One of the benefits of older cities and neighbourhoods is that their scale and rhythm of development often allow for walkability and a wide variety of experiences in a short period of time (here's a related post). The typical characteristics include small lot sizes, diverse ownership, short city blocks, a mix of uses, and visual variety. And in planning speak, this is typically referred to as fine-grained urbanism.
Here's a random block example from Toronto that I'm choosing simply because I had a wonderful sourdough sandwich on this street over the weekend:
One of the benefits of older cities and neighbourhoods is that their scale and rhythm of development often allow for walkability and a wide variety of experiences in a short period of time (here's a related post). The typical characteristics include small lot sizes, diverse ownership, short city blocks, a mix of uses, and visual variety. And in planning speak, this is typically referred to as fine-grained urbanism.
Here's a random block example from Toronto that I'm choosing simply because I had a wonderful sourdough sandwich on this street over the weekend:
The longest lots in the middle of this block are over 45 metres deep and under 5 metres wide. The result is some very long and narrow buildings, but at the same time, a lot of storefront variety when you're walking along Dupont Street. It has the bones for a great retail street. The only problem is that, for the most part, we don't build our cities like this anymore. We do the opposite. We build bigger, which is conversely referred to as coarse-grained urbanism.
But since we know that fine-grained urbanism makes for better street experiences, it is common to try to impose it on new developments. Cities will say, "Hey, I know that you have a big, wide, shallow retail space on the ground floor of your building, but can you chop it up into smaller, fine-grained spaces such that they all become totally unleasable?" (I half kid. See here for some context.)
The result:
To be clear, I am in no way picking on this development. As a rule, I don't do that sort of thing on this blog. Development is hard. I also like it. I just think it's perhaps the clearest example of what all urban-minded planners and developers are trying in earnest to do, and that is to create coarse-grained urbanism masquerading as fine-grained urbanism. The architectural rhythm of the storefronts matches the existing context, but the scale of the retailers may not.
And that's okay. This is the reality of the world today, and modern retailers want what they want. I'm also a believer in the power of free markets. But to this same end, I want to point out something that is exceedingly obvious: the best way to create fine-grained urbanism is to simply encourage small-scale development!
Every hurdle we erect only increases the incentive for developers to build bigger and coarser. It becomes the only way to underwrite profitable projects. The solution is to lower the barriers to development and, in turn, make small more feasible. Because if we do that, we already know it'll make our cities better. I think we'll also find that the market will respond with a different category of tenants and entrepreneurs.
Tomorrow, we'll talk about the specific ways in which Toronto and other cities could execute on this better.
This past weekend, the Brazilian-Japanese coffee house, The Coffee, soft-opened at the base of Junction House (right at the corner of Dundas St W and Watkinson Ave). And it was busy! I've been eagerly awaiting this opening since it was first announced last year.
But not for any direct economic reasons — unless, of course, it reminds you that you should buy a new home at Junction House! As I mentioned before, we (the developers) no longer own this retail space. This is not our tenant.
I'm mostly excited as a proud resident of the Junction, and because I think it's a perfect fit for the building and the neighourhood. So, I would encourage you to check it out at 2720 Dundas St W. Starting today, any coffee meetings I take in the Junction will be held here.
This week, Statistics Canada reported that, for the first time in over 70 years, the country's population declined. Current estimates indicate a decline of around 102,000 people last year, leaving a total of 41,472,081 people in the country as of January 1, 2026.
Opinions on this are mixed. On the one hand, a declining population can help improve things like housing affordability and increase GDP per capita (total wealth becomes divided by fewer people). It can also help improve productivity by forcing a country to innovate in lieu of relying on physical labor.
But at the same time, there are consequences to a declining population. It can result in economic stagnation and it can topple the equilibrium of pension plans. Not enough young people paying into the system. Fewer savers. Fewer spenders. Fewer innovators.
It can also reduce the soft and hard powers of a country. According to the IMF: "...some historians attribute France’s 1871 defeat in the Franco-Prussian War to the low fertility and slow rate of population growth that stemmed from early and widespread use of contraception among married couples in France."
My own simplistic view is that growth is good. We want Canadians having babies and we want the absolute best and brightest and most ambitious from around the world clamouring to come here to innovate, start companies, and grow the total economy.
The good news is this continues to be our plan.
The leading factor in Canada's current population decline is fewer non-permanent residents. That is, temporary foreign workers, a great number of whom are/were international students. As many of you know, this policy is in response to a demographic shock that the country experienced between 2022 and 2024 that, among other things, lowered productivity levels.
Dramatically reduce the number of temporary residents (international students and low-skill temporary workers). Again, this specific policy is largely responsible for the current population correction.
Stabilize permanent immigration to 380,000 people per year from 2026 to 2028 (under 1% of the population).
Admit most permanent immigrants under the "economic" classification. The target is 64% of all permanent residents by 2027. This is a class of applicants who are scored based on age (younger is better), education (smarter is better), language proficiency, and relevant work experience, with the goal of having them immediately contribute to the Canadian economy.
Target 12% Francophone permanent resident admissions outside of Quebec by 2029. (As a self-proclaimed Francophile/Quebecophile and proponent of bilingualism, I laud this effort.)
What all of this should mean is that by the end of 2026, we are expected to "burn off" the wave of temporary residents leaving the country and, by 2027, we should return to steady and manageable population growth. This is one of the reasons why I believe that 2026-2027 will be a turning point for many of our housing markets, and hopefully the start of our next economic cycle.
The longest lots in the middle of this block are over 45 metres deep and under 5 metres wide. The result is some very long and narrow buildings, but at the same time, a lot of storefront variety when you're walking along Dupont Street. It has the bones for a great retail street. The only problem is that, for the most part, we don't build our cities like this anymore. We do the opposite. We build bigger, which is conversely referred to as coarse-grained urbanism.
But since we know that fine-grained urbanism makes for better street experiences, it is common to try to impose it on new developments. Cities will say, "Hey, I know that you have a big, wide, shallow retail space on the ground floor of your building, but can you chop it up into smaller, fine-grained spaces such that they all become totally unleasable?" (I half kid. See here for some context.)
The result:
To be clear, I am in no way picking on this development. As a rule, I don't do that sort of thing on this blog. Development is hard. I also like it. I just think it's perhaps the clearest example of what all urban-minded planners and developers are trying in earnest to do, and that is to create coarse-grained urbanism masquerading as fine-grained urbanism. The architectural rhythm of the storefronts matches the existing context, but the scale of the retailers may not.
And that's okay. This is the reality of the world today, and modern retailers want what they want. I'm also a believer in the power of free markets. But to this same end, I want to point out something that is exceedingly obvious: the best way to create fine-grained urbanism is to simply encourage small-scale development!
Every hurdle we erect only increases the incentive for developers to build bigger and coarser. It becomes the only way to underwrite profitable projects. The solution is to lower the barriers to development and, in turn, make small more feasible. Because if we do that, we already know it'll make our cities better. I think we'll also find that the market will respond with a different category of tenants and entrepreneurs.
Tomorrow, we'll talk about the specific ways in which Toronto and other cities could execute on this better.
This past weekend, the Brazilian-Japanese coffee house, The Coffee, soft-opened at the base of Junction House (right at the corner of Dundas St W and Watkinson Ave). And it was busy! I've been eagerly awaiting this opening since it was first announced last year.
But not for any direct economic reasons — unless, of course, it reminds you that you should buy a new home at Junction House! As I mentioned before, we (the developers) no longer own this retail space. This is not our tenant.
I'm mostly excited as a proud resident of the Junction, and because I think it's a perfect fit for the building and the neighourhood. So, I would encourage you to check it out at 2720 Dundas St W. Starting today, any coffee meetings I take in the Junction will be held here.
This week, Statistics Canada reported that, for the first time in over 70 years, the country's population declined. Current estimates indicate a decline of around 102,000 people last year, leaving a total of 41,472,081 people in the country as of January 1, 2026.
Opinions on this are mixed. On the one hand, a declining population can help improve things like housing affordability and increase GDP per capita (total wealth becomes divided by fewer people). It can also help improve productivity by forcing a country to innovate in lieu of relying on physical labor.
But at the same time, there are consequences to a declining population. It can result in economic stagnation and it can topple the equilibrium of pension plans. Not enough young people paying into the system. Fewer savers. Fewer spenders. Fewer innovators.
It can also reduce the soft and hard powers of a country. According to the IMF: "...some historians attribute France’s 1871 defeat in the Franco-Prussian War to the low fertility and slow rate of population growth that stemmed from early and widespread use of contraception among married couples in France."
My own simplistic view is that growth is good. We want Canadians having babies and we want the absolute best and brightest and most ambitious from around the world clamouring to come here to innovate, start companies, and grow the total economy.
The good news is this continues to be our plan.
The leading factor in Canada's current population decline is fewer non-permanent residents. That is, temporary foreign workers, a great number of whom are/were international students. As many of you know, this policy is in response to a demographic shock that the country experienced between 2022 and 2024 that, among other things, lowered productivity levels.
Dramatically reduce the number of temporary residents (international students and low-skill temporary workers). Again, this specific policy is largely responsible for the current population correction.
Stabilize permanent immigration to 380,000 people per year from 2026 to 2028 (under 1% of the population).
Admit most permanent immigrants under the "economic" classification. The target is 64% of all permanent residents by 2027. This is a class of applicants who are scored based on age (younger is better), education (smarter is better), language proficiency, and relevant work experience, with the goal of having them immediately contribute to the Canadian economy.
Target 12% Francophone permanent resident admissions outside of Quebec by 2029. (As a self-proclaimed Francophile/Quebecophile and proponent of bilingualism, I laud this effort.)
What all of this should mean is that by the end of 2026, we are expected to "burn off" the wave of temporary residents leaving the country and, by 2027, we should return to steady and manageable population growth. This is one of the reasons why I believe that 2026-2027 will be a turning point for many of our housing markets, and hopefully the start of our next economic cycle.
