So:

Urbanism is failing in Canada, and a two-decade-long effort to reduce sprawl through policies such as urban growth boundaries has caused sprawl to accelerate due to the leapfrogging effect, in which development is pushed out to smaller communities without transit, leaving middle-class workers facing long daily commutes back to the metros where their jobs are located.

Indeed, the data show that net migration out of Canada's largest metro areas is particularly strong among those early in their careers (late-20s to mid-30s). In the words of Mike Moffatt from the Missing Middle Initiative, "Canadians are choosing affordability over density."

This statement highlights the inherent tension between dense, walkable communities and car-oriented sprawl. The former may be nice, better for the environment, and advantageous for agglomeration economies, but the kind of built form that comes along with it tends to be fundamentally more expensive to build.

Now, we can get into a debate about transportation costs, environmental costs, and how people tend to discount the value of their time relative to direct costs, but regardless, it is clear that affordability is dictating where people move.

So Moffatt is not wrong in stating that the communities that we urbanists often like to celebrate as "success stories" are, in fact, the ones that many young people are leaving. And in my view, this highlights a missing success criterion. Great design and urbanism are all well and good but, how attainable is the resulting housing?

The most promising solution right now appears to be happening on the multiplex front. It's the most cost-effective way to build multi-unit homes, and I think our goal should be to apply this same general approach — as-of-right, cost-effective builds — to larger and larger housing typologies.

If we can unlock the same market enthusiasm for six-storey wood-framed builds, then I think we'll really be on to something.

Cover photo by Craig Cook on Unsplash

Chart from the Missing Middle Initiative