The Mysterious World of Development Decisions

The other day, I was chatting with my neighbour. She glanced at the row of empty parking lots down the street, shook her head, and said, “Why don’t developers just build something there?” It’s a fair question.

From the outside, the way buildings pop up (or don’t) can feel like some secretive, black‑box decision‑making process. Let’s get into the behind‑the‑scenes deal‑breakers and green lights that ultimately decide whether a lot stays empty or whether an old home is replaced with new infill.

The Puzzle of Infill Development

As an architect and building consultant, I spend a lot of my time behind that curtain. It’s my job to work with developers to guide development decisions that not only make financial sense, but also feel worth building, something they’d be proud to point to years later and say, “I was part of that.” That means balancing dozens of moving parts that can make or break a project before it even gets off the ground.

Example of a Site Plan Analysis and Zoning Chart

Every new building you see is the product of countless trade‑offs, hard‑nosed calculations, and, yes, a bit of sheer determination. There are countless variables to consider. Here are some of them:

• Physical constraints: Lot size, topography, overhead wires, trees, snow removal space, storage of stormwater, existing service capacity and underground utilities, and waste storage requirements often present unexpected barriers for smaller infill lots.

• Regulations: Municipal zoning policies and building codes, and their interpretations (these vary—not just by city, but sometimes block by block, or even plans examiner by plans examiner.)

• Risk and Uncertainty: Even seemingly minor changes to regulations, approvals, or market factors can trigger large cost increases. Unexpected time delays can incur carrying costs, tie up capital or cancel a project completely.  

  
  

These overlapping factors mean that similar-looking parcels in the same neighbourhood can yield very different development outcomes. This variability helps explain why many seemingly ideal lots in urban areas often sit underused or vacant, even in the midst of a housing crisis, while other lots that seem like unlikely candidates are being redeveloped.

Factors that shape neighbourhood infill housing

Without expert analysis, it’s extremely tough for developers to know which sites are truly developable under current conditions. And it can be even harder for residents or municipal planners to anticipate outcomes.

From Frustration to Forecasting

Over the years, by working with developers, we started noticing patterns in those barriers, particularly for infill. After you’ve stared at hundreds of site plans, trying every configuration imaginable to say, squeeze in just one more parking space while staying within zoning limits, patterns start to stand out.

At first, it was frustrating: why did the rules make it so hard for infill projects to add up?

Then came the a‑ha moment. What if planners working on long‑range growth or updating zoning bylaws could see the same constraints and opportunities we see at the project level? And what if they had far more accurate infill forecasts, mapped over time and across geographies? And what if they used those forecasts to then fine‑tune their regulations and reliably hit their residential density targets with a fiscally-responsible form of housing through low-rise infill? This was the thinking that sparked BuildingIN and that led us to build a whole mapping methodology to forecast low-rise, multi-unit infill housing outcomes.

Example of Residential Density Scenario Testing

The Opportunity Across Municipalities in Canada

Our first application of this methodology in Ottawa was a turning point as it revealed vast untapped potential for infill development. We quickly realised that the same opportunity existed in older neighbourhoods across Canada, many of which share common “lot bones” due to how they were originally surveyed.

That led us to start reaching out to municipalities, curious if our approach might help them, too. Now, 1.5 years from BuildingIN’s conception, we’ve had the opportunity to work with Edmonton, Kincardine, Almonte, and Greater Sudbury. From this work, we’ve learned an immense amount about how cities grow, and what makes growth through low-rise infill stall.

Iterative Testing

It’s a bit like detective work, and honestly, we’ve had a lot of fun seeing patterns emerge and then tracing them back to find the source of the pattern.

What’s been quite eye‑opening is how often these insights can explain a common head‑scratcher for municipalities. It’s been frustrating to see progressive municipalities (with all the right intentions) pass bold, blanket upzoning, and then not delivering the housing numbers they projected on paper. The answers usually live in the fine‑grained, site‑level realities that data and modelling can help uncover.

It’s been lovely to see that, in all the municipalities we’ve analyzed, the scenario that results in a desirable diverse mix of housing outcomes, almost always runs parallel with fiscally and environmentally sustainable outcomes. And that’s something to be excited about.

Enough Play, It’s Time for Action

Now, we’re focused on sharing and delivering usable tools for municipalities. It’s about helping growth planners test different scenarios and simulating outcomes — whether that’s upzoning, clarifying building codes, or refining approvals — and finding the right mix to finally turn housing targets into reality. Because at the end of the day, the status quo isn’t cutting it, and it’s time for smart, evidence-based change that truly makes a difference.

To learn more, visit our forecasting methodology page or get in touch to discuss your growth goals.