Land scarcity problem is strictly a myth

By Richard Lyall

for The Toronto Sun

June 12, 2026

American writer and humourist Mark Twain once said, “The trouble with the world is not that people know too little; it’s that they know so many things that just aren’t so.”

That premise, it seems, can be applied to the thinking around land supply for housing.

For years, a popular narrative has dominated Ontario’s housing debate: we are running out of land. It is a convenient explanation for soaring home prices, shrinking affordability and a chronic shortage of new housing.

But it is, as they say these days, an alternative fact - just plain wrong, fiction, a fabrication, a falsehood.

Ontario does not have a land scarcity problem. Rather, it has a serviced, approved and buildable land scarcity problem - one largely created by decades of public policy choices that have made it increasingly difficult, expensive and time-consuming to transform land into housing.

That distinction matters because if policymakers misdiagnose the problem, they will continue prescribing the wrong solutions.

The evidence is increasingly clear.

Research comparing residential development land costs across Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, Texas and Colorado found that serviced buildable housing land in the GTA and the broader GTHA is among the most expensive in North America. Yet this premium cannot be explained simply by geography or a lack of physical land.

Instead, Ontario’s housing market has accumulated layer upon layer of regulatory costs, approval delays, zoning restrictions and infrastructure financing obligations that have dramatically increased the cost of bringing new housing to market.

Consider government charges alone. In the GTA, municipal fees, development charges and related costs can add between $144,000 and $195,000 per housing unit. Comparable charges in Alberta are often less than half that amount. In Texas, they are a fraction of Ontario’s levels. These costs do not disappear. They are ultimately reflected in higher home prices.

The approval process tells a similar story. Ontario’s average residential approval timeline is nearly 19 months, with projects in Toronto and Hamilton often taking more than two years for approval. By contrast, approvals in Calgary and Edmonton are typically completed within four months.

Time is money in housing development. Every month of delay adds financing costs, carrying costs and uncertainty. Developers must absorb these expenses long before a shovel enters the ground. The result is that fewer projects proceed, fewer homes are built and affordability deteriorates.

The consequences are visible across Ontario. The province continues to fall behind in housing starts.

Even more striking, the GTA is experiencing a paradox. High-density development land values have fallen significantly from their peak, yet condominium launches remain at historic lows. The reason is simple. Lower land prices alone cannot offset the combined weight of construction costs, development charges, financing expenses and regulatory delays.

The economics no longer work. This is why the housing crisis should concern not only prospective homebuyers and renters, but also construction workers, skilled tradespeople and the broader economy.

When projects do not launch, work does not materialize. Ontario’s residential construction sector employs hundreds of thousands of tradespeople, including electricians, plumbers, carpenters, equipment operators and labourers. Every stalled project means fewer jobs, reduced economic activity and a thinner pipeline of future work.

Meanwhile, consumers pay the price through higher housing costs and reduced supply.

The comparison with Alberta is particularly instructive. Alberta operates under the same constitutional framework and many of the same economic conditions as Ontario. Yet Calgary and Edmonton consistently produce more housing relative to population growth while maintaining significantly lower land costs.

Why?

Alberta has lower government charges, faster approvals and a planning framework that allows housing supply to respond more readily to demand. The result is greater supply elasticity and a market that produces homes when people need them rather than merely bidding up prices.

In Texas, the infrastructure financing system is different from Ontario’s. However, its permissive land-use environment and streamlined approvals produce substantially more housing per capita than Ontario. Housing supply responds to demand because regulatory barriers are lower.

By contrast, Ontario’s combination of growth boundaries, intensification mandates, discretionary zoning processes and lengthy approval systems has produced one of the least responsive housing markets in North America. When demand rises, supply struggles to keep pace.

None of this suggests environmental protections, growth planning or infrastructure investments should be abandoned. Nor does it imply that every acre of undeveloped land should become a subdivision. But it does mean policymakers must recognize that housing affordability is inseparable from housing supply, which is inseparable from the regulatory environment governing land development.

Ontario needs a comprehensive strategy to expand the supply of serviced and zoned land. Policymakers must abandon the misconception that the province is simply running out of land.

The province possesses ample land. What it lacks is enough land that can be efficiently serviced, approved and transformed into housing at a price families can afford. That must change.

Richard Lyall is president of the Residential Construction Council of Ontario (RESCON). He has represented the building industry in Ontario since 1991. Contact him at media@rescon.com.