I tweeted this out yesterday:

What I was getting at is that there's lots of available room within our existing boundaries for infill housing. We are nowhere near full, despite what some people will tell you. In fact, most areas are not dense enough to properly support modes of transport that aren't the car.

Of course, there are a number of ways that one could be offended by a statement like this.

One, you could argue that more density would make the city unlivable. Two, you could get into the chicken-and-egg game of whether a more expansive transit system is needed before allowing more density. Three, you could say that we already have enough zoned and unbuilt housing supply -- so why do we need more? And I'm sure that there are many others that I'm not mentioning here.

Density can be a counterintuitive feature for cities. It can actually make a place more livable by encouraging more amenities adjacent to where people live and work, and it can also reduce traffic congestion by empowering alternative forms of mobility. If the only reasonable way to get around is by car, then of course most people will drive.

We also need to avoid the chicken-and-egg mental trap when it comes to mobility infrastructure. Land use and transportation always work hand in hand and need to be thought of and executed on simultaneously.

Finally, the objection of already having lots of sites zoned for new housing is an enticing one. But zoned and delivered are two vastly different things. And the unfortunate reality is that there are a lot of zoned sites that won't be able to develop in the short and medium terms because the market isn't there. But that doesn't mean that other housing typologies couldn't be built.

At the same time, we need move away from "cruise ships of urbanity." Broadly speaking, Paris -- to cite just one of many examples-- is at least and on average about 4x denser than Toronto. And somehow, people still like living and visiting there.

I tweeted this out yesterday:

What I was getting at is that there's lots of available room within our existing boundaries for infill housing. We are nowhere near full, despite what some people will tell you. In fact, most areas are not dense enough to properly support modes of transport that aren't the car.

Of course, there are a number of ways that one could be offended by a statement like this.

One, you could argue that more density would make the city unlivable. Two, you could get into the chicken-and-egg game of whether a more expansive transit system is needed before allowing more density. Three, you could say that we already have enough zoned and unbuilt housing supply -- so why do we need more? And I'm sure that there are many others that I'm not mentioning here.

Density can be a counterintuitive feature for cities. It can actually make a place more livable by encouraging more amenities adjacent to where people live and work, and it can also reduce traffic congestion by empowering alternative forms of mobility. If the only reasonable way to get around is by car, then of course most people will drive.

We also need to avoid the chicken-and-egg mental trap when it comes to mobility infrastructure. Land use and transportation always work hand in hand and need to be thought of and executed on simultaneously.

Finally, the objection of already having lots of sites zoned for new housing is an enticing one. But zoned and delivered are two vastly different things. And the unfortunate reality is that there are a lot of zoned sites that won't be able to develop in the short and medium terms because the market isn't there. But that doesn't mean that other housing typologies couldn't be built.

At the same time, we need move away from "cruise ships of urbanity." Broadly speaking, Paris -- to cite just one of many examples-- is at least and on average about 4x denser than Toronto. And somehow, people still like living and visiting there.