[Silence&Motion]

Reading through the comments, a couple of them caught my eye.
The idea of having strong density, but not taller than say 10 floors like many cities in Europe sounds great. I think the problem may be that since those places were built, we have figured out how to build higher and have cars. Low density wasn't generally an option for those that were not rich when those cities got built. North American cities started the same way, but people were willing to give up the convenience of a dense neighborhood for their own yard and I don't see that changing.

The idea of there simply being no demand in North America for dense, low-rise neighbourhoods is belied by the fact that those neighbourhoods are generally the most expensive places you can possibly live. No one's giving up their rowhouse in [Georgetown, Outremont, Cabbagetown, Greenwich Village, etc.] for a McMansion.

 

[maestro]

It ranges from country to country. Europeans love their houses and cars as much as North Americas. They will drive like maniacs through historic city centres built for something smaller than their sub compact Ferrari.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

I don't see that changing.

It is changing, my generation (I'm 34) that grew up in the suburbs are willing to live in the city and give up the white picket fence for all the benefits inner-city living brings. Talking with friends this weekend, people our age with the means either want to be inner-city or on an acreage.

 

[potatopizzafan]

It is changing, my generation, I'm 34 that grew up in the suburbs want are willing to live in the city and give up the white picket fence for all the benefits inner-city living brings. Talking with friends this weekend, people our age with the means either want to be inner-city or on an acreage.

Similar to my group of friends, same age. Almost everyone that has bought a place in the past 5 years has bought a townhouse, row or 4-plex style, in places like Killarney or West Hillhust. So not directly inner city, but everyone wanted to be as close as possible while still having their own at grade entrance and a little more space.

These are all people that lived in condos/apartments inner city in their 20's and then moved just slightly outside of downtown when purchasing their first property. I can definitely see that being a common move, which should continue to drive the development of missing middle style housing in our inner neighbourhoods

For me personally. I really value having a bit of a garden, a large deck, and a garage, as between my wife and i, we have 4 bikes, skis, snowboards, etc. I also like wrenching on my own car and bikes so a small townhouse works great for us. Its less about the square footage (our place is only 1100SF total) . But that bit of outdoor space, a garage, and still being very close to downtown is huge for us

 

[CBBarnett]

North American cities started the same way, but people were willing to give up the convenience of a dense neighborhood for their own yard and I don't see that changing.

I think it's already changed - the diversity of what people want is greater than ever, and way more people than ever are ditching the conventional big house in the deep suburbs thinking of the 1950s - 1990s era.

But that bit of outdoor space, a garage, and still being very close to downtown is huge for us

I am hearing this all the time too. So many people want a ground-oriented home, but in a reasonably central location - this differs entirely from the peak-suburb thinking of North America in the 1950s - 1990s. The ongoing boom in townhomes and infills is no fluke, it's responding to real demand for that lifestyle.

A big part of the difference between the peak-suburb era and present day, Calgary and other cities are now huge, both in population and in absolute size (the latter very much helped by sprawling, largely single-family development ideology of the post-war era). That in itself is driving substantial change in demand. In 1960 "moving to the burbs" meant Brentwood. Now "moving to the burbs" means a community 10 - 20km further out, with high travel costs in time and money. The delta in lifestyle, commute and cost is huge now - so much so that many people are making different choices, even those that aren't particularly militant pro-urban people.

Combined with smaller family sizes, it's not as obvious as it perhaps once was that a big house with a big lawn in the burbs is such a great idea. Single family homes are still incredibly expensive in the deepest out burbs for many people too, so the window is closing or has already closed on this being a viable alternative for the majority of people and their incomes, especially when you add on complete car dependence and car ownership costs. It is increasingly a really excessive and out of reach for many people.

All that said, the suburbs are not going away. But the attitudes around them have changed substantially and the size of market and demand for alternatives has been the real growth driver the past few decades. Even the newer suburbs are now rarely majority single family developments, reflecting many people - even those with no central location preference - still want or can only afford different forms of housing.

 

[dazzlingdave88]

Similar to my group of friends, same age. Almost everyone that has bought a place in the past 5 years has bought a townhouse, row or 4-plex style, in places like Killarney or West Hillhust. So not directly inner city, but everyone wanted to be as close as possible while still having their own at grade entrance and a little more space.

These are all people that lived in condos/apartments inner city in their 20's and then moved just slightly outside of downtown when purchasing their first property. I can definitely see that being a common move, which should continue to drive the development of missing middle style housing in our inner neighbourhoods

For me personally. I really value having a bit of a garden, a large deck, and a garage, as between my wife and i, we have 4 bikes, skis, snowboards, etc. I also like wrenching on my own car and bikes so a small townhouse works great for us. Its less about the square footage (our place is only 1100SF total) . But that bit of outdoor space, a garage, and still being very close to downtown is huge for us

This is allmost identical to my wife and I. We moved from a Beltline apartment to a townhouse in a three plex in Crescent Heights 10 years ago with a shared backyard and a garage. We don't want or need the square footage and love being closer to downtown. We even chose to have only one child partially because we don't want to move.

 

[trtcttc]

The change in downtowns of cities are a big part of this. Downtowns used to cater mostly to work, with few amenities and options for after-work and families. There's not really any reason to not live in the suburbs of that era (Brentwood) and live downtown. With new high rises comes new stores, restaurants, services, etc. which when compared to living in Tuscany, seems much more attractive. As we sprawl further out, the cars aren't getting faster and the roads aren't getting less congested, the calculus in favour of inner city will only increase.

 

[FCC1982]

Posted by Surreal in the Statscan thread - thought it was somewhat relevant (to the discussion - not to the Hat Elbow River):

Housing starts for 2023.

City	Single Family Home	Semi Detached	Row Housing	Apartment	Total	......	......	......	......	............
Toronto	4721	328	4860	37519	47428
Vancouver	2832	914	1922	27576	33244
Calgary	5875	1674	2996	9034	19579
Montreal	1021	208	342	13664	15235
Edmonton	5032	948	2069	5135	13184
Ottawa/Gatineau	1858	304	1727	8104	11993
Winnipeg	1425	366	468	3195	5454

 

[Silence&Motion]

A big part of the difference between the peak-suburb era and present day, Calgary and other cities are now huge, both in population and in absolute size (the latter very much helped by sprawling, largely single-family development ideology of the post-war era). That in itself is driving substantial change in demand. In 1960 "moving to the burbs" meant Brentwood. Now "moving to the burbs" means a community 10 - 20km further out, with high travel costs in time and money. The delta in lifestyle, commute and cost is huge now - so much so that many people are making different choices, even those that aren't particularly militant pro-urban people.
...
All that said, the suburbs are not going away. But the attitudes around them have changed substantially and the size of market and demand for alternatives has been the real growth driver the past few decades. Even the newer suburbs are now rarely majority single family developments, reflecting many people - even those with no central location preference - still want or can only afford different forms of housing.

I agree that the SFH is now a luxury in Canada. I do wonder how much of Canada's housing costs have to do with the small number of large cities we have. Yes, you can still get a big house for cheap in Medicine Hat or Thunder Bay, but you're taking a huge hit to your quality of life in terms of limited educational, employment, health care, and transportation options. So, you're stuck with one of a handful of cities that have basically run out of space to build endless sprawl.

Compare this to the number of large cities in the US. Wichita, for example, is the 90th largest metro area in the US. But it would be the 10th largest metro area in Canada! Think of how many fewer options there are for Canadians to live. If you eliminate Quebec from the list (which many Anglophones wouldn't consider), and count Hamilton as part of Toronto (it's literally on the commuter rail system and has the housing prices to match), that would make Wichita the 7th largest city in Canada!! Americans have 89 other cities they could live in before they even get to Wichita. In Canada, anyone priced out of Calgary or Edmonton would be weighing Winnipeg or Wichita.

 

[Albertasaurus]

I agree that the SFH is now a luxury in Canada. I do wonder how much of Canada's housing costs have to do with the small number of large cities we have. Yes, you can still get a big house for cheap in Medicine Hat or Thunder Bay, but you're taking a huge hit to your quality of life in terms of limited educational, employment, health care, and transportation options. So, you're stuck with one of a handful of cities that have basically run out of space to build endless sprawl.

Compare this to the number of large cities in the US. Wichita, for example, is the 90th largest metro area in the US. But it would be the 10th largest metro area in Canada! Think of how many fewer options there are for Canadians to live. If you eliminate Quebec from the list (which many Anglophones wouldn't consider), and count Hamilton as part of Toronto (it's literally on the commuter rail system and has the housing prices to match), that would make Wichita the 7th largest city in Canada!! Americans have 89 other cities they could live in before they even get to Wichita. In Canada, anyone priced out of Calgary or Edmonton would be weighing Winnipeg or Wichita.

Good point - although I won't start a debate about how US metro areas tend to pad their stats when compared with Canadian ones! But it does result in a very limited choice for Canadians who want some measure of that "big city" experience, you basically have a half dozen places to choose from.

 

[trtcttc]

I agree that the SFH is now a luxury in Canada. I do wonder how much of Canada's housing costs have to do with the small number of large cities we have. Yes, you can still get a big house for cheap in Medicine Hat or Thunder Bay, but you're taking a huge hit to your quality of life in terms of limited educational, employment, health care, and transportation options. So, you're stuck with one of a handful of cities that have basically run out of space to build endless sprawl.

Compare this to the number of large cities in the US. Wichita, for example, is the 90th largest metro area in the US. But it would be the 10th largest metro area in Canada! Think of how many fewer options there are for Canadians to live. If you eliminate Quebec from the list (which many Anglophones wouldn't consider), and count Hamilton as part of Toronto (it's literally on the commuter rail system and has the housing prices to match), that would make Wichita the 7th largest city in Canada!! Americans have 89 other cities they could live in before they even get to Wichita. In Canada, anyone priced out of Calgary or Edmonton would be weighing Winnipeg or Wichita.

While I get the comparison here and they do have more choice, part of that is just being a big country. The US has about 8x our population, so their 90th largest city being our 10th, seems about right. I think we need to give more incentives for companies to relocate. Bank of America is HQ in Charlotte NC, and a big driver of the local economy. Now imagine the same where Scotiabank is based in Nova Scotia and how that would singlehandedly develop the economy of the region. Maybe that will happen over time as smaller cities start growing faster (% wise) than the biggest ones.

 

[maestro]

I agree that the SFH is now a luxury in Canada. I do wonder how much of Canada's housing costs have to do with the small number of large cities we have. Yes, you can still get a big house for cheap in Medicine Hat or Thunder Bay, but you're taking a huge hit to your quality of life in terms of limited educational, employment, health care, and transportation options. So, you're stuck with one of a handful of cities that have basically run out of space to build endless sprawl.

Compare this to the number of large cities in the US. Wichita, for example, is the 90th largest metro area in the US. But it would be the 10th largest metro area in Canada! Think of how many fewer options there are for Canadians to live. If you eliminate Quebec from the list (which many Anglophones wouldn't consider), and count Hamilton as part of Toronto (it's literally on the commuter rail system and has the housing prices to match), that would make Wichita the 7th largest city in Canada!! Americans have 89 other cities they could live in before they even get to Wichita. In Canada, anyone priced out of Calgary or Edmonton would be weighing Winnipeg or Wichita.

A lot of people in Toronto are being attracted to Calgary because opportunities and wages are equal to higher. There's a growing number of Toronto expats accepting of wage cuts for cheaper housing, entertainment, savings resulting in a much higher quality of life. That won't be Medicine Hat or Thunder Bay. Calgary is at a crossroads with insufficient housing starts for the number of people relocating. It's primed for investors to drive up real estate in short order.

It's unfortunate single family neighbourboods are identified as unidriveway hell holes and have become exclusive to the uppermost middle class in many Canadian metros. Attainable single family housing is a big attraction for immigration for the last 50 years.

 

[Golfing guy]

Can we move this to the appropriate thread??

 

[Silence&Motion]

Good point - although I won't start a debate about how US metro areas tend to pad their stats when compared with Canadian ones! But it does result in a very limited choice for Canadians who want some measure of that "big city" experience, you basically have a half dozen places to choose from.

I agree the pure numerical comparisons don't always make sense between Statistics Canada and the US Census Bureau. That's why you have to take into account the look and feel of the city as well. Wichita has a major airport, museums, universities, major employers (Koch Industries, Boeing, etc.). It has a critical mass of "stuff" to give it it's own gravitational pull.

While I get the comparison here and they do have more choice, part of that is just being a big country. The US has about 8x our population, so their 90th largest city being our 10th, seems about right. I think we need to give more incentives for companies to relocate. Bank of America is HQ in Charlotte NC, and a big driver of the local economy. Now imagine the same where Scotiabank is based in Nova Scotia and how that would singlehandedly develop the economy of the region. Maybe that will happen over time as smaller cities start growing faster (% wise) than the biggest ones.

I agree. The US is a much larger country, and so it has more cities. But their population is also more distributed across those cities. Only 6% of Americans live in the NYC metro area. 13% live in the top 3 US metros. The UK is also a larger country than Canada, but almost 20% of Brits live in London. Canada is closer to the UK in this regard. About 17% of Canadians live in the Toronto area. 36% of Canadians live in our top 3 cities. This concentration has also been growing rather than shrinking as Canada's population has grown.

By the way, I'm not saying we should be like the US. I hate suburban sprawl. I want to protect more of our countryside from getting turned into Walmarts, mega-churches, and subdivisions. It is actually better that we live in fewer, more compact cities. Canadians, for whatever reason, have packed themselves into a handful of cities and, for the most part, have been willing to forego larger houses to do so. I think that's great.

 

[maestro]

Our suburbs are denser. That doesn't make them any less sprawly.

There's more competition in the US creating undercutting and overbuilding. There's greater purchasing power and American produced products. I find American homes get decidedly bigger the closer to cheap Central American labour force and states with little wage protections.