Eskilstuna is a city of 70,000 people an hour west of Stockholm, Sweden. Like many cities, Eskilstuna had high demand for rental housing. Instead of building urban sprawl, a different housing project took place through a renovated soccer stadium. Tunavallen is a 7,800 seat soccer stadium which hosts two professional regional soccer teams, and four 15 storey apartment buildings. Built like a castle with a tower on each corner, this unique solution in 2008 added housing in a compact area, without taking over already built infrastructure. A unique solution for the housing issue in that city.
We are presently in the middle of a housing crisis in Canada, including the area where I live. A townhouse that before the pandemic rented for $585 a month plus utilities now rents for $1,650 – that is almost triple the cost in less than six years. And this is for a 1950s-built rental home that has seen few updates since its construction. A lot of different groups present a batch of reasons for the housing crisis – many of those reasons blame increased immigration to Canada in one way or another. The problem with all the finger pointing and blaming is that it’s great for 20 second sound bites, but it does not solve the issue. That is, we need more housing.
Even with the incentives put forth by federal and provincial governments, we are falling further behind in construction. Lofty goals of 1.5 million homes in the next 10 years, as Ontario PC Leader Doug Ford has proclaimed, might as well be 10 million homes, or 100 million homes. The simple fact is we can’t build enough to satisfy the market demand. A past column floated the theory that the construction industry and governments don’t want to really solve the problem, because artificially-inflated housing prices benefit a certain group of people. By building just enough homes to look like you are addressing the issue, politicians are the heroes, developers are saints, and some people get new, over-priced homes to rent or buy. No one is really serious about solving these problems. One example is the municipality that I live in.
Last year, after much reflective thought, our local council decided to start the process of adding development charges. Being one of the few townships in the region without these charges gave us a competitive edge. Politicians and staff have bought the Kool-Aid that “growth pays for growth” and are adding these charges. A development charge is essentially a tax on growth, which is used to pay for things in the future. One neighbour used their development charges to pay for a new fire truck to serve its expanded community. Not a bad idea, but following the mantra of growth paying for growth is like a greyhound following the lure at a racetrack: you’ll never catch it. Not when the cards are stacked against you by the province.
Provincial funding to municipalities does not cover what services the province expects or demands municipalities to deliver. Through downloading by stealth, 30-plus years of Ontario governments have pushed some responsibilities on to municipalities. Those same provincial governments have not funded those downloads properly, and so the municipal tax burden is shuffled on to municipal taxpayers.
While Premiers like Ford send out $200 cheques after Christmas, municipal councils increase property taxes by hefty amounts. There may only be one taxpayer in the end. Each level of government forgets the other levels exist when it is time to lift money from your wallet.
If development charges are a tax on growth, and we need more homes to meet demand, and not all parties involved are set on actually addressing the issue – what do we do? Think outside of the box.
Now back to Eskilstuna, Sweden. That city and its football club owners took a risk to build something different when renovating the stadium. They took the corner areas of the stands, which are always the worse sight lines in a sports arena, and put up apartment buildings. In total, 232 apartments were built by re-purposing sub-optimal space. Looking around, where could we do things that are different to create housing here in our communities?
Our southerly neighbours are converting some abandoned indoor shopping malls into new urban communities. That principle is being applied to some urban office towers in Canada, converting those into residential space. Another idea, which would fit many smaller communities is the concept of air-rights – or building over something that already exists. In areas like retail plazas, paradise was already paved to put up a parking lot, why not build housing over top of it. Parked vehicles do not need to be in the sun, or take up prime real estate that could be used for something else. Move, bury, or cover the parking areas and build something that is truly needed, housing.
Big ideas solve big problems. Some of the greatest projects ever built started with a big idea and a question – why don’t we do this? What is offered now: incentives, tax breaks, and development charges are not working at the rate needed – it’s time to change it up.
This column was originally published in the February 12, 2025 print edition of the Morrisburg Leader.
Discover more from Wandering with Phil
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.