Developers are working hard to find ways to deliver affordability in a market where it is increasingly difficult to make the numbers work. In some cases, the ambition is not just to lower prices at the margins, but to reach price points below $500,000.

That forces a more practical question: if affordability is the goal, what exactly can be adjusted, reduced, simplified or reconsidered, and how will the market respond?

This article looks at those questions one by one through the lens of the buyer. On one hand, there are compromises buyers may be prepared to make in exchange for a lower price. On the other, there are ideas the market may resist simply because the advantages have not been clearly communicated.

In some cases, what looks like a sacrifice may also come with real benefits, provided buyers understand the trade-off.

Not all of the approaches discussed here are ones I personally support. The point is not to endorse every cost-cutting move, but to examine the major factors that drive cost and ask what could be done differently, what each change would mean in practice, and where buyers may be more flexible than the industry assumes.

1. Typology: How much are buyers willing to move away from stair-heavy townhouses?

One place to start is with typology. Back-to-back townhouses and stacked townhouses are used as the “affordable” answer in ground-oriented housing, but they come with real drawbacks.

They can still be expensive to build, they often rely on awkward layouts and they ask households to accept a great deal of vertical living. In many cases, daily life means moving up and down multiple levels, which is not ideal for families with young children, for older buyers, or for anyone simply carrying groceries, strollers, laundry, or the routines of everyday life.

This makes the low-rise apartment worth revisiting. A well-designed flat in a low-rise building can offer a very different kind of value: simpler living, better accessibility, easier supervision of children, and less space lost to stairs and circulation.

From a buyer’s point of view, that can be a meaningful trade if the home is well planned and priced accordingly. From a development point of view, it also raises the question of whether some of today’s “attainable” townhouse products are actually the most sensible solution, or simply the most familiar one.

There is also a regulatory angle. In Canada, national code bodies are actively evaluating requirements for single-egress multiresidential buildings, and the code committee mandate now explicitly includes recommending requirements for single-egress residential buildings under Part 3 of the National Building Code, subject to approval. That could make low-rise apartment forms more feasible in the future.

The challenge is not only technical. It is also cultural.

In many markets, there is still a bias against apartment living at the low-rise scale, even when the product may be more practical than a townhouse full of stairs. That is where market education becomes important.

A flat is not necessarily a compromise in the negative sense (in my personal opinion, it’s exactly the opposite). For many households, it may actually be the better home. The real question is whether the market is ready to see it that way.

2. Size and bedroom count: How much smaller can homes get before buyers push back?

Another obvious affordability lever is size. The market has already been moving in this direction for years, in both urban and suburban settings. Smaller homes are now widely accepted as part of the affordability equation.

But the real question is not simply how much size can be reduced, it is how much can be reduced without undermining livability.

A smaller home can still work very well if it is efficient and well planned. Good proportions, useful storage, proper furniture placement, and a layout that makes sense can do a great deal of work. In that context, reducing square footage may be a compromise buyers are prepared to make.

The more difficult question is bedroom count. Buyers may accept somewhat smaller rooms or a more compact overall unit, but they are likely to be less flexible about losing a bedroom altogether.

For many households, especially families, the number of bedrooms still defines whether a home is viable in the first place. That makes this a more sensitive trade-off than size alone.

This is also where the conversation becomes tricky.

Reducing size should not become an excuse to reduce quality. The market has already seen too many compact units where the compromise is not just on area, but on the quality of the living environment, like bedrooms without windows, natural light and ventilation. That is a different issue, and should not be folded into the affordability argument.

The real challenge is whether the industry can deliver smaller homes that still feel complete, functional and worth choosing.

3. Parking: Are buyers willing to give up parking at the door for a meaningfully lower price?

If there is one affordability lever that should be at the centre of the conversation, it is parking. Yet the market still struggles to move beyond the assumption every home should come with parking attached directly to the unit. That expectation carries a high cost.

Parking at each home is expensive. It shapes the layout and limits how compact and efficient a plan can become. In low-rise housing especially, direct unit parking tends to widen the product, add hard costs and reduce the ability to create narrower, more efficient homes. Buyers may not fully understand how much of the price they pay is tied to that one assumption.

That is what makes centralized edge parking worth examining. If parking is grouped rather than attached to every unit, the project can open up different possibilities. Homes can become more compact, site planning can become more flexible. The product itself can become less burdened by the space and cost required to accommodate the car at the front door.

In principle, that should create a clearer path to lower prices.

The question, again, is how the market would respond. For some buyers, giving up parking at the door may feel like too much. For others, the trade may be entirely reasonable if the savings are visible and significant.

That is where market education has a role. If buyers could clearly see what this choice saves them, and if the alternative is still convenient and functional, parking may be one of the clearest areas where a real affordability trade-off is possible.

The bigger issue is that parking continues to be treated as an unquestioned feature, even when it may be one of the most expensive habits built into the homes we buy. If affordability is the goal, this is one of the first places worth testing.

4. Servicing: How far is the market willing to go to reduce infrastructure cost?

Servicing is probably one of the more extreme affordability questions, but I have seen projects reduce costs significantly by offering low, or no services. It also shortens timelines by avoiding the need to wait for full municipal servicing of a greenfield site.

That is what makes this issue worth examining. Infrastructure is expensive, and is treated as fixed. But the way a site is serviced, the extent of that servicing, and the timing can have a major effect on cost. If some of those assumptions are reconsidered, the savings can be substantial.

From a buyer’s perspective, however, this is likely to feel less intuitive than a conversation about size or parking. It is not as visible, and it may raise concerns about quality, permanence, or whether the home feels incomplete.

That is why this is also a market confidence question. Even where the approach is proven, buyers may need reassurance a different servicing model is not a lesser product, simply a less expensive one.

This is also one of the few affordability levers that can affect both cost and timing at once. If a project can move ahead without waiting for the full servicing burden to be carried upfront by the municipality, that can change the equation considerably. The question is whether the market is prepared to accept that kind of trade-off, and under what conditions.

5. Finishes: Would buyers accept doing more of the home themselves if the savings were meaningful?

When the industry talks about finishes as an affordability lever, the assumption is the choice is between premium finishes and cheaper ones. But there is a much broader question. In some cases, the affordability move is not simply to downgrade finishes, but to leave part of the home unfinished and allow the buyer to complete it over time.

This is not a new idea. Variations of ‘sweat equity’ used to be far more common. In different markets, buyers have accepted homes delivered as partial shells, or with some elements intentionally left for later completion. That approach can save a considerable amount of money upfront, and for some households it may still be worth considering.

The challenge is this trade-off lands differently today than it may have in the past.

Many buyers don't have the time, skills, tools, or confidence to take on that kind of work. Even where the savings are real, the unfinished condition may feel less like an opportunity and more like a burden. For some buyers, that will be a hard no.

Still, it's worth asking whether the market has become too quick to dismiss this approach altogether. There may be buyers who would prefer a lower entry price and the ability to complete certain parts of the home gradually, on their own timeline, rather than pay for everything upfront. The question is not whether this should become the norm, but whether there is more room for this model than the market currently assumes.

6. Land lease: Will buyers accept owning the home, but not the land beneath it?

Land lease is one of the more interesting affordability questions because it goes straight to one of the biggest cost components in housing: land itself.

The basic idea is simple. Instead of buying both the home and the land, the buyer purchases the home and pays an ongoing fee to lease the land. That can bring the upfront purchase price down in a meaningful way and open the door to ownership for buyers who might otherwise be priced out.

From an affordability point of view, the logic is hard to ignore. If a significant portion of the cost of a new home is tied to land, then separating that portion from the initial purchase should be part of the conversation.

This model is not new.

Variations of leasehold ownership have long been common in the U.K., but the history there also shows why buyers can be cautious. In 2026, the U.K. government was actively consulting on moving away from leasehold for new flats while also reforming the system for existing leaseholders, a sign the tenure model can create real long-term concerns around control, fees and lease terms as they run down.

This is not a simple affordability win. It may reduce a barrier to entry, but it also changes what ownership means.

For some buyers, that trade may be entirely reasonable, especially if the lower entry price is significant and clearly understood. For others, the idea of paying for land every month while not owning it may feel like a step too far.

Still, land lease deserves a place in the affordability discussion. Not because it is a universal answer, but because it raises this question: if land is such a large part of what makes ownership difficult, should separating it from the home itself be taken more seriously as part of the solution?

In the end, affordability is a question of trade-offs. 

Some will feel acceptable to buyers, some will not, and some may depend on how clearly the value is communicated.

The point is not to assume the market will accept every compromise, but to look closer at the major cost drivers in housing and ask where there may be more room to rethink the product than we tend to assume.