On the exact same day last week, the Toronto Star published two articles about housing. The first one, this one here, is about how "Toronto has protected huge parts of the city from anything denser than detached or semi-detached houses" and how this has resulted in an "uneven city." The second article, this opinion piece, is about the "many repercussions to replacing little bungalows." And one of the implied repercussions is that 3-storey sun blockers that invade privacy might actually kill people. Hmm.

In effect, these are the two sides of this debate. If you zoom out and look at Toronto, you will largely see a contrasting and uneven city of tall buildings and low-rise housing. Instead of building like Paris, which is consistently mid-rise -- but also far denser on average than Toronto -- we have chosen peaks and large plains to constrain new housing. And if you zoom in across those plains, you'll find many areas without sidewalks, along with people, such as the author of the second article above, who believe that nothing more than a single storey is appropriate for human health.

All of this has persisted because it has been politically popular. But time continues to show us that it actually runs counter to our goals of building an inclusive and globally competitive city region. Thankfully, it feels like we are finally reaching a tipping point.

Photo by Jackson Case on Unsplash

Maybe it's confirmation bias, but I continue to feel like there is a groundswell of interest in trying to improve housing supply and overall affordability. The YIMBY movement continues to gain steam. Here are are few excerpts from a recent M. Nolan Gray article where he calls for an end to zoning as we know it today:

In nearly every major U.S. city, apartments are banned in at least 70 percent of residential areas. San Jose prohibits apartments in 94 percent of its residential areas. The most a developer can build in these zones is a detached single-family home.

The results speak for themselves. Houston builds housing at 14 times the rate of peers like San Jose. And it isn’t just sprawl: In 2019, Houston built roughly the same number of apartments as Los Angeles, despite being half its size. Since reforms to minimum-lot-size rules were put in place in 1998, more than 25,000 townhouses have been built, overwhelmingly in existing urban areas.

To be clear, Houston has made its share of planning mistakes. But, free of zoning, the city can constantly remake itself. That Houston is now one of the most affordable and diverse cities in the country is no accident.

The relationship between housing affordability and constraints on development is a well-documented one. If you want more affordable housing, you generally want fewer, rather than more, constraints on delivering new housing.

But as I was reading through the article, I couldn't help but think more specifically about the relationship between sprawl and affordability. Because it is also true that, for a variety of reasons, the former has tended to help the latter (or at least coincide with it), which is why Gray felt it was important to say "and it isn't just sprawl" when talking about Houston.

Part of this relationship has to do with the fact that expansionist development tends to be of the low-rise stick-built varietal, which is a relatively cost effective way to build. Whereas the higher density infill stuff tends to be built using more expensive materials like reinforced concrete. But of course there are many other factors at play, including lower land costs.

So I think one really interesting question is this one here: To what extent could we break this relationship between sprawl and affordability with what Gray is advocating for? In other words, how cheap could we make new infill housing in our older cities if we were to greatly loosen zoning controls or possibly even remove them all together?

I don't know the exact answer, but I know that directionally it would be better.

Living in a low-density place with lots of greenery and open space can feel like a pretty "green" way to live. Maybe you've even got a little garden where you grow delicious tomatoes. And indeed, a lot of people seem to think this is the case. According to this recent YouGov poll (which surveyed 1,000 Americans), 75% of US adult citizens believe that "it's better for the environment if houses are built farther apart." The number drops slightly to 68% for Democrats, but we're still talking about a clear majority.

Most experts will tell you that the opposite is, in fact, true. One of the best ways to be green is to live in a high-density urban setting and get as far away as you can from the natural environment so that you don't screw it up. There are multiple reasons for this, but it generally comes down to the fact that cities use land and other resources far more efficiently on a per capita basis. Smaller living spaces, fewer cars, more things that are shared, and so on.

The reason why this isn't so obvious is that per capita thinking is perhaps harder to grasp. Living in the countryside certainly feels more green than living in the middle of New York City. But what if the 8.5 million or so people in New York City suddenly decided to sprawl outward into the countryside to consume more housing (that would then need to be heated and cooled), and then started driving everywhere (in lieu of taking transit, cycling, and walking)?

This would be a less green outcome. It's about the collective here, not what feels nice and green for any one individual.