News

A Tyee Series

Affordable Homes: Is a Co-op in Your Future?

Housing co-operatives used to fill a gap between ownership and rental, but few are built today. How to fix that. First in a series of four.

By Monte Paulsen, 5 Jul 2010, TheTyee.ca

Housing co-op in Toronto

This dramatic 11-storey building is Toronto's first housing co-operative in 20 years.

Related

Vancouver is among the least affordable housing markets in the world, according to a report by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

That hardly comes as news to Vancouver families trapped between rents they can barely afford and the increasingly unobtainable dream of home ownership.

What appears to have been forgotten among the near-daily headlines about systematic renovictions and spiraling house prices is that for much of the last century, a third form of housing tenure frequently filled the gap between ownership and rental.

It's called co-operative housing. More than 90,000 such homes were developed during the mid-20th century. But outside of Quebec, almost none are being built today.

As part of an ongoing exploration of affordable housing alternatives, The Tyee and The Tyee Solutions Society invited a panel of co-op housing experts to discuss the question: Could co-op housing be reinvented for the 21st century?

Over the next few days, The Tyee will present some of the intriguing ideas that emerged from that wide-ranging discussion. But first, here's an overview of the problem, how co-ops work, and an introduction to our panel of experts.

World's least affordable homes

Here are the facts leading to the inescapable conclusion that there is no longer any corner of Vancouver where a working-class family can afford a home.

A median Vancouver household earns about $64,000 a year, according to Statistics Canada. A typical bank will loan that working family somewhere in the range of $260,000 toward the purchase of a primary residence.

A detached bungalow on the West Side costs an average of $1.15 million, according to a 2010 survey by Royal LePage. That's more than four times what a median working family can afford.

A West Side condo costs $725,000, according to the survey. That's almost three times what a working family can afford.

A detached home on the East Side costs $674,000. That's more than twice what a family can afford.

And an East Side condo costs $402,000, or about one and a half times what a family can afford.

Put another way, a typical Vancouver family would have to save $140,000 in order to make a down payment on an entry-level home.

Since few working families are capable of saving that kind of cash, most remain trapped in the rental market. And with so few households exiting the rental market over the past few years, Vancouver rents have begun to skyrocket -- especially for multi-bedroom homes. An average three-bedroom apartment in the West End now fetches $2,589 a month, according to a recent Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corp survey.

Co-ops once filled the gap

Until about two decades ago, co-operative housing filled much of the gap between home ownership and rental. 
A housing co-operative -- or "co-op" -- is a multi-unit property owned by its residents. But unlike a condominium, where owners hold stratified titles to individual units, co-op residents are shareholders in a legal entity that owns the building. The shareholders are called members, and the holding company is called a co-operative association. Each member also holds occupancy rights to a specific suite.

There are several types of co-operative associations.

Market rate co-ops function much like condominiums: the share price of a market rate co-op rises or falls on the open market. Though common among Northern European cities that share Vancouver-style affordability problems, market rate co-ops are relatively rare in Canada.

Limited equity co-ops have rules that limit share prices in an attempt to maintain affordability. Limited equity co-ops offer most of the privileges of ownership -- including the monthly savings realized once the mortgage is repaid -- but not the right to make capital gains in a rising market.

No-equity co-ops provide some of the privileges of ownership -- such as secure tenure and protection against market-driven rental increases -- but function more like rental apartments. There is a very low purchase price -- comparable to a rental security deposit -- and a monthly fee paid in lieu of rent.

Federal and provincial governments encouraged the construction of limited equity and no-equity co-ops throughout the 1970s and 1980s via an evolving series of funding programs.

The legacy of those programs remains: there are 91,890 units in 2,221 co-operative associations across the nation, according to the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada. British Columbia is home to 14,698 units in 264 co-operatives.

Much of that financial support was contingent on the provision of some units (often between 15 and 20 per cent) to low-income residents. As a result, most co-ops are mixed-income communities. At the same time, these requirements also led many Canadians to confuse co-ops with social housing.

Could co-ops be reinvented?

Federal and provincial (except in Quebec) support for co-ops died in the 1990s, and most developers turned their attentions to the increasingly lucrative condo market. The co-op federation estimates that outside of Quebec, no more than 300 new co-op units have been created in the past decade.

As part of its ongoing exploration of affordable housing options, The Tyee and its sister organization, the Tyee Solutions Society, convened a daylong discussion among nine co-op experts. The participants included:

Stewart Anderson, manager of Aboriginal Banking, Vancity Community Investment Division;

Thom Armstrong, executive director of the Co-op Housing Federation of B.C.;

Nicholas Gazzard, executive director of the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada;

Cameron Gray, recently retired as managing director of the Department of Social Development at the City of Vancouver;

Darren Kitchen, government relations director of the Co-op Housing Federation of B.C.;

Catherine Ludgate, manager of Social Finance at Vancity Capital;

Jim O'Dea, a principal of Terra Housing Consultants;

Catherine Porter, president of the board of directors of the Co-op Housing Federation of B.C.;

Tim Pringle, director of special projects for the Real Estate Foundation of B.C.; and

Stuart Thomas, a principal of Terra Housing Consultants.

The Tyee asked the group a relatively simple question: Could co-operative housing be reinvented for the 21st century?

There was no simple answer, of course, but the wide-ranging discussion produced several intriguing ideas.

Over the next few days, we'll present three of those ideas: The invention of a shared-equity ownership model, the reallocation of existing government funding, and the reconstitution of hundreds of tiny co-operatives into larger associations.

'The payback is downstream'

Here's what a few of the panelists had to say about the current state of co-op housing.

Darren Kitchen described the role co-ops have played this way:

"I think co-ops are important because I think there's a real lack of choice in terms of housing tenure that people can access. Not everyone can afford -- most people can't afford -- a condominium or single family home, and renting is inherently insecure and not prone to building any kind of stability in people's lives," Kitchen said.

"And I think, between those two extremes, a model that provides ownership, responsibility, community and vitally, security of tenure, is an important piece in ensuring people have access to a variety of choices of tenure rather than the two that we seem to have been stuck in for the past 20 years," Kitchen added.

City Hall veteran Cameron Gray recalled that co-ops were viewed differently before the condo boom.

"This was seen as affordable home ownership. Even though it was a rental model -- no equity -- it was seen as a home ownership structure in the sense that once the mortgage was paid off the members benefited from it just like anyone with a house," Gray said.

Jim O'Dea said public misperception has hobbled co-op development.

"I think the biggest problem that co-ops have always had -- and sometimes the press is to blame for this, by the way -- is that most people don't understand the community concept. They don't understand the difference between equity co-ops and non-profit co-ops... they mash them all together," O'Dea said.

"People don't understand the mix of populations, mix of economic conditions," O'Dea continued. "When I moved into a co-op back in 1980, I got on the front page of the Vancouver Sun. They questioned why should I be in a co-op because I was a high-income earner."

Thom Armstrong made a case that the cultural advantages were as valuable as the economic incentives.

"I think co-ops are important to talk about because it's a rare intersection between individual empowerment and collective equity. And there's not a lot of opportunities to experience that intersection in a way that builds the kind of communities that you can build with housing co-ops. But I also think they can be the catalyst for other forms of cooperation and community economic development. And that's something that as a movement perhaps we haven't explored as fully as we could have," Armstrong said.

And Nicholas Gazzard, who flew from Ottawa to join the discussion, was among the first to point a finger toward government.

"The reason we haven't seen housing co-ops develop in the last, say 15 years, isn't because they're culturally passé, but because the economic and policy environment hasn't favored their development as part of an affordable housing strategy," Gazzard said.

"It's been much easier for government to simply go to non-profit providers and developers and say, 'Here's some money, bring some assets to the table up-front.' That's what we're looking for, easy, simple, out of the box. Co-ops are not that simple. The payback is downstream, not upfront."

Tomorrow: Could shared equity co-ops unlock millions of dollars of private investment now sitting on the sidelines?  [Tyee]

25  Comments:

  • zalm

    04-07-2010

    This oughta be good

    Coop housing is an idea whose time never left, but the various federal free-market governments we had felt honour-bound to support naked greed by insisting that citizens speculate in our housing bubble, which started way back in the 1990s by some accounts, or back the 1975 by others.

    Robert Schiller has an excellent series of articles and graphs showing the relative value of real estate staying constant until about 1975, and a series of massive bubbles after that.

    Dragging people into this nasty mess was our short-sighted government, which, having slain the inflation monster, once again found itself with no way to pay our massive debt by depreciating it as it did with inflation. So it allowed the financial crooks to rapidly expand credit, creating artificial wealth, now allowing the government to raise additional taxation through asset inflation.

    The only reason Canada is better off today than its peers is because we played the asset bubble game a little worse, a little slower than everyone else.

    We were just lucky, not smart. But the piper's coming to play the tune for us too. The demand ro coops will rise again as people begin to lose their homes, or their mortgages fall underwater.

  • NicS

    05-07-2010

    Europe appears to be way ahead of us

    I've recently read that in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom several of the larger nonprofit housing entities own from 50,000 to 70,000 units apiece. As well, it is common for these private nonprofits to control more than 20,000 dwellings each. A far cry from the figure of 90,000 given in this article.

    The book I'm quoting from goes on to say:

    "This European consensus in favor of social housing has not been easily arrived at. It is the result of hard-fought battles by housing activists and anarchists in the 1970s and '80s, involving building takeovers (known as "squatting") and pitched street battles.

    These squatters effected changes of laws that prevented landowner absenteeism attempts which helped them manipulate the housing markets.

    Now I wouldn't expect history to repeat itself here in Vancouver, but it will be interesting to hear how these co-op experts see the housing world changing here over the next 10-20 years.

    Thanks for a an excellent article.

  • Tbarnston

    05-07-2010

    Excellent

    I am thrilled to see Monte Paulsen and the Tyee digging into this issue. Looking forward to reading it. Thank you!

  • DPL

    05-07-2010

    Nice to see that Co-Ops are

    Nice to see that Co-Ops are being discussed.
    We lived in three of them in Vancouver. Spruce Harbor Marina, The Manhattan, and The Four Sisters. There were no subsidies in Spruce Harbor Marina, but there was in the other two. When leaving the member gets their share price back.

    We paid market rent so a few others could have a safe warm place to live but really needed those subsidies. All had democratically elected boards to run the places and folks developed skills they certainly didn't have before. It was great to see a single parent with kids getting involved on the board who then went back to school , developing other skill sets, and a real job knowing the family had a safe warm place to live. Our family supports the need for more co-ops and we need to light a fire under politicians to get more build. It's not just Vancouver that the price of a home or Condo has gone beyond the reach of most working folks.

  • Jeannie

    05-07-2010

    Two questions for the panel:

    I was told that there were changes made to the NHA (maybe Cooperative Associaton Act?) when the Federal Government killed the federal program which made the development of limited/no equity co-ops not possible; even if no subsidy was needed.

    Second, there was a bunch of limited equity co-ops built in the late 1990s (generally for seniors) which failed because some members defaulted on their mortgage and abondoned their units in a falling market. Because of the structure of the mortgages, the bank went after the other members to pay. In many instances, the owners appealled to the respective city and achieved condominium status strictly to protect themselves from risk. Sadly, the units became full market units and the affordability factor was gone. Was a solution ever found to this problem?

  • soleprobe

    05-07-2010

    "dramatic 11-storey building"

    That "dramatic 11-storey building" in that pic looks "dramatic" all right. All it needs is bars on the windows and armed guards and it would make a nice little penitentiary. Amazing how minds have been conditioned by the social engineers to consider these modern prison cells "homes."

  • realisticman

    05-07-2010

    Modern

    Which style would you consider suitable?

    Here's more on the one above.
    http://archrecord.construction.com/projects/bts/archives/MultiFamHousing/10_60_Richmond/default.asp

  • RickW

    05-07-2010

    realisticman

    I kinda like Habitat:
    http://www.christian-statham.me.uk/colourschool/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/expo_67.jpg

    Except I would design it so each unit has a lawn/garden space.

  • sproutyz

    05-07-2010

    Co=op

    We moved to Victoria about 17 years ago and were fortunate to be accepted in a co-op in our 2nd year.. My wife and I volunteered for board positions and i ended up being the financial officer after a few years. I founfd the housing good, 2 story, 2 bedroom, 2 bath townhouses, of good quality with a reasonable rent, and there were also subsidized units. about 30 homes. The system worked well as long as everyone gave freely of the;re time, and shared in the projects necessary to keep the co-op in good shape.Savings accounts were set up to put asid money for future expenditures and everybody paid a rate that was agreed upon.It worked for us till we felt that we would like to own our own home, and due to the huge increases in property costs, we bought a 1100 sq.ft manufactured home on Indian land at a reasonable price, bearing in mind that the land is not ours, which was the only we were able to do it. after 7 years we are very happy.
    My point is, that unless the Govt. subsidizes the land costs, or an Indian band puts up the units, 1/2 a million dollars to build and pay for the landand unit is the going rate VS $150,000-200,000 for a similar home on non owned land

  • Marushka

    05-07-2010

    housing co-ops should be supported by federal government

    I've lived in a non-profit co-op for 18 years.
    Some members are subsidized by government. i.e. they pay 30-35% of their income in monthly housing costs. This concept was subsidized by CMHC until the rules changed in 1992, and new non-profit co-ops ceased to be able to exist.
    Most of our co-op members are not subsidized, and pay market value rents. Some members have high incomes. Should they pay more to support the less fortunate members? Maybe.
    Most members genuinely love the 'community' aspects of co-op living. At least, in our co-op.
    Given that people living on the streets of Vancouver [theoretically] costs taxpayers $55,000/year/homeless person, wouldn't it be more cost-effective to house the poorer folk by subsidizing them to live in non-profit subsidized co-ops?
    Given that the concept of 'poor' is being in the bottom 20% of the population according to income?
    Given that some 'special needs' individuals cost the government $100,000/year, shouldn't the next-to-homeless people be given some security?

  • RHB

    05-07-2010

    Big Picture

    I think co-ops can be great community builders for the future. Governments could contribute funds to building assisted or independent living units and or a daycare into co-ops. Instead of having organizations spread out over the city - how about building them all under the same co-op roof? That way people could interact with each other in positive and strengthening ways.

  • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.