Future Canadian Skylines

[dleung]

Except for Trump, all the new buildings visible (5 between 400'-550') are in the google-earth-fused part of the image
.

[middeljohn]

My theory:

Edmonton's highrise construction boom is only getting started because the height restriction has only recently been lifted. Further, this crazy population growth has the city backlogged on construction for at least ten years. For evidence, look at Toronto. Late 90s early 2000s Toronto had similar population growth rates to what Edmonton is seeing right now, but it wasn't until the late 2000s when the construction began to catch up. I believe it'll be similar for Edmonton.

Speaking to Edmontonians, they still have a small town mentality despite Metro Edmonton being 1.3 million. Hell, a lot of them consider Calgary to be a metropolis yet their own city they consider more of a small city when the reality is that the two are almost identical sizes. Hopefully this changes over the next few years. The reality is Edmonton is Canada's fifth largest metro and is only beginning to see its construction boom. I think the mentality as well as the number of highrise construction projects is going to be a lot different ten years from now as the infrastructure begins to catch up to today's growth.

[WhipperSnapper]

I've seen a ton of proposals for Edmonton over the years as editor of the database. Very few get built. I don't see this changing much. The towers will get taller with more units up for sale and, with that in mind, I just don't see starts coming close to hitting double digits each year. Don't know the exact numbers, but the average over the past decade can't be more than two or three a year. Maybe we can expect 5 or 6 for these peak years.

the condo market self destructed in Toronto during a bad recession. The 905 really came into its own during that time. Construction kept up with demand providing seas of tract housing

[BretttheRiderFan]

There were height restrictions in Edmonton?

This place really did have a "can't do" attitude for a long time, and it still lingers today. I compare it a lot to the vibe that existed and still somewhat exists in Saskatchewan.

[Innsertnamehere]

its not like the height restrictions were because they didn't like height, it was there because of the risk of planes from the airport crashing into these tall buildings. The airport is now closed, so the height limit has been lifted.

Toronto has always built enough housing to house its residents, and edmonton is building enough right now as well. It just so happens that it takes the form of subdivisions. Toronto's condo market exploded a decade or so ago because the market shifted to condos from single family homes, not some demand spike. There has been a very noticeable correlation between suburban home starts declining and condo starts increasing.

[BretttheRiderFan]

Forgot about City Centre. LOL.

Just another reason to hate that airport.

[Trans Canada]

I don't think there are condo booms simply because people prefer condos. Certainly there might be a gradual societal shift, but I think main causes of Canada's condo booms are a) speculation (in Toronto and Vancouver) and b) jobs downtown (most significantly Calgary but also Toronto and, lesser extent, Vancouver).

Edmonton has neither - obviously no speculative bubble, and not a significant amount of downtown jobs (Calgary has nearly 4x downtown office space than Edmonton, more than 4x if you count U/C - source.pdf (p17)). And there is not significant potential for further downtown office growth - Stantec is definitely an outlier.

Without these 2 situations fuelling a condo boom, Edmonton will have the exact same condo boom as Ottawa, Winnipeg, Hamilton... maybe a couple more buildings here and there but hardly a boom on a national scale. (Hell even Calgary is a drop in the bucket compared to Toronto's past 5 years)

[Innsertnamehere]

^nope. At least in Toronto, over the last decade new housing starts have remained essentially flat, bouncing between 30,000 and 50,000 units every year.

This graph from this PDF show the trend well. Lowrise starts steadily decline while highrise starts increase. New lowrise starts have steadily declined from 20,000 annual starts to around 10,000 annual starts, and highrise has increased on average to around 30,000 annual starts from 20,000 annual starts. If you look at the data even further back, the change is even more striking. In the mid 1990's highrise starts were in the 5,000 range and lowrise starts in the 30,000 range.



The reason condo starts are more volatile is because of longer construction cycles, lowrise takes 3 months to construct but highrise takes 3 years, its more difficult for developers to meet demand accurately.

Essentially, the condo boom isn't really a bubble in the sense that we are overbuilding housing stock. Quite the opposite, the right amount of stock is being constructed just as it has been for the last 35 years or longer. the form of the new construction has simply shifted from suburban homes on the edges of Mississauga and Newmarket to highrise construction.

[Trans Canada]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

^nope. At least in Toronto, over the last decade new housing starts have remained essentially flat, bouncing between 30,000 and 50,000 units every year.

This graph from this PDF show the trend well. Lowrise starts steadily decline while highrise starts increase. New lowrise starts have steadily declined from 20,000 annual starts to around 10,000 annual starts, and highrise has increased on average to around 30,000 annual starts from 20,000 annual starts. If you look at the data even further back, the change is even more striking. In the mid 1990's highrise starts were in the 5,000 range and lowrise starts in the 30,000 range.



The reason condo starts are more volatile is because of longer construction cycles, lowrise takes 3 months to construct but highrise takes 3 years, its more difficult for developers to meet demand accurately.

Essentially, the condo boom isn't really a bubble in the sense that we are overbuilding housing stock. Quite the opposite, the right amount of stock is being constructed just as it has been for the last 35 years or longer. the form of the new construction has simply shifted from suburban homes on the edges of Mississauga and Newmarket to highrise construction.

From my reading, one of the main points of that pdf is that there is a (partially) speculation-driven highrise condo bubble which is expected to deflate.

[middeljohn]

Not unless the greenbelt act gets lifted.

[travis3000]

The condo market in Toronto is not going to deflate. There are of course natural ups and downs in any real estate market, but owning a condo in Canada's largest and most important city is more of an investment. With the greenbelt all around the GTA limiting detached homes, the pressure will remain on condo development. Proof of this is that the suburbs are even building condo towers now. Vaughan just finished a 30+ storey monster tower right on Highway 7 with more planned and they are selling well. But in a market where the average detached home is going for $600,000 ... what do you expect. As long as the GTA continues to attract around 90-100k people a year, as long as the downtown lifestyle continues to become more popular, as long as the jobs continue to grow downtown (they are), and as long as the greenbelt is there... the condo boom in TO will continue. There will be waves of course of less busy activity, but I fully expect the construction to continue.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by middeljohn

My theory:

Edmonton's highrise construction boom is only getting started because the height restriction has only recently been lifted. Further, this crazy population growth has the city backlogged on construction for at least ten years. For evidence, look at Toronto. Late 90s early 2000s Toronto had similar population growth rates to what Edmonton is seeing right now, but it wasn't until the late 2000s when the construction began to catch up. I believe it'll be similar for Edmonton.

Speaking to Edmontonians, they still have a small town mentality despite Metro Edmonton being 1.3 million. Hell, a lot of them consider Calgary to be a metropolis yet their own city they consider more of a small city when the reality is that the two are almost identical sizes. Hopefully this changes over the next few years. The reality is Edmonton is Canada's fifth largest metro and is only beginning to see its construction boom. I think the mentality as well as the number of highrise construction projects is going to be a lot different ten years from now as the infrastructure begins to catch up to today's growth.

Maybe the issue is that most Edmonton residents aren't actually comparing CMA populations but are instead comparing actual civic populations - by those numbers (2014 = 1,195,194 vs 877,926) there is a considerable difference. People living in bedroom communities are generally not going to all of a sudden be moving into the core of the larger neighbouring city - there has to be more to attract someone to live in the core. Metro Calgary includes such burgeoning places like Crossfield, Beiseker and Irricana - good for people who like fudging numbers but the reality is that they're not part of what defines Calgary to me (or many others) and no more so than Airdrie and Cochrane are (also part of Calgary's CMA). Do people living in these outlying communities contribute to Calgary's prosperity and growth - yes they do but at the same time those community's demographics have pretty much have no impact on a developer's decision to build a a highrise tower in Calgary's core.

That said, if one compares the cores of Edmonton and Calgary, there are very notable differences - Calgary's is just that much more built up. Will Edmonton's catch up - difficult to say. Calgary just feels bigger and more intense in it's core but I suspect Calgary may very well run out of affordable and easy to redevelop land parcels before Edmonton does and that could certainly be in Edmonton's favour.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by travis3000

The condo market in Toronto is not going to deflate. There are of course natural ups and downs in any real estate market, but owning a condo in Canada's largest and most important city is more of an investment. With the greenbelt all around the GTA limiting detached homes, the pressure will remain on condo development. Proof of this is that the suburbs are even building condo towers now. Vaughan just finished a 30+ storey monster tower right on Highway 7 with more planned and they are selling well. But in a market where the average detached home is going for $600,000 ... what do you expect. As long as the GTA continues to attract around 90-100k people a year, as long as the downtown lifestyle continues to become more popular, as long as the jobs continue to grow downtown (they are), and as long as the greenbelt is there... the condo boom in TO will continue. There will be waves of course of less busy activity, but I fully expect the construction to continue.

There's many forms of dwellings beyond apartments and detached housing. I'm not nearly as optimistic as you in regards to highrise apartment towers. It's known to have greater price fluctuations in highs and lows that could sent investors to other housing. Freehold is always preferred and can be accomplished in typically condo ownership situation through a common elements plan. $650 a square foot for a high rise apartment vs $400 for a townhouse unit. Value always wins out. Once prices drop, more people will be in the market for townhouses. Only gamblers and the ignorant sign binding contracts for things they won't possess for 5 years in a cyclical market. The risk of losing ten of thousands is really not worth it. This will come to light in any prolonged correction.

[caltrane74]

Well, we had a correction in 2008-2009, didn't seem to do much to the housing market.

[travis3000]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

There's many forms of dwellings beyond apartments and detached housing. I'm not nearly as optimistic as you in regards to highrise apartment towers. It's known to have greater price fluctuations in highs and lows that could sent investors to other housing. Freehold is always preferred and can be accomplished in typically condo ownership situation through a common elements plan. $650 a square foot for a high rise apartment vs $400 for a townhouse unit. Value always wins out. Once prices drop, more people will be in the market for townhouses. Only gamblers and the ignorant sign binding contracts for things they won't possess for 5 years in a cyclical market. The risk of losing ten of thousands is really not worth it. This will come to light in any prolonged correction.

But the question then becomes.... where will you build townhouses? The average new townhouse in Toronto goes for $800,000 to $1,000,000 or more. That's not affordable. The cost of the land is astronomical enough. Townhouses 1 hour north of Toronto in my hometown of Alliston (a small town of 15,000 people) are now approaching $300,000. So while I agree the idea of a townhouse might appeal to people over a condo, the fact remains ... a 70 storey condo can house 800 people... Try building 800 townhouses anywhere in Toronto? There's simply no room, and if there was... the price would be three times an average condo.

[ciudad_del_norte]

Originally Posted by speedog

Maybe the issue is that most Edmonton residents aren't actually comparing CMA populations but are instead comparing actual civic populations - by those numbers (2014 = 1,195,194 vs 877,926) there is a considerable difference. People living in bedroom communities are generally not going to all of a sudden be moving into the core of the larger neighbouring city - there has to be more to attract someone to live in the core. Metro Calgary includes such burgeoning places like Crossfield, Beiseker and Irricana - good for people who like fudging numbers but the reality is that they're not part of what defines Calgary to me (or many others) and no more so than Airdrie and Cochrane are (also part of Calgary's CMA). Do people living in these outlying communities contribute to Calgary's prosperity and growth - yes they do but at the same time those community's demographics have pretty much have no impact on a developer's decision to build a a highrise tower in Calgary's core.

That said, if one compares the cores of Edmonton and Calgary, there are very notable differences - Calgary's is just that much more built up. Will Edmonton's catch up - difficult to say. Calgary just feels bigger and more intense in it's core but I suspect Calgary may very well run out of affordable and easy to redevelop land parcels before Edmonton does and that could certainly be in Edmonton's favour.

My guess is that the majority of Edmontonians (unlike the type of people on here) aren't really comparing the populations of Calgary and Edmonton at all. The differences in attitude go back a ways to when Edmonton was bigger and more dominant than Calgary. Then things went bad and Edmonton seemed to spend a good chunk of time feeling sorry for itself.

Also Edmonton is just as subjected to national media as the rest of the country and still hear all the same stuff about how Calgary is booming and everybody is moving there etc etc. I don't know if it is as much about feeling that Edmonton has a smaller population, but there was certainly an inferiority complex in Edmonton for a long time.

It's more evident in some circles than others, but Edmonton is coming out of its "woe is me" period. The confidence is apparent in local politics and development projects. I think this has as much to play in the recent string of proposals as the height restriction did. Edmonton's biggest enemy has been itself for a long time.

Even Calgary's (sometimes abrasive) boosterism and positivity hasn't always been there. It was preceeded by a revival and concentrated effort on locals appreciating their city and not being scared to speak positively of it.

Edmonton will probably never 'catch' up to Calgary in that it will have a look and feel like Calgary's downtown. The direction in central Edmonton is different and has less focus on commercial office towers for obvious reasons. Overall though, I think Edmonton is gradually becoming less concerned with 'catching up' with Calgary, and more concerned about continuing to make our own great thing.

[BretttheRiderFan]

I feel like electing Don Iveson was a big turning point for this city. Not sure how others feel, but the vibe you get from hearing anything the guy says just makes you feel so positive about this city and its future.

Or...not that it was such a turning point, but a symptom of a larger shift in attitudes.

[city guy]

Originally Posted by dleung

Except for Trump, all the new buildings visible (5 between 400'-550') are in the google-earth-fused part of the image
.

the Alberni corridor will also see some new 400-500 footers, according to the west end plan

[ciudad_del_norte]

Originally Posted by BretttheRiderFan

I feel like electing Don Iveson was a big turning point for this city. Not sure how others feel, but the vibe you get from hearing anything the guy says just makes you feel so positive about this city and its future.

Or...not that it was such a turning point, but a symptom of a larger shift in attitudes.

Indeed. Certainly related. Especially the margin he won the election with one very conservative opponent, and another that was fine, safe, and good, but much more cautious and traditional in many ways. You moved here at pretty interesting time for the city.

[1overcosc]

It's interesting how when developers build thousands of single family homes it's normal, but when they build thousands of condo units it's seen as a bubble. I think all these analyists insisting that the condo market has to crash just can't understand why urban living is appealing because they themselves are suburbanites.