How to win the housing density debate

Globe and Mail

27-06-2025

When making the argument for more housing in cities, advocates and politicians should consider why the federal carbon fuel charge failed.
Climate change is a real and pressing issue. But rather than make it clear that sacrifice would be needed, Ottawa chose to pretend that reducing carbon emissions would be painless. It would have been more effective to acknowledge that no solution to climate change would be pain-free, but then make a convincing case that any other approach would hurt more.
To put it crassly, appeal to people's self-interest.
A similar approach can be applied to the urgent debate over how cities should grow.
Focusing on the need for housing because it will make cities more affordable, while a noble goal, can be too abstract a way to overcome entrenched resistance. Instead, cities should acknowledge that neighbourhoods will change, and not everyone will like the result. But the cost of inaction is worse: real estate costs rising so high they strangle what makes cities attractive to their residents.
Again, appeal to self-interest if that's what it takes to convince people.
Editorial: The slow crawl of cities on housing reform
People are attracted to cities for their economic opportunities and cultural appeal. But there aren't many ways cities can accommodate a growing population: a small number of tall towers, expanding forever into the countryside or adding a large number of buildings that are a bit bigger than traditional houses.
Relying on tall buildings to house people puts far too much development in a handful of sites while sprawl requires long commutes and destroys the countryside. Widespread mid-scale development can be the Goldilocks option.
But there is a long-standing hostility to density in English-speaking Canada. 'Townhouses today, slums tomorrow' is a sentiment that upset residents will give voice to in planning meetings. That hostility underpinned the sad failure of Toronto city council this week, which abandoned a plan for a citywide authorization of multiplexes of six units.
Obviously, politicians and planners need to listen respectfully to resident concerns – and then explain how more people improves both neighbourhoods and cities. Focus on the good of density instead of spending political capital reassuring residents that more homes won't change their area.
Because those neighbourhoods will change. They have to. But at the same time, it's easy to make the case that cities can't be great without allowing enough density.
Museums and art galleries need to draw from a deep pool of people to find enough patrons, and generous donors. Schools need engaged families and bustling classrooms. Local retailers need potential shoppers within walking distance, as this space has argued before. And successful restaurants need to attract both customers and quality employees.
CMHC gives up on comparing housing affordability to 2004 levels
Which brings us to the second point. Without more homes, where are restaurant and other service staff going to live? What about huge numbers of other low-level workers who make cities function? And don't forget the artists and musicians who keep urban life interesting.
Consider also the middle-income people already being priced out of cities. A recent report from the Toronto-area think tank Civic Action found that essential workers in health care, education and the trades were struggling to afford homes. If none of this sways existing homeowners, remind them of their own offspring. Surely, they want them living closely enough to visit easily?
Housing more people in the same area is also, frankly, cheaper. Less road and sewer is required for each home. Transit and garbage collection are more efficiently provided. The cost of library services is spread among more people.
In sum, greater density allows more of the vibrancy and amenities that urban dwellers want – with less of the taxes and long commutes they don't.
In the case of housing, there's a strong case to made that less expensive homes will bring tangible and noticeable benefits even for those who won't live in them. The Toronto city politicians who supported increased density failed to make that case aggressively enough – a warning sign for other city councils.
This space does not need to be convinced by pro-housing arguments. But not everyone agrees that cities must change. If advocates can't make that case, politicians with different priorities will carry the day, as Toronto just found out.