The Math of Misery: Why 74 Units Won't Save Toronto
AI-generated image · Bay Street Wire
Opinion: The City's latest sustainable housing project in Trinity-Bellwoods is a commendable architectural experiment, but a systemic failure in scale.
On August 24, 2026, the City of Toronto, CreateTO, and the Government of Canada gathered for a celebratory groundbreaking at 1113–1125 Dundas St. W. As first reported by the City of Toronto, the goal is to transform a former municipal parking lot into a sustainable rental development. The project will deliver 74 rent-controlled units, with a minimum of 17 designated as affordable.
On paper, the project is a checklist of modern urban ideals. According to a City of Toronto news release, the development will utilize low-carbon mass timber construction and geothermal energy. It is being built by a Canadian team consisting of Pomerleau Construction, Montgomery Sisam Architects, and Moriyama Teshima Architects. It even prioritizes families, with over 40 per cent of the units featuring two or three bedrooms.
But as someone covering the affordability collapse, I find the celebration premature. While the City wants us to focus on the "sustainable" nature of the build, we need to focus on the unsustainable nature of the scale.
Mayor Olivia Chow claims this partnership with Build Canada Homes is delivering the housing Toronto needs so workers can afford to live here. Ana Bailão, President and CEO of Build Canada Homes, describes the project as a result of "ambition" and "purpose." However, when you weigh 74 units against the backdrop of a city-wide crisis, the math simply doesn't add up.
According to the City's own HousingTO Plan, the target is to deliver 65,000 new rent-controlled homes by 2030. This includes 41,000 affordable rentals, 17,500 rent-controlled homes, and 6,500 rent-geared-to-income units. To put the Trinity-Bellwoods project in perspective: 74 units represent roughly 0.11% of that 65,000-unit goal.
Even the boast from CreateTO—that they have more than 5,000 homes under construction on City-owned lands—is a drop in the bucket compared to the tens of thousands of units required to move the needle on affordability.
There is no denying that turning a parking lot into housing is a net positive. It is also true, as MP Danielle Martin noted, that the project is a "win" for the University-Rosedale community. But we cannot confuse a localized win with a systemic solution. Using the "Public Developer model" to expedite reviews and approvals is a step in the right direction, but if the output is measured in dozens rather than thousands, the model is merely performing a gesture of care while the crisis accelerates.
Sustainable architecture is vital for the planet, but the most sustainable thing the City can do for its residents is provide housing at a scale that actually impacts market pressure. Until the City moves beyond these boutique developments, the groundbreaking ceremonies are less about solving the crisis and more about the optics of trying.