In Victoria, the debate on minimum housing unit size is a balancing act

Stephen Hammond says size matters—and he thinks setting minimum size requirements for housing units, particularly in the downtown area, could allow for more families to find places to live.

At Thursday’s meeting of Victoria’s city council, the councillor representing North Park emphasized the need to strike a balance between livability, affordability, and housing supply against the backdrop of rising construction and labour costs and shifting demographic needs.

“The idea came to me,” he told Capital Daily, “when I found out the development on 937 View Street was able to avoid approximately $40K of development cost charges (DCCs)  by building 33 units of less than 29 square metres.” The province does not currently allow charging DCCs for units with a footprint of less than that size.

“While there are some economic benefits to creating some micro units in some new buildings, having a minimum size will ensure the developments include more appropriately sized units to better meet the needs of a variety of households,” he said.

Municipalities and regional districts levy development cost charges on new development to pay for new or expanded infrastructure such as sewer, water, drainage, parks, and roads necessary to adequately service the demands of that new development. The amount of a development cost charge for each infrastructure category is determined by dividing the expected infrastructure costs by the number of new development units that will be served.

Hammond suggested the exemption is a carryover from days gone by “when no one in their right mind would build a unit that tiny unless it was for supportive housing or something to get a mere roof over someone’s head,” he said. But in today’s market, the affordability of that roof, however small by his standards, may trump the question of size.

Hammond said he hopes the suggested minimum would also mean DCCs would be levied more fairly on developers.

Currently, the legislated minimum size for housing units outside of downtown Victoria is set at 47.87 square meters (approximately 515 square feet). Downtown zoning allows for smaller units, with spaces as small as 29 square meters (312 square feet) permitted Victoria’s city council is considering raising the minimum unit size to 33 square meters (355 square feet). The change would more closely align with existing BC Housing regulations and address inconsistencies in zoning for development.

Hammond admitted the city still needs to provide the infrastructure to handle the increased density and that those costs end up being subsidized by other projects. Coun. Jeremy Caradonna told Capital Daily: “I think there’s a reasonable debate to be had about minimum unit spaces, and I’m keen to understand why that minimum currently exists outside of downtown but not in downtown.”

Implications for Developers and Residents

For developers, the size of units directly impacts profitability. Smaller units allow for more units within a development, which can lead to higher overall sales and rental income. Developers face construction costs which have been rising over the last two years—by 7.6% last year over the previous and by a double-digit increase the previous year over 2021, according to Statistics Canada. These costs significantly impact decisions about unit size and layout. To be able to avoid DCCs would be a boon.

The most expensive areas to build—kitchens and bathrooms—often dictate the overall design of units. In striving for cost efficiency, there is a temptation for developers to minimize space, leading to a proliferation of micro-units that may not serve the diverse needs of the community. On the other hand, micro units—which Hammond wants off the table may serve constituents at either end of the age spectrum– affordable to the young, and manageable to the aging.

“I think, as part of our zoning modernization work, it will be possible to identify a minimum unit size that could still be altered if certain conditions are met,” Caradonna said. “This would permit for micro-units and other innovative living configurations with shared living spaces.”

A 2015 BC small housing study reveals smaller living spaces demand more innovative design solutions to maximize functionality and comfort. Effective use of space can enhance resident satisfaction and well-being. But liveability in small spaces demands creativity in how units are laid out—trading traditional divisions for more open, multifunctional areas can foster a sense of community and shared paces. This includes shared amenities like laundry facilities, storage for bicycles and recreational equipment, and communal social spaces.

Not much has changed on that front in the last decade.

Hammond raised concerns to the council that without minimum size requirements, developers might prioritize cost-cutting, resulting in units that, while affordable, lack essential amenities or adequate space for families.

Balancing needs and values

As urban populations grow, cities must consider the implications of their housing policies on various demographics, including families, students, and low-income individuals. Coun. Dave Thompson expressed reservations about the potential repercussions of imposing minimum size regulations. He says such policies could inadvertently restrict housing choices for those looking for smaller, more affordable living options.

As a critic of the proposed change, he warned that limiting unit sizes could exacerbate the existing housing crisis, pushing lower-income individuals and families further out of the market. In contrast, proponents argue that establishing a minimum size can lead to a more diverse range of housing options that cater to the needs of various household types, ensuring that all residents have an opportunity to find a suitable place to live.

“The city can strike the right balance to ensure livability without unduly affecting supply or affordability. Ultimately, it’s a regulatory matter that can be solved by our professional staff,” said Caradonna.