HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2023-160 - Enabling Missing Middle and Affordable HousingStaff Report
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee
DATE OF MEETING: April 24, 2023
SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Director, Planning Division, 519-741-2200
ext. 7070
PREPARED BY: Tim Donegani, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7062
WARD(S) INVOLVED: All Wards
DATE OF REPORT: April 13, 2023
REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-160
SUBJECT: Enabling Missing Middle and Affordable Housing
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Enabling Missing Middle and Affordable Housing Feasibility Study be used
to inform the Growing Together project for planning in Major Transit Station Areas
and future updates to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law; and,
That the Enabling Missing Middle and Affordable Housing Feasibility Study be used
to inform continuous improvement of development services processes; and further,
That Staff be directed to further consider financial incentives for missing middle and
affordable housing and report back to Council on next steps once additional
information on Bill 23 regarding affordable and attainable housing is made available.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• The purpose of this report is to share the findings of the Enabling Missing Middle and
Affordable Housing Feasibility Study, which was funded by Provincial Streamline
Development Approval funding, and outline next steps.
• The key finding of this report is that Kitchener is grappling with the challenges and
opportunities associated with the delivery of missing middle and affordable housing.
Kitchener is already a leader in this regard through its flexible and up to date zoning
framework, continuous process improvements and financial incentives for affordable
housing. Kitchener is uniquely positioned to further support this type of growth based
on current demographic conditions, land availability, development feasibility conditions
and a common desire to make it happen among both the public and private sector. The
Study provides four key recommendations to advance these objectives in priority order:
o reduce parking requirements;
o increase density allowances;
o provide financial supports; and
o continue process improvements.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 42 of 601
• There are no financial implications of this report.
Engagement was focused on City and Regional staff, development industry and non-
profit housing stakeholders.
This report supports A Vibrant Economy, A Caring Community and the delivery of core
services.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
While the city has experienced a record breaking pace of new housing starts over the last
several years, Kitchener, like many other communities, is faced with significant housing
supply crisis and housing affordability issues. The Enabling Missing Middle and Affordable
Housing study looks at ways to improve housing affordability, provide more diversity in the
housing types being built, and increase overall housing supply — especially in missing middle
housing typologies.
Single detached dwellings and high-rise condominium apartment towers tend to have the
best financial returns and therefore represent a large share of what has been built in recent
years. This also helps explains why the missing middle forms are underrepresented.
Enabling missing middle housing can broaden housing choice within neighbourhoods, foster
complete and vibrant communities, and make efficient use of existing infrastructure.
While many of the market and policy drivers of housing development are outside of the City's
control, the City has significant opportunities to enable the development of more missing
middle and affordable housing types. The City's existing initiatives such as streamlining the
development approvals process, relatively progressive zoning by-law and financial
incentives for affordable housing all help, but the study recommends that Kitchener has
opportunities to go further. It recommends that Kitchener act quickly, boldly and with clarity
to address the drivers of housing crisis that are within Kitchener's sphere of influence.
The study recommends four incentives, financial and non-financial, that are within the city's
control, to enable more missing middle and affordable housing. In order of priority, these
are:
• reduce parking requirements;
• increase height and density permissions;
• provide financial incentives; and
• process improvements.
Staff are generally supportive of the land use planning directions (i.e., reduced parking and
increased height and density) and propose to consider them through the Growing Together
project that will update the planning framework in Major Transit Station Areas later this year,
and through the next Official Plan review. Process improvements will be implemented
through continuous improvement and recommended financial incentives will be
addressed in a future report to Council once additional information on Bill 23
regarding affordable and attainable housing is made available.
BACKGROUND:
The City's strategic plan, Official Plan, and Housing for All Strategy recognize the
importance of using a broad range of tools to advance critical housing affordability
objectives. Through report DSD -20-2014 council approved Housing for All which guides the
Page 43 of 601
city's actions and investments to address local housing challenges. Three of its goals that
are most relevant to this work include:
• Help secure community, affordable rental and affordable ownership housing
• Align policies, processes & use of city land to facilitate more affordable housing
• Fill data gaps and establish monitoring and accountability mechanisms.
The Enabling Missing Middle and Affordable Housing Feasibility Study (MM+AH Study)
(Attachment A) was prepared not only to advance work on Kitchener's Housing for All
Strategy but also to inform Growing Together, Kitchener's project that will update land use,
zoning and built form guidelines in the Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs) west of the
expressway; and to inform Kitchener's next Official Plan review. The MM+AH Study was
facilitated through and supported by Provincial Streamline Development Approval funding.
This report is one of a series of staff reports to be presented to Council for consideration in
2023-2024+ which focus on housing related studies and initiatives. The graphic below
depicts the planned updates for Council in the next 12 months.
Municipal Housing Bill 13, Bill 23, 6,11109 Shared Accommodations Evictions & Displacement
Pledge Implementation Plan By-law (incl. Lodging House) Toolkit Implementation
Lower Doon Land Use Rental Replacement By law
Study Implementation Implementation
Missing Middle and Eviction & Displacement Eviction & Displacement
Affordable Housing Study Webpage & Online Toolkit Options
Update Reporting Update
Rental Replacement By-law
Inclusionary Zoning Information Report
Direction
Growing Together
Implementation
Inclusionary Zoning
Implementation
On March 20, 2023 through report DSD -2023-063 council supported Kitchener's Municipal
Housing Pledge that includes 11 strategies and actions to support the building of 35,000
more homes by 2031. The MM+AH Study advances work on the following strategies and
actions from Kitchener's Municipal Housing Pledge:
• Item 1 - Updates to Kitchener's Official Plan and Zoning By-law to further enable an
increased supply of missing middle housing.
• Item 5 - Continued advancement of work on updates to land use and zoning within
Major Transit Station Areas.
• Item 7 - Continued work to implement the recommendations and action items from
Kitchener's Housing for All Strategy, specifically including those that enable an
increased housing supply or streamlining development approvals.
The MM+AH Study also aligns and acts on direction from Regional Official Plan amendment
number 6 (ROPA 6). This amendment was approved by Regional Council in August 2022
Page 44 of 601
and by the province on April 11, 2023. ROPA 6 includes polices that seek to increase
housing choice and support the construction of a range and mix of housing, including
affordable and `missing middle' housing. It defines missing middle housing as "Multiple unit
housing including, but not limited to multiplexes, stacked townhouses, apartments, and other
low-rise housing options."
REPORT:
Problem Statement:
Kitchener has seen strong residential growth (Attachment B: Card 6 Growth 4- ) in the last
several years especially in high rise apartments and single detached dwellings (although
the latter has been decreasing in recent years). However, development of missing middle
forms has been limited (Attachment B, Card 8 Housing fief ). Missing middle forms can add
more affordable market housing and increase housing diversity. The market, alongside
existing government funding programs, is not delivering enough affordable housing to meet
community needs (Attachment B, Cards 1, 5, 10 Housing AN). As part of the Province's
Streamline Development Approval Funding, the City retained a consulting team to explore
the key market, policy, regulatory and process barriers to delivering the full range of housing
types, including missing middle and affordable housing. The consultants' MM+AH Study
provides recommendations to advance the objectives of improving housing diversity,
affordability and overall supply.
Defining Affordable and Missing Middle
"MISSING MIDDLE"
C1 C2 C3
c U r.]
R—h—
Si ked T—,ifPleves
I
S i Dc hid
-
.I ��I.n
E m -k W U.ck ivn^ s
Sl;�ck.; J [� l ire Sack T.,."
Fou+Al
L•5ilawn, Fn.. c..^z
Inil l_w
CRhar MuM-p'- --{c&un�9
Y.1, f? INf ! IM F .7ASSWa RARE'
-)2 I L
`45Y'n%'AP. m "-49SdowjApan a I r@5:o-... yA;a�nu
HFGH DENSITY
The MM+AH Study defines missing middle housing as including all vertically and horizontally
integrated forms of housing in a medium -density format, for example, traditional townhouses
(i.e., street fronting and cluster townhouses), new format townhouses (stacked and infill
townhouses) and multiplexes (low-rise and mid -rise apartments). Missing middle housing
has the benefits of:
• increasing housing options in existing neighbourhoods that supports suitable housing
options throughout a person or family's life;
• making efficient use of existing infrastructure (Attachment B, Card 3 Development
); and
• providing gentle density for neighbourhoods that are losing population.
Missing middle can support affordability but is not necessarily affordable housing.
The MM+AH Study uses the shared Provincial Policy Statement, Regional and City
definition of affordable based on the lesser of average market rents and prices, or the
housing that low and moderate income households can afford by spending 30% of their
income on housing.
Page 45 of 601
In 2021, ownership housing costing less than $385,500 and rental housing costing less
than $1,307/month were considered affordable.
Affordable housing can be market or subsidized, rental or ownership and in any kind of
building.
Housing trends:
The MM+AH Study considered Kitchener's existing housing trends. Key takeaways include:
• 36% of renters and 23% of owners spend more than 30% of their income on housing
• 8% of total households in Kitchener are in unsuitable (overcrowded) housing
• Housing prices have increased rapidly over the past 10 years and dropped somewhat
in the last year (Attachment B, Card 6 Housing Aft). Ownership housing affordability
has declined despite this price drop due to rising interest rates.
• Kitchener's rental housing supply has increased over the past eight years
• Rented condominium units have been responsible for a progressively larger portion
of that growth as compared to purpose-built rental. Interest in primary rental
development is strong, nevertheless.
• Southwest Kitchener has accommodated half of the city's new housing since 2016,
primarily through low density greenfield development.
• Only 6% of growth since 2016 was in central Kitchener
• There has been a significant increase in the number of new Additional Dwelling Units
(ADUs) in the last several years, primarily in the form of attached dwelling units (i.e.,
duplexes). 12% of new units in 2021 were in the form of ADUs. Most of these ADUs
are in suburban areas.
Missing middle forms and opportunity
The MM+AH Study included architectural demonstration plans for four missing middle
typologies including infill new format townhouses, multi-plexes, low rise apartments and mid -
rise housing typologies to better understand their key design attributes, financial and policy
barriers and opportunities.
There is significant capacity for missing middle housing. The MM+AH Study identified
approximately 24,300 sites across Kitchener that could accommodate these missing middle
types. If just 2% of these properties where redeveloped in this way, 20% of the city's
forecasted new residents by 2051 could be accommodated in missing middle housing.
Page 46 of 601
WIn6
�= °1k*
.R
. +�,,
■
too * � �
■ .,r � f
pol
Low-Rise
Mid-Rise
• r.
� R
- . .. + ,4L a f, of
Jk
Financial Feasibility
A key element of the MM+AH Study was to help describe the drivers of recent development
patterns. Professional Land Economics at Parcel used a discounted cash flow model to test
the financial viability of the full range of prototypical housing typologies (single detached to
high rise) and the implications of ownership versus rental tenure and suburban versus
central locations. There are notable barriers to entry for MM+AH projects, which are
inherently less financially feasible when compared to more prevalent housing types.
• A convergence of growth pressures, housing demand, rising property and land
values, construction cost escalation, increasing interest rates all challenge the
development of MM+AH. The delivery of MM+AH has lagged demand, largely
because of poor market performance and financial feasibility.
• Many missing middle forms are challenged by their poor financial attractiveness
relative to other housing typologies and other possible lower -risk investment
opportunities (i.e. 10 -year government bonds);
• Rental tenures consistently underperform ownership. The analysis shows 5 profitable
rental typologies (i.e., Suburban Towns, 8-Plex, Low -Rise in both the Central and
Suburban neighbourhoods, and ADUs). However, all but the ADUs generated too
small a profit to be viable.
• The economics of providing three-bedroom units in high rise buildings is challenging
and can be more costly than building in grade related units. Requiring 10% of units
in a prototypical high rise building that would otherwise only include 1-2 bedroom
units typically reduces both the total number of units and revenue by 6% and reduces
developer profit by a quarter.
• Adding affordable units negatively affects the financial viability of all typologies, but
high-rise apartments have the greatest financial capacity to absorb affordable
housing requirements while maintaining profitability.
Page 47 of 601
Parking costs are extremely impactful on development viability. Structured parking
costs between $50,000 and $95,000 per spot, typically 5-11 % of total costs of a mid -
or high-rise building. The maximum estimated 10 -year parking gross revenue per
spot when rented separately is just $18,000.
MM+AH Study Recommendations
There are many factors that directly impact housing development trends, only some of which
can be influenced by the City. In consideration of the housing trends, study objectives and
opportunities, the MM+AH Study recommends that decision making and prioritization of
actions should value:
• Flexibility
• Collaboration
• Sustainability, and
• Outcome -driven approaches
The recommended short list of incentives, both financial and non-financial are
provided in priority order of impact.
1. PARKING REDUCTIONS are an extremely impactful incentive to encourage the
development of MM+AH. The MM+AH Study recommends that the City take immediate
strides to modernize parking standards to be more in-line with continued shifts in consumer
/ lifestyle preferences, consistent with the demonstration concepts identified in this study
(note the demonstration concepts generally include less parking than would be required by
the zoning by-law and instead reflect potential market demand for parking for missing middle
or affordable housing). This could be most impactful in areas where existing and/or planned
transit infrastructure is available.
Staff intend to use the study findings to inform recommended parking requirements within
Major Transit Station Areas to be established through the Growing Together project which
is scheduled for council's consideration by the end of 2023. City-wide changes of parking
requirements will be considered as part of the next review of the Official Plan and
implementing zoning by-law, currently expected to commence in 2024.
2. DENSITY/HEIGHT ALLOWANCES — In many cases, increasing density and/or
height can be extremely helpful in enabling projects to achieve other city -building objectives
— including affordable housing delivery. The MM+AH Study recommends:
• Allowing more diverse housing typologies in existing low rise neighbourhoods
including multiplexes and low-rise apartments
• Amending as -of -right zoning permissions by increasing floor space ratio and height
limits for low-rise (e.g. up to six storeys) and mid -rise (e.g. 7-12 storey) built forms
• Additional density permissions in high-rise built forms) to enable affordable housing
delivery
Relaxing or elimination of policies and regulations that inhibit delivery of MM+AH (e.g.
requiring on-site truck turnarounds)
Staff intend to use the findings of the study to inform planning policies and regulations within
Major Transit Station Areas via the Growing Together project. City-wide considerations will
occur as part of the next review of the Official Plan and implementing zoning by-law.
Page 48 of 601
3. FINANCIAL SUPPORTS — Providing appropriate financial incentives can support
developers in providing MM+AH that is not occurring otherwise. Bill 23 recently introduced
mandatory financial incentives for non-profit, affordable, and attainable housing as well as
the development of up to two additional dwelling units per lot. These kinds of projects will
not pay development charges (DCs), parkland dedication or community benefits charges
(CBCs). The MM+AH Study recommends that the City consider going above and beyond
these new mandates by introducing additional financial relief to drive more affordable
housing and specific missing middle typologies that offer the greatest opportunity for change
(i.e., Plexes and Low -Rise typologies). The two financial incentives recommended to
optimize delivery of MM+AH units for a given city investment are:
• Exempting applicable development from taxes during development or beyond
• Rebating or waiving DCs and other city fees for applicable MM+AH projects
Financial incentives to for-profit corporations could be provided within a Community
Improvement Plan program or Municipal Capital Facility Agreements.
Through the 2022 budget process, as part of the implementation of the Housing for All
Strategy, Council established a program and $2 million reserve fund contribution to offset
the (DCs) for affordable rental housing provided by non -profits. Since the adoption of the
Housing For All Strategy, the City has supported the creation of 128 units of supportive
housing through a mix of financial support, fee waivers, city land and expedited approvals.
Further there is approximately an additional 115 units of supportive housing confirmed in
the development queue that staff will also support in collaboration with community partners
and the Region of Waterloo (data based on report COR -2022-104 from February 2022). In
November 2022, Bill 23 amended the Development Charges Act to exempt non-profit
housing from DCs, and the affordable housing reserve is no longer required to offset non-
profits' DCs. The reserve currently has a $1.2m uncommitted balance that could be allocated
to other financial supports for affordable housing.
Bill 23 also introduced DC exemptions for affordable and attainable housing provided by the
private sector. These provisions are not yet in effect and await provincial regulations to
define affordable and attainable housing. Uncertainty remains regarding the scale of DC
exemptions that must be provided and the resulting impacts on city finances.
Given the uncertainty around Bill 23 implications for affordable and attainable housing, and
the possibility of using Community Benefits Charges to fund affordable housing initiatives, a
future report to council will be prepared that considers:
• the recommended financial incentives in this study;
• the future uses for the affordable housing reserve;
• coordination with regional incentives; and
• budget implications and legal mechanisms for incentives (i.e. A Community
Improvement Plan or Municipal Capital Facilities Agreements).
The timing of the report back to Council on these matters is dependent on the timing of
additional information provided on Bill 23 as outlined above.
4. PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS — Although generally least impactful of the four
shortlisted incentives to MM+AH development feasibility, reducing delays and improving
speed -to -market can be beneficial to all parties. In recent years the City has prioritized
continuous improvements as demonstrated with the Development Services Review in 2019.
Page 49 of 601
This resulted in the creation of a customer -informed workplan that included 18 lean
improvement projects involving over 111 staff. Since that time, several streamlining projects
have been initiated with the support of provincial funding along with a reorganization of the
Planning Division to include two Project Managers who support affordable housing and
purpose-built rental projects. The MM+AH Study recommends that the City continue to build
upon recent streamlining projects by continuing to enable a more expeditious path to
building permit issuance. Study recommendations include:
• Simplify and reduce mandatory study requirements for affordable housing projects
• Delegate, where appropriate and legislatively authorized, more approvals to staff
including more heritage permits and lifting of holding provisions
• Build upon and formalize the City's' existing affordable housing concierge function,
delivered by the Project Managers, to reduce approval time for MM+AH
• Reduce and focus public meeting requirements
• Consider template -based approval systems
As part of Kitchener's Municipal Housing Pledge, Kitchener committed to continuous
improvement of development review processes to expedite approvals and reduce costs
where appropriate.
In addition to the four recommendations about the study recommend that the City solidify its
vision and appetite for change in the realm of missing middle and affordable housing,
including alignment of that vision with Regional priorities. This includes
a) Confirming & Publicizing Growth Targets
b) Deepening Regional Partnership
C) Educating and Galvanizing the Public at -Large
d) Building Capacity of Industry Players
e) Deepening Industry Relationships
In order to make quick and meaningful progress on enabling MM+AH the study
recommends:
1. Take Action — Leverage Growing Together and the Official Plan review to move
quickly on key recommendations related to height, density, and parking
2. Make it Happen — It is time for bold action, as -of -right permissions are important
3. Provide Clarity — Clarify operating definitions of missing middle and affordable
housing
4. Educate — help develop consensus on building more missing middle and affordable
housing to improve efficiency in delivery. Help encourage new and established
developers to invest in these typologies
5. Establish Replicability — establish a templated approval system for desirable
housing forms
6. Identify Funding Sources — Prioritize MM+AH housing delivery relative to other
priorities. A joint effort between developers, housing providers and all levels of
government will be required
7. Monitor and Refresh - continuously re-evaluate incentives around the delivery of
MM+AH considering the rapidly evolving market and policy environment
Page 50 of 601
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports A Vibrant Economy, A Caring Community and the delivery of core
services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Budget — This work was completed with existing resources and approved budgets.
Consultant costs were 100% covered by the Provincial Streamline Development Approvals
Funding.
Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget.
Future implementation of financial and non-financial incentives as well as process, policy
and regulatory revisions and any impacts on capital and operating implications will be
detailed in future reports to Council.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of
the council / committee meeting.
CONSULT — Through the preparation of the study, the consultants interviewed several
development industry stakeholders, non-profit housing providers and a broad range of city
and regional staff that support city building and affordable housing. Staff discussed initial
report findings with the Kitchener Development Liaison Committee on March 17 and April
21, 2023. Broad community engagement will be planned and executed through
implementation of the recommendations as appropriate.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
• DSD -20-214 Housing for All — City of Kitchener Housing Strategy
• DSD -2023-063 City of Kitchener Municipal Housing Pledge
• FIN -2022-155 Streamlined Development Approvals Fund (SDAF)
REVIEWED BY: Adam Clark, Senior Urban Designer (Architecture & Urban Form)
Natalie Goss, Manager, Policy & Research
Ryan Hagey, Director, Financial Planning and Reporting
Jonathan Lautenbach, Chief Financial Officer
APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager Development Services Department
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing Feasibility Study
Attachment B — Growing Together Card Deck
Page 51 of 601
Enabling Missing Middle &
Affordable Housing
Feasibility Study
April 11, 2023
1
KjTc�.N�.R
PREPARED FOR:
The Corporation of the City of Kitchener
200 King Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, N2G 4V6
PREPARED BY:
Parcel Economics Inc.
info@parceleconomics.com
416-869-8264
In cooperation with:
Smart Density
-and-
StrategyCorp Inc.
April 11, 2023
2022-0067
This document is available in alternative formats upon request.
Cover Image: Smart Density
Page 53 of 601
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
1.0
Introduction...................................................................................................................................................
1
1.1 Background...........................................................................................................................................2
1.2 Study Parameters.................................................................................................................................
6
1.3 Assumptions & Limitations................................................................................................................
15
2.0
Existing Conditions....................................................................................................................................
19
2.1 Market Context...................................................................................................................................
20
2.2 Stakeholder Perceptions...................................................................................................................
37
2.3 Incentives & Best Practices................................................................................................................46
3.0
Design Prototypes......................................................................................................................................52
3.1 Overview.............................................................................................................................................
53
3.2 Development Concept Profiles........................................................................................................55
3.3 Scope of Missing Middle Opportunity............................................................................................65
4.0
Financial Feasibility....................................................................................................................................74
4.1 The Basics............................................................................................................................................
75
4.2 Baseline Analysis................................................................................................................................80
4.3 Sensitivity Analysis..............................................................................................................................
87
5.0
Solutions & Implementation......................................................................................................................99
5.1 Context..............................................................................................................................................100
Success Factors: Missing Middle & Affordable Housing.............................................................................103
5.2 Recommendations...........................................................................................................................109
5.3 Guiding Principles Evaluation.........................................................................................................130
5.4 Mechanisms for Implementation....................................................................................................134
6.0
Summary & Next Steps............................................................................................................................144
6.1 Key Takeaways..................................................................................................................................145
6.2 Next Steps.........................................................................................................................................149
Page 54 of 601
Appendix A:
Glossary of Terms..........................................................................
Appendix B:
CMHC Neighbourhood Profiles..................................................
Appendix C:
Incentives Best Practices Review.................................................
Appendix D:
Financial Analysis Background....................................................
Appendix E:
Fiscal Impact of Financial Incentives............................................
Page 55 of 601
Table of Figures
Figure 1.1 The "Perfect Storm" of Factors Influencing Housing Development Trends...............................3
Figure 1.2 The Complete Spectrum of Housing Typologies..........................................................................
9
Figure 1.3 The Complete Spectrum of Housing Typologies + "Missing Middle" Identification ..............
11
Figure 1.4 City of Kitchener Definitions of Housing Affordability................................................................
12
Figure 1.5 Housing Affordability in Kitchener by Income Percentile (2021) ..............................................
13
Figure 1.6 Comparison of Affordability Definitions to Market -Based Prices/Rents...................................
14
Figure 2.1 Kitchener CMHC Neighbourhood Zones + Estimated 2022 Population.................................21
Figure 2.2 Population Growth by Neighbourhood (2016 - 2021)..............................................................22
Figure 2.3 10 -year Population Growth / Decline by Census Tract...............................................................23
Figure 2.4 Average Household Income...........................................................................................................24
Figure 2.5 Kitchener Housing Stock (2021)....................................................................................................25
Figure 2.6 Census Dwellings by Neighbourhood (201 1 - 2021)................................................................26
Figure 2.7 Rental Units in Kitchener -Cambridge -Waterloo CMA................................................................27
Figure 2.8 Kitchener Units Owned by Investors (2020).................................................................................28
Figure 2.9 Households in Overcrowded Housing..........................................................................................29
Figure 2.10 Households Spending More Than 30% of Household Income on Housing ..........................30
Figure 2.11 10 -year Building Permit Heat Map..............................................................................................31
Figure 2.12 10 -year Building Permits by Type................................................................................................32
Figure 2.13 10-yearADU Building Permits.....................................................................................................33
Figure 2.14 Recent Development Land Sales.................................................................................................34
Figure 2.15 Actively Selling New Construction Projects (Summer 2022) ...................................................
35
Figure 2.16 Average Resale House Prices by Type........................................................................................36
Figure 2.17 Overlap of Preferred Stakeholder Outcomes............................................................................45
Figure 2.18 Summary of Incentive Types: Financial, Process & Policy........................................................47
Figure 2.19 Existing Missing Middle & Affordable Housing Incentives in Kitchener................................50
Figure 3.1 Residential Land Use Designations...............................................................................................
54
Figure 3.2 Residential Zoning Permissions.....................................................................................................
55
Figure 3.3 Visual Demonstration of Singles Concept(A)..............................................................................57
Figure 3.4 Visual Demonstration of ADU Concept(B)...................................................................................
58
Figure 3.5 Visual Demonstration of Traditional Towns Concept (C1) .........................................................
59
Figure 3.6 Visual Demonstration of New Format Towns Concept (C2) .......................................................60
Figure 3.7 Visual Demonstration of Plexes Concept (C3).............................................................................
61
Figure 3.8 Visual Demonstration of Low -Rise Concept(D1).........................................................................
62
Figure 3.9 Visual Demonstration of Mid -Rise Concept (D2) .........................................................................63
Page 56 of 601
Figure 3.10 Visual Demonstration of High-RiseConcept(E) ........................................................................64
Figure 3.11 Missing Middle Parcel Characteristics........................................................................................
66
Figure 3.12 Kitchener Missing Middle Parcels - Total Supply......................................................................67
Figure 3.13 Summary of Potential Market "Uptake" of Missing Middle Typologies ..................................
71
Figure 3.14 Current Zoning Designation of Potential Missing Middle Parcels ..........................................
72
Figure 4.1 The "Sweet Spot' for Successful Development Projects............................................................
75
Figure 4.2 Basic Structure of Financial Feasibility..........................................................................................
77
Figure 4.3 Pro Forma Use Cases......................................................................................................................
79
Figure 4.4 Potential Profit of Baseline Scenarios............................................................................................
81
Figure 4.5 IRR & EMx of Potentially Profitable Baseline Scenarios...............................................................82
Figure 4.6 Potential Cash -on -Cash Returns of Baseline Rental Scenarios ..................................................
84
Figure 4.7 Summary of Baseline Return Metrics by Typology......................................................................
85
Figure 4.8 New Construction Apartment and Stacked Townhouse Sales ($) .............................................
90
Figure 4.9 New Construction Apartment and Stacked Townhouse Sales ($PSF)......................................
90
Figure 4.10 Average Private and Condominium Apartment Rents.............................................................
91
Figure 4.11 Construction Cost Index...............................................................................................................95
Figure 4.12 Recent Interest Rate Increases Since January 2022..................................................................
96
Figure 5.1 Summary of Factors Impacting Housing Development............................................................103
Figure 5.2 Unravelling Complex Housing Supply Issueswith Multiple Incentive Tools .........................1
13
Figure 5.3 Identified "Shortlist" of Incentive Options for Testing...............................................................1
15
Figure 5.4 Summary of Incentives Evaluation - Impact on Financial and Feasibility Criteria .................128
Figure 5.5 Key Considerations for CIPs and MCFAs....................................................................................139
Figure D.1 Central vs. Suburban Neighbourhoods.....................................................................................174
Figure D.2 Scenarios Tested for Baseline Financial Feasibility..................................................................175
Figure D.3 Baseline Financial Feasibility Assumptions................................................................................176
Figure DA Baseline Financial Feasibility Analysis - All Typologies, Tenures & Locations ......................177
Figure E.1 Municipal Cost of Financial Incentives........................................................................................188
Page 57 of 601
Parcel
Acknowledgements
Project Consulting Team
The project consulting team responsible for completing this study included a diverse range of industry-leading
professionals offering expertise spanning the full breadth of land economics, land use planning, urban design /
architecture, as well as municipal strategy and policy implementation. Parcel Economics Inc. ("Parcel") has served as
the project lead for this study, with additional project support provided by senior members of Smart Density and
StrategyCorp.
Parcel
rroject Lead &
Land Economics
SMART
DENSITY
Planning, Urban Design
& Architecture
City of Kitchener Project Team
0341VOr
Policy &
Implementation
Our study process involved extensive collaboration with staff from both the City of Kitchener and Region of
Waterloo. Consisting of a core working group from the City's Development Services and Financial Services
departments, these additional personnel provided input, advice and direction from the following perspectives:
Land Use Planning & Policy; Urban Design & Architecture; Customer Experience & Project Management; Realty
Services; Financial Planning & Reporting; as well as Business Development.
Other Participants
Our detailed research program and "ground -testing" of study recommendations also involved engaging with a
range of stakeholders, including external industry participants active in the development of new market and non -
market housing in Kitchener. This involved soliciting feedback form a diverse group of for-profit developers, non-
profit housing organizations and other individuals familiar with the delivery / management of new -construction
ownership and rental residential uses.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study
Page 58 of 601
Parcel
Executive Summary
Conte-_�
The Study
• A multi -disciplinary project consulting team—led by Parcel in cooperation with partner firms Smart Density
and StrategyCorp—has been retained by the City of Kitchener to complete a study that evaluates and
develops recommendations relating to the key market, policy and regulatory solutions capable of
maximizing the provision of missing middle and affordable housing in the community.
• To this end, an extensive study program has been undertaken that included both qualitative and
quantitative research elements. This has involved a review of current real estate market conditions and the
factors affecting the delivery of this type of housing in Kitchener (or lack thereof), engaging with key private
and public sector stakeholders active in the local market, consideration of best practices from other
jurisdictions, as well as detailed testing of prototypical building designs for financial feasibility.
• A full spectrum of housing typologies has been identified, whereby "missing middle" formats include all
vertically and horizontally integrated housing in a medium -density format.
A B
Si,gls`Detached Garage Conversions
Semi -Detached Garden Suites
Lan yH,-i,g
Basements / "Duplexes"
Rear / Side Additions
LOW DENSITY
""MISSING LITTLE"
"MISSING MIDDLE"
C1 C2 C3
D2 I E
R—h,u Stacked Towns Triplexes <4 Storey Apartments -48 Storey Apartments I 18S—yApartme
Back -m -Back Towns Stacked Back -to -Back Towns Fo plexes
Infill Towns Other MulS-Plex (<8 Units)
""MISSING LITTLE"
HIGH DENSITY
• The key findings from this study are ultimately intended to assist the City of Kitchener in meeting a range of
strategic housing objectives, including improving conditions for increased: (i) housing diversity; (ii)
housing affordability; and (iii) housing supply across a variety of locational and neighbourhood contexts.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study i
Page 59 of 601
Parcel
The Challenge
• Housing has rapidly become one of the most pressing issues facing municipalities across Ontario and
beyond, as new residential developments continue to focus on one of two extremes: high-density
apartments and low-density single -detached housing.
• With limited uptake and delivery of "missing middle" housing forms, this dynamic also continues to
exacerbate issues relating to purchase and rental pricing, including the ability of many households to
reasonably afford housing locally.
• In response to a "perfect storm" of community -specific and broader macroeconomic challenges, the
delivery of missing middle and affordable housing has lagged demand; largely as a function of poor
market performance and financial feasibility.
G rowth
Pressures/
Demand
The Opportunity
Rising Construction Increasing Shitting Policy
+ Property / + Cost + Interest Rate + Priorities & Fee
Land Values Escalation Environment Structures
• Recognizing the range of internal and external factors involved, a multi -faceted solution will undoubtedly
be required to enable the development of preferred housing types moving forward. This could include a
mix of Financial, Process and Policy -based incentives that have been identified through this study.
• By implementing a comprehensive suite of incentives, the City of Kitchener stands to benefit from a range
of economic, social and operational improvements that would not otherwise be available via a "status
quo" or "do nothing" scenario. Furthermore, inaction risks compounding existing housing supply issues.
+ Financial + Process + Policy = TOMORROW?
Incentives Incentives Incentives
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study ii
Page 60 of 601
Parcel
The Prototypes
• Led by Smart Density, prototypical development concepts have been established fort he full range of
housing typologies identified to help visualize opportunities for missing middle housing in Kitchener.
Extra attention was given to four key missing middle typologies that demonstrated the most potential in
the Kitchener context: "New Format Towns", "Plexes", as well as "Low -Rise" and "Mid -Rise" apartments'.
• Based on a review of existing parcel fabric information for Kitchener, approximately one-third of current
properties across the City (24,300 total sites) could accommodate these missing middle typologies. The
majority of these eligible—or "candidate"—sites already have residential permissions and would present
relatively straight -forward conditions for development (e.g., acquisition / demolition / remediation, etc.).
• Depending on future levels of market acceptance—or "uptake"—of missing middle development in
Kitchener, up to 1 in every 5 new residents in Kitchener could be accommodated on just 2% of all
properties city-wide to 2051.
�0' \, �.�
a {` R
anw41dm Mid -Rise (D2)
�ee
74� xr
4t
BON
N
'Based on a combination of typical property sizes / dimensions and other precedents in Kitchener, as well as the type of new buildings that are
best situated to advance broader city -building and housing -specific objectives, among other factors detailed herein.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study iii
Page 61 of 601
w
LI
�M
E ,, '��
N
'Based on a combination of typical property sizes / dimensions and other precedents in Kitchener, as well as the type of new buildings that are
best situated to advance broader city -building and housing -specific objectives, among other factors detailed herein.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study iii
Page 61 of 601
Parcel
Recommendation #1:
Solidify the City's vision and appetite for change in the realm of missing
middle and affordable housing, including alignment of that vision with
Regional priorities.
• Affordable housing is already a priority for Kitchener Council, City staff and residents, but the development
landscape and needs of local residents continues to evolve. Furthermore, the Province of Ontario recently
introduced Bill 23 and Bill 39 with the intent of increasing housing supply in the province, including specific
consideration for both missing middle typologies and affordable housing.
• These ongoing changes will require the City to consider the impact of evolving market and policy
environments as it explores additional options to reinforce the development of this type of housing in a
manner that is suitable for the community.
• The municipality can re -confirm and invigorate its vision and strategic approach to enabling missing middle
/ affordable housing by considering the following key measures:
- Confirm & Publicize Growth Targets for Missing Middle & Affordable Housing;
- Deepen Regional Partnerships;
- Educate and Galvanize the Public at -Large;
- Build Capacity of Industry Players, including Non -Traditional Developers and Not -for -Profit
Organizations; and,
- Deepen Industry Relationships.
Recommendation #2:
Further assess and implement a range of incentives that enable the
construction of missing middle and affordable housing stock in the City of
Kitchener.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing- Fea-�'-`' 1, iv
Page 62 of 601
Parcel
• In the same way that the current housing crisis continues to be a function of many different macro and
micro -economic factors, so too will the solution to these problems require multiple different tools—or
incentives—to "unravel" the current situation and encourage preferred housing forms and/or pricing. To this
end, four distinct incentive options have been recommended in this study:
Financial Incentive #1: Tax & Fee Adjustments
• Exempt tax requirements for applicable rental and ownership
op development projects for the duration of development or longer.
• Rebate or waive development charges and fees for applicable missing
middle and affordable housing typologies.
Process Incentive #2: Approval Time Reduction
• Introduce further process change and improvements to ultimately
produce a meaningful reduction in approval timelines for development
applications, particularly those that meet missing middle and affordability
criteria.
Policy Incentive #3: Height & Density Allowance
• Introduce further as -of -right provisions in existing City (and potential
Regional) land use policies and by-laws to permit more efficient use of
land.
Incentive #4: Parking Reduction
• Introduce further reductions to parking requirements to both reduce
costs and enable more efficient use of available land.
• All preferred—or "shortlisted"—incentives have been measured against a range of evaluation criteria,
including consideration of factors that are within the immediate control of the City (e.g., relating to process
and policy), as well as more outward -facing conditions (e.g., market and financial feasibility).
• Overall, it will likely be necessary to combine—or "layer"—these incentives in the Kitchener context for
maximum impact and flexibility, with the following prioritization:
Enabling Missing Middle &Affordable Housing -Feasibility Study v
Page 63 of 601
Parcel
Parking Reductions - The City should take immediate strides to modernize parking standards to be
more in-line with continued shifts in consumer / lifestyle preferences, as well as consistent with the
prototypical development concepts developed for this study.
Height & Density Allowances -The City should seek to amend as -of -right development permissions
for selected typologies to leverage the benefits associated with "nudging" projects in favour of
achieving broader city -building objectives (e.g., increase height thresholds for Low -Rise and Mid -
Rise building formats relative to current definitions, as well as consider the provision of additional
density in High -Rise contexts to support affordable housing delivery).
Financial Supports - In light of recent legislative changes via Bill 23, the City should consider going
"above and beyond" these new mandates by introducing additional financial relief that specifically
targets: (i) affordable / attainable housing delivery; and/or (ii) selected missing middle typologies
that offer the greatest opportunity for change locally.
Process - The City should seek to build upon recent internal -facing efficiencies by enabling a more
expeditious path to building permit issuance from the perspective of local developers (e.g., less
cumbersome application requirements and other streamlining beyond the immediate purview of
the municipality's day-to-day operations).
Implementation
• Two focused areas of opportunity have emerged from this study that reflect the inherent duality of the
research program requested by the City:
Improving Housing Diversity ("Choice") - The greatest opportunities for expanding missing
middle housing options lie in the Plexes and Low -Rise typologies, which achieve a "sweet spot" of
scale, efficiency and ease of entry to the market. The City should consider implementing a
comprehensive suite of incentives targeted specifically at either / both of these typologies, to the
full extent possible.
Improving Housing Affordability ("Price") - The affordable housing landscape can benefit
indirectly through any form of increased housing supply and diversification. High -Rise built
environments where additional efficiencies exist can provide among the most immediate
opportunity to leverage the benefits of new market -rate development to help offset lost revenue
opportunities in the delivery of more affordable housing.
2 Provided a positive revenue / cost relationship already exists for baseline profitability of a given project.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing- Fea-� "-- 1, vi
Page 64 of 601
Parcel
• In addition to confirming the exact scope and scale of incentives to deploy, the City must consider what
policy levers are available to enable the implementation of their preferred suite of incentives. Community
Improvement Plans (CIPs) and Municipal Capital Facilities Agreements (MCFAs) are two commonly
used mechanisms in Ontario municipalities to provide financial incentives to private developers, and
generally well-regarded by municipal leaders and staff for their ability to produce robust results in the realm
of affordable housing. Non-profit developers can receive municipal funding through other tools.
• Take Action (Speed) - Every bit counts and no single housing typology is capable of solving the housing
crisis, so the City should take immediate action to encourage all kinds of new residential development,
including via pending updates to Official Plan policies.
• Make It Happen (Boldness) - It is time for bold action and the City should be encouraged to adopt a
"wartime mentality", to push boundaries and to avoid indecision—or "analysis paralysis"—including decisive
change through as -of -right permissions in Zoning.
• Provide Clarity- The City should clearly define and communicate what constitutes missing middle and
affordable housing to avoid confusion and/or disagreement among stakeholders, including tying into
broader definitions wherever possible (e.g., adopting Provincial definitions in pending policy updates).
• Educate - Education can serve as another effective tool to establish consensus, improve awareness and
dispel myths at the outset of any conversation around missing middle and affordable housing. This includes
addressing unwarranted NIMBY -ism, exposing established developers to new investment opportunities, as
well as encouraging the entry of new participants to the housing development industry.
• Establish Replicability- Rather than a debate -based approvals system, the City should investigate more
templated approval systems to foster replicability in preferred housing forms that are compatible with the
Kitchener market.
• Identify Funding Sources - Wherever shortfalls are identified, a joint effort between the municipality and
local housing developersd providers will be required to capture any and all opportunities for external
funding (e.g., via other levels of government, etc.).
• Monitor & Refresh - There will be an inherent need to regularly monitor and update the City's rationale for
implementing incentives in response to ever-changing market conditions.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study vii
Page 65 of 601
1,Q
Introduction
Key Findings
• This study has been undertaken to
evaluate and develop recommendations
relating to the key market, policy and
regulatory solutions capable of
maximizing the provision of missing
middle and affordable housing.
• The study seeks to assist the City of
Kitchener in meeting housing objectives
to improve housing diversity,
affordability, and overall supply
across a variety of locational /
neighbourhood contexts.
• The scope of work has included
establishing baseline market conditions,
developing and testing prototypical
building designs for financial feasibility,
identifying incentive options.
Parcel
• "Missing Middle" includes all vertically
and horizontally integrated forms of
housing in a medium -density format
(e.g., Traditional Towns, New Format
Towns, Plexes, Low -Rise / Mid -Rise
apartments).
• Based on the City of Kitchener definition
of "affordability" as of 2021, ownership
housing is considered affordable if it
costs $385,500 or less and rental
housing is considered affordable if it
costs $1,300 per month or less.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 1
Page 66 of 601
Parcel
1.1 Background
Cont
Housing has rapidly become one of the most pressing
issues facing municipalities across Ontario and beyond,
as new residential developments continue to focus on
one of two extremes: high-density apartments and low-
density single -detached housing.
Despite the delivery of record numbers of new residential units across the Province in recent years, purchase and
rental price growth—driven at least in part by increased hard and soft building construction costs—continues to
outpace the ability of many households to reasonably afford them. Similarly, many communities continue to
struggle with limited uptake and development interest in "missing middle" and mid -rise housing forms, largely as a
function of poor market acceptance and financial feasibility.
These challenges to housing affordability and diversity have become so acute that business organizations,
employers and governments alike have now started to acknowledge this dynamic as materially influencing the
liveability and economic competitiveness of their communities. In turn, municipalities are continuing to explore
innovative approaches to increase the supply of preferred housing options in a financially sustainable manner.
These efforts are not only targeted at new construction (greenfield) areas, but also in attempt to preserve income -
diverse communities in well-established, amenity -rich neighbourhoods.
Recognizing the range of internal and external factors involved (e.g., broader macroeconomic conditions and
external market trends vs. municipal -facing variables such as process and policy -related improvements that are
more within the immediate control of the City of Kitchener), a multi -faceted solution will be required to enable the
development of preferred housing types into the future.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 2
Page 67 of 601
Parcel
Figure 1.1
The "Perfect Storm" of Factors Influencing Housing Development Trends
Growth Rising Construction Increasing Shifting Policy
Pressures/ + Property / + Cost + Interest Rate + Priorities & Fee
Demand Land Values Escalation Environment Structures
Source: Parcel. For illustration purposes only- a comprehensive range of variables has been identified as part of our more detailed baseline
financiak#easibility analysis and related input assumptions.
In light of these housing challenges, this study has been
undertaken to evaluate and develop recommendations
relating to the key market, policy and regulatory
solutions capable of maximizing the provision of missing
middle and mid -rise housing forms in Kitchener.
To this end, a key element of this study has been to deliver a data -driven and detailed supporting financial analysis
capable of "demystifying" recent development patterns. This has served as a critical baseline in answering the initial
question of "why are things the way they are?" before developing more creative solutions in response to the current
realities of the market and underlying needs of the development community to achieve project viability.
Similarly, in an effort to generate consensus among all parties involved, we have endeavoured to highlight the
unique perspectives of both public and private sector interests through this work. This has been done to identify
potential areas of commonality—as well as disagreement—as it relates to the delivery of missing middle housing
forms and, more broadly, residential uses that are able to satisfy the needs of a growing and increasingly diverse
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - F� - " (-, 3
Page 68 of 601
Parcel
community. In our opinion, this study represents an ideal opportunity to bring together "both sides of the story' and
identify the preferred roles and responsibilities of all participants to achieve the identified housing objectives.
Why Missing Middle Housing?
While the benefits of providing affordable housing across all income levels are well recognized, it is also
important to appreciate that there are plenty of discernable benefits of missing middle housing, many
of which are common across both public and private sector perspectives:
• Increasing the total supply of housing and not limiting growth exclusively to greenfield
development;
• Making more efficient use of both existing and recent investments in municipal infrastructure
and servicing, including roads, sewers, and transit;
• Improving housing "choice" and diversity, which benefits residences at all stages of life, income
levels and unique household needs;
• Allowing for the creation—and/or maintenance—of communities that are accommodating to
growing families and/or multi -generational households;
• Fostering opportunities for "aging in place", particularly among the notable seniors—or "baby-
boom"—cohort;
• Creating opportunities to reinforce population growth near existing employment / commercial /
institutional / civic districts, such as the Downtown and Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs);
• Allowing for the "gentle" densification of established, built-up neighbourhoods and introducing
new populations to potential communities in decline; and,
• Contributing to a more varied built form across the community, thereby creating opportunities
to improve the overall quality of architecture and urban design City-wide.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 4
Page 69 of 601
Parcel
To arrive at the preferred outcomes identified by the City and its stakeholders, this study has involved a variety of
background research and supporting analysis to inform the specific factors—or "pinch points"—that are most
significantly influencing the feasibility of new housing development in Kitchener. This includes—but is not
necessarily limited to—the following:
Parcel SMART "i' S1ORIEGV COOP
DENSITY
Baseline Market Conditions
The market and economic realities of new real estate
development, particularly in low-rise neighbourhoods and
suburban nodes/ corridors.
Concept Development & Testing
Other market / economic and financial feasibility -related testing
of prototypical building designs / concepts representative of
desired missing middle and mid -rise housing forms.
Incentives Identification
The magnitude and nature of required incentive or subsidy
programs to advance municipal strategic objectives relating to
the provision of more affordable and/or "missing middle"
housing typologies.
Other Recommendations
The identification of possible efficiencies and/or other process -
related improvements for the City of Kitchener, based on an
"outside looking in" lens combined with inspiration from other
jurisdictions.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 5
Page 70 of 601
Parcel
1.2 Study Parameters
It is important to clearly articulate at the outset of this
reporting the core objectives—and preferred outcomes—
of the City of Kitchener in undertaking this work.
The following provides a high-level overview as to some of the basic parameters of our study, including clarity as to
some of the nuances among and between "missing middle" vs. "affordable" housing types, as well as an
introduction to the complete range of building typologies considered as part of our supporting research program.
For the purposes of this study, diversity relates to how varied—or not—the supply of local housing is within a given
community and generally focuses on the physical features of residential buildings and/or dwelling units. This not
only includes capturing diversity across common characteristics such as total floor area, number of bedrooms
and/or unit type, but also more categorical differences in building typologies (i.e., spanning the full spectrum of
housing typologies: from low-density single -detached dwellings to the highest density apartment towers).
Objective: Improve the diversity of housing across the City of Kitchener, by enabling a more complete
mix of low, medium and high-density residential building forms as part of new real estate projects.
Although indirectly influencing diversity and "choice", as explored above, affordability has been referred to more
explicitly in the context of pricing for the purposes of this study (i.e., the "dollars and cents" of housing, as an
important determinant of the ability of households to reasonably pay for housing, from a financial perspective).
While this concept is relatively straight -forward in principle, it can often be complicated by inconsistent definitions
and unique price thresholds established across different jurisdictions and/or levels of government.
Objective: Increase the delivery of affordable housing across Kitchener through new development,
which caters to households of all income levels.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 6
Page 71 of 601
Parcel
One of the key factors affecting housing affordability is the inherent imbalance between demand and supply within
a given community, especially in primary and secondary urban population centres such as Kitchener that are
experiencing the highest levels of population growth. While simultaneously leveraging the economic development
and city -building benefits available via new growth and development, enabling new housing supply—of any kind—
can represent an important element of improving affordability for residents (i.e., relying on the basic economic
principles of pricing in response to a "shock" to supply).
Objective: Increase the total supply of housing City-wide, which can have indirect benefits to pricing
(i.e., including both market -rate and affordable housing units through new development).
This study has also considered the extent to which housing and population growth can be reasonably
accommodated across various housing typologies within both Central and Suburban neighbourhood contexts. As it
relates to missing middle and affordable housing specifically, locational considerations can also play an important
role in so far as basic geographic characteristics can materially prohibit—or enable—the growth of preferred housing
types. For example:
• Are there currently development sites available in the right size and configurations necessary to support
certain preferred typologies?
• Do price levels within low -performing submarkets support development of new -build housing that is
financially feasible?
• Is there an opportunity to leverage higher -performing submarkets to deliver additional affordable housing
as part of new mixed -income communities?
Objective: Increase the supply of housing across a variety of different locational / neighbourhood
contexts, including both Central and Suburban areas.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 7
Page 72 of 601
Parcel
Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act (2022)
Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 is new provincial legislation that makes significant changes to
the land use planning process, including the provision of affordable and attainable housing, as well as
other as -of -right permissions for relatively small-scale, infill type housing commensurate with common
definitions of missing middle housing.
The impact of the Bill on specific elements of the analysis are highlighted in the relevant sections
throughout the report, including as -of -right financial, policy, and process considerations and new
definitions of affordable and attainable housing.
The Complete Spectrum
Building upon the foregoing concept of housing diversity—and to appropriately reflect natural market -led variations
in residential "product type" across different locational contexts—a complete spectrum of housing typologies has
been identified for consideration as part of this study. As summarized below, this includes eight (8) distinct housing
typologies, generally ranging in order from lowest to highest density. Additionally, selected sub -categories have
also been identified—as denoted by colour—to reflect obvious groupings based on common development formats
(e.g., low-rise and mid -rise apartments).
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 8
Page 73 of 601
Figure 1.2
The Complete Spectrum of Housing Typologies
8
SingleDetachedGarage Conversions
SemiDetachedGarden Suites
Laneway Housing
Basements/ "Duplexes"
Rear / Side Additions
LOW DENSITY
Accessoryor "Additional"
Dwelling Units (ADUs),
Graderelatedhousing/ representing the
single detached houses Introduction of a net new
unitto existing single -
detached properties.
i:'i t:; C3
Parcel
D2 E
Rowhouses Stacked Towns Triplexes 14 Storey Apartments -4-8 Store yApa rtments 18 Storey Apartments
Back -to -Back Towns Stacked Back -to -Back Towns Fourplexes
Infill Towns Other Multi -Plexes(<B Units)
HIGH DENSITY
Streetfrontingtownhouses Vertically or ho-ontally Multi- lexa tment Standalonea apartment Standalonea apartment Standaloneapartment
g p par par p
integrated townhouse or'row "housing, including developmentswlth multiple buildings, typically buildings, typically less than 4 -buildings typically between buildings typically greater
thosewlth no backyardscontalning8 orfewer units. storeys In height.** and 8 storeys In height** than Sstoreys In height.**
units.
"Based on current City of Kitc hener land use policies and a rban design guidelines
Source: Parcel. General housing sub -types identified as examples for reference purposes only.
Identified Sub -Categories
The Extremes: Low -Density Singles and High -Density Apartments
As denoted with shades of grey, the far ends of the typology spectrum are characterized by the extremes of high-
density (apartmentsid typology E) and low-density (single family housingid typology A), which account for the
majority of the existing housing stock in Kitchener, including newer developments that have either been recently
constructed, are under construction, or are proposed to enter the market in the near future.
Although neither of these typologies have represented the core focus of this study, they have nonetheless helped
to establish an important baseline in identifying what currently "works" in the Kitchener context, based on prevailing
market conditions. In the case of affordable housing, however, it is also worth noting that high density residential
development can often play a key role in generating the scale of development necessary whereby there can be
opportunities to offset—or "subsidize"—lower-revenue generating uses with the typical "highest and best use":
market residential.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 9
Page 74 of 601
Parcel
The "Missing Middle"
Similar to differing interpretations as to what can—or should—qualify as "affordable" housing, there is equivalent
discrepancy and lack of consensus around which of the specific sub -components of the broader housing typology
spectrum constitute "missing middle" housing. For the purposes of this study, and recognizing the unique context
of the Kitchener market, we have defined missing middle housing as encompassing all typologies from C1 (Towns)
through D2 (Mid -Rise), as denoted in shades of blue and green. This effectively includes all vertically and
horizontally integrated forms of housing in a medium -density format.
L." See Section 2.2 for additional exploration of "Missing Middle" definitions.
The Missing "Little"
Often identified as either a direct sub -category of—or companion to—missing middle housing, we have also
identified two typologies that we believe best capture the essence of the missing "little". Namely, this includes two
important forms of relatively small-scale, infill housing that can be effectively integrated in existing neighbourhood
contexts comprised predominantly of single-family housing:
• Plexes (C3) - a slightly less dense form of apartment development—including triplexes, fourplexes / other
multiplexes—capable of matching the overall height, scale and "feel" of neighbouring properties, typically
on just one or two contiguous residential lots; and,
• ADUs (B) - accessory or "additional" dwelling units, such as standalone laneway / garden suites or
integrated units such as basement apartments or rear/side additions, as denoted in red.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 10
Page 75 of 601
Parcel
The Complete Spectrum of Housing Typologies + "Missing Middle" Identification
C1
"MISSING MIDDLE"
C3
Low -Rise F
Rowhouses Stacked Towns Triplexes 14 Storey Apartments -4-8 Storey Apartments I 18 Storey Apartments
Back -to -Back Towns Stacked Back -to -Back Towns Fourplexes
Infill Towns Other Multi-Plexes(<B Units)
" "MISSING LITTLE"
HIGH DENSITY
Accessoryor "Additional"
Dwelling Units(ADUs), Streetfrontingtownhouses Vertically or horizontally Multi- lexa tment Standalonea apartment Standalonea apartment Standaloneapartment
g p par par par
Graderelatedhousing/ representing the integrated town house
I detached houses introduction of net new or row housing, including develo t th multiple buildings, typically buildings, typically less than 4 -buildings typically between buildings typically greater
singe- thosewlth no backyards. pmenswl Pe contalnin98 orfewer units. storeys In height.** and 8 storeys in height** than 8storeys In height.**
u nittoexisting single- units
detached properties.
"Based on current City of Kitchener land use policies and u rban design guidelines
Source: Parcel
lousinq Affordability Defit
The City of Kitchener defines housing affordability as the
least expensive of housing that does not exceed 30% of
gross annual household income or housing that is at or
below average prices or rents.
This definition includes both an income -based measure of affordability (i.e., tied to what specific households can
afford) and a market-based measure of affordability (i.e., a benchmark against current market conditions and
pricing). This is consistent with both the definition of affordability in the Region of Waterloo Official Plan and the
Provincial Policy Statement (PPS).
Enabling Missing Middle &Affordable Housing- Feasibility Study 11
Page 76 of 601
8
SingleDetachedGarage
Conversions
SemiDetachedGarden
Suites
Laneway Housing
Basements/ "Duplexes"
Rear / Side Additions
LOW DENSITY
ill
. "MISSING LITTLE"
C1
"MISSING MIDDLE"
C3
Low -Rise F
Rowhouses Stacked Towns Triplexes 14 Storey Apartments -4-8 Storey Apartments I 18 Storey Apartments
Back -to -Back Towns Stacked Back -to -Back Towns Fourplexes
Infill Towns Other Multi-Plexes(<B Units)
" "MISSING LITTLE"
HIGH DENSITY
Accessoryor "Additional"
Dwelling Units(ADUs), Streetfrontingtownhouses Vertically or horizontally Multi- lexa tment Standalonea apartment Standalonea apartment Standaloneapartment
g p par par par
Graderelatedhousing/ representing the integrated town house
I detached houses introduction of net new or row housing, including develo t th multiple buildings, typically buildings, typically less than 4 -buildings typically between buildings typically greater
singe- thosewlth no backyards. pmenswl Pe contalnin98 orfewer units. storeys In height.** and 8 storeys in height** than 8storeys In height.**
u nittoexisting single- units
detached properties.
"Based on current City of Kitchener land use policies and u rban design guidelines
Source: Parcel
lousinq Affordability Defit
The City of Kitchener defines housing affordability as the
least expensive of housing that does not exceed 30% of
gross annual household income or housing that is at or
below average prices or rents.
This definition includes both an income -based measure of affordability (i.e., tied to what specific households can
afford) and a market-based measure of affordability (i.e., a benchmark against current market conditions and
pricing). This is consistent with both the definition of affordability in the Region of Waterloo Official Plan and the
Provincial Policy Statement (PPS).
Enabling Missing Middle &Affordable Housing- Feasibility Study 11
Page 76 of 601
Figure 1.4
City of Kitchener Definitions of Housing Affordability
Ownership Housing
The least expensive of.:
Purchase price results in annual accommodation
Income- costs which do not exceed 30% of gross
Based annual household income for low- and
moderate -income households
*Households with in ___;; r, the lowest 60% of
the income distribution for the Regional market
area
Parcel
Rental Housing
The least expensive of.
Rent does not exceed 30% of gross annual
household income for low- and moderate -
income households
*Households with incomes in the lowest 60% of
the income distribution for renter households in
the Regional market area
OR
Market- The purchase price i s at least 10% below the Rent is at or below the average market rent
Based average purchase price of a resale unit in the (AMR) of a unit in the regional market area
regional market area
Source: Parcel, based on City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014)
Based on these definitions, in 2021, ownership housing
in Kitchener is considered affordable if it costs $385,500
or less (income -based) and rental housing is considered
affordable if it costs $1,300 per month or less (market-
based).
3 For comparison, a house costing $576,350 is considered affordable using the market-based definition of affordability and affordable rent of
$1,470 is considered affordable using the income -based definition of affordability.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 12
Page 77 of 601
Parcel
As of 2021, the market-based affordable housing price of approximately $576,300 is affordable to households in
the 90" percentile of income distribution. Rental housing fares slightly better with an average market rent of $1,307
being affordable to households in the 60" percentile of income distribution and higher. In dollar amounts, a
household has to earn $199,000 or greater per year for the average ownership price to be considered affordable
and $58,900 or greater per year for average rent to be considered affordable.
It is important to note that average rents and prices in the market-based measure of affordability are calculated
using all housing stock, including older ownership units and rental units under rent control, both of which command
lower prices and rents than units currently entering the market. As such, "affordable" often understates current
market realities. This is true in Kitchener, where an affordable house price is approximately $576,000, yet the
average price of a new construction house is $792,9004. Likewise, affordable rent is calculated at $1,307 per month,
yet average asking rents are $1,6005. Overall, this points to greater affordability challengesthan the definition of
"affordable" suggests, particularly for residents looking for housing compared to those who are securely housed.
Housing Affordability in Kitchener by Income Percentile (2021)
Ownership Rental
$640,386 $576,347 $1,307
10th Percentile
$26,200
$96,400
X
X
$15,700
$390
X
20th Percentile
$41,900
$154,100
X
X
$23,800
$600
X
30th Percentile
$56,100
$206,200
X
X
$32,000
$800
X
40th Percentile
$71,100
$261,600
X
X
$40,400
$1,010
X
50th Percentile
$87,200
$320,800
X
X
$49,200
$1,230
X
60th Percentile
$104,800
$385,500
X
X
$58,900
$1,470
✓
70th Percentile $125,600
$462,100
X
X
$70,700
$1,770 ✓
80th Percentile $153,600
$565,100
X
X
$86,200
$2,160 ✓
90th Percentile $199,000
$732,100
✓
✓
$109,900
$2,750 ✓
✓ = Affordable
X = Unaffordable
Source: Parcel, based on affordability tables sourced from the Province of Ontario's Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH).
' CMHC Market Absorption Survey 2021
'Costar Average Asking Rent Q4, 2021
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 13
Page 78 of 601
Parcel
Note: Bill 23 Affordable and Attainable Definitions
The recently passed Bill 23 now defines "affordable" as a unit whose rent or price is no greater than
80% of average market rent or average purchase price, depending on whether the unit is rental or
ownership. While the previous definition of affordable considered both income- and market-based
measures of affordability, this new definition is purely market-based.
Bill 23 also introduces the concept of attainable housing that falls between affordable and full market
prices. Initial legislation defines attainable as an ownership unit that is not an affordable unit. In other
words, attainable housing is ownership housing that costs more than 80% of the average purchase
price. It is expected this definition will be further refined.
Figure 1.6
Comparison of Affordability Definitions to Market -Based Prices/Rents
Ownership
City of Kitchener/PPS Bill 23
$640,386 $576,347 $512,309 $792,713
Rental
City of Kitchener/PPS Bill 23
$1,307 $1,046 $1,567
Source: Parcel, based on Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing tables, Bill 23 legislation, and CMHC data.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing- Feasi4- "` ` ` 14
Page 79 of 601
Parcel
1.3 Assumptions & Limitations
When considering the type of financial feasibility modelling that has been undertaken for this study—which is not
specific to any one site and/or landowner(s)—it is important to identify the key assumptions and limitations inherent
to this more conceptual approach. Furthermore, consistent with other financial analyses focused on policy -level
observations, we note that the modelling presented herein should not be taken as a conclusive nor definitive
representation of financial feasibility, or lack thereof, for individual properties. Rather, it is intended to
provide a more general and preliminary understanding as to the relative feasibility of conceptual developments
and prototypical building designs, as well as to provide a more general indication as to the key drivers of financial
performance when developing new missing middle and affordable housing in Kitchener.
The following provides a detailed summary of the key
assumptions that must be understood as limitations to
the analysis undertaken as part of this assignment.
ddentificatic,.. A -.A..pment Concepts
• The prototypical development concepts established for testing as part of our assessment have been
developed by members of Smart Density, in direct collaboration with staff from the City of Kitchener. They
are not intended to be indicative of any specific property nor landholdings within the City of Kitchener, but
rather are characteristic of the types of development that could ultimately prevail on typical properties
within the community, across all typologies.
• The preliminary development concepts established for each typology are hypothetical only, based on a
combination of: (i) the general nature, scale and density of development being contemplated across the
City historically; (ii) recent market-based precedents; and, (iii) the type of new buildings that are best
situated to advance broader city -building and housing -specific objectives. Although as -of -right permissions
have been considered, Smart Density has taken a design -first approach to the missing middle typologies
which pushes the boundaries on some elements (e.g., parking and right-of-way requirements), which may
require the City to update its Official Plan and/or Zoning by-law, or the future developer to apply for an
amendment.
• Recognizing that each property and landowner will have different perspectives and requirements as it
relates to financial feasibility in the "real world", we have attempted to capture the full range of possible
Enabling Missing Middle &Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 15
Page 80 of 601
Parcel
outcomes within the City of Kitchener through related sensitivity analyses, which adjust selected input
assumptions (including to reflect nuances across different pre -defined policy areas and geographies within
the City). The development concepts established by Smart Density have served as a critical baseline to this
portion of our analysis.
• Notwithstanding the preliminary and conceptual nature of the development concepts considered in this
study—as well as the relatively limited statistical detail available at this early stage of the planning process—
we have adopted a relatively detailed discounted cash flow approach to assess the financial feasibility of
developing new missing middle and affordable housing in Kitchener. As explored in more detail herein, this
is generally a more advanced type of financial feasibility testing than is typically employed for other policy -
level exercises and/or equivalent early-stage, conceptual development scoping. Although we felt this more
detailed approach was necessary for accurate results, it has its inherent strengths and weaknesses.
• Our analysis is limited to evaluating the feasibility of the development concepts being constructed in
isolation, including articulation of distinct policy areas identified within the City (e.g., Central vs. Suburban
contexts, etc.). As such, no site-specific municipal infrastructure costs to be borne by developers have
been incorporated into our analysis. These costs could represent an additional construction cost when
advancing actual development on a given site, which we have assumed will be determined based on
supplementary technical engineering work, site and block planning, as well as additional discussions with
City of Kitchener staff as part of more site-specific applications.
• The financial analyses included in this report have been undertaken as more of theoretical exercise only
and do not necessarily constitute advice to proceed with the specific development concepts identified.
Rather, our financial analyses are intended to help determine whether the concepts—and related incentives
and/or policy mechanisms—appear to be promising at first glance and are therefore worthy of further
investigation. A more detailed and comprehensive development prodorma analysis will ultimately be
required by the owners/operators of individual properties across the City to consider the actual costing,
phasing and refinement of any new site-specific development plans before proceeding with such an
endeavour(including determination of the optimal building typology and/or affordable housing delivery).
• Similarly, the findings presented as part of our analysis do not account for the unique financial
expectations, strategic positioning and/or development capacities of current or future owners of real
property in the community. As such, although each project may demonstrate a positive or negative
preliminary finding as it relates to financial viability, it does not necessarily assert that such a finding—nor the
related assumptions incorporated into the analysis—will ultimately be consistent with the perspectives or
parallel analyses of each individual landowner across the City. Ultimately, it is those organizations who will
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - FeasiF "` `' 16
Page 81 of 601
Parcel
establish internal financial thresholds, development parameters and conditions which implicate the scope
and scale of any new developments proposed moving forward.
Approach: Discounted Cash Flow Analysis
Historically, most policy -based financial analyses prepared on behalf of public sector organizations like
the City of Kitchener are structured around a more simplified Residual Land Value (RLV) approach.
Although Parcel regularly relies upon this approach in the right context, these financial assessments
generally are not equivalent to the more detailed and traditional proEforma financial analyses that are
typical of most individual real estate development projects (i.e., as prepared by private sector
participants, such as developers, property managers and other real estate investors). Namely, RLV
assessments are often simplified to the identification of a reasonable "break-even" point that could yield
a reasonable return on investment to the owners of a given development site while also maintaining (or
enhancing) the value of their existing real estate assets.
Based on the more extensive and nuanced scope of this study, however, we felt that it was necessary to
complete a more rigorous Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis. As described in more detail herein,
this type of analysis is capable of more appropriately capturing: (a) the time -value of money; (b) the full
timeline of development projects; (c) the nuances of operating rental buildings over many years; as well
as, (d) a more comprehensive subset of common risk/return metrics.
Overall, although the analysis presented in this report has continued to be relied upon as more of a
comparative tool than an explicit predictor of investment returns (i.e., all the same as a more simplified
RLV), the DCF approach has allowed us to prepare a more defensible and flexible analysis that
responds to the unique objectives of this study.
• The various other statistical inputs relied upon in our analysis are considered sufficiently accurate for the
purposes of this conceptual analysis. These statistical sources—including available municipal information,
datasets and previous reporting, as well as third -party industry data—have ultimately informed a number of
the key underlying assumptions and inputs utilized in our analysis.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 17
Page 82 of 601
Parcel
• It is assumed that a reasonable degree of economic stability will prevail in the Province of Ontario, and
specifically in the context of the City of Kitchener market, over the course of the development planning
horizon identified in this study.
• It is important to recognize that the lingering effects of the COVID-1G pandemic will continue to result in a
significant amount of uncertainty as it relates to current and potential future market conditions. At the time
of reporting, there is not a complete understanding of the potential longer-term implications of the
pandemic on economic conditions nor real estate development patterns across the City of Kitchener and
beyond.
• References to the Canadian dollar in this report generally reflect its 2023 value, including the range of
supporting statistical inputs and research that have informed our baseline financial assumptions. Additional
adjustments have also been made to reflect growth in costsd revenues for future periods, where applicable.
Note: Financial Implications of Bill 23
The financial implications of Bill 23 on missing middle and affordable housing development (e.g.,
removal or reduction of development charges) are considered in the feasibility analysis based on in
force regulations as of January 2023.
In the event that material changes occur that could
influence the foregoing assumptions, the analysis,
research findings and recommendations contained in this
report should be reviewed or updated, accordingly.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasil "1 " -° 18
Page 83 of 601
Existing Conditions
Key Findings
• The demographic profile of Kitchener—
exhibiting below average incomes and
an above average proportion of middle-
aged households—will drive demand for
missing middle housing.
• The South-West neighbourhood, as
defined by CMHC, has accommodated
approximately half of all new housing
supply in Kitchener since 2016,
primarily through low-density greenfield
development.
• Accordingly, just over 50% of housing
stock city-wide continues to comprise
relatively low-density residential
typologies (singles and semis).
Parcel
• Public and private sector priorities are
more aligned than different in a shared
desire to increase the supply of
housing in Kitchener.
• The City of Kitchener already uses
several Financial, Process and Policy
incentives to support missing middle
and affordable housing, but there are
additional opportunities that can be
explored.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 19
Page 84 of 601
Parcel
2A Market Context
Summary of Key Market Characteristics
Based on our review of historical demographic information, development trends and real estate market statistics for
Kitchener, the following provides a summary of some key observations as it relates to the current—and potential
future—provision of both missing middle and affordable housing.
South-West Growth
Middle -Aged Segment
Prevalence of Singles & Semis
Popularity of ADUs
Diversity & Intensification
Land Pricing Convergence
Kitchener's South-West neighbourhood has grown
significantly, accommodating approximately half of
new supply since 2016.
Below average incomeseF above average proportion
of middle-aged householdse= demand for "missing
middle" housing.
Despite new apartment developments across the City,
nearly two thirds of the local housing stock continues
to comprise of relatively low density residential
formats.
There has been a sharp increase in Accessory /
Additional Dwelling Units ("ADUs") over the last few
years, including a correlation with the development of
new singles/semis highlighted above. Most of these
ADUs have been "duplexes" (see page 69 for detail).
Diversification of housing through future intensification
will be important to both high growth areas, as well as
existing areas in population decline.
There has been a convergence in pricing for both land
(among mid and low-rise sites)e- residential floor area
(among mid -rise and high-rise product types).
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 20
Page 85 of 601
Parcel
We estimate that Kitchener is currently home to 277,290 residents (as of 2022). A higher proportion of these
residents are "middle-aged" relative to the provincial distribution. Figure 2.6 illustrates the population across six
neighbourhoods based on the "Neighbourhood Zones" that comprise the City of Kitchener, as defined by the
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), albeit renamed to be consistent with Kitchener conventions.
These neighbourhood delineations were chosen because they are aligned to the City's Census Tract boundaries as
CMHC is a key data source for housing statistics in Ontario.
Kitchener CMHC Neighbourhood Zones + Estimated 2022 Population
0-9yrs
10 - 19 yrs
20-29 yrs
30 - 39 yrs
40 - 49 yrs
50 - 59 yrs
60 - 69 yrs
70 - 84 yrs
85+ yrs
:r 10
Waterloo R i°" 2a�a21 J 1 1 °e_
Kitchener 12%
he City and the Region are
home to a higher proportion of
young adults and middle-aged
people compared to the
Province. NORTH -EAS •.
16,470 residents
" I/ ,%`
SOUTH-EAST
CENTRAL•,
•i 27360 residents 52,890 residents
kV q
GEN�So <'10.0 XIr
es�••'• ..�
0
30 ��
Source: Parcel, based on the Statistics Canada 2021 Census and CMHC completions data.
SOUTH-WEST
110,210 residents
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasil- "1 `'` -' 21
Page 86 of 601
Parcel
As illustrated in Figure 2.2, the South-West neighbourhood has accommodated more than half of Kitchener's
growth since 2016, while only b% has been accommodated in the Central neighbourhood.
Figure 2.2
Population Growth by Neighbourhood (2016 — 2021)
Central -West
North-East 4%
West
Yo
Source: Parcel, based on the Statistics Canada 2016 and 2021 Census.
At an even more granular level, the City's 10 -year population growth (or decline) patterns have not been uniform
across Census Tracts (CT's), as illustrated in Figure 2.3. CT's with older, more mature housing stock experienced
less population growth (or even decline) over this period.
Future intensification in these areas could change this
trend and make better use of existing community
infrastructure. High growth areas will also need a diverse
housing stock as their populations continue to grow and
change.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Fp- " " " -° 22
Page 87 of 601
Figure 2.3
10 -Year Population Growth / Decline by Census Tract
-203
Parcel
Source: Parcel, based on Statistics Canada 2011 and 2021 Census data.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing- Feasi4- `- " -' 23
Page 88 of 601
Parcel
Average household incomes across Kitchener are below
the provincial average.
This has been the case over the past two censuses and there has been virtually no change to the household income
relationships among the neighbourhoods. Unsurprising, the South-West neighbourhood with the newest housing
stock and largest average household sizes is closest to the provincial average.
Average Household Income
Avg
Income
$ 120,000
-3
$ 100,000 $ 97,856 12% $ 94,657
$ 85,962
$ 80,000
$ 60,000
$ 40,000
$ 20,000
$-
-8% -11%
$ 89,565 $ 87,279
-15%
$ 83,131
-20
$ 78,376
Ontario 2016 Kitchener South-West South -East Central -West North - East North-West Central
Source: Parcel, based on Statistics Canada 2021 Census and the CMHC Neighbourhoods.
"iousinq Profile
As reported in the 2021 Census, nearly half (48%) of dwellings across Kitchener were single -detached and
approximately two-thirds (bb%) were low-densitye! ground -related housing.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasi!- " '` 24
Page 89 of 601
Parcel
Figure 2.5
Kitchener Housing Stock (2021)
Apts
33,985 L,
34%
iii
5,420 units
5%
.A.Singles
47;405 units
48%
=no
Source: Parcel, based onthe2021 Census. Rounded tothe nearest units.
Figure 2.6 illustrates an increase in apartment units in all neighbourhoods but the South -East over the past three
Census:
• Interestingly, the suburban South-West neighbourhood was home to 850 more apartment units than the
Central neighbourhood as of the 2021 Census.
• At the same time, three suburban neighbourhoods (South-West, South -East and North-East) all added
single -detached dwellings over the years while the others experienced a slight decline over the same
period.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasil "1 " -° 25
Page 90 of 601
Parcel
Figure 2.6
Census Dwellings by Neighbourhood (201 1 — 2021)
Single -detached Rows / Townhouses
O.000nni� 2QOp0uni�
2011 0 2016 0 2021 2011 0 2016 0 2021
16,000 -t,
12,000 -t,
8,000 units
4,000 units
Central South-West SouthEastNorth-West North-East CentralWest
Semi-detached
20,000.nits
■ 2011 ■ 2016 ■ 2021
1 6,000units
7 2,000 units
8,000 units ��
4,000 units
14
Al
..e ntraI South-West SouthEastNorth-West North-East Central -West
Apartments
20,000 units
16,000 -t,
■ 2011 ■ 2016 ■ 2021
12,000 un im 12,000 units —
,h
8,000 unFts 8,000 units o
4,000 -t,4 ,000 units N ry
v - N
si
Central South-West SouthEastNorth-West North-East Central -West Central South-West SouthEastNorth-West North-East CentralWest
Source: Parcel, based on Statistics Canada 2011, 2016 and 2021 Census. Rounded to the nearest 5 units.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Fe- - ' "`` 26
Page 91 of 601
Parcel
As of 2022 across the Kitchener—Cambridge—Waterloo Census Metropolitan Area (CMA), CMHC estimates that
there are more than 45,000 rental units, including both the primary(i.e., purpose-built rental buildings) and
secondary (i.e., rental of condominium units) rental markets. More than half of the units in the primary rental
market (57%) are located in Kitchener.
Figure 2.7 illustrates that—while the rental supply has increased over the past eight years—condominium units have
been responsible for a progressively larger portion of the rental supply over the years.
Figure 2.7
Rental Units in Kitchener -Cambridge -Waterloo CMA
40,765
40,446
39,028
43,251
36,345
34,387
in
Is 16 17 118
Source: Parcel, based on CMHC data.
119
'20 '21 '22
Recently, Statistics Canada began reporting on investor-owned6 units as part of the Canadian Housing Statistics
Program (CHSP). Based on this information, the investor category can include secondary residence owners,
landlords, short-term rental owners, developers, for-profit businesses and speculators. As such, it is important to
note that not all investor-owned units make their way to the secondary rental market. For example, CMHC estimates
that there were 3,902 condominiums for rent in the secondary rental market across the CMA in 2020, however, the
CHSP estimates that 9,375 condominium apartments were investor-owned in the same year. This does not
necessarily suggest that those units were sitting empty, but more likely that they were secondary residences for the
owners (e.g., students living in a property purchased bytheir parents).
Based on the CHSP, some one -in -five units in Kitchener was classified as owned by an investor as of 2020. Figure
2.8 breaks down the more than 15,300 investor-owned units by typology. Unsurprisingly, approximately two thirds
b An investor is defined as an ownerwho owns at least one residential property that is not used astheir primary place of residence.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 27
Page 92 of 601
45,063
43,251
43,911
®Est. Condo
Rental Units
Purpose -
Built Rental
Units
'20 '21 '22
Recently, Statistics Canada began reporting on investor-owned6 units as part of the Canadian Housing Statistics
Program (CHSP). Based on this information, the investor category can include secondary residence owners,
landlords, short-term rental owners, developers, for-profit businesses and speculators. As such, it is important to
note that not all investor-owned units make their way to the secondary rental market. For example, CMHC estimates
that there were 3,902 condominiums for rent in the secondary rental market across the CMA in 2020, however, the
CHSP estimates that 9,375 condominium apartments were investor-owned in the same year. This does not
necessarily suggest that those units were sitting empty, but more likely that they were secondary residences for the
owners (e.g., students living in a property purchased bytheir parents).
Based on the CHSP, some one -in -five units in Kitchener was classified as owned by an investor as of 2020. Figure
2.8 breaks down the more than 15,300 investor-owned units by typology. Unsurprisingly, approximately two thirds
b An investor is defined as an ownerwho owns at least one residential property that is not used astheir primary place of residence.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 27
Page 92 of 601
Parcel
of condominium apartments are investor-owned, though a surprising amount of single -detached and townhouses
are owned by investors (i.e., totalling 7,216 units when combined, significantly more than the condominium
apartments).
Fiqure 2.8
Kitchener Units Owned by Investors (2020)
8% :;r
3,965 units
21% or
1,155 units
Single Semi
67% or
5,240 units
29% or
3,250 units
0
68% or
1,710 units
Row/Townhouse Condo Apt Propertyw/Multi
Units
Source: Parcel, based on Statistics Canada's CHSP. A property with multiple units is a property containing more than one set of living quarters,
such as a duplex.
The CHSP data also reveals the following, specific to the City of Kitchener:
• Overall, approximately two thirds of investor-owned units in Kitchener are owned by individuals, with the
balance owned by business and governments.
• Between 83% and 85% of ground -oriented units (i.e., singles, semis and rows) are owned by individuals,
whereas 68% of investor-owned condominium apartments are owned by business and government.
• Focusing on units constructed since 2016, the trend of investor ownership is more prevalent in recently
constructed units. This is especially evident in the ground -oriented typologies where investor ownership is
higher in these units than the overall supply. Condominium apartments is the exception with 57% of the
1,255 condominium apartments built since 2016 owned by investors, compared to 67% of the total stock of
condominium apartments across the City'.
We note that across the Kitchener -Cambridge -Waterloo CMA an even higher proportion of recently constructed condominium apartments
constructed since 2016 are owned by investors (i.e., some 77%).
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 28
Page 93 of 601
Parcel
More than 7,000 households—or 8% of total households
across the City—live in housing that is overcrowded .
Figure 2.9 details this variability across neighbourhoods, which points to a need not only for an expanded supply of
housing, but also one with a different composition than is currently available. Interestingly, the South-West
neighbourhood—which has the largest supply of ground -oriented houses (e.g., single -detached houses) and many
of which have been constructed in recent years—has the second highest percentage of households living in
"unsuitable"—specifically overcrowded—housing. This is likely due, in part, to expanding families outgrowing the
number of bedrooms in their homes (at both ends of the age cohort extremes, with new children and aging parents
/grandparents joining households).
Households in Overcrowded Housing
3,500
9%
3,000 2,940
2,500
2,000
11%
1,475
1,500 6%
1,080
6
1,000
5%
720
570
3%
500
225
South-West North-West South -East
Central
Central -West
North-East
Source: Parcel, based on the 2021 Census.
8 Statistics Canada uses the term "unsuitable" to describe housing that is overcrowded according to the National Occupancy Standard (NOS);
thatis,whetherthedwelling has enough bedroomsforthesize and composition ofthe household. A household is deemed to be living in
suitable accommodations if its dwelling has enough bedrooms, as calculated using the NOS.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Fp- " " " -° 29
Page 94 of 601
Parcel
Similar to other communities across Ontario, renter households in the Region and the City struggle more with
housing affordability than ownership households.
Figure 2.1 r'.
Households Spending More Than 30% of Household Income on Housing
24% 23%
22%
Ontario 2021 Waterloo Region 2021 Kitchener 2021
Source: Parcel, based on the 2021 Census.
Iloniol^r+rnont TF
The building permit heatmap in Figure 2.11 illustrates where notable concentrations of net new units have been
created over the past 10 years. The South-West and South -East neighbourhoods have accommodated the most
net new units, consistent with the Census dwelling data.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasil "1 " -° 30
Page 95 of 601
Parcel
Figure 2.1d
10 -year Building Permit Heat Map
Sources: Parcel, based on City of Kitchener open data (September 2022).
Overlaying the building permits by type onto the heatmap reveals which unit types account for the bulk ofthe new
supply. Figure 2.62 shows:
• New single -detached and semi-detachedd duplex units have contributed to much of the'heat' over the past
10 years.
• Townhouses and stacked townhouses have also contributed some'heat', mostly in the South-West.
• Smaller intensification projects (e.g., missing middle) and conversion of non-residential buildings to
residential uses have primarily happened in the Central neighbourhood.
• Interestingly, new apartment units have been constructed mostly in areas with less'heat' overall, including a
distribution across all neighbourhoodsd submarket areas.
• Although apartment development has picked up in recent years, building permits reveal just 1,360 new
apartment units have been added to the Central neighbourhood over the past 10 years.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 31
Page 96 of 601
Parcel
Figure 2.12
10 -year Building Permits by Type
• Sir
• Se
• Ro
Stad<ed Townhouse
® 2-5 Unit Intensification r
6-10 Unit Intensification
Conversion
�i
Apartment
Sources: Parcel, based on City of Kitchener open data (September 2022). Intensification units represent renovations to existing structures to add
units. Apartments units represent new construction apartment buildings.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 32
Page 97 of 601
Parcel
Accessory—or "Additional"—Dwelling Units (ADUs) are
not new to Kitchener.
ADUs, most often in the form of basement apartments (known locally as "duplexes"), have risen rapidly in popularity
in recent years. Notably, this includes a significant number of ADUs in newly constructed single and semi-detached
houses (i.e., as illustrated by the correlation shown in the figure below).
10 -year ADU Building Permits
1
• New Single -detached �•,� •
New Semi I Duplex `••�� • • i•�1 • ••�
150 _JP64
40
•;''i� • 0••-• i• �•'�- -
• •, his• �i
%
A major increase in new ADU units since 2018
500 units
400 -is
300 units
200 ms
100 units
384 units
12 113 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19 '20 '21 '22 to
Date
Sources: Parcel, based on City of Kitchener open data (September 2022).
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing- Feasi4- "` " -' 33
Page 98 of 601
Parcel
Development land sales can also be an important indicator as to where future development will occur and in what
form. In 2019 and 2020, many sales were in the Central and South-West neighbourhoods, whereas sales in 2022 to
date have been in the more suburban areas of the city.
Recent land transactions in the Central neighbourhood and in proximityto Highway 8 have garnered the highest
prices per acre, likely in large part due to small sites to be developed with high density uses. Additionally, the
development community continues to be active in the South-West, South -East and North-East Neighbourhoods,
indicating that future growth will continue to be in these areas of the city.
Figure 2.14
Recent Development Land Sales
Recent Development Land Sales •' ,
2019
2020 ,•'
2021
• 2022 •`,/�� ��
%% •
- I •
;i
•w •
Sources: Parcel, based Costar Realty Inc. data.
•
•
•
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasil "1 `'- -' 34
Page 99 of 601
Parcel
We have also reviewed sales data for projects actively selling across the city as of Summer 2022. On average:
• Single -detached houses were selling for just under $1 million to $2 million;
• One stacked townhouse project was selling units for approximately $650,000; and
• Apartments ranged from about $560,000 to just over Vol million.
Actively Selling New Construction Projects (Summer 2022)
Development Land Sales $ / Ac
1-$500k
• $500k -$1M
$1M -$5M
• $5M - $10M
$10M - $1550,
•
is$15M -$20M
$ / Acre
$ 10,000,000
$ 8,000,000
$ 6,000,000
\ $ 4,000,000
/) $ 2,000,000
VV
Rude e)mr
�(
Source: Parcel, based on average sales prices recorded by Altus Data Studio.
City-wide Average
High Density
$ 8,964,984
Medium Density
' $ 3,169,268
Low Density
$ 2,948,857
2019 2020 2021 2022
City-wide $/acre data shows a -f
convergence between medium and
low-density properties (often within
the same subdivision ...)
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 35
Page 100 of 601
Parcel
It is also important to consider the pricing of "resale" houses relative to new -construction houses. New -construction
houses generally command a premium over resale houses and this dynamic is also at play in the Kitchener market,
with the exception of a brief period between September 2021 and May 2022 where resale prices were comparable
to new -construction pricing. Relative parity between resale and new construction, especially given the subsequent
decline in resale prices to May 2022 is a likely indicator that the resale market was overheated during that time.
Figure 2.16
Average Resale House Prices by Type
Avg Price
$ 1,400,000
$ 1,200,000
$ 1,000,000
$ 800,000
$ 600,000
$ 400,000
$ 200,000
Single
Semi
Town
Condo
kecent interest rate hikes have cooled the housing
market across all typologies; however, this doesn't
necessarily translate into more affordability as mortgage
costs rise with interest rates.
Single Family
Townhouse
Condo
VT L<) 2 n
p O N N N N
N N N N N N N
Resale Resale New Construction
(June 2021) (June 2022) (July 2022)
$ 921,000 $ 864,000 $ 1,256,000
$ 649,000 $ 661,000 $ -
$ 592,000 $ 615,000 $ 718,000
$ 445,000 $ 468,000 $ 572,000
Sources: Parcel, based on the Kitchener -Waterloo Association of Realtors and Altus Data Studio.
Enabling Missing Middle &Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 36
Page 101 of 601
Parcel
2.2 Stakeholder Perceptions
As part of a joint effort by Parcel and StrategyCorp, our team conducted a series of research interviews with two
key stakeholder groups as part of this study. The purpose of this engagement was to solicit more direct, on -the -
ground feedback regarding the delivery of missing middle and affordable housing in Kitchener, highlighting the
duality of two distinct vantage points:
• The "Private Sector Perspective", as represented via discussions with members of the local development
community in Kitchener; and,
• The "Public Sector Perspective", as represented via discussions with municipal staff at the City of
Kitchener and Region of Waterloo.
The following details the key themes that emerged from
our research, highlighting important differences and
areas of commonality across both public and private
sector perspectives.
' :AVe J () r-) lrY) 41 rY- Community
Theme #1: Defining the Missing Middle
• Developers had varying views and definitions of "missing middle" housing related to typology, type of
occupants (families vs. couples vs. singles) and price. These varying definitions reflect the importance of
developing a common—and consistent—understanding of what missing middle housing denotes.
• Most interviewees defined missing middle housing as a building typology inclusive of garden and laneway
suites, plexes, and multi -unit buildings between four (4) and ten (16) storeys.
9 Research interviews were conducted virtually between October and November 2022 and typically ranged between 30 a nd 60 minutes i n
length. Interviewees were provided with a primer document detailing the nature oft he project, as well as some preliminary discussion questions
in advance of the interviews. Most interviews with local developers included organizations with active or completed projects in the Kitchener
market, as well as developers with expertise in missing middle housing outside of the Kitchener -Waterloo Region. In the interest of allowing for
candid discussions, the results of these discussions have been kept strictly confidential and anonymized, where necessary.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 37
Page 102 of 601
Parcel
• Others felt missing middle constituted ground -related housing large enough to house families (2- to 3+ -
bedrooms), namely townhouses and small multi -unit buildings.
• Some interviewees defined missing middle based on price - specifically, housing that is affordable to
middle decile income brackets regardless of typology.
• It was noted that missing middle built forms are not necessarily commensurate with missing middle price
point, leading to an inherent disconnect.
Theme #2: Unit Sizes / Mix
• Most developers are providing 1- and 2 -bedroom apartment units based on current market conditions
(demand) and financial viability characteristics (1eand 2 -bedroom units do not apply to singles, semis, and
towns)
• Developers were not opposed to providing 3 -bedroom units in principle, however, there is currently little
demand for them given their resulting cost (price point). Many felt that households looking for a 3 -bedroom
unit would prefer to live in ground -oriented housing than mid- or high-rise buildings at an equivalent sales
price (and/or rental rate).
• The economics of providing 3 -bedroom units is also challenging. For example, construction costs for a 3 -
bedroom unit are similar to two 1 -bedroom units, but revenues for two 1 -bedroom units are higher.
Theme #3: Staff / Council Perspective on Development
• Several developers mentioned the need to challenge the perception among staff and Council as to the
extent of developer profit from residential projects. It was noted that while profit margins may appear large,
certain bare minimum margins are required to demonstrate project viability, and ultimately secure
financing.
• It was noted that staff often fail to consider the financial implications of their comments on applications. For
example, requiring underground parking or commercial uses at grade can add significant costs to a
development that directly affects its financial viability.
• Council and staff education on development economics was seen as a key method of addressing
challenges relating to supplying missing middle and affordable housing.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 38
Page 103 of 601
Parcel
Theme #4: Incentives
• Waiving, reducing, or deferring fees was generally seen as one of the best ways to improve affordability
while maintaining financial viability. Specific fees cited included development charges and parkland
dedication. Interviewees were positive about the City of Kitchener policy of allowing deferred development
changes but noted that removing interest payments on these deferrals would also help to increase viability.
• An expedited approvals process would assist with affordability by reducing the carrying costs of financing
during the approvals and construction process.
• Introducing a "sliding scale" for incentives that are currently more binary or "black and white" would help
with affordability. For example, developments offering 80% average market rents are eligible for grants,
whereas developments offering 85% average market rent are ineligible even though they are offering
below market rents.
• Interviewees also highlighted that incentives are needed to make these types of projects viable, not to
increase developer profit, and the importance of affordability that is incentivized, not punitive.
Note: Timing of Bill 23 Announcements
Based on the timing of our interviews at the outset of our study process, we note that the majority of the
research conducted as part of this process was completed in advance of recent announcements by the
Province of Ontario relating to Bill 23 (More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022). As such, the findings
presented in this section should be reviewed in light of these changes and any key takeaways relating
to relevant policyd process improvements have been adjusted accordingly in the remainder of this
report.
Theme #5: Challenges & Opportunities
Interviewees were specifically asked about challenges and opportunities associated with providing missing middle
and affordable housing in Kitchener.
Challenges
• Rising municipal fees are being passed on to the end consumer, further eroding affordability.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 39
Page 104 of 601
Parcel
• There is a lack of clarity around the definition of "affordability". Definitions do not align across policy and
funding programs, causing confusion about expectations and requirements for funding.
• The planning approvals process is seen as arduous, combative, and restrictive. It is perceived to be slow
and exacerbated by municipal comments that are too prescriptive.
• Finding parcels that are zoned for missing middle housing is difficult without a rezoning or Official Plan
amendment, both of which add cost and time to the approvals process. It is important to provide
permissions for missing middle typologies as -of -right.
Opportunities
• Update the zoning by-law to provide as -of -right permissions for missing middle housing typologies. These
changes allow proponents to proceed directly to site plan approval or building permit saving both time and
money in the development process.
• Changes to the building code that now allow for combustible construction make missing middle housing
more appealing to build. However, it is important that building examiners are educated about specific
building materials and processes, namely cross -laminated timber and panelization, such that the approvals
process is not unduly delayed. This is particularly important for garden and laneway suites, which are a
newer and less understood housing typology.
• Designated Greenfield Areas (DGA) provide a good opportunity for missing middle housing because the
zoning by-law is developed along with the community, thereby reducing opportunities for NIMBYism.
• Offer underused or vacant municipal properties/lands suitable for housing suitability to proponents at low
or no cost.
Other
• Interviewees felt affordability challenges are due to lack of housing supply in light of a growing population
and constrained land supply. Increasing supply was therefore seen as the best way to increase affordability
as opposed to limiting demand.
• Many interviewees acknowledged that making changes to support missing middle and more affordable
housing will require both political will and courage. They encourage the municipality to be bold.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 40
Page 105 of 601
Parcel
Theme #1: Affordable Housing Priorities
• Interviewees highlighted that the presence of housing typologies beyond the common "extremes" will be
critical to the City's long-term prosperity, as an increasingly diverse group of people seek to live and work in
Kitchener.
• Interviewees emphasized that affordable housing is a priority for Council, staff, and community members.
• In keeping with this priority, participants highlighted specific ways in which the City of Kitchener has already
begun to support missing middle housing typologies to date, including:
- As -of -right permissions for ADUs and three units on all serviced residential lots through new Zoning
By-law 2019-051;
Housing for All (2020) housing strategy;
- Fee deferrals and exemptions for eligible projects;
- Process and policy efficiencies;
Make it Kitchener 2.0 and its emphasis on affordable and attainable housing; and,
- Backyard home design competition.
Theme #2: Spectrum of Housing Needs
• Young professionals, seniors looking to downsize, and those experiencing homelessness who need
emergency and transitional houses (especially in the downtown area) were seen as some of the groups that
require additional housing options.
• Missing middle housing types that gently intensify growing communities (i.e., basement units, second units,
duplexes, triplexes, etc.) and provide more diverse ownership and rental stock will help to meet a greater
variety of housing needs.
• Interviewees also noted more deeply affordable and/or subsidized housing (i.e., affordable ownership,
rent -geared -to -income, supportive housing) across all typologies is required to help those priced out of the
current housing market.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 41
Page 106 of 601
Parcel
Theme #3: Contributing Factors
Interviewees identified a number of factors they believe impact, either positively or negatively, the ability oft he City
to enable the development of missing middle and affordable housing.
"Making the Pro Forma Work"
• Interviewees acknowledged the negative impact missing middle typologies and affordable units can have
on a project profitability and financing such that the project can become unviable.
• Rising land values, construction costs and labour costs favour higher -density developments to make it more
likely to achieve a desired and/or necessary return on investment. Interviewees noted that higher -density
development has a place in addressing the City's affordable housing needs but does not directly support
missing middle or mid -rise typologies. It was also noted that construction and labour costs are outside of
the control of the City.
• Development fees such as planning applications, development charges, and permits also contribute to the
cost of development, however the City noted it currently has fee exemptions for certain affordable housing
projects to improve financial viability. Proposed changes to development fees introduced by Bill 23 are
expected to further relax the fee burden on the development industry.
• Interviewees noted that until affordable housing programs (rental and ownership) result in comparable
returns to market housing typologies, interest and feasibility to construct these types of projects will
continue to be limited.
Evolving Public Policy Environment
• Interviewees acknowledged that the public policy environment in Ontario is rapidly changing, which must
be accounted for on the City's journey to develop missing middle and/or affordable housing that meets the
needs of Kitchener. While encouraged by the government's commitment to build 1.5 million new units of
housing in the next decade, other policy recently introduced policy changes present new opportunities and
barriers to enabling missing middle and/or affordable housing:
• Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act: Participants shared that while Bill 23 and its interest in growing supply
is encouraging, including the permitting of traditional missing middle typologies. At the same time,
participants note that the City has carefully introduced by-laws and processes that meet the local needs,
and Bill 23 introduces new changes and pivots that must be accounted for. Bill 23 has implications that
could place the burden of carrying the costs associated with development onto municipalities, especially
for areas like affordable housing programming. Interviewees also raised concerns around the City having a
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 42
Page 107 of 601
Parcel
reduced role in land use planning and while reductions in requirements and standards the municipality can
introduce for development may have ripple effects on quality.
• Bill 39, Better Municipal Governance: Participants note that Bill 39 has created uncertainty at the municipal
level since it has introduced a process to review upper/lower tier municipal roles and responsibilities. While
the Region is primarily responsible for the delivery of affordable housing (with lower -tier support for
execution, development approvals, etc.), interviewees acknowledge that the City has focused on filling any
gaps in programming, commitments, and policies at the Regional level since their focus is Region -wide, and
not specifically on the needs of Kitchener.
Process Delays and Inefficiencies
• Interviewees familiar with the development review process noted the recent effort to remove process
barriers that would have otherwise caused delays in development approvals, namely:
A Development Service Review that resulted in improvements to the development applications and
site plan approvals processes `'.
- The introduction of concierge service to support affordable housing projects through the
development approvals process and navigate the municipal system.
• Even with improved internal processes, delays continue to be a barrier as affordable housing projects are
not formally fast -tracked or exempted from process requirements or steps. Interviewees also noted that
some process delays stem from developers and industry lacking the experience and knowledge of
application nuances and differences.
Public Pushback
• Not -in -my -backyard (NIMBY) sentiment is often a barrier to development because of its ability to delay the
planning process through legal/procedural appeals, extensive public consultation, and unfavourable news
coverage, and, in some cases, prevent Council decisions in favour of missing middle or affordable housing
developments.
10 Improvements include: the introduction of software, a new Development Review Project Manager position to help customers navigate the
application process, website redesign for site plan applications, daily status reports for customers, revision to job descriptions and the creation
of site plan management meetings, reimagining of the pre- submission consultation process, workflow distribution, new streamlined urban
design scorecards, and introduction of consistent staff reviewer.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 43
Page 108 of 601
Parcel
• While most residents are not vocal against developments, there is a core group of strong voices that
advocate to their local representatives/Council to avoid what they believe to be extensive or over-
development in the City.
Exclusionary By -Laws and Requirements
• Exclusionary by-laws and requirements have made it difficult to diversify the housing typologies within
existing neighborhoods.
• Limited regulations, even if missing middle typologies are a permitted use, include minimum lot sizes, floor
space ratios (FSR), transitions to surrounding low-rise residential and requiring truck turnaround area on site
for multi -unit buildings.
• Parking requirements are a barrier to infill housing as parcels of land may be able to accommodate housing
but not the required number of parking spaces.
• Heritage requirements and the permitting process can discourage the development of social infrastructure,
including affordable housing.
• Interviewees noted that by-laws and requirements, including zoning, are under a continuous cycle of
improvement, and that staff are always seeking ways to avoid and/or remove unintended exclusions or
barriers.
Developer Interest and Delivery Capacity
• There is limited developer interest in missing middle and affordable housing projects, likely due to the risk
associated with lower financial returns and the difficulty meeting profit margin expectations.
• There is an opportunity to attract smaller -scale developers, support non-profit providers already in
Kitchener, and/or identify socially minded developers who may be interested in partnering with the City for
missing middle and affordable housing. However, it was noted that these firms may have capacity -based
and/or financial barriers to producing this type of housing. It was suggested that partnerships be structured
to address these barriers.
• The City has actively made changes to processes and procedures as a result of industry feedback received
from a roundtable working group with City staff and the development community. This precedent and
existing relationship will be helpful to understand how the City can develop industry interest in missing
middle and affordable housing.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 44
Page 109 of 601
Parcel
The foregoing research provides important context and clarity as to "how" / "why' certain development patterns
have emerged in Kitchener in recent years, with widespread agreement relating to the key challenges associated
with the delivery of both missing middle and affordable housing.
With this common understanding established, it is further noted that—despite some obvious differences in
prioritization or relative "weight" of importance between public and private sector participants—the areas of mutual
interest and overlap potentially outweigh the objectives which are unique to just one stakeholder group.
This presents a unique opportunity for representatives of
both the public and private sector to work collaboratively
in advancing common interests relating to the delivery of
missing middle and affordable housing in Kitchener.
=igure 2.1 T
Overlap of Preferred Stakeholder Outcomes
Perspective:
Private Sector
Interests
Source: Parcel
P rofita b i I ity:
Cost Efficiency
Revenue Maximization
Speed to Market
Fiscal Sustainability
Strategic Objectives
(Non Housing)
Public Safety
Public Service Delivery
Perspective:
Public Sector
Interests
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 45
Page 110 of 601
Parcel
2.3 Incentives & Best Practices
Led by members of StrategyCorp, our team conducted a scan of common incentives that encourage and enable
the development of missing middle typologies, as well as the delivery of affordable housing units, based on the
experiences of peer jurisdictions"
The incentive programs researched have seen success where their administration is supported with adequate
corporate policies and procedures, including clear eligibility criteria, program detail and a substantial
administrative process. Notably, the City of Kitchener has also undergone a review of their own processes and
procedures related to development to ensure they are as efficient and meaningful as possible. This study is
expected to identify further policy and process improvements (as required) for the City to consider in order to
enable the missing middle and affordable housing typologies best suited for the Kitchener context.
It is also important to note at the outset of this section that the complex structure of, and application process for,
incentive programs can be a challenge as they require specific consideration for successful execution. With recent
industry calls for standardization to the development approvals process in Ontario, the process and procedure
nuances that traditionally accommodate missing middle and affordable housing incentives may be perceived as
additional administrative burden for industry (both private and non-profit). Change management and
communications will play an important role in the City's roll-out of any incentive programs (and their related
process/administrative changes) so that the benefits are clear, requirements are well -understood, and potential
participants feel encouraged to take part where they are made available.
Broadly, incentives have been identified as falling into
one of the following three categories: Financial, Process
and Policy.
" Toronto, Peel Region, York Region, Halton Region, Peterborough, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, among others.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 46
Page 111 of 601
Figure 2.18
Summary of Incentive Types: Financial, Process & Policy
Financial Process
Incentives creating financial
Incentives creating process
efficiencies for the recipient
efficiencies for the recipient
(e.g., fee exemptions/
(e.g., process exemptions,
discounts/ deferrals, in-kind
special service level
contributions such as public
commitments for designated
land).
project types, etc.).
Source: Parcel and StrategyCorp.
Financial Incentives
Parcel
Policy
Incentives driven by changes in
policy that create more
allowances for different
typologies, require the
construction of certain
typologies and/or create more
flexibility on a project -by -
project basis.
Given many of the costs to build missing middle and affordable housing are the equivalent to higher -density and/or
market -rate housing, the lower returns typically captured by these housing formats can render projects financially
infeasible. Financial incentives that reduce capital costs (e.g., construction, planning application fees, etc.) and/or
building operations (e.g., property taxes, etc.) can positively affect the financial viability of a development, thereby
making it more likely to occur. These incentives typically take the form of exemptions/waivers/grants or deferrals
and influence the financial viability of a development directly.
Fee Exemptions / Waivers / Grants
Exemptions, waivers, or grants help to reduce capital and/or operating expenses, thereby increasing financial
viability. They do not need to be repaid.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 47
Page 112 of 601
Parcel
Common fee exemptions /waivers /grants include:
• Development charge exemptions
• Property tax exemptions
• Other fee exemptions /discounts (e.g., parkland, planning applications, etc.)
• Capital grants and municipal capital facilities agreements
Fee Deferrals
In some cases, payment of certain fees will be deferred to building occupancy or later. Such deferrals may allow the
developer to reduce initial costs and procure improved financing terms while still ensuring that the municipality
receives payment to fund growth -related expenses. Deferred charges are typically paid in equal installments and
subject to an interest rate tied to the Bank of Canada prime rate at the time of building permit issuance, though
specific payment conditions depend on the municipality.
Common deferred fees include:
• Development charges
• Property taxes
Process incentives can be used to support desired types of development by allowing projects to proceed more
quickly through the approvals process, thereby reducing risk and costs. These incentives do not involve any direct
financial contributions to enable developments, however they indirectly influence financial viability by creating
greater certainty regarding development timelines and requirements.
Process incentives that result in shorter development timelines also benefit current and future residents by bringing
new supply online as quickly as possible.
Common process incentives include:
• Formally expediting the development approvals process for eligible projects (including service
level agreements)
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 48
Page 113 of 601
Parcel
Like process incentives, policy incentives indirectly influence financial viability by creating greater certainty on the
part of the developer, in addition to—in some cases—enabling the type and scale of development necessary to
achieve project viability. Policy incentives can also be used to establish improved as -of -right permissions to avoid
spending time and/or money to go through the lengthy process of amending policies that would permit specific
typologies or affordability levels desired by a given municipality.
Common policy incentives include:
• Waiving parking requirements /minimums (represents time savings to a developer by avoiding the
need for a parking by-law amendment as well as the potential to reduce costs/increase revenues by
reallocating parking space to additional residential space/units)
• Waiving historic preservation /conservation requirements
• Adjust (simplify) urban design guidelines
• Simplify separation space requirements to avoid wasteful vacant space
• Permit as -of -right additional dwelling units with further allowances if the project commits to a
percentage of affordable units (e.g. single development fee)12
See Appendix C for detailed review of sample incentives.
12 Above and beyond recent Bill 23 allowances.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing -Feasibility Study 49
Page 114 of 601
Parcel
Kitchener Content: Summary of Existing Incentives
Existing Missing Middle & Affordable Housing Incentives in Kitchener13
Financial 0 Development charge deferrals and waivers, application fee waivers, and
building permit waivers for non-profit organizations. To -date uptake has
dp been low to moderate: one application approved in 2014, two in 2018,
two i n 2019, four i n 2020, six i n 2021 and two i n 2022 as of August.
Process • Lean Review of Development Process in 2019, including subsequent
improvements to streamline processes. Improvements include the
introduction of software, the introduction of a Project Manager -
Development Review, website redesign for site plan applications, daily
status reports for customers, revision to job descriptions and the creation
of site plan management meetings, reimagining of the pre -submission
consultation process, workflow distribution, new streamlined urban
design scorecards, and introductions of consistent staff reviewer.
• Concierge program specifically for affordable housing projects and non-
profit organizations to support customer experience, including informal
application fast -tracking whenever possible.
Policy Secondary dwelling (duplexes) as -of -right since 1994.
• Updates to the comprehensive zoning by-law (2019) in 2022 that focus
on housing affordability through reduction in parking requirements for
several zones and permitting of attached and detached ADUs aligned
with the City's Official Plan.
Source: Parcel and StrategyCorp
13 Prior to Bill 23
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 50
Page 115 of 601
Parcel
Bill 23: Enabling Legislation
One of the most significant changes of Bill 23 legislation is making mandatory what would have
previously been incentives offered by municipalities to encourage and enable the provision of missing
middle and affordable housing. Key legislative changes include:
Financial • Affordable housing, inclusionary zoning, and attainable housing units are
exempt from development charges, community benefit charges, and
parkland dedication. The definition for attainable housing has yet to be
fl
defined.
• Rental units have reduced development charges based on the number
of bedrooms (25% reduction for 3+ -bed+ units, 20% for reduction for 2 -
bed units; 15% reduction for all other units).
• Municipalities can charge a maximum of prime plus 1 % on deferred
development charges.
• Parkland dedication is capped at 10% of land or its value for sites under
five (5) hectares and 15% for sites over five (5) hectares.
• Parkland dedication is capped at 10% of land or its value for sites under
five (5) hectares and 15% for sites over five (5) hectares.
• Community benefits charge is based only on the value of the land used
for the new development, not the entire parcel.
Process • Site Plan Control is no longer required for developments of fewer than
10 units.
• Exterior design is no longer subject to site plan control
Policy • Three residential units are permitted as -of -right on residential lots and
exempt from development charges, community benefits charges, and
parkland dedication.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 51
Page 116 of 601
Design Prototypes
Key Findings
• Prototypical developments have been
prepared for all housing typologies to
help visualize opportunities for missing
middle housing in Kitchener and act as a
baseline for the missing middle
candidate site and financial analyses.
• Approximately one-third of properties
in Kitchener (24,300 parcels) could
accommodate missing middle housing
typologies. Of these, 17,658 parcels
could accommodate Plexes and 5,808
parcels could accommodate Low -Rise
apartments.
• Some 21% (5,830 parcels) of sites are
located within the Central
Neighbourhoods, while the remaining
79%(18,500 parcels) are located in the
Suburban Neighbourhoods
Parcel
• Approximately 98% of these missing
middle parcels have residential
permissions and 88% are occupied by a
single -detached house. Conversion to
missing middle housing would require
minimal amendments to current land
use designations and acquisition /
demolition / potential site remediation
would all be relatively straightforward.
• Depending on market "uptake", missing
middle typologies could house between
20,000 and 30,000 new residents of
Kitchener.
• Under a scenario where there is
increased delivery of selected missing
middle typologies, up to 1 in 5 (20%)
new residents in Kitchener could be
accommodated on just 2% of all
parcels City-wide or 5% of parcels
identified as missing middle supportive.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 52
Page 117 of 601
Parcel
3.1 Ove rvi ew
This section visualizes and quantifies opportunities for missing middle housing in Kitchener, based a series of
prototypical developments prepared by Smart Density in collaboration with City staff. Prototypes were prepared
based on the following parameters:
• The use of existing land use policy, zoning, and urban design guidelines as a baseline;
• The deliberate use of prototypical lot sizes / dimensions in Kitchener that correspond with specific
typologies; and,
• The direction to "push the envelope" in design from the status quo and therefore deviate from existing City
standards where necessary.
Our analysis identifies opportunities within the current land use and zoning framework to better support missing
middle typologies, addressed through policy recommendations presented later in the report.
Finally, our approach conducts a "deeper dive" into selected missing middle typologies, specifically those with
characteristics that provide opportunities to investigate the potential of less common typologies in the Kitchener
context (i.e., New Format Towns, Plexes, Low -Rises and Mid -Rises). More common typologies (Singles, Traditional
Towns, ADUs, High -Rise) are presented herein as "graphic only' demonstrations for additional reference.
Official Plan
There are three (3) types of residential land use designations - low rise, medium rise, and high rise - in the City of
Kitchener Official Plan, each with their own permitted typologies and maximum densities, floor space ratios (FSR),
and heights. Missing middle typologies are generally permitted in low rise and medium rise residential lands,
however, they may be limited by the aforementioned built form requirements (density, FSR, height).
Updating these built form requirements would allow for
greater flexibility to accommodate missing middle
housing without changes to permitted typologies.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 53
Page 118 of 601
Figure 3.1
Residential Land Use Designations
TypologiesDesignation Permitted
Low Rise Residential 0 Single detached dwellings
• Additional dwelling units, attached and
detached
• Semi-detached dwellings
• Street townhouse dwellings
• Townhouse dwellings in a cluster
development
• Low-rise multiple dwellings
• Special needs housing
• Other forms of low-rise housing
Medium Rise Residential 9 Townhouse dwellings in a cluster
development
• Multiple dwellings
• Special needs housing
High Rise Residential 0 High density multiple dwellings
• Special needs housing
Source: Parcel, based on City of Kitchener Official Plan Section 15
Zoning
Parcel
0.6 to 0.75 3 storeys or 11 m
0.6 to 2.0 8 storeys or 25 m
2.0 to 4.0 n/a
There are currently seven residential zones in Kitchener with varying degrees of residential permissions based on
density. Missing middle typologies are generally permitted in residential zones RES -4 to RES -7, the most permissive
of the residential zones. They are not permitted in residential zones RES -1 to RES -3 (i.e., singles, semis, and ADUs
only).
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 54
Page 119 of 601
Parcel
There may be an opportunity to streamline these zones
into a fewer total number with increased permissions for
missing middle housing, particularly in the lower -density
zones.
Figure 3.2
Residential Zoning Permissions
W
J
H
H
ZONE RES -1 RES -2 RES -3 RES -4 RES -5 RES -6 RES -7
(Single -detached only) (Single -detached only)
Additional 11-1 111pply
Source: Parcel, based on City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051
3.2 Development Concept Profiles
Based on the foregoing parameters and direct collaboration with City staff, Smart Density has prepared visual
demonstrations for each of the eight housing typologies identified for this study. In addition to the preliminary
building massing graphics included in this report, more detailed architecture and design considerations have also
been provided under separate cover to the City, including preliminary floor plan / site layouts and other key
considerations for selected missing middle typologies.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 55
Page 120 of 601
Parcel
The results of this work—including brief design rationales, graphics and summaries of key development statistics—
have been summarized in the series of one-page profiles included herein.
These preliminary design concepts have served as both a
helpful reference for visualizing the opportunities for
missing middle typologies in a Kitchener -specific
context, as well as a critical baseline for the financial
analysis prepared by the study team.
Location Indicators: Included in Financial Analysis Not Included in Financial Analysis
Enabling Missing Middle &Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 56
Page 121 of 601
Parcel
files+ (A)
Single -detached houses can use scales and massing similar to the surrounding dwellings to help maintain the
character of the neighbourhood. This can be achieved by using similar property dimensions, setbacks, heights, and
footprints.
Visual Demonstration of Singles Concept (A)
SMART
SOURCE: Smart Density. Graphic represents just one of 16 equivalent single -detached units
Lot Size / Width: 16 units14 x 0.025 ha = 0.4 ha (1.0 ac) / not applicable
Gross Floor Area: 16 units x 218 m2= 3,495 m2 (37,600 ft')
FSR: 0.9
Storeys: 2
Units: 16
Average Unit Size: 218 m2 (2,350 ft')
Central
•
Suburban
•
■
" Singles development concept and corresponding financial feasibility analysis based on a lot containing sixteen (16) single -detached units.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 57
Page 122 of 601
Parcel
wr
Accessory dwelling units are small, independent dwellings that fit on the same lot as a main house. This typology
fits seamlessly into a low-density neighbourhood context and has minimal visual impact on the streetscape. It allows
property owners to downsize or provide independent living for a family member, among other things.
Visual Demonstration of ADU Concept (B)
n
SMART
DENSITY
SOURCE: Smart Density
Lot Size / Width:
Gross Floor Area:
FSR:
Storeys:
Units:
Average Unit Size:
M
l
•
71
0.01 ha (0.02 ac) / not applicable Central
79 m'(850 ft')
•
1.06
1 Suburban
1
•
79 m'(850 ft')
t
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 58
Page 123 of 601
Parcel
Traditional Towns (Cl_L�g
Traditional row townhouses provide grade -related housing in a denser form than single- detached dwellings while
maintaining similar characteristics to the existing neighbourhood, such as private driveways, garages, and
backyards.
Figure 3.5
Visual Demonstration of Traditional Towns Concept (Cl
A
SMART
DENSITY
SOURCE: Smart Density
J\
Lot Size / Width: 0.40 ha (1.0 ac) / not applicable Central
Gross Floor Area: 3,456 m2 (37,200 ft2)
•
FSR: 0.85
Storeys: 2 Suburban
Units: 24
Average Unit Size: 144 m2(1,550 ft2) •
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 59
Page 124 of 601
Parcel
"'T
New format townhouses provide grade -related housing in a more compact form than traditional townhouses while
maintaining similar characteristics to the existing neighbourhood, such as private garages and backyards. This
typology provides a smooth transition between busier streets and smaller -scale neighbourhoods.
Visual Demonstration of New Format Towns Concept (C2)
IM
i
AQ
d 9 0
SMART
DENSITY • •
SOURCE: Smart Density
Lot Size / Width: 0.15 ha (0.36 ac) / 24 m (258 ft) Central
Gross Floor Area: 1,543 m2 (16,614 ft')
FSR: 1.06
Storeys: 3 Suburban
Units: 9
•
Average Unit Size: 171 m2(1�846�t2)
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 60
Page 125 of 601
Parcel
Multiplexes are a type of multi -family housing that is divided into individual units, each accessed from an interior
circulation core. This typology is suitable for transit -supported neighbourhoods due to lower parking provisions
Figure 3.7
Visual Demonstration of Plexes Concept (0)
h
I l
SMART
DENSITY
SOURCE: Smart Density
Lot Size / Width: 0.04 hectares (0.11 acres) / 12 m (129 ft) Central
Gross Floor Area: 808 m2 (8,701 ft')
FSR:
Storeys:
Units:
Average Unit Size:
1.87
3 plus basement
8
88 m2 (949 ft')
•
Suburban
L
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 61
Page 126 of 601
Parcel
IMI -m- �
ran,
Low-rise apartment buildings are divided into individual units, each accessed from an interior circulation core. This
typology is suitable for transit -supported neighbourhoods with properties that are wider than typical residential lots
in Kitchener due to lower parking provisions.
Figure 3.8
Visual Demonstration of Low -Rise Concept (D1)
SOURCE: Smart Density
n
Lot Size / Width: 0.06 ha (0.16 ac) / 18 m (194 ft) Central
Gross Floor Area: 1,210 m2 (13,024 ft)
FSR: 1.92
Storeys: 3 plus basement Suburban
Units: 15
ii
Average Unit Size: 66 m2 (712 ft2)
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 62
Page 127 of 601
Parcel
Mid -rise buildings are four to eight storeys in height and divided into individual units, each accessed from an
interior circulation core. This typology maximizes available space to provide more housing options, helps frame
main streets, and provides a suitable transition from denser areas of the city.
Figure 3.9
Visual Demonstration of Mid -Rise Concept (D2)
• -#fie � e;�
,rR�-
SOURCE: Smart Density
Lot Size / Width:
Gross Floor Area:
FSR:
Storeys:
Units:
Average Unit Size:
0.11 ha (0.27 ac) / 36 m (1 18 ft)
2,745 m2 (29,549 ft2)
2.51
6
32
70 m2 (757 ft2)
Central
0
Suburban
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 63
Page 128 of 601
Parcel
The City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual is a set of guiding principles and performance criteria that sets the
expectations of how tall building designs can enhance the public realm and pedestrian experience. This can be
achieved by using tools such as transition, built form, and scale.
Visual Demonstration of High -Rise Concept (E)
SOURCE: Smart Density
Lot Size / Width:
Gross Floor Area:
FSR:
Storeys:
Units:
Average Unit Size:
0.28 ha (0.69 ac) / not applicable
32,981 m2(355,000 ft')
11.81
45
425
66 m2 (710 ft')
Central
0
Suburban
0
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 64
Page 129 of 601
Parcel
3.3 Scope of Missing Middle Opportunity
To understand the magnitude of the opportunity for missing middle typologies to accommodate future growth in
Kitchener, we have conducted a scan of the City's existing parcel fabric to identify "candidate" sites capable of
supporting selected prototypical developments identified above.
Note: Understated Opportunity
For this exercise, we have focused our review on the existing supply of individual parcels, however, we
recognize that land assemblies (i.e., the combination of two or more parcels to form a single
consolidated development site) could further enhance the scope of this opportunity. This is especially
true for larger, more land -intensive typologies, such as the Mid -Rise typology.
Land assemblies are complicated and often result in a higher overall land costs as individual property
owners negotiate for more than their neighbour received (i.e., knowing that they now have more power
in the negotiation, as the developer has already started to invest in their immediate area).
Focusing on individual parcel opportunities ensures that the potential "pool" of available developers
are not limited to just the well-established and experienced organizations already operating in the City,
but also the future up-and-coming builders just starting out.
Figure 3.11 provides a summary of the parcel characteristics targeted for each of Smart Density's missing middle
designs. These characteristics—specifically lot area and perimeter—were cross referenced with the City's existing
parcel data to identify candidate sites via a two-step process.
• First, all parcels with a lot area at least as large as those considered by Smart Density and less than the lot
area of the next typology in the spectrum were identified (e.g., parcels with a lot area of at least 432 square
metres and up to 647 square metres were considered suitable for an 8-Plex).
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 65
Page 130 of 601
Parcel
• Secondly, the shortlist of sites deemed appropriate from the perspective of lot area (per above) was filtered
further by using perimeter as a proxy for lot dimensions or ideal property shape15. In the case of sites with
an area slightly larger than considered by Smart Density, we considered a perimeter consistent with a
similar aspect ratio (e.g., the prototypical site for Smart Density's 8-Plex design concept is three times as
deep as it is wide, so any candidate sites slightly larger than this ratio were filtered to have perimeters
consistent with a site three times as deep as they are wide).
Missing Middle Parcel Characteristics
Low -Rise 15 units 648 sm 18.0 m 36.0 m 108.0 m
Mid -Rise
New Format Towns
32 units 1,080 sm
9 units 1,440 sm
Source: Smart Density. See Section 3.2.
36.0 m 30.0 m 144.0 m
24.0 m 60.0 m 168.0 m
low Many Missing Middl°1 �:tr. 'exist in Kitchener?
We estimate that more than 24,200 parcels—or
approximately one third of all properties City-wide—
could accommodate missing middle housing
typologies.
15 The City's parcel layer, available via the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), did not include lot dimensions (width, depth),
only area and perimeter.
'b Including the Plexes, Low -Rise, Mid -Rise and New Format Town typologies only. More traditional Towns characteristic of suburban
neighbourhood contexts have been deliberately excluded from this assessment, as detailed herein. Similarly, ADUs have also been excluded.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 66
Page 131 of 601
Parcel
Through this process, we have identified that there is tremendous potential to accommodate missing middle
housing typologies across the City, especially in areas of Kitchener where supporting infrastructure already exists.
This is especially true at the "gentle density" end of the spectrum -including Plexes and Low -Rise typologies, which
can be accommodated by more than 96% of the eligible missing middle parcels identified.
Overall, we estimate that:
• 26%(17,615 parcels) of the City's parcels could accommodate Plexes;
• 9% (5,759 parcels) could accommodate Low -Rise apartments;
• 1%(596 parcels) could accommodate Mid -Rise apartments; and,
• 0.3%(234 parcels) could accommodate New Format Towns.
Approximately 21%(5,800 parcels) of the missing middle candidate sites are located within the Central
Neighbourhoods, as defined by the City's Development Charges By -Law, while the remaining 79%(-16,400
parcels) are located in Suburban Neighbourhoods
Fiaure 3.1 "'
Kitchener Missing Middle Parcels - Total Supply
Central Neighbourhoods
Plexes
4,385 parcels
30%
14,370
Not Suitable parcels
8,569 parcels
60% Low -Rise
1,232 parcels
9%
Mid -Rise
New Format To ` 123 parcels
61 parcels 1%
0.4%
Suburban Neighbourhoods
52,498
Not Su ita blepa rce Is
34,095 parcels
65% k i
Plexes
13,230 pa rce Is
25%
Low -Rise
4,527 parcels
9%
P Mid -Rise
Format iowwj_Z3 parcels
173 parcels 1
0.3%
Source: Parcel, based on MPAC parcel data and Smart Density design concepts. Number of parcels represent identification of total eligible or
"candidate" sites capable of supporting these types of developments. Includes parcels designated for both residential and non-residential uses.
Excludes open space/ parks, utility, and group homes.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 67
Page 132 of 601
Parcel
These candidate sites are the "low hanging fruit"
opportunities for missing middle intensification.
Overall, 99% of the supportive parcels identified City-wide are already home to residential uses and would
likely only require changes in zoning to accommodate missing middle typologies. Furthermore, 88% of the
potential sites are occupied by single -detached houses, suggesting that they could be acquired with relatively low
complexity. Similarly, any existing structures could be demolished quickly and affordably, and the lands would have
a low potential for contamination requiring costly remediation. Less than 1 % of the missing middle -supportive
parcels are currently designated for non-residential uses and would require a re -designation.
We note that this high-level scan of all parcels across the City does have some limitations. For example, at this scale
it was not possible to ensure that every parcel identified as having missing middle potential has the appropriate
servicing capacity to support intensification. Furthermore, some parcels likely have site specific constraints which
would, at minimum, complicate intensification to the point of curtailing redevelopment.
Traditional Townhouses: Street -Front / Back -to -Back Towns
Traditional street -front townhouses—commensurate with the Towns (C1�typology—are often included as
consolidated blocks within large suburban subdivisions that can include a broader mix of building types
(e.g., single -detached, semi-detached, townhouses and even low to mid -rise apartment buildings).
The parcel analysis detailed in this section was focused on identifying individual sites with the potential
to accommodate intensification without the need for additional land assembly. We acknowledge that
these more suburban townhouses will continue to be constructed in the City's greenfield areas, further
contributing to the ability of the community to advance missing middle growth, over and above the
analysis presented here.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 68
Page 133 of 601
Parcel
Accessory Dwelling Units: Basement Apartments / Backyard Units
Based on our review of building permits, more than 1,900 ADUs have been added to the housing
supply in Kitchener over the past 10 years. The majority of these units include renovations to existing
dwellings to create additional units (e.g., basement apartments, colloquially known as "duplexes" in
Kitchener). Building permits for backyard units—commensurate with the ADUs (B) typology introduced
earlier—began to emerge in 2021eWe have identified at least 12 such permits since then, however,
there is potential for far more in the future.
The recently completed Land Needs Assessment as part of the Region of Waterloo Official Plan Review
(2022) forecasts some 1,380 additional "secondary units" in Kitchener to 2051. This represents less than
3% of the parcels City-wide that currently contain single and semi-detached houses (estimated at some
52,800 parcels in total).
Moreover, the 1,900 building permits for AD Us identified over the past 10 years represents less than
4% of these parcels. If ADUs continue to be added at the 5 -year building permit pace of approximately
275 per year, some 8,250 ADUs could be added with the capacity to house more than 15,450
residents over the next three decades. This is equivalent to one in every five houses adding an ADU.
How Much Growth Could This Support
Demand
Kitchener's population is expected to grow by some 140,100 residents by 2051e . This will require 54,615 additional
units, more than half of which -31,535 (55%)—are planned to be in the form of High Density ' units.
Additionally, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) recently posted a bulletin in October 2022
assigning a housing target of 35,000 new units to be built in Kitchener by 2031.
17 Based on Table 1 of Amendment No. 6 to the Regional Official Plan (ROPA 6), August 18, 2022.
18 High density includes bachelor, 1 -bedroom and 2 -bedroom+ apartments and stad<ed townhouses.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 69
Page 134 of 601
Parcel
Scenario A: Moderate Market Uptake
As noted earlier in this section, more than 24,300 parcels or more than one third of the City's parcels could
accommodate missing middle housing typologies. This presents the opportunity for missing middle typologies on
already -serviced land to contribute significantly to the accommodation of future dwellings and residents.
Based on our review of parcels across the City in both the Central and Suburban areas, historical building permits,
and the Region's LNA, we believe that it is reasonable to assume that some 780 parcels (i.e., just over 3% of those
identified as having missing middle potential) could be redeveloped across the City by 2051eAs illustrated in
Figure 3.13, this amounts to approximately 26 missing middle buildings or 333 units annually overthe 30 -year
period. Overthe past 10 years Kitchener has averaged 1,145 apartment starts annually' 9, with several of the last 5
years will above the 10 -year average (e.g., 2,750 apartment unit starts in 2010.
This could be a conservative estimate, particularly if the City opts to advance a robust incentive program to
encourage the development of these housing typologies. These missing middle units represent a 28% increase to
the 10 -year average apartment starts. As noted in Section 2.1, the CHSP estimated that some 3,965 of Kitchener's
single -detached units are owned by investors as of 2020. Although not all investors have profit maximization as
their primary motivation, 780 parcels converting to missing middle typologies by 2051 represents just 20% of
investor-owned single -detached houses being intensified to missing middle typologies; a reasonable
assumption over 30 years.
These new missing middle units could accommodate
more than 18,900 new residents (more than 13% of the
City's allocated population growth to 2051) on just over
1 % of all parcels across the City or just over 3% of those
parcels identified as supportive of the missing middle.
Furthermore, nearly 8% of the City's MMAH allocated target of 35,000 new units by 2031 could be met
through missing middle typologies if an average of 333 missing middle units are completed over the next 8 years
to 2031e
19 Based on CMHC Starts data.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 70
Page 135 of 601
Parcel
Figure 3.13
Summary of Potential Market "Uptake" of Missing Middle Typologies
U ildings
7YP
logy esiden
Bu or
Plexes
8 units
17,615 sites
2.9%
510 sites
4,080 units
1.87
7,645
136 units
17.0
Low -Rise
15 units
5,759 sites
2.1%
120 sites
1,800 units
1.87
3,373
60 units
4.0
Mid -Rise
32 units
596 sites
20.1%
120 sites
3,840 units
1.87
i
7,195
128 units
4.0
New Format Towns
9 units
234 sites
12.8%
30 sites
270 units
2.60
702
9 units
1.0
24,204 sites
3.2%
780 sites
9,990 units
1.89
18,914
333 units
26.0
Source: Parcel, based on parcel and building permit data provided by the City of Kitchener.
Assuming a conservative assessment value of $160,00020 for each new apartment unit created—regardless of
building typology and location—the City's property tax base could grow to include an extra $13.4 million
annually upon completion and market entry of these new missing middle units.
Scenario B: Increased Market Uptake
As established above, the parcels capable of accommodating an 8-Plex or Low -Rise apartment building make up
the majority of the missing middle potential, or "opportunity". If these two typologies in particular are incentivized
to the point where the development community begins to direct more significant attention, increases to the number
of future residents housed and potential property tax increases generated could be substantial.
For example, as noted in Figure 3.14, two-thirds of the missing middle potential parcels are zoned RES -2 or RES -3,
which do not permit the missing middle development concepts prepared by Smarty Density as -of -right. A simple
update of the permissions within these zoning categories would eliminate the need for a zoning by-law amendment
when proposing a missing middle typology, reducing complexity, time, and both direct and indirect costs to the
developer.
20 2022 value, no inflation.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 71
Page 136 of 601
Parcel
Figure 3.14
Current Zoning Designation of Potential Missing Middle Parcels
Other RES
22%
I
4 7o
8%
Source: Parcel, based on the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051. See Table Figure 3.2 for more detailed zoning permissions.
For example, if just 59/o of the 8-Plex and Low -Rise parcels are converted, nearly 29,400 residents could now be
accommodated in missing middle typologies to 2051, increasing the annual tax collected on these sites by more
than $20.7 million each year. We note this is commensurate with one third of investor-owned single -detached
houses (see Section 2.14 intensifying to missing middle typologies.
Simply put, we estimate that 1 in 5 (20%) of new
residents could be accommodated in missing middle
typologies on just 2% of all parcels across the City or 5%
of parcels identified as missing middle supportive under
this more advanced delivery scenario.
Furthermore, this advanced delivery scenario could deliver almost 12% of the City's MMAH allocated target of
35,000 new units by 2031e
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 72
Page 137 of 601
Parcel
When comparing this format of housing against more traditional typologies at either end of the spectrum, this
would be the equivalent of:
High -Density -112 typical apartment buildings; or,
• Low -Density& 7,900 single- and semi-detached houses.
Key Consideration: Revenue Capture & Funding Opportunities
In combination with the incentives evaluation detailed later in this report, it is important to acknowledge
the potential fiscal impacts of an increased market "capture" for these missing middle typologies.
Specifically, the City will need to evaluate the extent to which this could generate additional property
tax revenues on already -serviced lots that have—at least to some degree—already been planned to
accommodate housing and new growth.
Where possible, this will need to be counterbalanced with two key factors: (i) any revenue shortfall or
surplus available to be allocated to the ultimate financial incentives offered if an and (ii) any measure
of the "substitution effect", which will determine whether these represent "net new" revenue streams or
simply a replacement for other new development that would have otherwise continued to occur
elsewhere in the City in a different formats. Recent and ongoing research exercises in communities
across the country continue to investigate the "pound -for -pound" fiscal impacts of new development in
predominantly suburban greenfield contexts vs. opportunities for infill and intensification in more
established residentiald mixed use environments. These concepts will need to be rationalized in a
Kitchener -specific context.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 73
Page 138 of 601
Financial Feasibility
Key Findings
• Singles, Suburban Towns, Plexes and
High -Rise ownership scenarios are
discernable "winners", re -enforcing
recent development patterns in
Kitchener (i.e., the extremes of the low -
and high-density spectrum)
• There are numerous profitable rental
typologies, however, all rental tenures
consistently underperform ownership,
which make them less attractive to
"quick win" typologies.
• Many missing middle typologies—
including Mid -Rise apartments—tend to
yield lower returns due to an awkward
relationship between development
scale and (costly) parking needs.
• Timing—or "investment horizon"—is an
important factor that influences both
built form and tenure considerations.
Parcel
• Many missing middle forms are
challenged by their attractiveness
relative to other preferred typologies;
and alternative investment vehicles
• Affordability requirements negatively
affect all typologies, but High -Rise
apartments have the greatest potential
to absorb affordable housing into a pro
forma while maintaining favourable
return metrics.
• Any increase in hard costs will negatively
impact ownership typology profitability
and return metrics such that projects
become unviable. Decreasing hard costs
positively affect ownership typologies,
but does not improve outcomes for any
rental typology enough to attract
additional interest.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 74
Page 139 of 601
Parcel
4.1 The Basics
The development of new real estate—whether market or non -market (affordable)—can be extremely complex given
that its success is dependent on a multitude of factors spanning countless industries and professional disciplines.
Similarly, development can be heavily influenced by both broader macroeconomic conditions and more site-
specific factors; all of which are key determinants in the ultimate viability of a given project.
For simplicity, we often synthesize this to the identification of four key elements that can have some of the most
significant impacts on financial feasibility: Policy, Market, Land and Capital. The successful integration of all of
these factors is required to set the groundwork for viability.
Figure 4.1
The "Sweet Spot" for Successful Development Projects
Is there debt and equity
available to finance the
construction of the building at
a reasonable cost?
Source: Parcel
Does public policy support the built -form and
scale necessaryto achieve both financial
feasibility and community building
aspirations?
Capit
Policy
Land
Is land available in the right
location at a reasonable price?
Is there market demand for the
product at prices conducive to
development?
Are the building cost inputs
reasonable?
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 75
Page 140 of 601
Parcel
As introduced in Section 1.3, we have prepared Discounted Cash Flow (DCF)analyses for each housing typology
identified through this study21. Our team chose to undertake DCFs, as opposed to a more simplified and static
Residual Land Value (RLV) analysis, because:
• A DCF takes into account the timing of development cash flows, recognizing that projects typically occur
over many years;
• It captures the Time Value of Money (TVM), given that "a dollar in your hand today is worth more than a
dollar tomorrow";
• It offers the opportunity prepare a more detailed evaluation of the potential profitability of purpose-built
rental apartments, specifically their cashflow-generating potential during operations (i.e., post -
development); and,
• The prototypical development concepts prepared by Smart Density for the Missing Middle typologies
provided the necessary detail to complete this type of analysis.
Notwithstanding the foregoing differences, it is helpful to keep in mind that the overall structure of any financial
feasibility modelling is effectively the same.
Both simplified and very detailed development pro
forma analyses can always be simplified to their core
elements: Revenues, Costs and Profits.
How certain revenued cost and profit assumptions are applied can also vary when dealing with different tenures in
the case of residential development (i.e., ownership vs. rental housing). The key difference being that most
ownership (condo -based) residential developments are focused on relatively short-term investment horizons
consisting of predominantly one-time cost / revenue streams, whereas purpose-built rental housing requires a
much different investment "lens", that can span many years (i.e., including operation of the new asset, upon its
completion and market entry).
21 The actual number of distinct analyses prepared exceeds the eight total typologies to appropriately capture additional nuances across
different tenures (ownership and rental), as well as geographies (namely: Central and Suburban, as defined by the City of Kitchener).
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 76
Page 141 of 601
Figure 4.2
Basic Structure of Financial Feasibility
source: Parcel
Revenuezi...
Sales
(NSF x $PSF)
Rental Revenue
(Rent - Expenses) x Hold Period
t
(NOI - Cap Rate)
Costs...
($/Ac, $PBSF)
Hard Costs
(GSF x $PSF)
Soft Costs
(% of Haed Costs)
Parcel
i,I'.diY
(before Tax)
Not all developers are alike and there is no single return
metric that signifies a financially viable project.
Each paeticipaet in a development project looks at a unique subset of vaeia6les aed return metrics under different
conditions, based on their own requirements aed/or expectations. Common measurement tools include:
• Net Profit / (Loss)
The tota6aenount of money made (or lost) over the course of a project.
• Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
The expected compound aenua6return (%) over the course of the project.
• Equity Multiplier (EMx)
The number of times a project's origina6equity investment is returned to investors.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 77
Page 142 of 601
Parcel
• Cash -on -Cash Return (CoC)
The cash flow after fin ancing4%) generated by the equity invested to date. It does not take into account the
value of the building or any appreciation of value overtime.
• Timing
Opportunistic investors look for quick returns (e.g., condo apartments) while long-term investors value
consistent returns over a longer period (e.g., rental apartments).
• Measurements of Risk (Lenders):
Loan to Value, Debt Service Coverage Ratio, Debt Yield, etc.
Pro forma analyses are important to all facets of urban
development, with wide-ranging private and public
sector applications.
Financial feasibility modelling is—at its core—a tool for evaluating potential future outcomes. Whether motivated
purely by profit or driven by other city -building objectives and social purpose, this type of analysis can be applied
to any number of different "use cases" to maximize opportunities to achieve preferred outcomes.
Broadly speaking, development proEforma analyses can be relied upon at various stages of the real estate
development life cycle, including during the early stages of concept development (Pre -Development); throughout
the entitlements and government approvals process (Approvals & Funding); as well as to inform the creation of
sound land use policies that are mindful of the current—and anticipated future—conditions within a given market
(Policy Development).
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 78
Page 143 of 601
Figure 4.3
Pro Forma Use Cases
PRE-
DEVELOPMEN k
• Validate financial feasibility (pre- and
post- land acquisition)
Early-stage development scoping
and concept testing
Source: Parc4
APPROVALS &
FUNDING
• Optimize development program
(project "right -sizing", determine ideal
land use mix, etc.)
• Optimize delivery of social benefits
(affordable housing, community
amenities, etc.)
Parcel
POLICY
DEVELOPMENT
• Inform land use policy direction /
special projects (OP Reviews, SP's,
other municipal strategies, etc.)
• Prioritization of preferred municipal /
city -building outcomes (DC's,
parkland dedication, retail @
grade, affordable housing, urban
design, etc.)
For this study, pro forma analysis, and financial feasibility
in general, has been utilized primarily as a tool for
comparison rather than profit maximization.
Furthermore, the analysis presented in this study has not been relied upon as an exact predictor of actual profits,
nor profit maximization more broadly. It is more intended to help the City identify meaningful tools and incentives
that result in desired outcomes, based on the range of key study objectives identified (i.e., "enabling" the
development of missing middle and affordable housing). We acknowledge that some typologies and scenarios
which may appear unprofitable in the following section could very well be profitable under the right circumstances
and conditions, which deviate from our broad baseline assumptions.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 79
Page 144 of 601
Parcel
4.2 Baseline Analysis
First things first: what is the situation today in Kitchener?
Conducting a baseline analysis based on today's market conditions and policy context has allowed us to establish
an important starting point for this study. It has also helped us to compare the feasibility of a variety of unique
development conditions that vary by Typology, Location and Tenure. Through a testing of 18 different resulting
baseline analyses, we have been able to gain a more nuanced understanding as to why certain typologies are—or
are not—being built in the Kitchener market today, in addition to identifying a number of key themes.
Additionally, by leveraging these baseline results as a tool for comparison, the clear "winners" identified can help to
set the goal posts in understanding how much additional support will be required for unprofitable scenarios to
compete for development investment interest.
It is helpful to first focus on the simplest of return metrics: does the scenario offer the potential to make a profit?
Aside from the Central High -Rise building concept, all other baseline scenarios show potential for a profit of up to
$2 million, or inversely a loss of $2 million. This narrow band is likely due, in part, to the relatively small land areas
considered (1 acre or less), as well as the modest densities identified in the baseline concepts (between 0.9 and 2.5
FSR of development).
Figure 4.4 demonstrates that several of the baseline scenarios are unlikely to make a profit. These include:
• New Format Towns (Ownership & Rental);
• Central and Suburban Low -Rise (Ownership);
• Central and Suburban Mid -Rise (Ownership & Rental); and,
• Central High -Rise (Rental).
Furthermore, although potentially profitable, the remaining rental scenarios make so little profit over a 13-8year
timelines that it is unlikely that the other return metrics will justify the equity -heavy investments they require.
This leaves only the Suburban Singles, Suburban Towns, Central 8-Plex, Central and Suburban Low -Rise, and
Central High -Rise ownership scenarios as the only baseline scenarios with realistic profit potential that garner a
deeper review of additional return metrics.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 80
Page 145 of 601
Figure 4.4
Potential Profit/ Loss of Baseline Scenarios
Profit • Ownership
♦ Rental
$10.0 million
$8.0 million
$6.0 million
$4.0 million
$2.0 million
$0.0 million
-$2.0 million
-$4.0 million
-$6.0 million
-$8.0 million
-$10.0 million
0 yrs
Source: Parcel
2 yrs 4 yrs 6 yrs 8 yrs
.e
i
10 yrs 12 yrs 14 yrs 16 yrs 18 yrs
Parcel
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 81
Page 146 of 601
Parcel
IRR & EMx
Now focusing just on the baseline scenarios with a potential for profit, Figure 4.5 further confirms that rental
scenarios generate a lower Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and Equity Multiplier (EMx), particularly given their longer
timeframe. The clear "winners" of housing development in Kitchener begin to emerge here via the typologies
generating close to 15% or more in IRR and achieving a reasonable EMx - in some cases over a much shorter time
period (i.e., "quick wins"). This exact pattern has been evidenced through recent development patterns in
Kitchener, which continue to favour high-rise apartments (Central High -Rise) and ground -oriented houses
(Suburban Singlesd Suburban Towns).
Figure 4.5
IRR & EMx of Potentially Profitable Baseline Scenarios
IRR Ownership
♦ Rental
35%
30%
0 Central High -Rise
25%
20%
Suburban Towns*
Suburban Singles
15%
10%
Ce ntral PI exes
5%
uburba :-Ri � ntrl_aw Rs�
it, I _3n L w R :: Central Plexes
Sub nTowns*
EMx
1.0x 1.1x 1.2x 1.3x 1.4x 1.5x 1.6x 1.7x
Source: Parcel
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 82
Page 147 of 601
Parcel
coc
It is also important to recognize that return expectations for rental housing can be different, particularly when
adopting a "build -to -hold" strategy. In rental prodormas, both IRR and EMx can be heavily influenced by the
reversion value at the end of the hold period (i.e., how much the owner is expecting to sell the building for in so
many years).
Because it is hard to predict the future—especially one or more decades out—many rental apartment developers will
focus on the Cash -on -Cash (CoC) return that a property can generate each year in the more immediate future. This
effectively isolates for the immediate value of cash flows from the building rather than any appreciation of value
overdime.
Figure 4.6 illustrates that, based on CoC alone, a rental developer is unlikely to overlook poor IRR or EMx metrics in
any of the rental scenarios identified for this study. In all cases, a "safer" and/or "easier" investment in 10 -year
government bonds or a real estate -focused ETF will generate more cash in this regard, without the risk and effort
required to construct—and manage—a building.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 83
Page 148 of 601
Potential Cash -on -Cash Returns of Baseline Rental Scenarios
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0 yrs 2 yrs 4 yrs 6 yrs 8 yrs 10 yrs 12 yrs 14 yrs 16 yrs 18 yrs
Source: Parcel
Parcel
No scenario is
expected to yield as
much as a real estate
focused ETF has
returned over the last
10 years
Al I rental scenarios
generated lower CoC
returns than possible
from a 10 -year
government bond
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 84
Page 149 of 601
Parcel
Summary: What are the typical "goal posts" for feasibility?
Figure 4.7 provides a summary of the baseline return metrics by typology and tenure, based on the development
concepts detailed in Section 3.2. Through this analysis, we have continued to focus on the ability of development
projects to reach the following "goal posts"—or "hurdle rates—as determined to be reasonable minimum measures
of financial performance that suggest some promise of feasibility:
• At least 15% IRR (depending on development on timeline);
• Approximately 1.3 to 1.6 EMx (depending on development timeline);
• A CoC return that surpasses the 10 -year bond yield of 3.0%, in the case of rental scenarios.
Figure 4.7
Summary of Baseline Return Metrics by Typology
"MISSING MIDDLE"
LOW DENSITY HIGH DENSITY
"MISSING LITTLE"
Return Metrics
Ownership
- "MISSING LITTLE"
IRR
15% 18%
< 0%
9%
1.7%-2.8%
< 0%
29%
EMx
1.22x - 1.34x
< 1.00X
1.16x
1.06x
< 1.00X
1.64x
Rental
IRR
- 6% 1 %
<0%
2%
2%
<0%
<0%
EMx
1.71x 1.06x
< 1.00X
1.21x
1.26x
< 1.00X
< 1.00X
COC
7.9% 2.0%
0.8%
2.2%
2.3%
1.3%
1.1%
Source: Parcel
Relying on these potential baseline returns associated with the full spectrum of typologies, the sensitivity analyses in
the following section—and the financial analyses of proposed incentives identified in Section 5.0—also focus on
whetherthe associated impacts of these changes bring each typology closerto the identified goals posts (or in
other terms, closertothe baseline return potential of the identified "winners' in today's market)".
22 We caution that this approach merely seeks to improve the missing middle typologies in comparison to the more profitable alternatives,
however, each development site will have different investment goals and objectives specific to the developer and its financial partners, which
may require much higher returns to justify the amount of risk and effort required to redevelop a given site.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 85
Page 150 of 601
Parcel
Feasibility Profile: New -Build vs. Renovation
When dealing with relatively small-scale infill and Missing Middle typologies in existing built-up areas, a
key consideration faced by developers can be whether to initiate a "from scratch" development vs.
contemplate an additiond renovation to an existing structure. This obviously presents different
feasibility profiles and profit opportunities, thereby highlighting the need to consider the unique
investment objectives of each developer or landowner (e.g., access to capital, achievable financing
terms, non-financial motivations, investment horizon and degree of financial "patience", etc.).
This dynamic is also further complicated by recent escalation in construction costs, which can often
result in the "price tag" of a renovation becoming more comparable to a new build situation, especially
at certain scales of development.
Feasibility Profile: 3 -Bedroom Units
New High -Rise apartment development—and some Missing Middle typologies—are predominantly
comprised of 1- and 2 -bedroom units. These are often challenged in their ability to comfortably
accommodate larger household sizes, including families. While it is important to provide housing
options for all household sizes, there are important factors that challenge the feasibility of larger units
(3+ bedrooms) as part of new development, particular in the context of higher density projects.
Larger units typically have slightly lower hard costs (on a per square foot basis) as a result of
construction efficiencies (e.g., an extra bedroom does not necessitate extensive plumbing and
appliance additions, etc.), but also command lower prices/rents per square foot. As such, they are often
less profitable than smaller units, which negatively impacts the development prodorma.
This dynamic between costs and revenues also results in large units in mid- and high-rise buildings
being comparable—or even more expensive—in sale priced rent to larger, more traditional ground -
oriented housing that typically caters to larger households. Local developers interviewed for this study
hypothesized that this may be a primary driver of why there is limited demand for larger units in denser
development contexts.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 86
Page 151 of 601
Parcel
It is also important to note that, within a fixed building envelope, the inclusion of larger units necessarily
comes with a reduction of smaller units and can result in a lower building efficiency (i.e., the ratio of
gross to net floor area), thereby lowering total unit yield for the building and lower overall
contribution to housing supply.
Parcel conducted a unit sensitivity analysis on the High -Rise (E) typology to model the impact of a policy
that includes 3 -bedroom units as part of the unit mix for a building of fixed density. When 10% of units
were earmarked for 3 -bedroom units (versus a unit mix of 1- and 2 -bedrooms only):
• The total number of units decreased from 425 to 400 (-60/c);
• Revenues decreased approximately $20 million (-6%); and,
• Gross profit decreased approximately $17.5 million (-259/v)
For a developer that already owns their land, these numbers are such that they may choose to forego
the development altogether, due to the negative impact on the pro forma. In these cases, higher as -of -
right density permissions to offset the loss of smaller, more profitable units may be required to
increase the feasibility of including larger unit sizes. Ultimately, any policy requiring the inclusion of
larger units should be phased in to allow land values time to adjust.
4.3 Sensitivity Analysis
It is impossible to know with 100% certainty the
outcome(s) of a given development project. Even the
most likely outcomes are unlikely to occur.
In light of the uncertainty and risks associated with any real estate project, we need to understand how much better
(or worse) things can end up. The specific variables that drive these outcomes can also be extremely important to
identify and evaluate.
A "sensitivity" assessment can help in this regard, offering an opportunity to "tweak' or make small adjustments to
individual variables of the baseline analyses in isolation while holding all other conditions constant (in theory):
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 87
Page 152 of 601
Parcel
• What if market demand cools?
• What if there is a flood (or lack) of new supply?
• Will. lenders provide capital and at what cost?
• What if construction costs rised fall in the future?
• What if broader economic conditions improved deteriorate?
Sensitivity Analyses: Common Variables
In response to the key questions above, some of the specific variables often tested for sensitivity are:
• Development Assumptions (overall density, space mix, unit mix, parking requirements)
• Revenue Assumptions (sales per square foot, net rental rates, lease upd sales period,
reversion value, hold period)
• Cost Assumptions (above and below grade hard costs per square foot, financing rates)
• Timing Assumptions (pre -development phase, construction timeline)
Revenue is one of, if not the most important assumption in a developer's prodorma. From the very outset of a
development project, revenue potential is front -of -mind for a developer deciding how much to pay for land. Simply
put, it determines the total size of the "pie" to be distributed into land costs, hard costs, soft costs and—hopefully
and importantly—some profit, without which a project will not occur
It is also important to note that the economic forces that dictate market-based revenues are beyond the City's
immediate control.
Sales Revenues
Our ownership baseline scenarios identify sales potentials based on current new construction residential pricing,
grown 5% annually until the launch of sales. These sales levels, introduced in Section 4.2 and further detailed in
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 88
Page 153 of 601
Parcel
Appendix D, resulted in 6 potentially profitable ownership typologies (i.e., Singles, Suburban Towns, Plexes,
Low -Rise Apartments, and High -Rise Apartments).
• If sales revenues were to be just 10% below our assumed future values, all but the high-rise typology
would no longer be profitable.
• If sales revenues were to be 10% above our assumed future values, 3 additional typologies could be
profitable (i.e., New Format Towns and both Mid -Rise Apartments in the Central and Suburban
neighbourhood contexts).
Relatively minor changes in sales revenue assumptions
can result in significant changes to feasibility.
Rental Revenues
Rental revenues work the same way as sales revenues, albeit at a more diluted scale. Our rental baseline scenarios
assume potential rents based on current market rental rates, grown 5% annually until lease up begins. These rents
resulted in 5 profitable rental typologies (i.e., Suburban Towns, 8-Plex, Low -Rise in both the Central and
Suburban neighbourhoods, and ADUs). We do note, however, that all but the ADUs generated too small a profit
and associated return metrics to be viable.
If rents were to be 10% below our baseline assumptions, the Suburban Towns and ADUs would no longer
make a profit.
• If rents were to be 10% above, the Suburban Mid -Rise rental would have the potential to make a profit,
however at 20% above two more typologies could generate a profit (including the Mid -Rise and High -Rise
Apartment typologies).
• Higher (or lower) rents can also affect the reversion value of a rental building (e.g., the potential price the
seller can expect upon sale of the building). For example, in our baseline analysis, the rental Plex is
estimated to be worth some $4.1 million upon sale some 14 years from now, based on rental rates of
approximately $3,425 per month (in year 15) and a capitalization rate of 5%. If rental rates were to be 20%
23 We caution that profitability alone does not indicate acceptable return metrics in - line with risk adjusted expectations.
24 Again, we caution that profitability alone does not indicate acceptable return metrics in-line with risk adjusted expectations. For example, at
these higher rents, a rental High -Rise would still generate less than 2% IRR, less than 1.2 times the required equity and just over 1% cash -on -cash
each year over a 16+ year development and hold timeline, still rendering it unlikely.
Enabling Missing Middle &Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 89
Page 154 of 601
Parcel
below, the reversion value drops to just $3.2 million at the time of sale. Conversely, if rental rates were to
be 20% above, the reversion value will climb to nearly $4.9 million.
Feasibility Profile: Do Prices Always Go Up?
Many factors contribute to price growth, including cost growth, market demand and the pricing of
competitive goods. Historically, new construction apartment and stacked townhouse prices in Kitchener
have been growing steadily annually, accelerating through recent years (Figure 4.8). High-rise apartments
have been the exception with a recent decrease in the weighted average price per unit occurring in 2022.
However, Figure 4.9 illustrates that when we focus on the new construction prices per square foot, high-
rise apartment prices have actually continued to rise significantly. This is because the average size of the
high-rise apartment units sold in 2022 was much lower at 570 square feet, compared to some 835 square
feet the year prior.
Figure 4.8
New Construction Apartment and
Stacked Townhouse Sales ($)
COVID-19
T"- Low Rise Apt
$ 544 396
Stacked Town
$ 610,561
High Rise Apt
$ 495,441
'14 115 '16 117 118 119 '20 '21 '22
Source: Parcel, based on Altus Data Studio data.
Figure 4.9
New Construction Apartment and
Stacked Townhouse Sales ($PSF)
COVID-19 High Rise Apt $ 885
Low Rise Apt $ 528
Stacked Town $ 551
'14 115 '16 117 118 119 '20 '21 '22
Source: Parcel, based on Altus Data Studio data.
Similarly, Figure 4.60 provides the historical average rents for private (or "purpose-built") apartments in
the City and condo apartments across the Kitchener -Cambridge -Waterloo CMA. Since 2012, private
rental apartment rents have grown b% on average annually, while more recent data for condo rentals
beginning in 2019 show a 9% average annual increase.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 90
Page 155 of 601
Parcel
We note that the steadier rise of the private rental apartment rents is influenced by a large proportion of
older stock rental buildings and rent controls placed on buildings constructed before 2018.
Piqure 4.60
Average Private and Condominium Apartment Rents
Avg A�71
Growth
•',
$ 2,086
rAvg A $ 1,542
Growth
Condo Rental Apartment $ 1,358
$ 848
Private Rental Apartments
'12 13 '14 115 '16 '17 118 119 '20 '21 '22
Source: Parcel, based on CMHC Rental Market Survey. Private apartment rents are for the City of Kitchener and condo rents are for
the Kitchener -Cambridge -Waterloo CMA.
Forecasting future price or rent growth is very challenging, which is why sensitivity analyses are important.
In our baseline analyses, we have assumed an average annual price growth of 5% to reflect a return to
more gradual, pre -pandemic growth levels. Similarly, our assumed 50/o annual increase in rents (up to
lease up) is in-line with historical increases.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 91
Page 156 of 601
Parcel
Location, Location, Location
Revenue -generating potential dovetails with location. As acknowledged in the Region and Tri -Cities' ongoing
Inclusionary Zoning study, potential sales prices and rents vary across the City. For example, average rents are
highest in the South -East CMHC Neighbourhood25 and decrease by up to 20% to the most affordable South -Central
CMHC Neighbourhood 26. Additionally, as illustrated earlier in this report, household incomes vary across the CMHC
Neighbourhoods too, directly affecting the size and type of housing those households can afford to live in.
When focusing on specific areas of the City, an
adjustment to the revenue assumptions in each typology
should be made to reflect hyper -local market conditions.
Affordability
Affordability requirements have a direct impact on potential revenues and can be tested in a similar manner to sales
prices and rents.
We note that all five rental typologies with a potential for some profit in their baseline analyses do not yield strong
enough returns to warrant investment, even at 100% market rents. As such, any affordability requirement on
these buildings would result in losses and deem them unlikely to get built without heavy subsidization.
Focusing on the four potentially profitable ownership typologies, we can see the following effect as affordable units
are added:
• Single -Detached — including just 12.5% (two of the 16 units in a single -detached development site) as
affordable would result in the baseline development becoming unprofitable and thus unlikely absent
subsidization. A return to similar levels of profitability is possible if the land could be purchased significantly
cheaper (e.g., $1.2 million or some 40% below market value), however, a private landowner is unlikely to
adjust their land value expectations this far below market value. A more likely scenario is that the market
units would need to be sold at a higher price ($90,000 more per unit) to maintain similar profitability, thus
transferring the cost of the affordable units to the market -rate purchasers. This means that developers—who
in theory are already charging the maximum price the market will bear at any given time—will have to wait
for prices to increase, effectively sterilizing the land until the market has an opportunity to "catch up".
25 See Figure 2.1.
26 Based on the CMHC Rental Market Survey (October 2022).
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 92
Page 157 of 601
Parcel
• Suburban Towns — like the Single -Detached typology, including just three of the 24 townhouses (i.e.,
12.5%) as affordable units would al I but eliminate any profitability. A return to similar levels of profitability is
possible if the land was able to be purchased significantly cheaper (e.g., $1.375 million some 31 % below
market value) or again more likely if market units were sold at a higher price ($50,000 more per unit).
• 8-Plex— including one of the 8 apartments (i.e., 12.5%) as affordable eliminates profitability of the baseline
analysis. If(the land was purchased for less (e.g., $675,000 for a "teardown" house) or the market units can
be sold for slightly more (e.g., $45,000 more per unit), or a combination of the two, profitability could be
maintained.
• High -Rise Apartments —including 10% of the units (i.e., 43 units) as affordable would reduce profitability
dramatically, however, return metrics are still close to favourable and feasibility could be restored under
certain conditions. If the land was purchased for less (e.g., $4.5 million less or a 33% reduction) or the
market units can be sold for slightly more (e.g., $35,000 more per unit), or a combination of the two,
profitability would still be lower, but return metrics such as IRR may still be favourable enough to move
ahead with the project.
Across all typologies, developer's already charge the maximum the market will bear for each unit. The requirement
to sell market units at a higher price to offset affordable units will cause significant delays as the developer waits for
market demand (e.g., prices) to catch up. Given that delays add costs to projects, the developer will likely need an
even higher price in the future.
These results highlight the strength of higher density
projects in absorbing lower revenue affordable housing
into a pro forma, plus delivering more affordable
housing per equivalent unit of land area.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 93
Page 158 of 601
Parcel
Hard costs can amount to as much as 60% of a
developer's costs and are highly influential on the
profitability of a pro forma.
Our baseline analyses consider the median value by building type published in the Altus Construction Cost Guide
(2023) however, the guide provides for both "low" and "high" estimates, which we have considered in our sensitivity
analysis. Our finding suggest that:
• When the high-end of the cost guide's range is considered, two of the baseline typologies (i.e., Single
Detached and Rental Suburban Towns) are no longer profitable, while those which remain profitable
experience a drop in profits of between 31% and 57%, leading to return metrics that no longer support
investment in many of the typologies.
• Unsurprisingly, lower hard costs improve profitability for each of the baseline analyses to the point where
most typologies have the potential to be profitable at the low-end of the cost guide's range. At these
reduced hard cost, Low -Rise Condo Apartments in the Central Neighbourhoods and Mid -Rise Condo
Apartments in the Suburban Neighbourhoods become financially feasible, or close to it. However, now
profitable New Format Towns only make a small profit resulting in meager return metrics overall. Of note,
no rental scenarios across all the typologies benefit enough from the reduced costs to attract much
additional investment interest.
We note that the bulk of projects across all typologies are likely to experience costs closer to the median values
used in the baseline analyses, and not at the extremes (i.e., neither the low-end nor high-end considered in this
sensitivity). Regardless, moving forward, growth (or decline) in hard costs will continue to be of prime concern to
developers as it can take several years from acquisition of the land to shovels in the ground. Costs can rise
significantly over this period.
As illustrated in Figure 4.1 1, pre COVID- 19 construction costs rose at a steady rate, however, COVID-19 caused a
major spike in cost growth that has yet to show significant signs of a return to pre -pandemic levels.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 94
Page 159 of 601
Figure 4.161
Construction Cost Index
Inde
220.0
200.0
180.0
160.0
140.0
120.0
100.0
80.0
COVID-19
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
'17 '17 '17 '17 '18 '18 '18 '18 '19 '19 '19 '19 '20 '20 '20 '20 '21 '21 '21 '21 '22 '22 '22 '22
Source: Parcel, based on the Statistics Canada Construction Cost Index.
Parcel
Single -detached
Apt (< 5 storeys)
Apt (5+ storeys)
21-30%
Avg Annual
G rowth
Even since the early days of the supporting research undertaken as part of this study process, our team has
continued to observe the negative effects of rising hard costs in our baseline analysis as we updated from 2022
Cost Guide estimates to the more recently published 2023 Cost Guide. Although the Cost Guide cautions against
direct comparison to previous versions, it has been difficult to ignore the changes to the median values as we
updated our baseline feasibility analysis.
These continued updates were particularly challenging to our pro formas for typologies utilizing wood frame
construction where median costs rose between 14% (single -detached) and 20% (townhouses) over this period. As a
result, the baseline return metrics for these typologies (see Section 4.2) were significantly reduced.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 95
Page 160 of 601
Parcel
Feasibility Profile: Other Macroeconomic Conditions
Following an extended period of notably low interest rates leading up to the COVID-1& pandemic,
2022 marked a period of notable adjustment, as recent government announcements continue to plot
rates back up to approximately 6.70% (per the stated Bank Prime as of late January 2023). This
represents an increase of some 4.25% over the past 12 months alone.
Recent Interest Rate Increases Since January 2022
Bank Prime increased 4.25% during the past year
8.00%
6.00%
4.00%
2.45%
2.00%
6.70%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan
'22 '22 '22 '22 '22 '22 '22 '22 '22 '22 '22 '22 '23
Source: Parcel, based on the Bank of Canada.
In conjunction with the significant capital costs associated with developing new real estate, this can
have significant impacts on financing (i.e., subject to the amount of equity available for a given project
and/or the amount required to be financed via debtd loans). In particular, we note that construction
financing is often tied to Bank Prime rates, with lenders typically adding 50 to 200 basis points (bps). As
such, construction financing can be as high as 8.70% today.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 96
Page 161 of 601
Parcel
Another major cost element in a developer's pro forma
can be the cost of delivering parking, particularly in
higher density typologies.
The Altus Cost Guide estimates underground parking costs at between $70,000 and $95,000 per spot and above
grade structured parking costs at between $50,000 and $75,000 per spot. Based on these estimates, parking costs
can account for between 5% and 11% of costs in baseline scenarios where structured or underground parking
may be required (e.g., mid- and high-rise apartment buildings).
For some typologies and locations, developers can charge for parking spots. For example, High -Rise condo
apartments in the Central neighbourhoods have recently asked $55,000 per spot. At $160 per month, a rental
apartment operator could collect just $18,000 per spot (before expenses) over a 10 -year hold period. In both cases,
the potential revenue associated with parking spaces is well below the cost to construct it.
There are two types of sensitivities we can apply to this cost segment:
• Like hard costs, the cost guide provides a range of costs for parking spaces, of which we have considered
the median value in our baseline analyses. If the low-end of the cost guide range is applied to the Mid -
Rise typologies, they still would not be profitable. If the high-end of the cost guide range is applied to the
High -Rise Condo Apartment typology, profitability will decrease, however, it is unlikely that it will be to the
point of being rendered infeasible on a scenario which is already feasible. This is because parking costs
are a larger component of the Mid -Rise typologies due to its smaller relative scale.
• Notwithstanding the foregoing, we acknowledge that the direct cost of parking construction, as well as
any potential offsetting revenue developers can charge purchasers, is beyond the City's control. The City
can, however, dictate—to a certain degree67—the amount of parking required, which has an indirect impact
on a development project's overall costs. This will be evaluated further when identifying potential
incentives to enable missing middle and affordable housing in Kitchener.
27 Also a function of market demand and the desire (or lack thereof) of end-users /residents to have access to parking.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 97
Page 162 of 601
Parcel
In addition to the more macroeconomic and largely external -facing variables highlighted above, there are many
other cost -related items for which sensitivity can be tested. This includes the overall timing to approve and build
housing (i.e., "speed to market"), as well as the total type and scale of development permitted (i.e., "density").
Similar to parking requirements, these and other variables within the more immediate control of the City of
Kitchener have played a key role in our discussion of incentives later in this report.
—i"PW -See 7xpioraTlon crT IncenTive-7asea sensitivity testing.
Feasibility Profile: The Current Rental Apartment Boom
Our baseline and sensitivity analyses predict that, moving forward, purpose-built rental projects will be
challenged to generate adequate returns to support investment. So why are there rental apartments
that have been recently completed and/or being constructed today across the City, particularly in the
Central neighbourhood?
• Planning for rental units recently completed or currently under constructed began many years
prior. Consequently, the land accommodating these developments was purchased many years
ago, and in some cases, these lands may have been owned for much longer, capitalized over
many years under a previous income-producing use.
• As illustrated in Figure 4.El1 econstruction costs have increased dramatically since the start of the
pandemic. Recently completed apartment units may costs as much as 60% more to build today.
• As illustrated in Figure 4.12, a recent spike in interest rates is adversely affecting rental
apartment operators, which can affect the cost of the permanent debt serviced by from
operations -based cash flows post -construction (especially with heightened development costs).
• Every developer has different goals and return expectations, as well as skills and competencies
to potentially find cost savings that others may not. Southwestern Ontario, including Kitchener,
benefits from the presence of well -capitalized rental developers that are able to operate
profitably.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 98
Page 163 of 601
Solutions & Implementation
Key Findings
• There are many factors that directly
impact housing development trends, but
not all of them are within the immediate
control of the City.
• In the same way that the current housing
crisis is a function of multiple factors, so
too will solutions need to be multi-
faceted and varied in Kitchener. Four
different incentive options have been
recommended for additional financial
testing and evaluation in this study:
(1) Tax & Fee Deferrals;
(2) Approval Time Reduction;
(3) Height & Density Allowances;
and,
(4) Parking Reductions.
Parcel
• The identified "shortlist" of incentives
have been evaluated against
predetermined criteria relating to their
Financial Impact, as well as Process /
Policy / Market Feasibility to assist the
City in advancing this "toolkit" towards
implementation.
• For maximum impact and flexibility in
seeking to enable preferred missing
middle and affordable housing formats,
it wi II likely be necessary to combine—
or "layer"—these incentives in the
Kitchener context.
• Common principles that the City of
Kitchener can rely upon in future -
decision making and prioritization of
these incentives include: Flexibility,
Collaboration, Sustainability and
being Outcomes -Driven.
Enabling Missing Middle &Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 99
Page 164 of 601
Parcel
5. 1 Context
The following provides a detailed description of recommendations for the City of Kitchener to consider in its efforts
to enable missing middle and affordable housing. The recommendations and insights presented have been
developed based on inputs gathered via extensive research and consultations throughout the duration of this study
process (and as detailed in the foregoing sections of this report).
Below is a summary of the key contextual factors that inform the recommendations presented throughout the
balance of this section. These contextual factors and considerations have been validated with the City during
previous study workshops.
ir See to .2 and 2.3 for summary of stakeholder consultation and best pra r s researc
At the end of 2022, the Province of Ontario introduced Bill 23 and Bill 39 with the intent of increasing housing
supply in the province, including missing middle typologies and affordable housing options.
Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act (2022)
Receiving Royal Assent in November 2022, this legislation amends various Provincial Acts including the City of
Toronto Act, Planning Act, Conservation Authorities Act, Ontario Heritage Act, Ontario Land Tribunal Act, Ontario
Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, the Municipal Act and the New Home Construction Licensing
Act. Bill 23 aims to provide attainable housing options for Ontarians with a target of 1.5 million homes built over the
next 10 years. It is a significant piece of legislation that is shifting the land use planning approvals environment
across the province.
Bill 39, Better Municipal Governance Act (2022)
Receiving Royal Assent shortly after Bill 23, this legislation amends the City of Toronto Act and the Municipal Act to
introduce "strong mayor' powers allowing mayors of Toronto and select municipalities to pass by-laws with the
support of one-third of Council, provided the by-law advances provincial priorities. The Province will assess select
regional governments—including the Region of Waterloo—to determine how to extend the strong mayor powers to
additional regions of Ontario.
28 Including stakeholder consultations (research interviews and workshops with both public and private sector industry representatives), data and
document review, best practices research, as well as our parcel fabric analysis.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 100
Page 165 of 601
Parcel
Policy changes stemming from Bill 23 and Bill 39 will
have immediate financial, operational and administrative
impacts on Ontario municipalities. The City of Kitchener
will need to consider the impact of this evolving policy
environment as it explores incentives suitable to the
Kitchener context.
For the recommendations in this report, an analysis has been provided for recommendations in which legislative
change is expected to have a material impact on the recommendation itself and how it is implemented at the City.
Some of the most notable legislated policy incentives include:
Inclusionary Zoning
A maximum 25 -year affordability period, a 5% cap on the number of affordable units that can be required and a
standardized approach to determining an affordable price/rent for inclusionary zoning units.
Streamlining Development/ Reducing Costs
Up to three (3) additional residential units are now permitted on residential lands as -of -right without needing a by-
law amendment. These additional units, both attached (basement units, upperfloor units) and detached (garden
suites, laneway suites), are exempt from development charges and parkland dedication fees, as well as several
municipal requirements such as restrictions around minimum unit size and parking requirements.
Development Charges, Community Benefit Charges & Parkland Dedication
Inclusionary zoning units, affordable housing units, and attainable housing units (to be defined in future legislation)
are exempt from development charges, community benefit charges, and parkland dedication, while privately -
owned -public -spaces are eligible for parkland credits. Specifically, development charges in new by-laws, as of
January 1, 2022, will be phased -in over five years and reviewed at least once every 10 years, helping to reduce the
administrative burden on municipalities while increasing cost certainty. Parkland requirements for higher density
residential developments have been reduced, aiming to reduce the costs of new condominiums and apartment
buildings, and the fee has also been frozen at the site plan/zoning application stage. Lastly, for infill developments,
the maximum community benefits charges is based on the land value of just the new units.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 101
Page 166 of 601
Parcel
Increased Density near Transit Hubs
Bill 23 proposes to create as -of -right zoning in respect of height and density near major transit stations.
Municipalities would have a one-year window to update their zoning by-laws to specify minimum heights and
densities following their Official Plan policies relating to protected major transit station areas coming into effect.
Site Plan Controls
With an aim to reduce the development approvals timeline, developments of ten (10) or fewer residential units are
no longer be subject to Site Plan Control. Where a development still requires a site plan, site plan review focuses on
health and safety issues rather than architectural or decorative landscaping.
Adjustment in Upper -Tier Planning Responsibilities
Numerous upper -tier municipalities, including the Region of Waterloo, are no longer involved in the Planning Act
approval process for lower -tier municipalities' Official Plans, Official Plan Amendments and Plans of Subdivision29.
Reduced Public Meetings and Third -Party Appeals
Municipalities are no longer required to hold public meetings for each Draft Plan of Subdivision and can establish a
public consultation approach that works best for their unique community. Additionally, Planning Act decisions are
no longer subject to an appeal by anyone other than the applicant, municipality, the Minister, or various public
bodies.
Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT)
The Province has expanded the OLT's powers to dismiss a proceeding without a hearing if the party who brought
the proceeding has contributed to undue delay, dismiss a proceeding entirely if the party has failed to comply with
the Tribunal order and order an unsuccessful party pay a successful party's cost.
Cultural Heritage Planning
While the framework for the Ontario Heritage Act remains in place, municipalities will have a reduced ability to
designate a property under the Ontario Heritage Act.
29 Note: not yet in effect
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 102
Page 167 of 601
Parcel
r-�lo-cess Factors: MiSSinri Middle & Affordable W
There are several factors that can encourage or hinder development of housing typologies in any jurisdiction.
Municipalities are often seeking the right balance between: (i) implementing requirements that ensure quality of
output and cost -recovery for development; and (ii) creating favourable/incentivized conditions for industry seeking
to develop.
Aligned with the incentive types originally identified in Section 2.3, the factors identified typically fall into three
categories—Financial, Process and Policy—and, taken together, impact the costs/revenue potential of a project.
Many of these factors are inter -related and are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
The factors are summarized below and have been colour-coded based on the identified impact of each factor in
the Kitchener context. It is important to note that many of these factors are out of the control of the City to change
or address, while others present opportunities through the introduction of new targeted incentives.
Fiqure 5.1
Summary of Factors Impacting Housing Development
Soft Costs ConstructionRent Control, Yield
Availability of "NIMBY" Allowances
(e.g., consultants, Costs Rate Of
Financing Roadblocks (i.e., density/ GFA
engineers) (supply and labour) Expected Return
permitted)
Market Land Value &
Demand Availability
Low Impact Factor: minimal impact on the
development of missing middle /affordable
housing in Kitchener.
Source: StrategyCorp
Fees and
Permit Costs
Industry
Capabilityd
Capacity
Moderate Impact Factor: some impact on
the development of missing middle/
affordable housing in Kitchener.
Zoning and By -
Laws
Time to
Approval
(process delays /
inefficiencies)
High Impact Factor: significant impact on
the development of missing middle/
affordable housing in Kitchener.
These factors and their degree of impact were presented to the City of Kitchener for consideration and validation
and have since acted as important guidance for the types of incentives identified and shortlisted for
implementation. Shortlisted incentives have been selected based on their ability to potentially address—or improve -
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 103
Page 168 of 601
Parcel
upon—moderate- and high -impact development factors. Ultimately, our analysis found that these primary factors
hinder the development of missing middle and affordable housing because of their impact on profitability. Each
factor and the impact it has on housing development in the Kitchener context is outlined below.
Low Impact Factors Soft Costs
Projects incur numerous soft costs during the development process
including consultantd engineering fees, development application fees, etc.
Market Demand
The demand for missing middle and affordable housing continues to grow
as the city becomes an increasingly popular destination to live and work.
Construction and Labour posts
Construction and labour costs are reaching record levels in the Golden
Horseshoe. Though broadly out of the control of the City, this is an
important market reality when industry decides where and what type of
housing they will build.
L -and Value and Availability
Moderate Impact Like much of the Golden Horseshoe, land values are increasing rapidly in
Kitchener. As the cost of acquiring land grows, industry will attempt to
Factors maintain necessary profit margins through higher development yield or
density. Higher density developments have a place in addressing the City's
affordable housing needs, but do not directly support "missing middle" or
mid -rise typologies, necessarily.
Availability of Financ:,,,
Typically smaller profit margins on missing middle and affordable housing
developments result in challenges securing financing for a project.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 104
Page 169 of 601
Parcel
Fees, DCs and Permit Costs
Prohibitive fees and charges can deter development of missing middle
typologies and affordable housing given their impact on already low profit
margins. The City has made notable progress to date to make fee/charge
exemptions for affordable housing projects and Bill 23 introduces changes
that should further relax the fee burden on industry.
"NIMBY" Roadblocks
Public pushback and "not -in -my -backyard" (NIMBY) attitudes present
challenges for development projects in Kitchener and other municipalities.
While most residents are not vocal against developments, a core group of
strong voices that advocate to their local representatives/City Council to
avoid what they believe to be extensive or over -development are a barrier
to development because of their ability to create process delays through
legal/procedural appeals, extensive public consultation, and unfavourable
news coverage.
ndustry Capability/Capacity
While the development community recognizes that there is a need for
missing middle housing, there is limited interest in relatively low yield
projects. Large developers building high-rise buildings are accustomed to
generating higher returns (i.e., total dollars) and may not be interested in
developing other housing typologies that would impact their profit. This
lack of interest means that developers often do not have in-house skills and
processes to deliver alternative typologies and models of housing.
Financial incentives and risk perceptions of developers along with
construction costs and market fluctuations prevent large developers from
taking interest in missing middle housing typologies, as well as potentially
investing in additional resourcing/funding to develop their capabilities.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 105
Page 170 of 601
Parcel
High Impact Factors Expected Return on Sale/Rents
Until affordable housing programs (rent and ownership) result in similar or
comparable returns to market housing, there will be an inherent barrier in
terms of interest and feasibility to construct these types of projects.
Zoning and By-laws
The City's current zoning by-laws have made it difficult to diversify housing
stock within existing neighborhoods as many typologies are prohibited.
Yield Allowance
If industry is entitled to more development yield, they will be inclined to
maximize the number of units in pursuit of maximum profit. Interviewees
highlighted that higher density projects have a place in addressing the
City's affordable housing needs, but do not directly support missing
middle or mid -rise typologies.
Time to Approval
Delays in the approvals process can increase costs such that projects
become unviable. It is important to note that some process delays stem
from developers and industry lacking the experience and knowledge of
application nuances and differences. Fast -tracking or exempting desired
housing from process requirements or steps can help to increase project
viability.
Our analysis found that the City has already undertaken efforts to better understand its broad affordability needs
and priorities, and has made progress by implementing unique solutions to address the housing factors above. This
creates the right conditions for City staff and stakeholders to introduce further enhancements and changes to
enable the development of the specific housing typologies that meet the needs of those who live and work
in Kitchener.
While missing middle housing typologies may be part of the solution, the City must also consider how to encourage
and incentivize the development and retention of affordable housing units. Enhancements must consider the
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 106
Page 171 of 601
Parcel
industry pro dorm a and how the City could help create conditions that encourage profitability and/or an
understanding of the value of the long-term investment in missing middle and affordable housing.
With an understanding of the critical success factors, four principles have been identified to guide
recommendations to introduce and improve the incentive environment for missing middle and affordable housing.
The incentives presented in this report cut across several
different categories and are expected to have varying
degrees of impact on the development of missing
middle and affordable housing.
In addition, each incentive will require its own approach to successful implementation, relying on different tools and
levers to execute. Despite this variability, there are common principles that the City can adopt as it decides upon
and ultimately implements the incentives described in this report. The principles are designed to provide City staff
and Council with a clear sense of the "mindset" that staff and leaders must adopt to effectively enable missing
middle and affordable housing, generally take bold action to address the housing and affordability crisis, and
ultimately meet provincial targets for housing by the 2031 deadlines.
Principle #1: Outcomes -Driven
In the face of a multi -faceted housing "crisis" in the province, it will be critical for the City to focus on incentives that
are expected to have tangible impact on the development of missing middle and affordable housing typologies.
Each incentive—like any policy or process change—comes with trade-offs, and the City must account for whether it is
in the form of additional administrative/resource costs and/or foregone or deferred collection of municipal
ca•Ia.i.«-1
Principle #2: Flexibility
The City should introduce incentives and/or make change that creates a supportive environment that is welcoming
to unique housing typologies and projects, and that broadly allow projects that would not traditionally succeed—
due to one or a combination of policy, process or financial reasons—to be approved and ultimately be constructed.
Needs will vary widely from project to project and developer to developer depending on a wide range of variables.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 107
Page 172 of 601
Parcel
There is no single "silver bullet" solution to address housing needs and gaps and the most successful jurisdictions
have a wide-ranging toolkit that is focused on achieving outcomes, rather than rule-making and rule -keeping. As
such, flexibility can be built into the criteria projects need to meet to qualify for incentives and in the administration
of incentive programs.
Principle #3: Collaboration
Increasing the supply of housing is a priority for municipalities across Ontario and upper- and lower -tier
municipalities are interested in and responsible for enabling missing middle and affordable housing. The incentives
or changes pursued by the City can only be successful if done through collaboration with Regional partners. In the
case of the Region of Waterloo, important commitments and progress has been made towards enabling missing
middle and affordable housing typologies, and additional efforts by the City must be complementary and
supported by Regional partners. The City should also continue to foster collaboration with the development
community. The City of Kitchener staff have a positive working relationship with the local development community
allowing for the exchange of ideas that supports the City in their pursuit of continuous improvement of processes to
be efficient and eliminate wasted time.
Principle #4: Sustainability
Incentives for missing middle and affordable housing must consider the long-term sustainability of the investment.
Incentives—particularly those that are financial—must balance the potential for additional housing with the impact on
municipal revenues, the tax base, and ultimately municipal service areas. Incentives should also support projects
that are expected to be affordable long term, for example, those undertaken by non-profit affordable housing
organizations.
From Guiding Principles to Implementation
Following these principles, the remainder of this section presents two key recommendations and four
incentive options that are designed to enable the creation of more missing middle and affordable in
Kitchener.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 108
Page 173 of 601
Parcel
5.2 Recommendations
Two multi -pronged recommendations have been
identified for the City to further enable missing middle
and affordable housing development.
Recommendation #1:
Solidify the City's vision and appetite for change in the
realm of missing middle and affordable housing,
including alignment of that vision with Regional prioritiese
Affordable housing is a priority for Kitchener Council, City staff, and residents, and the City has completed
substantial work to understand and address affordability needs as well as enable the creation of missing middle
typologies including:
• As -of -right permissions for ADUs and three units on all serviced residential lots through new Zoning By-law
201G -051p
• Housing for All (2020) housing strategy;
• Fee deferrals and exemptions for eligible projects;
• Process and policy efficiencies;
• Make it Kitchener 2.0 and its emphasis on affordable and attainable housing; and,
• Backyard home design competition.
However, the development landscape and housing needs of residents continue to evolve. Below are some of the
ways the City can re -confirm and invigorate its vision and strategic approach to enabling missing
middle/affordable housing.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 109
Page 174 of 601
Parcel
Confirm & Publicize Growth Targets:
Missing Middle & Affordable Housing
Bill 23 has set specific development targets for cities across the Province to reach by 2031, collectively contributing
to a province -wide goal forth e construction of 1.5 million homes over this period. The City of Kitchener has been
given a target of 35,000 homes to be built by 2031, ranking among the top ten targets in terms of number of units.
These targets, along with all the other transformational changes proposed in recent legislation (including Bill 23
and Bill 39) present a significant shift in the role and positioning of municipalities in development and growth.
Previously acting primarily as approvers of market plans for development and growth, municipalities must now
proactively encourage the volume and type of development that will enable the City to achieve its housing targets.
It is recommended that the City revisit and refresh its Housing for All strategy to reflect new targets - while the
strategy remains relevant in terms of its priorities and content, it is now operating in a transformed policy
environment that should be accounted for. This could include establishing an affordabled missing middle housing
target within the 35,000 due for construction by 2031. Committing a portion of this target to missing middled
affordable housing must be done with careful planning to ensure the commitment is meaningful for Kitchener's
needs, but also allows the City to maintain its momentum towards meeting its target by 2031.
Deepen Regional Partnerships
Even in the face of impending change vis-a-vis Bill 39, regions and lower -tier municipalities continue to have
complementary and at times overlapping responsibilities when it comes to planning, growth, development and
affordable housing. The analysis completed for this project revealed strong pillars and foundations between City
and Region of Waterloo staff and teams, but also room for improvement in how the two tiers collaborate day-to-day
and strategically when it comes to enabling missing middle/affordable housing development. From a day-to-
day/operational perspective, there are misalignments in process steps and policy directions that can create added
churn and administrative burden upon applications/applicants (e.g., significantly different policy direction for truck
turnarounds/the planning specifications for city vs. regional roads). At a strategic level, the City and Region should
find opportunities to continuously collaborate to ensure targets, processes and policies established remain
complementary to each other's vision for affordable housing. In addition to relationships with the Region, the City
should continue to foster relationships with counterparts in other regions to ensure continuous learning and sharing
of opportunities.
Educate and Galvanize the Public at -Large
Public support—or disagreement—about the value and importance of constructing missing middle/affordable
housing can "make or break' a municipality's ability to approve and support these types of projects. As described
above, poor public sentiment towards missing middle/affordable housing is a factor that has a tangible impact on
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 110
Page 175 of 601
Parcel
the speed and completion of missing middle/affordable housing typologies. As the policy environment lends itself
to change, the City should develop a plan for education and information campaigns to Councillors and the Public
that signal the importance of this type of housing city-wide. In addition, the City should plan for project -specific
communications that informs the public of the benefits of these typologies, and dismiss outdated stigmas or
assumptions about higher -density housing typologies.
Build Capacity of Industry Players:
Non -Traditional Developers and Not -for -Profit Organizations
It is important to acknowledge that there are individuals, as well as small and large businesses of all kinds currently
involved in—or looking to get involved in—development in Kitchener. While larger -scale and tenured players can
quickly pivot to accommodate changes to application requirements, fee and tax structures, and process steps, non-
traditional developers - social enterprises, "mom and pop shops" that are small-scale in resourcing and volume
constructed, and/or not-for-profit housing providers/developers who are working with relatively thin margins - can
often get "lost in the shuffle". Currently, the City does notable work to build the capacity and capability of these
non-traditional developers through an affordable housing concierge program. Our analysis reveals that this
program achieves dual outcomes: (i) supporting applications to navigate the process and reach approval without
significant issue or roadblock; and (ii) educating the applicant along the way about the process, City policies and
the nature of planning decisions and why they are made. The City should consider ways to complement this
program with educational sessions, tools and templates, process incentives (i.e., "queue jumping" for affordable
projects), and continuing with technology improvements that simplify the user -end experience and optimizes
quality at the same time.
Deepen Industry Relationships
The City already has infrastructure in place to enable collaboration with industry stakeholders. This includes
operational items like application meetings, terms of reference and other tools that enable the applicant to navigate
the process simply, and strategic infrastructure like an ongoing staff -developer committee where opportunities for
improvement are addressed and actioned by City staff (i.e., when feasible and possible). It is recommended that—as
these recommendations are implemented and Ontario's affordability crisis persists—the City find ways to co -design
and collaborate now and in the long-term with a broad cross-section of industry players. Specifically, it is
recommended that City planning staff and their counterparts in private industry (consultants, engineers, planners,
market advisors and growth strategists) build parallel relationships to those between senior City staff and heads of
key development organizations. These relationships ensure industry and staff have a common and consistent
understanding of their working realities and can work through policy/process roadblocks that are persistent for
both staff and applicant experts.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 111
Page 176 of 601
Parcel
Align with the Broader Policy and Program Environment
As described throughout this report, affordable housing has emerged as a top -of -mind policy and program issue
for all levels of government in Ontario and Canada. With this onset of financial investment and program change to
support the supply of more affordable housing, interested applicants and municipal staff are faced with a
patchwork of funding and incentive programs. In the best -case scenario, these funds and programs complement
each other. In the worst-case, they breed confusion / more administrative requirements, resulting in underutilization
by industry in the delivery of projects.
In the selection of incentives and the appropriate legal mechanism for implementation, the City must consider how
the scope and implementation of this infrastructure can be complemented by programs and funding at other levels
of government. For many municipalities offering development incentives for affordable housing, applicants are
encouraged to seek funding support from other government programs to make projects more viable. Depending
on how Kitchener defines "affordable" or "missing middle" housing in the context of the planned incentives, it will
be important for the City to align incentive eligibility and scope with existing federal and provincial programs, such
as the Rapid Housing Benefit, National Housing Co -Investment Fund and the Rental Construction Financing
Initiative. Recommendation #2 highlights potential incentives, describes potential legal mechanisms for
implementation and identifies regional considerations where relevant / appropriate.
Recommendation #2:
Further assess and implement a range of incentives that
enable the construction of missing middle and affordable
housing stock in the City of Kitchener.
Just as the current housing crisis is a function of multiple factors, so too will solutions need to be multi -faceted and
varied. To this end, an appropriate "toolkit" of incentive options will be necessary to provide flexibility to the City of
Kitchener in targeting different housing typologies and/or levels of affordability, as well as providing the ability to
adapt with evolving market conditions and development patterns.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 112
Page 177 of 601
Parcel
Figure 5.2
Unravelling Complex Housing Supply Issues with Multiple Incentive Tools
TODAY + Financial + Process + Policy = TOMORROW?
Incentives Incentives Incentives
Source; Parcel. For illustration purposes only- a more detailed overview of specific incentive options and related "next steps" for consideration
by the City of Kitchener have been itemized herein.
For the purposes of this report, four (4) distinct incentive options have been identified for further testing in the
Kitchener context, as summarized in Figure 5.3.
Evaluation Criteria
Each of the incentives has undergone a detailed analysis to determine their relative impact (i.e., degree of change
expected) and overall feasibility to help the City prioritize options for implementation. The methodology for this
analysis—as detailed throughout the balance of this section—includes multiple distinct elements, which have been
validated with the City over the course of the study, including:
Incentive Identification & Description
A broad description of the identified incentive has been included (i.e., "what is it?"), in addition to a more specific
approach to implementation of the incentive for the Kitchener context (i.e., "how would this be implemented in the
Kitchener context?"). Incentives have also been categorized into three types: Financial, Policy and Process.
Feasibility Analysis
A detailed evaluation and prioritization of identified incentive options has been undertaken, based on the following
criteria:
• Financial Impact- Building on the results of our baseline financial feasibility, supplementary sensitivity
analyses have been prepared with the goal of determining whether the identified incentives have material
impact on the development of missing middle and affordable housing. In other words, could
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 113
Page 178 of 601
Parcel
implementation of the incentive result in: (i) measured changes in the developer pro forma to improve the
viability of missing middle typologies; and/or (ii) the construction of additional affordable housing units or
projects?
Policy Feasibility- To confirm the degree of policy change that could be required if the incentive were to
be implemented (i.e., "Is the policy environment at the City conducive to the incentive?" / "What must
change?").
Process Feasibility- To confirm the degree of process change that could be required if the incentive were
to be implemented (i.e., "What type and degree of process change is required?").
Market Feasibility - To establish the market appetite for the incentive / change (i.e., "Has the market
expressed interest in this incentive"?).
What Does it Mean for Kitchener?
Based on the foregoing evaluation, additional commentary and considerations have been identified for the City
with respect to: (i) contextualizing the effectiveness of the incentive in a Kitchener -specific context; and, (ii) the
relative merits of the incentive relative to other options identified, all things considered.
Fee all ction 5.3 for se valuaR of incentives' ali - hent with Guiding Principles.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 114
Page 179 of 601
Parcel
Figure 5.3
Identified "Shortlist" of Incentive Options for Testing
Financial Incentive #1: Tax & Fee Adjustments
• Exempt tax requirements for applicable rental and ownership development
op projects for the duration of development or longer.
• Rebate or waive DCs and fees for applicable missing middle and affordable
housing typologies.
Process Incentive #2: Approval Time Reduction
• Introduce further process change and improvement to ultimately produce a
meaningful reduction in approval timelines for development applications,
particularly those that meet missing middle and affordability criteria.
Policy Incentive #3: Height & Density Allowance
• Introduce further as -of -right provisions in existing City (and potential Regional)
policies and by-laws to permit more efficient use of land.
Incentive #4: Parking Reduction
Source: Parcel and StrategyCorp
• Introduce further reductions to parking requirements to both reduce costs and
enable more efficient use of available land.
Enabling Missing Middle &Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 115
Page 180 of 601
Parcel
Tax and fee adjustments are a financial tool to encourage growth and development of all types in municipalities.
More specifically, these adjustments typically result in: (i) permanent or temporary deferrals or exemptions from
municipal taxes such as property tax; or (ii) permanent or temporary deferrals or exemptions from charges and fees
associated with a development application and/or permitting. The typical rationale for tax and fee adjustments in
the context of affordable housing is that these changes will have a direct, positive impact on the project's financial
feasibility and will therefore attract increased levels of development of eligible housing types. Tax and fee
adjustments have been introduced in several different ways in cities across Canada and the globe. Below are a
small number of selected Canadian examples:
• The City of Peterborough's Municipal Housing Facilities property tax exemption provides full or partial
property tax exemptions for up to 10 years for affordable housing projects.
In British Columbia, Victoria and Langford offer a 100% permissive tax exemption to not-for-profit
affordable housing projects.
• The City of Toronto exempts various developments including residential component of a building with no
more than four (4) dwelling units, and the creation of one (1�ADU in an existing residential building, or a
laneway suite or garden suite on a lot from parkland dedication requirements
Impact Analysis: Incentive Scenario Tested
For the purposes of this report, three (3) types of tax and/or fee adjustments were tested for their
effectiveness, potential limitations and feasibility in the Kitchener context:
• For Ownership projects: property tax exemption over the course of development (i.e., 100%
exemption during the period of entitlements and construction, which vary bytypologyd scale of
development).
• For Rental projects: Ten-year Tax Increment Grant (TIG)
30 In general, tax increment financing usesfuture incremental propertytax revenues generated bythe redevelopment of a propertyto offsetthe
upfront costs of redevelopment. In other words, as a property or area is redeveloped, the increase in the assessed value of the property raises
the amount of taxes payable by that property. The difference between the taxes paid by the property priorto redevelopment and the taxes paid
following redevelopment is referred to as the "tax increment"
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 116
Page 181 of 601
Parcel
• For Ownership and Rental Missing Middle /Affordable Housing Projects: Full Development
Charge and Application Fee exemption".
Feasibility Analysis
Financial Impact — ModerL
Key Question: Does it help the viability of missing middle typologies?
• Property tax exemption during development does not improve any of the missing middle ownership
typologies to the point of financial feasibility, even at 100% market rates. This is largely a function of: (a)
short period of development; and (b) relatively low -value single detached properties.
• A 10 -year TIG improves the CoC returns of the rental 8-Plex and Low -Rise rental typologies to
approximately 3%, in-line with a Government of Canada 10 -year bond yield. Some long-term hold
developers may consider this financially feasible.
• A full exemption of City DCs and Planning Fees helps the ownership 8-Plex enter into the low end of
financially feasible, however, only at 100% market prices. The improvements to financial feasibility across
the other typologies, both ownership and rental tenures, is not significant enough to make a meaningful
difference.
Key Question: Does it enable the delivery of affordable units?
• Given that the exemption of property taxes on missing middle ownership typologies does not result in
financial feasibility even at 100% market rates, it is not surprising that it also does not enable any affordable
units either.
• Looking beyond missing middle to the High -Rise condo apartment, a combination of stronger financial
feasibility at baseline and property tax exemptions during development (as well as recent changes included
in Bill 23 with respect to affordable units) could enable up to 15% of units as affordable.
31 Bill 23 exempts development charges for affordable residential units, attainable units, non-profit housing development and affordable housing
units and reduces development charges for the development of rental housing.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 117
Page 182 of 601
Parcel
• Although a 10 -year TIG improves all of the rental scenarios, the improvements are not enough to enable
any affordable units, even in the High -Rise apartment typology.
• No missing middle typology across both tenures can support affordable housing as a result of a DC and
Planning Fee exemption alone.
• Similar to the property tax exemption during development, the High -Rise condo apartment could support
up to 15% of units as affordable, in part due to an already strong baseline feasibility, if it is exempt from City
DCs and Planning Fees.
Key Consideration: Municipal Revenues & Finances
As it relates to these types of Financial incentives only, a demonstrative analysis testing the potential
impact on municipal revenues and finances has also been included in addition the baseline evaluations
against core criteria identified. This analysis is demonstrative in nature and designed to signal to the
City the degree of impact of the incentive on the municipality's "bottom line". It is recommended that a
more in-depth Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) be undertaken that takes into account the various municipal
costs funded through property tax revenues and user fees, once the City identifies its strategic priorities
moving forward.
For illustrative purposes, we have estimated the foregone revenues to the City from property tax
exemptions, TIGs, planning fees exemptions and DC exemptions associated with the intensification of
780 potential missing middle parcels by 2031 (per Section 3.3).
The full suite of financial incentives is estimated to cost the City between $2.7 million and $2.9
million annually, depending on the proportion of projects delivered as ownership or rental in tenure.
Interestingly, we note that it is less expensive for the City to provide the full suite of financial incentives
to a rental 8-plex—of which there is an abundance of suitable parcels across the city, as noted in Section
3.3—than an 8-plex condominium building.
We note that a collaborative effort in providing financial incentives between the City and the Region
(e.g., including both City and Regional portions of the property tax in the TIG or DCs) would share the
costs to implement more equally, while unlocking significant property tax uplift.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 118
Page 183 of 601
Parcel
The municipal policy environment—primarily the introduction of Bill 23—has begun to create the conditions for
municipalities to adopt tax and fee adjustment incentives. As described above, Bill 23 has mandated DC
exemptions for eligible missing middle/affordable housing units, including defining the eligible typologies within
the legislation.
There is an opportunity for the City to consider ways to push beyond the legislative change. One example includes
implementing a "sliding scale" of exemptions that progressively decrease in value/amount as prices and rents move
towards market rates. For example, a development with rents at 90% AMR would receive smaller exemptions than a
development with rents at 80% AMR per the Bill 23 definition of affordable.
It is likely that the introduction of tax and fee incentives will introduce additional administrative burden upon the
City to execute both from a technical perspective (during the application/development process itself) and an
administrative perspective (to oversee and manage the deferral over the relevant period).
Market Feasibility - H ig h
There is strong interest and preference for tax and fee adjustment incentives amongst industry players consulted as
part of this work. While the industry likely prefers grants or permanent exemptions, there is still a perception
amongst industry that deferrals result in immediate, material improvements to feasibility.
What Does This Mean for Kitchener?
In pursuing financial incentives, the City must consider the careful balance between adopting financial incentives
that can incite change but avoid significant negative impacts on municipal revenues/tax base. The analysis
completed reveals that there are notable barriers to entry for both missing middle and affordable housing projects,
which are inherently less feasible when compared to other identified "winners" and comparable investment
opportunities. This impact analysis reveals that, though traditionally cited by industry as a highly impactful incentive,
financial incentives alone do not necessarily produce material impacts on project feasibility and/or the construction
of missing middle typologies and/or affordable housing specifically. While tax and fee adjustments can be
"seen and felt" immediately by industry, it may not create the conditions for enough missing middle/affordable
housing development to justify the notable impact on municipal revenues in the short- and long-term.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 119
Page 184 of 601
Parcel
The tax and fee adjustments mandated as part of Bill 23, and any other existing tax and fee exemptions in place by
the City, may not—in and of themselves—be sufficient in terms of enabling missing middle/affordable housing
development, unless combined with other incentives. Therefore, the City's focus may be best directed at combing
financial incentives with other types of policy and process incentives to enable development.
There is continued interest among Kitchener staff and the development industry to continue to find process
efficiencies that reduce overall development timelines. To date, the City of Kitchener has done notable work to
apply Lean principles to their existing development review process, having undergone a detailed process review in
recent years. This review resulted in several important process improvements that are aligned with industry best
practices, with a particular focus on simplifying, adjusting or removing process steps, requirements and/or tools to
allow projects to proceed more efficiently through the development process.
Going forward, further efficiencies should focus instead on identifying ways to help the applicant reduce potential
overhead, soft costs or costs associated with time delays for a project. Below are some ways the City could further
reduce development approval timelines, which can be further explored for implementation in the City context:
• Continued simplification and reduction of mandatory application requirements for projects that meet
affordability criteria. The City already has in place or is launching tools and methods to help ensure
applicants are only asked to meet critical requirements that mitigate municipal risk associated with
development. This includes preliminary meetings prior to application filing and an ongoing effort by the
City to further specify their Terms of Reference for common application types;
• Further delegation of authority to staff, including revisiting previously discussed opportunities like
heritage permits;
• Formalize the existing concierge service available to affordable housing project so that all projects that
meet affordability criteria are offered this service by the City. In other jurisdictions, programs like this are
often accompanied by formal service level commitments that are notably shorter than the experience of a
"typical" application. This will require a detailed resourcing analysis by the City to confirm if existing
resources have capacity to meet potential demand, and what adjustments would be required to build out
the team;
• More focused / streamlined public meeting requirements, both through opportunities introduced via new
provincial legislation, increasing as -of -right zoning and Official Plan permissions such that rezonings and
Official Plan Amendments are not required, as well as the introduction of additional policy frameworks to
Enabling Missing Middle &Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 120
Page 185 of 601
Parcel
guide and permit staff decision-making in areas like heritage conservation. Policy frameworks that dictate
the City's position should focus on balancing the rights of infrastructure seeking to be protected with the
need for flexibility to introduce change through "gentle density"; and,
• Rather than default to what can commonly be characterized as a "debate -based" or "negotiation -based"
approvals system, the City should consider more templated approval systems to foster replicability in
preferred housing forms.
Impact Analysis: Incentive Scenario Tested
For the purposes of this report, the impact analysis will assume that the cumulative implementation of
process improvements by the City will result in the following approval time adjustments:
• Reduce development entitlement period from 12 to six (b) months for Plexes; and
• Reduce development entitlement period for Low -Rise, Mid -Rise and High -Rise typologies from
24 to 12 months.
Feasibility Analysis
'-inancial 6.,
Key Question: Does it help the viability of missing middle typologies?
• A six-month reduction in the entitlement and planning timeline of the 8-Plex helps the ownership tenure
become financially feasible, however, the rental tenure remains challenged.
• In all other missing middle typologies across both tenures, even a 12 -month reduction was not enough to
make them financially feasible.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 121
Page 186 of 601
Parcel
Key Question: Does it enable the delivery of affordable units?
• A six to 12 -month reduction in the entitlement and planning timelines across the missing middle typologies
does not enable any affordable units.
• A six-month reduction, combined with strong baseline feasibility, could unlock up to 15% of High -Rise
condo apartment units as affordable. High -Rise rental apartments remain financially unfeasible despite the
shortened timeline.
The provincial policy environment has begun to create the conditions for municipalities to introduce further process
efficiencies and improvements in several areas including development approvals and heritage conservation. Recent
provincial legislation establishes several 'starting points" for process efficiency that the City can either implement
as -is or look for ways to go beyond the baselines or benchmarks set in the legislation. Within the City itself, the
Housing for All Strategy sets the tone for continuous change to meet targets and the City's goals.
The City has established a culture of continuous improvement as a result of work done to date to improve the
development approvals process, which creates the conditions for further conversations and adjustments to all
process elements.
In a broad sense, industry players consistently cite process improvements as impactful to the project "bottom-line".
In some cases, the efficiency of the development approvals process can be a make -or -break factor when
organizations are deciding what typology or scale of housing they construct. In other words, the more efficient the
development process is, the more flexibility the industry has to consider including traditionally less profitable
elements as part of projects (i.e., the difference between building a project with all market -rate housing vs. housing
with a mix of rental or ownership structures that could include affordable). To encourage missing middle
typologies, further process improvement must be implemented with smaller scale, less sophisticated developers in
mind as they often require the most supportto successfully navigate the process. The City should consider
education and/or capacity -building opportunities for these types of industry participants. This could include
information/awareness sessions about the process and allocating a project manager/concierge to all projects that
meet stated criteria.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 122
Page 187 of 601
Parcel
What Does This Mean for Kitchener?
Although generally less impactful to development feasibility relative to other variables and incentive options
evaluated, reducing delays and improving speed -to -market can certainly be beneficial to the "bottom line" of
developers. While improved timelines are unlikely to "make" a pro forma, in and of themselves, a lack of speed can
effectively "break" a prodorma (i.e., in the face of undue or unnecessary delays). More broadly, both public and
private sector participants tend to agree that more housing is needed in Kitchener, and quickly.
Continued work by the City to find process improvements and efficiencies is an important part of the "full picture" of
solutions and tools available to enable missing middled affordable housing development. Process change may or
may not result in further reductions in process steps or requirements, but instead involves introducing more clarity
and more procedural tools (i.e., templates, etc.) that ensure depth of understanding between applicant and City
staff. This means that resourcing levels should be consistently reviewed in the context of process change to ensure
the right skillsets and headcount are in place to achieve the desired outcome of process efficiency.
Height and density permissions can significantly affect the creation of missing middle and affordable housing by
either limiting or allowing both where and how it can be built. For example, permissions may prohibit missing
middle typologies in certain areas of the city and/or the height and density required to make it financially viable to
include affordable units as part of a development. Increasing height and density permissions as -of -right across both
land use and zoning regulations will result in a more supportive regulatory environment for missing middle and
affordable housing.
Impact Analysis: Incentive Scenario Tested
Three demonstrative policy changes were tested for impact:
• Increasing the low-rise typology to six (b) storeys;
• Increasing the mid -rise typology to twelve (19) storeys; and,
• Adding up to 3.0 FSR to the high-rise typology (with an aim of enabling more affordable units).
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 123
Page 188 of 601
Parcel
Feasibility Analysis
Key Question: Does it help the viability of missing middle typologies?
• The addition of two storeys (provided that significant setbacks are not required) to the 4 -storey Smart
Density Low -Rise concept enables the ownership tenure to become financially feasible at 100% market
rates in both the Central and Suburban areas. Although the financial feasibility is improved in the rental
tenure, it is likely not enough to warrant significant investment interest.
• The addition of six storeys (provided that significant setbacks are not required) to the 6 -storey Smart
Density Mid -Rise concept enables the ownership tenure to become financially feasible at 100% market rates
in both the Central and Suburban areas. Although the financial viability is improved in the rental tenure, it is
likely not enough to warrant significant investment interest.
Key Question: Does it enable the delivery of affordable units?
• Although additional density helps the financial feasibility of both the Low -Rise and Mid -Rise typologies, it
alone is not enough to unlock any affordable units in the scenarios. Furthermore, the Official Plan currently
limits the floor space ratio (FSR) to between 0.6 and 0.75 for Low -Rise and 2.0 for Mid -Rise, limiting how
additional storeys can be accommodated, particularly on smaller sites. FSR limits should be evaluated in
tandem with any additional height allowances so as to not adversely affect smaller sites.
• In order to unlock up to 20% of units in the High -Rise condo apartment as affordable, at least an additional
3.0 FSR is required. Additional density alone does not help the High -Rise rental tenure scenario, as the
baseline analysis resulted in overall revenue -per -square -foot measurements that were lower than the
corresponding costs per square foot. As such, there any additional density without some form of cost per
square foot reduction would only result in additional losses.
The municipal policy environment (primarily the introduction of Bill 23) has begun to create the conditions for
municipalities to adopt height and density changes described earlier in this document. This not only sets baseline
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 124
Page 189 of 601
Parcel
conditions for the City, but creates an opportunity for the City to consider opportunities to go beyond what
benchmarks legislation has set.
Changes to height and density allowances will require staff resources to amend relevant policy documents (Official
Plan, Zoning By-law 2019-051) as well as conduct public consultation required of Official Plan and/or Zoning By-law
amendments.
More permissive as -of -right zoning and land use rules create the conditions for industry to pursue missing middle
typologies and also enable larger -scale projects to maximize zoning opportunities.
What Does This Mean for Kitchener?
Updating zoning and land use for greater height and density permissions as -of -right positively affects the provision
of missing middle housing and, to a lesser extent, affordable housing.
Parking requirements are consistently identified in best practices as a "go -to" incentive to encourage the
development of missing middle and affordable housing. The typical rationale is that parking requirements are
largely unnecessary for urban environments that are highly walkable and served by higher -order transit, and that
these requirements are now misaligned with the progressive actions of most cities to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Parking requirement changes have been analyzed and implemented in municipalities across Canada
and the globe:
• Portland, Oregon's Residential Infill Project introduced code changes which removed off-street parking
requirement in single -dwelling zones providing developers and property owners with the opportunity to
include as many parking spaces as they see fit for their project.
• In 2012, Minneapolis, Minnesota's Council adopted a comprehensive reframing of the city's parking,
loading and mobility regulations. This overhaul included a citywide elimination of minimum off-street
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 125
Page 190 of 601
Parcel
parking requirements and reduction of maximum parking allowances. Minneapolis also removed minimum
parking requirements for all new construction.
• In 2021, the City of Toronto adopted zoning bylaw amendments to remove the minimum parking
requirements for most new developments while limiting the number of parking spaces that can be built if a
development chooses to do so.
Currently, the City of Kitchener's zoning by-law focuses on a "fewer cars, more people" approach which includes
parking maximum as opposed to minimum requirements in its Urban Growth Centre (UGC) zones, reduced and
shared parking, and lower minimum parking requirements for most uses. Reducing minimum parking requirements
to zero has the benefit of no longer requiring parking -related site elements such as driveways and parking lots
which can "unlock' site area for additional housing units.
Impact Analysis: Incentive Scenario Tested
For the purposes of this report, the impact analysis will focus on testing a reduction in parking
minimums to the point of no required resident parking spaces.
Feasibility Analysis
Key Question: Does it help the viability of missing middle typologies?
• While existing zoning for missing middle typologies require roughly one space per unit, the Smart Density
concepts for 8-Plex and Low -Rise apartments already include just one and two spaces, respectively. As such,
there is almost no room to further reduce parking and the incentive has little effect on these typologies. In
fact, requiring any more parking than considered by Smart Density will severely hamper viability of these
typologies, requiring several smaller sites to be assembled and reducing the number of candidate sites
identified in Section 3.3.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 126
Page 191 of 601
Parcel
• In the baseline analysis, the Mid -Rise concept is severely hampered by the requirement for expensive
underground parking. Allowing for no resident parking spaces and only a few visitord service spaces would
allow a Central area Mid -Rise condo apartment to become financially feasible at 100% market rents. The
same is true for a Mid -Rise condo apartment in the Suburban area, however, this is likely to face a mixed
reception from potential purchasers on sites that are not well connected to transit. No resident parking for
Mid -Rise rentals does not improve financial feasibility enough to incent development.
Key Question: Does it enable the delivery of affordable units?
• Although the removal of resident parking for Mid -Rise ownership typologies is beneficial, it does not allow
for affordable units to be integrated into the buildings.
• Reduction—up to and including full removal—of resident parking in the High -Rise condo apartment typology
could unlock up to 20% of units as affordable, again in conjunction with a strong baseline feasibility and
recent Bill 23 changes.
There is significant momentum in the public policy environment to holistic revisit parking requirements with other
municipalities and levels of government encouraging and launching detailed analyses. It will be important that the
City considers the varying needs of Central and Suburban geographies within Kitchener as part of any changes to
parking requirements and target parking policy changestowards those typologies and locations that make the
most sense.
Policy changes result in inevitable ripple -effects on the processes and procedures that implement the policies and
guidelines. It will important that parking requirement changes are mapped against existing development approval
process steps so that necessary adjustments are made.
Market Feasibilit r- H i g h
Developers interviewed as part of this study are prepared to construct projects without parking and are confident
that potential renters and buyers will "self-select" housing that best meets their needs, especially given the depth
and degree of demand for housing of any kind.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 127
Page 192 of 601
Parcel
What Does This Mean for Kitchener?
The analysis above signals that reduced or more flexible requirements related to resident parking can produce
material, positive impacts on the feasibility of missing middle and affordable housing.
Summary of Incentives Evaluation - Impact on Financial and Feasibility Criteria
Financial
Impact
Incentive #1:
Tax & Fee Adjustments
Incentive #2:
Approval Time Reduction
Incentive #3:
Height & Density Allowance 0
Incentive #4:
Parking Reduction
•
Policy Process Market
Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility
•
Financial Impact & Policy / Process / Market Feasibility
• Moderate Financial Impact & Policy / Process / Market Feasibility
• High Financial Impact & Policy / Process / Market Feasibility
Source: Parcel and StrategyCorp
11
•
• • •
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 128
Page 193 of 601
Parcel
Cumulative Impact: The Combined Effect of All Incentives at Once
Whereas the financial sensitivity -based testing throughout this section generally focused on the relative
impacts of each incentive on improving development feasibility in isolation, it is also important to
consider the potential "layering" of multiple incentives at once.
To this end, the following provides a high-level summary as to our observations relating to the potential
combined impacts of all four incentives on the financial feasibility of selected typologiesd development
scenarios:
Plexes
• 8-Plex condo apartment requires all of the incentives to approach 15% IRR, the "goal post"
introduced in Section 4.2.
• 8-Plex rental apartment is likely to remain unattractive with all the incentives, as it does not
surpass 10 -year bond yields of 3%.
Low -Rise
• Low -Rise condo apartments with all the incentives could support up to 25% affordable in the
Central area. Suburban areas could prove more challenging due to market desire for parking
among residents. We caution that real world outcomes will likely yield lower affordable housing
due to site specific conditions.
• Low -Rise rental apartments with all the incentives approach bond yields, but are still "not quite
there".
Mid -Rise
• Mid -Rise condo apartments with all the incentives could support up to 30% affordable units in
the Central area. Suburban areas again could prove more challenging due to market desire for
parking. Again, we caution that real world outcomes will likely yield lower affordable housing
due to site specific conditions.
• Mid -Rise rental apartments with all the incentives do not match bond yields and remain unlikely.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 129
Page 194 of 601
Parcel
5.3 Guiding Principles Evaluation
Separate and apart from the feasibility analysis above, we have also confirmed the extent to which the incentives as
presented align with the guiding principles introduced earlier in this section.
Principle #1: Outcome -Drip,
Incentive #1: While only capable of "moving the needle" so far with respect to
overall project feasibility—especially in light of recent fee relief
Tax & Fee Adjustments mandated via Bill 23—financial incentives are universally well-
received by the development community and can help inform
more specific decisions relating to building programming (e.g.,
which building typologies are selected and what proportion of
affordable housing—if any—is ultimately delivered). Generally
speaking, these incentives can be especially impactful to "help
along" affordable housing projects during the precarious early
days of development towards becoming a reality.
Although reducing timelines to approvals is unlikely to—in and of
itself—tip a project in favour of feasibility, it is nonetheless
important to be mindful of not causing undue strain as a function
Incentive #2: of municipal delays, onerous approval requirements and/or
Approval Time Reduction extended negotiations throughout this process. Simply put, even
though increased speed to approvals yields just marginal
benefits, a lack of speed can most certainly render a project
infeasible.
Incentive #3: The provision of density is among the more effective tools
available to enable preferred development of any sort, especially
Height & Density Allowance affordable housing. In the context of "missing middle" typologies,
modernizing height and density permissions to be more in-line
with other growing communities across Ontario could have
immediate impact on enabling both low-rise and mid -rise housing
forms in Kitchener. For other "missing little" typologies, additional
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 130
Page 195 of 601
Incentive #4:
Parking Reduction
vrinctnip 42- Flexibiht�,,
Incentive #1:
Tax & Fee Adjustments
Incentive #2:
Approval Time Reduction
Parcel
height and density is inherently less helpful as it risks
fundamentally altering the type of development contemplated on
a given site (i.e., there is only so much room to "maneuver" in this
regard for multiplexes, accessory units, etc. before shifting a
project into an entirely new building typology category).
Parking reductions can have an immediate positive impact on
development feasibility and the realization of preferred housing
outcomes, such that they can be reasonably absorbed from a
market perspective. This becomes more a function of the
underlying preferences of households than requirements set out
by a given municipality. As changes to parking requirements
often fail to keep pace with broader consumer preferences, this
type of incentive represents a "low hanging fruit" opportunity to
implement change alongside broader cultural and societal shifts
relating to automobile use, including broader changes in lifestyle
preferences.
Whether they achieve material impact on feasibility or not, tax and
fee incentives are ones that are highly attractive to all industry
players, including those that are smaller -scale and possibly more
open to constructing unique missing middle typologies and/or
affordable housing.
Process enhancement presents an opportunity for the City and
applicant to work together on continuous improvement. In pursuit
ofdurther process change, the City should work with all types of
industry players to ensure changes balance benefits to the
applicant with the needs of the City to manage quality and risk
associated with development approvals.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 131
Page 196 of 601
Parcel
Incentive #3: Policy changes presents an exciting opportunity to think boldly
about how "far" the City is willing to go to incentivize change. In
Height & Density Allowance the spirit of being flexible and enabling unique housing
typologies and specifications, more (rather than less) policy
change should be considered and implemented wherever
possible.
Incentive #4: Progressive and more open-ended parking requirements helps
create the conditions for non-traditional housing
Parking Reduction typologies/projects.
Principle #3: Sustainability
Incentive #1: The impact analysis revealed that, from a financial perspective, tax
and fee incentives are not a "perfect solution" to make projects
Tax & Fee Adjustments financially feasible. At the same time, the phase-in of government -
mandated DC exemptions alone are expected to cost the City
$40 Million over the next ten years. Further DC exemptions for
affordable and attainable housing, Inclusionary Zoning units and
rental housing have not yet been priced. The City must carefully
consider the ripple -effects of the incentive on the longer-term
financial status of the municipality, and whether the expected
results will justify putting further financial pressure on municipal
coffers.
From a fiscal impact perspective, process incentives range in their
cost to a municipality from "free" process change, through to
Incentive #2: process change that increases/changes to resourcing levels or
Approval Time Reduction technology needs. As has been done with review work to -date,
additional process improvement in Kitchener should be analyzed
for their longer-term financial impact on the City.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 132
Page 197 of 601
Parcel
Incentive #3: Incentivization through height and density not only improves
conditions for financial feasibility, but also allows for a more
Height & Density Allowance efficient use of land more broadly. This includes making better
use of existing municipal infrastructure in existing built-up areas,
for which Kitchener has surplus capacity available to absorb future
growth (i.e., without necessarily incurring additional costs to
expandd upgrade infrastructure and relying on previous
investments to date).
Incentive #4: Similar to above, parking reductions can have two -fold benefit: (i)
improvements to financial feasibility through decreased project
Parking Reduction costs; and (ii) enabling more efficient use of land and/or site
programming on portions of properties that would have
otherwise been earmarked for surface parkingd related access.
Furthermore, it goes without saying that reduced parking
allocations—such that they are palatable to the end "user" of new
residential units—would inevitably correspond with reduced
automobile use, which offers discernable environmental
sustainability benefits.
Incentive #1: For all potential incentives, the City must consider and align
implementation with incentives/programs at the Regional level. In
Tax & Fee Adjustments the case of tax and fee incentives, collaboration will be an
important tool for mitigating the financial implications to the City.
In other words, the City and Region should worktogetherto
determine how both tiers can introduce financial incentives and
therefore distribute the financial risk and further align the work
done by the City and Region to enable affordable housing.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 133
Page 198 of 601
Parcel
Incentive #2: While the City will continue to lead its own in-house efforts to
continuously improve process, there is an opportunity to
Approval Time Reduction collaborate with the Region on areas of process overlap to ensure
maximum efficiency.
Incentive #3: Similar to above, while the City will continue to lead its own efforts
to change policies and guidelines, there is a need to collaborate
Height & Density Allowance with the Region on areas of policy overlap so that there is
consistency and cohesion (e.g., regional vs. city road truck
turnaround requirements).
Incentive #4: Positive relationship with developer, collaboration between
public and private sectors to establish the appropriate mix or
Parking Reduction "service" level...
5.4 Mechanisms for Implementation
In addition to determining the exact scope and scale of
the incentives identified above, the City must consider
what policy levers are available to enable the
implementation of their preferred suite of incentives.
Below is a description of two implementation mechanisms available to municipalities in Ontario when considering
incentives to enable development: Community Improvement Plans (CIPs) and Municipal Capital Facilities
Agreements (MCFAs). These mechanisms allow a municipality to provide financial incentives to support
development, per Section 106(3) of the Municipal Act, which prevents municipalities from assisting development
through the granting of bonuses.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 134
Page 199 of 601
Parcel
This section includes a high-level description of each of these mechanisms and an evaluation that defines some of
the key considerations and requirements the City will need to navigate if they choose to implement them. Insights
have been organized into three operational categories relevant to the City in their role as a lower -tier municipality:
• Governance & Policy: considerations related to the oversight and management of the implementation
mechanism, as well as how existing City policies interact with the implementation mechanism (if
applicable/relevant);
• Process: considerations related to the processes and procedures required to support the implementation
mechanism (if applicable/relevant); and,
• People & Skills: considerations related to the skills and resourcing requirements to support the
implementation mechanism (if applicable/relevant).
Community ImProvvdnent Plans (CIPs)
Part IV of the Planning Act (the "Act") outlines municipal authority for the implementation of a "community
improvement plan". The Act allows the designation of a community improvement project area for any
"environmental, social or community economic development reason", including building age or structural
condition, overcrowding, poor planning, unsuitability of buildings or intent to encourage affordable housing.
Designation of a CIP by Council under s. 28(2) of the Act requires enabling policy in the municipality's Official Plan.
Based on the definitions provided in Section 28(1) and (1.1), a community improvement project area can be a
single, specific property; a larger area that is deemed to be a desirable candidate for redevelopment; or even the
entirety of the municipality. CIPs are subject to Ministerial approval, and the preparation of a community
improvement plan is treated in the same manner as the preparation of an Official Plan. Subsection 28(5)
incorporates the provisions of Section 17 respecting consultation and public meetings, submissions and comments,
adoption of the community improvement plan, as well as prescribed notice.
CIPs are increasingly common tools used in Ontario municipalities to structure and manage the delivery of multiple
incentives. Below are some of the CIPs in place in Ontario municipalities, including a short description of incentives
implemented via the CIP. Relevant details about each CIP have been evaluated for the Kitchener context later in this
section.
• Sudbury : Tax Increment Equivalent Grant (TIG); Planning & Building fee rebate; Feasibility Grant program;
Residential Incentive Program; Second Unit Incentive Program;
" https://www.greatersudbury.ca/do-business/planning-and-development/affordable-housing-strategy/housing-strategy-pdfs/affordable
housing -community -improvement -plan/
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 135
Page 200 of 601
Parcel
• Peterborough : Tax Increment Equivalent Grant (TIG); Development Charges Grant;
• Cambridge : Fee exemption; Development Charge Deferral; Tax Increment Equivalent Grant;
• Barrie : Fee and charges grant; Tax Increment Equivalent Grant (TIG)
• Other example municipalities: Cobourg, Hamilton, York Region, Carleton Place, Blue Mountains
Existing CIPs in Kitchener
Kitchener has two existing CIPs: the Downtown CIP and the Brownfield Incentive Program (offered
jointly with the Region of Waterloo). Both CIPs offer financial incentives to support redevelopment,
though not explicitly for missing middle and/or affordable housing. There may be opportunities to
build on these existing programs as an additional way of encouraging these typologies and
affordability.
Enabled by Section 11 Qof the Planning Act, MCFAs can be used by municipalities to create relationships with other
parties such as public bodies, municipal services corporations, the private sector, not-for-profit organizations and
aboriginal communities to deliver municipal facilities. Types of municipal capital facilities include, among others,
municipal housing projects and recreational or parking facilities. As an example of this tool, a municipality may
consider an agreement with, and provide financial assistance to, a not-for-profit organization for affordable housing
facilities.
Assistance for municipal capital facilities from a municipality can include:
• Giving or lending money;
• Giving, leasing, or lending property;
as https://www.peterborough.ca/en/doing-business/resources/Documents/Affordable-Housing-Community-Improvement-Plan.pdf
34 https://www.cambridge.ca/en/learn-about/resources/Community-Improvement-Plan-Fina1.pdf
as https://www.barrie.ca/sites/defauIt/files/2022-07/Community%201mprovement%20PIan.pdf
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 136
Page 201 of 601
Parcel
• Guaranteeing borrowing;
• Property tax exemptions or reductions; and,
• Development charges exemptions for land used for municipal capital facilities.
MCFAs for Affordable Housing
Prior to entering into an MCFA to provide affordable housing, a municipality must pass a municipal housing facility
by-law. Such a by-law must include a definition of "affordable housing", policies regarding public eligibility for the
housing units to be provided as part of the municipal capital facilities, plus a summary of the provisions that an
agreement respecting municipal housing project facilities is required to contain. Numerous Ontario municipalities
have these types of by-laws in place, including: Toronto, North Bay, Muskoka, Ottawa, Peel Region and Prince
Edward County. Below are some examples of MCFAs in these other jurisdictions.
City of Toronto
Since 2002, the City of Toronto has leveraged its Municipal Housing Facilities Bylaw to deliver affordable housing
incentives. The Open Door Affordable Housing Program was approved by the Toronto City Council in 2016 and
uses MCFAs to increase affordable housing within the City. The program provides financial contributions in the
form of capital funding, fees and property tax relief, expedited approvals processes and activation of public land for
both non-profit and private sector developers looking to create new affordable rental housing options.
District of Muskoka
Muskoka Affordable Housing Initiatives Program (MAHIP) is a multi-year program that offers funding to eligible
developers, builders, buyers and landlords for the purpose of developing and increasing the affordable housing
options in Muskoka. The MAHIP includes Capital Incentive Funding and Landlord Rent Supplement.
City of Ottawa
Ottawa enacted its municipal housing facilities by -lay in 2006, allowing the Cityto enter into municipal capital
facilities agreements to enable affordable housing. Through the MCFA, affordable housing projects can be exempt
from municipal and education taxes.
Region of Peel
The Region of Peel enacted their municipal housing facilities by-law permitting the Region to enter into municipal
housing project facilities agreements. The Affordable Housing Pilot Program received $7.5 million in one-time
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 137
Page 202 of 601
Parcel
funding for the period between 2019 and 2021, made available as capital grants to the development industry and
non-profit housing providers. The region has since entered into municipal housing project facilities agreements
with three organizations. The projects received $7.4 million in funding for 130 affordable rental housing units.
Prince Edward County
In 2022, Prince Edward County passed its Municipal Capital Facilities By -Law allowing the County to enter into
MCFAs to incentivize affordable housing development. The County provides financial incentives through MCFAs in
the form of conditional grants or partial to full exemption from the County's development charges and property
taxes. The financial incentives are available for the development of affordable housing if each housing unit meets
the definition of affordability (30% of gross annual household income and 20% below the average market rent) and
remains affordable for at least fifteen (15) years
Below is a summary of several of the key considerations
for implementation of CIPs and MCFAs in the context of
missing middle and affordable housing.
The considerations for both incentives have been presented together to provide a clear sense of the similarities and
variations between the two mechanisms. Emphasis has been added to contents with an underline to highlight some
of the key differences. Considerations have also been organized to correspond with the three operational
categories identified earlier (i.e., Governance & Policy; Process; and People & Skills).
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 138
Page 203 of 601
Figure 5.5
Key Considerations for CIPs and MCFAs
M CFAs (Bylaws /Agreements) NW Ci PS
Governance
• MCF by-law must be municipality wide cannot •
be geographically limited)."
• Requires a Council -approved by-law that
enables future agreements to be established
with applicants (i.e., defining affordable •
housing, eligibility requirements and key
agreement provisions). Ongoing interactionsd
Council approvals not required for each MCFA
unless by-law amendment is required.
• Requires the development of eligibility criteria
(to establish which project types are eligible for
incentives) and evaluation criteria (to help
prioritize projects with highest degree of •
impact. Evaluation criteria allow municipalities
to have scaled incentives that can increased
decrease based on the expected impact of the
project on evaluation criteria. Criteria must be
accompanied by informationd submission
guidelines to enable applicant to respond to
ualitative and auantitative criteria.
• MCF infrastructure allows for financial •
exemptions from fees and charges.
• Can occur in alignment with and independent •
of Regional/upper-tier incentives but requires
intentional coordination by both tiers.
Parcel
CIPs can be designated as municipal -wide, to
encourage investment in a particular area of a
municipality and/or targeted at achieving a
particular goal �e _ affordable housing)
Requires Council direction to develop the CIP,
adjustment to the Official Plan to include
enabling provisions and a by-law designating
the Droject area. The established CIP must then
be circulated to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs
and Housing for review and undergo a public
meeting no earlier than 20 days after public
notice. Council must approve the final CIP.
Requires the development of eligibility criteria
(to establish which project types are eligible for
incentives) and evaluation criteria (to help
prioritize projects with the highest degree of
impact). Evaluation criteria allow municipalities
to have scaled incentives that can increased
decrease based on the expected impact of the
project on evaluation criteria.
CIPs can be leveraged only -Lo -provide offsetting
arants vs. charae/fee exemptions."
Can occur in alignment with and independent
of Regional/upper-tier incentives but requires
intentional coordination by both tiers.
"If implemented atthe upper -tier level, local criteria can be established to cater eligibility.
3' More detail about what is permissible is included in S.28 of the Planning Act.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 139
Page 204 of 601
i
• MCF terms and reauirements are simple to adiust.
Parcel
• A CIP can be aooealed by anv individual who
They do not require significant approvals or
amendments to execute year -over -year
requirements changes if changes align with '
aeneral terms of the by-law.
Process for project identificationd approval can be
executed either through a program -style, annual
call for applications or on a "rolling basis", as
eligible projects are submitted. Annual, pre-
established calls for applications create
predictability both for the municipality (in terms of
dedicating resources and managing capacity
needs) and the developer (enabling preparation
for known application timelines).
Municipalities are entitled to impose ongoing
requirements on organizations signed on to MCF
agreements. Requirements and restrictions
typically include time restrictions (to begin and/or
complete the project by identified dates) and/or
ongoing reporting requirements about the project
during construction and throughout the duration of
the agreement.
In addition to existing responsibilities of municipal
staff, MCF by-laws and agreements introduce new
staff responsibilities that must be accounted for:
- Time required to develop and gain approval
for the by-law;
- Time required to execute call for proposals
and/or evaluate applications with
submits a written or oral submission.
Process for project identificationd approval can be
executed either through a program -style, annual
call for applications or on a "rolling basis", as
eligible projects are submitted. Annual, pre-
established calls for application create
predictability both for the municipality (in terms of
dedicating resources and managing capacity
needs) and the developer (enabling preparation
for known application timelines).
Municipalities are entitled to impose ongoing
requirements on organizations/projects approved
through the CIP. Requirements and restrictions
typically include time restrictions (to begin and/or
complete the project by identified dates) and/or
ongoing reporting requirements about the project
during construction and throughout the duration of
the project
In addition to existing responsibilities of municipal
staff, CIPs introduce new staff responsibilities that
must be accounted for:
- Time required to conduct consultations and
develop the CIP;
- Time required to execute call for proposals
and/or evaluate applications with
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 140
Page 205 of 601
new/additional qualitative and quantitative
criteria;
- Time required to receive/review/manage
ongoing requirements; and,
- Time required for reporting, annual program
administration/review and continuous
improvement.
Source: Parcel and StrategyCorp.
Parcel
new/additional qualitative and quantitative
criteria;
- Time required to receive/review/manage
ongoing requirements; and,
- Time required for reporting, managing
aappeals, annual program
administration/review and continuous
improvement.
The preceding evaluation provides a broad sense of the implementation requirements for CIPs and MCFAs as they
pertain to encouraging missing middle and affordable housing. There are several key questions the City must
answer as it seeks to determine which mechanism is best suited for implementation in the Kitchener context and to
begin to establish the key infrastructure that enables the mechanism to be implemented effectively.
Key Question:
How does the City envision scoping its incentive program as a whole?
• Each municipality -regardless of the legal mechanism chosen -has an opportunity to define specifically what
"affordable" housing means in the context of the incentives to be implemented. Municipalities have defined
affordable in different ways depending on the core intent and vision for their CIP/MCFA, ranging from 70%
to 170% of CMHC's average market rent for the geographic area. The introduction of a CIP/MCFA provides
an opportunity for the City of Kitchener staff and Council to set an affordability definition that enables the
housing typologies validated in this report.
• For both legal mechanisms, the municipality must also determine the type of projects (i.e., rental,
ownership, mixed income, etc.) that are subject to incentives, as well as what types of organizations may
apply (e.g., non-profit, private sector developers). In most Ontario municipalities, incentive programs have
primarily focused on affordable rental to target market gaps.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 141
Page 206 of 601
Parcel
Key Question:
What eligibility and evaluation criteria matter to the City?
• Both mechanisms require the municipality to establish eligibility and evaluation criteria to support staff
review of potential applications. Below are examples of both types of criteria drawn from other
municipalities:
Example Eligibility Criteria (defining types of projects eligible for incentives)
- Tenure (rental vs. ownership)
- Affordability term
- Affordability threshold
- Target tenant mix/demographic
- Suite type/mix
- Project size
- Incentives requested
Example Evaluation Criteria (defining criteria to determine impact and prioritize projects)`
- Depth of Affordability
- Length of Affordability
- Location Criteria
- Features and Services
Key Question:
What controls—or "checks-and-balances"—does the City need to manage
participating projects/ organizations?
• Municipalities have some discretion in terms of what application documentation/requirements exist for
applying organizations, which will be derived directly from the eligibility and evaluation criteria established.
The City of Toronto Open Door program (CIP), for example, requests comparatively detailed financial and
project information (beyond abstract qualitative project information and an estimated proforma for the
project) relative to other municipalities with MCFAs. The goal for application requirements should be to
strike the balance between adequate transparency and insight into the project specifics for the City to
validate the application, while avoiding documentation that creates undue administrative burden for both
the applicant and City staff.
38 The City must also establish a "points" scale for scoring so that applications received can be graded relative to one another.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 142
Page 207 of 601
Parcel
• For both mechanisms, it is recommended that the municipality contemplate an annual reporting structure
to confirm the continued alignment of the project with the conditions of the incentive and an associated
non-compliance approach to manage divergence. For example, reports should seek to confirm: (i) the
project remains rental in tenure for the agreed upon term; (ii) units remain below the agreed upon rental
rates for the agreed upon term; and, (iii) the unit, rents and tenant incomes of all units that became
occupied that year for income verification purposes (i.e., if applicable, per eligibility criteria).
• As described above, municipalities must contemplate the approach to application intake and evaluation
they prefer. Many municipalities in Ontario—for both CIPs and MCFAs—favour a one-time annual intake
through a call for proposals, whereas others assess and manage applications as part of the typical project
pipeline. Both approaches will require a redeployment of resources. For a centralized process, staff time
and resources must be dedicated to managing the call for proposal process. For an ongoing process, staff
must be provided the flexibility to dedicate additional time required to otherwise unexpected eligible
applications.
Key Question:
How can the City and the Region collaborate and coordinate their efforts?
• Regulation allows for upper and lower -tier municipalities to work together to offer incentives through both
CIPs and MCFAs. In the case of an MCFA, Section 1d 0(9) of the Act enables municipalities to offer incentives
through Regional programs. Section 28(7.2) permits local/regional collaboration for CIPs. Without
coordination, interested applicants face higher administrative burdens as a result of two processes that will
have inevitable redundancies.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 143
Page 208 of 601
Parcel
L
Summary & Next Steps
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 144
Page 209 of 601
6.1 Key Takeaways
Supportive Conditions
Validation of Patterns
Risk vs. Return
Parcel
Many communities are grappling with the
challenges and opportunities associated with
the delivery of missing middle and affordable
housing, but Kitchener is uniquely positioned to
accommodate this type of growth based on
current demographic conditions, land
availability, development feasibility conditions
and desire among both public and private
sector stakeholders.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, there are
notable barriers to entry for both missing
middle and affordable housing projects, which
are inherently less feasible when compared to
other identified "winners" and comparable
investment opportunities. Our baseline financial
analysis largely validates recent development
patterns in favour of ground -oriented houses
and high-rise apartments.
Based on the recent successes of other
developer -preferred housing typologies, there
is no escaping "first -of -its -kind" risk with respect
to missing middle typologies. Private sector
participants will naturally seek to repeat
successful formulas, even where opportunities
for comparable returns may ultimately be
available (i.e., as a function of uncertaintyd
unknowns that represent a material risk to
investors).
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 145
Page 210 of 601
No "Silver Bullet" Solution
Hierarchy of Incentives
Parcel
Similar to the way in which the current housing
crisis continues to be a function of many
different macro and micro -economic factors, so
too will the solution to these problems require
multiple different approaches—or tools—to
"unravel" the current situation and encourage
preferred housing forms.
In response to above, a suite of Financial,
Process and Policy -based incentives have been
identified, which have been prioritized as
follows (in order of hiahest imr)act to lowest
impact). The most significant impact of these
tools will be achieved when layering multiple
options at once.
• Parking Reduction - One of the most
frequently cited, "go -to" incentives to
encourage the development of missing
middle and affordable housing
typologies. The City should take
immediate strides to modernize parking
standards to be more in-line with
continued shifts in consumer / lifestyle
preferences, consistent with the
demonstration concepts identified in
this study. This could be most impactful
in areas where existing and/or planned
transit infrastructure is available.
• Density Allowances - Increasing
density where a positive revenue / cost
relationships already exists (baseline
profitability) can be extremely helpful in
"nudging" projects in favour to achieve
other identified city -building objectives
- especially affordable housing delivery.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 146
Page 211 of 601
Parcel
The City should seek to amend as -of -
right permissions for selected
typologies to leverage these benefits
(e.g., increase height thresholds for
Low -Rise and Mid -Rise building formats
relative to current definitions, as well as
consider the provision of additional
density in High -Rise contexts to support
affordable housing delivery).
• Financial Supports - in conjunction
with the policy -based incentives above,
the layering of appropriate financial
incentives, as applicable, can provide
additional relief to developers that
encourages development that could
deviate from typical patterns in the
Kitchener context. In light of recent
legislative changes via Bill 23, the City
should consider going "above and
beyond" these new mandates by
introducing additional financial relief for
specific missing middle typologies that
offer the greatest opportunity for
change (i.e., Plexes and Low -Rise
typologies).
• Process -Although generally least
impactful to development feasibility,
reducing delays and improving speed -
to -market can be beneficial to all parties
involved and represents a key point of
consensus. Most will agree that more
housing is needed in Kitchener, and
quickly. The City should seek to build
upon recent internal -facing efficiencies
by enabling a more expeditious path to
building permit issuance from the
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 147
Page 212 of 601
Parcel
perspective of local developers (e.g.,
less cumbersome application
requirements and other streamlining
beyond the immediate purview of the
municipality's day-to-day operations).
Missing Middle
The greatest opportunities for expanding
missing middle housing options lie in the Plexes
and Low -Rise typologies, which achieve a
"sweet spot" of scale, efficiency and ease of
entry to the market.
Affordable Housing
Focused Opportunities The affordable housing landscape can benefit
indirectly through any form of increased
housing supply and the continued
diversification of the local housing stock. High -
Rise built environments where additional
efficiencies exist can provide among the most
immediate opportunity to leverage the benefits
of new market -rate development to help offset
lost revenue opportunities in the delivery of
more affordable housing.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 148
Page 213 of 601
6.2 Next Steps
Take Action (Speed)
Make It Happen (Boldness)
Provide Clarity
Parcel
Every bit counts and no single housing typology
is capable of solving the housing crisis, so the
City should take immediate action to encourage
all kinds of new residential development.
Conditions for financial feasibility continue to
deteriorate over time (based on recent trends),
so speed will be an important factor in enabling
both missing middle and affordable housing.
There are immediate opportunities to set the
stage for this type of change through pending
updates to OP and Zoning in MTSAs.
In the face of what most continue to deem a
housing crisis, it is time for bold action. The City
should be encouraged to adopt a "wartime
mentality', to push boundaries and to avoid
indecision—or "analysis paralysis"—in an attempt
to satisfy all stakeholders. As -of -right
permissions in zoning is one way to be decisive,
with additional benefits to the development
community.
The City should clearly define and communicate
what constitutes missing middle and affordable
housing to avoid confusion and/or
disagreement among stakeholders, including
tying in to broader definitions, wherever
possible (e.g., adopting Provincial definitions of
affordability). This study has sought to advance
these discussions, but the City will need to
confirm and advance their own definitions, in
due course. There are opportunities for the City
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 149
Page 214 of 601
Educate
Establish Replicability
Parcel
to provide this clarity through planned OP
updates over the next several years.
Similar to above, education can serve as an
effective tool to establish consensus, improve
awareness and dispel myths at the outset of any
conversation around missing middle and
affordable housing in an effort to improve
efficiency. This includes addressing often
unwarranted NIMBY -ism, potentially exposing
established developers to new investment
opportunities, as well as encouraging the entry
of new participants to the housing development
industry (e.g., helping along new small-scale
developers that may have an interest in
delivering missing middle typologies). The
City's educational planning videos could be
expanded to provide a base level of
understanding of land economics and how
decisions about where to grow are made.
Rather than a debate -based approvals system,
the City should investigate more templated
approval systems to foster replicability in
preferred housing forms that are compatible
with the Kitchener market. This has been a
"tried-and-true" approach by the private sector
throughout all eras of housing construction to
achieve scale, which could be appropriately
aligned or "right -sized" to match up with the
specific types of housing desired by the City.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 150
Page 215 of 601
Identify Funding Sources
Monitor & Refresh
Parcel
Notwithstanding the variety of both financial
and non-financial incentives identified through
this study and their relative prioritization, the
City will undoubtedly need to take a "hard look"
at their own finances to establish a clearer
prioritization of missing middle and/or
affordable housing delivery relative to other—
often competing—strategic objectives. Where
shortfalls are identified, a joint effort between
the municipality and local housing developersd
providers will be required to capture any and all
opportunities for external funding (e.g., via
other levels of government, etc.).
Similar to other policy -based financial and
market analyses prepared by—or on behalf of—
municipalities, there will be an inherent need to
regularly monitor and update the City's
rationale for implementing incentives in
response to ever-changing market conditions.
Cities are complex, dynamic environments that
cause development feasibility to be driven by a
multitude of inter -related factors. This presents
unique challenges to establishing policy
direction based on a "snapshot" in time. As
macroeconomic factors change, the City should
continuously re-evaluate their incentives
structure and/or preferences around the
delivery of missing middle and affordable
housing, similar to the way in which developers
maintain "evergreen" proEformas that are in a
constant state of flux.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 151
Page 216 of 601
Glossary of Terms
Page 217 of 601
Parcel
Accessory or "additional' dwelling units representing the introduction of a net new unit to
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) existing single -detached properties either within the existing structure (e.g., basement unit) or
as an ancillary building.
Affordable
In the case of ownership housing, the least expensive of: housing for which the purchase price
results in annual accommodation costs which to not exceed 30 percent of gross annual
household income low and moderate income households; or, housing for which the purchase
price is at least 10 percent below the average purchase price of a resale unit in the Regional
market area.
In the case of rental housing, the least expensive of: a unit for which the rent does not exceed
30 percent of the gross annual household income for low and moderate income households;
or, a unit for which the rent is at or below the average market rent of a unit in the Regional
market area.
Attainable An ownership unit that is above 80% of average purchase price.
The interest rate commercial banks use as a benchmark to set interest rates for other types of
Bank Prime products, including mortgages. Bank prime is set based on the Overnight Rate; typically based
on a 225 bps in recent years.
Basis Points (BPS) A unit of measure for interest rates and other percentages in finance. One basis point is equal
to 1 /100th of 1 %, or 0.01 %.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Sty: 153
Page 218 of 601
Parcel
Capitalization Rate (Cap Rate) A measure of rate of return to compare real estate investments calculated by dividing net
operating income by the value of the property.
CMHC Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Equity Multiple (EMx) Common investment return metric, representing the cash distributions received from an
investment, divided by the total equity invested.
Common investment return metric, representing the cash flow after financing4%) generated by
Cash -on -Cash (CoC) the equity invested to date. It does not take into account the value of the building or any
appreciation of value overtime.
Gross Floor Area (GFA) The total floor area of a building measured from the outside of the exterior walls.
Hard Costs Costs directly related to the physical construction of a building, typically construction materials,
labour, appliances, etc. (see Soft Costs)
High -Rise Standalone apartment buildings typically greater than eight (8) storeys in height.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Stun, 154
Page 219 of 601
Parcel
Inclusionary Zoning A policy tool that allows municipalities to require the inclusion of affordable housing units as
part of market -rate developments.
Common investment return metric, representing the discount rate at which the net present
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) value of a project equals 0. IRR takes into account both the magnitude and timing of cash flows
(negative and positive) throughout the project timeline.
In the case of ownership housing, households with income in the lowest 60 percent of the
Low- and Moderate- Income income distribution for the Regional market area; or in the case of rental housing, households
with incomes in the lowest 60 percent of the income distribution for renter households for the
Regional market area.
Low -Rise Standalone apartment buildings typically less than four (4) storeys in height.
Mid -Rise Standalone apartment buildings typically between four (4) and eight (8) storeys in height.
Housing typologies between single -detached houses and high-rise apartments in density and
Missing Middle scale; includes traditional townhouses, new format townhouses, plexes, low-rise apartments,
and mid -rise apartments.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Sty: 155
Page 220 of 601
Parcel
Net Floor Area / Net Square Feet (NSF) / Net The useable area in a building typically measured between the internal surfaces of the
Saleable Area (NSA) / Gross Leasable Area (GLA) enclosed fixed walls and exclusive of circulation space, mechanical spaces, and washrooms.
New Format Towns Vertically or horizontally integrated townhouse developments with multiple units; includes
stacked townhouse, back-to-back townhouses, and infill townhouses.
Overnight Rate The interest rate set by the Bank of Canada at which financial institutions can borrow and lend
short-term funds to each other. Bank Prime is based on the overnight rate.
Plexes Multi-plex apartment buildings, typically containing eight (8) or fewer units; includes triplexes,
fourplexes, and other multi-plexes.
Per Square Foot (PSF) Common expression of value relating to building floor area (gross or net).
An area that has a high degree of social and economic interaction. An upper or single tier
Regional Market Area municipality will normally serve as the Regional market area. The Region of Waterloo serves as
the Regional market area for Kitchener.
Reversion Value The anticipated value of property in the future at time of sale.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Sty: 156
Page 221 of 601
Parcel
Singles Grade -related housingdsingle-detached houses.
Soft Costs Costs not directly related to the physical construction of a building, typically municipal and
regional charges, consultant fees (planning, design), financing, etc. (see Hard Costs)
In general, tax increment financing uses future incremental property tax revenues generated by
the redevelopment of a property to offset the upfront costs of redevelopment. In other words,
Tax Increment Grant (TIG) as a property or area is redeveloped, the increase in the assessed value of the property raises
the amount of taxes payable by that property. The difference between the taxes paid by the
property prior to redevelopment and the taxes paid following redevelopment is referred to as
the "tax increment."
Traditional Towns Street -fronting townhouses or "row" housing, including those with no backyards; includes
rowhouses and back-to-back townhouses.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility 157
Page 222 of 601
Annp, ne1ix F
CMHC Neighbourhood Profiles
Page 223 of 601
KITCHENER CENTRAL
0-9yrs
10-19 yrs
20 - 29 yrs
30 - 39 yrs
40 - 49 yrs
50 - 59 yrs
60 - 69 yrs
70 - 84 yrs
85+ yrs
Well above
the Region
and the
15%Province
18%
4%
18%
19%
o
/o
14°
Annual Completions
,,400 —s
, 00 —m
Bou snits
Parcel
600 —,t,
a
4UU -ts
Apts
200 Rows
Semis
ao o N
Singles
2014 2015 2016 20'17 2018 2019 2020 2021
nabVing Missing Middle & Affordabpe Housing - Fea_ 1519
Page 224 of 601
KITCHENER NORTH-WEST
0-9yrs �
North-West 2021'
10 - 19 yrs
20 - 29 yrs
30 - 39 yr,-
10%
rs
40 - 49 yrs
50 - 59 yrs
60 - 69 yrs
70-84 yrs
_ 2%
85+yrsP'z%
1%
10%
11%
2%
11%
12%
12% Young
. 13% families with
_ 15% kids
1l%
- 14%
15%
17%
13%
13%
12%
- 14%
"1
3%
12`70
13%
. 11%
. 10%
■ 10%
9%
8% J
Pe
PPw
Parcel
Annual Completions
Relatively steady (and increasing)
development activity sinceE2016...
c
a
w
a
40o����s m
Apts
200 U- I c 'c 'c r
Rows
,o a, ■ Semis
M N M
Singles
2010 2011 2012 20'13 2014 2015 20'16 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
ret
e
4N*_C�iiillld
��ardRd�
Nig
�`Jd
a,� S
,Oee
AP
J`1�
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Fea 160
Page 225 of 601
oA
,
o`
OQ,
Pe
PPw
Parcel
Annual Completions
Relatively steady (and increasing)
development activity sinceE2016...
c
a
w
a
40o����s m
Apts
200 U- I c 'c 'c r
Rows
,o a, ■ Semis
M N M
Singles
2010 2011 2012 20'13 2014 2015 20'16 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
ret
e
4N*_C�iiillld
��ardRd�
Nig
�`Jd
a,� S
,Oee
AP
J`1�
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Fea 160
Page 225 of 601
KITCHENER CENTRAL -WEST
0 9 yrs
10-19 yrs
20-29 yrs
30-39 yrs
40 - 49 yrs
50.59 yrs
60 - 69 yrs
0 - 84 yrs
85+ yrs
• • 10%
11%
Central -West 2021 11%
In
pr
di
Parcel
1,10- Relatively lienited development
I ODD ,, activity unti6recently
C
m
41JV iM1n
Apts
2uu -.4, Rows
- Singles
2010 2011 2212 2013 2014 2013 2015 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable dousmq - Pea 161
Page 226 of 601
KITCHENER SOUTH-WEST
• 10%
11%
South-West 2021
10 19 yrs
20.29 yrs
30 - 39 yrs
40 49 yrs
50 • 59 yrs
60 69 yrs
70 a 84 yrs
2%
85+ yrs 2%
1%
13%
- 15'
15
- 13%
13%
14%
- 13%
- 12%
- 13%
- 1196
09%
= 10%
§9%
7%
Parcel
3istent and significant
ment activity for 10+ yrs.
pletions
1,(YJO units
� N
800 units ^ '
1 M
600 units M m
�1 1
400 units '
200 units ■
N
Apts
Rows
Semis
Singles
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 162
Page 227 of 601
KITCHENER NORTH-EAST
. .. 10%
0 - 9 yrsgion 2 11%
North-East 2021 10%
10-19 yrs
20-29 yrs
30-39 yrs
% Well above the
15%
15% Region and the
Province
4%
15%
A18
13%
40 - 49 yrs No= 13%
13%
14%
50-59 yrs 13%
14%
13%
60-69 yrs 11%
11%
10%
70-84 yrs 91
8%
2%
85+ yrs 2%
2%
k'hg
At t,
Annual Completions
1,400 un is
Parcel
1,200 un Its
1,000 units Limited growth to 2015, peaking in
2016 and tapering thereafter. Apts
800 units
`
Gta,40
ra
iA
1111001! N
aSt
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 163
Page 228 of 601
600 units
Rows
N i
400 units
1.
S Q/
semis
•\ ��
5
c ?
?
N
■
N
M
200 units c
>
m
P
+`0
' Singles
O
O
o o n
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
2015
2016
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
`
Gta,40
ra
iA
1111001! N
aSt
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Study 163
Page 228 of 601
KITCHENER SOUTH=EAST
• • 1 10%
0-9yrs 11%
South -East 2021 12%
11%
10 19 yrs 12%
12%
13%
20 29 yrs 15%
30 39 yrs
40-49 yrs
50 - 59 yla
60-69 yrs
70 - 84 yrs
85+ yrs
14%
15%
14%
3%
3%
14%
3%
13%
In line with
provincial
d
400 amt
000 oms
Parcel
Annual Completions
Despite some variability, relatively
consistent growth across multiple
-ig types for 10+ years.
N �
- M
M 1 Apts
t = ■ M
Rows
Semis
Singles
4 2015 2016 20'17 2018 2019 2020 2021
Enabling Massing Middle & Affordable Housing - Fea 164
Page 229 of 601
Incentives Best Practices Review
Page 230 of 601
Financial Capital grants Financial relief for affordable rental developers
The City of Mississauga adopted development charges grant for
op affordable rental housing projects developed by a non-profit
corporation, or a private developer working in partnership with a
non-profit corporation. This grant effectively rebates the City's
portion of development charges paid on eligible affordable rental
developments.
Financial Capital grants Capital grants for eligible "missing middle"/affordable housing
The annual Peel Affordable Rental Incentives Program in the
op Region of Peel provides capital grants to private and non-profit
developers building affordable rental housing with a particular
focus on larger, family -sized units. In 2021, the Region funded
three (3) housing development projects which constructed 130
affordable units in the region.
Financial Capital grants Housing Reserve Funds
The City of Vancouver, Kelowna, Burnaby, Richmond, and North
op Vancouver in British Columbia have created direct capital grant
contributions to affordable housing projects through Housing
Reserve Funds.
Parcel
Not included in shortlist.
More immediate development
charge and fee relief
considered separately as part
of alternative incentive options.
(Incentive #1)
Not included in shortlist.
More immediate development
charge and fee relief / property
tax exemptions considered
separately as part of alternate
incentive solution(s).
(Incentive #1)
Not included in shortlist.
More immediate development
charge and fee relief / property
tax exemptions considered
separately as part of alternate
incentive solution(s).
(Incentive #1)
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Stl: 166
Page 231 of 601
Financial Capital grants Tax increment
The City of Peterborough's Affordable Housing Tax Increment
op Based Grant Program provides a grant to affordable housing
projects within the City's Community Improvement Area that will
rehabilitate a building and result in a reassessment of the
property. The grant amount would align with the incremental
increase in the municipal taxes that would result from the
rehabilitation.
Financial Capital grants Conversion of vacant office space into residential housing units
The Downtown Calgary Development Incentive Program offers a
0
op grant to convert office space into residential space. Five (5)
projects have been approved and will create 705 homes.
Financial Capital grants Forgivable loan
The City of Toronto's Laneway Suites Initiatives provides a
op forgivable loan to property owners developing a laneway suite
Parcel
Included in shortlist.
(Incentive #1)
Not included in shortlist.
Conversion of office space to
residential does not represent a
significant opportunity in the
Kitchener context.
Not included in shortlist.
Otherforms of financial relief
considered separately as part
of alternate incentive
solution(s).
(Incentive #1)
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Stu 167
Page 232 of 601
Financial Capital grants Innovation development
The City of Brampton's Housing Catalyst Capital Project will
op deliver capital funding and support to non -profits to incentivise
ideas around new and innovative housing options. The City
completed Phase 1 in 2023 and will be accepting application for
Phase 2 in early 2023.
Parcel
Not included in shortlist.
Other forms of financial relief
considered separately as part
of alternate incentive
solution(s).
,inceni�ive #1�
Financial Property tax exemption Tax exemptions for affordable housing proiects Included in shortlist.
(Incentive #1�
The City of Peterborough's Municipal Housing Facilities property
op tax exemption provides full or partial property tax exemptions for
up to 10 years for affordable housing projects.
In British Columbia, Victoria and Langford offer a 100%
permissive tax exemption to not-for-profit affordable housing
p rod e cts.
Financial Development charge (DC) DC deferral for purpose-built affordable rental developments Not included in shortlist.
deferrald exemptions
In 2019, York Region introduced a development charge deferral Development charge
(9)
policy to incentivize the development of affordable, purpose- exemptions—rather than
built rental buildings that are a minimum of four (4) storeys. deferrals—considered
separately.
(Incentive #1�
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Sty: 168
Page 233 of 601
Financial Development charge (DC) DC exemptions for additional unit development on a single e lot
deferral / exemptions
The City of Toronto's By-law 1137-2022 exempts second, third or
op fourth residential dwelling units constructed on a single parcel of
land or within a single residential building from development
charges.
Financial Development charge (DC) DC deferral
deferral / exemptions
In 2018, the City of Toronto introduced the Laneway Suites
op Initiatives to encourage eligible property owners to develop
secondary / laneway suites. One of the two incentives in this
program is a DC deferral on the development of secondary
dwelling unit in the rear yard of a property.
Financial Provision / allocation of City- Activation of City -owned land
owned land
The City of Toronto's Housing Now Initiative activates City -owned
0
op sites for the development of affordable housing within mixed -
income, mixed-use, transit -oriented communities.
Parcel
Not included in shortlist.
Already captured in existing
Kitchener policy and financial
incentive context.
Not included in shortlist.
Development charge
exemptions—rather than
deferrals—considered
separately.
(Incentive #1)
Not included in shortlist.
The Region and the City
continues to explore City -
owned land that can be
activated for housing purposes.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Sty! 169
Page 234 of 601
Process Development approvals, Reduce development approvals timeline,
property tax exemption and
deferral process improvements. The City of Vancouver implemented the Vancouver Social
Housing or Rental Tenure (SHORT) program which reduces
development approval time for high impact multi -family housing
by nearly 50%.
Parcel
Included in shortlist.
(Incentive #2)
Policy Density Transition Zones (DTZs) Introduce transition zone
Not included in shortlist.
The City of Bellevue, Washington adopted a Transition Area
The concept of a transition
Design Districts to incentivize improvement that would serve to
zone is like that of major transit
provide a transition with established uses. Similarly, Chula Vista,
station areas (MTSAs) which
California adopted a Neighborhood Transition Combining District
have already been introduced
(NTCD) that regulates the character of intermediate zones to be
in Kitchener.
compatible with surrounding residential areas.
Policy Density allowance changes Increase density in exchange for affordable /other ob'ec� tives
Included in shortlist.
(Incentive #3)
In 2020, Portland Oregon's City Council adopted the Residential
Infill Project (RIP) which allows up to six (b) homes on any lot if at
least half are availableto low-income residents at regulated and
affordable prices. Similarly, in Minneapolis the City adopted
Minneapolis 2040 which allows property owners to build
duplexes or triplexes on residential lots previously zoned for
single-family homes.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Sty: 170
Page 235 of 601
Policy Density allowance changes
Policy Density allowance changes
Policy Density allowance changes
Permit Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Parcel
Not included in shortlist.
The City of Portland's Zoning Code allows ADUs to be added on a Already permitted in Kitchener.
site accessory to a house, attached house, manufactured home, or
duplex. Up to two (2) ADUs are allowed on sites with a house,
attached home, or manufactured home if the site meets a
minimum threshold. Only one (1�ADU is allowed on sites with a
duplex.
Permit two-family dwellings (duplexes) with a secondary suite or
lock -off unit
In the City of Vancouver, duplexes are permitted 'outright' in
select residential zones with a secondary suite or lock -off units to
increase housing choices in low-density neighbourhoods.
Density Bonus Program
Austin, Texas implemented the Affordability Unlocked
Development Bonus Program to provide developments waivers
or easements on height, density, parking, compatibility, and
minimum lot size in exchange for providing a high percentage of
affordable units.
Not included in shortlist.
Already permitted in Kitchener.
Not included in shortlist.
Increased height and density
allowances evaluated
separately.
(Incentive #3)
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Sty: 171
Page 236 of 601
Parcel
Policy Density allowance changes Inclusionary Zoning
Not included in shortlist.
The City of Edmonton amended its Zoning Bylaw in 201 G
Inclusionary Zoning (IZ)
following a review of the City's middle density residential zones
framework already
and associated overlays to introduce regulation changes that
implemented by the City of
reduce barriers for development of'missing middle' housing
Kitchener.
typologies. Changes include simplifying stacked row house and
apartment uses into a single catch-all use called multi -unit
housing; increasing the scale of housing allowed between each
zone; allowing both a secondary suite and garden suite to be
developed with a single detached house; simplify separation
space requirements to avoid wasteful vacant space; and
incorporating key design regulations from the existing overlay
into the underlying zones and retiring the overlays.
Policy Parking requirement changes Parking allowances
Include in shortlist.
(Incentive #4)
The State of Oregon introduced new parking allowances to meet
Oregon's climate pollution reduction targets while providing
more housing and transportation choices and improving equity.
As of January 1, 2023 the following are exempt from providing on
site parking: facilities and homes designed to serve people with
various disabilities; child care facilities single -room occupancy
housing; residential units smaller than 750 square feet; affordable
housing; public supported housing; emergency and transitional
shelters; and domestic violence shelters.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Sty: 172
Page 237 of 601
Financial Analysis Background
Page 238 of 601
Central vs. Suburban Neighbourhoods
CENINAL
Consistent with Schedule'C16Ofthe Development Charges By -Law
2022-071 to align with applicable rates. Central Neighbourhoods
contain most of Kitchener's recent high-riseeF other infill
development.
SUBURBAN
Consistent with Schedule'C2' ofthe Development Charges By -
Law 2022-071 to align with applicable rates. Suburban
Neighbourhoods make up the balance of the City and contain
most of the community's recent greenfield development.
Parcel
Source: Parcel, based on Schedules'C1' and 'C2' of the Development Charges By -Law 2022-0071.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Feasibility Sty: 174
Page 239 of 601
Parcel
Scenarios Tested for Baseline Financial Feasibility
19 A Singles+ • •
- ti
AUU's
•
C1
Towns
• •
♦ C1
Towns
•
• C2
ClusterTowns
• •
♦ C2
ClusterTowns
•
• C3
Plexes
• •
♦ C3
Plexes
•
• D1
Low -Rise
• •
♦ D1
Low -Rise
•
D1
Low -Rise
• •
D1
Low -Rise
•
• D2
Mid -Rise
• •
♦ D2
Mid -Rise
•
• D2
Mid -Rise
• •
♦ D2
Mid -Rise
•
• E
High -Rise
• •
♦ E
High -Rise
•
Source: Parcel
• Ownership
• ♦ Rental
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Hous,,,, , -, 175
Page 240 of 601
Parcel
Baseline Financial Feasibility Assumptions
Baseline revenue assumptions are based on our review of ...
• Altus Data Studio data for projects actively selling in 2022 and recent MLS data for the resale market.
• Rentals.ca and CMHC historical rental data.
• Future revenue growth is based on historical data and is assumed to average 5.0% annually for both ownership and rental (up to first occupancy)
over the next 5 years.
• Recent development land transactions published by Altus and Costar, as well as resale house sales for'teardown' houses in the Central
Neighbourhoods to establish land costs.
• The median value by typology published in the Altus Construction Cost Guide (2023) to estimate Hard Costs (i.e., construction costs).
• Current regional and city charges and fees (grown based on the 10 -year trend of the non-residential construction price index), 20 -year trend
interest rates, and typical industry benchmarks to estimate Soft Costs.
• Future cost growth is based on historical data by category and assumes hard costs will grow at an average annual rate of 10.0% for projects
expected to begin construction within the next 3 years and 7.5% for projects which are expected to take longer to begin construction and as the
industry slowly comes down from historic highs.
• Recent changes included in the Province's Bill 23 have been incorporated into our baseline analyses.
Enabling Missing Middle &Affordable Housing - Feasibility Stl: 176
Page 241 of 601
Baseline Financial Feasibility Analysis - All Typologies, Tenures & Locations
16 units @ 2,350 sq ft on 1.00 acres in the
Suburban Neighbourhoods
Revenue Assumptions
$1.235M + 5% annually to
$ per Unit:
construction
Avg Rent:
No Scenario
Cost Assumptions
Land:
$2.OM ($2.OM / ac)
$245 PSF + 10.0% annually to
Hard Costs:
construction
DCs + CIL Parkland; SPA +
Soft Costs:
Subdivision
Return
100%
Ownership Rental Sales Proceeds
Metrics
$19.8m
Profit: $787,000 -
IRR: 15%
Equity Multiple: 1.22x in 2.4 yrs -
Cash -on -Cash: - -
Ownership
$19.8M
Revenues
$19.1 M
34%
Soft Costs
$6.4M
ss%
Hard Costs
$10.6M
11%
Land
$2.1M
Costs
Rental
N/A
Parcel
Suburban
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Fec 177
Page 242 of 601
Parcel
Central
1 unit @ 850 sq ft in the backyard of a single
detached house Ownership
Rental
Revenue Assumptions
$ per Unit: No Scenario
$2,400/mth (2023) + 5%
Avg Rent:
annually to construction
$ 0
Cost Assumptions
Land: $0
$ 479,000
Hard Costs: $350 PSF + 10% annually
77%
25%
NSA
Sales Proceeds
Soft Costs
NO DCs, CBCs + CIL Parkland; NO
$ 504,000
$ 119,000
Soft Costs:
OPA, ZBA, SPA
Return
Ownership Rental
Hardcosts
Metrics
$ 360,000
23%
Profit: - $179,000
Operating
Revenues
$ 154,000
-
Upfront Equity: - $120,000
Land
Revenues Costs
Cash -on -Cash: - 8%
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Fec 178
Page 243 of 601
24 units @ 1,550 sq ft on 1.0 acres in the
Suburban Neighbourhoods
Revenue Assumations
100%
Sales Proceeds
$19.3M
Ownership
$19.3M
Revenues Costs
35%
Soft Costs
$6.3M
54%
Hard Costs
$9.7M
11%
Land
$21M
79%
Sales Proceeds
$13.2M
21%
Operating
Revenues
$3.4M
Parcel
Rental
$16.711M $16.211M
Suburban
Revenues Costs
28%
Soft Costs
$4.6M
59%
Hard Costs
$9.5m
13%
Land
$2.1 M
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Fec 179
Page 244 of 601
$800,000 + 5% annually to
$per Unit:
construction
$2,870/mth (2023) + 5%
Avg Rent:
annually to construction
Cost Assumptions
Land:
$2.OM ($2.OM / ac)
$225 PSF + 10% annually to
Hard Costs:
construction
DCs + CIL Parkland; SPA +
Soft Costs:
Subdivision
Return
Ownership Rental
Metrics
Profit:
$1.2M $485,000
IRR:
18% 1 %
Equity
1.34x i n 2.4 1.06x in 13.3
Multiple:
yrs yrs
Cash -on -Cash:
- 2%
100%
Sales Proceeds
$19.3M
Ownership
$19.3M
Revenues Costs
35%
Soft Costs
$6.3M
54%
Hard Costs
$9.7M
11%
Land
$21M
79%
Sales Proceeds
$13.2M
21%
Operating
Revenues
$3.4M
Parcel
Rental
$16.711M $16.211M
Suburban
Revenues Costs
28%
Soft Costs
$4.6M
59%
Hard Costs
$9.5m
13%
Land
$2.1 M
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Fec 179
Page 244 of 601
9 units @ 1,846 sq ft on 0.36 acres in the Central
Neighbourhoods
Revenue Assumptions
$per Unit: $925,000 + 5% annually to
construction
Avg Rent: $2,955/mth (2023) + 5%
annually to construction
Cost Assumptions
Land: $1.4M (2 Teardown Houses)
Hard Costs: $225 PSF + 10% annually to
construction
Soft Costs: DCs + CIL Parkland; OPA, ZBA, &
Condo
Cash -on -Cash:
100%
Sales Proceeds
$8.3M
Ownership
$8.3M
$8.6M
Revenues Costs
Parcel
hL Central
Rental
31%
Ownership
Rental
Metrics
Soft Costs
Profit:
-$342,000
-$1.35M
IRR:
-14%
-4%
Equity
0.82x in 3.4
0.66x in 13.1
Multiple:
yrs
yrs
Cash -on -Cash:
100%
Sales Proceeds
$8.3M
Ownership
$8.3M
$8.6M
Revenues Costs
Parcel
hL Central
Rental
31%
$7.4M
Soft Costs
$2.7M
24%
$6.011M
Soft Costs
$1.SM
53%
82%
57%
Hard Costs
Sales Proceeds
Hard Costs
$4.5M
$5.0m
$4.2M
17%
18%
20%
Land
Operating
Land
$1.4M
Revenues
$1.4M
$1.1M
Revenues
Costs
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Fec 180
Page 245 of 601
8 units @ 949 sq ft on 0.11 acres in the Central
Neighbourhoods
Revenue Assumptions
$per Unit: $665,000 + 5% annually to
construction
Avg Rent: $2,705/mth (2023) + 5%
annually to construction
Cost Assumptions
Land: $850,000 (1 Teardown House)
Hard Costs: $255 PSF + 10% annually
Soft Costs: DCs + CIL Parkland; OPA, ZBA, +
Condo
Return
Ownership
$5.3M
32%
Soft Costs
$1.6M
79%
100% Sales Proceeds
$4 OM
Sales Proceeds
$5.3M 52%
Hard Costs
$2.7M
Revenues
Costs
21%
17% Operating
Land Revenues
$0.9m $1.1M
Revenues
Rental
Parcel
$4.6M
27
Soft Costs
$12M
54%
Hard Costs
$2.5M
19%
Land
$0.9m
C osts
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Fec 181
Page 246 of 601
Ownership
Rental
Metrics
Profit:
$184,000
$484,000
IRR:
9%
2%
Equity
1.16x in 3.3
1.21x in 13.3
Multiple:
yrs
yrs
Cash -on -Cash:
-
2%
Ownership
$5.3M
32%
Soft Costs
$1.6M
79%
100% Sales Proceeds
$4 OM
Sales Proceeds
$5.3M 52%
Hard Costs
$2.7M
Revenues
Costs
21%
17% Operating
Land Revenues
$0.9m $1.1M
Revenues
Rental
Parcel
$4.6M
27
Soft Costs
$12M
54%
Hard Costs
$2.5M
19%
Land
$0.9m
C osts
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Fec 181
Page 246 of 601
15 units @ 712 sq ft on 0.16 acres in the Central
Neighbourhoods
Revenue Assumations
100%
Sales Proceeds
$8.3M
Ownership
$8.3M
$8.5M
$8.2M
$7.5M
33%
Soft Costs
$2.7M
79%
Sales Proceeds
$6.7M
54%
Hard Costs
$4.4M
Revenues Costs
Parcel
Rental
21%
13% Operating
Land Revenues
$1.0M $1.8M
Revenues Costs
29%
Soft Costs
$2.1 M
58%
Hard Costs
$4.4M
14%
Land
$1.0M
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Fec 182
Page 247 of 601
$535,000 + 5% annually to
$per Unit:
construction
$2,260/mth (2023) + 5%
Avg Rent:
annually to construction
Cost Assumptions
Land:
$1 M (1 Teardown House)
$285 PSF + 7.5% annually to
Hard Costs:
construction
Soft Costs:
DCs, CBCs + CIL Parkland; OPA,
ZBA, SPA + Condo
Return
Ownership Rental
Metrics
Profit:
$96,000 $971,000
IRR:
3% 2%
Equity
1.26x in 14.8
1.06 in 4.6 yrs
Multiple:
yrs
Cash -on -Cash:
— 2%
100%
Sales Proceeds
$8.3M
Ownership
$8.3M
$8.5M
$8.2M
$7.5M
33%
Soft Costs
$2.7M
79%
Sales Proceeds
$6.7M
54%
Hard Costs
$4.4M
Revenues Costs
Parcel
Rental
21%
13% Operating
Land Revenues
$1.0M $1.8M
Revenues Costs
29%
Soft Costs
$2.1 M
58%
Hard Costs
$4.4M
14%
Land
$1.0M
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Fec 182
Page 247 of 601
15 units@ 712sgfton0.16acres inthe
Suburban Neighbourhoods
Revenue Assumations
Ownership
Rental
Parcel
$8.511M$8.3M $8.2M
$7.6M
34%
Soft Costs
$2.SM
79%
Sales Proceeds
100% $6.7M
Sales Proceeds
$8.3M 54%
Hard Costs
$4.4M
Revenues Costs
21%
12% Operating
Land Revenues
$1.0M $1.8M
Revenues Costs
29%
Soft Costs
$2.2M
58%
Hard Costs
$4.4M
14%
Land
$1.0M
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Fec 183
Page 248 of 601
$535,000 + 5% annually to
$per Unit:
construction
$2,257/mth (2023) + 5%
Avg Rent:
annually to construction
Cost Assumptions
Land:
$1 M (1 Teardown House)
$285 PSF + 7.5% annually to
Hard Costs:
construction
Soft Costs:
DCs, CBCs + CIL Parkland; SPA +
Condo
Return
Ownership Rental
Metrics
Profit:
$57,000 $938,000
IRR:
2% 2%
Equity
1.03x in 4.6 1.25x in 14.8
Multiple:
yrs yrs
Cash -on -Cash:
— 2%
Ownership
Rental
Parcel
$8.511M$8.3M $8.2M
$7.6M
34%
Soft Costs
$2.SM
79%
Sales Proceeds
100% $6.7M
Sales Proceeds
$8.3M 54%
Hard Costs
$4.4M
Revenues Costs
21%
12% Operating
Land Revenues
$1.0M $1.8M
Revenues Costs
29%
Soft Costs
$2.2M
58%
Hard Costs
$4.4M
14%
Land
$1.0M
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Fec 183
Page 248 of 601
32 units @ 757 sq ft on 0.27 acres in the Central
Neighbourhoods
Revenue Assumptions
$per Unit: $606,000 + 5% annually to
construction
Avg Rent: $2,235/mth (2023) + 5%
annually to construction
Cost Assumptions
Land: $1.8M (2 Teardown Houses)
Hard Costs: $285 PSF + 7.5% annually to
construction
Soft Costs: DCs, CBCs + CIL Parkland; OPA,
ZBA, SPA + Condo
100%
Sales Proceeds
$20.1 M
Ownership
$20.1 M
34%
Soft Costs
$7.3M
57%
Hard Costs
$12.4M
9%
Land
$1.9M
Revenues Costs
$18.4M
81%
Sales Proceeds
$14.9M
19%
Operating
Revenues
$3.5M
Revenues
Rental
Parcel
$19.9M
C osts
Central
29%
Soft Costs
$5.9M
61%
Hard Costs
$12.2M
9%
Land
$1.9M
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Fec 184
Page 249 of 601
Ownership
Rental
Metrics
Profit:
-$1.49M
-$1.58M
IRR:
-
-1%
Equity
0.68x in 5.1
0.84 in 15.6
Multiple:
yrs
yrs
Cash -on -Cash:
—
1%
100%
Sales Proceeds
$20.1 M
Ownership
$20.1 M
34%
Soft Costs
$7.3M
57%
Hard Costs
$12.4M
9%
Land
$1.9M
Revenues Costs
$18.4M
81%
Sales Proceeds
$14.9M
19%
Operating
Revenues
$3.5M
Revenues
Rental
Parcel
$19.9M
C osts
Central
29%
Soft Costs
$5.9M
61%
Hard Costs
$12.2M
9%
Land
$1.9M
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Fec 184
Page 249 of 601
32 units @ 757 sq ft on 0.27 acres in the
Suburban Neighbourhoods
Revenue Assumptions
$per Unit: $606,000 + 5% annually to
construction
Avg Rent: $2,235/mth (2023) + 5%
annually to construction
Cost Assumptions
Land: $925,000 ($3.4M / ac)
Hard Costs: $285 PSF + 7.5% annually to
construction
Soft Costs: DCs, CBCs + CIL Parkland; SPA +
Condo
Ownership
$20.7M
Ownership
Rental
Metrics
36%
Profit:
-$621,000
-$681,000
IRR:
-18%
1 %
Equity
0.85x i n 5.1
0.93x in 15.6
Multiple:
yrs
yrs
Cash -on -Cash:
—
1 %
Ownership
$20.7M
$20.1 M
36%
Soft Costs
$7.4M
81%
100%
Sales Proceeds
Sales Proceeds
$14.9M
$20.1 M
60%
Hard Costs
$12.4M
19%
Operating
5%
Revenues
_- Land
$3.5M
$0.9m
Revenues Costs
Parcel
Rental
Revenues Costs
31%
Soft Costs
$5.9m
64%
Hard Costs
$12.2M
5%
Land
$0.9m
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Fec 185
Page 250 of 601
425 units @ 710 sq ft on 0.69 acres in the
Central Neighbourhoods
Revenue Assumations
Source: Parcel
100%
Sales Proceeds
$326.6M
0%
Operating
Revenues
$0.1M Revenues
Ownership
$292.7M
37% $244.4M
Soft Costs
$108.3 M
81%
Sales Proceeds
$197.6m
58%
Hard Costs
$169.8M
C osts
19%
Operating
5% Revenues
Land $46.8M
$14.5M
Parcel
Rental
$262.2M
Revenues Costs
Central
31%
Soft Cons
$81.7m
63%
Hard Costs
$165.9m
6%
Land
$14.5M
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Fec 186
Page 251 of 601
$710,000 + 5% annually to
$per Unit:
construction
$2,130/mth (2023) + 5%
Avg Rent:
annually to construction
Cost Assumptions
Land:
$14M ($20.3M / ac)
$360 PSF + 7.5% annually to
Hard Costs:
construction
Soft Costs:
DCs, CBCs + CIL Parkland; OPA,
ZBA, SPA + Condo
Return
Ownership Rental
Metrics
Profit:
$33.9M -$17.7M
IRR:
29% -1%
Equity
1.64x in 6.5 0.86x in 16.1
Multiple:
yrs yrs
Cash -on -Cash:
— 1 %
Source: Parcel
100%
Sales Proceeds
$326.6M
0%
Operating
Revenues
$0.1M Revenues
Ownership
$292.7M
37% $244.4M
Soft Costs
$108.3 M
81%
Sales Proceeds
$197.6m
58%
Hard Costs
$169.8M
C osts
19%
Operating
5% Revenues
Land $46.8M
$14.5M
Parcel
Rental
$262.2M
Revenues Costs
Central
31%
Soft Cons
$81.7m
63%
Hard Costs
$165.9m
6%
Land
$14.5M
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing - Fec 186
Page 251 of 601
on9pndix E:
Fiscal Impact of Financial Incentives
Page 252 of 601
Parcel
Fiqure E.1
Municipal Cost of Financial Incentives
Incentive
Tax Exemption
Tax Increment
Fee Exemptions
DC Exemptions
Combined
Grant
Ownership
Rental
Ownership
Rental
Ownership
Rental
Ownership
Cost to Implement per Project
Plexes
$2,853
$13,689
$46,896
$35,154
$21,140
$12,174
$70,889
$61,017
Low -Rise
$3,805
$42,312
$56,974
$43,848
$54,173
$41,668
$114,952
$127,828
Mid -Rise
$4,756
$111,826
$60,314
$45,606
$117,784
$92,066
$182,854
$249,498
New Format Towns
$2,853
$40,179
$46,996
$35,154
$71,779
$45,526
$121,628
$120,859
High -Rise
$51,794
$250,342
$101,951
$87,242
$1,754,775
$1,419,018
$1,908,520
$1,756,602
Source: Parcel, based on municipal property assessment data, 2022 property tax rates, our analysis of potential missing middle parcels, current City planning fees and development charges
Incorporates Bill 23's discounts to DCs for rental housing.
Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Hous,,,, . - 188
Page 253 of 601
Parcel
info@parceleconomics.com
416-869-8264
250 University Avenue, #221, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 3E5
Page 254 of 601
Growing
iTLogether
m a
L ---
Net Housing Gain 1
ia
For every residential unit lost to
demolition, 47 are built in Kitchener.
Source: City of Kitchener
Page 256 of 601
Traffic Impacts 2
We
This diagram illustrates how transit
oriented design creates fewer traffic
impacts than a similar number of
units in a low-rise subdivision.
Transit
--------------�
� �
Oriented –
I Design ty I
I I
Low-rise I —
I
Subdivision �If
---------------------
I WE�mw WE- '
Wm� [mW WE- -MW
Wm �_W WE_ mW '
,
im
i-- i im mi ME] �
ME- -MM ME] --_i ME'
ME- - mi iiim 1, MM MEJ:
-------------------------
Source: City of Kitchener
Page 257 of 601
Financial Sustainability 3
WO
High-density infill generates a similar
amount of revenue for the City as
low-rise greenfield development, but
costs far less to operate. This is a key
way to keep our property taxes low
and service levels high.
.JVrj4��
ME
Source: City of Kitchene
Page 258 of 601
Low -Density
High -Density
People/Units
790/494
790/494
Land Area Used
32 hectares
0.3 hectares
Linear Infrastructure
4,400m
53m
Life Cycle Cost
$22,000,000
$265,000
Tax Revenue
$1.2m/yr(est)
$1.5m/yr(est)
Source: City of Kitchene
Page 258 of 601
Cost Breakdown 4
ia
These are the relative costs of a
typical condominium apartment
building.
Developer Profit
9-12%
Soft Costs
12-20%
Land Cost
20-25%
r't Charges
27%
istruction
45%
Source: Altus Group, March 2022, Toronto
Page 259 of 601
Lost Farmland 0
"Ontario has lost 400% of it's farmland
since 1941, including over 1.5 million
acres between 1996 and 2016, the
most of any Canadian province or
territory."
0
Lost Farmland, 1996-2016 Kitchener
1,500,000 acres 33,810 acres
Source: National Observer
Page 260 of 601
Household Energy Use 0
Total energy use (MBTUs) for three
different types of home. The left bar
represents the energy used by the
building, the right bar represents the
energy used for transportation.
Sin le -Detached
Townhouse
Apartment
M
Source: Bloomberg
Page 261 of 601
GHG Emissions 3
44
In 2015, nearly half of all emissions in
Waterloo Region were caused by fossil
fuel emissions related to driving and
transportation.
49% Transportation 27% Workplace
1% Waste
5% Agricult.,
Source: ClimateActionW R
mue
Page 262 of 601
GHG Reduction Potential
IZ
Researchers analyzed 700 cities to
measure how well various policies
can reduce carbon footprints. Infill
housing policies were found to have
the biggest impact.
Heating Electrification
Commercial Efficiency
VMT Reduction
-E ectric Vehicl s Urban Infill
Energy Effic ency
-F ealthy Diets
-
St iftConsump ion
Renew ble Electrici ty
0 Water & Waste
0 Air Travel Reduction
150+ MPG Vehicles
40k 80k 120k 16Ok
Metric Tons CO2e
Source: Cool Climate Network, 2018
Page 263 of 601
Current Growth 1
The province requires Kitchener to
plan for 3,500 new homes per year. We
have averaged 3,488 per year over the
past 3 years.
2019
2020
2021
Source: City of Kitchener
2022-2031
Page 264 of 601
Historical Growth 2
The province requires Kitchener to
plan for 3,500 new homes per year. We
have averaged 2,648 per year over the
past 5 years, 2,145 over the past 10
years and 1,867 over the past 20
years.
2017-2021 2022-2031
2012-2021
2002-2021
Source: City of Kitchener
Page 265 of 601
Room to Grow 3
There are over 100 acres of paved
surfaces in Kitchener's Major Transit
Station Areas, mostly in the form of
surface parking lots.
Source: City of Kitchener
Page 266 of 601
New Homes per 1000 4
Residents
Waterloo Region is building fewer
homes per capita than we used to,
and fewer than 10 of the 14 other
cities on this list.
Calgary
Oshawa
Vancouver
Edmonton
Waterloo Regio
Halifax
St. John's
Toronto
Quebec
Victoria
Trois-Rivieres
Hamilton
Saskatoon
St. Catherines
Greater Sudbu7
8 10
1990-2007 ; 2008-2021 •
Source: CHMC Scss, StatCan Tables 17-10-0135,
17-10-0039 Page 267 of 601
Where Growth is 5
Happening
This `blob' shows where most
development in our Major Transit
Station Areas is taking place. It
generally follows the ION route and
aligns with Kitchener's Urban Growth
Centre.
Source: City of Kitchener
Page 268 of 601
Growing Fast 6
Kitchener is a top -5 fastest growing
city in Ontario when measured either
by percentage growth or absolute
growth (from 2021 to 2022).
Community
Ppl Change
%Change
Toronto
+69,786
+2.36%
Brampton
+25,013
+3.47%
Ottawa
+19,342
+1.84%
London
+13,268
+3.05%
Kitchener
+11,602
+4.28%
Hamilton
+9,598
+1.63%
Vaughan
+5,766
+1.73%
Windsor
+5,289
+2.28%
Waterloo
+5,050
+4.07%
Oshawa
+5,020
+2.75%
Source: StatsCan
Page 269 of 601
Real House Prices 1
1�
Housing prices in Canada far exceed
those of other G7 nations and are
more than 3x higher than the 2000
average.
Canada
Japan
2000 2010 2021
Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
Page 270 of 601
Mortgage Payments 2
1�
The average mortgage payment
increased by 40% in just 2022, and by
well over 2000/. since 2016.
2016 2018 2020 2022
Source: Redfin analysis of MLS data
Page 271 of 601
Vacancy Rate 3
1�
CMHC reports Kitchener'svacancy
rate at 1.2%, below the Ontario
average of 1.8% and far below a
`healthy' vacancy rate of 3% to 5%.
October 2022 Vacancy Rate A "Healthy" Rate
Kitchener
Source: CMHC, October 2022. Advocacy Centre
for Tenants Ontario Page 272 of 601
Historical Rental 4
Vacancy 1
The vacancy rate in Kitchener is low
and decreasing. Historically, rented
condos have had lower vacancy than
purpose built rental, but these rates
are converging.
6%
---------------------------------
4% - ----------------------------------
--------------
2% ---------- --- ------ --
O O O O
O O r N
rn O O O
N N N
Purpose Built Rental
Condominium Rental
Source: CMHC
Page 273 of 601
Increasing Rents 5
Rent in Kitchener is up 28.2% in the
last year, the second highest increase
among mid-sized markets in Canada.
Jan 2023 Annual Change
Kitchener
Source: Rentals.ca
Page 274 of 601
Decreasing Housing 6
Prices 1
From Feb. `22 to Jan'23, housing
prices in Kitchener decreased by
22.9%. This follows an increase of 71
between Dec. `19 and Feb'22.
Dec. 19 to peak Peak to Jan. '23
Kitchener
Source: Desjardins
Page 275 of 601
Unit Size Breakdown 7
1�
62% of all homes in Kitchener have 3
or more bedrooms. 14% of units have
1 bedroom.
Source: 2021 Census Table 98-10-0240-01
Page 276 of 601
Unit Type Breakdown 8
More than half of Kitchener's units are
singles or semi-detached. "Missing
Middle" building types comprise 18%.
High-density typologies represent 15%
of all units in Kitchener.
Apartment
Flat 3%
Source: 2021 Census
Tab �998-10 L Y1601
Household Distribution 9
A
59% of Kitchener households are made
up of 1 or 2 people.
62% of our housing units are 3 or more
bedrooms.
3+ 3+
People Bedrooms
I More
Bedrooms
Than People
1 or2 1 or2
People Bedrooms
Source: 2021 Census Table 98-10-0240-01
Page 278 of 601
Core Housing Need 10
A
Core Housing Need represents people
whose current housing fails to meet
their needs, who also lack the means
to move into housing that does.
Over 36,000 people in Kitchener fit this
description. That's 200% of renters and
40% of owners.
This represents the existing need for
more affordable housing options for
the people who already live in
Kitchener, and is separate from
considerations of future growth.
1/4 of our households are 1 person,
but they represent half of all
households with a core housing need.
Source: 2021 Census Table 98-10-0246-01
Page 279 of 601