How to Bridge the Gap Between Intensification Targets and Market Reality
Renovating an old house is deceptively hard. It looks cheaper and easier than building new, right up until demolition starts. Then you find the asbestos under the tiles, the cracked foundation, the stairs that never met code. Canadian planning used to be more like building new: blank land, fresh sewers, clean lines on a page. Now, with growth boundaries and climate targets, it's more like a renovation job where we're stuck fixing the city we already have.
That's a genuinely harder job than greenfield planning. Municipal planning for intensification means understanding how new homes can fit into streets with old infrastructure, and generations of incremental change. What’s more, municipal planners don’t control the outcome. Growth is inherently market-driven. Planners and council members set the zoning and regulatory framework, but they ultimately depend on developers to deliver the housing they envision.
The Challenge of Coordinated Growth
The 2024 Provincial Planning Statement wants municipalities to coordinate growth with infrastructure and services. That’s a whole lot easier for greenfield growth, because you’ve planned it all from the outset. For growth through intensification, this is almost an impossible task if you don’t have a clear idea of where that growth will occur. Case in point: half of Ontario's municipalities missed their 2024 housing targets, per Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing data.
Ontario's Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing dataset tracking new home starts against 2024 municipal housing targets.
The Preference for Ground-Oriented Homes
The composition of Canada’s existing housing stock tells an important part of the story. In 2021, apartments in buildings of five+ storeys made up just 15% of Canada's occupied dwellings, and according to a recent study by C.D. Howe, people want ground-level homes with a private entrance, some outdoor space, and an actual connection to the street. To match demand, the low-rise market needs to move faster and remove the red tape that’s holding back the market.
Occupied homes in Canada in 2021, broken down by dwelling type. Mid- and high-rise represent buildings of 5-storeys or more. Source: Stats Canada, 2021.
Housing Growth Potential in Existing Neighbourhoods
Established neighbourhoods already have the roads, schools, parks, transit, and services in place, ready-made capacity for semis, townhouses, multiplexes, and small apartments. Adding new homes to these existing neighbourhoods come at a fraction of the infrastructure cost of greenfield growth. This opportunity exists across Canada, from smaller bedroom communities to mid-sized cities and major metropolitan areas. Many low-rise neighbourhoods have the capacity to double in density through gentle intensification that fits the existing streetscape, adds more homes, and supports livelier, more walkable communities.
But good planning involves more than simply passing a zoning amendment that permits additional housing. Planners can get the by-law through committee, open up as-of-right permissions across a whole neighbourhood, and still not know how many units the market will actually build.
A Two-Step Framework for a More Reliable Low-rise Forecasting
"You can't predict what a developer will do. It's up to the market."
We hear this from planners a lot, and it’s partially true! Predicting what gets built really is complex. Most municipalities set housing targets, but don’t have the tools to forecast, take into account owner decisions, financing, lot sizes, approvals constraints, development timelines, and overall development costs and potential returns. That means planners are working with less information than they should. No wonder targets get missed and nobody can say exactly why.
But that’s not where the story ends. When planners have accurate forecasting with better data, they can refine regulations to meet their targets, opening up potential for housing that actually pencils on a developer’s pro forma. Here are the three steps to forecast infill housing.
1. Map where infill is financially viable for builders
Planners should identify neighbourhoods where low‑rise intensification is physically, financially, and operationally feasible for developers—assuming a supportive regulatory framework. This starts by screening existing low‑rise residential areas using the following criteria:
Built pre‑1980s. Older homes are smaller, less efficient, and more likely to need replacement.
Ecological sensitivity. Remove blocks in floodplains or other sensitive areas.
Transit access. Exclude areas without transit service to focus infill where ridership and infrastructure already exist.
Busy streets. Filter out properties on major arterials better suited to mixed‑use or higher‑intensity forms.
Property values. Exclude neighbourhoods with very high average dwelling values where redevelopment is less feasible.
Geographical constraints. Remove areas with steep slopes or difficult topography that raise infill costs.
Heritage designations. Exclude areas with heritage overlays or conservation districts that limit or delay infill.
The purpose of this mapping is to identify where incremental redevelopment is most likely to occur.
2. Forecast housing outcomes
Once it’s clear where infill is viable from a business model perspective, it becomes possible to forecast with confidence and determine viable development outcomes (units/building). Combined with established rates of redevelopment, or high rates of redevelopment if it’s a hot market opportunity, outcomes can be forecasted and mapped to show the development industry response.
Tune the regulations where it matters
With this data, municipalities can compare their goals to their targets. They can make changes, iterate, calibrate regulations to hit their targets, and coordinate infrastructure upgrades in the areas most likely to intensify. The planning possibilities are endless. Without this data, planners are flying blind.
Case Study: The City of Greater Sudbury
In Greater Sudbury, we worked closely with planning staff to isolate existing low-rise neighbourhoods, then ran that baseline through an iterative refinement process, weighing factors like proximity to corridors, potential parking capacity, property values, and other site constraints against staff's on-the-ground knowledge of each neighbourhood. As a result, Sudbury is working to implement regulations that would open the door to intensification. Not in every low-rise neighbourhood, which would trigger a NIMBY backlash, but only in targeted areas where it's well suited.
This approach mirrors the framework outlined above: first mapping where infill is realistically possible, then tuning the regulations where it matters. By combining technical screening criteria with local planning intelligence, Sudbury was able to produce a realistic infill map that balances feasibility, infrastructure capacity, and community acceptance.
Refining the Qualifying Area for low-rise, mid-density infill in Greater Sudbury with BuildingIN.
The Renovation Doesn't Stop
The only thing harder than smart planning for infill is smart planning without it. Without intensification, infrastructure ages without enough tax base for replacement. Intensification isn’t just about building more homes. It’s about affording the municipalities we already have. By embracing data-driven mapping, targeted regulation, and market-aware forecasting, municipalities can turn market-driven growth into a strength to achieve the future we envision.
Sources:
Levy, J. M. (2016). Growth management, smart growth, sustainable development, and planning for catastrophe. In Contemporary urban planning (11th ed.). Routledge. https://ebrary.net/127201/management/growth_management_smart_growth_sustainable_development_planning_catastrophe
Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2025). Ontario's housing supply progress. Ontario Data Catalogue. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from https://data.ontario.ca/dataset/ontario-s-housing-supply-progress
City of Toronto. (2024, August 8). Land needs assessment. City of Toronto. https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/data-research-maps/research-reports/planning-development/land-needs-assessment/
Sturgeon, J. (2015, February 24). Unsold condos pile up in Toronto, hit 21-year high. Global News. https://globalnews.ca/news/1846998/unsold-condos-pile-up-in-toronto-hit-21-year-high/
Statistics Canada. (2023). Census profile, 2021 census of population (Catalogue no. 98-316-X2021001). Statistics Canada. Retrieved January 26, 2026, from https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E
Rosaline Hill is a principal architect, planner, and development consultant with over 25 years dedicated to designing homes and communities that work. She founded RJH Architecture + Planning, Walkable Ottawa, Ottawa Cohousing, and BuildingIN, each building on her passion for smarter, more sustainable housing solutions.
With support from her CMHC Housing Supply Challenge winnings, Rosaline launched BuildingIN, an infill consulting practice advancing a data-driven approach that unifies Canada’s fragmented housing market for low-rise, multi-unit infill. Her proven methodology has guided municipalities, large and small, through transformative change. Today, she partners with governments across the country, empowering changemakers to unlock scalable, affordable housing solutions where they are needed most.
Comments