Developer makes his pitch: Renting our way out of the Canadian housing crisis
Canada needs 3.5 million more homes in the next five years for our fast-growing population, and one prominent developer sees a solution: purpose-built rental housing.
Fitzrovia CEO Adrian Rocca, who has 20 years of real estate experience and has led over $20 billion in transactions across Canada, U.S. and the European Union, maintains that governments need to take certain steps to incentivize more building.
Article content
Fitzrovia has nearly 9,000 purpose-built rental suites — meaning, not condos — completed or in development in Toronto and Montreal, with 3,000 new homes on track for next year. The company says about a third of Toronto's households have the financial means to rent with them.
Fitzrovia says it is the only Canadian developer that manages and operates the full process in-house, from development, construction to asset and property management, leading to more efficient delivery.
Housing accounts for almost one-fifth of Canada's GDP, making it a key driver of economic growth. Facilitating investment in domestic housing is a catalyst for broader economic development, says Rocca. Each avoidable fee or delay represents lost opportunities for Canadian workers, subcontractors, and suppliers to benefit from that investment.
Rocca spoke to Dave Gordon for the National Post:
Article content
What inspired you to found Fitzrovia, and why choose purpose built rentals?
I saw home ownership rates are actually quite low in Germany. 70 per cent of the households rent, versus own. When I came back, it felt like there is a negative stigma around renting, and I almost felt empowered or passionate around changing that stigma.
I think the quality of rental housing could look vastly different if you put some TLC behind the design, the implementation, the programming, the quality of the materials. We could functionally make that product look uniquely different and bring a sense of pride of rentership, versus home ownership. It doesn't mean that you're a failure if you rent.
Why do you believe purpose built rental rather than condos is the solution?
We're missing large parts of the demographic in the market that are active renters, that have been alienated from sale housing, like young families and downsizers.
Article content
We have made a big call as a business to build lots of two and three bedroom units that are generally 20 per cent larger than what's being delivered in the condo market.
We create a social infrastructure in these buildings that deals with the new immigrants that are moving into the city with social programming. We have our own school … We also have a healthcare partnership with Cleveland Clinic for new immigrants living in our building. So if any of our residents are feeling sick, they come down to the Cleveland Clinic room.
So those are the types of social programs that are really important that the condo markets aren't doing.
What are the biggest obstacles to meeting building targets?
A lot of it relates to financial incentives. The economic model is under a lot of stress. New starts, depending on the data, are down 50 to 90 per cent. There's not many projects that are ever going to hit the presale threshold of 70 per cent or 80 per cent that's required to get construction financing. Interest rates have really hurt that.
Article content
Price per square foot dropped by 30 per cent in a year and a half. That's going to crush your margins. It's got to be made up by the government stepping in, and waiving development charges and waiving property tax for 20 years.
We've had great engagement with all three levels of government, but we need to turn that engagement to proper policy.
When immigration and demand is growing, we're going to have a catastrophe of a housing crisis in three to four years.
You can't just turn on the switch, and get new supply coming on the market. Takes four years to put a high rise project into the market, and then get it fully delivered, get it designed, get it approved, pull your permits, and then construct it. If you're fast, it's four years. So it's going to create an extremely tight rental market, which is not good for the end consumer.
What kind of specific policy reforms would have the most immediate impact?
Article content
About 30 per cent of our total development cost to build is municipal fees, development charges, government levies. So development charges are used to fund infrastructure. So as you're building, the city would need the infrastructure to support that housing, which is all fair, very important. The problem is, it's a very archaic form of funding, because that's ultimately passed on to the developer, who's passing it on to the end consumer.
In the U.S., they have what's called infrastructure bonds that could get issued, or municipal bonds, to fund out that infrastructure. So you're basically taking 15 per cent cost of financing, which is what the developer needs to earn, because it's very risky to develop high rise rental, and you're replacing that with a 4 per cent cost of debt through these infrastructure bonds. It's a very effective tool. It also brings other forms of capital into the market.
Article content
We can't do it off pure government funding. We need to partner up with the private sector, and get all forms of funding to the table. Not just institutional capital; it's retail capital, it's foreign capital.
What impact do American tariffs have on your project?
The tariffs, when we've done our analysis, add about three and a half percent of our costs.
Not all developers in Canada, especially around rental housing, are actually owned by Canadians. So we have a firm commitment to support, wherever possible, Canadian suppliers. Could be brick suppliers, brick manufacturers, that could be HVAC solutions, that could be glass, that could be elevator supply, you name it.
In some cases, it's more expensive, even with the tariffs, or there's a difference in quality level. So we are actively working with a number of our suppliers, to equalize some of those items, whether it's quality or price.
Article content
Latest National Stories
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vancouver Sun
40 minutes ago
- Vancouver Sun
B.C. boosts tax credit for developers of video games, virtual reality simulators
The B.C. government is boosting a tax credit to help developers of video games such as Electronic Arts hire additional staff and invest money locally. Premier David Eby said the interactive visual media tax credit will go from 17.5 per cent to 25 per cent starting Sept. 1, which is also when the credit will become permanent to give industry additional certainty. Speaking at Electronic Arts in Burnaby on Monday, Eby said the changes will help the sector remain competitive as part of a larger economic response to American tariff threats, which was a 'wake-up call' for the province to develop an economy that can stand on its 'own two feet.' Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. Finance Minister Brenda Bailey said the measures will help B.C. grow its 'knowledge economy.' Bailey said they could have raised the tax credit higher as other provinces have, but chose 25 per cent because B.C. already has a competitive tax system and other factors that attract global talent. Government agency Creative B.C. says the interactive digital media sector, which includes video games, virtual reality and educational software, employs about 20,000 people in the province and adds more than a $1 billion to the economy. Government figures show the tax credit program is expected to cost $141 million in 2025-26, $151.3 million in the second year and $180.3 million in year three. 2027-28. Natali Altshuler, chief operating officer for EA Sports Studios, welcomed the changes. Altshuler said the change recognize the value of the industry, adding that it enables companies such as EA to contribute to the provincial economy. While EA ranks among the giants in the video-game industry, smaller developers are also welcoming the higher tax credit. Heidy Motta, CEO at game studio Coldblood Inc., said the credit has helped the company 'reach the finish line when resources were scarce.' The Entertainment Software Association of Canada says B.C. is home to 161 video game companies and 230 immersive technology companies. It says almost half of all video game companies in B.C. consist of 10 or fewer people. The additional support from the provincial government also raises the question of possible reactions from the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has previously criticized public support for industries from Canadian governments that he perceives to be unfair. Trump threatened earlier this year a 100 per cent tariffs on foreign-made movies to help bring more productions back to the United States after B.C. announced higher credits in late 2024 to attract and keep more film productions in the province. Eby said B.C. made the decision to boost the credit for interactive digital media independently of any possible reactions. 'We will cross the bridge's reactions when and if they happen,' Eby said.
Canada Standard
an hour ago
- Canada Standard
Could new pipelines shield Canada from U.S. tariffs? The answer is complicated
It should come as no surprise that United States President Donald Trump's tariff threats have renewed interest in building pipelines that don't rely on access to the American market. Almost four million barrels of crude oil cross the Canada-U.S. border each day, generating revenue of more than $100 billion per year - a quarter of Alberta's GDP. A February survey by the Angus Reid Institute found that half of Canadians believe the federal government isn't doing enough to expand pipeline capacity. Meanwhile, two-thirds said they would back reviving the Energy East project - a cancelled pipeline that would have transported oil from western Canada to New Brunswick and Quebec. But would new pipelines truly insulate Canada from the threat of U.S. tariffs? And how much new pipeline capacity is necessary? Despite the apparent urgency of approving new infrastructure projects, these questions remain surprisingly unexplored. In a recent paper I co-authored with researcher Jotham Peters, which is currently under revision, we applied formal economic modelling techniques to parse through the costs and benefits of new pipelines, and in particular to understand the role of American tariffs in shaping these costs and benefits. In a worst-case scenario where the U.S. follows through on its threat of a 10 per cent tariff on Canadian oil exports, Canadian producers could lose as much as $14 billion in annual revenue - roughly a 10 per cent decrease. Simply put, Canada's existing pipeline network severely limits access to markets other than the U.S., and as a consequence oil producers bear the full brunt of American tariffs. But what if Northern Gateway and Energy East - two previously cancelled pipelines that would have brought Canadian oil to tidewater - had been built? If Northern Gateway and Energy East were operational in 2025, Canada would be more resilient, but not completely immune, to U.S. tariffs. Instead of a $14 billion loss, tariffs would reduce annual revenue by $9 billion. Ultimately, the combined capacity of Northern Gateway and Energy East, which would be 1.625 million barrels per day, pales in comparison to the four million barrels per day of existing pipeline capacity connecting Canadian producers with American refineries. Closing this gap would require an expansion of east-west pipeline capacity far beyond the cancelled pipelines of the last decade. So have the recent shifts in U.S. trade policy fundamentally altered the economic case in favour of new east-west pipelines? As with most economic analyses, the answer is complicated. On the one hand, any progress that mitigates the significant cost of U.S. tariffs are likely dollars well spent. Building new pipelines strengthens the bargaining power of Canadian producers, which carries an additional benefit of potentially increasing the return on each barrel sold to our southern neighbour. There's also a long-term capacity issue. Existing pipelines may reach their limit by 2035. In the absence of new pipelines, any new production after 2035 would either need to be transported by rail at a higher cost, or left in the ground. On the other hand, if the U.S. never follows through on tariffs on energy exports - or if future administrations do not share Trump's affinity for chaotic trade policy - Canada could end up right back where it started when these projects were cancelled. All pipelines carry some economic benefit, but such benefits were not enough in 2016 and 2017 to warrant the construction of the Northern Gateway and Energy East pipelines. The elephant in the room is whether a significant expansion in pipeline capacity could realistically be achieved at reasonable cost. Recent evidence suggests it could be a challenge. The Trans Mountain expansion project, for instance, was initially estimated to cost $5.4 billion in 2013. By the time it was completed in 2024, the final price tag had ballooned to $34 billion - a cost overrun of 380 per cent when accounting for inflation. The Coastal GasLink pipeline, which transports natural gas, faced similar issues. It was initially projected to cost $4 billion in 2012 and was completed in 2023 at a final cost of $14.5 billion, with an inflation-adjusted overrun of 180 per cent. While some of these costs were circumstantial - a major flood affected Trans Mountain, for example - increased efficiency in pipeline construction is necessary for the economic benefits of new pipelines to be realized, regardless of U.S. trade policy. While our research explores the economic impact of new pipelines in the face of U.S. tariffs, we acknowledge there are other issues that need to be considered. Chief among them is ensuring Canada meets its constitutional obligation to consult First Nations on decisions, like natural resources projects, that affect their communities and territories. Although this lies beyond our area of expertise, it will inevitably be an important element of consideration for any new pipeline developments. Read more: The complicated history of building pipelines in Canada The environmental impacts of new pipelines are another key concern. These impacts range from local exposure to oil spills to upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with oil production. While these varying and complex impacts are also beyond the scope of our current work, future research should focus on quantifying the potential environmental impacts of new pipelines. Our research cannot say whether any new pipeline project is good, bad or in Canada's national interest. But we can help Canadians reach an informed decision about how changes in U.S. trade policy may or may not alter the economic case for new pipelines in this country. While Canada would undoubtedly be in a stronger position to respond to U.S. tariffs were Northern Gateway and Energy East operational in 2025, it would still find itself significantly exposed to Trump's tariff threats. Fully removing this exposure would require not one but seven pipelines equivalent to Northern Gateway. Whether that's a goal worth pursuing is a broader question - one we hope our research can help Canadians and policymakers reach on their own.
Vancouver Sun
an hour ago
- Vancouver Sun
Chinese surveillance camera maker Hikvision appeals order to leave Canada
OTTAWA — A Chinese maker of surveillance camera systems is appealing a federal government directive ordering it to shutter its Canadian operations due to national security concerns. Hikvision said in a media statement it is asking for judicial review of a June 27 federal government order stating that the company must close down its Canadian operations. It's also asking the Federal Court to put the shutdown order on hold until the court decides on the judicial review. The federal government made its decision following a national security review under the Investment Canada Act. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. 'Since entering the Canadian market, we have followed all applicable laws and regulations, and will continue to defend our position that Hikvision products and technology have not endangered the national security of Canada or any other country in which we operate,' the company said in its statement. 'We expect the legitimate rights and interests of all investors and businesses operating in the country to be fully respected and protected by its judicial system.' Hikvision said it will continue operating normally for the time being, following an 'agreement' with the attorney general. The company describes itself as the world's largest manufacturer of surveillance equipment. It has had a Canadian subsidiary since 2014. Following the June 27 order, Industry Minister Melanie Joly said in an online post that the government looked at information and evidence provided by Canada's security and intelligence community. Hikvision has also faced sanctions in the U.S., Australia and the U.K. Some of those sanctions are due to claims that Hikvision supplied China with surveillance cameras used in the Xinjiang region, where the Uyghur population has faced human rights abuses. That led Best Buy, Home Depot and Lowes to stop selling Hikvision products, according to a report by the U.S.-based tech outlet TechCrunch in 2021. The three companies did not immediately respond to questions from The Canadian Press about whether they still sell Hikvision products. China has taken aim at Canada over the shutdown directive. 'This seriously undermines the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises and disrupts and hurts the normal economic and trade cooperation between China and Canada. China strongly deplores and firmly opposes this,' a Chinese embassy spokesperson said in a June 28 statement. The statement urged Canada to 'change course immediately, stop abusing national security and politicizing economic and trade issues.' — With additional reporting from Tara Deschamps Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
