Quality of Life Is the Core of Truly Sustainable Living

Let’s extend urbanity to create a sustainable future beyond city limits

I am immediately recognizable as someone who just fits better in a city. I don’t drive, I enjoy a variety of random, unusual things, and even if you didn’t know I was a designer, you’d probably guess that I am one pretty quickly.

So, when I've mused to people who know me well, or even just casually, or randomly in an Uber, about moving to a smaller town, or even just a smaller city, people immediately tell me they can't see it, insisting I would hate it.

They’re probably right. But I also look around the city I live in and see its appeal as more of a memory than a current reality.

Given that I am, apparently, quite palpably a "city person”, I suspect this shift is less about me changing and more about the reality that even many well-paid people here in Toronto (as in many urban Western areas) can barely afford to keep a roof over their heads, let alone enjoy the reasons they’re paying a premium to do so in a city.

The things people like me love about urban life - the culture, convenience, and connectivity - are fading as fewer and fewer people can manage to support them.

Many who claim to want to revive the city seem to be looking backward as the way forward. They think we just need to push people to commute to offices to do work they can just as easily (and often more effectively) do from home, to force them to support businesses that exist solely because the offices do.

Or maybe they believe that bringing interest rates back down to the unsustainably low levels that enabled us to build too many cubbyhole condos that no one wants to live in - ostensibly to reduce commutes to the offices people don’t want to go to, but really, to sell off our city bit by bit to investors - will fix it.

But both the era of artificially low interest rates that spurred excessive condo development and the established North American city structure centered around office commutes are relics of old economic models we've entrenched beyond their utility.

Our break from commuting during Covid, and the later break from seemingly endless increases in real estate prices thanks to inflation-fighting measures that were needed as a result of heavily inflationary Covid policies, made it clear just how artificially extended both of these accepted norms were. Trying to force us back to things that happened more organically before feels like we are being compelled to act out an outdated script; it no longer resembles real life or genuine demand.

I want to see the city become lively like it once was, but this means restoring affordability and, more broadly, enhancing livability not only within city limits but across society. We need to think bigger and more expansively about how and where we live our lives, beyond what many advocates of urban revitalization might suggest.

There’s a part of me that suspects the future won’t be as centred around cities. It doesn’t have to be, particularly with the rise of remote work. And you can't make me believe that the only solution to climate concerns is forcing people into undesirable, diminishing living situations.

We’re being unnecessarily limited by trying to apply new environmental concerns to old models that were never designed with these issues in mind. Surely, there must be other ways.

As much as I love cities, they can't be the only places where you can live and do things without consuming too much or driving.

I am as big a fan of building the missing middle as any urbanist, housing expert, or urban planner. I think those who oppose things like fourplexes on the basis of neighbourhood character are being short-sighted, at best. But I also think those who focus too much on the urban as our sustainable future are just as limited - without considering how urban benefits can extend far beyond those borders.

Canada in particular, given our vast amount of land and total lack of mid-sized cities, is really missing an opportunity by not more fully and enthusiastically embracing the shift to completely remote work (though I believe this also applies to other Western countries like the UK, where promises to “level up” and reduce economic imbalances have fallen short of needs).

Embracing remote work would allow us to spread out and develop more areas efficiently and effectively. It could also help drive down house prices in overpriced regions, as they would need to compete with newer, more distributed communities.

We can create dense, walkable neighbourhoods in many more places than we have now. There's no need for everyone to crowd into just a few major cities, now that remote work has proven to be viable.

A shift like this would benefit not only remote workers but also those who need to commute. Building more affordable and livable places will provide everyone with better options for where to live and work. As more areas develop, new business opportunities will emerge, fostering local economies and creating jobs and services closer to home. Traffic congestion would ease as the population becomes more evenly distributed.

Overall, changing how our cities, towns, and the infrastructure between them operate, now that fewer people truly need to travel for their jobs, will create better environments for everyone.

Anyone claiming otherwise isn’t serious about making changes that are both good for the environment and great for people. Stuffing people into a glorified cell in a tower block and demonizing them for wanting more or using too much cannot be how we deal with climate change.

A development like Cathedraltown in Markham, Ontario, shows a step in the right direction, emphasizing suburban development with mixed-use buildings and pedestrian-friendly streets. However, it’s still on the outskirts of town, not fully walkable, and too car-dependent. Urbanists often complain about building out suburbs rather than cities for these reasons. While Cathedraltown represents progress, we need to do more to integrate such developments into a broader vision of sustainable, livable communities.

We need not just gentle density but gentle urbanity, built beyond existing metropolises. This is how we provide people with the spaces they want while also promoting sustainability.

Just look at the contrast between Dutch small towns and similarly sized Canadian towns - it’s striking. Even tiny Dutch towns prioritize walkability, cycling infrastructure, and vibrant community spaces, making them more livable and sustainable. There’s no real reason we can’t do this too.

There are so many possibilities for our smaller cities and towns to transform into bustling hubs of walkability and convenience. The main obstacle is a lack of will to make them work. It may be challenging, but that’s not an excuse to avoid trying.

Imagine turning neglected parcels of land within their boundaries into vibrant mixed-use developments. Picture old industrial sites reborn as community centres or modern, spacious residential units - something we've failed to build in our big cities - and outdated buildings given a new lease on life.

To keep people motivated and happy to participate in society - and even just to keep them here, given the significant outflow from said cities, and even from Canada - we need more vibrant places for them to live that promote interaction and accessibility, which they can actually afford to access and interact with.

Given that our existing bigger cities have built many more expensive dog crates in the sky that appeal to investors, developers, and (supposed) advocates of sustainability - and considering that these won’t be easy to retrofit or replace - perhaps we will need to look elsewhere to build the spaces we actually need.

Too many recent developments, including the Cathedraltown project I discussed earlier, offer only large commercial spaces that small independent businesses can't afford. If more places allow flexible zoning and create smaller, affordable commercial units, local entrepreneurs and small businesses can thrive.

In addition to more eclectic local businesses, we can also give cultural and recreational infrastructure more room to grow and flourish. New developments should include arts and entertainment venues (that have been pushed, along with artists and entertainers, out of our increasingly overpriced and soulless cities), parks, community centres, and outdoor activities that enrich quality of life.

Because improving connectivity is crucial for adopting these kinds of infill strategies beyond existing urban centres, we need to focus not just on piggybacking on existing infrastructure but also on building new infrastructure. This includes expanding roads and public transit to link smaller towns with other cities, as well as enhancing digital infrastructure to support remote work. Better internet access, improved roadways, and more efficient transit options will make these towns more attractive to people who mostly work from home, but do occasionally need to travel.

By focusing on these areas, smaller towns across Ontario and Canada can become appealing alternatives to larger cities, offering the benefits of urban living in a more relaxed, community-focused setting. This approach not only utilizes underdeveloped spaces within these towns but also helps create vibrant, sustainable communities that cater to the evolving needs of today’s population, not the expectations of the past.

In so many ways, it is dated expectations and assumptions that serve as excuses for why this couldn’t work here, why other places can have these things but we can't.

It’s clear that a lot of the resistance to change comes from a fear of people's investments losing value, whether from commercial real estate or "mom and pop" speculation on housing. Our Canadian Prime Minister admitted as much this week, overtly saying that housing needs to retain its value, regardless of affordability concerns, because it represents a significant part of people's retirement plans.

This is exactly the kind of hubristic nonsense that leaves me increasingly convinced of my own thesis that a crash might be the only way out of our housing crisis - as there's simply no will to fix it otherwise. But anything deemed “too big to fail” inevitably does, and I’m sure this hubris is likely no exception.

With Toronto’s condo market seeing rising listings and declining sales, and commercial real estate facing a crush of vacancies, I am hopeful that this absolutely parasitic part of our economy may finally be ready to crash. This only sounds odd if the current state of the economy is working for you; for a significant portion of our working population, it will make so much sense as to be taken as a given.

If a crash finally happens, we should seize the opportunity to implement the changes that have been blocked by an older generation with outdated ideas, content to settle into their comfort and silence any noise they don't want to hear. A massive crash could finally push Canada to pursue more productive initiatives, rather than propping up the prices of bungalows in the exurbs or building shoebox condos as our primary "growth" strategies driven by a settled indifference to creating real value.

Clinging to old comforts has stifled innovation, made the economy less competitive, and hindered transitions to modern systems, all while sacrificing the financial well-being of younger generations. To ensure a resilient and equitable future, we must balance the needs of all age groups. Allowing economic evolution is crucial for creating a society that benefits everyone and addresses modern challenges effectively.

This includes reevaluating some dated ideas once considered progressive. Sprawl can be innovative, building out rather than up can be beneficial, and developing smaller communities with local amenities can reduce the need for driving. Relying solely on existing infrastructure limits us; we must envision and build new, sustainable, and enjoyable ways of living, especially in Canada where there's ample space to correct urban planning mistakes.

As established, I am far from anti-urban. But I also know that pushing the wrong execution of a concept can undermine the entire argument.

My partner and I have been driving a lot between Hamilton and other smaller towns in Ontario lately, considering a move now that we both work from home. I had heard Hamilton was more urban than many others and noticed the houses there had more character than many suburbs here. But some parts have imported too much of the bad parts of urbanity and not enough of the good. I was expecting a Leslieville in Toronto circa 2006 feel - an up-and-coming neighborhood known for its gritty charm and burgeoning arts scene - transplanted to a smaller city. Instead, I got more of a Weston circa 2006 vibe - more rundown and less vibrant, with limited amenities that often required a car for accessibility.

I feel like the place I was looking for doesn’t quite exist yet. But there is no reason we can’t build it.

I'm constantly struck not just by what we don’t have, but by what we could so easily have. Driving by huge, largely empty car lots, warehouses, and office buildings, I think - really, why can’t we build big, spacious, comfortable apartments on and around these? We have the space to do so more humanely than within Toronto. Why not also develop the areas around them to include more services? The missing middle is not just a city thing. We can have more of this everywhere.

The idea that young people only want single-family homes with a backyard and need to adjust their expectations to highrises is dated and shows a generational divide. Older generations don’t understand how low we have sunk and what we would be more than happy to accept. We are more radical because we’ve been radicalized by inferior options - all because of a black-and-white view of density and urbanization on both sides of the argument.

We know we won’t have the life our parents had - that chance has already passed us by. But maybe we can have something different, but good; maybe even better.

It’s been noted that millennials pursue personal and professional passions more throughout their adult lives than holding off on exploring them after they have finished “adulting”. We can’t plan on retirement like boomers did, so we prioritize our lives now, instead of waiting for the end.

I am, frankly, amazed we’ve been this patient waiting for the basics of life to become more secure for us for as long as we have. But that won’t last forever, and I think we are reaching the end of patience as more of the “young” are approaching middle age.

The inherent frailty of an aging society means that while those clinging to older ideas may resist, they will eventually have to give in to the younger generations they increasingly rely on; youth can’t (and simply won't) be the only ones expected to sacrifice. "Not in my backyard" is destined to lose its ferocity as more of the elderly lose the ability to maintain those yards themselves, both literally and figuratively.

It’s time for those accustomed to holding power to learn to concede (while they still have a say) and find ways we can grow together, rather than letting competing priorities tear us further apart. Just because our society is aging doesn’t mean we should all be content with declining along with it.