Nipissing District Housing Needs, Supply & Affordability ... - dnssab

KEY FINDINGS
• There is a strong correlation between the age and condition of housing: In 2006,
approximately 10% of the District’s households felt that their housing was in need of
major repair (i.e., was in poor condition). 59% of these households are owners and
41% are renters. Of this group, 52% are in housing that is 46 years or older (built
prior to 1960) and 32% are in housing that is aged 26-45 years (built between 1961-
1980).
• A greater percentage of Nipissing’s renters live in older housing (61 years or older)
than do owners, while a smaller percentage of renters live in newer housing (built
within the past 25 years). This translates into a greater percentage of renters living in
housing that is in poor condition, compared to owners (12% vs. 8.5%).
• Almost half of these renters who live in housing that is in poor condition are living in
apartment buildings – the majority (85%) are in smaller buildings (i.e., les than 5
storeys). The remainder are living in the District’s secondary housing market, i.e.,
non-conventional rental housing.
• In comparing the general condition of Nipissing’s housing to that of Ontario, it
appears that the District’s households have a lower incidence of “regular
maintenance” and a higher incidence of “minor and major repairs”. This reflects the
older housing in general, in Nipissing District. In making tenure comparisons,
Nipissing District has a larger percentage of owners (60%) and a smaller percentage
of renters (40%) living in housing that is in poor condition, then Ontario (55% & 45%
respectively).
• In comparing the types of housing that renters claim to be in poor condition, with
Ontario, the research shows that the District’s secondary housing market has a
higher rate of sub-standard housing than the average while its purpose-built rental
housing has a lower rate of sub-standard housing.
• There is concern at the national and provincial level for the ageing social housing
Stock and insufficient capital reserves to address modernization and renewal. These
concerns are coinciding with another major concern of expiring federal operating
subsidies in concert with the maturity of mortgages. As these three issues converge,
some of the social housing operations may no longer be viable. In Nipissing District,
the oldest social housing stock is 45 years old and social housing providers indicate
that there are inadequate capital reserves to keep up with the ageing buildings and
rising costs. They also indicate that this, combined with the upcoming expiration of
operating agreements, could lead to the loss of social housing in the District, if some
providers decide to cease operations (note: 31% of the District’s social housing
supply (765 units) has a federal funding component with operating agreements
starting to expire in 2013).
HOUSEHOLDS, NIPISSING’S MUNICIPALITIES
• In absolute terms, North Bay has accounted for 60% of the District’s household
growth since 1986, followed by West Nipissing (23%) and East Ferris (7%).
Nipissing District Housing Needs, Supply & Affordability Study, May 2008.
X