If you’ve been watching the Greater Toronto Area condo market with a mix of curiosity and caution, you’re not alone. Buyers are dealing with headline noise, record-low sales, shifting interest-rate expectations, and a steady drumbeat of “is now the time?” questions. I discussed these topics and more on Episode 100 of Toronto Under Construction. The panel included Gus Stavropoulos (Tribute Communities), Stuart Wilson (Alterra) and Amanda Ireland (Osmington Gerofsky Development Corp.), and we talked through what the market feels like from inside the development business in early 2026: Where projects get stuck, what’s changing in product and what the next cycle might look like.

Important signal

One of the most important signals for buyers is happening far upstream from any sales centre: Construction financing is settling into something closer to an “equilibrium.” After the cost shock that hit the industry post-2022, the pace of material and labour inflation has moderated to mid-single digits, with some markets even seeing quarter-over-quarter softness. That matters because most highrise projects are finely tuned machines. When costs stop accelerating unpredictably, it becomes easier to price a building, secure financing, and actually start construction. But the panel makes a key point: there is no last-minute trick that suddenly makes a marginal project feasible. Wilson’s view is that feasibility is won or lost long before a project lands “on the cusp.” The best operators run disciplined tenders, treat trade partners fairly when pricing softens, and protect long-term relationships with banks, equity partners, consultants and contractors. Value engineering might save a few percentage points, but credibility and execution tend to be what move a deal from spreadsheet to shovels.

Stavropoulos adds a buyer-relevant detail that often gets lost: Lenders have expected a large share of hard costs, often about 70 per cent, to be fixed under contract for years. What’s shifting now is the temptation to leave more scope unfixed in hopes of capturing future cost relief. From a buyer’s standpoint, this is a reminder that “cost certainty” is real, but never absolute. Change orders, delays, interest costs and scope creep can still bite. The goal for a well-run developer isn’t perfection; it’s getting as certain as reasonably possible without squeezing trade partners to the point where quality and schedule are put at risk.

That discussion naturally opens into one of the biggest strategic themes in the GTA right now: The rental pivot. Purpose-built rental (PBR) projects aren’t just a policy concept anymore; they are a pipeline decision for major developers. Ireland points out one clear underwriting difference that buyers might not think about: Broker commissions. A condominium launch has a major selling cost embedded in the pro forma; rentals can avoid a big portion of that. But that doesn’t mean rental is cheap to build. In some cases, rental specifications can be higher. More durable finishes, materials selected for long-term performance, and design choices that hold up under years of wear become priorities, especially when the goal is to keep a trophy asset in the portfolio. For buyers, the implication is subtle but important: As developers build more rental, some of the best design thinking is shifting toward durability and operations, not just quick saleability.

Height and density

The episode also spends time on a question that’s increasingly shaping new communities: How tall is too tall, and what kind of density actually works? The panel digs into Bayview Village examples where height and density are being revisited as planning frameworks evolve around major transit stations. Stavropoulos is candid that it’s hard to make any pro forma work cleanly right now, condo or rental, and that if Tribute were buying land today, the company wouldn’t pay the same basis they did in prior years. But you can’t rewrite sunk land costs. One lever you can pull is the denominator; adding density in a transit node can bring the effective land cost per unit down and better align with the surrounding zoning context. That’s not just “build bigger;” it is a financial response to a changed market.

Wilson’s counterpoint is the one buyers should keep in mind when they look at skyline renderings: The industry doesn’t necessarily need more density; it needs better density. He argues there’s a sweet spot for highrise efficiency about 40 to 50 storeys, where building services, elevatoring and core layouts can stay relatively standard and floor plates remain efficient. Go much higher and structural and performance demands rise. Wind, sway, exposure and complexity start pushing costs and design trade-offs. The buyer’s takeaway isn’t that tall buildings are bad, but that ultra-tall is not automatically better and it tends to come with real cost and livability questions.

Then there’s the product itself, the thing buyers actually live in. Wilson offers a blunt critique of podiums: They are often mandated by policy, complicated to build and typically absorb all the essential but unglamorous functions such as loading, garbage, parcel rooms, mail, bike storage and circulation. That can lead to deep floor plates and long suites that exist because they are easy to stack, not because they’re great homes. Ireland pushes the conversation toward a bigger reset: The copy-paste condo product that repeats the same unit mixes from Hamilton to Oshawa is unlikely to work as well in the next cycle. Homogenization has created gaps. Certain sizes and housing types have been under-supplied in particular submarkets. More developers are going deep on neighbourhood fundamentals and taking controlled risks where the data supports a different program. Even amenities may get more honest. In her framing, affordability itself is almost an amenity, more valuable than the latest flashy feature room that looks good in marketing but doesn’t match how residents live.

Reinvention period

Finally, the episode confronts the question everyone whispers about: Distress. Receiverships, troubled projects and land resets are real in parts of the GTA. Stavropoulos describes a pragmatic approach: Tribute isn’t trying to play Monopoly with every distressed asset, but the company is also not sitting out compelling opportunities, especially when deals come through lender relationships looking for a stronger operator. The warning is that many distressed sites were overlevered from the start; adding capital doesn’t fix a broken land basis.

The conclusion was that 2026 isn’t a clean recovery year. It’s a reinvention period. Developers are rethinking what they build, how they finance it and how they operate it, often with a more sober, long-term mindset. For buyers, that can be good news. A market that rewards discipline, durability and livability tends to produce better buildings.

It is difficult to sum up what all this means for prospective new-home buyers. Don’t expect prices to rise (or fall) dramatically in 2026 and 2027, but a supply cliff is coming in 2028. So, if you’re waiting for the perfect time to buy at a market low price, we may soon hit that bottom, so don’t wait too long. Do your own research, surround yourself with an experienced team, and good luck.