Operationalizing the Carney Housing Strategy (May 15, 2025)
The devil is in the details....
Vlog Overview
"Parks and Like Icebergs" is an exploration of various aspects related to municipal parks, including urban parks planning and subsequent park service operationalization. Aspects discussed include policy, strategic planning, park system planning in area plans, park land acquisition through purchase or subdivision, zoning, plans of subdivision, engineering drawings, servicing agreements, and construction approval processes. What you see on the ground is based on a multi-phased multi-year with multiple social actors based on legislation, policy and practices that are largely unseen nor understood.
The vlog marries my extensive municipal planning experience (32+ yrs), including 29+ years as a parks practitioner years, with a PhD in parks planning decision-making using institutional theory in Edmonton Albertan in park land decision-making. In addition, I have created and taught four, three credit courses, in municipal parks planning at the University of Alberta in their urban planning program to fourth year and graduate urban planning students. The University urban planning program has been accredited by the Canadian Institute of Planners. See my “about” section that describes in more detail my lens (including biases) shaped by my education, background and experiences. I am available as a teacher, guest speaker, coach, consultant, keynote speaker, etc.
The vlog's intended audience include elected officials, planning professionals, landscape architects, consultants, community engagement practitioners, recreationists, academics, community NGOs, and individual and group planning process social actors. I also have a Phd, in sarcasm, use self deprecating humour, storytelling, with lots of adjectives and adverbs. Parkies (like me) gotta’ have fun.
Todays Ice Sculpture: Operationalizing the Carney Housing Strategy
A housing strategy proposed by the federal government in the last federal election is welcome news. The goal of the assertive re-intervention (500,000 units per year) into the housing market is either “more” housing, “affordable” housing, and/or more affordable housing.
Operationalizing the plan to get housing in the ground is a mammoth task, spread across three levels of government. Each have their own legislative, policy and process requirements not to mention political philosophies and rivalries that must be addressed to get housing sites “shovel ready” for development. Those processes by there are nature complex, ordered, integrated and time consuming involving multiple state and non-state social actors with different levels of power and agency. Expedited development processes will be a challenge, but should not deter planners from taking measured risks (i.e., we are “Buffalos”). Understanding the complexity of those processes is the subject of this vlog.
Housing Facility Proposal
A starting point is the actual physical elements of the housing concept, both writ large and for each site. In otherwords, how many units, what size, format (i.e., single family, multi families including studios, one bedroom, 2 bedroom, etc.), number of storeys/densities, tenure (i.e., owned, vs rental units), non-traditional development (i.e., co-op housing), use of non-traditional housing construction approaches (i.e., pre-fab). Are there architectural standards (i.e., one or two case stairs, finishings) or environmental development standards (i.e., net zero) to be required? What exactly is being proposed?
High Level Governance
Housing approvals in neighbourhoods occurs by the local municipal government. Municipal government receives 8-10% of the total tax burden. As such, financially municipalities have the least flexibility to pivot to take advantage of a desired accelerated housing development program. Municipal governments must have access to multiple professionals in review processes (e.g., planners, engineers, ecologists, protective services, etc.)
Municipalities are the creatures of Provincial legislation. While there are similarities between Provinces, each has their own planning legislation. As such a national housing program must navigate each separately. Moreover, political philosophies vary between provinces which will complicate how funding agreements are negotiated. Housing by its nature is highly political.
A special purpose federal housing program coordinating and implementation office has yet to be stood up. Nor is there clarity on its parameters, how it will work with provinces and local municipalities. Consequently, the details of how it will all work are not clear at this time.
Local Atmospherics
Every community has a local cultural setting that includes provincial and municipal governments but also civil society in multiple areas including developers, community NGOs and community volunteers. In Edmonton, there are not-for-profit housing organizations targeting low income, special need and indigenous peoples, as well as co-op housing developments. These groups should be part of a dialogue in the development of a local comprehensive action plan in a particular area. Moreover, they may have or provide partnership opportunities to leverage federal and provincial governments.
Mid to large sized municipalities in Canada are transitioning from low density car orientated development concepts, into higher density transit orientated development. This will have an impact on the housing format being proposed.
Provision of more housing does not automatically result in provision of affordable housing, but it does help. More affordable housing is not the same as affordable housing. The financialization of the housing sector facilitated by settler colonial legislation has made housing unaffordable. Strategies to encourage banks to fund these developments differently should be explored. (Know any bank of Canada govenors who could advise?) However, with no rent or price controls, housing prices will likely rise and may turn some of the units into investment vehicles, not simply homes.
Indigenous Considerations
Indigenous peoples emphasizes a deep connection with the land, a holistic view of the land, and a focus on community and relationships. Land was not “owned” by our First Nations peoples. Each proposed development will be constructed on dispossessed lands “acquired” through settler colonial legislation, policies and processes which privilege some (i.e., landowners) over others. Indigenous scholars have attributed such legislation as creating racialized landscapes.
Shovel Ready Housing
A shovel ready housing site requires the following.
· An area plan/official plan that supports housing based on multiple planning studies. These studies include transportation impact assessments and strategies, sewer and water servicing assessments and strategies, geotechnical studies, natural area assessment studies, park impact studies, cultural/heritage assessments, etc.
· Land subdivisions consistent with the area plan has been completed and land parcels registered creating the housing site.
· The site is zoned consistent with proposed housing development and the area plan and plan of subdivision.
· The site is unencumbered: free of contaminants and any previous constructed materials or natural elements (i.e., housing, basements, utilities, parking lots, trees, organic materials).
· The site has both legal access with roadway access and is fully and adequately serviced including sanitary and storm sewers, power, gas, internet lines. Hard and soft landscaping must meet local construction and servicing standards, which may vary by municipality.
· Housing construction standards must meet national and/or provincial building codes.
The above are all subject to and confirmed by multiple planning processes, some of which require city council approvals, public notice and public hearings (area plans, zoning) as well as administrative review and approval processes. The site-specific considerations in these processes will be different in: already developed areas; in already approved area plans but not yet fully developed, and; development of a proposed new area plans in peri-urban areas with no housing approved anywhere. For the purposes of this discussion, I refer to this as the legacy development process. The integrated and connected nature of these processes should not be underestimated in terms of content and time to resolve.
All planning applications are reviewed and approved by internal staff in both planning and operational service areas. Often, these reviews are funded by the development proponent when making planning applications. If fees are waived or reduced, an alternative funding source would be required, otherwise staff would not be available.
The legacy development process in each municipality will vary by municipality in terms of roles and responsibilities. That legacy process can be modified but would have to be modified/integrated to the proposed housing development process in some way. The federal program should explore and understand the downstream impact for the local municipality if that legacy process is disrupted, even on a one-time basis.
Land availability for housing obviously a given but should not be skipped over too quickly. Settler colonial legislation provides privately owned landowners with rights that currently does not recognize housing as a human right, which may or may not be problematic. The opportunity to access provincial or federal lands either as housing sites, or to be used for dollar-for-dollar trade to offset private land purchases should be explored. Loss of municipal parklands should be offset with purchase of other lands to replace the loss of tree canopy, ecological goods and services, and to mute the impact of urban heat islands.
Facility Operational Considerations for Low Income or Special Need Populations
Housing for low-income populations may require rent supports. Low-income housing has generally been stigmatized and may not be welcomed in every neighborhood. The same may true for special need population housing (i.e., disabled, addictions, mental health), and additionally will require wrap around services funded on an on-going basis, negotiated before a shovel is lifted. Provision of wrap around services may include social workers, health professionals, protective services, personal care attendants, etc. Seniors housing may include stand-alone housing units for self-sufficient seniors, assisted living units and long-term care facilities. The latter two categories require wrap around professional health services that comes at a significant cost.
Complete Communities
Vibrant communities require access to affordable housing and infrastructure of all kinds including parks, trees, natural areas, schools, libraries, employment areas, transit, commercial areas roadways and utilities. Expenditures for housing must also consider the broad needs of the local community and the city.
Neighbourhood Impact
The outcomes of these processes will physically and sociologically change the lived experience of neighbourhoods. The impact will depend on the form chosen, density, the populations served, loss of tree canopy, sun and shade impacts, as well as traffic and parking impacts. Increased density, the loss of tree canopy and permeable surfaces will increase the urban heat island effect. In addition to housing benefits, parks and park services may be better utilized and/or overwhelmed/damaged, commercial entities will benefit, may warrant more transit service, and school population may increase. The success or failure of this is dependent on the specific development, the neighbourhood setting, and the inclusivity of the planning process.
My Take
The return of the federal government into the municipal housing space is much needed, appreciated, and should be enthusiastically supported. However, implementation is very much like a puzzle where various pieces must fit together, in the appropriate sequence. I would suggest that political leaders and administrators under promise and over deliver on both the product and the timelines, thinking about the positive and negative lived experience of the impacted neighbourhoods before and after housing is developed.
My personal view is that a large proportion of this program should prioritize public sector non-market housing across a city, and allow the private sector to build market priced housing. Some of this housing should be targeted to indigenous populations, homeless populations and military and first responder populations.
May 16 Addendum (or Oops I meant to include)
A fee more specific red flags are summarized here, because they could materially negatively effect either new housing residents or the local planning administration or municipal taxpayers.
Red Tape Reduction. Its not clear what (data) studies or approval processes can be be truncated, reduced, or eliminated in order to reduce costs and/or expedite approvals. Examples include transportation impact studies, utility servicing studies, geotechnical analysis, cultural heritage studies, ecological studies, environmental impact analysis, etc. The impact of the loss of one or more of these studies vary, but may result in increased downstream costs (e.g., flooded basements, roadway expansions, loss of indigenous heritages, loss of public park space) ultimately transferred to municipal taxpayers. Are public engagement and indigenous engagement processes to be truncated, reduced or eliminated? Reduced public engagement may become divisive in the community, and result in a lack of confidence in local government. New red tape has already been introduced in Alberta where any and all agreements with the federal government, housing or otherwise, must be approved by the Province of Alberta, who can also override municipal support for a project. This adds unnecessary uncertainty and can slow the initiative.
Reduced Fees. It is common for the cost of new development to be borne by the proponents in the form of planning application fees (i.e., area plans, zoning, plans of subdivision, engineering drawings and servicing agreements). Inspection fees are also funded by proponents, and may be subject to reduction. Reduced fees will result in reduced staffing levels at a time when faster service is required, or municipal governments will have to reduce services elsewhere. To maintain or expedite review and approval services, the local taxes may have to rise.
Reduced Standards. To reduce costs, there may be pressure to reduce municipal servicing standards and/or infrastructure construction standards to housing sites. Municipal infrastructure is typically designed to a standard that reduces long term maintenance costs (i.e., soils, road beds, etc). Standard reductions will result in faster infrastructure deterioration and earlier or more frequent replacement paid by taxpayers.
All of the above can be resolved, but I fear will either slow down housing construction, or transfer costs from housing developers to local taxpayers beyond what already occurs.
