The affordable housing crisis in Canada has prompted Ottawa to propose a straightforward solution: increase supply. The government believes that high housing costs stem from insufficient supply and has introduced policies, including the housing accelerator fund, to eliminate zoning restrictions and expedite the construction of new homes in urban areas. However, Patrick Condon, a professor of urban design at the University of British Columbia, challenges this perspective.

Condon questions the federal government's approach, suggesting that if increasing density truly led to affordability, cities like Vancouver would already be affordable. He points to the current oversupply of unsold small condo units in cities such as Toronto and Hamilton as evidence against Ottawa's theory. "I think I’m considered a bit of a bête noire around here on the policy side," Condon said in a recent video conversation. "Certainly the B.C. provincial policies have moved in a very opposite direction to the ones that I’ve been recommending."

With over 30 years of experience in city planning and sustainable urban design, Condon's insights carry weight. Originally from Massachusetts, he moved to Vancouver in 1992 to teach at UBC and has been involved in various urban design projects, including the East Clayton project in Surrey, B.C.

Condon admits that he was once an advocate for increased density, believing it would lead to affordable housing. "My professional strategy was to add density into existing areas or create new neighborhoods that had this kind of affordable density," he explained. "Unfortunately, that hasn’t worked."

He expresses concern over the prevailing narrative that blames single-family homeowners for the affordability crisis. "It’s a tragedy that there is confusion in the narrative," he lamented, suggesting it pits generations against each other. Condon argues that the dominant explanation for high housing costs is overly simplistic, rooted in a naive understanding of supply and demand.

He challenges the federal government's assertion that local zoning ordinances are the primary obstacle to adding housing in existing neighborhoods. "If you’re saying that the problem is, we’re not adding enough housing to existing neighborhoods, and if we would only get rid of zoning regulations, everything would be fine, you need to have proof of that," he stated.

Condon points to Vancouver as a case study, noting that the city has not expanded its urban boundaries in decades. "All the housing that has gone into Vancouver has been essentially infill housing that has been accepted through changes in zoning ordinances," he said. Since the 1960s, Vancouver has tripled its housing units, but Condon argues that this has not resulted in affordability.

He warns that simply removing zoning restrictions to allow for more high-rise buildings will not solve the problem. In his upcoming book, "Broken City," Condon explains that the issue lies not in the buildings themselves but in the land beneath them. He notes that allowing for greater density significantly increases land values, which does not necessarily translate to affordable housing.

"If you go from allowing a one-storey building to allowing a 10-storey building, you get a 1,000-percent increase in the price of the land," he said. Condon emphasizes that the increase in land values from up-zoning does not benefit municipalities but rather enriches land speculators.

He distinguishes between developers and land speculators, stating, "The developer is the good guy. They build a building. The building has social value. What doesn’t appear to have social value is the land, and the speculation part of it, which is preventing us from adjudicating land rights to the benefit of the community."

Condon also highlights the economic implications of the current real estate market, noting that real estate constitutes about 25 percent of Canada's gross domestic product, which he believes is excessively high. He points out that the market's focus on housing as an investment rather than as homes has distorted land prices, making it difficult for developers to create affordable housing.

He concludes that the current approach of giving away land rights in hopes of achieving affordability is misguided. Instead, he advocates for a model that insists on affordability when granting land rights.