The Canadian housing market is facing unprecedented challenges, primarily driven by limited housing supply, rising property costs, and population growth concentrated in urban centers. As housing affordability continues to decline, alternative housing models have gained traction as potential solutions to alleviate pressure on the traditional housing market. The urgency for these solutions is reinforced by high demand and limited land availability, particularly in major metropolitan areas where housing prices remain unaffordable for many.1

In response to evolving housing demands, Canadian homeowners are exploring innovative housing solutions that offer affordability, flexibility, and efficient use of space. This report, developed in the context of the Housing-Supply Challenge, synthesizes qualitative insights into the adoption barriers and drivers for housing innovations. Key insights highlight the complex interplay of individual, systemic, and social factors influencing homeowners’ willingness to adopt these innovations.

This study also sought to identify potential communication strategies and incentives to promote these solutions based on insights into homeowners’ concerns and aspirations.

Methodology

The study focuses on Canadian homeowners across diverse demographic segments and locations. We interviewed homeowners from urban, suburban, and rural regions regarding the following key forms of housing innovations (KFOHIs): 

We employed a qualitative approach, centering our research on semi-structured interviews with 56 homeowners to uncover in-depth insights into the drivers and barriers of housing innovation adoption. This approach allowed for exploring personal experiences, motivations, and perceived risks related to housing innovations. We invited participants from diverse backgrounds, with representation across various geographic locations, urbanicity levels, ethnicities, and socioeconomic groups.  While the findings in this report provide a glimpse into homeowner sentiment across Canada, they are not intended to represent the views of all Canadian homeowners. We conducted a follow-up survey with a broader sample to validate these hypotheses, with findings to be published in a subsequent report. 

We interviewed 56 participants from various provinces across Canada, representing four distinct groups: single-family homeowners, prospecting single-family homeowners (those considering significant property changes like ADUs or multiplex conversions in the near future), owners of other property types (e.g., townhomes, condos), and non-homeowners or renters. Participants were predominantly from Ontario (38%), British Columbia (18%), and the Prairies (14%). The sample included urban (48%), suburban (43%), and rural (9%) residents.

Regarding ethnicity, participants identified as White (41%), Indigenous (18%), Chinese (11%), South Asian (7%), Black (5%), Latin American (5%), Southeast Asian (5%), Filipino (4%), and West Asian (2%). Among the Indigenous participants, 11% were First Nations, and 6% were Métis. Immigrant representation was notable, with 30% of participants being immigrants to Canada and another 30% having all grandparents born outside of Canada. Income levels were also diverse: 16% of participants earned less than $40,000, 51% earned between $40,000 and $120,000, and 33% earned over $120,000.

The collected data was analyzed thematically, identifying common patterns and key themes across responses. Responses were categorized to distinguish insights by homeowner demographics, geographic location, and familiarity with housing innovations. Thematic coding helped surface critical barriers and drivers and facilitate targeted recommendations.

As housing affordability continues to be a critical issue across Canada, homeowners and prospective buyers are looking for innovative solutions to address these challenges. In this section, we present the diverse perspectives of urban, rural, and Indigenous homeowners and non-home homeowners on the potential of various housing innovations like ADUs, modular homes, and multiplex conversions. These perspectives reveal the opportunities and barriers to adopting new housing solutions shaped by financial constraints, regulatory hurdles, cultural values, and regional preferences. Ultimately, this section highlights the need for tailored approaches that consider different homeowner groups' unique needs and concerns, focusing on affordability, community impact, and long-term sustainability.

Homeowner Perceptions Amid Economic Uncertainty

Canadian homeowners are increasingly impacted by rising housing costs and economic uncertainty. Many express concern over the financial strain of housing, whether due to higher mortgage rates, inflated property values, or increased living expenses. For those considering housing innovations, affordability remains crucial; solutions like ADUs or modular and prefabricated homes are seen as potential options for supplementary income or lower-cost construction. However, skepticism persists around long-term affordability, especially with initial costs and perceived durability in modular and prefabricated housing. 

In addition, homeowners express doubts regarding modular and prefabricated housing in terms of lower durability and lack of aesthetic appeal. There is a common perception that these constructions may diminish property values, especially in communities with more traditional architecture. For those considering these options, clarity around long-term benefits, such as energy savings and quality guarantees from reputable builders, could enhance their appeal. Targeted messaging that addresses these concerns, including examples of modular homes in established neighborhoods, may shift perspectives and help homeowners see the economic and functional advantages of these housing innovations.

Rural VS Urban Perspectives on Housing Innovations

Urban and rural homeowners show contrasting views on housing innovations. Urban homeowners tend to be more familiar with ADUs and multiplex conversions as these align with denser, city-oriented housing needs. Conversely, rural residents are often more resistant to density-increasing innovations due to lifestyle preferences of wanting more space and the perceived impact on their environment. Moving to rural areas appeals to some urban residents for affordability and a slower pace of life. Still, it is tempered by concerns over isolation, limited access to essential amenities like medical facilities, grocery stores, public transportation, and recreational options, which are critical barriers for many considering relocation to rural areas.

For those in rural areas, financial and lifestyle factors strongly drive interest in staying on larger plots or relocating to less expensive, less densely populated areas. However, practical barriers such as limited access to amenities, lack of employment opportunities, and limited public transit influence their decisions about investing in property upgrades or pursuing alternative housing solutions. 

Indigenous Perspectives on Housing Innovations

For the indigenous homeowners we interviewed (18%), family and community are central considerations when evaluating housing solutions. Due to recruitment issues, these participants do not live in the Territories. For them, innovations like ADUs and modular homes are particularly appealing as they provide flexible options to accommodate multigenerational living, aligning with the cultural emphasis on family cohesion and support networks. Modular and prefabricated homes also tend to be seen as accessible and practical solutions, offering an affordable path to homeownership.

Indigenous participants highlighted the importance of community-centered decision-making and expressed a preference for receiving housing information from nonprofit organizations and community associations. They tend to value collaboration with local leaders and community organizations, emphasizing the need for housing initiatives to be developed with direct input from Indigenous communities. This inclusive approach respects their needs and preferences for more significant alignment and trust building. 

To effectively promote housing innovations among Indigenous communities, stakeholders should prioritize culturally sensitive engagement that involves meaningful consultation and honors traditional knowledge and practices. Tailoring messaging to emphasize lifestyle benefits, such as support for multigenerational living through innovations like ADUs and multiplex conversions, can resonate with this population. The top driver for adopting these innovations is the need to accommodate family members, as a participant noted:

“[On ADUs] I think it would be really useful, not only for once people's kids grow up, to have more privacy for their lives, but also, to have your older family members still be on the property, and having those extra supports for families that have younger ones, as well. I like when families are a bit closer.” - Indigenous non-homeowner

Future Expectations for the Housing Market

Interviewed homeowners anticipate continued affordability challenges in the housing market for the foreseeable future. They view innovations as essential in addressing housing shortages and promoting affordability, with particular interest in options that are quick to construct, such as prefabricated and modular housing. Still, there is a general sense of cautious optimism, as homeowners express doubt that innovations alone will alleviate affordability issues without regulatory reform and supportive financial incentives. Some interviewed homeowners believe that local governments should play a more active role in simplifying building approvals and providing subsidies, particularly for middle-income households​.

When asked unprompted about potential solutions to address the Canadian housing crisis, homeowners highlighted key features they believe are critical to maximizing housing availability compared to traditional single-family homes: increasing density, providing affordable housing options, and prioritizing efficient, quick-build home construction.

Densification was a prominent theme among respondents, who frequently mentioned structures like high-rise condominiums and multiplexes as efficient ways to increase the number of housing units available compared to traditional single-family homes. In this context, densification refers to the strategy of increasing the housing capacity in existing urban areas by building more units on the same amount of land.

"Everything stems from supply and demand. So, first and foremost, we need more supply. We need more housing stock… We don't necessarily need more 4000 square foot McMansions on every street. But if every street could have like one or two duplexes instead of just detached homes, that would help." — urban non-homeowner

Affordable housing is another critical component in the conversation around the housing crisis. For homeowners, providing low-cost and subsidized housing options, such as supportive housing, can ensure that everyone has access to living environments that they can afford, sustain, and feel safe in. Expanding affordable housing can also ultimately help tackle the issue of homelessness within communities.

Homeowners also find quick-build homes through industrialized techniques like modular and prefabricated homes to be promising in increasing housing inventory, as these techniques could significantly streamline the construction process.

Beyond these tangible solutions, homeowners also recognize the importance of regulatory changes in alleviating the housing supply shortage. They advocate for easing zoning restrictions to simplify the approval processes, since they perceive  restrictive local regulations as a significant barrier to constructing new housing types, especially ADUs and multiplex conversions. Participants suggest incentives for builders or even residents willing to relocate to less dense areas as a strategy to optimize land use. Additionally, there is interest in exploring the adaptive reuse of existing spaces as a sustainable alternative to new construction.

Furthermore, some homeowners believe that shifting perceptions around urban living and rethinking traditional homeownership paradigms are essential to addressing the housing crisis. Specifically, participants suggest moving away from idealizing single-family homes as the default housing type and embracing a broader range of housing options, including living in ADUs and multiplexes. They mention that if communities can overcome resistance, often reflected in Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) attitudes they will be more open to diverse housing forms for more efficient land use and greater affordability. They believe this would not only better align with modern economic realities but also accommodate diverse family structures, income levels, and lifestyle preferences. Such a shift could enable communities to support innovative housing solutions that address both the affordability crisis and the evolving needs of their communities.

“[On the traditional mindset of the neighborhood] I just think times have changed. Like we’ve... I don’t think some of these people have probably never lived in an apartment or in a small unit or shared spaces with people before. And they don’t understand that you know, you can’t live in places with houses anymore, really, just in these small towns. Unless you’re like super wealthy.” – suburban homeowner

“I don't like condos because I feel it's better to own the land... But I've been thinking a lot about building an additional unit, like converting the shed or the basement. I think people are starting to realize that a single-family home isn’t always realistic, especially with how expensive everything is. You need to consider other options, like adding units or building something separate, because it’s just not affordable otherwise.”  – urban homeowner

“[On housing density mixing] We don’t have a lot of mixing. Whereas in some other more densely populated areas of the world, which have a lot more affordable housing than Canada, they generally have mixed use... We need to push people in a social way towards urbanization and more dense living rather than incentivizing people to move farther out into the suburbs and create more dispersed living.” – urban renter 

In general, there is a positive perception of the key forms of housing innovations as viable solutions to the housing crisis, with the exception of affordable housing. Although widely recognized as essential, the term “affordable housing” is often associated with frustration due to the supply shortage in Canada, with some expressing a sense of hopelessness and stating that achieving affordable housing seems unrealistic and impossible.

"I don't think it's there. I think the housing market has just got so ridiculous. There's really no such thing as affordable housing for anyone who wants to buy a house." – rural homeowner

While homeowners are generally aware of these housing innovations, most tend to be unfamiliar with the concept of community bonds. This lack of knowledge often leads to a neutral or indifferent perception, as many homeowners hesitate to form an opinion without a clear understanding of how these investments work or the potential benefits they could offer. On the other hand, while the majority of homeowners claim to be aware of ADUs, their awareness is generally prompted by inference or by more recognizable terms like laneway or yard house, granny flat, in-law suite, or carriage house.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)

ADUs are a strategic way to support evolving family needs and increase property value, but perceived regulatory and financial barriers continue to limit their widespread adoption.

ADUs are positively perceived by homeowners who see them as a dual benefit: maximizing their property’s potential to generate financial gains while supporting housing needs. Renting out these units can provide them with a consistent income stream that can even cover mortgage payments while preserving their privacy due to the independent nature of ADUs. More than that, they believe that it can be a wise long-term investment as the resale value of their property is highly likely to increase with the addition of an ADU.

"An ADU might make the property value go up because a lot of time when people are buying, they're looking for investment properties. And if I've already done the groundwork for them, it'll be a lot more attractive." -urban homeowner

Beyond these potential financial benefits, ADUs are also perceived as a solution to support evolving family needs. For some homeowners, the reluctance to become landlords is tied to concerns about having additional responsibilities and challenges with renting out an ADU. They express hesitation over tasks like tenant vetting, handling maintenance, and managing landlord-tenant relationships, which they view as time-consuming and potentially stressful. Furthermore, they worry about issues with privacy and conflicts living near renters. Depending on their living situation, participants can perceive ADUs as a way to gain more privacy, if they imagine them for family members; or they can perceive it as a barrier, if they’re intended to the general housing market. Therefore, there is a preference for ADUs as flexible living spaces for family members, such as aging parents or adult children, rather than rental properties.  

Ultimately, decisions on pursuing a major project such as an ADU come from cost and budget considerations. Homeowners express that they would seriously consider ADU construction if they receive government incentives or financing opportunities such as loans with good payment schemes, family contributions, sufficient savings, or if their financial situation improves. 

Middle Housing and Multiplexes

Middle housing meets the need for flexible, multigenerational living and gentler density, but high upfront investment, shared space concerns, perceived operational challenges, and perceived regulatory barriers limit broader adoption.

In this section, we first present the perspectives of homeowners considering or currently owning single-family homes and their views on converting these into middle housing. Following this, we share insights from prospective homeowners and renters on their interest in living in middle housing units. This distinction is crucial, as the motivations, concerns, and barriers differ significantly between those planning to convert their properties and those considering middle housing as a rental option.

Barriers to converting Single-Family Homes into Middle Housing

Homeowners identified several key challenges in converting their properties into middle housing:

The substantial initial investment required for conversion is a significant concern. Homeowners worry about the time needed to recoup costs through rental income, with rising raw material prices exacerbating these financial pressures. Additionally, some fear that conversion could disrupt existing mortgage agreements and complicate their finances further.

Participants perceive navigating local zoning laws and securing permits as another significant obstacle. In many municipalities, the approval process for multiplex conversions is perceived as lengthy and complex, with some areas outright prohibiting such changes. This perceived regulatory complexity deters homeowners from pursuing conversions.

Transforming a single-family home into a multiplex is seen as resource-intensive and challenging. Homeowners must consider design adjustments, manage contracting work, add necessary amenities, and ensure privacy and comfort for all occupants.  For many, even the prospect of taking on landlord responsibilities adds another set of challenges they feel unprepared to handle.

“Raw materials, the cost of it just went up the last three, four years. It just skyrocketed… that would be the number one decision point, like how much it would cost us, and we'd have to weigh that against how long it would take to recoup that investment.” – urban homeowner

Furthermore, homeowners worry that converting their homes may reduce their appeal to future buyers who prefer traditional single-family homes. Additionally, potential opposition from neighbors over increased density, changes in neighborhood aesthetics, and parking issues create further hesitation.

Barriers to  living in converted multiplexes among non-homeowners

Meanwhile, for interviewed renters, middle housing offers a more accessible option. Still, several barriers impact its appeal around living conditions, quality of living, and affordability. Many non-homeowners are concerned about sharing living spaces with others in a multiplex. They worry about noise, limited privacy, and possibly clashing lifestyles with neighbors or property owners. These deter them from choosing multiplex housing because they believe these factors can compromise their sense of freedom and comfort.

Furthermore, converted multiplexes, especially those modified through DIY efforts, are sometimes perceived as lower quality since those structures were not originally designed as multiplexes. Participants are worried that these might have cramped spaces, inadequate sound insulation, and insufficient climate control. In addition, some non-homeowners feel that the rent for converted multiplexes does not match the value they receive, as additional expenses like heating, water, and maintenance make some multiplex units financially impractical for renters who expect more space or better amenities for the price. 

I do see a lot of YouTube videos where people are just taking down their wall and putting random walls in the basement to make it a multiplex. And you never really know how well things are done when people do it from scratch in their own home, but when a construction company does it, then they probably have to follow all these certain guidelines. . – suburban non-homeowner

Key Drivers of Appeal

Despite the challenges, several factors make middle housing conversions appealing for homeowners. One of the most significant motivators is the potential financial gain from rental income, which can help offset mortgage payments and provide a steady source of revenue. Additionally, converting single-family homes into multiplex units can significantly increase property value, making them attractive assets for potential buyers and investors. Access to reliable builders and contractors is another important driver, as it ensures a smoother, higher-quality conversion process and reduces concerns about delays and construction issues. For many families, middle housing offers a practical solution to accommodate evolving needs, particularly multigenerational living, by providing separate yet connected living spaces for aging parents or adult children. In areas with lenient zoning requirements, the conversion process becomes more straightforward, making it easier for homeowners to pursue these projects. Finally, as middle housing conversions become more common in some communities, the process is increasingly normalized, helping to mitigate potential opposition from neighbors concerned about changes in density or neighborhood aesthetics.

I think it's a really interesting layout… It must be nice. You have more freedom and more space than you would like in a normal apartment or condo, but you're still not taking up as much land as a lot of other single housings…  – urban non-homeowner

"For our specific area, I actually think it would be a net gain. If we were to convert fully, like I say, we're about 50-50 renters versus owners in this area. I think a lot of people buying in this area, that would be a selling point is easy convertibility or already converted... it would probably add to the value of the house." -suburban homeowner

On the other hand, for non-homeowners, middle housing presents an attractive alternative to single-family homes, primarily due to its relative affordability. With lower costs compared to standalone houses, middle housing offers a more accessible option for many non-homeowners looking to buy or currently renting single-family homes. Beyond financial considerations, non-homeowners are drawn to the sense of community and the increased opportunities for social interaction that come with living in multiplex units, as these settings foster closer connections with neighbors. Additionally, there is a perceived sense of freedom for residents of multiplexes, who feel they have more control over their living space compared to traditional apartment complexes. Social proof plays a vital role in shaping perceptions; positive testimonials from current and former residents of converted multiplexes help demonstrate the viability of this housing option and reduce uncertainty for prospective renters.

Modular and Prefabricated Housing

Modular and prefab housing offer faster construction and affordability, yet homeowners are skeptical of its quality, durability, and lack of design flexibility, which may prevent wider appeal.

Interviewed homeowners generally perceive modular and prefabricated housing positively and often use the terms interchangeably. While some envision modular homes as traditional apartment buildings, others associate this innovation with alternative structures such as tiny homes, trailer homes, and shipping container homes.

The efficiency and speed of construction are highly appealing, allowing people to move into the homes sooner than when constructing traditional builds. This speed is also critical given the urgency of housing availability to combat the housing crisis.

Compared to ADUs and multiplex conversions that face adoption barriers related to individual circumstances, the adoption of modular and prefabricated homes is limited by challenges tied to the innovation itself, including concerns about the construction process and perceived quality.

“My only real concern would be threading that needle between being economical versus having sufficient quality. Because if I were to do it, I want to keep the cost down, but I don't want to feel like we're cutting corners and putting up something really slapdash or whatever that's going to turn into a headache later on." – urban homeowner

Perceived low durability and safety are the most significant barriers to adopting modular and prefab construction among homeowners who are familiar with this construction method. They also perceive that this approach is less established in a way they are unsure if builders have widely adopted it or if it meets the same quality standards as traditional construction. On the other hand, those who are less aware of prefab construction consider higher durability and quality as key drivers for adoption. The credibility of the manufacturer and assurance of robust inspection activities act as critical moderating factors. We learned from some developers that prefab and modular products are of very high quality since they are manufactured to withstand transportation to the actual site. This disconnect presents an opportunity to address homeowners' negative preconceptions, especially among participants who are familiar with the terms, but skeptical about the quality. In contrast, the participants who were introduced to these concepts for the first time, showed a more open-minded response, suggesting that improved communication about the quality and durability of these methods could shift perceptions.

Customization and uniqueness are important to homebuyers, as negative perceptions often arise from the fear of homes looking too similar. Conversely, positive views emerge when options allow for variation in design. One participant shared their experience, highlighting the importance of individualization to meet unique needs:

“We're building an accessible house because my wife has a disability. So that was very important that we wanted to make sure that it was completely accessible.
We just wanted to take that extra step and make sure that we are designing it to meet all of her needs now and potentially into the future.” – rural homeowner

Supportive Housing

Supportive housing addresses the critical needs of vulnerable populations. However, concerns about safety, sustainability, and community integration challenge its broader acceptance.

Most interviewed participants (around 70%) were generally familiar with supportive housing, associating this innovation with subsidized housing for low-income individuals and housing for people with disabilities or special needs. They tended to recognize supportive housing’s role in providing essential support to populations facing housing instability, such as those experiencing homelessness or individuals who need assistance due to health conditions. Participants value supportive housing in enabling self-sufficiency for individuals by providing access to necessary social and health services. However, their perception seemed to be conditional on the transparency around the selection criteria for potential residents, expectations for interactions with them, and details surrounding the provided support services. They believe this information would ease some concerns about integrating supportive housing into their neighborhoods.

“I feel positively, including in my own community, because I'm happy those people are getting what they need. They're probably contributing to society in their own way. It seems like a non-confrontational or non-offensive way for people to live.” – rural homeowner

“We're in desperate need of that.
We've got a lot of encampments and things like that in town. So we need to have a venue where we can appropriately transition people out of the kind of the homelessness situation that they may find themselves in… ” – rural non-homeowner

Several considerations impact community acceptance and scalability of supportive housing programs. Security-related opposition from neighbors is a prominent issue, particularly in cases with an “accept-all” policy for residents, which some participants worry could lead to safety issues. Furthermore, there is hesitation due to the high costs related to building and operating supportive housing, which poses risks to the overall sustainability of its operation.

“These other buildings you see where you have these kinds of people facing homelessness, substance use disorders or mentally health issues, then there's no support on site. The buildings just get run down and destroyed. And really nobody gets into a better position. Sure, you have a roof over your head, but like, it just kind of enables you to continue what you're doing in a safer way, I guess.” –suburban homeowner

In improving community acceptance and addressing the barriers to implementing supportive housing programs, innovators need to demonstrate that high-quality and sustainable on-site support can help reassure residents and neighbors. Additionally, partnerships involving local non-profit organizations to provide management can positively influence public perception of these projects. Such collaborations can also help address risks related to providing consistent support services.

Community Bonds

Community bonds offer a promising way to fund local housing initiatives, but the generally low levels of awareness about how they work and skepticism about financial returns hinder their uptake.

Community bonds represent an innovative financial tool offered to individuals interested in investing in local housing projects. However, more awareness about their purpose and return model is key. The lack of understanding among participants contributes to a generally neutral perception of their potential impact on addressing the housing supply shortage. Awareness of community bonds is also relatively low, especially among middle- and lower-income homeowners. Meanwhile, the high-income individuals we interviewed were more likely to recognize community bonds. 

While many participants hold a neutral view toward community bonds, those who understand the concept see their potential benefits. They identified the opportunity to directly contribute to improving their communities as a major driver and believe that this innovation is a socially responsible way to raise capital for housing initiatives. Participants also noted that this allows them to see tangible impacts from their investments.

“I would see this as being in line with looking at alternative ways of raising capital that are more societally and environmentally friendly. And I would see community bonds potentially as a way of doing that.” – urban homeowner

Meanwhile, with ongoing financial pressures from rising living costs, many homeowners prioritize immediate needs over longer-term investments, reducing their capacity to invest in community bonds. Some participants view community bonds as offering minimal financial returns, making them less appealing to profit-driven investors who prefer higher-yield options. Moreover, some participants were concerned about the perceived vulnerability of community bonds to mismanagement, which could result in financial losses for investors and the community at large.

“It sounds very vulnerable to somebody using that system and just maybe creating a huge amount of debt without having a clear plan on how to pay it back, and then they move away or they pass it on to someone else. ” -- suburban homeowner

To enhance the attractiveness of community bonds, targeted educational campaigns and community engagement programs could help raise awareness and address misconceptions. Emphasizing the alignment with local initiatives and the tangible impact on neighborhood projects may also help foster a stronger sense of community ownership and participation.

In today’s information-rich landscape, homeowners rely on several channels to learn about housing innovations. From online searches and social media discussions to word-of-mouth referrals and in-person site visits, homeowners actively seek credible sources to provide reliable, comprehensive insights. However, the effectiveness of these communication efforts depends heavily on the perceived credibility of the source and the transparency of the information shared.

The Internet is the dominant source of housing information for homeowners

Homeowners gather information about housing innovations from various sources, with the Internet being the dominant channel across all groups. Most commonly, homeowners search online using Google, explore dedicated websites, and read news articles online. Social media platforms and online forums, particularly Reddit, also play a significant role in shaping awareness of new housing solutions. However, not all online sources are perceived as equally trustworthy; some homeowners express skepticism towards information from social media and certain websites. 

Homeowners also rely heavily on word-of-mouth, leveraging their social networks. If they want to learn more about a housing innovation, they would consult friends, family, colleagues, and neighbors, especially those with firsthand experience (e.g, living or building an ADU). Aside from gauging consensus from their circle, they also obtain referrals for realtors, contractors, or other relevant contacts who can assist them in their housing journey.

Another way homeowners seek information about housing innovations is through site visits. They visit showrooms and attend property viewings and physical demonstrations. Participants also observe or tour neighborhoods, taking note of housing structures they encounter. These firsthand experiences allow them to make sense of the housing innovation tangibly.

Finally, traditional media also influence homeowners’ understanding of housing solutions. Real estate TV shows have been raising awareness about housing trends. While less widespread, print media such as newspapers, flyers, brochures, and posters can still inform people about potential housing innovations.

The credibility of housing information stems from verification, source reputation, and public opinion.

Trust in a communication channel is dependent on the ability to verify information. Reliance on a single source of information is generally avoided. Homeowners outline information verification strategies that they apply after receiving initial housing information:

• Personally conducting further research
• Comparing multiple and diverse sources
• Seeking input and confirmation from family and friends

However, there are several sources that homeowners find to be credible due to their reputation. They tend to trust housing information from government experts or professionals in the housing industry. Lack of financial motivation from organizations also drives trust; homeowners find non-profit organizations, federally funded organizations, and community housing organizations to be credible sources of information.

There is a general distrust of social media platforms, which we discuss further in the next section. However, Reddit appears to be an exception for homeowners. Its community-driven model emphasizes anecdotal, non-commercial content, and its upvoting-downvoting system ensures that valuable content rises to the top. 

Some audiovisual channels such as YouTube long-format videos and podcasts are also trustworthy housing information sources due to the perceived depth of research and journalism that creators invest in the subject matter before publication. YouTube, in particular, also offers visual demonstrations, which are ideal for showcasing housing innovations in action.

Meanwhile, homeowners generally distrust social media and entities with vested financial interests.

Homeowners tend to be cautious about housing information from social media, primarily due to the sheer volume of content with the prevalence of misinformation, scams, and biased reviews resulting from a lack of regulation. Facebook and Instagram are prime examples, often criticized for their superficial and non-nuanced discussions, emphasis on visual content over in-depth analysis, and unreliability of some user-generated posts. Homeowners also express distrust of online housing marketplaces such as Marketplace, Craigslist, and Kijiji due to misleading listings, scams, and safety concerns.

Homeowners are also wary of information from sources they perceive to have ulterior motives, such as profit-driven private companies, political channels, and certain news publications. Sources that produce commercial content, such as real estate firms or social media influencers who engage in sponsored content creation, are also viewed with distrust due to concerns about potential biases and conflicts of interest.

Comprehensive and transparent information, visuals, and testimonials are key to driving homeowners’ consideration of housing innovations.

People would be most receptive to information about housing innovations when key information is present. This information pertains to pricing, benefits, and risks of the housing innovation, the process and time taken to build it, its marketability, and the location and contact details of the manufacturer or construction company.

Interviewed homeowners, especially in rural areas, are particularly receptive to messages that highlight the financial benefits and cost savings of a housing innovation to them. Common questions prospective homeowners and renters may ask about housing innovations include:

• Is the housing solution more affordable than traditional builds? How much will be the potential savings?
• Are there government incentives or rebates that they will have access to to offset costs if they decide to pursue this housing solution?
• Will the housing solution help them save up on utilities, energy bills, and other maintenance expenses?
• Will there be freebies or additional perks, such as free consultation, free estimates, etc.?

Additional factors that people take into consideration in their decision to adopt the housing innovations that should be addressed in the messaging include:

• The housing solution's regulatory compliance
• The environmental footprint of the housing innovation
• Transparency about the developer or builder of the housing solution, including organizational structure, expertise, and company finances
• Available support in the required paperwork

Finally, social proof can be a powerful tool for promoting housing innovations, as many people indicated they would be more receptive if they saw or read testimonials from others who have successfully adopted these solutions.

This report provides insights into Canadian homeowners' attitudes toward adopting key forms of housing innovations. Our research found that while awareness of densification solutions like ADUs and middle housing is relatively high, homeowners show limited familiarity with newer financial tools such as community bonds and hold misconceptions about the quality and durability of modular construction methods. Addressing these gaps in understanding will be essential for broader adoption. While financial constraints, perceived regulatory hurdles, and concerns about construction quality remain significant barriers, homeowners demonstrated a clear interest in solutions that enhance affordability, offer multigenerational flexibility, and provide potential financial returns.

Key Insights by Innovation

1. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): Homeowners value ADUs for the potential rental income and multigenerational living benefits. However, perceived restrictive local regulations and concerns about landlord responsibilities hinder broader adoption. Privacy can be perceived as a barrier, if homeowners think of ADUs as an investment to rent out, or as a driver if they intend to use it to accommodate family members. 
2. Modular and Prefabricated Homes: The appeal of speed and efficiency in construction is counterbalanced by skepticism about quality and customization options. To address these concerns, targeted educational campaigns should emphasize quality assurances and the long-term benefits, such as energy savings and reduced maintenance costs. Helping them see and experience these homes can help address misconceptions.  
3. Middle Housing: Homeowners see middle housing conversion as a solution for flexible, multigenerational living. However, high upfront investment and regulatory challenges limit its adoption. Policy advocacy for streamlined approval processes and financial incentives could facilitate conversions and boost market interest. Some participants highlighted the need to change the narrative of the ideal home, usually aligned with single-family homes, and in this narrative, middle housing is perceived as a compromise. National and local communication efforts to showcase how Middle can align with people’s dreams and expectations can help drive its adoption.     
4. Community Bonds: Awareness of community bonds is low, particularly among low and middle-income interviewed homeowners. Enhancing visibility and understanding of this financial tool through community engagement initiatives can help build trust and demonstrate the tangible local impacts of investments.

Importance of Communication Strategies

Throughout the report, we highlight the opportunities for effective communication strategies to promote these innovations. Homeowners rely heavily on credible sources and visual information when considering new housing solutions. Educational campaigns should leverage trusted channels, such as community organizations and industry experts, and use testimonials and visual aids to build trust and reduce uncertainties. Emphasizing financial benefits, regulatory compliance, and environmental advantages will be key in addressing homeowner concerns.