me know what you're seeing on the ground. Your experiences and insights help shape these episodes, and honestly, some of my best ideas come from listener emails.

Next week, we're diving into something that I think is going to surprise a lot of you: the hidden role of investor speculation in Canada's housing market. And I'm not talking about foreign buyers - I'm talking about domestic investors, pension funds, and even some of the government programs that are supposed to help first-time buyers but might actually be making things worse.

Until then, keep pushing for better housing policy in your communities, keep challenging NIMBY opposition when you encounter it, and remember - the solution to Canada's housing crisis isn't in the frozen north. It's right here, in how we choose to build our existing communities.

Talk to you next week.