Alberta has become one of Canada's housing success stories, with Calgary and Edmonton leading the country in population growth while managing to build homes at a much faster pace than cities like Toronto. But that success has sparked a political backlash.
Premier Danielle Smith is stepping in to reverse zoning reforms that made it easier to build more homes, raising some surprising questions about the politics of housing deregulation. In this episode of Classonomics, Mike Moffatt sits down with housing analyst and social media creator Millennial Moron to unpack Alberta's housing battles, why restrictive zoning is producing so many eightplexes, and what other Canadian cities can learn from Alberta's experience.
If you enjoy the show and would like to support our work, please consider subscribing to our YouTube channel. The pod is also available on various audio-only platforms, including:
Below is an AI-generated transcript of the Missing Middle podcast, lightly edited.
Mike Moffatt: Millennial, thank you so much for being here today.
Millennial Moron: Thanks for having me.
Mike Moffatt: No worries, this has been on our wish list for a while. Let’s jump right into it. Before we talk about you, let’s talk about me.
About a year ago, we put out a research report that assigned letter grades to each of the provinces based on a variety of housing metrics. Alberta didn’t like it so much. In fact, Premier Smith denounced me personally. But they did score well in a number of categories, and they actually ranked number one for increasing housing supply relative to population growth. That’s no easy task.
Last year, Calgary and Edmonton were the only metros in Canada to see their populations grow by more than 50,000 people. To put that in perspective, the number three city, Ottawa, where I live, grew by less than 40,000, and the GTA didn’t grow at all.
So we’ve got these two cities in Alberta growing really quickly, but we’ve also got some housing blowback. Can you give us a recap of what’s been going on in the last few years?
Millennial Moron: Both Calgary and Edmonton have put housing affordability programs into place. Edmonton has been working on it for a bit longer, while Calgary has only done so in the last four or five years.
Part of those plans, among all the other programs they were doing, was allowing less restrictive zoning citywide. In Calgary, it was fourplexes, and in Edmonton, it’s eightplexes, which are four up and four down. Those have proven to be some of the most controversial and contentious aspects of it.
In Calgary, they held an election after the rezoning; city council pretty much turned over, and the new city council repealed it. In Edmonton, the same city council that implemented rezoning was re-elected.
But now, a lot of these anti-development groups in Edmonton have leapfrogged the municipality, gone up to the province, and demanded change from there.
Because municipalities are creatures of the provinces, and because this appeals to Danielle Smith’s base, she has decided to go top-down and impose a reversal of the rezoning policies back to, I believe, pre-2020 levels.
Mike Moffatt: Could you give us some specifics on what else is going on? Why are they doing so much better than, say, Ottawa or Toronto? Now is Alberta’s chance to tell Ontario what we’re doing wrong here.
Millennial Moron: If you look at construction timelines, I have some data over here on my other monitor.
The average construction time for all housing types in Calgary and Edmonton is around 10 to 11 months. In Toronto, it’s about 26 months. If you look at apartments, that’s about 13 months for Calgary and Edmonton, and for Toronto, it’s about 31 months. It’s about two and a half times the construction timeline in Toronto.
That’s before you account for permitting and things like that. It’s just regulations and how quickly you can get things built.
For example, take that 30 months in Toronto to build an apartment. This is an Urbanation stat, but how many months do you think it takes to go from application to completion?
The construction timeline is from the “start” to when the building is ready to move in. That’s 30 months. How much more do you think you have to add on to go from when you first apply for a permit to when that purpose-built apartment project is completed?
Mike Moffatt: Oh God, I think you’d probably be looking at four or five years.
Millennial Moron: It’s 100 months, which is about eight and a half years. That is 30 months for construction, and 70 months to get from application to construction.
You don’t see that on the consumer side. When you’re looking at it, you don’t see what it takes to go from application to completion.
But on the construction side, when you’re looking at almost six years of additional time being added, how much cost do you think that adds?
There are carrying costs for the property, staffing costs, and redesign costs from all the interminable public hearings you have to go through to get anything built. That adds a lot of cost to the end product.
Mike Moffatt: It really does. And the building code can change during that period, so then you’re having to redesign things. All of those costs add up. As you say, they’re invisible to the end consumer, but they all matter, and they’re all in the final bill.
For the most part, I get the sense that those kinds of approvals, process changes, and acceleration are not that controversial. Where the controversy comes in is the focus on intensification.
We saw the federal government had its Housing Accelerator Fund, which was basically paying cities to make a number of changes, and a lot of those changes were around making infill easier.
Edmonton not only implemented those changes, but went well above and beyond what the accelerator required - making changes to everything from setbacks to allowing eightplexes - none of which were in the accelerator.
But now we’ve seen Premier Danielle Smith override Edmonton council and the mayor. What’s going on there? What’s causing this provincial-municipal fight?
Millennial Moron: First of all, Edmonton has been ahead of the curve on zoning compared to almost every other metro in Canada. It’s one of the reasons why I always use it as an example of a city that has been very proactive on housing affordability.
They’re trying to get the supply in place before it becomes a supply crunch and an affordability crisis, rather than just scrambling to respond to it, as pretty much every other city is doing.
Back in 2018, they allowed duplexes and secondary suites. They’ve continued to advance the amount of density they allow for infill, and more recently they introduced eightplexes - which in other cities might be called fourplexes - where it’s four units with four secondary suites, four up and four down.
That has been controversial, and I think to some extent it is because of the aesthetic of those builds. They are large, boxy things to put into existing neighbourhoods.
We can talk about this later, but I think these eightplexes are actually a very tortured housing form that is designed to fit into overly restrictive zoning. It is a compromise on things that very anti-housing people dislike, but regular people don’t care about.
Basically, what has happened is that the anti-development people, the NIMBY have leapfrogged over the municipal government and gone to the provincial government.
As Danielle Smith said in the press conference, Calgary reversed their rezoning after a municipal election, and the way she described the Edmonton situation is that we haven’t seen the same renewal on council as we saw in Calgary.
What that means is that council got re-elected after doing all these zoning changes, and the people who ran on reversing the zoning changes lost the election. But then they just went up to the province and asked for it to be reversed.
Municipalities are technically creatures of the province, so the province can direct them to do whatever it wants. They just found another lever to pull to prevent housing development.
It’s not that much of a surprise if you have ever watched a public hearing or a series of public hearings the way that I have. Pretty much everything they say is that they want more consultation and more thoughtful development. It’s usually just finding another way to obstruct housing development. Now, that’s for the people who show up to public hearings.
There are people who have legitimate concerns about infill in their neighbourhood, but talking to a lot of them, they are more flexible on what could get built. They just have a specific issue with the current built form that’s going in.
Mike Moffatt: You piqued my interest when you called the eightplex a tortured housing form. Could you expand on that? You’ve got my curiosity. What did you mean by that?
Millennial Moron: When we’re putting these eightplexes on existing single-family lots, they have put in a lot of restrictions on height and grade-oriented units. You know what a grade-oriented unit is, right?
Mike Moffatt: Yeah, absolutely.
Millennial Moron: I know what a grade-oriented unit is. It means you have a direct entrance into the unit from outside at ground level. Nobody else knows what grade-oriented units are, and nobody really cares.
One of the things pro-housing people have compromised on with anti-development people is grade-oriented units, rather than having stacked units, like a three-story walk-up apartment building.
Most people don’t actually care about whether the units are stacked or not. If they aren’t living there, they care about what it looks like from the outside. So we’ve created this situation where if you want eight units, four up and four down, you have to have eight ground-level entrances.
That creates absurd situations where you’ve got four front doors, and then little basement wells on the side, sometimes with no guardrails to prevent people from falling in, for the other four entrances. To make the project pencil, and make it work economically, you have to use up as much of the space as you’re allowed to.
We’ve put these strict restrictions on grade-oriented entrances and height, and sacrificed things like setbacks. Setbacks are what people living in a detached neighbourhood care about. They want green space around the edge of the property.
I had an interesting conversation about this recently with someone opposed to eightplexes. I asked them what they would rather have in their neighbourhood. Would they want three eightplexes at the end of the block, side-by-side, filling up basically the entire lot? Or would you rather have those three parcels assembled into one for a small 24-unit apartment building, with the same number of units, but with bigger setbacks, remaining green space, and space for on-site parking?
They said that of course they would rather have an apartment building. But we make that impossible to build. That’s why I say eightplexes are an example of compromising on the wrong thing.
Mike Moffatt: I can see that. When folks complain about these changes on Twitter and send a photo, it’s almost always about the setbacks. I get that there are still a lot of rules and regulations, and that causes some suboptimal buildings.
At the same time, this is at least somewhat of a deregulation play. Allowing eightplexes creates opportunities to do things that were illegal before.
I find the politics of that really interesting, especially the relationship between levels of government. Most of the changes Edmonton made weren’t requirements under the Housing Accelerator Fund. The accelerator just asked for fourplexes and a few other changes.
Despite that, Premier Smith really threw the federal government under the bus, blaming the accelerator for the reform.
Who is the public blaming, particularly those opposed to eightplexes? Are they blaming the municipality, or the federal government? Is Smith’s argument resonating?
Millennial Moron: They’re blaming the municipal government and crediting the federal government with an assist. As you say, what Edmonton has been doing wasn’t required under the Housing Accelerator Fund.
They have been proactive about zoning reform for a long time to get ahead of the demand curve. The Housing Accelerator Fund is the federal government trying to push cities that are behind the demand curve to get up to speed.
Whereas Edmonton is saying they don’t want a housing crisis to emerge here, so they want to keep building at a pace where they can absorb population increases, whether from natural increase - which Alberta still has- or from international and interprovincial migration.
You can’t stop interprovincial migration because of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canadians are allowed to move about as they please. If you have good economic opportunities and an affordable cost of living, people are naturally going to flock there.
Mike Moffatt: Absolutely. Look at the differences in home prices and incomes. Average incomes in Calgary and Edmonton are higher than in many parts of Ontario, and home prices are half as much.
I also find the ideological divides counterintuitive. The Housing Accelerator Fund was created under a centre-left Trudeau government. Edmonton has always been seen as by far the most left-wing part of Alberta, and these are, at some level, deregulation plays.
Meanwhile, you have a provincial Conservative government, and Conservatives usually believe in cutting red tape and avoiding interference from higher orders of government.
Why are the politics so counterintuitive? I could understand it if a conservative council were trying to deregulate and a left-wing provincial government blocked it, but this is the exact opposite.
Millennial Moron: I think it’s pretty simple. People perceive change resulting from policy as government interference. Whatever they were doing before feels natural. You only feel the wind when it’s moving.
If you’ve lived in a single-detached neighbourhood for a long time, you don’t perceive the preservation of that single-detached neighbourhood, even as the city grows around it, as continuous government interference in the free market. You think this is just the way it is.
When change happens, even if it’s the government relaxing restrictions and doing less central planning, you perceive it as government interfering with your lifestyle, rather than seeing the status quo as government interference in the market.
Mike Moffatt: I never thought about it that way, but that makes sense. The government did something, therefore it’s viewed as government interference, even if that action is deregulation. What were the specific changes Edmonton put into place that upset people the most?
Millennial Moron: It’s hard to sort out good-faith arguments from bad-faith arguments when talking about people who show up to public hearings to oppose development. They will often argue one thing and then contradict themselves at the next meeting.
One major complaint is that people feel they aren’t being consulted on what’s happening in their neighbourhood. I don’t know that that’s always true.
In her press conference, Danielle Smith claimed people are seeing bulldozers show up next door with no warning to demolish houses and put up an eightplex. But if you look at permitting requirements, a redevelopment notice is posted on a parcel for months. The properties where people suddenly notice bulldozers are often places they haven’t paid attention to for months or only pass by occasionally.
Other concerns centre on population density and newcomers to the neighbourhood, especially renters. That’s largely a classist issue. If you’re worried about renters moving in, the implications are obvious.
Parking is another concern. People worry that eliminating parking minimums will overwhelm street parking, which can be an issue where street parking is already near capacity.
Finally, people frequently raise concerns about infrastructure, asking whether sewage, electricity, and water can handle additional residents. The solution there is simply showing them the engineering studies on original capacity and actual current population.
Many of these single-detached neighbourhoods haven’t grown or remained stable. Their populations have declined over time. If an inner-city neighbourhood close to downtown is losing population, it’s because restrictions prevent people from living there.
These neighbourhoods were originally designed for young families. As residents age in place and their children move out, the population drops, and supporting infrastructure like local schools becomes underutilized. This requires school boards to bus kids in from elsewhere to keep them open. It makes the entire system less efficient.
Upgrading or replacing aging infrastructure in a brownfield environment is more expensive than installing it originally, so you need to densify the tax base to pay for it anyway.
The argument for inner-city density is very strong. Beyond the fact that this is how human settlements have evolved for thousands of years, the idea that we discovered the single perfect built form for these neighbourhoods 40 or 50 years ago makes no sense.
Mike Moffatt: It really does feel that way. Despite depopulation in some of these neighbourhoods, much of the opposition seems to be opposition to population growth itself, such as traffic, crowded parks, noise, and so on.
From my Ottawa-bubble outsider perspective, there seems to have been a shift in the zeitgeist from asking how do we build more homes to deciding we just need to reduce population growth.
You see that shift in the Premier herself. A few years ago, she was calling for Alberta’s population to double, asking the federal government to loosen immigration restrictions, and running the famous ‘Alberta is Calling’ campaign on the TTC and Ottawa radio to draw priced-out Ontario residents west. Is it just Premier Smith who has shifted on this, or are Albertans broadly changing their views on population growth?
Millennial Moron: Population growth has been a major issue in Canada over the past five years, but housing didn’t only become a problem five years ago.
Yes, population growth needs to be managed, and we had irresponsible immigration policies, particularly regarding non-permanent residents. But fixing that alone doesn’t solve our housing problems. This crisis has been decades in the making, driven primarily by restrictions and costs that prevent new housing from being built. We need to address population growth, but we also must fix housing policy.
Not that I’m defending everything Premier Smith has done, but when people point out that she asked for looser immigration rules, she specifically asked to raise the cap on the Provincial Nominee Program.
That aligns with her broader push for provincial autonomy. The PNP allows the province to select specific skilled workers, and it accounts for only a small sliver of total immigration.
Mike Moffatt: The federal-provincial dynamics are fascinating. Provinces and municipalities are right to highlight failures in temporary foreign worker and international student programs.
Those policies didn’t cause the housing crisis. The crisis was already burning, and Ottawa poured gasoline on the fire, harming newcomers most of all.
A lot of the criticisms we see on social media are, frankly, kind of ignorant. But there is one in particular that I find interesting: People like me will argue, ‘Well, Edmonton is deregulating and introducing more free-market reforms.’ One of the smarter arguments against that—dealing with the provincial-federal dynamic—is: ‘Look, the federal government, specifically CMHC, has a bunch of programs like construction loans and insurance, such as MLI Select.’ The way those programs are designed, you get the best bang for your buck by building buildings with as many units as possible, which pairs well with Edmonton’s deregulation.
So critics are saying the fact that we’re building all of these eightplexes isn’t a pure free-market outcome, but rather the result of the federal government putting its thumb on the scale, whether intentionally or inadvertently.
What would you say to that regarding how provinces and municipalities interact with federal housing policy?
Millennial Moron: Yeah, I think there’s an argument to be made for that. The federal government was responding to a nationwide housing shortage with a nationwide program designed to get more multi-family built. But if you have a city that is already doing relatively well on housing, the program accelerates what’s already happening there rather than completely transforming it. If the market makes eightplexes viable, eightplexes will get built—just maybe not as quickly or in such a rush.
MLI Select definitely pulled some demand forward into the present. From people I’ve talked to in the industry, it seems CMHC is trying to wind it down slightly—introducing more frequent rule changes, responding more slowly to applicants, and making the program more cumbersome to use just as conventional bank financing becomes competitive again.
At the municipal level, cities can redirect that capital toward other priorities. Take Calgary, for example, they faced a double hit: the 2014 oil crash hollowed out their downtown core, and COVID accelerated remote work. Downtown felt empty during the day and even quieter at night, causing businesses to shut down.
Rather than trying to force workers back into desks, the city asked, ‘Why not have people live downtown within walking distance of amenities?
They introduced an office-to-residential conversion incentive offering up to $75 per square foot. That program has been remarkably successful, converting millions of square feet of office space into housing. It brings more foot traffic and vibrancy to the core, and from an urban design perspective, the impact on neighbourhood character is minimal because the exterior building form is already there.
Crucially, developers were able to stack that municipal grant with federal programs like MLI Select. Because the city subsidy made the conversions feasible, developers could use MLI Select’s scoring system to secure extra points by incorporating affordable units. That has brought genuine below-market options to market - like two-bedroom downtown units renting for around $1,200. It shows that cities can effectively leverage federal incentives toward local priorities if they are proactive. Calgary solved two problems at once using the infrastructure they already had, and now they’re recognized internationally for it.
Mike Moffatt: I visited Calgary in 2013 and returned in 2017, and the transformation was remarkable. Repurposing surplus office space has been fantastic to see.
Turning back to Edmonton, if we had a time machine, what should Edmonton have done differently to lower the political temperature and prevent the province from overruling its zoning reforms? How could they have made intensification more palatable?
Millennial Moron: There’s definitely room for better community engagement, but the issue with traditional planning is that cities spend years drafting local plans only for residents to oppose compliant projects anyway.
To make engagement effective, local area planning should be comprehensive and binding. When a local plan is adopted, all necessary zoning changes should be enacted simultaneously in that single hearing. You shouldn’t have redundant rezoning hearings for individual parcels.
Once a plan passes, compliant permits should be expedited. Community input should enable housing rather than serve as a perpetual veto. Zoning could also offer more flexible trade-offs. The reason we see this uniform eightplex form is that regulations are too rigid, not too loose.
If you allow trade-offs between height and setbacks, what would neighbours prefer? A three- or four-story walk-up apartment with a smaller footprint and green setbacks, or a low-slung building covering the entire parcel?
Most people would prefer the taller building with generous green space. That’s the conversation we should be having, rather than consulting anti-development voices who simply want zero change.
In growing cities, change is inevitable. I would rather see change arrive as increased density than as rising homelessness, seniors unable to afford groceries, or young families priced out of their communities.
Mike Moffatt: I completely agree. Asking communities to weigh practical trade-offs, like height versus green setbacks, would be much more productive. The loss of yard space is often a legitimate concern for neighbours.
Another reform that divides people is the elimination of parking minimums. We recently interviewed Henry Grabar about letting the market determine parking supply, but Premier Smith recently moved to reinstate parking requirements. How central is the parking issue to this debate?
Millennial Moron: Parking looms large, particularly in cities viewed as car-dependent like Edmonton and Calgary. Both cities actually have great trail networks and river valley corridors for bikes and active transit, but many residents still depend on cars and worry about where to park.
In older neighbourhoods that rely on street parking, people fear worst-case scenarios where every lot turns into an eightplex with two cars per unit and zero on-site stalls.
In practice, builders know buyers and renters want parking, so many eightplexes include rear garages. The market addresses a lot of that demand naturally.
You could also include parking ratios in regulatory trade-offs. For instance, requiring a modest 0.5 parking ratio in exchange for additional height. By and large, the market sorts it out.
Mike Moffatt: I agree. Where do you see this battle heading next, particularly given Alberta’s volatile political climate?
Millennial Moron: It’s hard to say. The scales are still very much tipped in favour of obstructionists. We’re seeing that play out now: whenever pro-housing advocates win on municipal policy, opponents find another avenue to head it off.
What needs to happen next isn’t entirely clear, but if pro-housing advocates want to keep winning and making housing more affordable, we need to engage with ordinary people rather than getting bogged down in policy-wonk battles with entrenched opponents on the opposite extreme. We need to speak directly to what works for everyday residents, listen to their concerns, and shape reforms around them.
By and large, most people understand that cities have to evolve. Unlike the typical public hearing regulars - who claim they aren’t against density, just ‘responsible density,’ while opposing every single project that comes up - a lot of regular people actually mean it. We need reforms that work for them. That could mean more flexible zoning, or automatic processes that put the right zoning in place well before a project is proposed.
One idea I like to float that hasn’t received serious attention is presumptive upzoning based on land value density. You look at where the market is signaling demand for higher density or mixed-use development.
If there’s no compelling reason to freeze the existing zoning, the property automatically bumps up a density tier once it crosses a specific threshold of inflation-adjusted land value per square meter. That way, as inner-city neighborhoods become more expensive, zoning adjusts organically to meet that demand.
It allows the city to grow dynamically, rather than fighting the battle parcel by parcel or imposing blanket rezoning across the entire city all at once.
Mike Moffatt: I love that concept. I’ve advocated something similar for urban growth boundaries: expanding land supply when land values cross a predetermined benchmark to remove political discretion.
Before we wrap up, we also wanted to touch on your social media content. My TikTok feed is mostly baseball and 1980s wrestling, but your videos routinely pop up. We especially love your series comparing European castles to Canadian real estate listings. How did that series come about?
Millennial Moron: I recently put out episode 30 after a hiatus. The idea actually dates back to the early 2010s, when news outlets were highlighting rotting, derelict teardowns in Vancouver selling for millions.
I wondered what else that kind of money could buy. At first I looked into private islands, and it turned out one teardown in Vancouver could buy an entire island.
When TikTok rolled out green-screen tools, I realized the format was perfect for quick, humorous comparisons. One weekend while my wife was out of town, I recorded one for fun.
Within days, it blew up to hundreds of thousands and then millions of views. That led viewers to ask why Canadian housing had become so expensive. I’d been analyzing housing data for a decade, so I started breaking down the mechanics of the market. Over time, those analyses proved accurate, and people started paying attention.
Mike Moffatt: As someone who consumes a lot of housing and real estate content, most of the creators out there are people I know, and in many cases, people I knew well before they became social media famous. Folks like Ron Butler, the mortgage broker who has commercials and a big public profile, or people working at banks, development firms, and real estate brokerages. They’re very visible and well-known; I could practically write their biographies for them at this point.
You are the complete opposite. You’re clearly a private person. You use a pseudonym, and I’ll tell the audience straight up: I have no idea what your real name is or even what city you live in. You’re just this guy making fantastic content on YouTube and TikTok.
I know you’re not going to reveal too much, but could you give us a little insight into your background and how you got interested in Canadian housing policy and real estate?
Millennial Moron: One of the things that has helped me on social media is that I’m not selling anything, and I bring a very different perspective than most industry insiders. Until a couple of years ago, I didn’t work in real estate at all.
My background was in mathematical and numerical simulations of physical systems. Because of that, I’ve always taken a mechanistic modeling approach. Instead of just looking at empirical correlations—like noting that home prices have historically risen by a certain percentage—I asked: what is actually driving that mechanic?
When I broke down the numbers early on, it was clear that falling interest rates were driving the bulk of home price increases. That’s why home prices skyrocketed for years while rents only grew roughly around the rate of inflation. We’ve only seen an acute supply-and-demand crunch over the past few years where rents spiked dramatically, but prior to that, rents remained relatively stable compared to valuations.
What initially got me interested in housing was starting my career, moving to a new city, and trying to decide whether to rent or buy. When I ran the numbers, it made zero sense to buy when renting was so cheap relative to home prices.
What often gets overlooked is how irrational market psychology became in Canada. Buyers don’t actually evaluate the absolute purchase price of a home; they focus almost entirely on the monthly payment. Once you understand that psychological reality, the entire 20-year run-up in home prices becomes obvious: price was simply a function of how much debt someone could carry for a given monthly payment relative to their income.
But people internalized the belief that real estate values only ever go up. They didn’t see that price growth was simply expanding borrowing capacity. That mindset eventually pushed investors into buying cash-flow-negative properties. I’d have one-on-one conversations with people asking, ‘Why does it make sense to hold an asset if the rental income doesn’t even cover your carrying costs?’ They’d reply, ‘For the capital appreciation.’ And I’d ask, ‘Where does that appreciation come from? Why would the next buyer purchase an unprofitable business from you at an even higher price just to take on your losses?’ It was completely unsustainable.
That realization was the catalyst for starting my channel. I knew that as soon as interest rates rose and stayed elevated, home prices would have to come down sharply. Once those rate hikes began to stick, I knew it was time to start making content.
Mike Moffatt: My late father-in-law was an applied mathematician who always said math applies to everything, and your work proves that. Millennial Moron, since I don’t know your real name, thank you for joining us. I encourage everyone to check out your channels on YouTube and TikTok. We really appreciate your time.
Millennial Moron: Thanks so much for having me. For those interested in deeper industry analysis, I also host The Rent Report, a podcast produced with Urbanation and Rentals.ca featuring in-depth expert discussions. Thanks again. It was a great conversation.
Mike Moffatt: You’ve got the right audience here! Thank you to the Missing Middle audience for watching and listening. My name is Mike Moffatt. Our producers for this episode are Meredith Martin and Cara Stern, and our editor is Sean Foreman. If you have any thoughts or questions about making multiplexes manageable in municipalities, please leave a comment because we’d love to hear from you.
We’ll see you next time.
Additional Reading/Listening that Helped Inform the Episode:
2025 Provincial HOMES Report Card
Funded by the Neptis Foundation
Brought to you by the Missing Middle Initiative