As the thread says - anti sprawl legislation isn't problematic if we lifted intensification legislation in big ways, and it doesn't completely cut off lowrise housing supply.
The state of housing development in southern Ontario however is that legislation has effectively cut off lowrise supply and done very little to open up intensification opportunities.
I think there does need to be a recognition that "anti sprawl" is different than what has actually happened in Ontario, where literally any form of greenfield growth is labeled as "sprawl". I look at the latest greenfield areas in the GTA and I really ,really struggle to identify a lot of them as "sprawl". The densities in many of these areas are higher than pre-war residential districts.
People picture sprawl like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3685...!1e3?entry=ttu
while modern greenfield growth looks more like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4732...!1e3?entry=ttu
I think the focus needs to be much more on minimum greenfield densities than banning greenfield growth entirely, as well as opening up zoning on intensification. A lot of the market will naturally shift to intensification if you simply let it do that. Right now we banned greenfield growth and forced growth down a very permit intensive intensification path which is extremely challenging and expensive. Opening up both will achieve the desired goals of lowering land costs.
The pre-2005 model was "ban intensification, only encourage greenfield". The post 2005 model is "ban greenfield, highly discourage intensification".. which isn't great. The best route forward is likely "encourage intensification, lightly discourage greenfield"