$44.2 billion
In resident social value.
Case Study | Housing & Real Estate
$48.3 Billion in Social Value from the GTHA's Strongest Public Housing Pathway
How SVT measured the social value of five GTHA public housing pathways - person by person - showing who gains and who is most at risk.
At a Glance
Client
GTHA Community Housing Collaborative
Year
2026
Services
Social value assessment; scenario comparison; distributional analysis
Sector
Housing & Real Estate
The Challenge
The GTHA public housing system serves about 160,000 residents across roughly 80,000 units and more than 600 developments. Facing a deep renewal backlog, the GTHA Community Housing Collaborative and its funding partners needed to know whether to preserve and expand the system or allow it to deteriorate over the next quarter-century. They needed evidence that compared investment pathways not on cost alone, but on what each would mean for residents, communities, public systems, and the regional economy.
The Approach
SVT modelled five investment pathways over 2026 to 2050, from reduced funding to combined renewal and new construction. For each pathway it tracked how residents' wellbeing changed - housing condition, health, family stability - person by person, and compared each pathway with what would likely have happened anyway. Social value was measured across many topics in one connected model, alongside downstream effects on healthcare, justice, and homelessness. The approach showed who gains and who is most at risk, not just regional averages.
The Results
The strongest pathway - combining renewal with new construction - generated about $48.3 billion in cumulative social value over 2026 to 2050.
$4.2 billion
In wider community social value.
$1.80 per $1
In public-and-social value returned for every $1 of capital invested.
The same pathway housed about 239,500 people. In contrast, the reduced-funding pathway produced a negative cumulative social value of about -$8.8 billion, with 139 building closures and about 13,322 lost units.
Benefits were not evenly shared: growth pathways widened access for younger households and families, while renewal protected those already housed from poor conditions. Lower investment concentrated the harm among the most exposed residents.
The GTHA Community Housing Collaborative used the comparison to make the case for the combined renewal-and-construction pathway with funders and government partners, showing the social value at stake and who would be most exposed under reduced funding.
Key Takeaway
This engagement demonstrates that public housing decisions can be judged by their effect on residents' lives, measured person by person - producing evidence that shows decision-makers not just the cost of a pathway, but who it protects and who it leaves exposed.
Related
Who We Help: Real Estate & Infrastructure
How SVT quantifies asset-level social value for occupants and communities.
Learn more →Who We Help: Government & Policy
How SVT evaluates public programmes and infrastructure investments.
Learn more →What Makes Us Different
Why single-system, person-level modelling matters for public housing decisions.
Read more →Facing a Similar Challenge?
Start a conversation. We will tell you what evidence is possible.
Start a ConversationExternally reviewed methodology, developed over 20+ years400+ engagements (CANCEA, 2002-2026)Featured in the ICPM Social Infrastructure Blueprint (2026)