Canada’s real estate market fueled by more people choosing to live downtown

[memph]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

The most important thing to realize is that Canada has so few major cities, that you can't make generalizations on land use patterns.

Canada has, essentially, a sample size of 4 large metropolitan areas.

Of those 4 cities, one is the largest city, one is French, one is the most geographically-constrained metro in North America outside of Honolulu and the last, smallest one basically had all its development confined inside one municipality until 10 years ago. They're all outliers.

When you look at cities in the 100,000 - 700,000 range in Canada, of which there are more examples, you will see that American land use patterns prevail. Halifax, St. John's, St. John, Kingston, Victoria, Kelowna, Sudbury, and Ottawa have leapfrog, exurban development of extremely low densities with a lack of a defined edge. Regina, Winnipeg and Saskatoon have more defined edges that are not out of line with Great Plains cities of similar size like Bismarck, Sioux Falls and Omaha where surrounding greenfields are typically large-scale factory farms.

I will admit that Canadians have more of a public transit culture, though.

I dunno, I don't think Kingston has that much leapfrog development, and in Ottawa it's just leapfrogging over the Greenbelt but still at relatively high (by suburban standards) densities... there's a big difference between a place like Kanata and Halifax exurbs like Hammond Plains or Fall River.

I would say Southern Ontario outside Toronto is largely pretty similar to the Prairies in terms of overall density and well defined edge.

It could be interesting to compare these smaller Canadian cities to their American counterparts. With Kitchener-Waterloo, they recently put in a urban growth boundary, so although the area has been sprawling for a long time, that's starting to change. The first change is possibly the biggest student housing boom in North America, although the downtowns are starting to improve. What's going on in the Downtowns is nothing special compared to large American cities, but maybe more impressive compared to other cities around that size (500k)? Are there an US cities the size of Waterloo with something like the Barrel Yards? And of course there are other developments too like Victoria Common, the developments in the Bauer Lofts area, City Centre in Kitchener, and the developments around King & Victoria.

[Innsertnamehere]

Maritimes is the only part of Canada to really adopt american style large lot sprawl.

Ottawa has the greenbelt that caused leapfrogging, without it would be the same as others.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by memph

Btw, even with places to grow, I think most of the 905 is building more greenfield development and less infill than it's supposed to, although at least Toronto is making up for that by growing faster than planned.

I believe York and Peel Regions are meeting their 40% commitments. Dunno about Halton, but that's mainly because of Milton. Burlington is growing almost entirely through intensification (it's built out) and Oakville is doing pretty well.

Interestingly enough Waterloo Region is way above the intensification target and they don't even have their new official plan approved at the OMB. So those policies aren't in effect. But still managing around 50% intensification growth.

[memph]

Originally Posted by niwell

I believe York and Peel Regions are meeting their 40% commitments. Dunno about Halton, but that's mainly because of Milton. Burlington is growing almost entirely through intensification (it's built out) and Oakville is doing pretty well.

Interestingly enough Waterloo Region is way above the intensification target and they don't even have their new official plan approved at the OMB. So those policies aren't in effect. But still managing around 50% intensification growth.

Regarding Peel, Mississauga is just about built out so most of its growth is probably through intensification, but Brampton is a whole different beast and growing much faster. The area inside McLaughlin, Bovaird, Torbram and the 407 actually lost population (slightly) due to declining household sizes from 2006 to 2011. Meanwhile the outskirts gained almost 100,000 people in those 5 years and sprawl is starting to spill over into Caledon. Mississauga added 45,000 people in the same period, but a lot of that was greenfield growth, so I would say Peel is more like 20-25% infill.

Halton is a bit trickier to judge. There's a lot of growth in the form of dense townhouses and apartments as basically the last phase of a greenfield development that you could argue either way in terms of infill vs greenfield.

Even York doesn't seem that clear cut. According to BILDGTA, new homes sales in the last year (Oct 2013-Sept 2014).

Census Division: Lowrise/Highrise

Durham: 2602/379
Halton: 1847/2023
York: 6231/3109
Peel: 5031/1318
Toronto: 856/15318

BTW I think BILD defines low rise as ground oriented dwellings, so those 4 storey apartment buildings being built in many Halton greenfield developments would be counted as high-rise. Anyways, while "low rise" vs "high-rise" is a pretty good indicator of what's going on, you can obviously still have low rise infill and greenfield developments with apartment buildings.

With Waterloo Region, I think the real test will be what happens when the student housing boom ends. It's basically making up for years of undersupply in the area near the universities and the main reason the infill targets are being met, and I'm not sure the rest of the Region will be ready to pick up the slack once that slows down. The region is growing by about 60,000 per decade now, so that means 24,000 per decade in infill, which is a lot for a small metro area like that. And Places to Grow is projecting growth to increase to about 110,000 per decade so if that happens it would have to be more like 45,000 per decade.

[ssiguy]

But even if US cities built thousands more apts/condos in their downtowns the reality is that most would sit empty.

There would certainly be some exceptions like NYC/SF/Wash and others but by and large Americans shun their inner cities. This is where the cultural differences bewtween the US and Canada become very noticeable.

Canadians live a far more communal type existence and we are far more comfortable living that way. Public transit is not a dirty word in Canada nor is public education, public housing, or public space. We are more tolerant of sharing common enmities and are FAR less individualistic than Americans. Americans cherish their independence, individualism, and their space.

In many ways apt living and using transit in the US is diametrically opposed to the very nature of what it means to be American. There are exceptions but they are few. The biggest exceptions are NYC and SF and they are probably the most un-American of all American cities.

Canadians are more socialistic in many ways and are use to and comfortable with government involvement in their lives and society. Canadians are more comfortable with strict planning and government urban regulation whereas in much of the US planning/regulations/government control is equated with communism.

Even if you levelled for incomes downtown, brought in stricter planning, improved transit, brought in better urban schools, and had the same low crime rate as Canadian cities, the truth is the US will never be as urban a society as Canada.

It's not that one is right and the other wrong but that doesn't change the fact it's the reality of our respective cultures.

[mhays]

Not really. Decent downtown apartments tend to fill regardless. They just lower the rents if necessary.

In Detroit for example, anything they build fills up and vacancy is very low, because there's a pent-up demand to live Downtown. It's just that rents aren't high enough to justify construction.

Most US cities have had housing booms in/near their downtowns, whether they've done so periodically for 40 years or started in 2006. A sizeable number are in the tens of thousands of new units using reasonably tight definitions of downtown boundaries.

[M II A II R II K]

They could also build $1 million+ condos, and even if some of them are rented out it's unlikely that any inner city blight that they're so afraid of would be able to rent there or bring down their neighbourhoods.

[dc_denizen]

Are "indigenous" Canadians that keen on living in Toronto's tower blocks as opposed to rowhouses and single family homes? My understanding is that a lot of these are immigrant-dominated.

But it's true, strong centralized planning is strangely absent in many ostensibly liberal states, like NJ. It's very strange.

[memph]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Are "indigenous" Canadians that keen on living in Toronto's tower blocks as opposed to rowhouses and single family homes? My understanding is that a lot of these are immigrant-dominated.

But it's true, strong centralized planning is strangely absent in many ostensibly liberal states, like NJ. It's very strange.

The high-rises located in walkable, centrally located neighbourhoods have their fair share of Canadian born residents, if not more. I think the only cluster of older post-WWII high-rises in Old Toronto that is immigrant dominated is St James Town.

The older high-rises in Scarborough, North York, Etobicoke and Cooksville are a different story. Suburban condos are also not really immigrant dominated.

On the other hand, there's many newer subdivisions (SFHs, semis and townhouses) that are heavily immigrant dominated.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Maritimes is the only part of Canada to really adopt american style large lot sprawl.

The Maritimes is the least urbanized region of Canada. Land is cheap and people want large lots. Even in the cities one sees the cultural desire for big lots. In the Halifax suburb I grew up in lot sizes are about double the size of what I see in Toronto suburbs.

People out east want acreage on heavily wooded lots. Anywhere in Canada with small populations and where land values are low you'll see a similar pattern.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by isaidso

The Maritimes is the least urbanized region of Canada. Land is cheap and people want large lots. Even in the cities one sees the cultural desire for big lots. In the Halifax suburb I grew up in lot sizes are about double the size of what I see in Toronto suburbs.

People out east want acreage on heavily wooded lots. Anywhere in Canada with small populations and where land values are low you'll see a similar pattern.

The exurban areas get a lot of attention, but in Halifax at least the average densities are pretty high and for years the city has had one of the highest proportions of multi-unit construction in North America (it used to be 50-60% and now it might be 70% or more). A few people have been saying that the suburban land use patterns are on the whole identical to the American cities (usually in the Northeast, but sometimes unspecified). That is a pretty sloppy characterization of what's going on.

I am not necessarily a fan of this style of development, but a lot more people live in these multi-unit buildings than in exurban large lot houses:

http://www.viewpoint.ca/imagery/heli...80.jpg?hd=true

The large lot subdivisions, built mostly in the 90's, are visually salient but a lot less demographically and ecologically relevant than a lot of these comments suggest.

[ssiguy]

Toronto certainly gets it's share of "investor" condos from offshore but it is Vancouver that is dominated by offshore money.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by someone123

A few people have been saying that the suburban land use patterns are on the whole identical to the American cities (usually in the Northeast, but sometimes unspecified). That is a pretty sloppy characterization of what's going on.

I agree that it's a rather crude characterization, but Maritime lot sizes are substantially bigger than what I've seen in Quebec and Ontario.

Originally Posted by someone123

I am not necessarily a fan of this style of development, but a lot more people live in these multi-unit buildings than in exurban large lot houses:

http://www.viewpoint.ca/imagery/heli...80.jpg?hd=true

Interesting that you chose that photo. That's Clayton Park West (and Bayers Lake Industrial Park) I believe. I grew up in the older part (Clayton Park: approximately 10,000 residents) sloping down to the Basin. It is out of frame and would be to the right in that photo.

The densities in Clayton Park are much lower than in Clayton Park West. My house, for instance, was 3000 square feet and our back yard went back about 90 feet on a heavily wooded lot. Practically every house in the area is like that. There were no multi unit apartment blocks except for one small area. Another small area on the periphery had town houses. The bulk of Clayton Park consists of large detached houses on big lots.

It's less efficient land use, but I find Clayton Park far more idyllic than Clayton Park West. Neither is pedestrian friendly so I just don't see the point in building suburbs like Clayton Park West. You lose the beauty of those big lots and you don't gain any sort of urbanity in return. Both are car dependent.

Either build proper suburbs with big lots or proper urban residential with a retail apron and high streets. Those in between developments like Clayton Park West are the worst of both worlds. Clayton Park West type suburbia is pointless imo.

[P. Alouishous]

Originally Posted by memph

and in Ottawa it's just leapfrogging over the Greenbelt but still at relatively high (by suburban standards) densities... there's a big difference between a place like Kanata and Halifax exurbs like Hammond Plains or Fall River.

Chelsea is an Ottawa suburb on the Quebec side that is very exurban: https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Sca...6e63ce2447807b

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by P. Alouishous

Chelsea is an Ottawa suburb on the Quebec side that is very exurban: https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Sca...6e63ce2447807b

Ottawa and Ontario don't really have any control over planning there though, even though it's part of the same metro. There isn't really any planning coordination between the Quebec and Ontario sides.

The City of Gatineau is much larger since the merger and encapsulates most of the urbanized and suburbanized area on the Quebec side (and it has implemented smaller lot sizes for newer suburban areas just like the larger Canadian cities), but exurban development in places like Chelsea, Cantley, Pontiac, La Pêche and L'Ange-Gardien are totally outside its jurisdiction.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

The most important thing to realize is that Canada has so few major cities, that you can't make generalizations on land use patterns.

Canada has, essentially, a sample size of 4 large metropolitan areas.

Of those 4 cities, one is the largest city, one is French, one is the most geographically-constrained metro in North America outside of Honolulu and the last, smallest one basically had all its development confined inside one municipality until 10 years ago. They're all outliers.

When you look at cities in the 100,000 - 700,000 range in Canada, of which there are more examples, you will see that American land use patterns prevail. Halifax, St. John's, St. John, Kingston, Victoria, Kelowna, Sudbury, and Ottawa have leapfrog, exurban development of extremely low densities with a lack of a defined edge. Regina, Winnipeg and Saskatoon have more defined edges that are not out of line with Great Plains cities of similar size like Bismarck, Sioux Falls and Omaha where surrounding greenfields are typically large-scale factory farms.

I will admit that Canadians have more of a public transit culture, though.

I am not sure that Ottawa should be lumped in with those cities as opposed to the much closer in size Calgary which you have anointed as one of the big four cities.

In actual fact, Calgary, Ottawa and Edmonton are all basically the same size of city, and their suburban development patterns and practices are also reasonably similar.

[niwell]

Also worth noting that with the exception of exurbs on the Quebec side like Chelsea (and some within Ottawa's city limits), leap-frog growth has been by design. The success of that design is arguable, but greenfield settlement areas have been well-defined and built out in an orderly fashion. IIRC the majority of new construction in suburban Ottawa are town/row-houses which are reasonably densely packed.

[memph]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am not sure that Ottawa should be lumped in with those cities as opposed to the much closer in size Calgary which you have anointed as one of the big four cities.

In actual fact, Calgary, Ottawa and Edmonton are all basically the same size of city, and their suburban development patterns and practices are also reasonably similar.

Yeah, Edmonton has at least as much exurban development as Ottawa-Gatineau, probably more. Check out the areas around Sherwood Park, North of Devon and North of Stony Plain. Calgary has less but still has some like De Winton and to the W/NW of the city.

[Acajack]

The Ontario side of Ottawa-Gatineau has a lot of exburban development too but much of it is "legacy" exurbia and dates back to before the mega merger when Ottawa swallowed up all of its suburban and exurban municipalities. You see this exurbia in communities like Cumberland, Carlsbad Springs, Navan, Manotick, Greely, Richmond, Carp, etc. that are all now part of the City of Ottawa.

The new City of Ottawa has greatly curbed exurban growth within its boundaries, but of course some still continues outside of them. But because the City of Ottawa is so huge they tend to be quite a bit further out and so you usually have a heftier commuting premium to pay if you want a new build in an exurban setting on the Ontario side of the river these days.

[P. Alouishous]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am not sure that Ottawa should be lumped in with those cities as opposed to the much closer in size Calgary which you have anointed as one of the big four cities.

In actual fact, Calgary, Ottawa and Edmonton are all basically the same size of city, and their suburban development patterns and practices are also reasonably similar.

Grouping Calgary with the three largest cities seemed weird to me too. If you're grouping Canadian cities into tiers of size/importance, Calgary, Ottawa, and Edmonton are more similar to each other than any other grouping. They're almost the exact same size and same level of importance (for different reasons).