Toronto's multiplexes are multiplying — but not fast enough
City Hall Watcher #331: Guest contributor Damien Moule looks at the growth of multiplexes in Toronto, and the barriers that are preventing many multiples more.
Hey there. I’m taking a backseat this week, as guest contributor Damien Moule has returned to mark the second anniversary of Toronto Council’s decision to allow multiplexes.
He’s got some data on how many multiplexes have been permitted since. There’s been an increase, but the numbers aren’t as high as City Hall planners hoped — or anywhere near as high as our civic frenemies in Edmonton.
Also in this issue: a look at the City Hall calendar, with notes on the enduring dream of a bridge to Toronto Islands, a new name for Dundas Station, a controversial contract for a High Park people mover, and more.
If you dig this stuff, consider a paid subscription. You’ll be supporting independent Canadian journalism, and it costs just $6 a month (plus HST) — a bargain and a deal.
✨ This issue runs a little long. If it gets cut off in your email client, read it on the web.
— Matt Elliott
graphicmatt@gmail.com / Archives / Subscribe
Multiplex Muddling: Checking in on the success of Toronto’s Multiplex Study
By Damien Moule
We have just passed two years since Toronto City Council approved the Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods — Multiplex Study. That study changed the City’s Zoning By-law and Official Plan to allow the construction of multiplexes in all of its residential areas. The study was the result of three years1 of work by City Planning. It was vigorously supported by housing advocates, including me. I wrote in support. I took a day off work to depute at the Planning and Housing Committee. I celebrated with others when it passed through the committee that day.
So with the second anniversary now in the rear view window, I thought it was a good time to check in on the data to see what impact approving the Multiplex Study had on the construction of multiplexes in Toronto.
Toronto maintains two databases of building permits, one for active permits, and one for cleared permits. The data has some flaws, with inconsistency in categorization and labelling, but I was able to parse through it well enough to come up with a reasonable estimate of multiplex building permits issued by year.
If you thought I was going to spare you the details of that parsing, you were wrong. I filtered Structure Type for 3+ Unit Detached, 3+ Unit Semi-Detached, Converted House, Duplex, Duplex/Semi-Detached, Triplex, and Triplex/Semi-Detached. I filtered the Work variable for Addition(s), Change of Use, Multiple Projects, and New Building. For cleared permits, I selected only Closed to remove cancelled permits. Finally, I selected permits with 1, 2, 3, or 4 Dwelling Units Created.
I plotted the number of multiplex units created per year, which you can see below. I also sanity checked the numbers against a slide used in a recent City Planning public consultation, which showed 393 new multiplex units added from May 2023 to November 2024. That is quite close to what I found.
The adoption of the Multiplex Study Report is quite visible in the data. The number of multiplex units issued building permits per year more than tripled from 2022 to 2024. And while I didn’t plot it, the 2025 rate has started off higher than the 2024 rate as well. I do have to add the disclaimer that the lead time for housing projects can be several years, and we only have 2 years of data so far. I expect the number will continue to rise.
You may also be interested in knowing where the multiplexes are going to be built, so here is a map of the permits issued for 2024 by Ward.
There were permits issued all over Toronto. The largest number of units permitted was in Davenport at 45, followed by York South-Weston (40), and University-Rosedale (32). Four Wards had no new multiplex units permitted in 2024, Toronto Centre (makes sense), and then Don Valley West, Don Valley East, and Scarborough-Agincourt.
Toronto vs. Edmonton: FIGHT!
With the fun pictures out of the way, what conclusions can we draw from the Multiplex Study? Was it successful? In one sense, yes, the ban on multiplex construction in residential areas was removed citywide, and the number of multiplex building permits is going up. But in another, more correct sense, the answer is no.
The rate of multiplex building permits issued in Toronto is not particularly good, even after the Multiplex Study. Jacob Dawang, a housing advocate in Edmonton (and formerly Toronto), looked at building permit data2 following that city’s Zoning By-Law Renewal project and found that Edmonton had issued building permits for a combined 3,500 units in duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes in 2024. That’s around ten times the number of permits issued in Toronto, which is a much larger city than Edmonton.
Jacob noted that the majority of these units were approved in greenfield developments, which Toronto can’t replicate, but there were still around 600 units added in the oldest mature neighbourhoods — well above the rate Toronto has seen.
The rate of multiplex permits issued is also slower than Toronto City Planning hoped it would be. As part of the Housing Action Plan prepared in 2023, City Planning estimated that the Multiplex Study could enable between 5,000 and 25,000 potential housing units3 by 2031. That would imply a rate of around 600 to 3,000 units per year. With the pace well below that for the first two years, I don’t have much confidence that those numbers are achievable under the current rules.
I have to say this is pretty disappointing. New housing production wasn’t the only reason to support the Multiplex Study4, and it is one of many pieces in the Housing Action Plan. But it would have been nice if annual multiplex permitting could match the number of residential units commonly produced in a single high-rise apartment building.
Luckily, the City is continuing to work on producing more multiplexes. Councillor Jamaal Myers launched a study in his ward to allow multiplexes with up to six units. City Planning has also recently performed public consultations on a proposal to take that study citywide. That report should be presented to the Planning and Housing Committee later this year.
I like Myers’ study and would love to see it applied citywide. But with the limited permitting rates we are seeing for multiplexes, I am increasingly skeptical that the number of units allowed per multiplex is the limiting factor5.
In the retrospective I wrote on Toronto’s Expanded Housing in Neighbourhoods program last year, I noted that while the program expanded building types allowed in residential areas, it often left other Zoning requirements intact. I think these requirements, such as setbacks, lot area, building length, and lot coverage are severely restricting the construction of multiplexes.
Multi…complexities
To explain, I think another comparison between Toronto and Edmonton is helpful.6 Below is a table showing the requirements for multiplexes in the lowest-density residential areas in each city: the Residential Detached (RD) zone in Toronto and the Small Scale Residential (RS) zone in Edmonton. And of course, since Toronto’s Zoning By-laws are so complicated, I have to recycle a map from last year to supplement the table.
It takes a little while to read through that table and those maps to understand exactly how all the pieces fit together, and I’m sorry for putting you through that, dear reader.7 But let me summarise: in general, Edmonton has smaller minimum lot area requirements with smaller setbacks, and higher lot coverage.
In other words, it allows bigger buildings and smaller lots. And while I compared only the two lowest-density zones in Toronto and Edmonton, the same trend applies in the denser residential zones in each city as well.
You actually see the same trend within the City of Toronto itself. Look back at the map showing where multiplex building permits were issued in 2024. They are concentrated in the west end streetcar suburbs and the former City of York. These older areas tend to have smaller lot sizes than the newer, more suburban parts of Toronto. They are also mostly zoned R or RM, which allows for smaller setbacks than the RD zone, which applies over most of the City’s area.
From the beginning, City Planning and City Council were trying to thread a needle with the Multiplex Study. They wanted to allow more housing options in existing neighbourhoods, without changing the size of buildings or lots allowed in the neighbourhood.
They were hoping the study would be enough to produce a meaningful amount of new housing without needing bigger changes that might draw the ire of the vocal groups obsessed with “neighbourhood character”.
With a few years of data, I think we can say that both those goals weren’t achieved. The Multiplex Study, despite its efforts to fit gently into existing neighbourhoods, was loudly opposed by many residents’ associations. The careful steps and years of study and consultation didn’t work in soothing them. And the changes haven’t really produced a new housing stream so much as a new housing trickle.
As always, we come to the question of what to do now. If City Council wants to see the multiplex permitting rate rise8 from the middling numbers we see today, then I think it will need to go back and reform lot size minimums, setback requirements, and likely (eek) height limits.
I think the City had hoped there wasn’t a trade-off between adding new housing options and the “stability” of neighbourhoods. But the low number of new multiplexes makes it clear that there is.
Damien Moule is an engineer, municipal policy nerd, Ward 10 resident, father, and member of More Neighbours Toronto. You can find him on Bluesky at damienmoule.bsky.social.
More from Matt: on welcoming our robot overlords (maybe) and the high cost of TTC parking
📰 For the Toronto Star last week, I wrote about the Ministry of Transportation’s decision to allow self-driving delivery vehicles to operate on the west side of downtown.
I think City Hall should have more of a say in the program, but I’m very cautiously optimistic about the potential for self-driving vehicles to be safer for pedestrians and cyclists than human-driven cars. Seriously, how could they be worse?
🗞️ For the Star this week, I’m writing about the TTC’s commuter parking strategy. Many of these parking lots are major, miserable money sucks, and the TTC should be more aggressive about changing that.
Look for it in your favourite newspaper.
The week at Toronto City Hall
MONDAY: 🗂️ The General Government Committee met. They considered a contract for a new people mover shuttle service operating in High Park. Staff are recommending a deal where Carla Construction & Maintenance — the sole bidder on an RFP — operate an electric shuttle service. The deal will see Carla keep 85% of fare revenue.
There are concerns — a lot of them. The new shuttle service is intended to be a mobility option, replacing the “Trackless Train” that currently operates in the park as more of an amusement ride. But the price — with HST, it’d be ten bucks per adult, seven dollars per youth and seniors, and $5 per child — and limited route were both cited by deputants and some councillors as major issues with the proposal.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to City Hall Watcher to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.