[BobBob]

Ultimately, I think it's about infrastructure and zoning. If we don't change those, I think you're mostly right: the vast majority of land in 416 will remain unavailable and/or undesirable for intensification, so population growth will have to slow. But a similar situation exists in much of the 905. Basically, we need infrastructure and complementary zoning to open up spaces for development in an efficient and sensible way: if we do that, the limits in terms of population can be very very far off.

(Note that the central 23 wards of Tokyo cover roughly the same amount of area as the 416, but house 9 million people. Toronto at 2.7 is nowhere near "full".)

 

[diminutive]

(Note that the central 23 wards of Tokyo cover roughly the same amount of area as the 416, but house 9 million people. Toronto at 2.7 is nowhere near "full".)

Yea, but much of Tokyo looks like this.

Which, despite the absence of many high-rises, is still much denser than would be considered acceptable in most of Toronto.

Toronto talks a good game on density but as long as intensification is limited to brownfield sites, which ultimately occupy a pretty small part of the city, there's not all that much room to grow.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Too bad it's not quite the case for the rest of Toronto.

 

[Chuck]

I dont think that there is cause to worry about increased wealth causing a decrease in population. Led by the echo boomers, Toronto is adopting a manhattan like mindset in which a house in the suburbs is undesirable, a car is a liability, and renting is done by choice. It is more likely that this demographic will move into 2 or 3 bedroom rented condos than it is they will abandon the city once they have kids. With 2 incomes, larger units become much more affordable, and all larger units need not be priced like a penthouse unit in the Shangi La tower. The developers will build what the market demands.

 

[diminutive]

I dont think that there is cause to worry about increased wealth causing a decrease in population. Led by the echo boomers, Toronto is adopting a manhattan like mindset in which a house in the suburbs is undesirable, a car is a liability, and renting is done by choice. It is more likely that this demographic will move into 2 or 3 bedroom rented condos than it is they will abandon the city once they have kids. With 2 incomes, larger units become much more affordable, and all larger units need not be priced like a penthouse unit in the Shangi La tower. The developers will build what the market demands.

Perhaps not...

Generation Y kids born between 1980 and 1994 were also part of the survey and made it clear they don’t plan to be living the high life in the bustling downtown forever.
Expect a rush to the suburbs over the next few years as they hit their child-bearing years: Almost 77 per cent of the Gen Ys surveyed said they will be looking for townhouses, bungalows or single family homes and less than 25 per cent of them close to downtown.

Anecdotally, this jives with what I've seen. Condo living still seems very much a 'youth' thing, with many people wishing to move to a more traditional 'family home.'

 

[James]

Perhaps not...




Anecdotally, this jives with what I've seen. Condo living still seems very much a 'youth' thing, with many people wishing to move to a more traditional 'family home.'

Here is the article:


Baby boomers may be planning to move, but not into condos

By:Susan PiggBusiness Reporter, Published on Tue Feb 26 2013


Baby boomers may well be on the move over the next five years, but don’t expect them to be downsizing to condos, according to a new report by realtor Royal LePage.


“They love their garages and their yards,” says Royal LePage CEO Phil Soper.


In fact, they love them so much that 40.6 per cent of 1,011 boomers surveyed for the study said they plan to move out of the family home to another house — some 25.9 per cent into one of a similar size and almost 18 per cent of them into something even bigger.


While 54 per cent of boomers surveyed said they do intend to downsize, less than a quarter (22.9 per cent) are looking to condominiums or apartments, the report notes.


That could mean lights out in more than a few of those glass-and-steel units over the next decade, given that Generation Y kids born between 1980 and 1994 were also part of the survey and made it clear they don’t plan to be living the high life in the bustling downtown forever.


Expect a rush to the suburbs over the next few years as they hit their child-bearing years: Almost 77 per cent of the Gen Ys surveyed said they will be looking for townhouses, bungalows or single family homes and less than 25 per cent of them close to downtown.


“Like their parents, they dream of owning a lovely house in the suburbs, which provides value as well as access to parkland for children to play and the perception of greater family safety,” said Soper.


Less than 20 per cent of the boomers surveyed by LegerWeb last September on behalf of Royal LePage said they are looking to buy multi-storey homes. Instead, almost half — about 40 per cent — are looking to buy a bungalow, a housing type that’s quickly headed for extinction because of escalating land values and intensification efforts that, across the GTA, are driving houses up rather than out.


Relatively few boomers, it turns out, are being wooed by the call of the wild and the romance of living on a lake: Just 5.9 per cent say they plan to buy a cottage, ski chalet or other recreational property as their primary residence, the survey shows.


Realtor Cindy Daly, a baby boomer herself, says most boomers she knows simply can’t fathom downsizing yet — they need the space in their often mortgage-free homes for grown children trying to get on their feet, or aging parents too frail to live on their own.


“I’m finding that more people are staying put,” said Daly.

~~~

 

[TrickyRicky]

Chuck, while you are describing a trend we need to distinguish this as either a niche trend or a general trend. My opinion is that you are decribing a niche trend. As the article states the "intent" (as opposed to action which will be governed by affordability considerations not actual "intent") of the majority of the population is the status quo of suburban housing.

However, I can't entirely agree with the thesis of the article either. As I mentioned "intent" differs from action and even if a minority of boomers do choose to downsize to condos, this would actually represent THE emerging trend. The reason is that previous generations didn't even have this option, let alone the option to consider it. A small shift of people to multi-residential would have a profound influence on the market.

In a way the general emerging trend may be that we are moving back to a multi-generational or family clan housing scenerio where families never sell and leave their family clan birth home and multiple generations live under the same roof.

 

[bleu]

^ I have to disagree. Increasing wealth leads to depopulation only within a fixed physical environment. In Toronto, we've seen massive development drastically increasing the overall number of households that can be accommodated in some areas, and I don't see a reason for this trend to discontinue. Any notion of the 416 being somehow full, or close to full, is simply wrong. It can accommodate millions more if we plan it properly.

416 is full? Even downtown is not half full.

 

[diminutive]

416 is full? Even downtown is not half full.

"Full" is obviously relative to geography and regulatory climate.

The 416 isn't very dense by global standards, but I think the vast (>70%?) of the City would want to keep our residential form more or less similar. Which then leads to the obvious question of how do you add significant housing stock without altering urban form substantially?

Highrises in urban brown fields have been a solution, but their high cost-per sq foot suggests they won't attract much beyond childless singles and couples. Arterial midrises is currently the hope, but even more economic issues there.

My preferred solution would be to create a regulatory climate which would allow 4-6 storey townhouses built right to the lot line throughout the 416 with narrower streets, but i'm not even sure how that could be facilitated in most of the City.

 

[TrickyRicky]

^Another option is crowding. As I mentioned above I see the rise of multi-family co-habitation arrangements. We won't have larger families but we may have multiple generations or multiple families (say the families of sibblings) living together within the existing suburban low-rise housing fabric. This is not insignficant if the trend happens. You could probably fit another 1.5 million people within the existing built-form of the GTA without adding any new structures. Economic conditions will mandate this if the cost of living keeps rising and average wages remain stagnant. I feel this out-come very likely which will mean that increasingly people will not just need two adult family incomes to keep a household going, they will need three or four.

 

[Jaye101]

Expect a rush to the suburbs over the next few years as they hit their child-bearing years: Almost 77 per cent of the Gen Ys surveyed said they will be looking for townhouses, bungalows or single family homes and less than 25 per cent of them close to downtown.

“Like their parents, they dream of owning a lovely house in the suburbs, which provides value as well as access to parkland for children to play and the perception of greater family safety,” said Soper.

Let's see them try with no new road road capacity into the city. As transit improves in the 416 I see many dense urban, liveable, family oriented neighbourhoods popping up in North York, Etobicoke and Scarborough. I do not see Toronto of all cities, experiencing another run to the suburbs.

Has the Old City reached it's peak population again, yet?

 

[BobBob]

Has the Old City reached it's peak population again, yet?

I believe it has, a few years ago. Should be around 750,000 now.

 

[James]

Let's see them try with no new road road capacity into the city. As transit improves in the 416 I see many dense urban, liveable, family oriented neighbourhoods popping up in North York, Etobicoke and Scarborough. I do not see Toronto of all cities, experiencing another run to the suburbs.
...

I agree. The family-oriented neighborhoods are already there in North York, Etobicoke and Scarborough. What I can envision happening is more of a migration & gentrification into these areas. We all know the neighborhoods in midtown and uptown (this includes North York) in the central corridor (i.e. between Bathurst and Don Mills) are already prime locations. I believe more and more families will be looking to areas like Mimico in Etobicoke or L'Amoreaux in Scarborough to settle. There are lots of great neighborhoods in the 416 which can handle a resurgence; it's just a matter of time before it is realized.

 

[Jaye101]

I believe it has, a few years ago. Should be around 750,000 now.

I thought the peak population was 775,000, though I could be mistaken.. It's getting harder and harder to find current or historical population figures for the pre-amalgamated cities.

 

[BobBob]

The highest count for the old City was in the 1971 census: 713,000.

http://www.demographia.com/db-cancityhist.htm