Over the years, we've spoken a lot about the benefits of cities permitting small-scale commercial uses in residential neighborhoods.
They increase overall urban vibrancy. They promote local consumption (reducing the need for people to do things like drive). And they can help reduce the barriers to entry for small businesses. These spaces tend to be more cost-effective and, in some cases, like here and here, they are spaces that the homeowner already owns.
But there are some important objections to consider. Perhaps the most common one is this: What happens if my neighbor opens a 24-hour taco stand next door? I'm fairly confident that I could single-handedly keep a taco stand in business if it opened up next to me — what an amenity — but I get the concern. It's a legitimate one.
In this part of the world, we have typically responded to this concern by restricting uses. We have thrown the baby out with the bathwater by saying, "Nope, restaurants aren't allowed, because there's a chance it could be a 24-hour taco stand and that might annoy people."
But there are alternatives.
Japan's land-use approach, for example, is (1) generally focused on what you can do (versus what you can't do) and (2) organized around intensity and nuisance. I've never developed in Japan and I don't know the exact nuances of their policy framework, but directionally I think it's an interesting way to moderate this land-use consideration.
An accountant who wants to hang a shingle is different from a coffee shop that's only open from 8am to 3pm (and doesn't have a commercial kitchen), and a coffee shop is different from Peggy Gou DJ'ing next door at an all-night taco bar. But they are all non-residential uses, and that makes them illegal in many/most residential neighborhoods.
Thinking in terms of an intensity gradient is one way to create more mixed-use communities, while at the same time respecting the local context.
Reece Martin tells it like it is in his recent post called, "Toronto: Congestion Isn't Going Away."
If we want people to feel less congested, they are going to have to get out of cars — and sadly sometimes onto crowded transit, but at least on transit we have a fighting chance of building the capacity so that congestion isn’t totally unbearable. The differential between the demand to use roads and the actual road space is so large that no matter what we do in the foreseeable future, the roads will always be busy, and even if we made it so that the auto fleet in the region barely grew at all (not going to happen), congestion would still be getting worse.
It's a perfect follow-up to my recent post about trains. And it's the reality we all need to accept if we are truly serious about managing congestion. It's time for some tough love, and for solutions over politics.
Development fees have ZERO impact on what a typical buyer is willing to spend on a home.
They only impact the price a builder needs to sell at to make a profit.
Urbanation just released its Q3-2025 condominium market survey results for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. Last quarter, a total of 319 new condominium apartments were sold across the entire region. This is the lowest quarterly total since Q3-1990 and is 92% below the latest 10-year average for Q3 periods. It also places us on track for the worst sales year in about three and a half decades. But this isn't news to anyone in the industry. And I'll remind you all that, in my view, now is the time for contrarianism, not conformity.
Here's something I found interesting in the data, though, and it ties into the above quote tweet. The average prices for unsold condominiums in Q3 were as follows:
$1,315 psf for unsold pre-construction suites (i.e. projects in the pre-sale period)
$1,199 psf for unsold developer-owned suites (i.e. remaining inventory in built projects)
$867 psf for resales in recently completed buildings
Why do you think there's this gradient? The answer is that these are condominiums of different vintages and, therefore, of different cost structures. Developers generally price projects on a cost-plus basis — meaning if development charges go up (see above tweet), then developers have no choice but to raise home prices to cover their costs. And if the market isn't there at these new higher prices, well then too bad for developers. We don't get to build. The floor is the floor.
In economic terms, what is happening right now is that the marginal cost of producing new condominium homes exceeds the marginal benefit to home buyers (i.e. costs are greater than what the market is willing to pay for new condominium homes). And for this to change, one or both of the following adjustments will need to occur. The cost of building will need to come down and/or the price buyers are willing to pay for new homes will need to go up. Until then, Urbanation will continue to publish gnarly market updates.
But while the market works to find a new equilibrium, I do think it's disingenuous to try and detach the cost of building new homes from end-user prices (which is what the above quote tweet seems to do). Increasing the marginal cost of a good forces prices to rise. In turn, the quantity demanded falls because fewer people can afford it. And if the demand curve also shifts to the left, which is what happened starting in 2022, then the quantity demanded can even approach zero (see second chart).
Pretending we can heavily tax housing and not pay the price doesn’t help anyone looking for more affordable options.