Statistics Canada Reports II

[GreaterMontréal]

Montreal is the one who builds the least amount of SFH, only 4,84%. That's why prices here will continue to go up. Montreal will accelerate its densification across its entire territory. Urban sprawl in Montreal will slow considerably, with numerous densification projects underway in the CMM. Major residential development projects are in progress on the Island of Montreal, in Laval, and in Brossard. It's in the core of the CMA (Montreal-Laval-Longueuil-Brossard) that public transit funds will be invested.

[zoomer]

Interesting stats - looks like Victoria has the second lowest share of SFH at 6.36%, then Vancouver at 7.86%.

I tend to agree with the posters who talk about increasing densification being a good thing - or perhaps you're just making observations and withholding judgement. Yes we could expand on greenfields and sprawl to make housing more affordable but isn't that short term thinking and baking in long term infrastructure, transportation, environmental and social costs for generations ahead.. I mean, sure it's working now in some prairie and other cities but they also have the cheap and easier land to develop whereas others have limited land or the land that is available is costly in terms of purchase price and development costs. Blasting away mountain sides for example as in Victoria's western suburbs.

[rdaner]

Great housing numbers. I am struck with the impressive increase in higher density forms and wonder what the effect will be on areas where this is a newer trend such as the Prarie provinces?

[theman23]

Originally Posted by zoomer

Interesting stats - looks like Victoria has the second lowest share of SFH at 6.36%, then Vancouver at 7.86%.

I tend to agree with the posters who talk about increasing densification being a good thing - or perhaps you're just making observations and withholding judgement. Yes we could expand on greenfields and sprawl to make housing more affordable but isn't that short term thinking and baking in long term infrastructure, transportation, environmental and social costs for generations ahead.. I mean, sure it's working now in some prairie and other cities but they also have the cheap and easier land to develop whereas others have limited land or the land that is available is costly in terms of purchase price and development costs. Blasting away mountain sides for example as in Victoria's western suburbs.

There's a U-shaped curve where increased density ends up being counterproductive, and we've probably hit that in a lot of the recent mega developments in Toronto (and Vancouver). A lot of the constraints on land we have are due to policy choices, particularly in Ontario. There's been a lot of virtuous "won't someone think of the children" forward thinking that's contributed to these types of decisions, but no one seems to have ever considered to ask the younger generation (who overwhelmingly prefer ground level homes with yards) what they want.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by theman23

There's a U-shaped curve where increased density ends up being counterproductive, and we've probably hit that in a lot of the recent mega developments in Toronto (and Vancouver). A lot of the constraints on land we have are due to policy choices, particularly in Ontario. There's been a lot of virtuous "won't someone think of the children" forward thinking that's contributed to these types of decisions, but no one seems to have ever considered to ask the younger generation (who overwhelmingly prefer ground level homes with yards) what they want.

It’s that kind of disconnect where of course everyone wants to preserve rural areas but very few picture living their lives in an apartment either. When the policy framework was brought in most voters already “got theirs” detached home.. so we see young people being forced into the new housing while boomers and Gen X get to keep living the more traditional Canadian lifestyle in low rise housing.

Toronto is almost surreal in a way because its low rise neighborhoods are full of retirees, often 1 person to a full detached home, with families cramming into apartments next to the freeway. It all makes 0 sense and somehow nobody in the planning profession seems to see it.

[missing_middle]

Originally Posted by zoomer

Interesting stats - looks like Victoria has the second lowest share of SFH at 6.36%, then Vancouver at 7.86%.

I tend to agree with the posters who talk about increasing densification being a good thing - or perhaps you're just making observations and withholding judgement. Yes we could expand on greenfields and sprawl to make housing more affordable but isn't that short term thinking and baking in long term infrastructure, transportation, environmental and social costs for generations ahead.. I mean, sure it's working now in some prairie and other cities but they also have the cheap and easier land to develop whereas others have limited land or the land that is available is costly in terms of purchase price and development costs. Blasting away mountain sides for example as in Victoria's western suburbs.

BC may have no option as it is mostly valleys hemmed in by mountains but the rest of the country including Ontario does not have this excuse.

It can do greenfield and greenfield does not have to just mean the suburb designs from the 70's or 80's. The density can be higher and housing types more varied.

Also there is an irony in worrying about "social costs" of greenfield development while asking people(of course it's typically never them in this scenario...just future generations) to live in smaller and smaller spaces at higher prices.

This style of planning in BC and Ontario is basically just an Alberta population growth plan. That's basically what has been happening and what will continue to happen.

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by rdaner

Great housing numbers. I am struck with the impressive increase in higher density forms and wonder what the effect will be on areas where this is a newer trend such as the Prairie provinces?

The 8 unit 'mid-block' entitlement is causing all sorts of a shit storm and likely pulled back to 6, with further refinements.

The one trend that makes me wonder, are the generic 250-300 unit edge of city/ring road multi-fam sprouting up all over Edm/Cal with little walkability, high density and poor transit.

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

The 8 unit 'mid-block' entitlement is causing all sorts of a shit storm and likely pulled back to 6, with further refinements.

The one trend that makes me wonder, are the generic 250-300 unit edge of city/ring road multi-fam sprouting up all over Edm/Cal with little walkability, high density and poor transit.

Oof. I am so sick of the lack of infill in Regina and the ever-increasing build out of density in suburbia. It's so amazingly stupid. Then every lot that comes available in my area gets a single gigantic home on it instead of a set of row houses that would increase the liveliness of my neighborhood. It's tragically stupid.

[Surrealplaces]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

The 8 unit 'mid-block' entitlement is causing all sorts of a shit storm and likely pulled back to 6, with further refinements.

The one trend that makes me wonder, are the generic 250-300 unit edge of city/ring road multi-fam sprouting up all over Edm/Cal with little walkability, high density and poor transit.

Unfortunately it's already started in Calgary. The new council is more conservative than the previous one, and they're already looking at repealing the blanket zone upgrade.
How it ends up after the repeal is anyone's guess, it sounds like they will at least keep parts of it, but the 8 unit mid-block ones might be gone.

The sad part is the areas of the city that weren't affected at all, were the ones opposing it

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by theman23

There's a U-shaped curve where increased density ends up being counterproductive, and we've probably hit that in a lot of the recent mega developments in Toronto (and Vancouver). A lot of the constraints on land we have are due to policy choices, particularly in Ontario. There's been a lot of virtuous "won't someone think of the children" forward thinking that's contributed to these types of decisions, but no one seems to have ever considered to ask the younger generation (who overwhelmingly prefer ground level homes with yards) what they want.

Yep. We could just stop importing massive amounts of people requiring housing and stop subsidizing seniors who can't afford to pay property taxes on the big house they live in all alone.

[jc_yyc_ca]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I kind of like the diversity of new housing in the prairie cities, with SFH's being 24% in Calgary, 31% in Edmonton and probably similar or higher in the other prairie cities, at least there are some varying options for housing.

I don't like sprawl, but I believe people should have options for housing as long as they're willing to pay extra to support any sprawl they are causing. Calgary's offsite levy charged to developers to pass costs onto greenfield purchasers was $540,000 per hectare, and was just increased to $609,00 per hectare or roughly $22,000 per home.

It's getting there, but needs to be somewhat higher. Mississauga for example is around $130,000 per home, and Surrey's is $73,000 per home. Edmonton's is $16,000 per home. A healthy levy of say...$60,000 per home would keep houses reasonable affordable, but also help curb sprawl a bit more.

[Wigs]

because I have much love for Winnipeg and Manitoba:

Winnipeg CMA

[kora]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

The one trend that makes me wonder, are the generic 250-300 unit edge of city/ring road multi-fam sprouting up all over Edm/Cal with little walkability, high density and poor transit.

Those are the future slums of those cities

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

I'm probably in the minority here, but I kind of like the diversity of new housing in the prairie cities, with SFH's being 24% in Calgary, 31% in Edmonton and probably similar or higher in the other prairie cities, at least there are some varying options for housing.

I don't like sprawl, but I believe people should have options for housing as long as they're willing to pay extra to support any sprawl they are causing. Calgary's offsite levy charged to developers to pass costs onto greenfield purchasers was $540,000 per hectare, and was just increased to $609,00 per hectare or roughly $22,000 per home.

It's getting there, but needs to be somewhat higher. Mississauga for example is around $130,000 per home, and Surrey's is $73,000 per home. Edmonton's is $16,000 per home. A healthy levy of say...$60,000 per home would keep houses reasonable affordable, but also help curb sprawl a bit more.

You are describing Development Charges in Ontario. Mississauga does indeed charge $120,000.. which is a huge contributing factor to housing affordability. SFDs in Mississauga are actually at $135,000 right now, and apartments are at $97,000! As a portion of total purchase price, the SFD charge is typically significantly less.. It's not really so much a charge to discourage sprawl but just a massive tax on new development.

I largely agree with your position - I'm not wildly opposed to "sprawl" (21st century Canadian greenfield development in it's major cities can hardly be called this as it usually has fairly high densities), but it should "pay it's way" to let the market respond appropriately.

I think what you would find is that even if "sprawl" is priced appropriately to match it's higher service level requirements.. most would still buy it. Most people ultimately view their long-term home as being something ground related with a garage and if they can afford it, will usually make that choice.

[missing_middle]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

I'm probably in the minority here, but I kind of like the diversity of new housing in the prairie cities, with SFH's being 24% in Calgary, 31% in Edmonton and probably similar or higher in the other prairie cities, at least there are some varying options for housing.

I don't like sprawl, but I believe people should have options for housing as long as they're willing to pay extra to support any sprawl they are causing. Calgary's offsite levy charged to developers to pass costs onto greenfield purchasers was $540,000 per hectare, and was just increased to $609,00 per hectare or roughly $22,000 per home.

It's getting there, but needs to be somewhat higher. Mississauga for example is around $130,000 per home, and Surrey's is $73,000 per home. Edmonton's is $16,000 per home. A healthy levy of say...$60,000 per home would keep houses reasonable affordable, but also help curb sprawl a bit more.

Is there varying degrees of blame for sprawl or equal blame?

In some ways you end just being punitive to people depending on the year of their birth.

"Hey I was born in 1950 and managed to buy house less far out than someone born in 1990, it's their fault for being born/born later and just tax them more than for causing this trouble"

I mean that's literally the logic. Punitive for being born later.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by missing_middle

I mean that's literally the logic. Punitive for being born later.

I suspect it mostly happened based on self interest depending on the size of different demographics, how they vote, and to some degree culture and sympathy. But yes, the tax system and fiscal policy at all levels of government are hugely generationally inequitable in Canada, with younger people getting screwed hard over and over. I think this bias plays a big role in low productivity and our cost of living problems. We heavily tax the more productive parts of society and a lot of the spending is of low marginal utility as it goes to people who are already affluent.

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

Yeah, both are firmly big town/ small city figures, but i dunno how you can say it’s not a difference at all when the larger figure is almost double the former 😅

In terms of services, unique amenities, etc... the "do I have to go to a bigger city for this" question?

Those two sizes of place will have the same things. One just has more houses, schools, and grocery stores than the other.

[Wigs]

Since I'm a fan of Edmonton:


*CSD = census subdivision

Data source:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/...025&referencePeriods=20250101%2C20250101

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Wigs

because I have much love for Winnipeg and Manitoba:

Winnipeg CMA

I love these tables of yours. Would you do one for Montreal?

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I love these tables of yours. Would you do one for Montreal?

Because it's you, Mister Molson, I'll see what I can do.
Quickly checks out all of the CSDs (census subdivisions) contained in Montreal CMA: fils de pute!
----------------------------------------------


For all of the stat can hoopla spent on Calgary and Ottawa, Edmonton's growth is nothing short of amazing. City limits grew by over 227,000 since the 2021 census! Almost 275,000 added to the Edmonton Metro!