- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
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.
This dramatic 11-storey building is Toronto's first housing co-operative in 20 years.
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? ![]()





25
Login or register to post comments
zalm
1 year ago
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
1 year ago
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:
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
1 year ago
Excellent
I am thrilled to see Monte Paulsen and the Tyee digging into this issue. Looking forward to reading it. Thank you!
DPL
1 year ago
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
1 year ago
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
1 year ago
"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
1 year ago
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
1 year ago
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
1 year ago
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
1 year ago
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
1 year ago
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.
soleprobe
1 year ago
all under the same co-op roof? That way people could interact
[HIGHLY OFFENSIVE COMMENT REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]
carfreecity
1 year ago
co-ops
consummer "MEism"has promoted urban sprawl, then condo resort style building.
The commons got lost. Viewed as socialism.
The American dream: 2 car garage and your own fenced place.
Can't use this model any further.
All designed to serve the automobile.
Cities would be fantastic places to live and rebuild if we got rid of the noisy polluting automobiles.
Co-ops create safe neighborhoods and green spaces for everyone.
soleprobe
1 year ago
carfreecity
how many other usenames do you have?
realisticman
1 year ago
zalm
Seen Moishe Safdie's (Habitat designer/architect) latest little project that just opened a couple of weeks ago?
http://www.marinabaysands.com/SandsSkypark/Sands_Sky_Park.aspx
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1289197/Marina-Bay-Sands-resort-Singapore-opens.html
Nice rooftop garden.
My spies tell me that owners of 1,100 sq' properties in Habitat are currently paying a $500 per month 'special assessment' "until further notice" for "major structural issues". It is 40 years old now and those winters can be tough on any building, especially if they threw loads of winter salt on those upper walkways. Very interesting project though, well suited to the long narrow site.
RHB
1 year ago
all under the same co-op roof?
Sustainable community model:
http://www.worldhabitatawards.org/winners-and-finalists/project-details.cfm?lang=00&theProjectID=98466D16-15C5-F4C0-9977E52E34A498AC
RHB
1 year ago
Innovative
Involve residents, as well as designers, local authorities, other public bodies and construction firms in the design, development and use of co-ops.
EMK2
1 year ago
Definitely need more information..
Great idea for an article. I am one of the people asking the question, as noted by O'Dea "they questioned why should I be in a co-op because I was a high-income earner".
While I can appreciate a building which houses both high and low income earners, I don't understand why a high income earner is allowed to pay what becomes a less than market rent as a co-op's mortgage is paid down. Shouldn't the difference between market rents and amount required to pay all costs of the co-op including the subsidization of a number of social housing units be used to either i) repay the initial subsidy provided via government funding, and/or ii) provide funding for the development of new co-op housing?
morechatter
1 year ago
That is the downside
Coop housing is built to house those who find it difficult to afford market rents and then Coop's proceed to house approximately 10% to low income. I believe it is a minimum requirement and many do house the minimum requirement so what is the point?
Drastic measures are called for as changes will come as so far organizations have not been able to respond to the urgent need of affordable homes. Again change will come but new eyes are needed for looking at the situation as old solutions will not address the problem.
zalm
1 year ago
R'man
Thanks for the link to the featured building. I wouldn't have known where to look.
$200 a square foot for a high-rise building? Man, how'd they do that? Kind of shows up our local developers and their $1100 per square foot price tags for the trendy closets littering Yaletown and downtown South, doesn't it? Not to mention False Creek North (the Expo Lands) where the land was donated for free.
zalm
1 year ago
Sands in the Sky
Yeh, I saw it a couple of weeks ago, to mixed reviews. Kind of reminds me of some of my architectural sketches when I was an early teen dreaming of a better world, though I'd say there was considerably more thought put into this project than my sketches.
I don't know enough about Singapore's lifestyle to know if this is a way of separating the poor from the rich, or whether the egalitarian in me would feel comfortable stepping into such a luxury pad. I don't set foot in Hilton hotels here for that reason, although in Budapest, I slept in the Sofitel at the Széchenyi Lánchíd, which amounted to the same thing, judging by the guards masquerading as doormen at the door. I simply couldn't get used to all that luxury (Whaddaya do with a big-screen satellite TV when you're in Budapest? Watch terrible Hungarian TV? What for? And €20 a night for internet access? To order their recommended pizza takeout? Do I look that American?) never mind the security.
Spectacular housing should elevate everyone, both those who live in it, and those who don't. I hope this does. and it just might be possible, in Singapore.
realisticman
1 year ago
It sounds very cheap.
I'll check that $200 figure with a friend who works in Toronto. Even if the city donated the land for a co-op the construction cost here would be much more. Maybe that was just bare-bones without interior finishing.
There have to be some poor people in Singapore but they are not easy to see. I expect that a big part of the luxury splash is to attract the foreign tourist gamblers, although the casino is somewhat incidental, it's primarily a resort. Note that there is no Vegas-like splashy neon.
They also intend to discourage the locals from gambling and therefore charge residents around $70 for admission, whereas tourists enter free.
Some people find Singapore too clinical with it's fastidious cleanliness, even the sidewalks look scrubbed clean dialy but it certainly looks good and there are fragrant flowers absolutely everywhere, starting with the airport arrivals hall. Street food is rigorously monitored and licensed for cleanliness and all levels of society can be found feasting on the well run many thousands of outdoor night kiosks where local Tiger beer is served too.
Not bad for a tiny country without any natural resources, one of the world's highest standards of living and a 96.3% literacy rate.
Don't discount your design scribbles. You must know that some great projects were conceived on napkins.
zalm
1 year ago
It's in the link
The $200 figure comes from the link you sent - $20 million for 99,600 square feet. They did it - somehow.
Singapore is an interesting solution to poverty - they have a very high rate of public housing - well over 50% as I recall. That said, people in public housing are permitted to own their own homes too, so home ownership is commensurately high. They do have homeless, however, and that's an old Singaporean tradition going back to long before independence. But at least they're doing something about the housing problems they have - and have been doing so since independence.
Not to say their model would work here - their circumstances were so different. But full credit to them for their gains, despite some obvious failures.
Lupa
1 year ago
It's not just "housing." It's "cooperative housing."
Having lived with my wife for several years in one of Vancouver's housing cooperatives, we came to the conclusion that a crucial understanding is missing. Our enthusiasm for living in cooperative housing was significantly dampened by the reality of living in close proximity with other people who had no idea what it means to "cooperate." And, contemplating the problem, I had to ask, "Where are they supposed to learn?" If it didn't come from Mommy and Daddy, where else in society do we see cooperative behaviour modeled? We are a competitive culture and, for some people, competition is the only mindset they know. Confronted with the inevitable challenges of getting along with and working alongside fellow housing co-op members, things can get very ugly. You can't just build buildings, and hold workshops on how to read financial statements. Cooperation, as a concept, has much in common with Ghandi's suggestion regarding civilization - what a nice idea, and why don't we all try it sometime? But just putting the word "co-op" on a building isn't likely to get us there.
realisticman
1 year ago
zalm
I'm told that $200 sq' is not difficult, especially when the land is donated, as was the Toronto case above. Three years ago a group of townhouses in the False Creek South/Fairview area were built at $160 sq' and sold at $300.