Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, Los Angeles county had 8,863,164 people in 1990 and 10,039,107 in 2019 that is lot of people hardly little population growth. That is lot of people.
In California had 29,760,021 in 1990 and 39,512,223 people in 2019.
Canada has population of 37,971,02 in 2020. Yet Canada is huge compared to California
Toronto has way more free land than Los Angeles with mountains and water in the way limiting growth.
Then again, Toronto has Lake Ontario which also limits its land.
Within LA County you have a vast area of flat land in the Antelope Valley. They could easily build there. LA isn't running out of room. It's more like LA has very strict zoning laws and environmental regulations like Canada that limit sprawl.
Then again, Toronto has Lake Ontario which also limits its land.
Within LA County you have a vast area of flat land in the Antelope Valley. They could easily build there. LA isn't running out of room. It's more like LA has very strict zoning laws and environmental regulations like Canada that limit sprawl.
Perhaps LA should loosen / update some of those zoning laws to allow for more mid and high density constructions in the sprawling suburban single family neighbhorhoods. This is probably the single most effective way to increase housing supply, lower prices, and also create higher density to support things like higher forms of transit.
And to be frank, Toronto has the same zoning issues, in that city council often lacks the will the update outdated zoning laws, which basically result in large SFH neighbhorhoods with low population density (e.g. Rosedale, Summerhill, etc.) occupying prime land literally couple of streets beside downtown.
Perhaps LA should loosen / update some of those zoning laws to allow for more mid and high density constructions in the sprawling suburban single family neighbhorhoods. This is probably the single most effective way to increase housing supply, lower prices, and also create higher density to support things like higher forms of transit.
And to be frank, Toronto has the same zoning issues, in that city council often lacks the will the update outdated zoning laws, which basically result in large SFH neighbhorhoods with low population density (e.g. Rosedale, Summerhill, etc.) occupying prime land literally couple of streets beside downtown.
Interesting. I've always thought of Toronto as a high rise mecca, but it's overly stringent zoning that is sustaining low density. By contrast, Houston has basically no zoning, is unabashedly pro sprawl, and yet has at least as many towers than LA despite having far fewer people, although arguably that's because seismic codes aren't as strict in Texas.
But thanks for pointing that out. California and Canada definitely have a lot in common when it comes policy. California has a very strong political and civic will to build dense, almost as much as Canada. But Canada has been more successful in building high rises and rail transit largely because of less seismic activity and flatter terrain. It also helps that Canadian inner cities are much safer and overall desirable than California inner cities. Much more demand to live in Downtown Toronto than there is to live in Downtown LA, although pre covid, LA just started an insane high rise boom.
Houses have basements but it’s not because of permafrost, as there are actually few significant inhabited places that are in the permafrost area. Perma stands for permanent, the ground is certainly not frozen permanently where Canadians live.
But to answer the OP’s question, given the real estate mantra of ‘location location location’, it is a bit pointless to ask about "Canada’s house prices" as if any pricing dynamic applied to all of Canada. There are GTA prices, Vancouver prices, Montreal prices, Halifax prices and so on.. just like there are LA prices and Kansas City prices and so on... prices may be higher on average because prices are crazy high in two of the largest markets and those markets happen to encompass over 25% of the population of the country. Every study on housing affordability shows that there are huge differences across markets in the same country, so there is no simple explanation that applies everywhere. The study in the link above shows that in terms of the median market in each country, the US and Canada are actually pretty close in terms of housing affordability, but there are huge differences across markets, much more than across countries.
But that is what I mean? Like the other poster said prices are high every where in Canada.
By US standards and world standards you got Toronto mentro 6 million people, Montreal 4 million, Vancouver 2.4 million, Calgary 1.3 million, Ottawa 1.3 million, Edmonton 1.3 million, Quebec 800,000 and other cities under 800,000
In reality to the world and the US Canada only has three major cities and three smaller cities with lots and lots free land for growth for those three smaller cities.
Those cities in the US with million people are cheap and population 500,000 or under are really cheap.
This is nothing.
Russia, Canada and the US have major land compared to the world. So yes those three countries should be cheaper to compared to the world.
With the US that should be 9 times more costly than Canada because the US having 9 times more people than Canada.
Last edited by Bubble99; 08-09-2020 at 01:42 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.