^ Well anything is possible but there are always different trade offs and sometimes unintended consequences when trying to balance different public policy objectives. If changes were made to the Planning Act or City of Toronto Act, the city could implement inclusionary zoning policies which would essentially 'force' developers to build family sized units and/or affordable units. The public policy trade off would be that the remaining supply of 'market' units would have higher prices levied in order to subsidize the lower cost and/or larger units (cross subsidization). So certain city objectives would be achieved, but on the other hand the cost of housing for the majority of people would go up. There are other methods the city could achieve larger/lower cost units, but that may come at taxpayers expenses if there is a direct subsidy or if certain taxes, fees and charges were exempted to reduce the sticker price for buyers of larger units (also this would have to be closely monitored so wealthy buyers of penthouses etc don't benefit from a policy directed towards families). A quicker approvals in which more certainty was provided could reduce processing & carrying costs (i.e. as-of-right zoning), but the trade off may be less public participation or municipal control of the planning process - so again there are trade-offs. Tax increment financing could be utilized, but that's a tool generally used for brownfields or infrastructure investment. The city could waive section 37s or focus section 37s on affordable housing, but the trade off is less money for other community benefits that sec 37s fund. Or the city could take on a more direct role in housing investment, but that would once again impact the tax base or other municipal assets.... It's a complex issue with no easy answers, and any solutions are often the result of trade-offs which may impact other municipal (or provincial or federal) objectives.
