Unlike Europe, Toronto Won’t Flourish With Mid-Rise Buildings (And That’s Okay)

I spent five days in beautiful Porto, Portugal, and I’m still struck by the city’s rich history and charming, pedestrian-friendly centre.

Walking through its narrow streets, built out with centuries-old 4-to-8 storey buildings, it’s easy to see why we crave such urban environments in North America. However, while the allure of these European cities is undeniable, we urban planners in major Canadian cities need to recognize that our cities will never be Porto — or Paris, or Barcelona. Aspiring to reproduce these cities is impractical, and ignores Toronto’s unique developmental path — and its potential to become a unique and extraordinary city that can inspire others worldwide.

Many urban professionals, and even the general public in Toronto, often look up to European cities as the pinnacle of city planning, especially as a reference for height of new buildings. In most discussions, the standout feature of these great European cities is their unique built form, primarily characterized by mid-rise buildings. This form might suit those cities, considering their development history, and their current needs and circumstances. However, it would not be applicable to different contexts and circumstances, such as those in North America. Striving to implement the mid-rise built form across our cities as an ideal planning principle overlooks some critical factors.

First: Our cities have fundamentally different development histories

Toronto’s growth was initially spurred by streetcars, and later by the private automobile. Its significant expansion occurred in the mid-20th century, when car ownership became widespread. This led to sprawling suburbs and the destruction of denser (and, if you will, more European-like) city centres, to make room for parking and wider roads. As a result, our cities are now dominated by a spread-out urban form and car-centric infrastructure and lifestyles.

In contrast, many European cities established their urban forms before cars became dominant, resulting in more compact, walkable environments. Notably, even in these charming European cities, the newer, post-war parts are very car-centric. There has been progress in retrofitting these areas to prioritize pedestrians, but they still serve as evidence for how car dominance can affect character and the urban form.

This historical context has created a different reality for Toronto — one that requires innovative solutions to retrofit and densify the city while learning from, but not replicating, the European models.

Second: We have a very different approach to city growth planning

European cities like Paris or Barcelona are (rightfully) celebrated for their mid-rise, human-scaled urban forms. What is usually overlooked is that these forms have been developed through cohesive and aggressive planning. Paris, for example, was transformed under Baron Haussmann’s plan in the mid-19th century, which introduced wide boulevards, uniform building heights, and extensive public spaces, creating the iconic Parisian streetscape we admire today. Barcelona’s superblock concept boldly reimagines urban blocks to prioritize pedestrians and cyclists over cars, fostering a more sustainable and community-oriented environment. Smaller cities like Portugal’s Porto grew more organically, with winding streets and less formal planning, resulting in their unique charm and character.

Toronto, however, is a relatively young city, developed primarily in the 19th and 20th centuries under restrictive, top-down planning— an approach that has dominated our planning system for decades, but is no longer practical, given our current housing crisis. Relying solely on mid-rise buildings as the holy grail of urban development is the continuation of this impractical approach, and won’t solve our housing shortage. We need a fundamentally different — and less political and risk-averse — approach to urban growth and development.

In 2010, the City of Toronto introduced a detailed strategy and design guidelines to encourage the growth of mid-rise buildings along designated “Avenues,” hoping to house 250,000 new residents within 20 years. Fourteen years later, we are nowhere close to meeting this ambitious goal. One main reason is that the properties along said Avenues make up only a tiny fraction of the city’s land area. To put this in perspective, you can look at Toronto’s Land Use Map. The vast majority of properties along Avenues are designated as Mixed-Use. However, only 5.2% of Toronto’s land is designated Mixed-Use, including areas in the Downtown, Central Waterfront, and Centres. This means the land area along Avenues is much less than 5.2%.

The dream of the European mid-rise will never materialize if we only dedicate a fraction of our city’s area to potentially accommodating this type of building.

As part of the Housing Action Plan (HAP): Avenues, Mid-rise, and Mixed-Use Areas Study, the City is reviewing its Avenues policy, updating its Mid-Rise Building Urban Design Guidelines and the zoning for Avenues, and considering expanding the Mixed-Use designation. Hopefully, these changes will help remove some planning obstacles, but even that won’t make Toronto’s European-style growth scenario the magic wand that solves our housing crisis. Mid-rise buildings require wide land parcels, and over the past few years, assembling the necessary land has proven very challenging.

Despite more development projects being proposed along the Avenues over the past five years, these projects offer fewer residential units, on average, compared to other Growth Areas. According to the 2023 Development Pipeline, projects along Avenues offer an average of 295 units, while Downtown and Central Waterfront projects average 367 units, Centres average 718 units, and Other Mixed-Use Areas average 645 units. This is another reason why it’s impractical to rely on mid-rise buildings as the best solution for addressing our housing shortage; the density that mid-rise buildings can provide won’t meet the housing needs of Torontonians quickly enough. Those who wish for a mid-rise city are about 40 years too late.

Third: Our rapid population growth is not comparable to European cities, and we need more high-quality living spaces

Today, no city in Europe experiences the same population growth as Toronto. Many European cities are shrinking and struggling economically, some since the EU amalgamation and others since the 2008 global recession. This is not the case in Toronto; to house this influx, taller buildings are essential.

High-rise structures can accommodate more people in a smaller footprint, making efficient use of limited urban space. They don’t only offer efficient land use, but also provide higher-quality units with distant views, more natural light, and more corner units, when compared to mid-rise buildings.

Fourth: When it comes to the character and quality of urban environments, building height isn’t the only factor defining (…and European cities know this well!)

European cities, with their historic centres and efficient public transport, have managed to avoid widespread sprawl. Toronto’s challenge now is to transform its car-dependent areas into more sustainable, high-density neighbourhoods with efficient transit.

While Toronto’s path differs from that of European cities, there are still valuable lessons we can learn and adapt:

1. Public Transit: Investing in robust public transportation can help reduce car dependency. European cities excel in this area, and Toronto can enhance its transit infrastructure to support higher-density living.
2. Walkability and Public Spaces: Creating walkable neighborhoods with ample public spaces can greatly improve urban life. Toronto can prioritize pedestrian-first (and often pedestrian-only) street designs, and integrate more green spaces within its high-density developments.

It’s time we stop wishing for Toronto to “look” like European cities just because we want to compromise on height. To move forward, we need to embrace and celebrate Toronto’s reality and unique urbanization path, and focus on learning a more fundamental lesson from European cities — what truly makes them functional and enjoyable: designing for pedestrians first.