No sign of a slowdown in Burlington
 

No sign of a slowdown in Burlington

BURLINGTON (AM900 CHML) -
The city confirms that the value of building permits reached almost 389 million dollars last year.

That was an increase of 18%, with close to a dozen projects worth more than five million dollars each

Those included the Royal Botanical Gardens addition, three new industrial complexes and a 17-storey condo building on Pearl Street.

Mayor Cam Jackson calls it proof that Burlington is seen as a community that offers a clear strategic direction and a high quality of life.

Now I know how most of us feel about "Borington", however I must say I do enjoy their quaint little downtown compared to some other suburbs. And the fact that they've had a couple successful high-ride condo projects in their core is impressive as well. I have some friends who live in the downtown-area, and don't mind it at all. It's heaven compared to anything north of the QEW.

So minus North-Burlington's sprawl mecca, is it really all that bad?

yes.
Go spend an evening in their downtown. I know it looks cute and everything, but it's dead. Nobody on the streets other than a couple times a year during festivals. Same with Dundas. These little town centres are MUCH better than more sprawl, but simply don't compare with a real city.
And I'd have to disagree with your statement about "minus-north burlington's sprawl mecca". The entire city is a sprawl mecca except for a small area downtown.
If I was forced at gunpoint to live in the burbs, I'd choose downtown Burlington over Mississuaga or all the other weird areas, but Burlington is all about sprawl no matter how you slice it. More condo towers downtown is nice, but it's kind of like Mississuaga. Condo towers where nobody uses the front doors. They all come and go through the parking garage.

An interesting fact about downtown Burlington is that free parking is in short supply. You often have to search for a spot in the side streets and walk a fair distance. The downtown is tiny and rich and pretty nice but the life of Burlington in terms of retail, jobs, and even entertainment is in the suburbs. I have a job because of Borelington's strong economic growth so I have to like it. As far as 'quality of life', that's a matter of personal taste and for most of us here, gritty old Hamilton can still do more for us even with its empty lots and its buildings that are falling apart.

keep in mind, much of Burlington's growth was a result of overflow from Hamilton.
I tire of these suburbs that try to act like they are their own engine. Same with Mississuaga. Mississuaga is still all farmland today if not for Toronto. Burlington is still a little village today if not for Hamilton.

I agree. I'd pick Dundas over all, but if I had to choose between Sauga & Burly, I'd take Burlington any day.

Their downtown condo towers (at least the one at Brant/Lakeshore) actually have street-front retail with patio space! They're often quite busy in the summertime.

I usually take the HSR to downtown Burly (11 parkdale) for festivals. But that's usually the only time I go now-a-days.

We shouldn't be too hard on downtown Burlington. To be fair, they have more patios and pubs than downtown Hamilton. Their core is historic and is a traditional style downtown. They have tons of nice condos and very healthy retail. Their street life isn't too bad either and will only get better with more residential. It's nothing like Mississauga, no huge arteries, just little two lane two way streets.

more patios and pubs than Hamilton?? not even close IMO. Hess Village alone kicks the crap out of their entire city.

Burlington has nothing on Augusta St. as far as pubs go. By the way there's a house up for sale on Augusta across from Pheasant Plucker and it's being marketed towards another bar / patio upstart.

No Burlington doesn't have Augusta or Hess, but those aren't really "downtown" Hamilton. I'm comparing the downtowns and Burlington is surprisingly vibrant and urban, this can't be denied. Burlington has more of an upper middle class feel which is not appealing to many of us, that's all.

Shots I have off hand from Burlington, on a Sunday near Christmas:
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k2...gton/00061.jpg
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k2...gton/00045.jpg
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k2...gton/00063.jpg
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k2...gton/00075.jpg

I can't believe we are now at the point that we are taking a crap on Burlington and Dundas. These are great downtown areas with excellent local retail--particularly in the case of Dundas. If you look at occupancy of streetfront retail on King Street in Dundas it is obviously not dead--far from it. Burlington has done well repopulating it's immediate downtown thanks to high-rise construction--and it's downtown is doing well at least to my untrained eye. The only thing they did which really didn't work well was Village Square--which was essentially the original Hess Village concept. That area appears to me to be infilling with more restaurants/bars which is a natural and healthy progression after it's failure as a tony retail district. Downtown Burlington with it's view of the lake is beautiful and it is part of Hamilton's greater region and an area to be enjoyed and appreciated. Dundas has a great natural, working downtown which backs onto beautiful century old neighborhoods. None of this takes a damn thing away from Downtown Hamilton--which has uniqueness and richness all it's own. Alas, trying to compare these downtown with Mississauga's--which was built in a field across from Square One is ridiculous. Let's not forget that Mississauga had/has natural downtowns at Streetsville and Port Credit.

flar, I applaud you for your honesty--being turned off by an upscale feel is your perogative--and I appreciate you for admitting it and presenting your balanced and attractive photos of Burlington.

Burlington bashing here? come on! I absolutely love the city, been in the core along the waterfront several evenings the past summer, and it is so quaint, so pretty, great retails, great lifestyle living with the condo developments. One of my favourite cities in Ontario to be honest. I haven't been really north of the QEW, but everything I've seen between Guelph Ave, the QEW, and the Lakefront is impressive. If i get a job somewhere in the GTA in the future (as I'm in transportation engineering for school) I imagine myself living possibly in Burlington to raise my family, for some reason I've always pictured myself there.

And the upper urban class, more white-collar crowd is what appeals to me overall. That's a main reason why I'm not a fan of Hamilton's grit in hardly any way. I'd rather see money invested to clean up and refreshen the whole city, improve urban design standards (I'm talking about the stupid stupid idea to place sidewalks directly adjacent to the road instead of creating grassed boulevards to allow snow to sit there instead of dumping all the snow on the curb lane leaving little room for two way traffic on a lot of streets.) And BAN parking on streets at night to allow for proper snow removal!

nobody here is bashing their downtown....the city as a whole is brutally boring.
But the fact is, downtown Hamilton is FAR more exciting, entertaining and full of patios, culture, arts, entertainment, music, multiculturalism, all ranges of dining, cafes, pubs in a league not even comparable with a few blocks in Burlington.
The lead question posed by DC83 asked us if "it's really that bad".
I simply answered 'yes'. That's not crapping on any anything. It's like comparing apples with oranges.
I even made a point to compare it with other suburban areas like Mississuaga and gave Burlingnton full marks compared to places like most GTA suburbs.
Dundas kicks the tar out of Burlington. I haven't heard anyone here crap on Burlington. fastcars, read the posts before coming on here and accusing people of things that were never said.
Everyone's answers were well-spoken and not overly harsh or critical.
No reason to come on here and try to turn yet another thread into an us v. them.

I have never made an effort to turn this into something it wasn't already. Overall this Forum is all about Us v. Them--that is the basis for 90% of the discussion here--when someone steps up to defend the "Them" side they are immediately branded a "trouble maker"--it's an increasing refrain here. At some point, after throwing out comments like you have to call out your biases:

Now I know how most of us feel about "Borington"

Go spend an evening in their downtown. I know it looks cute and everything, but it's dead

Same with Dundas

don't compare with a real city

Hess Village alone kicks the crap out of their entire city

the city as a whole is brutally boring

You cannot call the downtown dead and then make a post in the same afternoon saying "no one is bashing their downtown." You are entitled to an opinion--I respect your opinion--but you cannot make a statement that you then contradict for the sake of convenience. If you review the statement's I've quoted above, all are in the thick of the "Us v. Them" debate. I like all 3 downtowns we've been discussing--I'm pretty sure that's what I said in my post--and I stand by that.

well, I'm sorry, but we obviously have different opinions of 'bashing'. I happily and freely bash 'downtown Mississuaga'. Calling the main drags of Dundas and Burlington dead isn't bashing. It's the reality. I had a friend who lived in Dundas and he loved the urban feel, walkable streets, little shops, but after living there for about a month he told me "nothing is open past 5. The whole town, other than a couple of bars, shuts down". I've long complained (until recently) about this same issue on Locke St. It's not called bashing. It's a simple observation. The city of Burlington AS A WHOLE is brutally boring in my opinion. Again, that's not bashing. It's my impression of never ending tract housing and strip malls.
"Hess Village alone kicks the crap out of their entire city". I know you aren't one of the posters who likes to take things out of context, so perhaps you missed the preamble to that comment. It was responding to Flar's assertion that there are more patios and pubs in downtown Burlington than Hamilton. I could have worded the sentence like this - "Hess Village alone kicks the crap out of their entire city in terms of patios/pubs". I didn't think I needed to, because it was clear what I talking about - patios and pubs. Nothing more.

Hope this helps you understand my comments...no bashing intended. If you want bashing, let's talk about vibrant downtown Mississuaga. :haha:

the pictures here of burlington resemble the old pictures of downtown hamilton/gore park in the 70s. clean; roomy;"new". just wait 30 years, these pictures of burlington will be quite different. its just a matter of time.

oh, and i dont see any grassy boulevards here...looks like there is nowhere to put the snow...except for on the curb and walkway...

DON'T DO IT! hahaha

Ya, imo, everything north of the QEW is crap. I believe they call it "up town" to sound more Toronto or NYC. Infact, this "up town" is nothing more than sprawl and super-lane roads much like Mississauga. There are big box plazas, smaller park-in-front plazas & more sprawl. The sidewalks suck and there's a useless transit system.

Seriously man, if you're looking for a hood to raise your kids, try Durand! (Have you been yet? You're in desperate need of a SSP Forumer Tour! haha)

And why transportation engineering? This makes me sad. You should switch over to the Urban Planning program now! There's a great affiliation program with Mohawk & Ryerson to get a Degree!

GoleafsGo...I keep meaning to ask you, does the transportation engineering course ever deal with anything other than roads and highways? Talking to the folks in Hamilton Public Works it's amazing how stupid they are about any other mode of transportation. What is the thrust of your course? Is it still the same or are they finally including transit, cycling, walking, trucking and the balance between them and cars?

as a fan of public transit, i should take that course...put my name to good use then :tup:

ive been north of the QEW a fair number of times, and i seem to like it a far bunch. i like the new developments up around Upper Middle between Brant and Walkers. I think it resembles our upper james business corridor, just without the auto dealerships.
but the city as a whole has a lot more money than hamilton does, so they can build and develop alot easier than us.

Actually I'll explain my situation.

I am from London originally, having lived there for 7 years since 2000. I was 13 when I moved there, and fell in love with the city right away.

Last year, I was at Fanshawe College for a Bachelor of Applied Arts focusing on Urban Planning and Landscape Design in Fall 2006 Semester, Unfortunately, I hated Landscape design with a passion, so I dropped out, and transfered over to GIS & Urban Planning for the Winter 2007 semester. Due to some problems with transferring, I had some problems with prerequisites and from the beginning, I knew I wanted to get into a job in the future in regards to Transportation. Within a few weeks of being in GIS & Urban Planning, I found out about Mohawk College's program called Transportation Engineering. I used to be really really interested in roads and highway design, and still am, but however, I began to take Public Transportation when I was at Fanshawe, and found that to be fascinating, and I went to Europe last summer and rode on the London Underground and other public transportation systems in the Netherlands and was fascinated by that.

I have sort of wished I was in Urban Planning and GIS again, since I have a strong interest in cities, maps, but more specifically, transportation. I'm a first year student in my 2nd semester. right now, I'm with Civil Engineering and Architectural Engineering students, so my programs are not too diverse right now. The program does focus more on roadways than public transportation, but looking in the future, at my courses, I have courses called Public Transportation, along with Many Transportation Design courses, along with Introduction to Land Use Planning, and Introduction to GIS (which I already have).

What i really would like to see is a hands-on transportation course that does not focus nearly as much on the practicality of physics and design, but the function of transportation systems interlinked with mapping and urban planning and design.

I'm one who just turned 20, I'm not really wanting to be in school forever. I want a great job, with flexibility in alot of regions. Right now I'm most interested in public transportation, but that is due to the lack of having a vehicle. If i had a car, I'd be touring roads and highways more,

Hope that helps. Feel free to ask any questions. I don't know where I'll end up, but if you have seen my ideas and maps i've created with google maps about Hamilton, give me some feedback.

^^ Ya, Universities & Colleges aren't very good at handling credit transfers and Major changes. I know first hand.

Hopefully you decide to get into Public Transportation rather than Highway design... especially with the fossil fuel issue our planet is facing.

If you DO happen to stick with roadway design, being in europe I'm sure you learned to appreciate how well slowing traffic works (ie roundabouts & traffic circles). Kudos to you, man. But give it a couple years... you'll love Hamilton and all it's gritty-glory ;)

I hate traffic circles to be honest :P

Fair enough RTH--I see where you're coming from. Dundas and Hamilton--from an urban perspective--are apples and oranges to use your previous quote. Keep bars/restaurants/pubs open late in Dundas? You'd be dealing with an absolute mutany on your hands--it's a wonderful town--and rest assured that the core neighborhoods near downtown are filled with people who like things exactly the way they are. Burlington is a different animal again--the "old" city of Burlington--say south of Fairview is fairly large--and taking Aldershot into account is relatively urban. Burlington is interesting from an urban planning perspective because it's growth pattern has been almost exclusive south-to-north--so starting at New Street and moving northward you can actually see the different eras of suburban development, practically by decade--up to the newest developement in the Dundas Street corridor.

We are on the same page in relation to Mississauga (there is another fine example of engineering a downtown local to me in a place called Troy, Michigan). I never understood the idea--particularly in light of the existence of "town centers" in some of the flash-frozen little burgs Mississauga was created from including Streetsville and Port Credit. Choosing a chunk of land across from Square One?...I never understood that. Imagine if the Living Arts Center had been done in Port Credit? Imagine if the City Hall was done in Port Credit? Imagine if the City Hall didn't look so completely ridiculous? I'm a suburban guy through-and-through and I think of all the suburban tracts I've seen--Peel Region is far-and-away the least appealing--Mississauga and Brampton hold all the appeal of your grandma's underwear drawer.

What little trips to Burlington I have taken have been fairly enjoyable. Their waterfront is really nice and the downtown is very good for a "city" their size. Given a bit of time and some build up of density, we're gonna have a nice little "mirror image" skyline to match Hamilton's across the bay. Of course Hamilton will always dwarf it, but it'll look nice. Burlington will have the more modern, glassified skyline. I expect a big condo boom will happen in Burlington in the next 20 years.

The rest of Burlington of course is sprawl, sprawl, sprawl but you really can't expect anything much different considering the big cities knocking on their doors (Hamilton and Toronto). Burlington, Oakville and Mississauga were never really destined for anything other than sprawl and I think they've done fairly well considering.

Count me among those who like Burlington.

I'm not sure if it's Mississauga and Brampton getting bashed here now, or your grandma's underwear drawer. Either way, your last post seems to contradict you earlier post bemoaning posters who 'crap' on suburban communities. Maybe you just meant ot say you simply really don't care much for Mississauga or Brampton. Neither do I, for that matter.

As I think you have pointed out, you can defend suburban communities in general while disliking some of them in specific.

Anyway, you misunderstood fastcars' post... I don't think he was bashing Miss/Bram, but rather quite the opposite. I have it on good authority that he actually finds grandmothers' underwear drawers very appealing.

There you go--you're onto me--I'm all about underwear drawers, blue rinses and the Mercury Montego.

I was slightly misunderstood in regard to Mississauga and Brampton. What I was drawing attention to--was the decision in Mississauga to "create" a city center instead of using one of the urban areas the city already contained. Frankly, I think it reduces the civic identity vs. a community like Burlington or Oakville where the traditional waterfront urban area was maintained and is a node for higher density development.

Perhaps I will restate what I said--I'm a content suburban dweller myself--I think Burlington is a wonderful and successful city with more of a community heritage and identity than it has been given credit for on this Forum. Downtown Burlington is great, healthy and growing. I find Mississauga and Brampton far less appealing--that is the gentler way of making my point.

no need to be gentle about it...Mississuaga and Brampton blow! haha.

Were you with us (HHSO) at the Waterloo meet?

No sign of a slowdown in Burlington

Is this thread about traffic flow in Burlington?

Downtown density will prevail over slums of suburbia


Mar 03, 2008 04:30 AM
Christopher Hume
At the moment of its triumph, suburbia is starting to show signs of collapse.

Having remade the face of North America, the tide now seems to be turning against the 'burbs. The downfall won't be quick, but already the unthinkable is starting to happen.

As Christopher Leinberger argues in an article in the current Atlantic, "a structural change is underway in the housing market."

The author and urban planner insists that the troubles go well beyond the U.S. subprime crisis, that in fact they are evidence of a shift that will fundamentally alter the social and economic map of the continent.

In short, Leinberger charts the return to the city that began late in the last century and has been picking up speed ever since. Toronto is a good example; just look at the condo boom, now in its third decade, and the rising price of housing in neighbourhoods that until the 1970s, '80s and '90s, were assiduously avoided by the middle class, areas such as Cabbagetown, Riverdale and now Parkdale.

Canada has not experienced a subprime catastrophe, so perhaps we are an even better example of the city's new popularity. There are objective reasons – escalating cost of gasoline, heating oil and natural gas – but there's more.

As Leinberger writes, "Most Americans now live in single-family suburban houses that are segregated from work, shopping, and entertainment; but it is urban life, almost exclusively, that is culturally associated with excitement, freedom, and diverse daily life. And as in the 1940s, the real-estate market has begun to react."

The key phrase here is "culturally associated." Instead of Leave it to Beaver, the suburbs have now become the setting for Desperate Housewives.

Looking back at the postwar conditions that unleashed the explosion of suburbia, it's clear the growth was inspired as much as anything by a desire to escape from the city. Density, associated with danger, disease and decay, was the enemy.

Sixty years later, beset by gridlock, shoddy construction and environmental degradation that can no longer be ignored, density has started to look good again.

The response has been to make the suburban more urban. But as Leinberger notes, "Sprawling, large-lot suburbs become less attractive as they become more densely built, but urban areas – especially those well served by public transit – become more appealing as they are filled in and built up. Crowded sidewalks tend to be safe and lively, and bigger crowds can support more shops, restaurants, art galleries."

According to a study quoted by Leinberger, only a third of suburbanites "solidly preferred traditional suburban lifestyles." The rest claimed mixed feelings, or said they couldn't afford downtown prices.

And as Boomers grow older and couples put off having children, the appeal of the subdivision wanes even further. The result, Leinberger argues, is that the suburbs could well be on their way to becoming America's "next slum."

Research by David Hulchanski at the University of Toronto has already found that poverty here is being pushed out of its historic inner-city precincts and into "postwar inner suburbs" and "large postwar housing projects." Read Scarborough, Etobicoke, Jane-Finch, Rexdale and the like.

Toronto architect/planner Ken Greenberg rightly calls this the elephant in the room. His point is that the growing good health of downtown has blinded us to the looming crisis of the areas beyond.

In the years ahead, this process will become more pronounced. Just three weeks ago a Scarborough couple was fined $10,000 for turning their home into a rooming house.

Clearly, we have much catching up to do; reality is well ahead of our ability to deal with it.

Where is this article sourced from?

The fundamental problem I have with this argument--and the arguments I often see put forth by other neo-urbanists is that they are basing the renaissance of urban North America on the decline of the suburbs (in fact, they seem gleeful in their use of the word slum.) The basic premise, as I read it, is that urban centres will be reborn because the suburbs will fail for one or a number of reasons. Is a renewal of urban North America impossible without the collapse of "suburbia"? It's a serious question.

Secondly, growing poverty in "inner-ring" suburbs is not a new phenomenon. Anyone who has studied urban issues in any major U.S. city knows that this has been an ongoing issue for the last few decades--as usual Toronto is merely facing the same issues as it's major U.S. counterparts--it's just facing them a decade or two later. Poverty in North York and Scarborough is not news. In fact the displacement of the indigent population in urban areas by this renaissance in fact suggests that this "urban renaissance" is not about diversity at all--but about bringing the same luxury/homogeneity/isolation that the suburbs are so ridiculed for--into the city.

Thirdly, the author ignores the massive demographic shift occuring in society today--boomers are downsizing--and for many, condos are a real and viable option. Nevermind that Toronto's "condo boom" is as prevelant on the 401 corridor as it is in any other area of the city. Is the Scarborough Town Center area considered urban now?

I am most interested in the author's assertion that most people--living in the suburbs--are isolated from what he deems to be an urban life of excitement, freedom and diversity. While he fails to identify just who coupled urban life with these attributes (almost exclusively, apparently)--he also ignores the fact that there are many people in this society who simply prefer the isolation from work, entertainment and shopping. I bristle at the suggestion that I am somehow deluded into a false sense of contentment like some chubby housecat. I tried living in the city--didn't work for me...more power to you if you love it--in fact I encourage you to live and prosper in the city if that's how you roll--afterall, my entire viewpoint is based on the belief that there can be a successful coexistence among the lifestyles of urban, suburban and exurban living. Playing pick up hockey at the arena, cutting my grass and listening to the quiet at night--those things make me happy. Different strokes. The bottom line here is that this author presents what is his viewpoint--a very biased piece--as fact. I should take a straw poll on my block and see how many people are truly miserable--truly trapped out here in this depressing mire. I assure that my poll--regardless of outcome--would be no less scientific than the unsubstantiated claims made by Hume.

Christopher Hume is a regular columnist in the Toronto Star.

In all fairness, his claims cannot be described as unsubstantiated or unscientific simply because you disagree with them. His article cites the findings of several esteemed urban planners and academics.

Christopher B. Leinberger is a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, a professor of urban planning at the University of Michigan, and a real-estate developer. (Hume article cites "The Next Slum?": Atlantic Magazine, March 2008)

J. David Hulchanski is the Director of the Centre for Urban Studies at The University of Toronto(Hume's article cites Suburbanization of Poverty in Toronto: Urban Affairs Association Conference, 2006)

And Ken Greenberg is an urban planner and the former director of Urban Design and Architecture for the City of Toronto. Hume also quotes him in the article.

I have placed links to the two main articles Hume cites in the column. They make for an interesting read. In short, Hume is not talking off the top of his head here.

Your correct markbarbera--obviously I was tired when I wrote my rebuttal--I should have taken Hume to task for citing the unsubstantiated and non-quantifiable remarks made by others.

Quote
but it is urban life, almost exclusively, that is culturally associated with excitement, freedom, and diverse daily life

That is my favorite 'fact' quoted in the article.

So apologies for the skewed criticism--I nonetheless stand by what I said in regard to this article.

Obviously you were also too tired to follow the links I provided to the published articles by Leinberger and Hulchanski, who are among North America's leading experts on urban planning.

To be fair, I would like to explore your position further. Kindly provide the links to the urban planning articles or keynote urban planning conference addresses that demonstrate how these experts in their field got it so wrong and you got it so right.

I tend to agree with Leinberger and Hulchanski's thesis. However, virtually every urbanist working today has a profound distaste for the suburbs and a desire to demonstrate how utterly unsustainable and ultimately unsuccessful this mode of living is. It is not likely that anyone of any note would take it upon him/herself to rebut data which can be interpreted to show the decline of a phenomenon which has been anathema to the academic orthodoxy of an entire generation of scholars. Fastcarsfreedom is thus assuredly right to point out that the analyses of these theorists are to some extent tainted by bias. That doesn't mean that their conclusions are false, though ...

Which neo-urbanists are you referring too? I sensed no glee coming from Hume or Greenburg. The suburbanization of poverty isn't going to benefit anyone. Judging from the way Greenburg describes it as "the elephant in the room", I'd say he sees it as a looming social crisis rather than something to celebrate.

I'm pretty sure I didn't point to Greenburg specifically, however the article is itself a vehicle for advancing Hume's agenda. The inclusion of "slum" is merely for effect--otherwise the title would've been "the suburbanization of poverty".

In the zeal to rail against my rebuttal almost everyone who has posted so far has chosen to ignore the majority of my arguments and focus instead on the manner in which I made my arguments. As for backing up Hume's credentials, I would suggest trying a different tactic than selling him based on his affiliation with The Star--those who are familiar with my posts here will know that will in fact have the opposite effect where I'm concerned.

As RePinion stated, most urbanists have a distaste for what they view as the lack of sustainability in the suburbs--hence Greenburg (and the majority of posters who support his viewpoints in this Forum) aren't suggesting solutions to this "elephant in the room" but merely awaiting their "I told you so" moment. Most active posters here will note that I have always shared my viewpoints and opinions regarding an urban renaissance as opposed to performing a grave dance.

Well, part of the problem is that the suburban development style is not one that easily supports mixed zoning, human scale development and the other things necessary to make it a more viable place to live in the coming years which are going to be energy-scarce (or at least energy-expensive). So it's difficult to get excited about long term potential there, especially when we are having a hard time convincing governments to invest in existing infrastructure that WILL translate well into a future of higher energy prices (i.e. dense urban areas that already exist).

I think the way we can look at the 'solution' is to start by focusing on the regions that are easier to transform into livable communities: urban areas. Eventually, the layout of suburbs will change. More walking is going to become the reality when we have to choose between buying gas or bread. I can totally understand a lack of excitement regarding solutions to the upcoming problems in the suburbs (suburban infill?), especially when excitement about urban infill is mostly ignored.

I really think that housing downturns will be driven by cultural changes. Not environmental and not energy, although I think they could be contributing factors in the cultural change. I can still see shipping and transportation costs decreasing in the future. Commodities pricing will be what increases. In anticipation for the change I see that social services be better distributed through the city into the suburbs. They have a monopoly over downtowns right now. Policy changes regarding land use within the suburbs will need to change allowing retrofitting more living units into single and semi detached homes. Policies regarding driveway usage and vehicle ownerships will be dissolved. New homes will eventually not be mandated to have garages or driveways. More public transit will be needed to be run into the suburbs increasing area rating for transit. Big box developments will need to have capacity for social housing. I think we need to be realistic about what we are going to need to do with these places.


Fewer of us plan to buy homes: RBC

March 05, 2008
The Canadian Press
TORONTO (Mar 5, 2008)

A Royal Bank of Canada study points to "a potential shift in the Canadian home buying landscape," with purchasing intentions the lowest in years.

The bank's annual home ownership survey found the proportion of Canadians planning to buy a home in the next two years has dropped by five percentage points from a year ago to 23 per cent.

The survey released yesterday found 52 per cent of those polled would buy now rather than wait until next year, down from 58 per cent last year, "suggesting a potential slowdown in the housing market," RBC said.

Eighty-five per cent said a home is a good investment, down from 90 per cent in 2007, although up from 76 per cent a decade ago.

"Considering the flurry of activity we've seen over the last few years, this year's results definitely signal a change," stated Catherine Adams, RBC's vice-president of home equity financing. "Canadians continue to be generally very optimistic about our housing market and it's merely the degree of optimism which is down from last year."

The online survey last month of 3,023 adults, which claims a 95 per cent likelihood of representing the whole population within 1.8 percentage points, found 56 per cent expect housing prices to rise, compared with 59 per cent last year.

Adams insisted that Canadians do not appear to be heading towards a housing crunch.

I think that energy prices are going to be the main driver of cultural change in the very near future. Oil prices are not going to go down. And everything we eat and everything we do requires oil at the input end. These are going to be, as they say, "interesting times".

Oil is just a fuel. It can come from anywhere. Peak oil and Global warming are just going to fuel development of new energy projects: nuclear, clean coal, natural gas, tar sands, big wind, big hydro, big solar, biofuel, and geothermal. We are seeing mega projects in Dubai and China preparing for this future. Economies of scale and supply and demand is what drive energy costs. Energy companies don't care if it is coming from oil or cornmeal. I am so sick of hearing that peak oil will drive the end of suburbia because that argument is out lunch. Raising environmental awareness may, but running out of fuel will not.

I don't want to get into a whole peak oil argument here, but it's not a simple solution to count on these amazing new technologies. Oil is such a high density portable energy source we will have difficulty replacing it. My worry is not about keeping cars running, it's about keeping ourselves fed. Our industrial agriculture scheme requires enormous petroleum inputs before the food even gets shipped or processed. Oil based fertilizers and pesticides plus the energy required to machine the land and bring fresh water - that's a lot of energy requirements. And while we may have alternatives to gas engines, we may have alternative electricity sources for our homes -- we do not have alternatives to these oil based pesticides and fertilizers which will allow us to grow food at the scale we do now.

The reality we will all be facing is a more localized economy, for energy, for food, for everything.

The scenery WILL change. How and by how much is anyone's guess, but I think that holding out for technology to keep us running "business as usual" is dangerous.

So yeah... peak oil doesn't scare me but peak food does :-p

Anyways depleting real estate in the suburbs will be the least of our concerns if new technology is not developed.

Starvation, war, anarchy, and disease will.

True :(

Auntie Em! Auntie Em!

Home ownership is one of the main driver's of wealth in our society, therefore it is something to be encouraged, not discouraged.