As an independent consultant, I use a systems lens to help organizations advance social and environmental outcomes. This work inevitably comes back to change. If we want outcomes that are different from today, we must fundamentally shift how we do things. Real change isn’t about adding one more program or intervention – it requires rethinking goals, incentives, policies, programs and processes.
This is a hard truth we often avoid. I see this clearly in Toronto’s housing and homelessness landscape. The conversation is dominated by supply, while far less attention is paid to how we shape the system that delivers it.
Take my own neighbourhood of Parkdale, where a 15-storey development is proposed on a one-way residential street. There are several challenges associated with this development but what I find the most troubling is the lack of alignment with the City’s own priorities. Significant zoning variances are poised for approval without any meaningful requirements for affordability – no commitments to affordable or deeply affordable units, no rent control and no demands that units remain rental stock. This is despite a housing crisis and the City’s own strategic priorities that include maintaining and increasing access to affordable rents[1].
Toronto’s Housing TO 2020-2030 Action Plan sets out an ambitious mission of “providing Torontonians with housing that is safe, affordable and suitable to their needs”[2]. Consider the significant investment being made and required for shelters, outreach services, and a centralized waiting list where average wait times stretch from 9 to 15 years[3]. These are vital efforts that require substantial resources. Yet in parallel, the City often overlooks lower-cost policy tools—such as tying approval of zoning variances to affordability commitments. This serves to deter investments in affordable housing reinforcing existing economic incentives for business as usual building.
When questioned, City staff have explained that “the City no longer really has any mechanism to ask for additional community benefits beyond what is required by the Community Benefits Charge (CBC) By-law[4]. They have also articulated that, “if a proposal is rejected by the City, the applicant is entitled to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal, a provincial body. The Tribunal’s authority supersedes the City’s decision. It is not unheard of or uncommon for applicants to have been rejected by the City and then approved for more by the OLT. This is a constant concern.[5]”
I’ve seen this pattern before. In my work on sustainable procurement, I have found that Canadian governments (municipal, provincial and federal), with strong commitments to climate action and poverty reduction issued RFP’s with only superficial sustainability requirements. Billions have been spent on these priorities, but progress has lagged because the system itself is not aligned to the outcomes it claims to pursue. It is like a doctor treating diabetes only with costly medication while ignoring diet, exercise, and monitoring. The treatment may help, but without addressing root causes, stability remains out of reach.
The same applies to housing. We cannot expect to solve a crisis by leaning only on costly interventions while neglecting the low-cost, high-impact policy tools. Toronto has articulated a bold vision and invested heavily in plans and programs. That commitment is significant and worth recognizing. But without aligning our zoning, approvals, and incentive structures with our stated goals, the impact will always fall short of the promise.
What’s needed now is not just more investment, but smarter investment that works to create incentives for affordable housing. By leveraging policy tools such as integrating affordability requirements into zoning variances, linking approvals more tightly to long-term community outcomes, and ensuring that development advances—not undermines—our strategic priorities, we can meaningfully address the housing crisis
As someone who works with organizations on systems change, I know this shift is possible. It begins with recognizing misalignments, naming them without blame, and then re-designing the system so that actors across sectors and interventions—whether financial, regulatory, or community-driven—pull in the same direction. If we can do this, we will not only build more housing, but we will also build a city that better reflects our values of equity, inclusion, and sustainability.
***I welcome all comments on this analysis. If you feel it is missing information or fails to consider key areas, please reach out / comment.
About the Author
Monica Da Ponte is the Principal Shift & Build, a consultancy dedicated to advancing a sustainable, socially just future. She applies a systems lens to deliver services spanning strategic planning, program design, revenue generation, research, facilitation, partnership development and implementation support. Monica welcomes consulting projects and innovative collaborations that work to drive meaningful, lasting change.
[1] https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/94f0-housing-to-2020-2030-action-plan-housing-secretariat.pdf
[2] https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/94f0-housing-to-2020-2030-action-plan-housing-secretariat.pdf
[3] https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/employment-social-support/housing-support/rent-geared-to-income-subsidy/choice-based-housing-offer-process/
[4] E-mail communication from City of Toronto Planner, June 13 2025.
[5] E-mail communication from City of Toronto Senior Policy Advisor, June 23, 2025