The Globe and Mail just published this article about Canada's real estate markets. It's behind a paywall, but if you're able to access it, you'll find 10 housing charts. The first is called "Winners and losers," and what it shows is the percentage change in CREA's home price index since February 2022 — which, in hindsight, was the top of the market. (I don't know what the end date is for this data, though.)

The first thing you'll see is that, very broadly, there's Southern Ontario and Greater Vancouver, and then the rest of Canada. Prices have fallen materially in Canada's most expensive markets, whereas in cities like Calgary, Saskatoon, and Moncton, nominal home prices are up by double-digit percentages. There isn't just one Canadian market.

The other thing I found interesting is the title "Winners and losers," because it reminded me of the great paradox of modern housing policy. And by this I mean: which cities are winning and which are losing? If you already own a home, then winning is positive price appreciation. But if you don't already own a home and you'd like to in the future, well then, falling home prices is winning — they've just become more affordable.

Not surprisingly, it's hard solving for two opposing kinds of winning.

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