For more than a century, zoning ordinances rooted in segregation have encouraged the construction of single-family homes, often at the expense of apartment buildings and other structures that promote urban density. Besides contributing to an increasing housing shortage and rising prices, such policies contributed to sprawl and dependence on cars.
Canada decided to try something different.
The government has taken the unprecedented step of hosting provincial governments billions of dollars in infrastructure funds with one catch: To receive it, they must require cities to drop single-family zoning laws and allow the construction of four-bedroom homes. This unusually broad policy, adopted in May, has implications beyond expanding the housing stock. It can help mitigate climate change.
Research has consistently shown that multifamily structures reduce overall vehicle miles traveled by placing people closer to urban centers and mass transit. They also use materials and energy more efficiently, reducing the carbon footprint of construction. “Higher density tends to reduce emissions, and by a pretty significant amount,” said Zack Subin, a housing and climate researcher at the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC-Berkeley.
If Canada’s approach works, it could encourage similar policies in the United States and spur cities to build a wider variety of climate-friendly housing. “Historical planning, rooted in segregation and exclusion, has effectively banned the most efficient forms of housing in most of our cities and suburbs,” Subin said. “Any reform like this is moving in the right direction.”
States like Washington, Oregon, Californiaand cities including Minneapolis and Austin, has taken steps in recent years to eliminate or amend single-family zoning laws. But none have gone to the lengths of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government. The country’s 2024 budget includes C$6 billion (about $4.4 billion) to accelerate new construction, with C$5 billion of that set aside as conditional infrastructure funds. To access the money, each of the country’s 10 provinces and three territories must require municipalities to eliminate single-family zoning and allow four-plexes. They must also adopt updates to Canada’s building code, which is advisory, not mandatory, and enforces tenant and homebuyer protections, among other things.
Ottawa is also serious about enforcing the rules. When the city of Oakville, Ontario rejected a measure to allow fourplexes in May, Housing Minister Sean Fraser ordered the city to return more than 1 million Canadian dollars received it. “If provinces don’t want to make some of the changes, they don’t have to accept the funding we put on the table,” he said in response to conservative leaders rejecting the idea of eliminating single-family housing. (Any money not claimed by the provinces and territories will be offered directly to municipal governments.)
To get around the fact that in most of Canada, as in the United States, zoning is handled at the local level, the government offers its root to provincial authorities. By dangling large sums in front of them, federal officials hope to encourage action at “levels of government that have been resistant to change,” said Carolyn Whitzman, a housing policy expert at the University of Ottawa who helped draft the country’s latest national housing plan. to form .
San Francisco Chronicle/Hearst Newspapers via Getty Images
This is an example of what is called a pro-housing policy, one in which a state (or, in this case, province) or the federal government offers money or other benefits to promote progressive policies such as zoning reform or eliminating parking minimums. Canada’s approach echoes a proposal the Biden administration drifted to hand out $10 billion in grants to states and cities to reform single-family zoning and build new housing. The program was watered down last year to provide just $85 million to cities that commit to removing barriers to affordable housing construction. (In 2021, California succeeded in enacting a program which offers municipalities pursuing zoning reform a head start when applying for certain government grants and exclusive access to additional funds.)
Canada’s policy is aimed at what housing experts call the “missing middle” in housing: low-rise dwellings such as townhouses and four-bed houses that fall between a single-family home and an apartment building. Until recently, such structures were illegal in many parts of Canada and the United States. Allowing their construction could boost the supply of housing by facilitating the development of parcels that were previously off-limits to multi-family housing. “The majority of land with existing infrastructure — close to public transit, schools, parks, community services — is zoned exclusively for single-family housing,” Whitzman said. The change could lead to more construction, greater housing availability and lower costs, she said.
Whether such reforms will do so, according to UC Berkeley’s Subin, is “still a live research question.” Only a few US cities, including Minneapolis and Portland, Oregon, have adopted missing center zoning reforms, and the long-term effects are still not understood. Local market conditions, such as housing demand and land value, also affect the impact of allowing more fourplexes. Yonah Freemark, a transportation and land-use policy researcher at the Urban Institute, said Canada’s reform is likely to have only a modest effect on housing availability, as fourplexes tend to be mostly developed in areas that have relatively high housing values and amenities within walking distance.
But such efforts offer an often overlooked benefit: they mitigate climate change. Neighborhoods with denser housing tend to have much lower emissions than the national average, largely because people who live in them tend to drive shorter distances and use public transportation more. A recent one study that Subin led at the Terner Center found that higher population density across the San Francisco Bay Area corresponded to fewer vehicle miles traveled. San Francisco residents, for example, drove one-third of those in Oakley, a far less dense suburb about 50 miles to the east.
While access to public transportation is a critical factor in reducing car dependence, Subin noted that higher density results in fewer vehicle miles traveled, even when people don’t ride the bus or take the train. Having homes and businesses closer together means that “people continue to drive shorter distances, and walk and bike for a greater proportion of their trips,” he said.
Quadruple and other low-rise multi-family dwellings require less energy than single-family homes because they share insulated walls and roofs. They also require less material to build, reducing the emissions associated with their construction. A recent study by researchers in Canada estimated that buildings lacking mid-rise housing in Ontario, Canada, could reduce future construction-related carbon emissions from residential buildings by as much as 46.7 percent.
For these reasons, encouraging greater housing density may be one of the most underappreciated climate mitigation policies. UC-Berkeley researchers found that building additional homes in underutilized urban areas the most effective climate strategy available to California local governments. Yet most municipalities plan climate action plans don’t mention adding housing as a climate aidpartly because it is difficult to calculate the exact benefits.
Housing experts have warned that missing center reforms on their own are insufficient to address the housing shortage or make a dramatic impact on emissions. “Just because you provide for housing doesn’t mean the housing gets built,” said the Urban Institute’s Freemark, noting that complex market dynamics ultimately determine what type of new housing gets built. He also said that large-scale apartment buildings built close to public transport would more effectively address the need for housing, while maximizing the carbon saving benefits of greater density.
But as governments across the US and Canada try new housing policies and embark on zoning reform, the two countries can learn from each other’s experiences. “There’s a lot of learning going on between them,” Whitzman said. “When we talk about these issues, the differences between Canada and the US are very minimal.”
