25.06.2025 | Written By: [[The Writer|Assantewa Heubi]] | Tags: #Housing #1940s #Build-Canada-Strong ## Part 3: What Will It Look Like? I’ve often been called Captain Obvious because while I have a curious mind, my questions tend to be a bit commonplace. Which is why I can’t help but wonder what the neighborhoods built as part of the [Build Canada Strong](https://liberal.ca/housing-plan/) initiative will look like. This might seem like a redundant query, but I think it’s really important. You see, context has a way of transforming information. Many people would probably tell me to simply visit the Canada Housing Catalog. After all, it was visually indicated that the homes built will likely pull from those designs. Here’s the thing, though: the intent behind the [Canada Housing Catalog](https://housing-infrastructure.canada.ca/housing-logement/design-catalogue-conception/index-eng.html) and the [Build Canada Strong](https://liberal.ca/housing-plan/) plan are not inherently the same. The Canada Housing Catalog seeks to make the building of homes more affordable by providing pre-approved blueprints that reduce red tape and cut back on costs. The [Build Canada Strong](https://liberal.ca/housing-plan/) plan, on the other hand, is solving the housing crisis by increasing supply at scale. This new output will be achieved in a number of ways that include public-private partnerships that focus on modular building and prefabricated units. This is where context comes back into the picture. You see, all of the designs in the Canada Housing Catalog are designed to be functional/attractive in the context of being interspersed and distributed throughout pre-established neighborhoods with pre-existing infrastructure and economic development. We have to acknowledge that while such a situation is ideal, it is not necessarily reflective of the reality we are investing in. ## What happens if homes are built in economic deserts?  In order to meet the needs of Canadian citizens, housing is going to have to be built in numbers rarely seen before. There simply isn’t enough land or space in pre-established municipal neighborhoods to artfully intersperse all of the new units. This means that a great deal of housing is going to be built on land that currently isn’t or necessarily used for that purpose. If we don’t take this into consideration, there’s a high likelihood that the neighborhoods built—while functional—will end up being undesirable. This lack of desirability stems from two issues. The one I’m going to cover right now is the cauterized habitat phenomenon. If you’ve never heard this term before, here’s the definition: Cauterized habitats are defined as neighborhoods that are cut off from essential supplies and infrastructure. These communities are built in order to stop the wound of the housing crisis from bleeding out. The problem lies in the fact that these rapidly built neighborhoods are effectively cut off from the body aka municipality they sprouted from. This means that the essential nutrients for a healthy economy and society are unable to effectively be transferred in and out. This is an issue that, over time, leads to community collapse, which might either manifest as an increase in crime or area abandonment. This is unfortunate because it ultimately means that the resources invested in the creation of the cauterized habitat end up being wasted, and the issue of the housing crisis—instead of being reduced—is simply delayed in terms of how and when it erupts. ## Why does community matter? We need to remember that the majority of homes built as part of the Victory Home or [wartime housing](https://www.nfb.ca/film/wartime_housing/) act were constructed within pre-existing municipal boundaries. In fact, the only time when Victory Homes were constructed in formerly rural areas is when there was a fully functioning wartime factory there to provide jobs. This meant that war workers, [veterans](https://www.veterans.gc.ca/en/remembrance/memorials/canada/victory-housing-0), and their families lived within neighborhoods that might be underpopulated according to today’s standards but had a normal density for the time period. This is important to remember because it means that these communities were fully viable, integrated with the rest of the towns and cities they were part of.  Veterans, war workers, and their families weren’t having to choose between affordable rentals or housing ownership and access to the basic essential infrastructure that was normative of the time period. I think this is something that’s really important to keep in mind because, as crucial as affordable housing is, it doesn’t work in a vacuum. People need affordable housing from which they can easily commute to and from work. They need neighborhoods that come with basic services like daycares, primary schools, walk-in clinics, and places where they can purchase essential groceries, without being robbed. > I’d like to end this section with a question: **What essential services and infrastructure would you consider a reasonable trade-off for access to affordable housing?** [Click here to share your opinion securely and privately.](https://tally.so/r/wM2Alg) > [!example]- Bonus Content - Video (Click to Expand) >Below is a video that talks a little bit about how the city of Vienna is maintaining their affordable housing stock. It looks at topics like collaborative design, which basically means that taxpayers have some say as to what the neighborhoods they're going to live in look like. >The video's around 12 minutes long, and while you might not agree with all of the points, perspectives, or even philosophies in the video, I hope you take what resonates, make note of what doesn't, and question everything :) ---