H-E01
A study of Canada links strict building rules with higher home prices and fewer new homes.
Limits: The study uses a model, so how it works matters. It does not prove how much Canada would gain if more home types were allowed.
Let homes and shops share a street
Allow more kinds of homes, with shops nearby. End rules that force large lots or too much parking.
Our argument
A street should have room for more than one kind of life. We want flats, small homes and shops close to each other. A rule should deal with real harm, not keep a street for one type of owner.
What must change
Allow more kinds of homes, with shops nearby. End rules that force large lots or too much parking.
What a win looks like
More homes near jobs and shops, with safe streets and fair costs.
Public cost
We have not yet priced this ask for the public purse. Any public aid must be priced before we seek funds for it.
The evidence
H-E02
A 2019 US study says limits on housing held back growth.
Limits: This is a US model, not a measured loss for Canada. A later paper disputes parts of the result. Read H-E03 too. Do not treat it as proof of a 36% loss in GDP.
H-E03
A 2026 paper finds problems in how the earlier US housing model was calculated.
Limits: The writer found problems when trying to repeat the work. Changing the units also changed the result. This does not prove that zoning has no cost.
Studies and notes
No case study is published here yet. This is the next question to check.
What we need to check
Compare streets where rules changed with streets where they did not. Count new homes, rents, prices and the cost of roads and pipes.
Updates
— Case opened with our argument, our ask and the facts still to check.
Back this front: Homes & neighbourhoods
This button backs the whole front shown below. It does not turn on emails.
Support totals are not available right now.
Each email counts once per cause. This does not sign a petition. Your name and email stay private. Only the total is public.