Prime Minister Mark Carney called Canada “the most European of non-European countries.” While this might be true in some general aspects of governance, public services, or even old cultural ties, from an urban planning perspective, Canada is anything but European.
The Canadian Dream Is Still A House With A Backyard
Unlike European cities, where apartments and multi-family buildings are the norm, Canadians have long valued — and in many cases, strongly preferred — the single-family home. The dominant belief is that success means owning a detached house with a backyard, even though this approach has proven to be unsustainable, expensive and declines health and well-being. This mindset has fuelled urban sprawl, pushing cities outward rather than focusing on creating dense, efficient urban systems.
Sprawl vs. Compact Cities
European cities, from Amsterdam to Vienna, have prioritized compact urban forms. Their planning emphasizes mixed-use neighbourhoods, where homes, shops, schools, and transit are all within walking or biking distance. In contrast, Canadian cities have historically prioritized low-density development, forcing residents into long commutes and car dependency.
This isn’t just a matter of preference — it’s policy. Zoning laws across Canada still largely favour detached homes over mid-rise or high-density developments. Even in major cities, proposals to allow more housing in existing neighbourhoods are met with resistance, further entrenching our sprawling development patterns.
Car Dependency: Where Canada And Europe Part Ways
One of the obvious contrasts between Canadian and European urban planning is car dependency. In Canadian cities, cars dominate. Most daily trips require driving, and our infrastructure is built to accommodate them, from expansive highways to oversized intersections.
Since Carney made this bold statement in Paris, let’s take a closer look at this city. In just a few years, the city slashed car dependency from 25% of trips to just 12.5% through a combination of policies. It took political will and political courage, but they succeeded:
- Expanding cycling infrastructure
- Converting roads into pedestrian spaces
- Investing heavily in public transit
- Reducing street parking and increasing car-free zones
Canadian cities, by contrast, continue to invest in road expansion rather than alternatives, keeping us locked in a cycle of congestion and emissions.
If Canada Was “European”
If Canada truly wants to be “European” in its urban planning, we need a fundamental shift in how we design our cities. That means:
- Densifying neighbourhoods — legalizing more apartments, townhomes, and mid-rise buildings in all areas.
- Investing in public transit — making buses, subways, and trains the most convenient option.
- Reclaiming space from cars — prioritizing walkability, cycling, and public spaces over parking and road expansion.
- Changing the cultural narrative — moving away from the idea that the ideal Canadian home is a detached house with a backyard and prioritizing the alternative with its advantages.
Canada has the potential to build cities that are truly people-focused — more “European,” if you will. But as of today, our urban planning is far from it. Unless we change it, we will remain stuck with expensive housing and car dependency. Our new Prime Minister should make this a priority, bringing urban planning into the national conversation. Otherwise, we will continue to be a country that only thinks of itself as “the most European.” It’s time to rethink what that really means — starting with how we build our cities.
