Canada's 'housing bubble' deemed close to bursting

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

This might cause urban decay as people flock to places that are cheaper. Especially for those who can work from home, if there is no reason to live in the big cities, they can move to a place that is cheaper and may give them a better quality of life.

Evidence says otherwise. The largest collapses in prices are all those exurbs and rural areas people moved to during Covid. Turns out that living in the sticks sucks. And it really sucks when your boss says that you still have to be in the office 2-3 days per week.

Big cities have downsides. But there's not much to be gained on quality of life when most of our smaller cities and large towns are just mini versions of Mississauga or Pickering, only with fewer and lower quality amenities.

For the few people that absolutely must have acreage, those smaller centres are great. But we also seem to be reaching a change in mindset where younger people who have spent so much time in condos are okay with a townhouse and don't insist on detached or bust.

There's also massive investments in transit coming in many places that will completely change the mental geography of their metro areas. REM in Montreal, Stage 2 in Ottawa, GO RER in the GTA, etc. If you can get from Mississauga to downtown Toronto in 20 mins on a GO train, that substantially changes the value of living in Mississauga.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Evidence says otherwise. The largest collapses in prices are all those exurbs and rural areas people moved to during Covid. Turns out that living in the sticks sucks. And it really sucks when your boss says that you still have to be in the office 2-3 days per week.

Big cities have downsides. But there's not much to be gained on quality of life when most of our smaller cities and large towns are just mini versions of Mississauga or Pickering, only with fewer and lower quality amenities.

For the few people that absolutely must have acreage, those smaller centres are great. But we also seem to be reaching a change in mindset where younger people who have spent so much time in condos are okay with a townhouse and don't insist on detached or bust.

There's also massive investments in transit coming in many places that will completely change the mental geography of their metro areas. REM in Montreal, Stage 2 in Ottawa, GO RER in the GTA, etc. If you can get from Mississauga to downtown Toronto in 20 mins on a GO train, that substantially changes the value of living in Mississauga.

My comment was more along the future, 5-10 years from now, not tomorrow.

The places I am thinking are not within the commuting zones of the major cities. For an extreme example, take a tiny hamlet in a bay along NL's coast that has good high speed internet. Someone selling a Mississauga house would have no mortgage and could enjoy not having the rat race around them. However, that would mean that bidding wars would happen out there. Remember, many people live where they do due to work opportunities. Take that away and they will look at where they live and wonder whether the other reasons are enough to stay.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

My comment was more along the future, 5-10 years from now, not tomorrow.

The places I am thinking are not within the commuting zones of the major cities. For an extreme example, take a tiny hamlet in a bay along NL's coast that has good high speed internet. Someone selling a Mississauga house would have no mortgage and could enjoy not having the rat race around them. However, that would mean that bidding wars would happen out there. Remember, many people live where they do due to work opportunities. Take that away and they will look at where they live and wonder whether the other reasons are enough to stay.

The people that remote work from anywhere in the world have a lot of options. Tiny hamlet on Newfoundland coast isn't the only one. There's also beaches in Mexico and Thailand, old cities in Europe. Etc. If you know anybody in tech, you will know people who already have something like this, where they can remote for a month or two from anywhere. Any town banking on the laptop class setting up is going to need to offer way more than cheap detached house.

Also, for all the dreams of these folks taking up hamlet living, they by and large seem to congregate in large cities. Simply because that's where the other techies are. Meeting at Starbucks will always beat meeting on Zoom.

[Truenorth00]

Hell, if the military is struggling sending people to Cold Lake with the ability to order them to move, good luck getting people to voluntarily move on their own.

Reality is that if they are young, single and mobile, they want to be around other young and single people. That rules out small towns. Next, they get families. Now it isn't just about them anymore. Employment opportunities for their partner matter. Education, healthcare extracurricular activities, community events (especially religious and ethnic ties) start to matter.

There's always the hardy few who want that rural lifestyle. But it's not practical for most people. And it's especially impractical in Canada where intercity transport services are poor and expensive, which only makes those outlying communities further isolated.

[Airboy]

I don't think the housing bubble has burst, Homes are still being built and sold in all major centres. Prices may be down in Van and TO but they are going up here in regions like YEG. And the sprawl is just getting worse. The big issue is the lack of Trades to work on construction projects. Went by one subdivision on the weekend. The builder has a lot of foundation work completed but the framing is months behind since he only has 2 crews.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

My comment was more along the future, 5-10 years from now, not tomorrow.

The places I am thinking are not within the commuting zones of the major cities. For an extreme example, take a tiny hamlet in a bay along NL's coast that has good high speed internet. Someone selling a Mississauga house would have no mortgage and could enjoy not having the rat race around them. However, that would mean that bidding wars would happen out there. Remember, many people live where they do due to work opportunities. Take that away and they will look at where they live and wonder whether the other reasons are enough to stay.

It's less about the tiny NL hamlet case and more about the moderate sized cities in the orbit of larger metros for most though.

Few want to go to the arse end of the world, because the downsides of living in a small isolated place often don't outweigh the pile of money you get from cashing out. Taking one's GTA money and moving to Hearst, ON entails a very different lifestyle. North Bay might be a midpoint. It is far enough away to keep the prices down, close enough that going to the city isn't a burden if you have to and large enough that it has things to do for those used to living near a reasonably large place.

I do not foresee an exodus from the city if it hasn't happened yet. Sure, those of a certain age will retire and move. I think where their children end up will be a bigger factor than cashing out per se. They may downsize to a condo and do the snowbird thing, if I had to speculate.

[MolsonExport]

Living means experiencing the local environment. If you love the big city (and all the great things that it has to offer), that is very hard to live without if you move to Hearst or Carbonear. The North Bays, Saguenays, and Prince Georges of the world may offer 'some' big city experience (mostly in terms of basic shopping), but little in the way of variety. there is a world of difference between say, Montreal and the many unique blocks of beckoning urban fabric, and the solitary high street (plus ubiquitous big box barf powercentre) of a tertiary urban area like Drummondville (even if the latter is within striking distance to the delights of Montreal, unlike North Bay relative to Toronto).

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Living means experiencing the local environment. If you love the big city (and all the great things that it has to offer), that is very hard to live without if you move to Hearst or Carbonear. The North Bays, Saguenays, and Prince Georges of the world may offer 'some' big city experience (mostly in terms of basic shopping), but little in the way of variety. there is a world of difference between say, Montreal and the many unique blocks of beckoning urban fabric, and the solitary high street (plus ubiquitous big box barf powercentre) of a tertiary urban area like Drummondville (even if the latter is within striking distance to the delights of Montreal, unlike North Bay relative to Toronto).

Oh yeah.

If you live in a detached SFH in Scarborough and go to downtown Toronto once a year, North Bay or London will not be a huge change.

If you live in Scarborough because you wanted to do the detached home thing and raise kids in the 1980s/90s, but love making weekend jaunts into the city, maybe a condo in the city is the ticket for those people.

Diff'rent strokes and all.

[thebasketballgeek]

It seems there are a bunch of people in Canada who want the small town feel with the big city amenities. This should be possible, but the problem with most of these Canadian towns is that they would rather have a copy+paste big box power center then an actual urban fabric with some character. Realistically since these towns are much smaller it should be easier to urbanize, but they just aren’t densifying.

That brings the question are there any smaller municipalities that are actually trying to urbanize instead of building worse versions of urban sprawl we see in our major cities? The only place I know in Manitoba trying to accomplish that is Selkirk which I heavily commend for setting a precedent.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Realistically since these towns are much smaller it should be easier to urbanize, but they just aren’t densifying.

That brings the question are there any smaller municipalities that are actually trying to urbanize instead of building worse versions of urban sprawl we see in our major cities? The only place I know in Manitoba trying to accomplish that is Selkirk which I heavily commend for setting a precedent.

Their entire sales pitch is based on sprawl. They don't have much else to offer. Economic opportunity is not better. Amenities aren't better. It's, "Move here and live your suburban lifestyle on the cheap."

There's nothing wrong with that. But they should understand that there's a limited market for this kind of lifestyle. And most people will still want this to be within reasonable reach of the city. So while London, Peterborough and Kingston might be alright. There's plenty of people for whom North Bay might be too far.

[ssiguy]

We will see how the developers who cry "there is not enough supply" will do when home sales fall significantly and if they continue to build or slow down construction due to market reasons.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by thewave46

If you live in a detached SFH in Scarborough and go to downtown Toronto once a year, North Bay or London will not be a huge change.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding in how people live.

I'll give the example of my parents who live in a detached SFH in Scarborough and rarely go downtown. They will never, ever move to North Bay. Even if they got a house for free. Why? Because all their friends and relatives are in the GTA. They might consider Ottawa and Montreal because that is where their kids are. But otherwise, they will stay in and around the GTA. This is where their social network is. You know the people who make their life worth living.

Older people rarely move. And if they do, it's to nice retirement communities. Very few are going to go Northern Ontario with longer winters. Most don't care about getting more acreage in their old age.

Young people are more mobile and flexible. But even then, Covid was the ultimate opportunity to move for a lot of people and what did they choose? Communities that were about 2 hrs from the major metro for the most part. Or other medium sized cities. Move from the GTA to say Halifax, Etc.

The above should be instructive on how much younger people value some form of urbanism. But instead of trying to build more of Niagara-on-the-Lake, too many of them are trying to race to the bottom with the idea that simply offering cheaper housing will bring in the crowds.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The people that remote work from anywhere in the world have a lot of options. Tiny hamlet on Newfoundland coast isn't the only one. There's also beaches in Mexico and Thailand, old cities in Europe. Etc. If you know anybody in tech, you will know people who already have something like this, where they can remote for a month or two from anywhere. Any town banking on the laptop class setting up is going to need to offer way more than cheap detached house.

Also, for all the dreams of these folks taking up hamlet living, they by and large seem to congregate in large cities. Simply because that's where the other techies are. Meeting at Starbucks will always beat meeting on Zoom.

Picture if you will, someone left that small town in NL for the big city to get a job 10 years ago. They loved living there but knew in their line of work, the jobs aren't there.They are in the big city. Imagine if they could work from home. Imagine if they could do the job they always wanted to do, and be home with friends and family. Those are the people that will move. They have the income, and now the opportunity

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Hell, if the military is struggling sending people to Cold Lake with the ability to order them to move, good luck getting people to voluntarily move on their own.

Reality is that if they are young, single and mobile, they want to be around other young and single people. That rules out small towns. Next, they get families. Now it isn't just about them anymore. Employment opportunities for their partner matter. Education, healthcare extracurricular activities, community events (especially religious and ethnic ties) start to matter.

There's always the hardy few who want that rural lifestyle. But it's not practical for most people. And it's especially impractical in Canada where intercity transport services are poor and expensive, which only makes those outlying communities further isolated.

Military life is a challenge. People don't want to be posted to Victoria or to Montreal as well, for various reasons. The ones that want to be posted there, usually are from there. That is the point. "Children" are coming home.

Originally Posted by thewave46

It's less about the tiny NL hamlet case and more about the moderate sized cities in the orbit of larger metros for most though.

Few want to go to the arse end of the world, because the downsides of living in a small isolated place often don't outweigh the pile of money you get from cashing out. Taking one's GTA money and moving to Hearst, ON entails a very different lifestyle. North Bay might be a midpoint. It is far enough away to keep the prices down, close enough that going to the city isn't a burden if you have to and large enough that it has things to do for those used to living near a reasonably large place.

I do not foresee an exodus from the city if it hasn't happened yet. Sure, those of a certain age will retire and move. I think where their children end up will be a bigger factor than cashing out per se. They may downsize to a condo and do the snowbird thing, if I had to speculate.

You are understanding more of what I was trying to get at. That is why places like Sudbury have seen skyrocketing prices. People are trying to get away from the GTA and it is close enough for the big city stuff.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Living means experiencing the local environment. If you love the big city (and all the great things that it has to offer), that is very hard to live without if you move to Hearst or Carbonear. The North Bays, Saguenays, and Prince Georges of the world may offer 'some' big city experience (mostly in terms of basic shopping), but little in the way of variety. there is a world of difference between say, Montreal and the many unique blocks of beckoning urban fabric, and the solitary high street (plus ubiquitous big box barf powercentre) of a tertiary urban area like Drummondville (even if the latter is within striking distance to the delights of Montreal, unlike North Bay relative to Toronto).

Do you do the same things you did as a 20 something? Imagine raising a family with more income, but still a nice house? That is the draw of smaller cities outside the commuting areas of the bigger cities.

Originally Posted by thewave46

Oh yeah.

If you live in a detached SFH in Scarborough and go to downtown Toronto once a year, North Bay or London will not be a huge change.

If you live in Scarborough because you wanted to do the detached home thing and raise kids in the 1980s/90s, but love making weekend jaunts into the city, maybe a condo in the city is the ticket for those people.

Diff'rent strokes and all.

Exactly. There are some that hate the big city, but they are there because that is where their work was.

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

It seems there are a bunch of people in Canada who want the small town feel with the big city amenities. This should be possible, but the problem with most of these Canadian towns is that they would rather have a copy+paste big box power center then an actual urban fabric with some character. Realistically since these towns are much smaller it should be easier to urbanize, but they just aren’t densifying.

That brings the question are there any smaller municipalities that are actually trying to urbanize instead of building worse versions of urban sprawl we see in our major cities? The only place I know in Manitoba trying to accomplish that is Selkirk which I heavily commend for setting a precedent.

Sudbury and North Bay are examples in ON that are not just building suburb after ugly suburb.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Military life is a challenge. People don't want to be posted to Victoria or to Montreal as well, for various reasons. The ones that want to be posted there, usually are from there. That is the point. "Children" are coming home.

The point here is that even in a system where it's theoretically easier to compel somebody to move their family to a remote location, the CAF has found this so impossible, that they are now moving the highest skilled unit out of Cold Lake, to Ottawa. They could not tolerate the personnel losses. Now imagine trying to convince some random person to move up there.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Picture if you will, someone left that small town in NL for the big city to get a job 10 years ago. They loved living there but knew in their line of work, the jobs aren't there.They are in the big city. Imagine if they could work from home. Imagine if they could do the job they always wanted to do, and be home with friends and family. Those are the people that will move. They have the income, and now the opportunity

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Exactly. There are some that hate the big city, but they are there because that is where their work was.

There are a lot of caveats in your hypothetical here. And some you have not considered, like that person's career advancement, partner's employment, opportunities for kids, etc.

You seem to be basing a lot of your assumptions on young people who left moving back. And while some do, there seems to little evidence that there is some broad trend of moving back. They move, they settle in, they get careers and families. They get new social circles, get used to certain amenities and move on.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Do you do the same things you did as a 20 something? Imagine raising a family with more income, but still a nice house? That is the draw of smaller cities outside the commuting areas of the bigger cities.

If you assume that people aren't the same as they were at 20, why would you then assume they would want to live in the same place that they did when they were 20?

Also, if you can remote work, commuting headaches get zeroed out. Living in a big city becomes pretty damn great if you don't have to actually commute. You get to enjoy all of the amenities with none of the hassles. The trade-off then is exclusively between housing cost and space. Even then, one can just move an exurb for a bit more space on the cheap.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You are understanding more of what I was trying to get at. That is why places like Sudbury have seen skyrocketing prices. People are trying to get away from the GTA and it is close enough for the big city stuff.

Virtually every place with more than a few sheds was seeing skyrocketing prices the last few months. I really wouldn't read into it that much. Also, I struggle to understand how people see a city that is 400 km from Toronto as "close enough for big city stuff". Sounds like a skit they had on This hour has 22 minutes where they once declared that Toronto sprawl was so bad that Winnipeg was about to be annexed as a suburb.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Sudbury and North Bay are examples in ON that are not just building suburb after ugly suburb.

Could you cover what they are doing differently? Genuinely interested because I've not heard anything particular. And one of my constant complaints is that cities that size are distinctly incompetent at urbanism. I would love to see something like what Kingston did for transit or Belleville Main Street.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is a fundamental misunderstanding in how people live.

I'll give the example of my parents who live in a detached SFH in Scarborough and rarely go downtown. They will never, ever move to North Bay. Even if they got a house for free. Why? Because all their friends and relatives are in the GTA. They might consider Ottawa and Montreal because that is where their kids are. But otherwise, they will stay in and around the GTA. This is where their social network is. You know the people who make their life worth living.

Older people rarely move. And if they do, it's to nice retirement communities. Very few are going to go Northern Ontario with longer winters. Most don't care about getting more acreage in their old age.

I did address family and friends in my post previous to this.

I do not foresee an exodus from the city if it hasn't happened yet. Sure, those of a certain age will retire and move. I think where their children end up will be a bigger factor than cashing out per se. They may downsize to a condo and do the snowbird thing, if I had to speculate.

However, I could see some who find that their retirement savings aren't quite what they imagined, so unloading their biggest asset would provide a big measure of padding for that. With the exceptionally frothy markets in the GTA, farther away does offer better value at this juncture. Especially if they are going to be doing the snowbird thing during the winter.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The point here is that even in a system where it's theoretically easier to compel somebody to move their family to a remote location, the CAF has found this so impossible, that they are now moving the highest skilled unit out of Cold Lake, to Ottawa. They could not tolerate the personnel losses. Now imagine trying to convince some random person to move up there.

Fun fact, if they ever opened a reg force naval base in Ontario and NL, they would never have problems filling the billets. That is because many who join are from those places.The other problem is the cost of living in Cold Lake is really high due to the oil workers. I have heard of people working at Tim Hortons and being in the military. The PLD is better for Victoria and Toronto, the 2 highest PLD places.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There are a lot of caveats in your hypothetical here. And some you have not considered, like that person's career advancement, partner's employment, opportunities for kids, etc.

You seem to be basing a lot of your assumptions on young people who left moving back. And while some do, there seems to little evidence that there is some broad trend of moving back. They move, they settle in, they get careers and families. They get new social circles, get used to certain amenities and move on.

You are right thatI am looking at only one sliver of the group of people who are moving. I know of a couple, both work from home moved to middle of nowhere NB from downtown Toronto.Compared to their condo, their 5 bedroom house on acreage is much better. One of them finally has to get a drivers license and they are in their 40s. The reality is there is still an exodus going on from the larger cities to smaller cities and towns.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If you assume that people aren't the same as they were at 20, why would you then assume they would want to live in the same place that they did when they were 20?

Also, if you can remote work, commuting headaches get zeroed out. Living in a big city becomes pretty damn great if you don't have to actually commute. You get to enjoy all of the amenities with none of the hassles. The trade-off then is exclusively between housing cost and space. Even then, one can just move an exurb for a bit more space on the cheap.

I now of many people who retired from the military, with a full pension and packed up and moved back to where they are from. Of course there are just as many who won't, but it still is a thing that does happen. Being away from family gets to you.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Virtually every place with more than a few sheds was seeing skyrocketing prices the last few months. I really wouldn't read into it that much. Also, I struggle to understand how people see a city that is 400 km from Toronto as "close enough for big city stuff". Sounds like a skit they had on This hour has 22 minutes where they once declared that Toronto sprawl was so bad that Winnipeg was about to be annexed as a suburb.

I can do a weekend trip to IKEA, watch the Leafs lose another game, enjoy a show, and be back home an not lock my front door.... That is close enough for the big city stuff.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Could you cover what they are doing differently? Genuinely interested because I've not heard anything particular. And one of my constant complaints is that cities that size are distinctly incompetent at urbanism. I would love to see something like what Kingston did for transit or Belleville Main Street.

Well, ironically, it is how the city politicians hate change, new things or growth. Yes, Sudbury and North Bay do have "power centres" and Mcmansions, but on a much smaller scale. There just isn't enough demand for that much retail space or postage stamp yards to warrant it.

[biguc]

^Your trips to Toronto sound like heroic feats of driving.

You do make a good point though. Sudbury and North Bay are the exoplanets of Toronto's orbit--far as they are, they're still juuuust close enough for routine visits. Both cities should agitate for better rail service to Toronto. Turning that 4hr drive into a 2.5 hour train trip would make it much more comfortable, and make both cities that much more appealing. Not to mention, convenient access to Pearson is a great selling point.

The way things are going, it seems more likely that GO would end up delivering that service. They seem to have great momentum going.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Their entire sales pitch is based on sprawl. They don't have much else to offer. Economic opportunity is not better. Amenities aren't better. It's, "Move here and live your suburban lifestyle on the cheap."

The dissonance behind that kind of thinking hurts my head.

"Nobody wants to live in the city--it's too expensive!"

They can't grasp the glaring contradiction. The city is expensive because people do want to live there. Podunk towns are cheap because nobody, outside of the few who haven't already moved to the city, actually wants to live there.

Make your town an actually good place to live--and not just in a "we have the best people on earth because we don't know any other people and they're scary and not my relatives" way--and people will actually want to live there.

You see the same thing in transit discussions. "Nobody wants to take transit--that's just for people who can afford to live close to transit lines!"

You made a good point about the GO RER earlier. Transportation is the linchpin that allows people to move between different communities and, therefore, increases the supply of communities that provide what people want.

If we're serious about securing affordable places for people to live, fiddling with the housing market will never provide the results that aggressively expanding regional transportation all the way out to exoplanet cities would.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The people that remote work from anywhere in the world have a lot of options. Tiny hamlet on Newfoundland coast isn't the only one. There's also beaches in Mexico and Thailand, old cities in Europe. Etc. If you know anybody in tech, you will know people who already have something like this, where they can remote for a month or two from anywhere. Any town banking on the laptop class setting up is going to need to offer way more than cheap detached house.

Also, for all the dreams of these folks taking up hamlet living, they by and large seem to congregate in large cities. Simply because that's where the other techies are. Meeting at Starbucks will always beat meeting on Zoom.

The remote work thing is a massive red herring. Being able to work from home doesn't mean that you don't care about where your home is--you care more than ever. It's one thing to live in the suburbs if you go into the city every day. If you're stuck at home, you want your home to be in the best place possible.

I live in one of the European tech hubs. It's not stopped being a tech hub because people can work remotely. People still need to connect--in person, in the same timezone, at events, accidentally. That doesn't often happen remotely. And people still love living in Kreuzberg. That they can spend winters in Bali and summers in Portugal doesn't change what they want outside their front doors.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You are right thatI am looking at only one sliver of the group of people who are moving. I know of a couple, both work from home moved to middle of nowhere NB from downtown Toronto.Compared to their condo, their 5 bedroom house on acreage is much better. One of them finally has to get a drivers license and they are in their 40s. The reality is there is still an exodus going on from the larger cities to smaller cities and towns.

I didn't say nobody is doing this. Just that there's no broad statistical support of a trend of people leaving large cities. All their CMA populations are still growing. And to whatever extent there is spillover it's mostly to satellite towns and cities in the region. There's a lot more people moving from Toronto to z London or Guelph than North Bay.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I now of many people who retired from the military, with a full pension and packed up and moved back to where they are from. Of course there are just as many who won't, but it still is a thing that does happen. Being away from family gets to you.

Military folks are exceptional in moving back home. And there's a few reasons behind that. First, spending 3-4 years in so many places, means they don't develop deep roots in those places. Next, they usually have skills that are substantially mobile and not tied to big cities. You will find this with a lot of tradespeople too. Lastly, quite a few have pensions that enable flexible work arrangements. If you're semi-retired at 45 with a 50% pension, you have far fewer employment concerns in any smaller city. And yet, even with military folks, where do most of them retire? It's still cities like Ottawa (substantially), or Halifax, Victoria, Kingston, etc.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I can do a weekend trip to IKEA, watch the Leafs lose another game, enjoy a show, and be back home an not lock my front door.... That is close enough for the big city stuff.

"Close enough" is subjective. But I'll just say that for most people, 4-5 hr drives to go to IKEA or a hockey game are not considered easy or pleasurable. You have to really like driving to do that. For most people, I'd draw a 200 km radius from Toronto and about 100 km from other cities for what they consider acceptable radius for satellite cities.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Well, ironically, it is how the city politicians hate change, new things or growth. Yes, Sudbury and North Bay do have "power centres" and Mcmansions, but on a much smaller scale. There just isn't enough demand for that much retail space or postage stamp yards to warrant it.

That's not evidence of urbanism. That's just generic suburban crap scaled down. Was hoping to hear of something different. The best urbanism in smaller urban areas in North America are usually in college towns. Was hoping to hear some idea of walkability taking hold. But I guess that's hard if the sales pitch is based on discount sprawl.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by biguc

^Your trips to Toronto sound like heroic feats of driving.

You do make a good point though. Sudbury and North Bay are the exoplanets of Toronto's orbit--far as they are, they're still juuuust close enough for routine visits. Both cities should agitate for better rail service to Toronto. Turning that 4hr drive into a 2.5 hour train trip would make it much more comfortable, and make both cities that much more appealing. Not to mention, convenient access to Pearson is a great selling point.

The way things are going, it seems more likely that GO would end up delivering that service. They seem to have great momentum going.

They have the Northlander coming back after this election. Several parties have pledged to resurrect it. Will be interesting to see how long it lasts. Unfortunately, when moving to these places is predicated on driving access, the people these cities attract are those who wouldn't usually consider the train.

North Bay and Sudbury are kind of funny in the mental geography. People from there may think Toronto is close enough. But very few people from the GTA would think of those places as anything but a substantial excursion. North Bay is not much further from Toronto than Kingston. But you'll find way more back and forth with Kingston than North Bay and Sudbury. This is despite Kingston and Sudbury being about the same size in population.

Originally Posted by biguc

The dissonance behind that kind of thinking hurts my head.

"Nobody wants to live in the city--it's too expensive!"

They can't grasp the glaring contradiction. The city is expensive because people do want to live there. Podunk towns are cheap because nobody, outside of the few who haven't already moved to the city, actually wants to live there.

Make your town an actually good place to live--and not just in a "we have the best people on earth because we don't know any other people and they're scary and not my relatives" way--and people will actually want to live there.

I will never understand folks who drive in from these places, see what sprawl has done to the GTA and then go home and decide that it's a good idea to replicate it, but space out everything even further. They love to complain about traffic in Toronto. Nobody talks about how ridiculous peak traffic is at certain times in London and Halifax, or even Kingston and Belleville. The whole idea of small town living being easier goes out the window when you actually experience how unwalkable and ridiculously car dependent many of those places are.

Originally Posted by biguc

You made a good point about the GO RER earlier. Transportation is the linchpin that allows people to move between different communities and, therefore, increases the supply of communities that provide what people want.

If we're serious about securing affordable places for people to live, fiddling with the housing market will never provide the results that aggressively expanding regional transportation all the way out to exoplanet cities would.

I was listening to a podcast interview with French transport planners. They were asked how the TGV changed things. And they pointed out that particularly with young people (the post TGV generation), their mental perception of distance is based around TGV travel times. It was just as easy for them to date someone or take a job that is 200 km away (45-60 mins by train), than it would be to do the same on the other side of Paris (1 hr on metro). Canadians have never understood this idea, which is why we struggle so much building intercity rail. That said, what is being built for GO RER is pretty remarkable. Guelph will take as long on the GO train as the edge of Scarborough on the TTC. That will have the same impact on mental geography as my French example. If and when HFR actually gets built some day, the biggest boon will be to Peterborough, and it will be interesting to see what that city does with the opportunity. I am not really optimistic though.

On affordability, the best metric I heard was adding up shelter and transport costs. Broadly the ceiling on that amount seems to be fixed and people trade between the two columns to achieve a desired lifestyle. This then means that outlying cities have to have better transport links to even really be considered.

[MolsonExport]

If we're serious about securing affordable places for people to live, fiddling with the housing market will never provide the results that aggressively expanding regional transportation all the way out to exoplanet cities would.

Word. This is how things work in much of Europe. Paris has exocities surrounding it, like Lille, Reims, etc., that are less than an hour away by train. These trains are filled with commuters. Mind you, Lille and Reims have way, way more to offer residents (even of the commuting sort) than comparable cities in Canada.

Regional passenger train infrastructure in Canada is horrible, outside of the very narrow catchment area of the Greater Golden Horseshoe (and even here, it ain't good, unless you are nine-to-fiving in downtown Toronto).