comment: >
  
  A lot of these small towns have lost factories local production of agricultural goods like processing businesses too, and a lot of small town Greenbelt towns are basing a significant amount of their economy on tourists who want to come and visit to get away from the city and experience nature type stuff. While I agree that airbnb often feels like a predatory part of this, without tourism and aggressive real estate expansion, there isn't a lot of economy keeping them afloat. Plenty are essentially commuter towns where people don't even work there. I agree that airbnb is a problem in most places, but I don't know what the viable alternative is to keep those communities alive. 
  Real estate as an investment vehicle instead of a place to live is a complicated thing I don't know as much as I would like to about, but I largely agree it's a net negative. I understand that you need more money than one individual has to build and maintain a condo building or mid-rise and people should have the option to rent if they want to, but I agree you shouldn't be able to make money off on an empty house when I need one to live in and can't afford it. 
  There will be people deterred by higher taxes on multiple properties, but unless viable alternatives are also available for housing, that cost will likely be continued to be passed on to renters who have been priced out of the market.
context: Well, the alternative is buying existing housing and tearing it down to replace it with higher capacity housing. This form of "build up, not out" doesn't require the use of more land. >
  
  There used to be surface parking lots all over Toronto, and a ton of those are now giant apartment/condo buildings. I absolutely agree that was a "better use of land" but it also drives up the cost of living as the city grows. 
  There are small-medium sized town examples where maybe it's a townhouse development or low-mid rise that goes in where there previously was a factory or mall, and where single family homes used to be there are zoning changes happening. A lot of that is adding people to existing land used for housing in ways that I can get behind, and I agree that form of "build up, not out" does seem like a great housing solution.
  Until you see the giant big-box stores that buy huge chunks of the land outside of the town you just "saved from houses" to service the significantly expanded population in that town because the increased density downtown made large property with big parking lots more expensive, because most towns with 1000 - 20 000 people can't afford to put in underground parking or vertical garages, but they can build a bunch more surface lots outside of town. 
  If towns and cities in the Greenbelt are going to continue to grow because affordability is driving people away from the GTA/other urban centres, they are going to have to build housing, roads, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, grocery stores, and the things people need in their environment to live there. I don't see how they can build all of that "up not out" without impacting the surrounding environment, AKA the Greenbelt. >
  
  Is housing affordable in either of those cities? Aren't they some of the examples we often point to of cities that are more expensive to live in than Toronto, with even more of an affordable housing issue than we have?
  20 years ago people might have been leaving the city to single family homes, but if you drive around the Greenbelt and look at modern housing developments in small towns, the majority of them are semi-detached or townhouse "villages" on undeveloped land close to those communities, and the bigger places are building low and mid-rise housing in their cores. 
  People are leaving Toronto because they can't afford to live here, to move into (arguments to be made about how well executed they are) denser forms of housing than single family homes or single family homes on smaller lots than traditionally available in those communities, because "more house for the same money, or more house for less money" is one of the driving factors pushing people towards purchasing in the Greenbelt. 
  If you have to leave all of your friends and family and social connections and the places you used to go in order to afford a home, I understand why you would want the house to be more desirable to make that trade off hurt a little less.
  I'm not convinced London or New York are good examples of cities that have affordable housing because of their density, I think they're great examples of cities that are even more expensive that Toronto and while increasing density might help accommodate the growing population, it will also continue to drive people away as they look for more affordable housing close enough that they can still visit, and that puts them in the Greenbelt. >
  
  Housing is a free market. How expensive a city is, is all about supply/demand.
  It's not about the size of the city and it's not about the density of the city. There are dense cities that are cheap and there are dense cities that are expensive. There are low density cities that are cheap and there are low density cities that are expensive.
  London and NY have huge demand, sure! But they also have much better supply. Toronto has much lower demand, but also terrible supply. Chicago for example is huge, but has fairly low demand for its supply, so housing is almost half the cost of say, Boston, which is far smaller but has huge demand.
  Toronto needs to expand its supply. NY, London and others have shown how to do this: build up. There is no need to build into the Greenbelt, and even worse, that will cause environmental and traffic nightmares.
  If Toronto also expands demand, nothing will help. The Greenbelt, building up, both, etc. nothing will ever make housing cheaper if the number of people who want housing is always high compared to the amount of housing. The Greenbelt even from its most optimistic proponents can only add 1.5M homes. Extra demand can easily soak that up and more. >
  
  So, why not use examples of dense yet cheap cities, instead of picking two of the cities with the highest cost of living in the world to compare Toronto to, while trying to make a point about housing affordability? 
  If London and New York have better housing supply than Toronto and are still more expensive, how is that proof that increased supply increases affordability? You compare Chicago to Boston where Chicago has a reputation for crime, violence, and other reasons making it less desirable to live in than Boston. Detroit was paying people to buy houses there during their collapse so maybe that was affordable, but not at all desirable. 
  You are pointing out that if people want to live in a city, that city becomes more expensive because of the demand/desirability. I agree with you. That's why people are building and expanding into less desirable areas, which are more affordable. 
  People need a place to live. If they can't afford to live in Toronto, then they are going to find a smaller community they can live in, which is outside of Toronto. If they want to commute or maintain connection to Toronto, or find affordability, that's not another city, but a small-medium sized town in the Greenbelt, which is fueling the expansion of those communities. Why should people who cannot afford to live in Toronto not have access to roads and highways and schools and hospitals close to where they live? And if they should have those things, where should they build those things if everywhere they look they are surrounded by land that should be protected? >
  
  You're confusing supply with demand.
  It does not matter if the Greenbelt is further away. If people want to live in the GTA, developing the Greenbelt will lead to expensive housing. All that matters is the total amount of housing. Unless you mean, the Greenbelt development produces such subpar housing compared to a denser Toronto that no one would ever want to live there? In which case it doesn't help with Toronto house prices.
  More houses than demand, prices go down. That's it. That's Econ 101. We need more houses. London and NY show we can build those houses in Toronto just fine and end up with an awesome city.
  You want examples of cheaper cities that are as dense as NY and London? Ok! Lisbon in Portugal is beautiful, far cheaper, and extremely dense (2x the density of Toronto, like NY and London). Athens in Greece is far cheaper and similarly dense.
  Density is not why Lisbon and Athens are cheap compared to NY and London. It is supply and demand. Far more people want to live in NY and London. Right now, given the number of people who want to live in Toronto, if we had the density of NY and London, we would have low prices, because our demand is lower, like Lisbon and Athens.
  There are only two options: raise supply or lower demand. NY, London, Lisbon, Athens all show how you raise supply: you create density. All of these are world class cities that people love. >
  
  
  You're confusing supply with demand.
  
  How? There is high demand in Toronto/GTA/Golden Horseshoe. That could be because they are large cities, that could be because of employment opportunities or proximity to people/family/friends, or any number of reasons. Because there is limited supply (which could be blamed on single family housing zoning, not in my backyard, and other protectionist/exclusionary policies, or because there hasn't been enough supply built in order to match demand) people cannot afford to live in the city. Because there is supply in more affordable places and that affordability makes those places desirable for different reasons than the cities, you get people leaving cities to live in the previously Greeenbelt communities because they can afford to live there. 
  If you want to prevent people from moving to more affordable places, you either need to make the places you do want them to live more affordable, or the more affordable places less desirable to live in. If it would cost the same for me to live in Caledon as it would for me to live in downtown Toronto I'd likely pick downtown Toronto. If I can buy a house on a few acres in the Greenbelt for the same price as an 800 square foot Condo in the city, why would I pick city? Especially if that house is within a reasonable drive to the things I want to do in the city?
  
  More houses than demand, prices go down.
  
  We have been building more housing in Toronto since it was founded. As urban areas grow, the demand for housing in that urban area increases. As the demand and price increases in the city center, more supply is built, and while part of that supply is denser housing in the city center, part of it is also suburban sprawl, as people balance the "longer commute, better living" equation, until those suburbs become unaffordable cities of their own. Look at pre-amalgamation Toronto, or post amalgamation Toronto, or the GTA, or the Golden Horseshoe. It doesn't matter how far you zoom out, housing supply has not been meeting or exceeding demand, so prices have been going up. In order to find supply at affordable prices, people are buying in the Greenbelt, because that is where land is cheap enough to develop and put affordable housing. 
  
  We need more houses. 
  
  I agree, I'm just pointing out that more houses/housing in Toronto hasn't proven to be more affordable housing in Toronto.
  
  London and NY show we can build those houses in Toronto just fine and end up with an awesome city.
  
  London and New York might be larger, more dense cities than Toronto, and you might even see them as more desirable places to live than Toronto/awesome cities. I am not contesting your "NEW YORK IS AWESOME!" I am just pointing out that it is an awesomely bad example of an affordable city, as is London. They are proof that cities can be "good" or something, but they are not proof that they are affordable. 
  
  You want examples of cheaper cities that are as dense as NY and London? 
  
  No, I want more affordable cities that are desirable places to live. I said saying Chicago is cheaper than Boston doesn't prove your point because we likely both agree Boston would be considered the more desirable city which is a part of it's higher cost.
  
  Lisbon in Portugal is beautiful, far cheaper, and extremely dense
  
  Portugal's GDP is also 45-50th in the world compared to Canada (Toronto) , America (New York) and the UK (London) all being in the top 10. 
  
  Athens in Greece is far cheaper and similarly dense.
  
  And the Greek economy is doing fantastically.
  Setting aside your apples to oranges comparison, are those cities considered affordable places to live in those countries, or more affordable than suburban/rural communities surrounding them, or are they just more affordable than Toronto, New York, and London, if we make-believe they also happen to be in Canada, USA or the UK?
  
  Density is not why Lisbon and Athens are cheap compared to NY and London.
  
  No, a pretty convincing argument could be made they are more affordable because they are less desirable places to live... oh wait, you just said they have lower demand. So, why should we be punishing/limiting people in Ontario who want to move out of the higher demand cities that are not affordable into the lower demand smaller communities in the Greenbelt? Aren't you just making a case for "this city is unaffordable, so move out of it" by pointing out that less desirable cities like Lisbon and Athens are cheaper?
  
  There are only two options: raise supply or lower demand.
  
  People moving from the city, or new people to Canada deciding not to live in Toronto but to live outside of it in the Greenbelt are lowering demand in the city. The Greenbelt is being developed because there is a demand for affordable housing, and people cannot afford housing where they want to live, so they are being forced to develop wild/natural/environmentally significant/agricultural land, because they are priced out of the city. Then the city (that they don't live in) and provincial politics are getting all upset people have to live there and what roads and houses, because they can't afford to live in cities. They are lowering demand, voting with their feet/dollars, and that is why people are complaining about trying to stop Greenbelt development, because the cities are not creating enough supply so people have to look elsewhere.
  New York and London show you that just like Toronto, as big desirable cities grow bigger they often grow more desirable, and that doesn't make housing affordable. I don't know enough about Portugal or Greece to make grand statements about their housing markets, but even if comparatively less expensive than cities in countries with higher GDP when comparing dollars to Euros, I am also assuming that it is more expensive to live in Lisbon than "small town Portugal" and Athens than "small town Greece". 
  You might be talking about "world class cities that people love." but just because people like to take tourist photos there doesn't make them affordable places to live. Most people chose to live in cities because they believe the lack of affordability is countered out by the desirability of the city, making it "worth it" to live in unaffordable housing because of the amenities. I want to live in Toronto but can't afford to, and the arguments I'm seeing against moving to the Greenbelt are "we want it to stay green" which does nothing to solve the "I can't afford to live here, so I have to live somewhere" problem. 
  We can also lower demand by restricting investment properties, making owning multiple residences tax prohibitive, decreasing foreign investment or lowering immigration which may bring down prices, but I am not seeing how increased supply in any of the urban areas you have mentioned or I am considering in my initial post has made any of them more affordable. >
  
  
  I want to live in Toronto but can't afford to, and the arguments I'm seeing against moving to the Greenbelt are "we want it to stay green" which does nothing to solve the "I can't afford to live here, so I have to live somewhere" problem.
  
  Housing in the Greenbelt is just housing. Like housing in a denser Toronto. Units. Literally boxes for people to live in.
  Your whole argument is that somehow, inexplicably, new housing in the Greenbelt will be cheap, while new housing in Toronto will be expensive. That can only happen as I said for one and only one reason: the housing in the Greenbelt sucks and no one wants it, which will just make housing in Toronto more attractive and more expensive. Otherwise, it's the same as housing in Toronto. New boxes.
  It's stupid to add new boxes for people to live in on green land far away with no infrastructure and no transportation, which not only destroys the environment but causes massive traffic problems. We should follow what other cities do and add them in the city by making it denser. That has a chance of lowering housing costs. If we outbuild demand.
  
  And the Greek economy is doing fantastically.
  
  So you don't like Athens and Lisbon because their economies aren't strong?
  I have no idea what to say to that comment! Housing cost is a function of the ratio of supply and demand. That's it. There is literally nothing else to it.
  You cannot have cheap housing in a city with high demand and low supply. Athens and Lisbon have demand issues because their economies suck. If suddenly the tech sector in Athens took off, then it would become unafforadable. That's true of every city. 
  I have no idea what example you want? You want me to find a perfect city with massive demand that builds no new housing yet is cheap? That violates supply and demand. It literally cannot exist.
  You want a city that has massive demand builds massive new housing so it's cheap? Ok, Huston. You will then say you don't want to live there because the quality of life sucks. Huston does exactly the same stupid thing about developing the equivalent of the Greenbelt, they sprawl endlessly. The city is cheap. It's horrible on every front. Environmentally it's a disaster. Commute times are out of control even post pandemic. Huston often makes lists of worst cities in the US.
  TLDR: In Toronto the economy is good, we have demand, we need supply. We have two options for supply: build up or build out. We know that building up leads to cities that people love. We know that building out leads to cities with huge problems, low quality of life, destroys the environment, and causes massive traffic issues. Don't develop the Greenbelt. >
  
  
  Your whole argument is that somehow, inexplicably, new housing in the Greenbelt will be cheap, while new housing in Toronto will be expensive.
  
  It hinges on the current reality that housing in the Greenbelt/in smaller towns outside of Toronto is less expensive than Toronto, and that people are currently moving there anyway, because the magical affordable housing hasn't appeared/been built in Toronto yet. 
  
  That can only happen as I said for one and only one reason: the housing in the Greenbelt sucks and no one wants it, which will just make housing in Toronto more attractive and more expensive.
  
  Or, it could be happening because more people want to live in Toronto than Caledon, more people want to live in Caledon than Belfountain, making the less desirable places AKA not Toronto cheaper than Toronto. These places happen to be, outside of Toronto. Maybe small towns have cheaper houses and more available land for development because there are fewer people interested in buying there, and more land that has not been developed already available?
  If everyone just wanted a box and didn't care where they lived, then why would Toronto be so expensive/desirable to live in? Why wouldn't everyone move to somewhere cheaper because location doesn't matter if location is what is driving cost and oh wait, now we've got people moving out of the city and into the Greenbelt again...
  
  It's stupid to add new boxes for people to live in on green land far away with no infrastructure and no transportation, which not only destroys the environment but causes massive traffic problems. 
  
  I would agree with you, if there were affordable urban options available NOW for people to buy/live in, which there are not. Until that solution happens, and we somehow outbuild demand even though the population of Toronto has doubled since the 80's and there is very little indication that growth in the GTA is slowing or demand is weakening, people are going to buy housing where they can afford it. If that isn't Toronto but their work, family, and social connections are here, then where else are they going to go other than out?
  
  We should follow what other cities do and add them in the city by making it denser. 
  
  While this adds population, it doesn't really increase affordability. There are plenty of dense condo towers being built in Toronto aimed at a luxury market the average Ontario income owner cannot afford, and even the Greenbelt developments are trending towards semi-detached, townhouses, and low-mid rise density as the smaller cities urbanize. 
  
  That has a chance of lowering housing costs. If we outbuild demand.
  
  It has a chance, but are we anywhere close to that hypothetical, or on a path that sees meaningful change happening within the next 10 years? People experiencing the housing scarcity don't need hypothetical housing after we fix the affordability problem with abundance, they need housing now. 
  
  You cannot have cheap housing in a city with high demand and low supply. 
  
  Then why are you pretending that this is a solvable problem in Toronto, a city with extremely high demand and low supply? Why am I the one with the crazy idea for suggesting that it's too expensive to live here so we should build outside of Toronto, AKA the Greenbelt? If desirable places to live are expensive, doesn't that mean that the best places to achieve affordable housing are in smaller communities where housing already is more affordable?
  
  I have no idea what example you want? You want me to find a perfect city with massive demand that builds no new housing yet is cheap? That violates supply and demand. It literally cannot exist.
  
  You suggested that by creating an excess of supply, we could reduce demand, and therefore increase affordability. I am not suggesting we don't build houses, I am suggesting we build housing. I am suggesting that as much as we want to increase demand and density in Toronto, if we want to increase affordability close to Toronto, geographically speaking the Greenbelt is kind of the only place it can go unless you build a lot of houseboats.
  
  You want a city that has massive demand builds massive new housing so it's cheap? Ok, Huston. You will then say you don't want to live there because the quality of life sucks.
  
  I don't know much about Huston, but if it sucks I'll take your word for it.  You might be able to convince me that Nobleton which is under an hour outside of the city is urban sprawl, but if someone wants to live in Port Perry, (which is still in the Greenbelt and therefore bad to build in?) is that still Toronto sprawl, or just population growth in southern Ontario?
  Some of the Greenbelt development could be considered Toronto sprawl, but a lot of it is growing small towns in rural Ontario. When you grow a small town, that growth happens into the farms and wild land that surround them, and if those small towns are in the Greenbelt, then they're "a problem" because that's bad for the environment. 
  
  We know that building up leads to cities that people love. 
  
  I don't know why you keep coming back to this point. I am not contesting people like unaffordable cities, the fact that they are unaffordable proves that. I have yet to see an example where supply increasing has solved the demand problem or made things more affordable, you're just saying "lots of people want to live in expensive cities" when I'm saying "I agree with you, how do we make them more affordable to live in?" 
  
  We know that building out leads to cities with huge problems, low quality of life, destroys the environment, and causes massive traffic issues. 
  
  We also know that these are the places that are currently (somewhat) affordable to live in. So we can either keep blaming people for seeking out affordable housing when the cities that are promising more density continue to build luxury housing they can't afford, or we can actually build affordable density, which has been advocated for for decades unsuccessfully in Toronto, to the point where we are talking about housing crisis issues. 
  TL;DR: Toronto, and all other desirable cities continue to grow as our population grows. We have not come close to creating supply that meets that demand, and it is driving people out of the city to find supply that they can afford. That supply is in the Greenbelt, because it encircles the more expensive and desirable parts of the province. If we prevent development in the Greenbelt reducing supply there, doesn't that drive up the demand in the cities adding to the affordability problem? Develop the Greenbelt, we can't house people in the lake. >
  
  Around 60% of Toronto is still zoned exclusively for single family homes. I live in an area quite close to downtown, between multiple streetcar lines, and when I go for a walk I go by entire streets of huge detached homes mostly occupied by empty nest seniors. That's not even getting into North York/Etobicoke/Scarborough, never mind Oshawa, Brampton and Mississauga which I'd guess are well over 80% SFH. So yes, there is lots of land within the GTA to develop into denser and more efficient uses. With better transit infrastructure that can also apply to Milton or even Guelph and KW.
  But speaking specifically of the Greenbelt, the issue there is that the style of development that would take place there is what got us where we are now. The long term infrastructure cost associated with these car dependent suburbs drains away resources that could be used to improve transit or other services that have more long term benefits. The 413 is going to cost at least $6 billion just to make (never mind maintain) and there's going to be a lot more of that required if there is significant development in the Greenbelt. That's not a way to address the cost of living looking into the future. If it was specific exceptions for sustainable developments with density and transit requirements, that would be one thing. But the blanket opening Ford is doing is just going to kick the affordability can down the road slightly if at all, and at significant cost.
  I'm sympathetic to the desire to just build wherever you can feasibly build. But sprawl is just going to cause these issues to come back even worse- and that's not getting into the corruption elements at play here. >
  
  I agree there are places inside Toronto and in the GTA that could be used for denser housing, re-zoned, and that walkable neighbourhoods, reliable and affordable public transit reducing car dependency, and investments into things like not only making the TTC functional, but expanding the GO network and VIA rail, or other "better than just cars and highways everywhere" options are all good ideas. I also agree that there are a ton of "empty nest boomers" living in significantly more house than they need, while they bought their kids significantly more house than they need and see that as an investment in their future, and some of those purchases are in the new developments popping up in the communities and cities surrounding them. It's almost like mom and dad want their kids to be close enough to them that they can visit.
  I agree that a lot of what is being built is not a type of housing that I would find desirable, and the sprawl that comes with it because it is cheaper for big box stores to buy and clear-cut a giant property on the edge of nowhere-ville and build a surface parking lot than build a multi-level store and parking downtown is also an issue, but the alternative is to not allow those communities to expand, driving up the cost of existing housing there and lowering affordability. 
  Aggressively adding density does increase the amount of housing that is available, but much of the housing being built in the GTA is not affordable, regardless to what type of housing it is or where it is. That's why people are leaving/trying to buy outside of the GTA, and "outside of the GTA" is the Greenbelt, unless you leave the area. Many of the small towns and cities are growing and have the same issues that housing downtown is becoming more expensive so people are living and developing farther out, which again, is the Greenbelt. If the Golden Horseshoe is too expensive, people have to live outside of it. 
  Better urban planning and vision for growth would help in some of the small towns that are sprawling uncontrollably and could help with the terrible developments, but if your town has a population of 1 000 - 20 000 people, public transit's viability has limits within the community, and there are very rarely viable links to neighbouring communities, increasing car dependency if you want to visit your family/friends in the next town over but there isn't a train/bus to get you there even if your town has some version of public transit. That just uses public transit as an example, but the "does it cost more to use downtown land for dense/high value things, or buy a bigger lot on the edge of town?" equation could be tipped with environmental/zoning changes, but building a department store/shopping complex downtown Caledon with below ground parking/parking towers to prevent sprawl is not going be cheaper than "build a giant walmart/costco/whatever 10 minutes away" unless it's just not an option at all.
  I don't really know/care about what Ford's on about, because even if it's extremely poorly implemented, I think you are still going to have people who want to move/live in affordable places close to Toronto, so that means they are going to live/build in the Greenbelt. If it's not affordable to live in Toronto, where else are they going to go? >
  
  
  Aggressively adding density does increase the amount of housing that is available, but much of the housing being built in the GTA is not affordable, regardless to what type of housing it is or where it is.
  
  That logic is a bit circular. The reason it is not affordable is because supply and demand are so out of whack. If supply was increased enough that would not longer be the case.
  Also what you are saying largely applies to most new suburban developments as well. Most of them are over sized and over priced. >
  
  I agree that supply and demand are out of whack. Too many people want to live in Toronto for the available housing that is here, so if they want to find affordable housing, they have to look elsewhere. That "elsewhere" is outside of the city, and outside of the city is in the green areas that we are trying to protect from development. 
  More housing has been added to Toronto, it has doubled in population since the 80's. A lot of that has been building up not out, but a lot of that has been sprawl as well. The towns in the areas that we are trying to protect have had significant population expansions as well, and those people have to go somewhere too. 
  Has housing in Toronto become more affordable since the 80's? I agree we need to add more in order to drive down cost, but when the population of Toronto grew by 300 000 people in the last 5 years, where are they all supposed to go when the same 300 000 people realize the city hasn't built enough housing for them driving up housing costs? 
  Much of the housing being built is not being built as affordable housing. If land cost and zoning were changed such that more housing could be built within the city and that drives down the average home from something like $1.2 million to $700 000, there are still plenty of people who cannot afford to that house and will need to live outside of the city. 
  "Make housing in urban areas more affordable" is absolutely something I can get behind, but a lot of people who can't fight that fight with their current pay cheque are moving to more affordable areas now to survive hoping that problem can be solved later, leading more people to leave the city and move into new developments in the Greenbelt. 
  I agree a ton of the suburban developments are way over sized and over priced, and that style of housing is not something I want to live in. Driving past a bunch of "semi-detached homes in a vista" for the holidays where I had childhood memories of fields and forests and things was what inspired this post because I think it's terrible housing. If your options are something like that or a tiny condo in the city you can't afford, I can see why people are making that choice given the lack of viable alternatives. >
  
  
  More housing has been added to Toronto, it has doubled in population since the 80's ....... Has housing in Toronto become more affordable since the 80's? 
  
  Of course not, because it is the two number relative to each other that matter not just adding more units in absolute terms. The amount has been highly restricted due to the overwhelming percentage of land the is restricted to single family houses. 
  ​
  
  Much of the housing being built is not being built as affordable housing. 
  
  This is mostly due to the fact that it is so hard to build new supply, making that the only part of the market that can be met. Also the market can only be trusted to provide so much. There needs to be much more public investment in housing. 
  
  .......there are still plenty of people who cannot afford to that house and will need to live outside of the city. 
  
  There is nothing about being outside the city that makes it inherently less expensive (Much of that is because of the way we subsidize suburban style developments), it is entirely possible to make the city (not necessarily right downtown) just as affordable as the periphery. 
  ​
  
  "Make housing in urban areas more affordable" is absolutely something I can get behind, but a lot of people who can't fight that fight with their current pay cheque are moving to more affordable areas now to survive hoping that problem can be solved later, leading more people to leave the city and move into new developments in the Greenbelt.
  
  You are accurately describing the problem, however the current state of affairs does not imply what the best strategy to solve the problem is. 
  ​
  
  If your options are something like that or a tiny condo in the city you can't afford, I can see why people are making that choice given the lack of viable alternatives.
  
  The tiny condos are not an inherent aspect of infill development but a symptom of our current policies.  
  ​
  ​
  I am actually ambivalent about green belts as a policy tool to prevent sprawl myself, however preventing urban sprawl is extremely important as there are a lot of issues beyond affordability at stake. And regardless, while more sprawl will help with supply it is not the only option and we should focus on the solutions that have the least harmful side effects. >
  
  
  The amount has been highly restricted due to the overwhelming percentage of land the is restricted to single family houses.
  
  I agree, and I agree that zoning changes and reduced regulations/red tape could change that, but then you have to essentially increase zoning restrictions/red tape in less populated areas to prevent them from growing (like the Greenbelt) if your intention is to push people into denser urban housing than cheaper, less dense, suburban or rural housing developments.
  This might be a sound environmental goal, but I do not know how you make an area more dense, more desirable, and more affordable while restricting growth in surrounding communities. 
  
  There is nothing about being outside the city that makes it inherently less expensive 
  
  I encourage you to find housing in the Golden Horseshoe that is cheaper than comparable housing in the Greenbelt. I'll wait. Housing is absolutely cheaper in Bolton than it is in Toronto/GTA, and it's even more affordable in town you have never heard of than biggest city in the country. There might be higher costs to the government that supplies the services needed by those houses when you look at things like providing roads and drinking water, but if you look at the taxes paid in those communities for those services, they are lower than in most cities too. 
  It might be more expensive to the government when people are more spread out, but it is cheaper for individual people to move out of the city. you have to be significantly farther away from the city before the personal costs associated with your distance start to be felt on an individual level, which is what makes the proximity to the city also desirable, making people want to live in the Greenbelt surrounding the major population centers. 
  
  it is entirely possible to make the city (not necessarily right downtown) just as affordable as the periphery.
  
  It might be, or it might be possible to make the periphery desirable enough that people from the city center don't want to leave the city entirely, but we aren't talking about suburbs in a traditional sense because most of the Golden Horseshoe also faces affordability issues, we're talking about small-medium sized towns of 1 000 - 20 000 people growing as people look for affordable housing outside of cities. Those communities happen to be in the Greenbelt. 
  
  You are accurately describing the problem, however the current state of affairs does not imply what the best strategy to solve the problem is.
  
  I am not suggesting a solution to not building in the Greenbelt, because I don't see one. I am saying we have to build there if we want affordable housing, because the housing that isn't built there and is in the cities in the Golden Horseshoe is too expensive and the population of Southern Ontario as a whole is growing, and those people need somewhere to live. If they can't afford to live in Toronto, and the people living in Toronto are being priced out and forced to seek more affordable housing, how can we blame them for moving to places where it is available?
  I agree that "combatting sprawl" is important and there are more issues beyond affordability, I just don't see how opposing Greenbelt development and no one has shown an example of a place where density increases with affordability. 
  I would love to solve environmental issues and social issues and make more desirable cities. I would also like to be able to afford to live there, and I don't see mutually agreeable solutions to those concerns. How do people save the environment, when they can't afford to live in their own environment? >
  
  
  I encourage you to find housing in the Golden Horseshoe that is cheaper than comparable housing in the Greenbelt. I'll wait. Housing is absolutely cheaper in Bolton than it is in Toronto/GTA, and it's even more affordable in town you have never heard of than biggest city in the country.
  
  This is a fairly recent development! I'm reading a book about Canadian indie music from the early 2000's and a running theme is that there were in fact lots of cheap places to rent in Toronto, Vancouver and especially Montreal that allowed artists to make a living before making it big. Having briefly lived here at the time I can confirm it. I had a nice place for $650 a month, which is the equivalent of $920 now. Maybe it was even cheaper out in Bolton but either way as a percentage of income it was far more reasonable and not that long ago. It's not an inherent element of a big city that it's incredibly expensive. >
  
  I rented a one bedroom in Toronto in 2012, for less than $1000/month. I moved back around 10 years later, and rent in Toronto is currently averaging around $2500/month for a 1 bedroom apartment. The average house price in Toronto in the 90's was in the $200 000's. It's now something like $1.2 million. I absolutely agree that Toronto used to be more affordable and it absolutely isn't now. 
  I don't think that proves "cities can be cheap because Toronto used to be cheaper" because when I was renting for $1000/month in Toronto, my friends were renting for $500/month in KW and similar sized Ontario cities, and house prices in the Greenbelt were under $100 000. 
  Toronto is more expensive now than it ever has been, forcing people to look for cheaper alternatives. Those cheaper alternatives are more expensive than they have ever been as well, as housing prices in many of those small communities have increased significantly as well, just not to the numbers that we see in the city. 
  
  It's not an inherent element of a big city that it's incredibly expensive.
  
  I wouldn't say that they have to be inherently incredibly expensive, but they tend to inherently be more expensive than smaller cities and towns surrounding them, which is fueling the Greenbelt debate. And that "debate" feels a whole lot like "you can't afford to live in the cities because we made them too expensive, but you can't live outside of the cities because we have to protect the Greenbelt" so what options are left? >
  
  You have three options to housing:
  
  Build out 
  Build up
  Have less people
  
  Canada would be in population decline without immigration, so simply taking in fewer immigrants is one obvious answer to a housing crunch.
  Building up is more sustainable than building out, so I really do not understand why that is not preferable. >
  
  
  ban Air BnB
  ban/limit private firms investing is residential real estate.
  increase property taxes on 4th+ owned residence