Old Toronto Must Grow to Relieve the Suburbs
Eric Lombardi
Background & Motivation
Toronto has begun to loosen its restrictive zoning. In 2023, City Council legalized multiplexes across the city, allowing 3.5-storey buildings on residential lots and recently, up to six units in the nine core wards1. For the first time in decades, the “yellowbelt” of detached-house zoning was breached. This was an important symbolic shift — a recognition that Toronto cannot grow on towers and sprawl alone. But it is only a start.
The problem is that 3.5 storeys is not enough to make redevelopment viable on expensive inner-city land. In neighbourhoods where houses sell for millions, tearing down and rebuilding for three or four units cannot cover the cost of land and construction. Most properties can only fit a triplex or fourplex under the new rules, and the economics simply do not work. That means the very neighbourhoods that have actually lost population since 1970 — Toronto’s pre-war inner suburbs — will continue to see little change, even after citywide reform.
Instead, growth continues to funnel into a handful of places: towers downtown, high-rise clusters at major transit nodes like Yonge–Eglinton and North York Centre, and redeveloped industrial sites such as Liberty Village and the Distillery District. This lopsided model leaves most of Old Toronto’s inner neighbourhoods frozen in time, while piling all new housing into very tall buildings on a few sites. The result is a city of extremes: you must be wealthy to own a house, or else live in a tower, with very little in between.
This imbalance has broader consequences. Post-war suburbs in North York, Scarborough, and Etobicoke have been asked to absorb towers in settings that were never designed for them. Beyond Toronto, 905 municipalities face pressure to intensify rapidly, even as their residents see Old Toronto resisting change. Many view it as hypocritical: the core demands density in the suburbs while doing little to urbanize itself. Until Toronto’s inner neighbourhoods take on more residents, growth will continue to be pushed onto places less suited to handle it.
These inner neighbourhoods are also Canada’s most productive places. Old Toronto generates more economic output per square kilometre than anywhere else in the country, yet its population has been shrinking for decades. Allowing more families to live closer to jobs, universities, and cultural institutions would strengthen the city’s role as Canada’s growth engine. By urbanizing the core, Toronto can shorten commutes, expand the labour pool available to employers, and unlock the full productivity potential of the region’s economic heart.
That is why policy must be deliberate. A universal 3.5-storey permission will not shift the geography of growth on its own. To truly rebalance, Toronto must open its pre-war inner suburbs — roughly within Eglinton, Keele, and Victoria Park — to six-storey urbanization by default. At this scale, redevelopment becomes viable, creating space for meaningful numbers of new homes in the very neighbourhoods with the strongest infrastructure and transit.
But zoning alone is not enough. The Ontario Building Code2 imposes tower-style standards on mid-rise projects, making them unnecessarily expensive. Requiring two stairwells in a six-storey building wastes space on narrow lots. Mandating large North American-standard elevators adds hundreds of thousands of dollars to costs, even where smaller European models would suffice. By creating targeted exemptions — allowing single-egress stairwells up to six storeys and smaller, European-standard elevators — the province and city can unlock the viability fine-grain apartments Toronto needs most and are common in the world’s most beautiful urban neighbourhoods.
Cities that we admire today did not arrive at their urban form by accident — they made deliberate choices to urbanize. In the 19th century, Paris undertook Haussmann’s boulevards3, remaking low-rise medieval streets into the mid-rise apartments that now define the city’s character. Vienna chose to expand along its Ringstrasse4 with dense, human-scaled housing that remains affordable and livable today. Montreal, closer to home, built its identity around multiplexes5 and walk-up apartments woven through every neighbourhood, creating a steady base of middle-class housing. In each case, city leaders recognized that leaving core neighbourhoods frozen would mean exclusion and stagnation. By consciously opening them to urban growth, they created the foundations for vibrant, inclusive cities.
And change will be gradual. Even with permissions, redevelopment happens lot by lot, at the pace of the market. A generation from now, Old Toronto’s neighbourhoods will still look familiar: tree-lined streets, brick facades, a mix of houses and apartments. But they will house more families, fill more underpopulated schools, and make better use of the streetcars and subways that already serve them. The alternative is to preserve exclusivity in the core, overburden post-war suburbs, and force the 905 into urbanization it’s neighbourhoods were never designed for.
Toronto has a choice: continue a model of towers and sprawl, or deliberately urbanize its pre-war core. Six-storey apartments, supported by modernized building codes, offer the middle path — fairer, more sustainable, and more true to Toronto’s urban identity.
Real-World Solutions
Paris – Mid-rise as the city’s backbone.
In the 19th century, Paris made a deliberate choice to urbanize. Haussmann’s reforms6 replaced low-rise medieval blocks with five- to seven-storey apartments along wide boulevards. The change was disruptive at the time, but it created a durable, human-scaled housing stock that still defines Paris today. Paris shows that cities can absorb massive growth through mid-rise, not towers, when they set clear rules for urban form.
Montreal – Multiplexes as tradition.
Montreal never froze its neighborhoods at single-family scale. Instead, it built triplexes7, fourplexes, and small walk-ups throughout its inner districts. These multiplexes provide a broad base of affordable, middle-class housing while keeping neighborhoods walkable and vibrant. Montreal demonstrates that character and density are not opposites — gentle multifamily housing can be woven into neighborhoods as part of their identity.
Vienna – Stability through broad density.
Vienna has one of the most affordable8 and stable housing markets in Europe. A key reason is its steady supply of mid-rise housing spread across the whole city. Most Viennese live in four- to six-storey buildings, many built with public support, which makes housing accessible while maintaining human scale. Vienna proves that when cities deliberately plan for widespread mid-rise growth, affordability and livability reinforce each other.
What Must Be Done
Create a Delineated Urbanization Zone
Toronto’s pre-war inner suburbs—roughly bounded by Eglinton, Keele, and Victoria Park—should be legislatively mapped as an Urbanization Zone where six-storey apartments are permitted by default. This sends a powerful signal that the core will shoulder growth, aligning zoning, planning, and servicing reforms across City and Province.
- City of Toronto Act / Planning Act: Amend OP and zoning by-law to permit six-storey apartments as-of-right within the Urbanization Zone.
- City of Toronto Act amendments (via Bill 17): Provide explicit authority for Council to designate an Urbanization Zone consistent with provincial housing/transit goals.
- Special Economic Zones Act, 2025: Designate this area as an SEZ for housing, enabling focused pilot reforms.
Pilot Area-Specific Building Code Flexibility
Existing Ontario Building Code standards for elevators and egress are tuned for high-rises, making six-storey infill projects unviable. A geographically specific pilot inside the Urbanization Zone should allow single-egress staircases up to six storeys (with full fire safety measures), and compact elevators conforming to European standard EN 81–20 (which have smaller footprint requirements than Ontario’s stretcher-sized minimums). This targeted change cuts cost and conserves floor space while maintaining safety.
- Building Code Act, 1992: Enable regulation-making authority for zone-specific alternative solutions.
- O. Reg. 332/12 (Ontario Building Code): Add an Urbanization Zone appendix that permits:
- Special Economic Zones Act, 2025: Permit these pilot OBC provisions to apply only within the Urbanization Zone.
Create an Urbanization Infrastructure Fund
To make six-storey construction viable in the Urbanization Zone, the Province should establish a dedicated Urbanization Infrastructure Fund. The Fund would have two purposes: first, to finance small but high-impact upgrades to local infrastructure like mains, schools, and safety works; and second, to reduce or offset development charges on developments up to 6-storey’s in the zone that leverage the pilot building code. This will lower the upfront cost for builders, encouraging adoption of a building form that is still new to much of Toronto’s market. By tying disbursements to unit delivery, the Fund ensures that both infrastructure and incentives keep pace with housing.
- Enabling provincial statute or budget schedule: Establish the Urbanization Infrastructure Fund with a five-year allocation, restricted to the Urbanization Zone, and authorize its use for targeted DC offsets for qualifying projects.
- City of Toronto Act: Empower Council to apply reduced or rebated development charges in the Urbanization Zone when supported by the Fund.
- Bill 17 regulations: Streamline municipal approvals for minor infrastructure works (traffic signals, curbs, crossings) within the zone to ensure timely delivery.
Common Questions
Isn’t six storeys too tall for existing neighborhoods?
Six storeys is a human-scaled form already common on Toronto’s main streets and in admired cities like Paris, Vienna, and Berlin. It maintains walkable character, tree-lined streets, and brick facades while adding homes where infrastructure already exists. It’s not towers — it’s the missing middle.
Won’t relaxing building code standards compromise safety?
The proposal allows single-egress stairwells and compact elevators only with strong fire protections: sprinklers, rated corridors, pressurized stairs, and alarms. These standards are common across Europe and North America in safe, modern mid-rise housing. Safety is preserved while costs and wasted space are reduced.
Why should Old Toronto absorb more growth instead of the suburbs?
Core neighborhoods have the best transit, schools, hospitals, and infrastructure. Yet their populations have fallen since 1970, while post-war suburbs and 905 municipalities are forced to absorb towers and rapid growth. Fairness demands that the core, with its services and jobs, play its part.
Won’t this overwhelm local infrastructure like sewers and schools?
The Urbanization Infrastructure Fund would finance targeted upgrades to local systems while offsetting development charges. Growth pays for itself. By tying funding to new housing delivery, infrastructure investments keep pace with redevelopment. The result is balanced growth, not strain.
Conclusion
Toronto’s housing crisis cannot be solved by towers and sprawl alone. For decades, the city has relied on a distorted model that channels growth into a few high-rise clusters while leaving its inner, infrastructure-rich neighborhoods frozen in time. The result has been exclusivity in the core, towers imposed on post-war suburbs, and intensification pressures pushed onto the 905.
Designating an Urbanization Zone within Old Toronto’s pre-war suburbs and making six-storey apartments the default is the middle path Toronto has lacked. It is a scale that makes redevelopment viable, fits the character of established streets, and delivers the kind of steady growth seen in Paris, Montreal, and Vienna. Paired with provincial code flexibility and an Urbanization Infrastructure Fund that lowers development charges, this policy would create the conditions for builders to deliver new homes where demand is strongest.
Change will be gradual—lot by lot, over decades. But the choice is urgent. Toronto can either continue to preserve exclusivity in its core, or it can deliberately urbanize, spreading growth fairly and sustainably. By giving its pre-war neighborhoods permission and the tools to evolve, Toronto can build a city that is more affordable, more inclusive, and better balanced for the next generation.
