Q&A: Rudrasen Sheorey on how to put Canada’s ‘lazy land’ to work

How much easily developable land is right under our nose? Researchers like Rudrasen Sheorey are trying to find out. The urban analyst and his collegues have been digging into the potential of publicly owned land and how much of a dent it could make in Canada’s housing crisis. Sheorey and his collegues at the University of British Columbia found that a handful of cities have enough underused land owned by federal, provincial and municipal governments to build homes for more than one million people.

We caught up with Sheorey to learn more about his analysis of publicly owned land and what could be done to activiate it.

SiteNews: Give us an idea of how much potential housing could be built on Canada’s public land currently. 

Sheorey: It’s important to understand potential for housing has to be quantified. If we wanted to, we could build anywhere on open lands far away from major centers. This study focused on lands that have development potential, (ie have servicing, built next to existing infrastructure). The analysis across 10 major cities showed that of the about 3971 properties 856 were developable. These sites could accommodate about 35,999,336 sqm of built area that could house about 1,061,712. OVER 1 MILLION PEOPLE.

Tell me about how you and the other researchers developed the method to determine housing yields.

To determine housing yields, we developed a systematic seven-step methodology to evaluate and prioritize the development potential of government-owned land parcels across Canadian cities. This approach involved analyzing key factors such as site size, proximity to infrastructure, and current utilization levels to effectively assess and classify parcels.

1. Site Size Classification: Government-owned land parcels were grouped by size to enable consistent and comparable analysis.
2. Amenity Score Classification: Amenity scores were assigned based on the proximity of sites to key existing infrastructure and services.
3. FSR Calculation: Floor Space Ratio (FSR) values were calculated using a Comparable Building Database. This database included projects from major cities that demonstrated high standards of livability and served as benchmarks for appropriate density on well-serviced parcels.
4. Correlation of FSR with Amenity Scores: Derived FSR values were correlated with amenity and density scores to quantify the development potential of parcels based on their amenity levels.
5. FSR Matrix Development: An FSR Matrix was created to link site size and amenity scores to achievable FSR values. This matrix was applied to calculate the total gross floor area (GFA) for all parcels, enabling the classification of sites into priority tiers based on their suitability for development.

Using data from the Housing Assessment Resource Tools (HART) project at UBC, we focused on federal land data from cities including Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa. By integrating parcel characteristics, amenity scores, and calculated FSR values, we quantified potential residential floor space and estimated the number of homes and individuals each site could accommodate.

What are some of the advantages of utilizing public land? 

These lands offer a significant opportunity for housing development as they are publicly owned and can be repurposed more efficiently than acquiring private land. Acquiring private land typically involves negotiating a purchase at market value with the landowner, who must also be willing to sell that specific parcel or parcel. An example of using public lands for affordable housing has recently been demonstrated by the Federal Lands Initiative where the federal government has provided land at no cost to organizations that can build affordable housing on these lands. Here are some advantages that public lands provide. 

Zoning: The government can often expedite public lands and bypass municipal bottlenecks. This is because governments can directly develop these lands. An example we can see is the setting up of Special Planning areas in Halifax where the province can directly make decisions related to zoning in these areas. 

Location: These lands are often located in prime locations, with access to existing transit and public infrastructure making them ideal for adding density. This also means that local infrastructure would require little to no upgrades, enabling development to proceed with fewer barriers. 

Maximizing underutilization of land: Many of these lands contain existing buildings that underutilize the true developable potential of the site. For example, the post office located at 2405 Pine Street in Vancouver is on the Broadway corridor where similar land parcels are being developed to a height of 30 stories, while the post office building is just three stories. There are several such sites located in prime locations in Vancouver and Toronto that could be developed into housing that currently only have one- or two-storey buildings located on them. 

Cost of Land: With the government using land that they already own, they can roll in land at no cost to mitigate inflated land costs and enable these savings to be reflected in delivering more affordability.

What prompted you to start investigating the potential of public land? 

When exploring solutions for affordable housing, a key discussion emerged around placing appropriate densities in neighborhoods that already have established services and amenities. A particularly striking example is the Cambie Corridor along the Canada Line in Vancouver.

I examined the buildings near King Edward Station, which are capped at a maximum height of 6 to 8 stories, compared to the Marine Gateway area, where 30-story towers dominate the skyline. Both locations benefit from similar levels of infrastructure and amenities, yet Marine Gateway houses significantly more people for the same level of public investment in infrastructure.

This disparity, coupled with rising land prices, sparked a conversation about leveraging publicly owned land for housing development to address the current housing crisis. As private land development becomes increasingly expensive and challenging to secure, the need to investigate the potential of public land for affordable housing came into the conversation. 

Define what you and your colleagues mean when you call property “lazy”.

As highlighted above, a key factor in addressing housing challenges is maximizing the potential of available land. Taking the example of King Edward Station, it is evident that instead of limiting development to 5 or 6 stories, these land parcels could support greater density without straining existing infrastructure.

In examining public land parcels, we focused on identifying those that are underutilized, or what we refer to as “lazy land.” Lazy land is defined as land that fails to make the most of its developable potential. For instance, the post office located at 2405 Pine Street in Vancouver sits on the Broadway Corridor, where nearby parcels are being developed into 30-story buildings. Yet, the post office remains a mere three stories.

There are numerous government-owned land sites like this, often located in the heart of dense urban neighborhoods. These sites are typically characterized by low-density developments and large, underutilized parking lots. This underutilization highlights their status as “lazy land,” demonstrating a significant opportunity to unlock their potential for higher-density housing and better land use.

I understand that you were unable to get land data from some parts of the country. Could the potential of public land actually be even higher?

This study focuses on 10 cities in Canada, but it’s important to note that provincial land data was unavailable for Calgary and Edmonton. If all developable government-owned land parcels were included, the potential number of homes could be significantly higher.

The current estimate of housing for 1 million people is based solely on parcels that already have access to servicing and infrastructure. It excludes parcels with very limited service or infrastructure access, which represents additional untapped potential.

This highlights the need for increased investment in infrastructure developments such as water, sanitation, and transportation—not only to unlock the potential of underutilized public land but also to make private land more viable for development. Expanding infrastructure access is key to addressing housing challenges on a larger scale.

What makes a public piece of land most suitable for housing development?

The suitability of land for development is determined by using amenity scores, which measure access to key services and infrastructure.  These scores are derived from the Proximity Measure Database (Statistics Canada) and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), assessing factors like proximity to childcare, schools, healthcare, parks, grocery stores, public transit, and more.

The scoring system assigns up to 20 points based on walking distance to these amenities:

• Childcare (1)
• Primary schools (1)
• Secondary schools (1)
• Healthcare (2)
• Pharmacies (2)
• Parks (3)
• Grocery stores (4)
• Public transit (4)
• Libraries (1)
• Community & recreation services (1)

The higher the amenity score, the greater the site’s suitability for development. Sites with higher scores leverage existing infrastructure more effectively, allowing for additional housing with minimal upgrades to current systems. This approach maximizes the potential of underutilized “lazy land.” Public land sites were categorized into three Amenity Score Classes based on their scores.

1. High Amenity (16–20 points): Well-served by public transit and multiple amenities, ideal for higher-density development.
2. Medium Amenity (11–15 points): Served by several public amenities but may lack high-frequency transit or abundant grocery access.
3. Low Amenity (1–10 points): Limited access to critical amenities, making them less suitable for development.

For this study, only High and Medium Amenity sites were considered, as they are best positioned for immediate development potential.

Did anything surprise you or jump out to you when you began to get the results of this research? 

One of the most surprising takeaways from the study was the enormous housing potential that exists on government-owned lands across Canada. In just 10 cities, we identified the capacity to house 1 million people. This striking figure highlights the untapped opportunity for the government to introduce policies and measures that could unlock a significant portion of these lands for development.

The scope and quality of the opportunities make this discovery particularly compelling. Many of these properties are owned by institutions like Canada Post and the Canada Revenue Agency, and a substantial proportion, around 40%, are in high-amenity areas with existing public infrastructure. These are precisely the kinds of locations where new housing can have the greatest impact, as they are already well-connected and equipped to support thriving communities.

The findings underscore the importance of elevating this discussion around utilizing government lands for housing. By focusing on properties classified in Priority Classes 1 to 4—those with medium to high amenity scores—the research demonstrates a valid and realistic pathway for addressing Canada’s housing supply challenges. Seeing the scale and potential of these opportunities has been truly eye-opening and underscores the critical need to act on this untapped resource.

The Government of Canada launched the Canada Public Land Bank in August 2024 as part of its Public Lands for Homes Plan. Give me your analysis of the government’s efforts to utilize these public properties. Could more be done to unlock them?

The Government of Canada’s launch of the Canada Public Land Bank under the Public Lands for Homes Plan in August 2024 is a commendable initiative that recognizes the significant potential of public properties for addressing Canada’s housing crisis. Measures such as 99-year leases with affordability requirements and the creation of a federal property registry for potential development are steps in the right direction. However, several challenges and areas for improvement remain:

Key Challenges and Recommendations:

1. Zoning Clarity and Predictability
   A lack of clear and consistent zoning plans for public lands often hampers their development potential. For private developers, this creates uncertainty and financial risk, as zoning conditions may change mid-project, leading to delays and cost overruns. To address this:
   • Clear zoning frameworks and development conditions should be established upfront for all properties.
   • Priority should be given to projects with significant upzoning potential and clearly defined density targets, making these projects financially viable and attractive to private developers.
2. Inter-Agency Coordination
   Many high-potential development sites are managed by federal agencies like Canada Post and the CRA. These agencies require transitional plans to maintain operations while housing developments proceed.
   • Collaboration across federal departments is essential to create actionable strategies that allow agencies to maintain core functions during and after the redevelopment process.
   • Solutions such as allocating space for ongoing agency operations within redeveloped properties should be integrated into development plans.
3. Financial Feasibility and Developer Incentives
   While rolling in land costs through leasing models is a positive step to lower development barriers, land cost is only one factor in the larger development equation. Construction costs, regulatory delays, and insufficient density allowances remain significant hurdles.
   • Governments must introduce transparent and streamlined permitting processes to reduce delays.
   • Incentives, such as grants or tax abatements, should be offered to private developers willing to include affordable housing or family-oriented units.
   • Collaboration with the private sector should focus on creating a balanced financial model, acknowledging developers’ economic realities to ensure scalability and sustainability.
4. Expanding the Scope of Public Land Development
   While the current registry lists some promising sites, expanding the scope of lands available for housing, especially underutilized urban properties like post offices, is critical. Proactively identifying more federal, provincial, and municipal properties for redevelopment will further boost the potential impact of the program.

What do you think is the biggest takeaway from your research for Canadians and the construction sector?

The key takeaway for the sector is that significant housing density can be added to existing Canadian cities without overburdening current infrastructure and public amenities. The most surprising finding was the immense housing potential: over 1 million people could be accommodated using just a small fraction of public land in major cities.

This highlights the urgent need for targeted policy measures to unlock these public lands for development, positioning them as a vital, untapped resource to address Canada’s housing crisis. Public lands, unlike private lands, face fewer challenges—particularly in terms of zoning—making them a more straightforward solution to a public issue like housing shortages.

For the construction industry, a major emerging focus will be on mixed-use, multifamily, and higher-density developments. Building more homes within existing urban centers, while optimizing the use of current infrastructure, will be a crucial strategy moving forward.

This research is a step in the right direction, demonstrating that solutions to Canada’s housing crisis are there and it underscores the critical role the government and the private construction sector will play in building these homes, providing much-needed housing for millions of Canadians