Built To Sprawl: How Ontario's Focus on Single Family Housing Exacerbated The Housing Crisis
The average citizen in Ontario cannot afford to buy a single-family home, and studies have shown that sprawl is inefficient. So why is the provincial government prioritizing building more of it?
Ontario is currently facing a housing crisis. According to the Toronto Foundation, housing costs have grown four times faster than income. Furthermore, our population has grown over ten times faster than the number of new rental units being built. The government of Ontario’s solution? Sprawl, and lots of it.
In fact, Doug Ford’s Ontario government has prioritized low-density sprawl above all else. In fact, Ontario’s 2024 Provincial Planning Statement lifted restrictions on developing natural areas whilst reducing density targets, effectively incentivizing more urban sprawl. Ford also declared that an Ontario-wide fourplex mandate would be a “massive mistake” that would lead to “a lot of shouting and screaming.” Ford’s message couldn’t be clearer: we’re going to build more low-density sprawl, and we’re going to develop previously protected land to do it. The housing crisis, so they say, is the result of a shortage of land, and developing things like farmland is the cure to this fatal disease.
This frantic rush to build more low-density housing ignores the fact that single-family housing is inefficient and costly. As of March of this year, the average price of a single-family home in Ontario was $860,545. By comparison, the average price per suite for multifamily dwellings in the first quarter of 2025 was $287,769. People have also looked into how density impacts home prices and found that sprawl increases the price of housing. For example, a study out of Australia found that limiting density caused home prices to increase three to four times faster than a scenario where density is encouraged. These numbers and studies beg the question: when we know that housing costs are outpacing income, why is the government incentivizing municipalities to build the less affordable option?
Furthermore, single-family sprawl is inefficient compared to medium-density housing. We have heard endless cries that Ontario just doesn’t have the land to build more housing, hence the development of protected land. However, studies have found that, if utilized correctly, municipalities in Ontario have enough land to house over 2 million people. So, with that in mind, why is our farmland being torn up and turned into car-dependent subdivisions? Given the recent economic threats from the Trump administration and the recent push to buy Canadian, it actually makes more sense to protect our farmland and incentivize Canadian farmers.
Due to its inefficiencies, sprawl is also significantly more expensive for municipalities. “Why is it more expensive?” You ask. Well, low-density single-family housing creates a massive gap between the amount of infrastructure needed and the number of homes that infrastructure actually serves. In low-density areas, services like roads and utilities must be expanded, yet they reach fewer homes than in urban areas, making the sprawl model that Ford’s government loves so much extremely inefficient. Studies have borne out this conclusion, such as one from Halifax, which found that the cost of “hard” infrastructure (such as roads and water) in low-density neighbourhoods is up to ten times higher than that of compact urban neighbourhoods. In short, you’re picking up the tab for inefficient development.
So, what’s the alternative to sprawl? As a province, we should be prioritizing the construction of mid-rise “missing middle” housing. Instead of restrictive zoning practices that encourage sprawl and a provincial government that’s cheering it on, we should be using our available urban land efficiently and cost-effectively. That means diversifying our housing stock (which, in Canada, is woefully focused on single-family homes) and promoting density in urban areas. It’s clear that the current system is woefully inefficient and prices people out, so it’s time for a change.