Alex Bozikovic of the Globe and Mail wrote an excellent piece talking about what I wrote about last week in Old Toronto, and then the rest. Here are some of the zingers:

And Mayor Olivia Chow? She barely spoke. She ultimately supported the compromise, but she declined to stand up for a bolder vision. For a mayor elected with a mandate to address housing and equity, that silence was striking.

Meanwhile, the opposition – led by suburban councillors – offered little beyond incoherent panic. “We are risking suburban alienation,” said Parthi Kandavel of Scarborough Southwest, as though allowing modest apartment buildings might rupture the civic fabric. “A one-size-fits-all approach does not fit the bill.”

For Mr. Kandavel, as for a thousand politicians before him, one-size-fits-all is fine as long as that “one size” gives the loudest homeowners exactly what they want – and preserves economic segregation by keeping tenants away from where they don’t belong.

He goes on:

In Mr. Kandavel’s ward, at least 52 per cent of residents lived in apartments as of 2021. Nearly half are renters. To speak as if tenants are invaders is to insult the very people he represents.

If the federal government decides to withhold that $60-million, it would be entirely justified. A city that won’t allow a sixplex – a building the size of a large house – is not serious about housing, about urbanism, or about its own future.

Cover photo by Julian Gentile on Unsplash

Here's a new opinion piece from the Globe and Mail talking about the importance of "early wins" when it comes to building better cities. And whoever wrote it is right.

One of the examples that is given is New York's congestion pricing program. We've talked a lot about this initiative since the beginning of the year, and one of its important features is that it pretty much started working immediately.

Travel times, in some cases, dropped by as much as 48% and, in the first two months of its operation, it brought in over $100 million of new revenue for the city. Less congestion and more money. That's what congestion pricing does.

Because of this, support for the program has risen. In December 2024, which is before the pricing went into effect, some polls suggested that around 51% of New Yorkers were opposed to the charge.

But by March 2025, more New York City residents seemed to support the program than oppose it. And again, this is almost certainly because its positive effects were felt right away.

City building doesn't always work this quickly. Many or most things take too long. But finding ways to post early wins is good practice. It also provides a quick feedback loop just in case things need to be changed.

Cover photo by Murat Onder on Unsplash

I live in a condominium. I find it extremely desirable. I don't yearn to live anywhere else. And I think of it as my home. But there is of course truth to this Globe and Mail article:

Canadians, by and large, continue to think of condos and apartments as housing, not homes. That’s hardly surprising given the way Canada builds them: small units in tall towers clustered in downtown cores or near busy transit hubs. They’re the one- and two-bedrooms young people rent in their 20s (and, increasingly, their 30s). The starter homes. The initial landing spot for newcomers. But they are not desirable homes for two large swaths of the population. Young families need multiple bedrooms and proximity to parks and schools. Retirees looking to downsize often say they want to remain in the same neighbourhood. A dearth of higher-density homes for these two groups has dire consequences for cities.

The problem is twofold.

Our land use policies are too restrictive, though that is slowing starting to change for the better. And it is simply not economically feasible to build larger, family-sized apartments at any sort of meaningful scale. This is not a developer unwillingness problem, it is a math problem.

Toronto, for instance, would be far better off if we had European-scaled apartment buildings all across the city and a lot more family-friendly housing. I believe this to be true at least. But in order to achieve this, we need to get serious. This is not serious.

We need to dramatically reduce development charges and other government fees. We need to get rid of the site plan control process for smaller buildings. We need to remove required amenity areas (the city is the amenity for small-scale neighborhood apartments). And the list goes on.

So if anyone in government is reading this and is truly serious about building more affordable housing in this country, please give me a call. I will gladly come into your office and run you through a development pro forma so that you can see what it's going to take. We can fix housing.