Canada's 'housing bubble' deemed close to bursting

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

For sure. That's why redevelopments and densification need to be incentivized.

There's not even much need for incentives. Developers are already willing to buy up older homes on large lots and quadplex them. Just have to allow it. And of course, now try to to stop it through insanely high development fees (often designed to discourage such development).

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Denscity

I was also surprised that in multiple neighborhoods how many seniors lived in downtown Vancouver.

It makes sense to me. Smaller footprint, more maintenance services are "included", and more recent buildings in particular are fully accessible, taking care of any current or future mobility issues.

[MolsonExport]

And this is what that residential density (red areas) looks like from the air (foreground). This area is practically bereft of tall buildings.


tripadvisor

These neighborhoods (dominated by triplexes) are generally low to middle income, but much more interesting at the ground level than the towers-in-the-park alternatives.


dynamiccities

[Truenorth00]

Montreal is what urbanism should be in Canada. Instead, far too many people gravitated to New York's skyscrapers and of late to "Vancouverism".

[someone123]

Once an area is built it is harder to change the building stock. People in cities like Vancouver do not want every block of Craftsman housing to be demolished to build a 2020's ersatz version of the Montreal triplex that will not look as good. So it can make sense to put higher density infill on sites that are already available for development, like 70's strip malls.

There is a question of balance and it is too hard to build in most Canadian cities but I think a good solution will be fine-grained and involve a lot of complexity, some of which should be managed by the developers who are tasked with building housing people will buy because they want it. There aren't easy solutions like "replace everything with triplexes" or "ban anything over 4 floors".

[MolsonExport]

typical Montreal lots vs. typical Vancouver lots












Here is an idea of what a group of Triplexes could look like in a Vancouver's street.

Vancouver's typical lot size is 33’ by 122’ ( 10x37,2m) which is broader than Montreal ones ( 7,1 to 7,6m x 26,5 to 29m).
It means that in two Vancouver lots it is possible to fit almost three Montreal dwelling units while gaining enough place for a garden or a laneway house for instance.

Most Vancouver's houses are only two-storey high. Meanwhile the Montreal's triplexes with their three storeys have a higher FSR.

https://dynamiccities.org/inspirations

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Montreal is what urbanism should be in Canada. Instead, far too many people gravitated to New York's skyscrapers and of late to "Vancouverism".

The 2 building styles are not the be all end all. Vancouver has several challenges that Montreal does not face.For starters, even though there is an island, Montreal has no real natural barriers preventing sprawl Vancouver has 3; the Salish Sea, the mountains and the USA/Canada Border. They also have land that they cannot build on due to it being designated as agricultural.

Originally Posted by someone123

Once an area is built it is harder to change the building stock. People in cities like Vancouver do not want every block of Craftsman housing to be demolished to build a 2020's ersatz version of the Montreal triplex that will not look as good. So it can make sense to put higher density infill on sites that are already available for development, like 70's strip malls.

There is a question of balance and it is too hard to build in most Canadian cities but I think a good solution will be fine-grained and involve a lot of complexity, some of which should be managed by the developers who are tasked with building housing people will buy because they want it. There aren't easy solutions like "replace everything with triplexes" or "ban anything over 4 floors".

What really needs to change is how building permits are done. Why does my neighbours have to approve my building if it meets code?

[memememe76]

In terms of Metro Vancouver (which is the epicentre of unaffordable housing), who are all of these seniors staying in their McMansions? Downsizing is a thing here. Maybe not to townhomes, because those stairs are steep. There is a reason so many strata councils are run by seniors and not millennial techies or middle aged people with preteens.

You look at a municipality like Surrey--a lot of big houses, but not many of them are occupied by 1 or 2 people.

Montreal Proper is far bigger in geography than Vancouver Proper. I will not agree that Montreal suburbs do a better job of densification over Vancouver suburbs.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Here is an idea of what a group of Triplexes could look like in a Vancouver's street.






https://dynamiccities.org/inspirations

It looks nice, but the reality is that the functionality of the Montreal triplex is limited for a large number of people when it's not within walking distance of a solid commercial corridor like Saint Dennis or Mont Royal Ave. We all like the built form, but for most people, living at that kind of density is a trade-off in order to have better access to urban amenities. The flip side is that it's nearly impossible to artificially create those desirable commercial corridors from scratch, which would then make that type of housing in the surrounding area viable. What comes first? The chicken or the egg?

[WarrenC12]

By the above graphic you are taking 3 Vancouver lots and combining them into 4 Montreal style triplexes, 12 total units?

You're spending $6M in acquisition costs, bare minimum. I think that alone might kill this deal financially. That is part of the issue in being where Vancouver is today and trying to densify.

I'm not against it, and we have some examples of row homes and low rises, but they aren't anywhere near affordable.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

By the above graphic you are taking 3 Vancouver lots and combining them into 4 Montreal style triplexes, 12 total units?

You're spending $6M in acquisition costs, bare minimum. I think that alone might kill this deal financially. That is part of the issue in being where Vancouver is today and trying to densify.

I'm not against it, and we have some examples of row homes and low rises, but they aren't anywhere near affordable.

And there's the rub. This should have been allowed decades ago when costs meant it could be done for anything else than high-end housing.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

It looks nice, but the reality is that the functionality of the Montreal triplex is limited for a large number of people when it's not within walking distance of a solid commercial corridor like Saint Dennis or Mont Royal Ave.

They're also walk-ups which probably doesn't work well for a lot of people. Adding more floors and an elevator is likely a better trade-off in a place with high land costs.

When you think about it, it's unlikely that a housing form from early 1900's Montreal is ideal for new construction in Vancouver. It might be better than what exists here due to some kind of failure, but if innovation is possible why not aim higher? And fixing the failures is the bulk of the work, not rediscovering common housing forms.

I like this blog: https://constructionphysics.substack.com/

[Nouvellecosse]

The Montreal triplex format would be good for infill on empty lots but as a density upgrade replacing occupied lots I agree that you'd need a greater FAR increase to make it viable in most cases. If you really want to improve density you'd want small apartment buildings to replace say, 1/4 of the houses with something that at least doubles the density. That would preserve most of the existing built form and retain the human scale while notably increasing the density. It may not be a huge density injection for each site in the way a highrise is, but there would be so many more potential sites that it would add up to a huge total.

Replacing 25% of SFH sites with something double the density would increase the density of SFH lands by 25% overall. And if say, 50% of the land in the municipality is occupied by SFHs then you'd increase the municipal density by 12.5% overall, housing an additional 165k people. That's a whole Moncton metro area able to fit inside an existing city proper. Obviously that's not going to be sufficient as the only source of growth but if you're doing that in addition to, rather than instead of, everything we're already doing including building highrises it's going to help a lot. Especially if the same thing occurs across the metro area.

Clearly something like that isn't going to happen all at once but rather over the years. The same way the highrise boom has persisted well over a decade, something like this would as well. But a change doesn't need to account for a high percentage of construction in order to make a difference. It's just like with population growth / decline. If your birth rate is at 98% replacement then the populace will slowly shrink and the effects will build up over the years. In that case, an increase of just a few percentage points from migration or immigration can change the situation from one of decline to growth. The same basic thing would apply with housing in that the deficit can shift from growing to shrinking thru small magnitude changes.

[Wigs]

Montreal's urban neighbourhoods are definitely some of the best in North America.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

It looks nice, but the reality is that the functionality of the Montreal triplex is limited for a large number of people when it's not within walking distance of a solid commercial corridor like Saint Dennis or Mont Royal Ave. We all like the built form, but for most people, living at that kind of density is a trade-off in order to have better access to urban amenities. The flip side is that it's nearly impossible to artificially create those desirable commercial corridors from scratch, which would then make that type of housing in the surrounding area viable. What comes first? The chicken or the egg?

They actually still do build something resembling Montreal-style plexes all over Quebec, in both cities and suburbs.

Trouble is, as you allude to there usually isn't much in terms of nearby amenities for people to access on foot:

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4992308,...OlnLxmD3Rsy4uFNdpaGAQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Montreal is what urbanism should be in Canada. Instead, far too many people gravitated to New York's skyscrapers and of late to "Vancouverism".

Montreal is an interesting place, but its appeal stems from more than its built form. If it all boiled down to "lowrises and rowhousing that are built right up to the sidewalk", then Baltimore would be a better urban experience than Toronto. I can assure you that it's not.

What's wrong with Vancouverism? Building townhouses at the podiums of condo towers keeps the sidewalk to a human scale, and provides an opportunity to animate the surroundings and break up what would otherwise be expansive, monotonous walls. It's true that people can't personalize things too much, but that's the fault of strata rules, not the built form per se. The only other way to animate the street is with retail, and that's neither desirable in all contexts, nor is it really supportable. Even in the densest environments - maybe especially in the densest places - residential sidestreets should be a respite from commercial activity.

[whatnext]

Vancouver requires you to consider wheelchair access in newbuilds to the point you can no longer use doorknobs (only levers). Nothing with stairs as the only access would ever be approved.

[Truenorth00]

The biggest problem with Vancouverism is that it achieves density by substantially reducing the square footage per unit. It's not appropriate for most families at all. That's how massive high rises work. Montreal's quadplexes though tend be a bit more reasonably sized.

Also, I've never suggested replacing homes in Vancouver with quadplexes. Obviously the math doesn't work. But there's no reason why quadplexes can't be used to density places like Mississauga or Milton.

[memememe76]

What's the difference between quadplexes and townhome developments? Are quadplexes that much denser?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by memememe76

What's the difference between quadplexes and townhome developments? Are quadplexes that much denser?

Quadplexes are probably marginally denser than townhomes. The real problem is that it's really hard to fix townhouses into existing neighbourhoods. It's much easier to take a normal SFH lot and put up a triplex or quadplex.