Canada is largely regarded as an urbanized nation. Its large, urban cities ─ such as Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal ─ conjure vivid images of gleaming cityscapes and bustling metropolises. However, the dynamic urban cores are home to only a minority of the population. In reality, over 80% of residents reside in the sprawling suburban rings surrounding the dense city cores. 

The suburban dream

These “edge cities” built along the fringes of urban cores were made possible by the widespread use of cars. A personal vehicle provides unparalleled efficiency: the ability to travel long distances with comfort and speed. Cities were planned around the car, resulting in the urban sprawl today. Rows of detached homes, open spaces, and winding streets embody the modern “suburban dream”. It’s no surprise that a majority of the population are drawn to the suburban lifestyle of comfort and convenience. 

But Canadians are awakening to a stark reality. Canada’s undersupplied housing market perpetuates high home prices that have persisted despite interest rate hikes from the BOC. Meanwhile, the climate crisis puts sprawling cities under scrutiny, questioning the sustainability of the suburban dream. Despite these challenges, demand for suburban housing is growing. Rising housing costs in urban cores, complemented by the shift to hybrid work-from-home models, have accelerated flight from large urban centres. 

The traditional measure of sprawl to accommodate suburban growth is approaching its limits. Automobile dependency not only poses environmental concerns, but as cities continue to expand, they will eventually reach a saturation point, producing a traffic gridlock. Additionally, low-density developments ─ notably suburbs ─ are more expensive to maintain. Municipalities must cover a plethora of costs including maintenance, infrastructure repairs, pipes, and roads, which accrue as a city expands ever outwards. As such, costs for new developments from the City of Edmonton to the Peel Region of Ontario to the Halifax Regional Municipality are often projected to exceed revenues. 

plans for densification

In response to these mounting issues, politicians and urban planners are promoting the “densification” of cities to combat the climate and affordability crises. At its core, densification involves adding infrastructure to existing suburban spaces, effectively accommodating more people per square acre. In the suburban context, densification implies a shift away from the traditional model of standalone homes in large lots in favour of multifamily dwellings and apartments. 

However, a fundamental challenge to densification remains overlooked: the profound influence of transportation technologies on urban development. Before the era of automobiles or alternative forms of transport beyond one’s two feet, cities were defined by dense development apt for walking. While later public transportation innovations allowed people to live further from their workplaces, the need for walking still persisted. Shopping and leisure activities were typically done on foot, thus businesses and homes were strategically built around transportation lines, necessitating density. The introduction of the car, however, revolutionized the cityscape by almost entirely eliminating the need for walking. 

Ironically, suburban car dependency defeats one of the fundamental purposes of densification: creating more walkable cities and incentivizing the use of public transport. When applied to car-dependent regions, densification encounters a paradox  ─ the very automobiles that had enabled sprawl now hinder policy goals for walkable developments. Case in point, a resident in the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) can reach 4.5 times as many jobs by car than by public transit in 30 minutes. It is only in concentrated urban cores where public transit reigns in efficiency, yet most CMAs in Canada are widely dispersed. Only 19% of employment is located in downtown Toronto, while the majority 81% of jobs are scattered outside the city core, and thus are far more accessible by car. Paradoxically, densification in such car-dependent locales often results in more congestion. 

transit-oriented development: the way forward?

The conundrum persists. Sprawl is inevitable, so long as cars remain the dominant mode of transportation. In a bid to address this challenge, governments are turning to transit-oriented development (TOD) policies, aiming to infuse sprawling locals with the functional elements of city cores. For example, Vancouver has developed several TOD projects over the past decade, connected by Translink, a city-wide public transport network. Recently, the Ontario government has announced six new transit-oriented communities, promoting dense developments in the form of “mixed-use communities that bring more housing, jobs, retail and commercial spaces close to transit.” 

The success of these initiatives lies not solely in achieving higher density but in coordinated, high-quality urban design. Building complete communities requires the harmonization of complementary services including schools, hospitals, libraries, and retailers. However, new development projects along the York Region subway line in Ontario are raising concerns among officials and neighbours over infrastructure limitations. Plans for 34 high-rise buildings, expected to bring in 80,000 new residents, may stress the capacity of schools, hospitals, and other essential infrastructure, potentially impacting the overall quality of life. 

compact cities: lessons from the netherlands

North American approaches to TOD often overlook the elements that contribute to improving quality of life in pursuit of the physical urban design features. This is demonstrated by a heavy focus on improving transportation infrastructure and constructing denser developments to meet policy objectives of enhanced mobility. 

Contrast this approach to the TOD efforts in the Netherlands, which places high emphasis on the integration of social, economic, and environmental components of urban planning. Dutch cities promote densification both in cities and around public transport stations, producing “compact cities” hailed as progressive and sustainable. For instance, the country’s oldest compact city, Nijmegen, features a car-free city centre, 60 kilometres of cycling "superhighways", fuel cell buses, and car-sharing schemes. 

What distinguishes the Netherlands is its prioritization of improving citizens’ quality of life by enhancements to the urban environment. This involves developing multi-modal transit hubs and reducing travel times between transit communities. As such, the social benefits that create such “communities” are the result of integrated physical, transportation, and economic planning. In contrast, many North American TOD projects place importance on developing a community, despite lacking necessary planning integration. 

This difference is especially notable in Ontario’s Transit Oriented Communities Program, where the emphasis lies on “constructing” communities around existing transit services. Recently, the Canadian Urban Transit Association released a report citing a mismatch between housing and transportation policies as they are typically planned separately, a further stressor to both the housing crisis and declining transit ridership.

challenges to come

Canada is entering an era of dense urban planning, where the traditional suburban dream meets the pressing realities of the modern day. Governments across all levels grapple with the housing crisis that calls for rapid construction, yet the conventional measures of sprawling development appear unsustainable. 

New urban development policies, at their core, center on providing places where individuals can live, work, and thrive without perpetual reliance on cars. With that come the challenges of balancing automobile dependency with TOD policies, all while striving to uphold the overall quality of life for citizens.