Unintended Consequences
I hear it so often: we need more housing.
Whether it’s folks lamenting the falling number of housing starts or shaking their heads at the crazy cost of rent and home prices, it seems universally understood that what we need is more housing.
And yet, what so often gets missed, at least to me, is that in our push to build more housing, we aren’t asking if it’s the right housing.
In some ways, all anyone needs is a roof over their head. But I think, as a community and as a society, we know it has to be more than that. People deserve more than just subsistence housing. They need housing that works for them, housing designed for their lives. Housing that supports them to live their best life, not just housing that keeps them alive.
When I say it like that, it seems obvious. Of course, we want not just a roof, but a home. We all want our neighbours, coworkers, and families to do more than just survive.
So, if that’s what we all want, why isn’t it what we get? Because of unintended consequences. What we’re seeing today are the unintended consequences of good intentions.
Think about how housing gets built. Most of the time, it’s either government-funded or built by the private sector for profit.
Government tends to fund housing per door. On the surface, that makes sense. They want to see the most homes possible built. It looks good in a press release, increases the housing stock, and sounds like a win-win.
But the unintended consequence? Smaller and smaller one-bedroom or studio units.
If, on the same square footage, you can fit three studios instead of two one-bedrooms, and the funding is per door, what do you build? You build the three studios.
What about two-, three-, or four-bedroom homes? Family-sized units? Well, you can fit a lot more smaller units than family ones, and when costs are high and funds are tight, you build what gets you the most funding.
It doesn’t mean that’s what the community needs or wants, but that’s the unintended consequence of funding per door. You don’t get more funding for a more livable unit. You don’t get more funding for a family-sized home. You get more funding by creating more doors.
The same thing happens in the private market. Even if the price is lower, selling two or three one- bedrooms makes more money than selling one larger home.
So, we build smaller and smaller, not because that’s what’s best for people, but because that’s what the system rewards.
We need a fuller picture of what we’re trying to do here. Housing is so important, but it’s more than just a roof. We can’t reduce people and homes to simple numbers. We need housing designed for people.
Fixing this crisis can’t come at the expense of the very people we’re trying to fix it for. Because what good is all the housing in the world if it’s not something people can actually live in?
-Philip Mills
Philip Mills, CEO Habitat Waterloo Region
