Build Canada Homes: What Canada Can Learn from Global Public Housing Models
April 4, 2025
By Allwyn Dsouza, Senior Analyst, Research and Insights, REIC/ICI
By Allwyn Dsouza, Senior Analyst, Research and Insights, REIC/ICI
|
Canada’s housing affordability and supply crisis has prompted bold policy responses—the most recent among them, the Build Canada Homes (BCH) initiative. Announced as part of a 2025 housing plan, BCH aims to double national housing output to 500,000 homes per year, marking the most ambitious federal construction effort since the postwar era.
BCH proposes direct public-sector involvement in homebuilding, alongside targeted incentives to catalyze private sector output. Its four key pillars include: |
- A Federal Housing Developer: BCH would create a new federal entity to act as a public housing developer, building affordable homes at scale on public lands—reintroducing direct government construction after decades of relying on subsidies and private developers.
- Support for Innovative Construction: Over $25 billion is allocated to boost domestic housing manufacturing, with a focus on prefabrication and modular construction. The aim is to build faster and more affordably while modernizing Canada’s construction industry.
- Deep Affordability Commitments: BCH includes $10 billion to support deeply affordable housing by non-profits, Indigenous groups, co-ops, and private builders committed to below market models. These funds reduce financing risks and support low-income Canadians.
- Regulatory and Tax Reform: Key measures include halving municipal development charges (with federal/provincial compensation), reviving rental construction tax incentives, easing commercial-to-residential conversions, and streamlining approvals via the Housing Accelerator Fund.
BCH is more than a program, it’s a coordinated national strategy to overcome fragmented provincial systems and scale housing delivery. Echoing past federal efforts after WWII, BCH intends to rebuild Canada’s public development capacity for modern needs. However, it raises critical questions about funding adequacy, integration with existing CMHC programs, and implementation risks. The following sections compare BCH to successful global housing models to address these issues.
International Public Housing Models: Successes and Pitfalls
Examining global public housing models can offer insights for BCH. We explore four cases—Singapore, Vienna, Brazil, and the U.S.—highlighting key success factors and pitfalls relevant to Canada[1].
Singapore’s Housing Development Board (HDB)
Singapore’s HDB program is a leading model for public housing. Since the 1960s, it has built over 1.1 million apartments, with about 80% of residents living in HDB flats and a 90% homeownership rate[2].
Success Factors:
Pitfalls:
Vienna’s Social Housing Model (Austria)
Vienna’s social housing system provides affordable homes to 60% of residents, blending public and private funding[3,4]. The city of Vienna directly owns about 220,000 municipal housing units and additionally supports another ~200,000 units developed by limited-profit housing associations[5]. Uniquely, eligibility is broad – roughly 75% of the population qualifies based on income, encompassing much of the middle class. This universalist approach means social housing carries little stigma and serves diverse households.
Success Factors:
Pitfalls:
Brazil’s Minha Casa Minha Vida (MCMV)
Launched in 2009, MCMV rapidly built 4.4 million housing units, addressing a national housing deficit[7]. MCMV invested around R$294 billion (CAD 86 billion) and was targeted primarily at low-income families and was a cornerstone of Brazil’s economic stimulus post-2008 as well.
Success Factors:
Pitfalls:
United States’ Public Housing System
The U.S. relies on rental assistance programs like Section 8 rather than large-scale public housing. Public housing authorities (PHAs) own and manage ~1 million units, but rental vouchers help millions more afford private housing[8].
Success Factors:
Pitfalls:
International Public Housing Models: Successes and Pitfalls
Examining global public housing models can offer insights for BCH. We explore four cases—Singapore, Vienna, Brazil, and the U.S.—highlighting key success factors and pitfalls relevant to Canada[1].
Singapore’s Housing Development Board (HDB)
Singapore’s HDB program is a leading model for public housing. Since the 1960s, it has built over 1.1 million apartments, with about 80% of residents living in HDB flats and a 90% homeownership rate[2].
Success Factors:
- Government funding & land control: The state acquired land for large scale housing, ensuring affordability. Flats are sold below market rates, with subsidies reducing costs further.
- Integrated planning: Entire new towns are developed with schools, transit, and shops, ensuring desirability and social integration.
- Efficient delivery: HDB uses prefabrication and a demand driven Build-To-Order (BTO) system, producing 15,000–20,000 units annually.
Pitfalls:
- Demand increases with supply, resulting in escalating resale prices which challenge affordability, requiring ongoing government intervention.
- Older estates need costly refurbishment, adding long-term financial pressure.
Vienna’s Social Housing Model (Austria)
Vienna’s social housing system provides affordable homes to 60% of residents, blending public and private funding[3,4]. The city of Vienna directly owns about 220,000 municipal housing units and additionally supports another ~200,000 units developed by limited-profit housing associations[5]. Uniquely, eligibility is broad – roughly 75% of the population qualifies based on income, encompassing much of the middle class. This universalist approach means social housing carries little stigma and serves diverse households.
Success Factors:
- Sustainable financing: A mix of public loans, private bank loans, and tenant equity contributions keeps the system financially viable. Regulated, cost-based rents prevent excessive housing costs.
- High public investment: Vienna spends ~$400 million annually to build 7,000 units and refurbish 5,000, ensuring steady supply. This works out to roughly $56,000 in public subsidy per new unit[6].
- Land cost control: Land banking and price caps prevent speculation, keeping housing affordable.
Pitfalls:
- Rising construction costs challenge financial sustainability.
- An aging housing stock requires increased maintenance funding.
Brazil’s Minha Casa Minha Vida (MCMV)
Launched in 2009, MCMV rapidly built 4.4 million housing units, addressing a national housing deficit[7]. MCMV invested around R$294 billion (CAD 86 billion) and was targeted primarily at low-income families and was a cornerstone of Brazil’s economic stimulus post-2008 as well.
Success Factors:
- Massive scale & speed: Private developers partnered with the government to deliver housing quickly, benefiting from guaranteed unit purchases. This public-private partnership approach enabled very rapid housing delivery. At its peak, hundreds of thousands of units were completed per year across Brazil’s states.
- Targeted subsidies: Low-income households received near-total subsidies, while moderate-income buyers accessed subsidized mortgages.
- Economic stimulus: The program created jobs and leveraged bulk procurement to keep unit costs low.
Pitfalls:
- Many units were built in remote areas, leading to poor access to jobs and services. To minimize land costs, developers often chose sites at the urban fringe, where beneficiaries then faced long commutes or poor access to services.
- Construction quality issues emerged due to cost-cutting measures. Without a clear maintenance funding mechanism, there was risk of new “vertical slums” emerging as buildings aged. Brazil has since recognized this and in newer phases aimed to involve residents and municipalities in maintenance, but the early experience shows the importance of planning for ongoing management and maintenance funding from the start – something BCH must heed.
United States’ Public Housing System
The U.S. relies on rental assistance programs like Section 8 rather than large-scale public housing. Public housing authorities (PHAs) own and manage ~1 million units, but rental vouchers help millions more afford private housing[8].
Success Factors:
- Tenant choice: Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8) allow low-income renters to access private housing, reducing segregation[9].
- Public-private partnerships: The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) incentivizes private sector investment in affordable housing[10].
- Flexibility: The system offers both public housing units and rental assistance, adapting to regional needs.
Pitfalls:
- Underfunding & maintenance backlogs: Aging public housing stock suffers from chronic underinvestment, leading to deteriorating conditions.
- Rental voucher limitations: Vouchers do not always cover market rents, leaving some households without adequate housing options.
Key Lessons for BCH
Comparison of BCH with International Models
A comparative review with successful international models reveals strengths and areas for improvement across four key areas: funding, governance, land use, and delivery.
Funding and Financing
BCH’s proposed $10 billion federal fund aims to catalyze the development of 500,000 homes annually. This equates to just $20,000 per unit—well below actual development costs which start at approximately $250,000 in Canada, a figure that represents a low-end estimate.[11].
The $10 billion, therefore, can only be seen as seed capital. To leverage scale, Canada could follow Vienna’s model: use low-interest loans (20% of costs), combine with private bank loans (50%), and fill the remainder through municipal land, grants, or tenant contributions. If $10 billion is renewed annually and structured as a revolving fund (loans repaid and relent), it could scale housing delivery substantially. BCH could also focus its funds on gaps the private market won't cover—e.g., land acquisition or deeply affordable units—while incentivizing other actors to fund the rest.
Governance and Implementation
BCH proposes a federal development body—similar to Singapore’s centralized HDB. However, Canada’s federal structure makes a hybrid model more feasible. Collaboration with provinces and municipalities, who control zoning and local approvals, will be essential. BCH could mirror the U.S. LIHTC’s decentralized delivery or Vienna’s city-led approach by partnering with local housing agencies and non-profits.
Building internal capacity to be a developer, as envisaged in the plan, will be a challenge. The federal government hasn’t delivered housing directly for decades. BCH could contract private developers (as in Brazil), support non-profit-led builds, and focus on funding and coordination. Integration with CMHC’s existing programs (like the Co-Investment Fund and RHI) could streamline housing delivery, but BCH would have to avoid excessive bureaucracy and ensure distinct teams for different housing streams (e.g., modular for homeless vs. market rental).
A professional board, performance metrics (units built, costs, timelines), and transparent reporting will safeguard public interest.
Land Use and Urban Strategy
Using public land is a core BCH pillar. This mirrors global best practices: Singapore owns and allocates land for HDB; Vienna actively acquires land for affordable housing. Canada’s federal lands (e.g., military bases, post office sites) could be similarly repurposed. Prioritizing urban, transit-accessible sites is vital—lessons from Brazil’s peripheral MCMV builds show that remote, undesirable land undermines affordability goals.
BCH could target underused urban land (e.g., parking lots, vacant government buildings) and align with the Housing Accelerator Fund to fast-track rezoning. It could also use “land value capture” from federal infrastructure (e.g., transit) to build mixed-income housing at key nodes.
Importantly, BCH should ensure social inclusion. Mixed-income developments, like those in Singapore and Vienna, reduce segregation and broaden political support. BCH could collaborate with co-ops and non-profits to ensure diversity in income and family types within new builds.
Delivery Efficiency and Scale
Delivering 500,000 homes per year is unprecedented. BCH’s focus on prefabrication and modular construction (with $25 billion in support) shows promise. Singapore and Japan have scaled such methods to accelerate timelines and control costs[12]. The adoption of Prefabricated Prefinished Volumetric Construction (PPVC) has resulted in notable reductions in construction cycles. Projects utilizing this method have experienced time savings of 20% to 30%, with construction periods reduced to 24 to 30 months[13].
To scale effectively, BCH must coordinate with trades, colleges, and immigration to address labour shortages. Phased growth (e.g., 50K units in year one, scaling to 100K) will prevent inflation and supply bottlenecks. Competitive procurement, like Vienna’s developer contests, can encourage cost-effective, high-quality builds.
Real-time tracking and monitoring cost per unit, build time, and design success can drive continuous improvement. A balanced scorecard (cost, speed, quality, sustainability) should guide all procurement.
Risks and Mitigation Strategies for BCH
A large-scale housing program like BCH carries significant risks, many of which have been observed in international housing efforts. Proactively addressing these risks will be key to its long-term success.
1. Under-Maintenance and Lifecycle Viability
The U.S. public housing decline illustrates what happens when long-term upkeep is neglected. BCH must ensure ongoing livability by planning for full lifecycle costs. This includes:
2. Poor Location and Unwanted Housing
Housing built in remote, poorly connected areas may go underutilized, as seen in parts of Brazil’s MCMV. BCH should prioritize urban, transit-connected sites. Site selection should score factors like proximity to jobs, transit, schools, and healthcare. A pre-registration or application system, like Singapore’s BTO model, can help gauge demand for specific projects and locations. Community needs assessments should inform project planning, ensuring alignment with local demand (e.g., seniors, families, workers).
3. Community Opposition (NIMBYism)
Local pushbacks can delay or block developments, especially in low-density areas. To reduce opposition:
4. Market Distortion and Private Sector Reaction
A large public building program might crowd out private investment or disrupt market balance. BCH should focus on underserved segments—moderate-income rentals, workforce housing, and non-profit units—which the private market typically avoids. Partnerships with developers and contractors can turn BCH into a demand generator rather than a competitor. Oversupply risk is low given Canada’s ongoing housing shortage, but BCH should stay flexible, adjusting pace based on regional vacancy rates and demand signals.
5. Demand-Responsive Design
Building units that don’t match demographic needs (e.g., too many studios when families need 3 bedrooms) would waste resources. BCH should:
This approach mirrors Singapore and Vienna, where housing is responsive to population needs and adaptable over time.
6. Political and Economic Volatility
Policy changes or economic downturns could threaten BCH’s momentum. The best protection is broad political buy-in, public support, and early visible wins. In downturns, BCH could act counter-cyclically—building when the private market pulls back, taking advantage of lower costs. Flexibility to scale up or down as needed will help BCH stay resilient across cycles.
As Canada embarks on bold housing initiatives like Build Canada Homes (BCH), the role of informed, ethical, and skilled real estate professionals has never been more critical. The Real Estate Institute of Canada (REIC) stands at the forefront of this transformation, offering education, designations, and thought leadership to guide sustainable, inclusive housing development. By drawing insights from international housing models, Canada can build smarter. REIC members are equipped to support this vision through best practices in land use, development, property management, and valuation. REIC’s commitment to professional excellence ensures that both public and private sector stakeholders have access to experts who understand not only market realities, but also the long-term community impacts of housing policy. As BCH takes shape, REIC is proud to be part of the national conversation—bridging policy ambition with on-the-ground execution that puts quality housing within reach for all Canadians.
A comparative review with successful international models reveals strengths and areas for improvement across four key areas: funding, governance, land use, and delivery.
Funding and Financing
BCH’s proposed $10 billion federal fund aims to catalyze the development of 500,000 homes annually. This equates to just $20,000 per unit—well below actual development costs which start at approximately $250,000 in Canada, a figure that represents a low-end estimate.[11].
The $10 billion, therefore, can only be seen as seed capital. To leverage scale, Canada could follow Vienna’s model: use low-interest loans (20% of costs), combine with private bank loans (50%), and fill the remainder through municipal land, grants, or tenant contributions. If $10 billion is renewed annually and structured as a revolving fund (loans repaid and relent), it could scale housing delivery substantially. BCH could also focus its funds on gaps the private market won't cover—e.g., land acquisition or deeply affordable units—while incentivizing other actors to fund the rest.
Governance and Implementation
BCH proposes a federal development body—similar to Singapore’s centralized HDB. However, Canada’s federal structure makes a hybrid model more feasible. Collaboration with provinces and municipalities, who control zoning and local approvals, will be essential. BCH could mirror the U.S. LIHTC’s decentralized delivery or Vienna’s city-led approach by partnering with local housing agencies and non-profits.
Building internal capacity to be a developer, as envisaged in the plan, will be a challenge. The federal government hasn’t delivered housing directly for decades. BCH could contract private developers (as in Brazil), support non-profit-led builds, and focus on funding and coordination. Integration with CMHC’s existing programs (like the Co-Investment Fund and RHI) could streamline housing delivery, but BCH would have to avoid excessive bureaucracy and ensure distinct teams for different housing streams (e.g., modular for homeless vs. market rental).
A professional board, performance metrics (units built, costs, timelines), and transparent reporting will safeguard public interest.
Land Use and Urban Strategy
Using public land is a core BCH pillar. This mirrors global best practices: Singapore owns and allocates land for HDB; Vienna actively acquires land for affordable housing. Canada’s federal lands (e.g., military bases, post office sites) could be similarly repurposed. Prioritizing urban, transit-accessible sites is vital—lessons from Brazil’s peripheral MCMV builds show that remote, undesirable land undermines affordability goals.
BCH could target underused urban land (e.g., parking lots, vacant government buildings) and align with the Housing Accelerator Fund to fast-track rezoning. It could also use “land value capture” from federal infrastructure (e.g., transit) to build mixed-income housing at key nodes.
Importantly, BCH should ensure social inclusion. Mixed-income developments, like those in Singapore and Vienna, reduce segregation and broaden political support. BCH could collaborate with co-ops and non-profits to ensure diversity in income and family types within new builds.
Delivery Efficiency and Scale
Delivering 500,000 homes per year is unprecedented. BCH’s focus on prefabrication and modular construction (with $25 billion in support) shows promise. Singapore and Japan have scaled such methods to accelerate timelines and control costs[12]. The adoption of Prefabricated Prefinished Volumetric Construction (PPVC) has resulted in notable reductions in construction cycles. Projects utilizing this method have experienced time savings of 20% to 30%, with construction periods reduced to 24 to 30 months[13].
To scale effectively, BCH must coordinate with trades, colleges, and immigration to address labour shortages. Phased growth (e.g., 50K units in year one, scaling to 100K) will prevent inflation and supply bottlenecks. Competitive procurement, like Vienna’s developer contests, can encourage cost-effective, high-quality builds.
Real-time tracking and monitoring cost per unit, build time, and design success can drive continuous improvement. A balanced scorecard (cost, speed, quality, sustainability) should guide all procurement.
Risks and Mitigation Strategies for BCH
A large-scale housing program like BCH carries significant risks, many of which have been observed in international housing efforts. Proactively addressing these risks will be key to its long-term success.
1. Under-Maintenance and Lifecycle Viability
The U.S. public housing decline illustrates what happens when long-term upkeep is neglected. BCH must ensure ongoing livability by planning for full lifecycle costs. This includes:
- Establishing maintenance reserve funds.
- Providing operating subsidies for non-profit-run units.
- Using durable construction standards.
- Mandating capital needs assessments and reinvestment plans.
- Involving experienced community housing providers for property management.
- Recycling a portion of tax revenue (e.g., GST/HST from new builds) into a national maintenance fund could provide sustained support.
2. Poor Location and Unwanted Housing
Housing built in remote, poorly connected areas may go underutilized, as seen in parts of Brazil’s MCMV. BCH should prioritize urban, transit-connected sites. Site selection should score factors like proximity to jobs, transit, schools, and healthcare. A pre-registration or application system, like Singapore’s BTO model, can help gauge demand for specific projects and locations. Community needs assessments should inform project planning, ensuring alignment with local demand (e.g., seniors, families, workers).
3. Community Opposition (NIMBYism)
Local pushbacks can delay or block developments, especially in low-density areas. To reduce opposition:
- Engage communities early and offer co-benefits (parks, daycares, etc.).
- Distribute projects across neighbourhoods to avoid overburdening any single area.
- Align with provincial zoning reforms and transit-oriented development policies.
- Design buildings to blend with local character, using step-down heights and adequate amenities.
- Transparency and consistent quality can gradually build public trust—like Vienna’s admired social housing.
4. Market Distortion and Private Sector Reaction
A large public building program might crowd out private investment or disrupt market balance. BCH should focus on underserved segments—moderate-income rentals, workforce housing, and non-profit units—which the private market typically avoids. Partnerships with developers and contractors can turn BCH into a demand generator rather than a competitor. Oversupply risk is low given Canada’s ongoing housing shortage, but BCH should stay flexible, adjusting pace based on regional vacancy rates and demand signals.
5. Demand-Responsive Design
Building units that don’t match demographic needs (e.g., too many studios when families need 3 bedrooms) would waste resources. BCH should:
- Use CMHC and municipal data to determine unit types needed.
- Develop project streams tailored to various populations—seniors, families, students, people with disabilities.
- Design for flexibility (e.g., modular units that can be reconfigured).
This approach mirrors Singapore and Vienna, where housing is responsive to population needs and adaptable over time.
6. Political and Economic Volatility
Policy changes or economic downturns could threaten BCH’s momentum. The best protection is broad political buy-in, public support, and early visible wins. In downturns, BCH could act counter-cyclically—building when the private market pulls back, taking advantage of lower costs. Flexibility to scale up or down as needed will help BCH stay resilient across cycles.
As Canada embarks on bold housing initiatives like Build Canada Homes (BCH), the role of informed, ethical, and skilled real estate professionals has never been more critical. The Real Estate Institute of Canada (REIC) stands at the forefront of this transformation, offering education, designations, and thought leadership to guide sustainable, inclusive housing development. By drawing insights from international housing models, Canada can build smarter. REIC members are equipped to support this vision through best practices in land use, development, property management, and valuation. REIC’s commitment to professional excellence ensures that both public and private sector stakeholders have access to experts who understand not only market realities, but also the long-term community impacts of housing policy. As BCH takes shape, REIC is proud to be part of the national conversation—bridging policy ambition with on-the-ground execution that puts quality housing within reach for all Canadians.
[1] https://realtyboris.com/2024/05/31/affordable-housing-finance-models-success-examples/
[2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-18/singapore-homeownership-sock-yong-phang-henry-george/104237980
[3] https://shelterforce.org/2023/12/19/how-we-can-bring-viennas-housing-model-to-the-u-s/
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city
[5] https://blogs.ed.ac.uk/docomomoiscul/wp-content/uploads/sites/8300/2015/01/Wolfgang-Forster-paper_secured.pdf
[6] Euronews
[7] https://www.lincolninst.edu/app/uploads/legacy-files/pubfiles/biderman_wp18cb2_0.pdf
[8] https://shelterforce.org/2023/12/19/how-we-can-bring-viennas-housing-model-to-the-u-s/
[9] https://journals.law.harvard.edu/crcl/wp-content/uploads/sites/80/2019/07/54.2-Oliveri.pdf
[10] https://www.bu.edu/rbfl/files/2014/03/RBFL-Vol-33.2_Pickering.pdf
[11] https://www.nerdwallet.com/ca/mortgages/how-much-does-it-cost-to-build-a-house
[12] https://www.hdb.gov.sg/about-us/research-and-innovation/construction-productivity/prefabrication-technology
[13] https://www.scmp.com/property/international/article/3017734/singapore-embracing-lego-style-prefabricated-construction
[2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-18/singapore-homeownership-sock-yong-phang-henry-george/104237980
[3] https://shelterforce.org/2023/12/19/how-we-can-bring-viennas-housing-model-to-the-u-s/
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city
[5] https://blogs.ed.ac.uk/docomomoiscul/wp-content/uploads/sites/8300/2015/01/Wolfgang-Forster-paper_secured.pdf
[6] Euronews
[7] https://www.lincolninst.edu/app/uploads/legacy-files/pubfiles/biderman_wp18cb2_0.pdf
[8] https://shelterforce.org/2023/12/19/how-we-can-bring-viennas-housing-model-to-the-u-s/
[9] https://journals.law.harvard.edu/crcl/wp-content/uploads/sites/80/2019/07/54.2-Oliveri.pdf
[10] https://www.bu.edu/rbfl/files/2014/03/RBFL-Vol-33.2_Pickering.pdf
[11] https://www.nerdwallet.com/ca/mortgages/how-much-does-it-cost-to-build-a-house
[12] https://www.hdb.gov.sg/about-us/research-and-innovation/construction-productivity/prefabrication-technology
[13] https://www.scmp.com/property/international/article/3017734/singapore-embracing-lego-style-prefabricated-construction
Allwyn Dsouza is REIC’s Senior Analyst, Market Research and Insights. He can be reached at [email protected]. Media enquiries can be directed to [email protected]