Canada's 'housing bubble' deemed close to bursting

[Denscity]

Originally Posted by whatnext

ORLY?

New Westminster eclipses Toronto, Montreal for population density in 2021 census
With more than 5,000 people per square kilometre, New West is the second most densely populated urban centre in Canada
Julie MacLellan
Feb 9, 2022 10:31 AM

New Westminster is the second most densely populated urban area in Canada, according to just-released 2021 census data.Lisa King
New Westminster's population density has crept up past 5,000 people per square kilometre – eclipsing both Toronto and Montreal and second only to Vancouver among the most dense urban areas in Canada.

That finding was part of 2021 census data released today by Statistics Canada.

With a population of 78,916 and a land area of just 15.62 square kilometres, New West now has 5,052.4 people per square kilometre...

https://www.newwestrecord.ca/local-news/...opulation-density-in-2021-census-5044437

Wow Vancouver AND one of it's suburbs are denser than Toronto and Montreal !!
Now that's bragging rights!
Should this be in the StatsCan thread?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Denscity

Wow Vancouver AND one of it's suburbs are denser than Toronto and Montreal !!
Now that's bragging rights!
Should this be in the StatsCan thread?

No, but it does rebut the claims that Vancouver was extremely low-density.

[harls]

Originally Posted by Denscity

Wow Vancouver AND one of it's suburbs are denser than Toronto and Montreal !!
Now that's bragging rights!
Should this be in the StatsCan thread?

Whoah there stallion, better put a plug on that thing before you explode!

[lio45]

Toronto and Montreal were forced by their provincial governments to merge with their suburbs.

Apples to apples, i.e. if the people in charge in Victoria decide to amalgamate the Lower Mainland, Van goes back to its correct position (third most dense).

Been a while since I had seen one of my pet peeves (the imaginary arbitrary lines of municipal borders being actually considered important un-jokingly). Now someone needs to say the tarsands are the cleanest form of energy known to man, or that Milton is on track to overtaking Shanghai.

[MonkeyRonin]

Surely forumers who've been posting here for over a decade should know by now using municipal density stats is SSP's cardinal sin #1, right?

[theman23]

Originally Posted by whatnext

No, but it does rebut the claims that Vancouver was extremely low-density.

Not really? New West is a unique and small exception. I live in New West and I can literally walk from one end of town to the other in 30 minutes. The majority the major population centers in GVRD are low density and predominantly SFH.

[Acajack]

Côte-St-Luc's population density is 5061 persons per square km according to stats I am seeing.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by theman23

Not really? New West is a unique and small exception. I live in New West and I can literally walk from one end of town to the other in 30 minutes. The majority the major population centers in GVRD are low density and predominantly SFH.

And yet: Downtown Vancouver is Canada's most densely populated city centre: census

Still, it is a cottage industry for tower-humpers (not you) to claim Vancouver is some sparsely populated suburbia.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

And yet: Downtown Vancouver is Canada's most densely populated city centre: census

Still, it is a cottage industry for tower-humpers (not you) to claim Vancouver is some sparsely populated suburbia.

Because something like 75-80% of Vancouver is zoned for single family homes only. Is this so hard for you to admit?

Vancouver is relatively dense overall, but it's very very concentrated in a few small areas.

[le calmar]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Côte-St-Luc's population density is 5061 persons per square km according to stats I am seeing.

The central boroughs are at 10-12K per sq. km. And then you have the various neighbourhoods, but it’s all apple to oranges.

[Denscity]

Originally Posted by harls

Whoah there stallion, better put a plug on that thing before you explode!

Ya, it's awesome.
But because it specifically mentions downtown Vancouver as being the most dense in the country, that also means it'd more dense than Toronto's and Montreal's downtown not just the whole city? Which is quite the feat for Canada’s third city. Vancouver is also third place in age meaning the other two had big headstarts in growth and densification.

[Architype]

A standard house costs almost twice as much in Canada as it does in the U.S.

Since 2020, Canada’s home prices have risen 30 per cent


The average home price in Canada reached a record $816,720 in February—or $638,144 USD—more than nine times the average household income, according to the Canadian Real Estate Association (via Fortune). Home prices in the U.S. over the same period climbed 27 per cent, reaching a record average of US$375,300 ($480,168 CAD)—an increase of 15 per cent year-over-year, according to the National Association of Realtors.

For comparison, the average cost for a home in Canada could fetch a two-bedroom in Odessa or Belleville, Ont., while the average price for home in the U.S. price can land two-bedroom homes in Spokane, Washington or Tampa, Florida.

Since 2020, Canada’s home prices have risen 30 per cent, a boom that’s been “nothing short of stunning,” Robert Hogue was quoted in Fortune as saying. . .

source

[casper]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Because something like 75-80% of Vancouver is zoned for single family homes only. Is this so hard for you to admit?

Vancouver is relatively dense overall, but it's very very concentrated in a few small areas.

Driving home this afternoon there were discussing a new 35 story residential rental project above a to be built skytrain station. It was positive the project was approved. It was disappointing to listen to a UBC profession who heads up some architecture program explaining how he though the project should not be allowed and all new construction in Vancouver should be capped at 6 stories.

We need to grow up. More 35+ story buildings. We need to grow ourselves out of this crisis.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by Architype

source

The Odessa/Bellevue to Spokane/Tampa comparison is really depressing.

I'd never even heard of Odessa, but it looks like a shit hole. Belleville is OK, but its a small city where the only thing open after 8 is McDonalds. Spokane (and even Tampa, despite what the prevailing view on this forum might be) is actually a really nice place.

Reminds me of the viral photo comparing a mansion with a pool in LA to some old workers cottage buried in snow in Toronto.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by casper

Driving home this afternoon there were discussing a new 35 story residential rental project above a to be built skytrain station. It was positive the project was approved. It was disappointing to listen to a UBC profession who heads up some architecture program explaining how he though the project should not be allowed and all new construction in Vancouver should be capped at 6 stories.

We need to grow up. More 35+ story buildings. We need to grow ourselves out of this crisis.

A bevy of 35 story buildings doesn't make a city "grown up". Ask Vienna or Rome.

[DirectionNorth]

Originally Posted by whatnext

A bevy of 35 story buildings doesn't make a city "grown up". Ask Vienna or Rome.

European cities have giant swathes of 5-10 story buildings in their core, which is where their density comes from. Are you saying that you'd be in favor of knocking down the SFH in the City of Vancouver (or Old City of Toronto) and replacing them all with mid-rise buildings?

[casper]

Originally Posted by whatnext

A bevy of 35 story buildings doesn't make a city "grown up". Ask Vienna or Rome.

That was the point our architect academic was making. We should limit buildings to 6 stories and be like most major European cities.

I disagree, I think to accommodate the population growth we need we need to grow our building upwards.

[ssiguy]

Vancouver has been building residential high rises at a dizzying pace for the last 3 decades and yet the housing crisis in Vancouver is the worst in the nation. Clearly building up is not working. As Einstein said "the definition of stupidity is trying something and it doesn't work and then trying it again hoping for a different result".

[casper]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Vancouver has been building residential high rises at a dizzying pace for the last 3 decades and yet the housing crisis in Vancouver is the worst in the nation. Clearly building up is not working. As Einstein said "the definition of stupidity is trying something and it doesn't work and then trying it again hoping for a different result".

It has not been working because of how slowly we have been building new housing in Canada. We need to saturate the market with new housing.

Time to double down on housing construction by both the private and public sector.

I also think what the GTA is doing with electrified Go Transit will be a game changer from housing in that market and help drive down housing costs.

The same needs to happen in the Vancouver market. All day Westcoast Express, as well as some new like such as Surrey to Chilliwack and North Vancouver to Whistler are needed.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by casper

That was the point our architect academic was making. We should limit buildings to 6 stories and be like most major European cities.

I disagree, I think to accommodate the population growth we need we need to grow our building upwards.

For market rental, but especially for buildings with price capped below-market rental for the life of the building (which this 39-storey building has 20% of units at) building taller is the only economically way to make this possible. My company has been doing these for years in Vancouver (rental and below-market) and escalating land prices are terrible for building rental since we are all competing for the same limited allowable (rezone-able) land. At the moment 6-storey rental buildings almost anywhere in the city is barely possible. Typically only possible if the Owner has been sitting on the land you want to develop for over 15 years.