Alberta accounts for one third of Canadian growth [Archive]

feepa

Apr 25, 2007, 5:59 PM

From http://www.td.com/economics/comment/db042507.pdf

Alberta accounts for one third of Canadian growth

At nearly 7%, Alberta’s growth rate was so explosive that it single-handedly lifted the national average tally by 0.7 percentage points last year – not bad for an economy that accounts for about one-tenth of Canadian economy activity. Put another way, without the heavy lifting from Alberta, Canadian real growth would have come in at 2% rather than the 2.7% posted rate. What’s more, the blockbuster showing brought average annual growth in Alberta since 2004 to 5.6%. In light of the fact that the province’s longer-term cruising speed is closer to 3.5-4%, it is little surprise that the economy has burst through its capacity limits and cost pressures are rising. In 2006, CPI inflation (4%), median wage increases (7%) and average resale prices (30%) in Wild Rose Country ran at roughly triple the national average pace. Hence, this provincial economy left its mark on virtually all the national-average figures.

(Lets see how long until this Alberta topic gets locked... I'm sure the Easterners are ready to jump on this)

Coldrsx

Apr 25, 2007, 6:01 PM

funny thing is...prices and rents in van (other than west or downtown) seem normal and even cheap now.

$750 for a 1bdrm on granville and 12...ill take 2.

$530,000 for a 1288sqft townhouse done to the nines 10min from downtown van, 2 more please.

Taller Better

Apr 25, 2007, 6:12 PM

(Lets see how long until this Alberta topic gets locked... I'm sure the Easterners are ready to jump on this)

Do you ever think of anything other than your irrational fear and loathing of "The East"? It seems to consume you.

feepa

Apr 25, 2007, 6:15 PM

Do you ever think of anything other than your irrational fear and loathing of "The East"? It seems to consume you.

The east is out to get us... Run...:banana:

Taller Better

Apr 25, 2007, 6:17 PM

this cross country negativity/carping/paranoia is the one thing about Canada that I detest. It is so small minded and unnecessary, and is borne of regional jealousy.

feepa

Apr 25, 2007, 6:18 PM

this cross country negativity/carping/paranoia is the one thing about Canada that I detest. It is so small minded and unnecessary, and is borne of regional jealousy.
take a look at the last thread about Edmonton (in the Canada section), if you don't think it doesn't come the other way around too, Mr Toronto.

Taller Better

Apr 25, 2007, 6:20 PM

Action/reaction. I don't particularily give a dogs do-do. It is childish and self defeating no matter where it comes from. Try to rise above it, feepa, and you will be a better man for it.

"Mr. Toronto". Are you a very young person, feepa?

1ajs

Apr 25, 2007, 6:24 PM

lets see the west is rising and toronto is umm going bankrupt

feepa

Apr 25, 2007, 6:24 PM

CCF

Apr 25, 2007, 6:28 PM

lets see the west is rising and toronto is umm going bankrupt

Toronto is the capital of financial institutions, entertainment, and a vast majority of other tertiary activities in Canada. I don't think they have much to worry about.

Coldrsx

Apr 25, 2007, 6:30 PM

^bingo...problem with canada is ignorance. We are so big many of us dont get to see first hand other places as much.

salvius

Apr 25, 2007, 6:35 PM

I am happy for Alberta--no really, I mean it. In fact, it's good for everyone for the West to grow, really.

In fact, on more than one occasion I've thought about doing a stint in Alberta, but the lack of an urban experience has so far put me off. Maybe one day.

Taller Better

Apr 25, 2007, 6:37 PM

^bingo...problem with canada is ignorance. We are so big many of us dont get to see first hand other places as much.

I'll agree with you there, Coldrsx. When people are ignorant of other parts of the country, they tend to fall back on negative myths about other segments of the country that they learned from their parents and grandparents. Seems a bit of a
hillbilly activity in my humble opinion.

Coldrsx

Apr 25, 2007, 7:00 PM

I'll agree with you there, Coldrsx. When people are ignorant of other parts of the country, they tend to fall back on negative myths about other segments of the country that they learned from their parents and grandparents. Seems a bit of a
hillbilly activity in my humble opinion.

yup...hell i know vancouverites who havent been east of the mountains or torontonians who think orangeville is western canada.

Coldrsx

Apr 25, 2007, 7:01 PM

Taller Better

Apr 25, 2007, 7:05 PM

We all choose the city we live in because it suits our needs the best. We are not all the same, thus we all have different needs. I think what this country really lacks is basic human respect for each other. Canadians will weep and wail about injustice elsewhere in the world and then turn around and launch into a rage about another part of the country that they probably don't even have first hand experience about. Charity begins at home.

LordMandeep

Apr 25, 2007, 7:08 PM

malek

Apr 25, 2007, 7:11 PM

0.7% of 2.7% is roughly a quarter not a third.

Taller Better

Apr 25, 2007, 7:12 PM

What does this thread have to do with Toronto's city budget?

LordMandeep

Apr 25, 2007, 7:14 PM

i was commenting on what the forum member from Winnipeg said.

citizen j

Apr 25, 2007, 7:18 PM

Run, the East is coming to forclose on the mortgage on the family farm. It's like the 30s never ended.
I was impressed how much housing had been constructed in the 5 months between visits to Edmonton last year. YEG used to feel like it was half-way to Red Deer, now it's practically in the city.

Coldrsx

Apr 25, 2007, 7:25 PM

^give it 2 yrs...they have planned so so so much

citizen j

Apr 25, 2007, 7:27 PM

^ Yeah, like that new city on the NE side, north of Sherwood Park. What's it supposed to be called? I forget.

LordMandeep

Apr 25, 2007, 7:30 PM

At the rate my city is going at (Brampton) there will not be an acre that is not a house in 12 years.

citizen j

Apr 25, 2007, 7:31 PM

^Also true.

LordMandeep

Apr 25, 2007, 7:33 PM

it slowed down no doubt however the rate is still unsustainable...

Coldrsx

Apr 25, 2007, 7:33 PM

^ Yeah, like that new city on the NE side, north of Sherwood Park. What's it supposed to be called? I forget.

not sure, but it is planned for 200,000 people...but that would be over prob 20yrs...

South Edmonton is at about 15ave SW right now and is being planned with ASP and NSP right now to 41ave SW.....yup 26 blocks of more development south towards YEG.

But the whole city is going nuts...we will see a new skyline at 23 ave (www.centurypark.ca) and a new one to the north of downtown (aurora) and one to the west (142st. stonyplain rd).

boden

Apr 25, 2007, 7:40 PM

feepa

Apr 25, 2007, 8:20 PM

Lyle

Apr 25, 2007, 8:38 PM

South Edmonton is at about 15ave SW right now and is being planned with ASP and NSP right now to 41ave SW.....yup 26 blocks of more development south towards YEG.

When I lived in Alberta (pre-1982), south Edmonton began at the Whitemud Freeway. In fact, there was no Whitemud Freeway.

caltrane74

Apr 25, 2007, 10:00 PM

Alberta is growing really fast, then it's time for Alberta to put up some more skyscrapers.

Toronto or Ontario isn't growing half as fast as Alberta and we are killin' it with skyscrapers.

Kevin_foster

Apr 25, 2007, 10:41 PM

Alberta is growing really fast, then it's time for Alberta to put up some more skyscrapers.

Toronto or Ontario isn't growing half as fast as Alberta and we are killin' it with skyscrapers.

I sure hope you are kidding, because if you aren't then you must know that success does not mean "skyscrapers" THATS LIKE SAYING "YOU MUST BE SUCCESSFUL BECAUSE YOU ARE BEAUTIFUL!" - How many times do I have to point this out on this forum??? Someone STICKY this:::: Sucess != Skyscrapers.

The economy here is different. An economy fed by major Financial sector, or white collar institutions breeds skyscrapers - its the culture. An economy that is blue collar based does not (as often). It breeds warehousing, major infastructure changes and factories.

You really need to come here to feel the economic climate. It's absolutely nuts. I've never seen activity like this before.

It's not good, it needs to cool down. People are whoring it all and things are literally bursting at the seams. There was a warning today from an (correct me) economist, saying the Alta economy could burst quite quickly if we don't plan NOW on how to deal with growth.

Good friggin time to be a bank though. Your skyscrapers are being built because of our need for loans :whip.

EDIT: Im not trying to be all like "aww poor me I live in a pit of money". I'm saying, it's not all that it's cracked up to be. A slowdown might actually encourage more growth in the skyscraper sector :P

MonkeyRonin

Apr 25, 2007, 10:42 PM

the city of Toronto is going bankrupt from excess spending not the fact that they can't make money, because everyone is leaving to Alberta.

Really an 8.1 billion dollar budget for a city is insane!!!

No, it is due to being kept in kept in artifical poverty by the federal and provincial governments. Really, for a city of our size and wealth, the budget is quite small, especially considering it could be as high as 20 billion if it weren't for the upper levels of government.

caltrane74

Apr 25, 2007, 10:44 PM

True enough.... (toronto has a far different economy, and a different urban and social climate than Alberta as well - I doubt you could convince an Albertan to spend 2.5 million dollars for a starter apartment in downtown Calgary.)

To your point:

The uncontrolled and unplanned growth in Alberta will lead to a major fallout it not corrected very soon.

You cant grow an economy if no one can afford to live there. - You gotta make it so people can help deliever services to the industrial machine otherwise boom can go to bust as costs rise far beyond the point of any profitablity, no matter how expensive oil is.

caltrane74

Apr 25, 2007, 10:47 PM

No, it is due to being kept in kept in artifical poverty by the federal and provincial governments. Really, for a city of our size and wealth, the budget is quite small, especially considering it could be as high as 20 billion if it weren't for the upper levels of government.

So bascially there is one trillion dollars in real estate in toronto being taxed at a little less than 1% to create that kind of cash flow..plus service fees and user fees.

The Chemist

Apr 25, 2007, 10:56 PM

Alberta is growing really fast, then it's time for Alberta to put up some more skyscrapers.

Toronto or Ontario isn't growing half as fast as Alberta and we are killin' it with skyscrapers.

Toronto also has 5 times as many people in the area as either Calgary or Edmonton! Besides, I'd bet that on a per-capita basis, Calgary is putting up more skyscrapers than Toronto - and based on a statistic I saw in the paper this week, nearly 60% of ALL office construction (by floor space) in the country is right here in Calgary.

big W

Apr 25, 2007, 11:05 PM

The thing with scraper construciton is density and travel times. As Edmonton and Calgary are growing and no new freeways really happening we are seeing towers go up. Heck right now they have the most expensive office markets in the country and low lease rates. Calgary has office going up and Edmonton will soon as well. Not to mention that both cities have quite a bit going up in condos as well. So with our cities being much small and not as dense with, quicker commute times, the amount of towers going up is fairly impressive. Not to mention that there are lots of towers in the planning stage. I think in 5 years time you may not recognize Edmonton vs today and it has moved up quite a lot from 5 years ago as well.

caltrane74

Apr 25, 2007, 11:09 PM

Toronto also has 5 times as many people in the area as either Calgary or Edmonton! Besides, I'd bet that on a per-capita basis, Calgary is putting up more skyscrapers than Toronto - and based on a statistic I saw in the paper this week, nearly 60% of ALL office construction (by floor space) in the country is right here in Calgary.

Toronto is doing nothing on the Office Tower front, except for the big three. Its all high end condo's and hotels.

City wise Toronto is only 2.5 X bigger than Calgary. So I would like to see the statistics to back that up. On top of that as you see in my earlier post Toronto is a different city than Calgary much more willing to embrace condo living than Albertans are (at least for the moment) and..The Toronto forumers on this site have lost track of how many towers are going up in this city right now. ( because we would have to waste the better part of a day to do a good count)

And ..Calgary doesnt have a Mississauga (or other suburbs mine included) trying to put up a 200 meter skyscrapers at the same time the downtown core is trying to "throw it down" with hotels, condos and office towers.

And boy oh boy..if i dont get wacked for osama bin ladening this thread.

I was jokin...:) smiley face. ( I should have known better - but I was just making fun of another Alberta is killing it economically thread)

big W

Apr 25, 2007, 11:16 PM

0.7% of 2.7% is roughly a quarter not a third.

That and the fact that they mentioned Alberta as 1/10th of the national economy. The population is 10% but the economy is 13% in real terms and 16% in nominal terms.

caltrane74

Apr 25, 2007, 11:17 PM

Alberta is a "have" province therefore its rate of wealth ( maybe growth too??) should be out of proportion to its share of the national population.

big W

Apr 25, 2007, 11:25 PM

Alberta is a "have" province therefore its rate of wealth ( maybe growth too??) should be out of proportion to its share of the national population.

As are BC, SK and ON. But in this case they are talking growth. But they should check the numbers are they appear wrong.

caltrane74

Apr 25, 2007, 11:28 PM

Your right big W, appears someone is having some problems with fractional math and (cough)..editorializing..??

LordMandeep

Apr 26, 2007, 12:00 AM

you know people especially media can't do basic math.

4/11 is not 50% or half Global news Toronto....

Toronto hasn't boomed since the 70's, it is in a sustained growth with occasional ups and downs and thats because its a much older and mature city and economy. However there is a boom outside of the city of warehouses and single detached houses.

ssiguy

Apr 26, 2007, 5:06 AM

Yes, Alberta is doing well and probably will for a while. It will not come to a halt as it did in the early 80s {yes I know the NEP didn't help} but things were already slowing down.

Ontario will come back and has held up well compared to other larger auto US states. Quebec will come back and already is but will always lag. Manitoba will be decent growth with no bumps as always.
BC is doing well but much of that is due to 2010 Olympics and housing construction is starting to slow as fewer people are moving to BC due to real estate prices that make Calgary look like subsidized housing. When the Olympic building is over things will really slow down. Despite all the good news BC is still a have-not province.

raggedy13

Apr 26, 2007, 7:26 AM

^Yes, BC and Vancouver specifically needs to start luring back its lost businesses... plus a little bit extra. However there are still things to look forward to post-Olympics such as increased shipping and port expansions, potentially increased tourism, greatly increased convention space, various major infrastructure projects (including the Gateway Project and the much needed Evergreen Line and Millenium extension), town centre rejuvenation/redevelopment in most if not all of the major suburbs, the downtown streetcar project, and even if housing is slowing down there will always be people moving to Vancouver and since there is little room left for single detached housing there will always be plenty of condos u/c.

Anyways, good new for Alberta as usual (aside from the potential to overheat the economy). It sure will be interesting to see where Alberta is at in 5 years or so... will the economy still be roaring along? Will growth in economy and population still be high? Will national power have continued its shift west? Should be very interesting to check the whole country out in about 5 years. Vancouver will be a post-Olympic city, Prince Rubert will have a pretty big port, Alberta will have likely continued to grow at a healthy pace, Calgary and Toronto will have shiny, newly upgraded skylines, Sask and Manitoba will likely be feeling good after years of steadily growing economies, Winnipeg will be looking sharp with its fancy new Human Rights Museum/Manitoba Hydro building etc, perhaps Montreal will be seeing some significant highrise development of its own starting up, the Atlantic provinces might have returned people spending lots of Albertan money and boosting their economy, we'll all be buying fluorescent lights... should be interesting.

cornholio

Apr 26, 2007, 9:25 AM

Calgary and Vancouver and even maybe Edmonton are puting up more highrises per capita then Toronto.
Toronto is not going bancrupt and is actualy doing prety good for a NA city.
Vancouvers population growth is increasing and is almost double of what it was 5 years ago. Infact its expected to almost reach 2% by the end of the decade, thats probably the uper limit of a sustainabel healthy population growth for a city.

More on topic I recently read a article in the Macleans magazie that talked about Alberta heading for a budget deficit in posibly as little as 3 years if curent spending increase of 10% per year continue. If the price of oil falls significantly Alberta is going to feel some serious pain, personaly I hope that doesnt happen but only time will tell. Right now Ablerta is runing high on speculation and alot of people can loose alot of money if things go bad, which they easily can.

caltrane74

Apr 26, 2007, 1:38 PM

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/

1 Vancouver = 38 - u/c - population 550,000
2 Toronto = 101 - u/c - population 2.5 million
3 Calgary = 35 u/c - population 1 million
4 Edmonton = 8 u/c - population 1 million

WhipperSnapper

Apr 26, 2007, 2:36 PM

... and even maybe Edmonton are puting up more highrises per capita then Toronto

Rollin'
On
The
Floor
Laughing
My
Big
Hairy
Ass
Off

big W

Apr 26, 2007, 3:33 PM

big W

Apr 26, 2007, 3:34 PM

Rollin'
On
The
Floor
Laughing
My
Big
Hairy
Ass
Off

I would not say that going forward as you never know. Remember going back 35 years to 1972 where was Alberta vs Ontario vs Quebec. Things change and right now there are about 50 high rises planned to start in Edmonton.

salvius

Apr 26, 2007, 3:36 PM

^ well, I believe the statement indicated that such is the situation per capita currently. And it isn't.

caltrane74

Apr 26, 2007, 4:05 PM

Why mix City and metro populations. Makes more sence to use all metros.

I just took the information from the website posted. (why throw in Toronto's suburbs into the mix anyway..they dont build skyscrapers there anyway, except for Mississauga, they mostly build sprawling subdivisions and mansions)

Notice that Calgary and Edmonton City populations and Metro's CMA's are almost identical.

Mississuga
Status Count
Built 270
Construction 10
Proposed 22
-------------
Population: 612,925

Edmonton
Status Count
Built 246
Cancelled 2
Construction 8
Destroyed 1
Proposed 41
Renovation 1

--------------------
Population: 937,840

Calgary

Built 262
Cancelled 32
Construction 35
Destroyed 1
Fantasy 1
On-hold 1
Proposed 55
Stale proposal 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population: 951,395

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Status Count
Built 1962
Cancelled 27
Construction 102
Destroyed 22
Proposed 269
Renovation 2
Stale proposal 22

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population: 2,481,494

We got a lot on the proposed side... 269 buildings proposed more than currently built outside of any city ex. Montreal, Vancouver and Ottawa.

And put together with u/c of 102 its a whopping 370 buildings coming down the pipe.

So if thats not growth, I dont know what is. And Toronto is not booming economically the way Alberta is. But I guess the reason we can build like this is because its still affordable for labour to stick around here and we have a massive industrial machine to supply the construction industry. When Alberta can create some affordable housing I'm sure its construction numbers will shoot up instantly....And on top of that I believe Alberta's growth should level out, it can't just go straight up..

.

WhipperSnapper

Apr 26, 2007, 6:25 PM

I would not say that going forward as you never know. Remember going back 35 years to 1972 where was Alberta vs Ontario vs Quebec. Things change and right now there are about 50 high rises planned to start in Edmonton.

I don't see the relevance considering the suggestion was clearly in present form. However, I'm fairly confident that things stay more often the same than seeing change considering Toronto has about 50 near 500 footers planned to go up in the next few years

WhipperSnapper

Apr 26, 2007, 6:26 PM

Why mix City and metro populations. Makes more sence to use all metros

Ummm ... the Toronto figure is for Toronto proper

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?cityID=12&statusID=2

brettrobinson

Apr 26, 2007, 7:07 PM

caltrane74

Apr 26, 2007, 7:23 PM

As a recent member of this forum I must add … who gives a crap how many buildings each city has!!! This is not a competition for crying out loud. It is interesting when you look at some of the US threads and you don't see people in NYC/Chicago griping at bickering at West coast US or visa versa. I agree with what Taller Better said: ‘this cross country negativity/carping/paranoia is the one thing about Canada that I detest. It is so small minded and unnecessary, and is borne of regional jealousy.’

I agree 100%. - We are not jealous of Alberta in Ontario. We are proud of Alberta. Better 2 provinces to feed the masses, than just one.

big W

Apr 26, 2007, 7:27 PM

I just took the information from the website posted. (why throw in Toronto's suburbs into the mix anyway..they dont build skyscrapers there anyway, except for Mississauga, they mostly build sprawling subdivisions and mansions)

Notice that Calgary and Edmonton City populations and Metro's CMA's are almost identical.

Mississuga
Status Count
Built 270
Construction 10
Proposed 22
-------------
Population: 612,925

Edmonton
Status Count
Built 246
Cancelled 2
Construction 8
Destroyed 1
Proposed 41
Renovation 1

--------------------
Population: 937,840

Calgary

Built 262
Cancelled 32
Construction 35
Destroyed 1
Fantasy 1
On-hold 1
Proposed 55
Stale proposal 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population: 951,395

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Status Count
Built 1962
Cancelled 27
Construction 102
Destroyed 22
Proposed 269
Renovation 2
Stale proposal 22

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population: 2,481,494

We got a lot on the proposed side... 269 buildings proposed more than currently built outside of any city ex. Montreal, Vancouver and Ottawa.

And put together with u/c of 102 its a whopping 370 buildings coming down the pipe.

So if thats not growth, I dont know what is. And Toronto is not booming economically the way Alberta is. But I guess the reason we can build like this is because its still affordable for labour to stick around here and we have a massive industrial machine to supply the construction industry. When Alberta can create some affordable housing I'm sure its construction numbers will shoot up instantly....And on top of that I believe Alberta's growth should level out, it can't just go straight up..

.

The population for the city of Edmonton is actually about 725,000 and the city of Calgary is over a million. But this is all sidetracking the issue we were talking about before which was a sidetrack from the thread,

Now the reason Toronto will have more highrises is due to commute times. In the Alberta cities you can live 25 min drive from downtown and be on the edge of development. In Toronto this is more like an hour. This means people are more willing to do the sacrifice. In Alberta this is just starting now as the commutes are getting to the point people are considering living more central. Until recently the other issue is housing prices have not been there to allow development of high rises in Edmonton and Calgary as you could get a large house with a back yard etc for cheap, now not so much. Then there is government/regional planning in Ontario vs Alberta which forces more development up vs here where there is a lack of such planning. The other thing is public transportation. Comparatively speaking it is non existant in Alberta cities vs Toronto. They are totally different animals so these numbers do not mean anything when it comes to economic development. If that were the case then Cairo would be super rich due to all the highrises they have and are building (they have projects with more than 50 towers) vs poor Toronto which has a only 50 buildings going up total.

Now back to the thread and the growth economically in Alberta.

brettrobinson

Apr 26, 2007, 7:39 PM

I agree 100%. - We are not jealous of Alberta in Ontario. We are proud of Alberta. Better 2 provinces to feed the masses, than just one.

Same here. I like Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, etc......

baggab

Apr 26, 2007, 7:48 PM

As a recent member of this forum I must add … who gives a crap how many buildings each city has!!! This is not a competition for crying out loud. It is interesting when you look at some of the US threads and you don't see people in NYC/Chicago griping at bickering at West coast US or visa versa. I agree with what Taller Better said: ‘this cross country negativity/carping/paranoia is the one thing about Canada that I detest. It is so small minded and unnecessary, and is borne of regional jealousy.’

After a while you start realizing it's usually the same people over and over again.

Most of which gets their info from newspapers, that often mislead or spin information. I avoid most newspapers these days after seeing how they interperted actual economic reports that people have access to from CIBC World Markets, Universities and other major Canadian financial institutions...

ErickMontreal

Apr 26, 2007, 7:49 PM

This cross country negativity/carping/paranoia is the one thing about Canada that I detest. It is so small minded and unnecessary, and is borne of regional jealousy.

Completely agree with you.

caltrane74

Apr 26, 2007, 8:23 PM

. If that were the case then Cairo would be super rich due to all the highrises they have and are building (they have projects with more than 50 towers) vs poor Toronto which has a only 50 buildings going up total.

Now back to the thread and the growth economically in Alberta.

True Enough. Except Alberta and Ontario use the same currency.

LordMandeep

Apr 26, 2007, 8:40 PM

My god!!!!!

cornholio

Apr 26, 2007, 9:45 PM

Hey a question for the Alberta people regarding te posibility of future budget deficits with the direction of the curent goverments spending increases...got any info opinions about this. Just want to hear your peoples take on it as I have limited information but from what I read and know this is a real posibility in the future that no one seems to want to talk about or believe because their logic is corupted with money and oil.

*Regarding my previous post its obvious Edmonton doesnt match up in highrises u/c, this suprises me as i realy dont seem to pay enough atention to the city(dont realy know why).
*Calttrane as far as I know that 101 number for Toronto is for Metro Toronto, thats 5.5mill. While the 38 for Vancouver is for the city of Vancouver, for the entire GVRD its around 80(counted it once but dont know the exact figure, might do that again), thats for a population of 2.2mill. Calgary on the other hand has 35 for a population of 1million. In the end this makes all three of the Canadian cities look great as in all probability their going to be all in the top 5 in NA for highrises u/c per capita for cities/metros. Actualy they would all probably be in the top 3 but im not 100% positive on that. Sorry Lord Mandeep, I just had to carry on.

caltrane74

Apr 26, 2007, 10:03 PM

*Calttrane as far as I know that 101 number for Toronto is for Metro Toronto, thats 5.5mill. .

No way it can't be for 5.5 million, because Mississuaga is not included in the Toronto number.

- Mississauga has a separate entry and Mississauga is the only Toronto Suburb that is building highrises.
No highrises going up in York Region, Durham and Halton.

I can't comment on the Vancouver Numbers cause I dont live there, and dont know how things break down out there. But it makes sense that they would have a high rate of high rise construction due to the lifestyle choices people on the West Coast have been making for 40 Years.

High rise construction does not have anything to do with Economic Growth, as I said my previous post was a joke, because this is another Alberta is killin ' it thread. However, high rates of construction (in general) do usually bode well for overall economic activity due to the spin off benefits it creates in other industries and sectors.

The Kid

Apr 27, 2007, 1:06 AM

I would not say that going forward as you never know. Remember going back 35 years to 1972 where was Alberta vs Ontario vs Quebec. Things change and right now there are about 50 high rises planned to start in Edmonton.

Dude, no disrespect cause I love Edmonton too. I do a serious amount of business there and have a ton of friends in E-town.

But, when was the last time you were in Calgary? Cause I'm in Edmonton every two weeks and although I too know it has gotten much busier, the downtown, with a few small exceptions, looks the same as it did 10 years ago. You cannot compare the highrise building going on in Calgary to Edmonton...atleast right now and for the past 3 or 4 years. it's not a shot at Edmonton, it's reality!

Coldrsx

Apr 27, 2007, 1:14 AM

i love edmonton, but it simply will never compare to toronto/van...and is lucky if it catches up to calgary.

different worlds guys

big W

Apr 27, 2007, 5:58 AM

Dude, no disrespect cause I love Edmonton too. I do a serious amount of business there and have a ton of friends in E-town.

But, when was the last time you were in Calgary? Cause I'm in Edmonton every two weeks and although I too know it has gotten much busier, the downtown, with a few small exceptions, looks the same as it did 10 years ago. You cannot compare the highrise building going on in Calgary to Edmonton...atleast right now and for the past 3 or 4 years. it's not a shot at Edmonton, it's reality!

In Calgary once a month. But I did say going forward you never know. Go back 35 years and there was nothing in Alberta compared with Quebec and Ontario. In fact even now there is no comparision. Toronto alone destroys Alberta when it comes to high rises.

Now going back to the topic of this thread, Alberta alone did account for a third of the real GDP growth of Canada, its just that the writer and the editor are bad with math based on how they reported it. But what everyone fails to mention is that even though this is a "bad" year in Ontario, it still accounted for almost third of all economic growth in Canada. Yes Alberta had higher GDP growth but just barely ahead of Ontario.

big W

Apr 27, 2007, 6:11 AM

Hey a question for the Alberta people regarding te posibility of future budget deficits with the direction of the curent goverments spending increases...got any info opinions about this. Just want to hear your peoples take on it as I have limited information but from what I read and know this is a real posibility in the future that no one seems to want to talk about or believe because their logic is corupted with money and oil.

To me the talk of deficit is just a scare tactic for politics sake. There is a huge component of the budget dedicated to one time expenses. Now going forward the costs of maintaince will be higher. If you look at the budget for the last few years, you will see billions spent every year in infrastructure. In fact I believe we are seeing additional spending of $6 billion just this year alone for one time line items, which is over and above the billions spent in previous years. Items like twinning the highway to Fort Mac. 5 new hospitals in the last 2 years. 70 new schools if I recall in this year alone. These are huge expenses and say next year you only build 20 therefore you cut spending in significantly and not have any service cuts etc.

Boris2k7

Apr 27, 2007, 6:52 AM

Cal: it is very dishonest to try and compare the City of Toronto to Edmonton and especially Calgary on a per capita basis. That is like trying to compare just Downtown Calgary (~30 000-40 000) to the entire GTA. Metro populations are the only ones that come close to being fair, since the Civic boundaries are so drastically different.

salvius

Apr 27, 2007, 8:43 AM

Metro populations are the only ones that come close to being fair, since the Civic boundaries are so drastically different.

Well, why are metro populations fair, exactly? Using metro populations, we can argue that LA is more dense than New York, just ask demographia. :sly:

City populations aren't really great, either, I agree there. Toronto could be much denser and have a ton more per capita high rises if it didn't include the inner burbs, but was just the old city proper...

The best way would be to specify X kilometers in diameter around the core for each city... anywhere.

But this whole per capita thing is a red herring anyway... Who cares? Is someone really gonna care if New York has less per capita highrises U/C because a city of, say, ~700,000 is having 13 towers U/C? Likewise, say Niagara Falls has more highrises per capita built than Toronto. And, so what? I fail to see any relevance whatsoever.

Boris2k7

Apr 27, 2007, 3:59 PM

Well, why are metro populations fair, exactly? Using metro populations, we can argue that LA is more dense than New York, just ask demographia. :sly:

Taking into account the problems with judging metro populations, there is at least standard calculation used across Canada.

Do they say LA is more dense than New York? Hey, it might just be true. It is different than saying that LA is more dense than Manhattan...

But this whole per capita thing is a red herring anyway... Who cares? Is someone really gonna care if New York has less per capita highrises U/C because a city of, say, ~700,000 is having 13 towers U/C? Likewise, say Niagara Falls has more highrises per capita built than Toronto. And, so what? I fail to see any relevance whatsoever.

Colour me impressed by Niagara Falls then, even if not for the quality of the architecture. Yes, it does make a difference to me when a small city is building more highrises per capita. It is especially fascinating when small cities all of a sudden might get a highrise boom, such as Kelowna. For large cities to have large amount of highrises is pretty standard. I think once it gets to that point one just starts to focus more on the quality of the architecture than the overall quantity.

Can't say I am especially impressed by T.O's highrise construction (or New York's for that matter), and I don't get the sense that any sort of different Toronto is emerging than what was already there. It's more of an evolutionary change than a revolutionary change. I guess that's my main argument there, in smaller centres, a highrise boom has the potential to be more revolutionary for the host city, which makes it more interesting for me.

LordMandeep

Apr 27, 2007, 6:50 PM

well really your last point is very true.

I wouldn't say Toronto will become a whole new city. It is just becoming a denser place.

salvius

Apr 27, 2007, 7:05 PM

Taking into account the problems with judging metro populations, there is at least standard calculation used across Canada.

Do they say LA is more dense than New York? Hey, it might just be true. It is different than saying that LA is more dense than Manhattan...

Well, yes, there is the 'standard calculation,' but what does it say? But that's exactly the point: what's more impressive--the urban bulk of Manhattan or the fact that LA is slightly more dense across the metro?

Colour me impressed by Niagara Falls then, even if not for the quality of the architecture. Yes, it does make a difference to me when a small city is building more highrises per capita. It is especially fascinating when small cities all of a sudden might get a highrise boom, such as Kelowna. For large cities to have large amount of highrises is pretty standard. I think once it gets to that point one just starts to focus more on the quality of the architecture than the overall quantity.

Can't say I am especially impressed by T.O's highrise construction (or New York's for that matter), and I don't get the sense that any sort of different Toronto is emerging than what was already there. It's more of an evolutionary change than a revolutionary change. I guess that's my main argument there, in smaller centres, a highrise boom has the potential to be more revolutionary for the host city, which makes it more interesting for me.

Well, I guess on this point I guess we just have to disagree; of course, there is nothing standard about large cities having high rises.

But more to the point, I am interested in urban bulk... that's what, I would think makes high-rise construction interesting. Niagara Falls with at 13 high-rises doesn't do much for me--sure, it's interesting, but I'll rather take Toronto's urban high-rise canyons and vistas, with more of them to come, than to sit and thank how wonderful a few high rises in a city of 75,000 is.

I mean, which contributes more to the urban experience? I'm sure there are many small cities that beat out Manhattan in high-rise construction per capita. I'll still take Manhattan, though.

I will agree with you on the fact that Toronto's construction is simply evolution, not revolution. I see nothing wrong with that, it's an established city, that's only getting better.

Boris2k7

Apr 27, 2007, 7:16 PM

Well, yes, there is the 'standard calculation,' but what does it say? But that's exactly the point: what's more impressive--the urban bulk of Manhattan or the fact that LA is slightly more dense across the metro?

Of course Manhattan is more impressive, but it isn't all of NYC. Just a different scale. The density spread around LA has provided for a variety of colourful and diverse suburbs, each with their own core areas.

Well, I guess on this point I guess we just have to disagree; of course, there is nothing standard about large cities having high rises.

But more to the point, I am interested in urban bulk... that's what, I would think makes high-rise construction interesting. Niagara Falls with at 13 high-rises doesn't do much for me--sure, it's interesting, but I'll rather take Toronto's urban high-rise canyons and vistas, with more of them to come, than to sit and thank how wonderful a few high rises in a city of 75,000 is.

I mean, which contributes more to the urban experience? I'm sure there are many small cities that beat out Manhattan in high-rise construction per capita. I'll still take Manhattan, though.

I will agree with you on the fact that Toronto's construction is simply evolution, not revolution. I see nothing wrong with that, it's an established city, that's only getting better.

1 building in a small city contributes more than an equivalent building in a larger city. In the latter case it can be regarded as a drop in th bucket. Manhattan is, well, Manhattan and doesn't change much. It's like the difference between going to a small theatre with movies changing all the time vs a large art gallery with only some pieces being added once in a while but otherwise remaining the same.

EDIT: From that I will draw this much: Toronto is Canada's art gallery. Do us proud. :)