Canada is in the midst of a housing crisis. Last year, the country welcomed a million new people into the country as the total population crossed 40 million. Yet, during the very same year, the rate of new homes being built actually fell. For every new home being built, five people are granted citizenship.
At the same time, even as interest rates skyrocketed, the price of houses was only marginally affected. I think it’s clear that we need more homes and greater affordability.
The city’s answer to this in recent years has been to sprawl in all four directions — building new neighborhoods like Island Lakes, Bridgwater, Ridgewood West, and most recently, Parkview Pointe in West St. Paul. But with the houses primarily being single family, and the neighborhoods being entirely car-dependent, it’s an incredibly inefficient and unaffordable way of housing people.
Aerial view of Bridgwater
I think the obvious answer is that the city needs more density in central areas. This includes condos, apartments, and overall taller buildings that can accommodate more people with less land. A small part of it is infill development in older neighborhoods that were originally zoned R1 or R2.
Since most of these neighborhoods were developed decades ago, space is limited for new homes. Of course preserving and repurposing of existing structures should be prioritized and encouraged, but from time to time — through abandoned or fire-damaged properties, or small homes on large lots — opportunity arises for something new to be built. This should be a positive opportunity to create more density and bring more capital and beauty to a neighborhood. Unfortunately, it often doesn’t play out that way.
In the proposal stage, it seems developers get whatever they want and wherever they want it. Splitting a lot three ways and tearing down a home that’s still functional? Building a home that looks like a cube of tin and using solid concrete as landscaping on a 25 foot lot? Building something nearly twice as tall as any of the neighboring houses and look nothing like them? You want to maintain ownership and rent them at a rate that no one can afford? Approved, approved, approved.
73 and 75 Newton Avenue.
And it becomes overwhelmingly clear who runs the show at city hall and what the intention of these builders are: profit, with not a care in the world what neighboring homeowners have to deal with once the project is approved.
I’ve been told by a city councilor that the purpose behind these duplexes (the term the City of Winnipeg uses is “single family home with a secondary suite,” even though functionally they’re just duplexes) on 25 foot lots is so that a family or young couple can afford to purchase a home in a mature neighborhood and use the revenue of the additional unit to pay for the mortgage. There’s some pretty glaring issues with that line of thinking.
Number 1: these infills are rarely sold. Usually, due to rent on properties like this raking in $4000/month each or more, the builder intends on building them and profiting off the revenue from renting in perpetuity. That’s why they seemingly so rarely go for sale after they’re built.
Number 2: when they are sold, they aren’t affordable enough for the average person to buy them. As it stands, no program exists to take into consideration additional rental revenue when a duplex is purchased as a primary residence. Meaning, regardless of whether you can prove to a bank that you’ll be making $1500+/month as a landlord with your new home, you still need to be able to qualify for the full amount of the mortgage.
So let’s say hypothetically that I’m half of a young couple that was looking to buy a house in 2022 and have a budget of around $350,000. A scenario that hits rather close to home. The problem is that not a single one of these types of homes would fit into that average budget. So while a $550,000 duplex (there’s currently one for sale in Elmwood) with a $1500/month contribution factored in from a renter would give us roughly the same monthly payment as a home in our price range, the option go that route was entirely out of the question since our budget wasn’t over $500,000 to begin with.
A best case scenario is that folks who rent these homes treat it like their own. However, often times this doesn’t seem to be the case. All the while, when issues arise, the responsibility of fixing them falls on neighbors rather than the owners and landlords.
So we’re left with unaffordable rentals that change the dynamic of neighborhoods, and that’s even before we discuss the architecture.
Recently completed duplexes at 154 and 156 Perth Avenue.
These buildings, by and large, are ugly. That’s just my opinion (and seemingly the opinion of almost anyone who lives anywhere near one or has even seen one). Objectively though, at least in older neighborhoods, they often look absolutely nothing like surrounding houses and the neighborhood at large and frequently dwarf surrounding properties. They’re clearly just cookie-cutter houses made with the largest amount of scale and cheapest possible materials in order to maximize profit for the builder. All the while, the consideration of those who are forced to live next to them once they’re built is ignored.
It’s fair to argue that the diversity of architecture in older neighborhoods is a positive, and, to some extent, I would agree. In north west Winnipeg, we have examples of homes that date back nearly 200 years all the way through Victorian, Tudor, Art Deco, Mid-Century Modern, and all the way to modern. If you own a property and choose to build something new as a principal residence, of course you should get to choose what it looks like. This is not the issue.
Recent examples of diverse modern architecture on Scotia Street.
On the other hand, I think we need to hold builders — that are building for the sake of profit and often demolishing an existing house to do so — to a higher standard. I’m not claiming to be the arbiter of what gets to be built, and what should or shouldn’t to torn town to build it. But maybe — and I know this sounds crazy — the city should require developers to get support for these projects from within the community. And those in the direct vicinity of the proposed property should have a degree of control over what it looks like.
What does good infill and higher density housing look like on quiet streets in older neighborhoods? Well we only need to look at our past. Terrace houses have been a part of our city since its inception. The difference nowadays is that we have the technology to make these fit into smaller lots and waste less space, and the scale to make them far cheaper than they would have been originally.
Wright’s Terrace & Missler Terrace (1882/1978), University of Manitoba Archives, City of Winnipeg Archives
This approach has already been scaled up in places like Toronto, where often townhouses are reflective of the architecture in the neighborhood they reside.
Example of newer multi-family developments in Toronto.
This could be the blueprint for any 50-150 foot lot on quieter streets, surrounded by older, single family homes. It would seem to make even more sense than the two duplexes on a 50 foot lot when they have an awkward 4-5 foot gap wasted in between them that could otherwise be used for valuable floor space.
Terrace-style houses may not be a solution to smaller 25 foot lots that open up. In that case, virtually any of these classic architecture styles, with a little effort, could be implemented in a 25 foot lot infill situation.
Examples of classic architecture being used on smaller lots.
Is there a high possibility it’ll cost builders more to make aesthetically-appealing structures like this? Yes. However, if they’re required to make these changes by law and the scale goes up in the city as more are built, the cost will eventually come down. This is not reinventing the wheel. It’s using already successful models from other cities to ensure that infill not just suits the neighborhood, but actively contributes to its beauty.
And guess what: builders have already shown that it can be done profitably here in Winnipeg. In 2016, developer Number TEN Architectural Group bought a property along St. Mary’s Road in Norwood Flats and proceeded to built a multi-family complex that very much suits the character of the area.
96 St. Mary’s Road
A person who just bought an early 1900s home just struggling to get by, or elderly couple that has lived in the same home for decades, probably can’t afford to take on builders who have millions at their disposal to entice city councillors. It should be the responsibility of council members to stand up for those of us who reside in mature neighborhoods and not caving to developer’s every demand. Because if the quality of livability goes down for everyone else in the neighborhood as these infill structures go up, what really is the point in building them?
435 Alfred Avenue, boarded up within 3 years of being built.
Without proper forethought and implementation, a 3 year-old infill can end up no different from a 100 year-old teardown. And without city council properly addressing Winnipeg’s mental health and drug crisis, no amount of infill is going to rejuvenate a neighborhood.
Returning to Canada’s housing crisis and how it relates to these infill structures, it doesn’t take a genius to realize that these dozen or so new infills per neighborhood every year are peanuts in the grand scheme of things. Winnipeg’s population is increasing by at least 8000 people per year and these subdivisions and infills are not going to be what makes the major difference to housing and affordability.
The things that will — like the Fulton Grove development on the Parker Wetlands — have been deliberately stalled by city planners, and because of it, all of us taxpayers are on the hook for $5 million after the developer successfully sued the city. That development, which should already be mostly built by now, will boast around 1900 units upon completion.
Artist’s conception of Fulton Grove, Gem Equities
So the next time you hear the housing crisis being used as a scapegoat for these poorly-planned and designed infills, especially by someone involved in municipal politics, remember the far larger developments that have been stalled and could have been built during that time.
And at the same time, the city just approved looser rules surrounding infills — allowing developers to cram four unit, four storey buildings on a single 25 foot lot so long as they’re remotely close to transit in an effort to grasp new federal funding. Developers already can’t get infill right, yet council members (all except three — Brian Mayes, John Orlikow, and Shawn Dobson — voted in favour of the new changes) seem hellbent on giving them the keys to our older neighborhoods. How are we supposed to be excited about that?
The more I read about the dissatisfaction with current infill, the more I realize that it’s not a case of Not In My Backyard; it’s a case of “don’t build it in my neighborhood if it fundamentally destroys part of the reason I moved here to begin with.”
