RICHMOND HILL, ONTARIO — A quiet suburban afternoon turned into tragedy yesterday when an SUV plowed through the storefront of a daycare centre near Yonge Street and Nottingham Drive, killing a 1½-year-old boy and injuring several other young children and staff members. The collision occurred just before pickup time at about 3:00 p.m., sending shattered glass and panic through the daycare as families were arriving.

Police say the driver, a man in his 70s, was arrested at the scene. Authorities currently believe the act was not deliberate. According to York Regional Police, the vehicle was parked in the centre’s lot and for reasons still unknown drove through the front glass window into the play area.  In total, seven children between the ages of 1½ and 3 were struck; three staff members were also hurt. Among the injured, two children remain in critical condition.

Parents were notified that all children had been accounted for, though the emotional toll was immediate and profound. Neighbours and residents gathered the next morning at the site, leaving flowers, toys, and handwritten notes as a makeshift memorial. The shattered window of the daycare was boarded up; the scene remains a powerful reminder of vulnerability in places thought to be safe.

Police have since laid charges: dangerous operation causing death and two counts of dangerous operation causing bodily harm. The investigation continues as the community mourns.

Analysis: How Suburban Design Can Amplify Danger, Limiting Mobility Choices for Everyone

This tragic incident exposes more than just an unfortunate accident. It shines light on deeper issues in how many suburbs—including Richmond Hill—are designed: in ways that heavily favour car dependency, reduce options for movement, and in doing so, increase risk for all ages.

1. Car dependency as default
   In suburban areas, public transit is often sparse or infrequent; walking infrastructure—sidewalks, safe crosswalks, bike lanes—is frequently under-developed. As a result, many people feel that their only realistic way to travel is by car. This is true for parents doing daycare drop-offs, elderly residents, people without access to reliable transit, even children. When nearly every trip requires a car, you get more cars in more places—parking lots near buildings with large windows, driveways adjacent to entrances—any error or loss of control becomes far more dangerous.

2. Building layouts and urban form that expose people
   Many businesses, daycares, shops are designed with parking directly in front, glass facades, entrances that open into vehicular zones. This makes them vulnerable: cars parking or manoeuvring right in front of windows; little physical barrier between where vehicles drive and where people walk or where children play. In this case, the SUV drove from the parking lot through the glass into the interior of the daycare. If there had been robust physical barriers—bollards, reinforced curb edges, set-back facades—the outcome might not have been so severe.

3. Aging drivers, adaptability, and lack of alternatives
   As people age, vision, reflexes, control can diminish. If public transit or safe walkways were strong alternatives, some might choose those. But without them, many older adults continue driving even when risk is higher, because it is their only means of mobility. They remain ensconced in car-dependent lifestyles. Importantly, this is not just about who drives: it’s about where cars must operate, how close they come to vulnerable spaces, and the margin for error built into the design of our environment.

4. Risk for children, pedestrians, vulnerable users
   Children, often too young to understand traffic risks, are especially vulnerable. In suburbs, the places children go—school, daycare, parks—are often accessible only by car. When buildings front parking lots rather than streets, when vehicle speed through parking lots, driveways, and cul-de­sacs is not well controlled, the chances of a vehicle colliding with a building—and by extension the people inside or around it—is higher.

5. What could change

   • Physical barriers: Bollards, reinforced planters, curb extensions, set-backs to keep vehicles physically separated from pedestrian zones and windows.

   • Zoning and site design changes: Require daycare centres, schools, shops to have safe drop-off zones not facing parking access, avoiding glass facades at ground level in traffic-adjacent walls.

   • Better non-car options: Frequent bus service, safe sidewalks, continuous bike infrastructure, safe walking routes for all ages. If people have good, safe alternatives to driving, fewer cars would be in precarious places.

   • Age-appropriate driver assessment and supports: More frequent evaluations, especially when vehicles are used in tight parking-lot conditions, and clearer guidance or supports for older drivers to transition away from car dependency.