If Canadians Want Houses, Give Them Houses!

[DizzyEdge]

As long as the price of SFH reflects their cost to service, let people buy what they want.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Obviously I can't speak for all demographics of Canadians, but working in Downtown Toronto, I'd say among my fellow millennials, there is little or no desire to own a house. Even the married people in my office are vocally against SFH living and are vocally in favour of walkability over space.

Just wait till they start having kids. Young people have historically been attracted to the hustle and bustle of a downtown but things tend to do a 180 when babies arrive. The reason people opt for condos is mostly affordability. I'm a downtown guy but would have hated growing up in a condo as a child.

[WhipperSnapper]

That's what everyone always says but, I'm not entirely convinced we've every had a time where so many young professional making good money were buying new condo apartments in the core over a house in the 905. Obviously, these units are too small for a family and aren't built to be combined but, it wouldn't surprise me to see even more (stacked) town homes built in and around the downtown as demand surges.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Just wait till they start having kids. Young people have historically been attracted to the hustle and bustle of a downtown but things tend to do a 180 when babies arrive. The reason people opt for condos is mostly affordability. I'm a downtown guy but would have hated growing up in a condo as a child.

Having grown up in an apartment building (well a few different apartment buildings) I can't stand houses. There's no view, they're so lonely, there's lawn care to be done, and if you're in the suburbs parks and rec centres are so much farther away.

[Innsertnamehere]

a bit more attractive photo of the Markham example of urban development in Toronto's suburbs. Its a fairly attractive built form, but the architecture is ugly.



Another example that I always like, in Woodbridge this time:





Now those two are largely "best practices", a more typical infill townhouse development looks like this:



and a typical greenfield townhouse development:



The key difference is the use of common element condo roads - they are technically not public streets, which creates issues, but allows them to be smaller as they don't have to be municipally maintained. Typically they can have better landscaping too, as they don't have to meet municipal maintenance standards.

[canarob]

The funny thing about the Markham townhomes that keep getting posted here is that they're humongous four-story townhomes, not stacked towns: https://www.realtor.ca/Residential/S...0C3-Unionville

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by canarob

The funny thing about the Markham townhomes that keep getting posted here is that they're humongous four-story townhomes, not stacked towns: https://www.realtor.ca/Residential/S...0C3-Unionville

Isn't that a good thing? Most people want a large home, so if we can fit large homes into a small footprint, why not?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

That's what everyone always says but, I'm not entirely convinced we've every had a time where so many young professional making good money were buying new condo apartments in the core over a house in the 905. .

In many cases in the past, those young professionals would have rented apartments, before buying their house in the suburbs.

That's what my parents and most of their friends did.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by canarob

The funny thing about the Markham townhomes that keep getting posted here is that they're humongous four-story townhomes, not stacked towns: https://www.realtor.ca/Residential/S...0C3-Unionville

Stacked townhouses tend to struggle a bit in the market, no? The basement bedrooms of lower units makes them less desireable, as does the need to mount a staircase in most cases to get to the upper units. It seems an option only at the lower end of the market.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Stacked townhouses tend to struggle a bit in the market, no? The basement bedrooms of lower units makes them less desireable, as does the need to mount a staircase in most cases to get to the upper units. It seems an option only at the lower end of the market.

I wonder how they do in high-demand areas though, especially in large cities. I'd imagine there are a lot of people who would trade a basement bedroom for reasonably affordable home ownership (and something more like a "house") in an in-demand area. I sure would.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I wonder how they do in high-demand areas though, especially in large cities. I'd imagine there are a lot of people who would trade a basement bedroom for reasonably affordable home ownership (and something more like a "house") in an in-demand area. I sure would.

My opinion is that you just need variety. Here in Calgary, there is mainly the choice of expensive, tiny, condos in the Beltline or relatively affordable, large SFHs on tiny lots in the distant suburbs. With very little in between. I really want to see large scale redevelopment of our worthless middle ring 60s duplex neighbourhoods into medium density developments like those posted, but I guess the economics just don't stack up for the developers.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

That's what everyone always says but, I'm not entirely convinced we've every had a time where so many young professional making good money were buying new condo apartments in the core over a house in the 905. Obviously, these units are too small for a family and aren't built to be combined but, it wouldn't surprise me to see even more (stacked) town homes built in and around the downtown as demand surges.

Unless as many people predict demand for city living is gonna drop off a cliff with demographic change/driverless cars.

I'm 29 and only this summer me and my girlfriend started to acknowledge that we will need to get engaged soon etc.

I went to toronto expected it to be the same as it was when I was single, but it blew my mind how different it was.

City life is great if you wanna piss away everything you make going out dating etc.

However my plans are like this, we both want(require) a music studio, we need separate rooms for sleeping, and sound protection against traffic(were both very sensitive to noise/thanks autism!!).

That's before we even consider having kids.

Keep in mind I'm still an ultra urbanist it's just not something we can afford.


It's actually frustrating to realize that were better off financially to get a job at a mcdonalds in (middle of fuck nowhere) and rent a house than to even to attempt to do so in any place with a population of more than 50,000 people.

Obviously my experience isn't an anecdote we have a demographic surge of retirees who will be fleeing cities, we have people like myself tha want to have families. Add to all of the effect of driverless cars.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Tesla Autopilot isn't really advanced enough to where it's a full on self driving car--it just automates a few basic things. If you're doing freeway driving, I suppose you could completely ignore the road (although still dangerous to do so), but in the city or on a suburban arterial.. absolutely not.

Lol this kind of banter translates to me of something like this.


The Horseless Carriage will never compete with a horse, 150 years of design and a car still can't cross a small brook or ditch. The horseless carriage will always be dependant on ash-fault and gasoline only an idiot would back such technology.

I really think in 5-10 years driverless cars will be as antiquated term as horseless carriage.

I suspected self driving vehicles will function far closer to a street car than anything else.

Uber is just the beginning, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if in 12-24 months UBer starts buying rights to private freeways for a fleet of automated transit.+

Automated transit will easily be the best of both worlds.

With automated transit the lack of a driver and ability to use any vehicle type will mean transportation will have the maximum scale-ability.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Stryker

Lol this kind of banter translates to me of something like this.


The Horseless Carriage will never compete with a horse, 150 years of design and a car still can't cross a small brook or ditch. The horseless carriage will always be dependant on ash-fault and gasoline only an idiot would back such technology.

.

It is when you post stuff like this that I like you the most!

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It is when you post stuff like this that I like you the most!

As hyperbolic as my statement is, it amazes me how many proper engineers-educated folk etc, can't get past the mental block that driverless cars have to be a 1 to 1.5 replacement for the automobile.

This is one of those crazy buy in aspects of the automobile. You see the car and are unable to imagine, the free ways, parking lots, noisy areas etc.

The infrastructure demands of automated transit are significantly different from subway/automobile. Worst case scenario the investment needed for fences, guard rails, saftey cam's, will be equal to the excesses of parking lot, freeways, etc.

Best case scenario we'll see a whole lot of free ways/parking lots converted into urban spaces.

[kwoldtimer]

I'm scratching my head at "private freeways".