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.
Toronto has TONS of highrise housing. And it's generally cheap.
The housing crisis is with SFH. Toronto has basically made new homes illegal, and that's what people want. If you want lower home prices, they should allow more development in the sprawl. Part of the reason American cities are so much cheaper, despite higher salaries, is because they sprawl.
No they are not "cheap". Average cost of a 1-bedroom has reached all-time high this year at $549,000 for an average 500 sqft condo. Two-bedrooms average at $800,000, with many buildings along transit lines going for much higher (closer to $1 million). Sure they are cheaper than a SFH, but by no means affordable. And you are also discounting the fact average monthly maintenance fees in TO is ~$500 per month, with many buildings asking for much higher.
And no, they should not allow more "sprawl". That's the worst sort of city planning a city can embark on in this day and age. There are many ways to create housing supply without sprawl - build more mid-rise townhouses and apartments with larger units: duplexes, triplexes, quadraplexes that share a plot of land. It doesn't have to be an extreme choice between matchbox condos vs. big SFHs in the suburbs, as demonstrated by Toronto's neighbor Montreal.
Sure some U.S. metros offer extremely cheap housing. But cheaper relative to what, and in what context? Is a house in 15 miles outside downtown in the middle of nowhere suburbia have that much appeal? Especially in the context of Toronto where jobs are all concentrated in the downtown and midtown areas? Toronto has that as well, in far out places like Burlington, Ajax, etc. where you spend 2-3 hours each day on the highway commuting to work. Sure it appeals to a certain population segment, but the city is also built to service those who actually live in the city, not those who commute from 50 km everyday.
Except that's cheap compared to condos in major U.S. cities. Apples to apples condos in Toronto are much cheaper than in, say, Chicago, but suburban SFH in Toronto are like 3x that of Chicago.
Toronto has too many condos and too few SFH. There's a mismatch between zoning/policy and demand.
Well then Toronto will remain unaffordable, simple as that. Most families don't want to live in tiny apartments, they want a SFH with yard.
You can build 70 floor condos from here to Thunder Bay, won't change the fact that most North American families don't want Hong Kong-style shoeboxes in the sky.
While that's true many Canadians live in a SFH in the suburbs and love that life style, many others want to live in or close to downtown as well. The downtown Toronto's population is expected to double by 2041. https://www.cp24.com/news/downtown-p...maat-1.2846605
Also, as I suggested a few times, adding density by mid-rise housing can be a part of the solution. Something like townhouses can be a happy medium, but the zoning by-law does not allow them.
That isn't apples to apples. Comparing like to like, Chi is more expensive for urban living. A new 50 floor condo in core Chi will be significantly pricier than in Toronto. Of course Chicagoland has tons of housing that is virtually worthless, bringing regional medians down. Toronto has no such areas.
See
The population will double because that's where they're building units.
They don't offer family-sized units because families don't want condos. Again, the housing crisis is in sprawl, not downtown, because the sprawl has basically been banned. Most North Americans don't want to live Hong Kong-style.
First of all, what's the point of comparing the prices of just newly-built condos in the core? The affordability/housing crisis issue in Toronto is city wide. Secondly, even though I think it's not meaningful much to compare condo prices in the core, a typical sales price for studio starts from around $600K-700K right in the core in Toronto. Now, I am not familiar with Chicago's real estate that much to say "Hey Toronto's condos in the core are as expensive as Chicago," but if buying a studio costs you $450-500K(US), you cannot say "it is cheap".
Yes, the population will double in downtown because that's where building units are, but the builders keep building more because there are strong demands. They are starting to add more family units because there are also demands. Yes, some people move to Mississauga because they want a SFH, but others want to stay close to downtown and don't mind condo living.
And for the argument's sake, let's say we allowed sprawl and built more SFH. Where do you suggest we do so? There are already many, many SFHs within Toronto's city-proper. There is no room to build new SFHs either. And if there were, you know it would make more sense to build mid rise or high rise, right?
First of all, what's the point of comparing the prices of just newly-built condos in the core? The affordability/housing crisis issue in Toronto is city wide. Secondly, even though I think it's not meaningful much to compare condo prices in the core, a typical sales price for studio starts from around $600K-700K right in the core in Toronto. Now, I am not familiar with Chicago's real estate that much to say "Hey Toronto's condos in the core are as expensive as Chicago," but if buying a studio costs you $450-500K(US), you cannot say "it is cheap".
Yes, the population will double in downtown because that's where building units are, but the builders keep building more because there are strong demands. They are starting to add more family units because there are also demands. Yes, some people move to Mississauga because they want a SFH, but others want to stay close to downtown and don't mind condo living.
And for the argument's sake, let's say we allowed sprawl and built more SFH. Where do you suggest we do so? There are already many, many SFHs within Toronto's city-proper. There is no room to build new SFHs either. And if there were, you know it would make more sense to build mid rise or high rise, right?
I just wonder why you don't see adding mid-rise building as (a part of) the solution.
Don't bother arguing with people like that - they only see the extremes and gravitate towards them like they are the holy bible. There are so many local nuances in urban planning and how a city evolves, simply putting out a one-size-fits-all statement like "North American families like to live in a single family house, with a yard, out in the burbs" is just lazy and willingly neglects the local nuances of a large and diverse city like Toronto - a city with recent immigrants from 200+ countries, a city where 55% of residents are born outside of North America. And fortunately for us, it's 2019, not 1969, and he doesn't set the urban planning policies in Toronto.
Don't bother arguing with people like that - they only see the extremes and gravitate towards them like they are the holy bible. There are so many local nuances in urban planning and how a city evolves, simply putting out a one-size-fits-all statement like "North American families like to live in a single family house, with a yard, out in the burbs" is just lazy and willingly neglects the local nuances of a large and diverse city like Toronto - a city with recent immigrants from 200+ countries, a city where 55% of residents are born outside of North America. And fortunately for us, it's 2019, not 1969, and he doesn't set the urban planning policies in Toronto.
You're very right and I totally agree with you here, and thank you
Yes, I agree with you here. It's a complicated situation for sure. We needed the relief line (Ontario line) yesterday.The concentration of the jobs in downtown core is not helping either. This means there is no room for adding density without pressuring existing infrastructure and yet we have a housing crisis now...catch 22.
Another point I want to make, by the way, is highrises takes a long time to build, and we needed housing now. Even if you are to still add density near transit hubs we could use (multi-family) lowrise-midrise housing near them. Toronto's "yellowbelt" actually starts right next to transit hubs. For example, there are full of SFHs as soon as you turn north or south from Bloor street/Danforth avenue (even near downtown).
This is right next to Chester Station. What you see at the end is Danforth avenue, the heart of Greektown. You could start adding density somewhere like this.The pictures in Bostonkid123's post above are great examples of what kind of housing you could build. You could adjust the design to fit the neighborhood. Of course some people still need to go downtown to work, but the area is very walkable as far as everyday errands go.
Perhaps.
I personally despise high density lowrise developments, I think it robs a city of its natural assets (reduces urban tree canopy), creates maze-like ground level streets and the feeling of being in a vast inescapable urban prison.
As far as Toronto is concerned, I would keep the SFH neighborhoods as they are and continue to add density at transit nodes. I would then add more transit lines to increase the number of nodes upon which to build density, including employment centers. The multiple skyline cityscape is an innovative solution in my mind. The U/C Eglinton crosstown line and upcoming Finch line would represent great opportunities.
I would certainly not be in favor of slowly turning big chunks of the city into San Francisco or Barcelona (without the european architecture and cobble pedestrian streets) or even much of Manhattan between Midtown and Downtown. Toronto's beautiful tree lined streets are as much a part of its urban landscape as its skylines.
When I was in Manhattan I felt like I was in an urban prison, central park being the only respite. It's not pleasant. But Manhattan is a special case with the island being finite space and every square meter needs to be developed with some form of density. God help us if we're moving in that direction for the rest of our major North American cities.
I personally despise high density lowrise developments, I think it robs a city of its natural assets (reduces urban tree canopy), creates maze-like ground level streets and the feeling of being in a vast inescapable urban prison.
As far as Toronto is concerned, I would keep the SFH neighborhoods as they are and continue to add density at transit nodes. I would then add more transit lines to increase the number of nodes upon which to build density, including employment centers. The multiple skyline cityscape is an innovative solution in my mind. The U/C Eglinton crosstown line and upcoming Finch line would represent great opportunities.
I would certainly not be in favor of slowly turning big chunks of the city into San Francisco or Barcelona (without the european architecture and cobble pedestrian streets) or even much of Manhattan between Midtown and Downtown. Toronto's beautiful tree lined streets are as much a part of its urban landscape as its skylines.
When I was in Manhattan I felt like I was in an urban prison, central park being the only respite. It's not pleasant. But Manhattan is a special case with the island being finite space and every square meter needs to be developed with some form of density. God help us if we're moving in that direction for the rest of our major North American cities.
I actually half agree with you here. I do like beautiful residential streets full of SFHs. Especially outside of downtown and commercial areas. I think everyone agrees that we need more transit lines to increase transit hubs and adding density and employment centres upon them is a good idea. I think it should have been done already.
That being said, there are things I disagree. We have a housing crisis now. I see no other immediate solution than adding more mid-rises. There are still many areas where there are full of SFHs near transit hubs, especially near Bloor-Danforth line as I mentioned in my previous post. I'm not talking about a 10, or even 5 minute walking radius from the station. They are right next to the stations. I think we should at least add more density in these areas. Although these areas are close to subway stations, I think they are fit for (high-density) low rises or mid rises than high rises.
I'm not actually a big fan of high-rises except in downtown (I do like them in downtown). I think high density low-mid rises can act as a happy medium. I also think we can still keep the tree canopy. We can just replace 2-3 houses with 2-3 families to a lowrise townhouse/townhouses where there with 10 or more families.
The trees in Toronto are a bit bigger (in this shot), but I don't really think they are that different, and we can keep Toronto's tree canopy with more high density low-mid rises. I think we can do this without turning the city into an "urban prison".
By the way, I personally would not care so much about adding more mid-rise or even high-rise if there were no housing crisis. I care more about lack of retail in many streets even in downtown and that's why I don't feel that urban in Toronto. Personally, they could keep low-rise houses as they are as long as they allow using them for commercial purposes. As I mentioned before, Kensington market is pretty much all low-rise but it's vibrant there. So is most of Yorkville. My pet peeve is they call a neighborhood something like "Little Italy" or "Greek town" but in reality all the commercial activities are on one street. I like taking a walk on random streets over a few blocks in an area and stroll around and find some hidden cafes, restaurants, galleries, bars, boutiques etc. and I cannot do so in Toronto.
Last edited by brighthope; 06-15-2019 at 10:01 AM..
The issue, again, has nothing to do with multifamily. Toronto has a housing shortage with SFHs. It does not have anything close to a shortage of multifamily.
So if you care about affordability, you need to allow more sprawl, like the rest of North American cities, or you will continue to have the crazy situation of lower middle class sprawl with crappy $1 million homes.
Unlikely to happen.
And to be quite frank - Toronto hasn't been a truly affordable place for decades already, and likely will never be one of those affordable cities that you find in the Midwest or the South. It's the largest city in Canada, the largest employment center, the largest population center, the city that receives the highest immigration, the largest concentration of higher eds, tech, and finance. You can't expect "affordability" in any city that meets the above criteria.
According to the latest data from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Toronto has a housing shortage in every housing category, not just SFH. In fact the vacancy rate for one and two-bedroom apartments is currently at 2.4%, the lowest in North America.
Further, Toronto does have a shortage for SFH, with a caveat - SFHs that are centrally located. Sure, you could buy a $500,000 bungalow in Ajax, Peterborough, or Kingston - but who wants to live 1.5 hrs outside the city where your daily commute averages 3-4 hours and all the jobs are located in the city? Simply expanding the sprawl isn't going to make those SFHs more desirable.
Once again, Ontario and the Federal Government policy on urban development is one that is decidedly against suburban sprawl. The Ontario government has also set a hard limit on how far that sprawl can go with the limitation of the Green Belt 15 years ago. So no, there is 0% chance Toronto is going in the direction that you are advocating. And yes, Toronto residents will have to live with high housing costs - this isn't a Toronto specific problem - it's a pattern in major cities across all OECD countries due to the very fact that these large cities are able to successfully attract and keep people and jobs across the world.
If the region wants cheaper housing, they need to allow more sprawl. It's really quite simple. The affordability issues are with SFH, not with multifamily.
Well, it is just your "impression." If you insist it is "reality," please provide us with some evidence, statistical data or logic behind your view.
You have been saying north Americans simply want to live in a SFH and the reason behind unaffordability is lack of them. Building more SFHs and allowing sprawl would solve it. Let's say it's correct. Then why are more people not moving out to the suburbs to live in SFHs? We are not banning sprawl. If they want, they can go to Milton, Pickering, Ajax, Brampton or even Mississauga- you can still buy a house with a backyard within the $400k - $600k (Canadian) range there (picks are slim in Mississauga though). They already have an option. Actually, some people are doing so as I said earlier. But the more people are moving into the city despite the lack of SFHs. So it would not solve anything if we make more and more SFHs in the suburbs.
You may be correct about people would rather live in a SFH. I'd agree many people would choose a SFH over a condo if given a choice in the same area within the same price range. But when they are to choose between a condo in the city and a SFH in the suburbs, people are choosing the former. It is statistical "reality." There is (relatively) affordable housing in the GTA in the suburbs and many people are not choosing it. They are paying $600K for a condo in the city when they can buy a house with a backyard in Brampton or Milton with the same or sometime a less price. When people are not choosing it, how building more SFHs in the suburbs solve any of the affordability issue? Also, why do you think we are not allowing the sprawl? You claim it is "reality" - so what it is that is banning the sprawl?
As bostonkid123 said to me in the other post, you clearly don't know the nuances in Toronto and don't seem to bother to see the statistics or read reports or research done by universities, think tanks etc. and probably there is no point discussing this with you. I just wrote this anyway for other people who just stumbled upon this page.
Last edited by brighthope; 06-18-2019 at 02:24 PM..
To me, Toronto and NYC aren't alike. Not because of "vibrancy" or any of that nebulous and changeable stuff. It's the built environment and the architecture that are notably different between the two cities. New York developed earlier and had a much earlier developmental peak. The intensity of it's development in the 1800s and 1900s was crazy. It became the world's first megacity in 1950, and overtook London as the world's largest city in the 20s. That means the buildings are older and much prettier than they are in Toronto. NYC's architecture is much better.
Last edited by geriatricfairy; 06-20-2020 at 01:28 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.
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.
