The housing catalogue includes 50 low-rise home designs, including for garden suites, duplexes, four-plexes and six-plexes. Each design was developed by local architecture and engineering teams with the intent of aligning with regional building codes, planning rules, climate zones, construction methods and materials. TEXT John Lorinc RENDERINGS Office In Search Of During the spring election, the Liberals leaned into messaging that evoked a historic moment from the late 1940s, when Ottawa succeeded in confronting a severe housing crisis.  “We used to build things in this country,” begins Prime Minister Mark Carney in a nostalgic ad filled with archival images of streets lined with brand new post-World War II “strawberry box” bungalows, built for returning Canadian soldiers and their young families.  The video also includes montages from the now-iconic design “catalogues,” published by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). These supplied floor plans and unlocked cheap mortgages for tens of thousands of simple suburban houses found in communities across the country. “The government built prefabricated homes that were easy to assemble and inexpensive,” Carney said in the voice-over. “And those homes are still here.”  Over the past year, CMHC has initiated a 21st century re-do of that design catalogue, and the first tranche of 50 plans—for garden suites, duplexes, four-plexes and six-plexes—went live in early March. A second tranche, with plans for small apartments, is under development.  Unlike the postwar versions, these focus on infill sites, not green fields. One of CMHC’s goals is to promote so-called gentle density to residential properties with easily constructed plans that reflect regional variations, local zoning and building-code regulations, accessibility features and low-carbon design. As with those postwar catalogues, CMHC’s other goal was to tamp down on soft costs for homeowners or small builders looking to develop these kinds of housing by providing no-cost designs that were effectively permit sets. The early reviews are generally positive. “I find the design really very compelling in a kind of understated way,” says SvN principal Sam Dufaux. By making available vetted plans that can be either pre-approved or approved as of right, CMHC will remove some of the friction that impedes this scale of housing. “One of the elements of the housing crisis has to do with how do we approve these kinds of projects,” Dufaux adds. “I’m hoping it is a bit of a new beginning.” Yet other observers offer cautions about the extent to which the CMHC program can blunt the housing crisis. “It’s a small piece and a positive one,” says missing middle advocate and economist Mike Moffatt, who is executive in residence at the Smart Prosperity Institute and an assistant professor at Western’s Ivey Business School. “But [it’s] one that probably captures a disproportionate amount of attention because it’s something people can visualize in a way that they can’t with an apartment tax credit.” This kind of new-build infill is unlikely to provide much in the way of affordable or deeply affordable housing, adds Carolyn Whitzman, housing and social policy researcher, and author of Home Truths: Fixing Canada’s Housing Crisis (UBC Press, 2024). She estimates Canada needs about three million new dwellings that can be rented for $1,000 per month or less. The policies that will enable new housing at that scale, she says, involve financing subsidies, publicly owned land, and construction innovation, e.g., prefabricated or factory-built components, as well as “consistent and permissive zoning and consistent and permissive building codes.”  Indeed, the make-or-break question hovering over CMHC’s design catalogue is whether municipalities will green-light these plans or simply find new ways to hold up approvals.   An axonometric of a rowhouse development from the Housing Catalogue, designed for Alberta. A team effort Janna Levitt, partner at LGA Architectural Partners, says that when CMHC issued an RFP for the design catalogue, her firm decided to pitch a team of architects and peer reviewers from across Canada, with LGA serving as project manager. After they were selected, Levitt says they had to quickly clarify a key detail, which was the assumption that the program could deliver pre-approved, permit-ready plans absent a piece of property to build on. “Even in 1947,” she says, “it wasn’t a permit set until you had a site.” LGA’s team and CMHC agreed to expand the scope of the assignment so that the finished product wasn’t just a catalogue of plans but also included details about local regulations and typical lot sizes. Re-Housing co-founder Michael Piper, an associate professor at U of T’s John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design, came on board to carry out research on similar programs, and found initiatives in places like Georgia, Indiana and Texas. “I have not found any that moved forward,” he says. “Canada’s national design catalogue is pretty novel in that regard, which is exciting.” The noteworthy exceptions are California, which has made significant advances in recent years in pre-approving ADUs across the state, and British Columbia, which last fall released its own standardized design catalogue.  He also carried out a scan of land use and zoning rules in Ontario for 15 to 20 municipalities. “We looked to see [what] their zoning permitted and what the rules were, and as you might expect, they’re all over the place,” he says. “Hence the challenge with the standardized design.” At present, high-level overviews for the 50 designs are available, including basic floor plans, 3D axonometrics, and building dimensions. Full architectural design packages are expected to be released later this year. Levitt says the architects on the team set out to come up with designs that used wood frame construction, had no basements (to save on cost and reduce embodied carbon), and drew on vernacular architectural styles. They researched representative lot sizes in the various regions, and configured designs to suit small, medium and large properties. Some versions have accessibility features—CMHC’s remit included both accessible units and aging-in-place as objectives—or can be adapted later on.  As for climate and energy efficiency considerations, the recommended materials include low-carbon components and cladding. The designs do reflect geographical variations, but Levitt says there’s only so much her team could do in terms of energy modelling. “How do you do heat energy calculations when you don’t have a site? You don’t have north, south, east, west [orientations] and you don’t have what zone are you in. In B.C. and Ontario, there are seven climatic regions. There was a lot of working through those kinds of very practical requirements, which were very complicated and actually fed into the design work quite significantly.” As Levitt adds, “in 1947, there were no heat loss models because the world wasn’t like that.” LGA provided the architects on the team with templates for interior elements, such as bathrooms, as well as standards for features such as bedroom sizes, dining areas, storage sufficient to hold strollers, and access to outdoor space, either at grade or via a balcony. “We gathered together these ideas about the quality of life that we wanted baked into each of the designs, so that [they] expressed a really good quality of life—modest but good quality,” she says. “It’s not about the finishes. People had to be able to live there and live there well.” “This isn’t a boutique home solution,” Whitzman says. “This is a cheap and mass-produced solution. And compared to other cheap and mass-produced solutions, whether they be condos or suburban subdivisions, [the catalogue designs] look fine to my untrained eye.” A selection of Housing Catalogue designs for the Atlantic region. Will it succeed?  With the plans now public, the other important variables, besides their conformity with local bylaws, have to do with cost and visibility to potential users, including homeowners, contractors and developers specializing in smaller-scale projects.  On the costing side, N. Barry Lyons Consultants (NBLC) has been retained by CMHC to develop models to accompany the design catalogue, but those figures have yet to be released. While pricing is inevitably dynamic, the calculus behind the entire exercise turns on whether the savings on design outlays and the use of prefabricated components will make such small-scale projects pencil, particularly at a time when there are live concerns about tariffs, skilled labour shortages, and supply chain interruptions on building materials.  Finally, there’s the horse-to-water problem. While the design catalogue has received a reasonable amount of media attention since it launched, does CMHC need to find ways to market it more aggressively? “From my experience,” says Levitt, “they are extremely proactive, and have assembled a kind of dream team with a huge range of experience and expertise. They are doing very concerted and deep work with municipalities across the country.” Proper promotion, observes Moffatt, “is going to be important in particular, just for political reasons. The prime minister has made a lot of bold promises about [adding] 500,000 homes.” Carney’s pledge to get Canada back into building will take time to ramp up, he adds. “I do think the federal government needs to visibly show progress, and if they can’t point to a [new] building across the road, they could at least [say], `We’ve got this design catalogue. Here’s how it works. We’ve already got so many builders and developers looking at this.’”  While it’s far too soon to draw conclusions about the success of this ambitious program, Levitt is well aware of the long and rich legacy of the predecessor CMHC catalogues from the late 40s and the 1950s, all of which gave many young Canadian architects their earliest commissions and then left an enduring aesthetic on countless communities across Canada.   She hopes the updated 21st-century catalogue—fitted out as it is for 21st-century concerns about carbon, resilience and urban density—will acquire a similar cachet.  “These are architecturally designed houses for a group of people across the country who will have never lived in an architecturally designed house,” she muses. “I would love it if, 80 years from now, the consistent feedback [from occupants] was that they were able to live generously and well in those houses, and that everything was where it should be.” ARCHITECTURE FIRM COLLABORATORS Michael Green Architecture, Dub Architects, 5468796 Architecture Inc, Oxbow Architecture, LGA Architectural Partners, KANVA Architecture, Abbott Brown Architects, Taylor Architecture Group  As appeared in the June 2025 issue of Canadian Architect magazine  The post A housing design catalogue for the 21st century appeared first on Canadian Architect.

The Legislative Assembly of Ontario, from www.ola.org   Two recent bills introduced in the Ontario Legislature are poised to gut environmental protections, and severely curb the authority of municipal planners. Here’s a summary of the tabled bills 5 and 17, focused on areas of relevance to architects. Bill 5: Repealing the Endangered Species Act, introducing regulation-free Special Economic Zones The omnibus Bill 5, Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025, is ostensibly aimed at stimulating the economy by removing barriers to development. One of its key components is replacing the province’s Endangered Species Act with a hollowed-out Species Conservation Act. The new act allows the government to pick and choose which species are protected, and narrowly defines their “habitat” as the nest or den of an animal—not the broader feeding grounds, forests, or wetlands they need to survive. Developers must currently apply for a permit when their projects threaten a species or habitat, and these applications are reviewed by environmental experts. This process would be replaced by an online registration form; when the form is submitted, a company is free to start building, including damaging or destroying habitats of listed specied, so long as the activity is registered.  The new Species Conservation Act will completely exclude migratory birds and certain aquatic species. “It’s a developer’s dream and an environmental nightmare,” writes environmental lawyers Ecojustice. Bill 5 also contains provisions for creating Special Economic Zones, where provincial and municipal laws do not apply—a status that the Province could claim for any project or proponent. This would allow work on these projects to be exempt from zoning regulations and approvals, as well as from labour laws, health and safety laws, traffic and speeding laws, and even laws preventing trespassing on private property, notes advocacy group Environmental Defence. The Bill specifically exempts the Ontario Place redevelopment from the Environmental Bill of Rights. As a result, explains lawyers from Dentons, “the public will not receive notice of, or have opportunity to, comment on proposals, decisions, or events that could affect the environment as it relates to the Ontario Place Redevelopment Project.” Advocacy group Ontario Place For All writes: “The introduction of this clause is a clear response to the overwhelming number of comments—over 2200—from the community to the Environmental Registry of Ontario regarding the Ford government’s application to cut an existing combined sewer overflow (CSO) that will be in the way of Therme’s planned beach. The application has the CSO emptying into the west channel inside the breakwater and potentially allowing raw sewage into an area used recreationally by rowers, paddlers, swimmers, and for water shows by the CNE. The Auditor General’s Report estimated the cost of moving the CSO to be approximately $60 million.” The Bill also amends the Ontario Heritage Act, allowing the Province to exempt properties from archaeological and heritage conservation requirements if they could potentially advance provincial priorities including, but not limited to, transit, housing, health, long-term care, or infrastructure. Another part of the bill would damage the clean energy transition, notes Environmental Defense. “Bill 5 would enable the government to ban all parts of energy projects that come from abroad, especially China. China makes the majority of solar panels (over 80 per cent), wind turbines (around 60 per cent) and control systems in the world,” it writes. “If enacted, Bill 5 would likely end solar power installation in Ontario and deprive Ontarians access to the cleanest source of new electricity available.” In the Legislature, Liberal member Ted Tsu noted, “They called this bill, Bill 5, the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act. However, upon studying the bill, I think a more appropriate short title would be ‘don’t protect Ontario and use tariffs as cover to unleash lobbying act.’ That is a summary of what I think is wrong in principle with Bill 5.” Bill 5 has undergone its second reading and will be the subject of a Standing Committee hearing. Bill 17: Striking down green development standards, paring down planning applications Bill 17: Protecting Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025 aims to dismantle the City of Toronto’s Green Building Bylaw, along with limiting municipal authority in planning processes. These changes are proposed in the ostensible interest of speeding up construction in order to lower housing costs. The bill states that municipalities must follow the Building Code, and prohibits them for passing by-laws or imposing construction standards that exceed those set out in the Building Code. This seems to deliver a major win to development group RESCON, which has been lobbying to strike down the Toronto Green Standard. Fifteen municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area currently have green development standards. Non-profit group The Atmospheric Fund (TAF) notes that green standards do not slow housing construction. “In 2023, Toronto exceeded its housing targets by 51%, with nearly 96% of housing starts being subject to the Toronto Green Standard. Overall, Toronto’s housing starts have grown or stayed consistent nearly every year since the TGS was implemented.” The group also notes that the Ontario Building Code’s energy efficiency requirements have not been updated since 2017, and that Ontario’s cities will not meet their climate targets without more progressive pathways to low-carbon construction. Also of direct impact to architects is the proposed standardization of requirements for “complete” planning applications. Under the tabled bill, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will have the power to govern what information or material is required (or prohibited) in connection with official plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments, site plan approval, draft plans of subdivisions, and consent applications. This would prevail over existing Official Plan requirements. Currently, the Ontario government is proposing that sun/shadow, wind, urban design and lighting studies would not be required as part of a complete planning application. The bills would also deem an application to be complete not when it’s accepted by a municipal planning authority, but solely on the basis of it being prepared by prescribed professional. The prescribed professions are not yet defined, but the government has cited Engineers as an example. Bill 17 proposes to grant minor variances “as of right” so long that they fall with a certain percentage of current setback regulations. (They are currently proposing 10%.) This would apply to urban residential lands outside of the Greenbelt. The Bill proposes amendments to the Development Charges Act that will change what municipalities can charge, including eliminating development charges for long-term care homes. The bill limits Inclusionary Zoning to apply to a maximum 5% set-aside rate, and a maximum 25-year period of affordability. Dentons notes that: “While not specifically provided for in Bill 17, the Technical Briefing suggests that, the Minister of Infrastructure will have authority to approve MZOs, an authority currently held only by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.” Environmental Defense’s Phil Pothen writes: “Some of the measures proposed in Bill 17—like deferring development charges—could help build smarter and faster if they were applied selectively to infill, mid-rise and multiplex housing. But the bill’s current language would apply these changes to sprawl and McMansion development as well.” He adds: “Bill 17 also includes provisions that seem aimed at erasing municipal urban rules and green building standards, imposing generic road-design standards on urban and suburban streets and preventing urban design. Those changes could actually make it harder to speed up housing—reversing progress toward more efficient construction and land use and the modes of transportation that support them.” The Bill would also amend the Building Code to eliminate the need for a secondary provincial approval of innovative construction products if they have already been examined by the Canadian Construction Materials Centre of the National Research Council of Canada. The Ontario government is currently seeking comment on their proposed regulation to standardize complete application requirements. They are also currently seeking comment on the proposed regulation that provides for as-of-rights within 10% of current required setbacks. These comment periods are open until June 26, 2025. The post New Ontario bills gut environmental protections, eliminate green building bylaws appeared first on Canadian Architect.

Tesla announced a change to its corporate bylaws that will limit shareholders ability to sue the company.

New Research By Shoving a Bed Frame Against the Door, This Pompeii Family Tried to Survive Mount Vesuvius’ Eruption Archaeologists are learning new details about the four individuals’ futile attempt to hide inside an ancient residence called the House of Helle and Phrixus A bed frame shoved against the door served as a makeshift barricade. Pompeii Archaeological Park In 79 C.E., Mount Vesuvius erupted, spewing ash and small volcanic pellets known as lapilli over the city of Pompeii. Nearly 1,950 years later, archaeologists are still sifting through the layers of debris and making remarkable discoveries about life—and death—in the ancient city. Researchers recently discovered four members of a family, including a child, who attempted to escape the eruption by barricading themselves inside a bedroom, according to a statement from the Pompeii Archaeological Park. Though their efforts were futile, their remains provide remarkable insight into the doomed city’s final moments. When the eruption began, most residents of Pompeii “had no clue what was happening,” Gabriel Zuchtriegel, director of the park and co-author of a new study published in the journal Scavi di Pompei, tells the New York Times’ Sara Novak. “Many thought the end of the world had come.” A majority of the 15,000 to 20,000 residents of Pompeii and nearby Herculaneum fled and survived the eruption. The four family members were among the roughly 2,000 Pompeians who remained when the city was destroyed. As Helle struggles in the sea, Phrixus reaches out to his sister from atop a flying ram. Pompeii Archaeological Park Archaeologists found the family’s remains in a small but stately residence known as the House of Helle and Phrixus, named after a fresco of the mythological siblings discovered on the dining room wall. In Greek myth, the siblings survive their stepmother’s attempt to sacrifice them to the gods by flying away on a ram with a golden fleece. While Phrixus escapes, Helle falls off the ram into the sea. The fresco captures the siblings reaching out to each other—Helle in the sea, Phrixus on the ram—in a fittingly futile attempt at rescue. The architectural features of the house may have accelerated the family’s demise. Like many Roman houses, the House of Helle and Phrixus featured an open-roofed atrium, intended to aid rainwater collection. But as lapilli fell from the sky during the first phase of the eruption, the rock debris, which reached up to nine feet in some locations, quickly flooded the house through the atrium. At first, the archaeological evidence shows, the four individuals tried to protect themselves by packing into a small room. They even pushed a wooden bed frame against the door, hoping that it would prevent the lapilli from entering.When that failed, the researchers think they pulled back the barricade and attempted to escape. Based on the location of the remains, they only got as far as the triclinium, or dining room. “This house, with its decorations and its objects, shows us people who tried to save themselves,” says Zuchtriegel in the statement, per a translation by La Brújula Verde’s Guillermo Carvajal. “They didn’t succeed, but their story is still here, beneath the ashes.” Over the centuries, the ash preserved the remains of the family, the wooden bed frame and other items, including a bronze amulet known as a bulla and a stash of amphorae filled with garum, a popular Roman fish sauce. Ash and lapilli flooded into through the open-roofed atrium, burying the house in up to nine feet of debris. Pompeii Archaeological Park Researchers don’t know that this particular family owned the House of Helle and Phrixus. The group may have taken refuge there after the owners fled, as Marcello Mogetta, an archaeologist and Roman art historian at the University of Missouri who wasn’t involved in the study, tells the Times. Still, the recovered objects offer a glimpse into Pompeian family life. For instance, the child was likely the one wearing the bronze bulla, as tradition dictated that boys wear such amulets for protection until adulthood. Additionally, traces of masonry materials suggest that the house was under renovation. As Zuchtriegel says in the statement, “Excavating Pompeii means confronting the beauty of art, but also the fragility of life.” Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.