Canada's 'housing bubble' deemed close to bursting

[Coldrsx]

I want Pronger's....

[Truenorth00]

Canada as mapped by Toronto Life’s suburban writers.

https://twitter.com/StephenPunwasi/status/1603842621285273608?t=PVbWz4ThdD_doG94t8XTuA&s=19

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

Opening up unproductive farmland and brownfields for tract housing in the 905 will help kill the artificial scRcity that contributes to overpriced condos and rentals in the 416. Some people act like allowing the free market for tract housing in the 905 is anti urban.
A healthy free market needs options for everyone or else the base price of a condo unit will soar

And talk about an alarmist article and lack of critical thinking
It would be cost prohibitive to build tract housing on the sedimentary rock of the escarpment.

And I noticed a lot of greenbelt protestors by Queens Park are the same crew of NIMBY Beaches homeowners in Toronto who drive around in SUVs and rally against secondary units and anything over 4 floors on Queen St E

When's the last time you've driven around Niagara? It's some of the best agricultural land in the entire nation, combined with Niagara's excellent microclimate sandwiched between 2 Great Lakes and the escarpment.

Also the Niagara escarpment is a UNESCO Biosphere reserve.

In the early autumn I went to a local apple orchard. The new owners, South Asian family from Brampton-GTA no less, bought the decades old orchard and reinvested huge sums into it. The owners friendly son showed me and my Dad a tour of the farm, with one new high density plot of 10,000 new Apple trees, and another plot with 1,000+ more of various varieties, in addition to other fruits and vegetables they grow, including garlic. This is one farm example among many. There's more to Niagara than 100 wineries, dozens of golf courses, and derelict industrial land.

The owners son said he actually loved Niagara and that it wasn't a sea of endless cookie cutter subdivisions and strip malls like Brampton has become.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

"Why should we build on x ?" is the basically the motto of the housing crises perpetuators and just gives further ammo to any NIMBY.

The housing issue won't be solved until the "sprawl" discentive mechanism is based on an objective metric(non-regressive property tax/LVT) and not reverting picking winners and losers of "acceptable land use/developments".

Part of the reason we have been building on farmlands is because we let large corporations get tax incentives to build their plants there. That then means that the people who work there will want to move near there. Instead, we should look to cities not surrounded by prime farmland for those plants to incentivize. If anything, we should look outside of the metro areas that are part of the top 10 cities. This would mean the Windsor-Quebec City would no longer see any government help for their plants. This would also see the Lower Mainland also not seeing any incentives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_census_metropolitan_areas_and_agglomerations_in_Canada
11 London
12 Halifax
13 St. Catharines–Niagara
14 Windsor
15 Oshawa
16 Victoria
17 Saskatoon
18 Regina
19 Sherbrooke
20 Kelowna

Of that list, the only ones that should see incentives wold be Halifax, Saskatoon and Regina. London, St. Catharines-Niagara, Windsor, Oshawa, and Sherbrooke are out as they are part of the Windsor - Quebec City corridor of prime farmland. Kelowna is out due to being surrounded by prime farmland. Victoria is out due to lack of land to build on. We need to stop building on where we eat.

Originally Posted by Wigs

That's nothing. Hamilton basically covered up the fact they were leaking 300 Million plus of litres of sewage into Hamilton harbour... for 26 years!

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/26-year-leak-...ed,it%20went%20undetected%20since%201996.

I guess you didn't hear how Halifax had been doing it up till about a decade ago. There were floaties in the harbour.

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

Opening up unproductive farmland and brownfields for tract housing in the 905 will help kill the artificial scRcity that contributes to overpriced condos and rentals in the 416. Some people act like allowing the free market for tract housing in the 905 is anti urban.
A healthy free market needs options for everyone or else the base price of a condo unit will soar

And talk about an alarmist article and lack of critical thinking
It would be cost prohibitive to build tract housing on the sedimentary rock of the escarpment.

And I noticed a lot of greenbelt protestors by Queens Park are the same crew of NIMBY Beaches homeowners in Toronto who drive around in SUVs and rally against secondary units and anything over 4 floors on Queen St E

There are no unproductive farmland in the 905 area. In fact, they are some of the most lucrative in Canada. So much so, the Holland Marsh was drained and diked to have even more farmland.

I do agree about any brownfield.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Part of the reason we have been building on farmlands is because we let large corporations get tax incentives to build their plants there. That then means that the people who work there will want to move near there. Instead, we should look to cities not surrounded by prime farmland for those plants to incentivize. If anything, we should look outside of the metro areas that are part of the top 10 cities. This would mean the Windsor-Quebec City would no longer see any government help for their plants. This would also see the Lower Mainland also not seeing any incentives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_census_metropolitan_areas_and_agglomerations_in_Canada
11 London
12 Halifax
13 St. Catharines–Niagara
14 Windsor
15 Oshawa
16 Victoria
17 Saskatoon
18 Regina
19 Sherbrooke
20 Kelowna

Of that list, the only ones that should see incentives wold be Halifax, Saskatoon and Regina. London, St. Catharines-Niagara, Windsor, Oshawa, and Sherbrooke are out as they are part of the Windsor - Quebec City corridor of prime farmland. Kelowna is out due to being surrounded by prime farmland. Victoria is out due to lack of land to build on. We need to stop building on where we eat.

I agree with a lot of this in principle, although Regina and Saskatoon both are completely surrounded by farmland, and Halifax has a lot of the same constraints as Victoria. In a lot of cases it makes sense to locate plants in Ontario (especially automotive, etc) because so much of the supply chain/parts they need are there.

I think there should just be more targeted ALR-type protections of agricultural land. For example most of the productive farmland in NS is in the Annapolis Valley, which is not immediately adjacent to Halifax, though it is likely that if Halifax's population growth was pushed beyond where it already is now by adding a bunch of factories, sprawl would spill over into the Valley because ultimately it's much easier and quicker to build on farmland than to build on non-farmland in much of the country, including here. A lot of the farmland is also not actively being farmed - with much of it being properties that were passed down through families to people who had no interest in being farmers, and just kind of abandoned the orchards/fields. In a lot of ways I think a better approach would be for governments to incentivize farming - if farmland is actively being used it seems less likely to get sold off for development, and if it's not actively being used then it's not really "farmland".

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I agree with a lot of this in principle, although Regina and Saskatoon both are completely surrounded by farmland, and Halifax has a lot of the same constraints as Victoria. In a lot of cases it makes sense to locate plants in Ontario (especially automotive, etc) because so much of the supply chain/parts they need are there.

A lot to unpack here.

While most of southern Saskatchewan is farmland, loosing several thousands of acres likely won't hurt the overall production. Also, with the realities of climate change, further north areas likely would open up for farming the same crops as currently being produced in existing farms.

Go outside of the core and the land is basically rock. It is not that mountainous. It is no worse than northern Ontario.

I would not touch the automotive sector. That is why I was careful what to say. However, with places in northern ON producing lithium for batteries, moving plants for car manufacturers within the same municipalities may make some sense. The fact that most small parts are manufactured around the world, as long as there is a rail link, which Regina Saskatoon and Halifax all have, this is not an issue. In fact, Halifax did have a Volvo assembly plant in various locations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_Halifax_Assembly

Originally Posted by Hali87

I think there should just be more targeted ALR-type protections of agricultural land. For example most of the productive farmland in NS is in the Annapolis Valley, which is not immediately adjacent to Halifax, though it is likely that if Halifax's population growth was pushed beyond where it already is now by adding a bunch of factories, sprawl would spill over into the Valley because ultimately it's much easier and quicker to build on farmland than to build on non-farmland in much of the country, including here. A lot of the farmland is also not actively being farmed - with much of it being properties that were passed down through families to people who had no interest in being farmers, and just kind of abandoned the orchards/fields. In a lot of ways I think a better approach would be for governments to incentivize farming - if farmland is actively being used it seems less likely to get sold off for development, and if it's not actively being used then it's not really "farmland".

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Halifax,...635cd!2m2!1d-65.1666667!2d44.9166667!3e0

The Annapolis Valley is over 160km. To put that in Toronto terms, that would put that distance between Washago and Gravenhurst. So, while I get the sentiment, Halifax could double in size of built up areas and the farmland areas of Nova Scotia would likely be fine. However, an ALR for Nova Scotia would make sense.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Go outside of the core and the land is basically rock. It is not that mountainous. It is no worse than northern Ontario.

In Halifax? Yeah, the land is rocky (ie tends to require expensive/tedious blasting and grading) and for the most part is heavily forested. So it all requires a lot of land prep above and beyond what would be required for farmland. I would say Northern Ontario is about equally bad for this, and that is one of the more difficult parts of the country to build in and one of the less-built-up regions, partly for that reason.

The linked Google Maps directions are between Halifax City Hall and the rough geographic centre of the Annapolis Valley, which itself is about a 1.5-2 hour drive from end to end (technically the Windsor-Avonport section is a different valley, but most people don't think of it as separate). I don't really think that people would be commuting to Halifax from Greenwood or places that far out but there's already de facto suburbia being built around Windsor (but oriented towards Halifax), and I've known people who have commuted between Mainland Halifax and Wolfville, which in terms of travel times is often better than something like Cole Harbour to Mainland (more freeway driving, less city traffic). A commute like this or this (a close part of the valley to the type of area where factories are likely to get built) is more the type of thing I was thinking of. Halifax doubling in population or built-up area is not likely to be a process of uniform outward expansion - it will be along specific corridors, and certain lands along those corridors (hint: the ones that aren't lumpy with boulders and covered in trees) will be easier in practice to develop than others.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by Wigs

When's the last time you've driven around Niagara? It's some of the best agricultural land in the entire nation, combined with Niagara's excellent microclimate sandwiched between 2 Great Lakes and the escarpment.

Also the Niagara escarpment is a UNESCO Biosphere reserve.

In the early autumn I went to a local apple orchard. The new owners, South Asian family from Brampton-GTA no less, bought the decades old orchard and reinvested huge sums into it. The owners friendly son showed me and my Dad a tour of the farm, with one new high density plot of 10,000 new Apple trees, and another plot with 1,000+ more of various varieties, in addition to other fruits and vegetables they grow, including garlic. This is one farm example among many. There's more to Niagara than 100 wineries, dozens of golf courses, and derelict industrial land.

The owners son said he actually loved Niagara and that it wasn't a sea of endless cookie cutter subdivisions and strip malls like Brampton has become.

That's great, but they are one of the lucky privileged few who could afford to buy an apple Orchard in Niagara.

Call me radical but it's better to actually leave housing up to the free market, without government intervention such as the CHMC making the taxpayer liable for peoples mortgages and artificially inflating the value of land through the greenbelt.

Locally grown fruits and vegetables are a luxury while housing is a nessessity. Most of the fruit and vegetables I've seen at No Frills is imported.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Hali87

In Halifax? Yeah, the land is rocky (ie tends to require expensive/tedious blasting and grading) and for the most part is heavily forested. So it all requires a lot of land prep above and beyond what would be required for farmland. I would say Northern Ontario is about equally bad for this, and that is one of the more difficult parts of the country to build in and one of the less-built-up regions, partly for that reason.

The linked Google Maps directions are between Halifax City Hall and the rough geographic centre of the Annapolis Valley, which itself is about a 1.5-2 hour drive from end to end (technically the Windsor-Avonport section is a different valley, but most people don't think of it as separate). I don't really think that people would be commuting to Halifax from Greenwood or places that far out but there's already de facto suburbia being built around Windsor (but oriented towards Halifax), and I've known people who have commuted between Mainland Halifax and Wolfville, which in terms of travel times is often better than something like Cole Harbour to Mainland (more freeway driving, less city traffic). A commute like this or this (a close part of the valley to the type of area where factories are likely to get built) is more the type of thing I was thinking of. Halifax doubling in population or built-up area is not likely to be a process of uniform outward expansion - it will be along specific corridors, and certain lands along those corridors (hint: the ones that aren't lumpy with boulders and covered in trees) will be easier in practice to develop than others.

When you do not specify exactly an area we can start to assume.
Draw a line along Highways 14, 224, and 357. Within that boundary, at the center, roughly is Halifax city proper. Within that area, there is some farmland, but most of it is rock. It may not be as easy as building on farmland, but it is not impossible. We cannot keep doing what is easy anymore.

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

That's great, but they are one of the lucky privileged few who could afford to buy an apple Orchard in Niagara.

Call me radical but it's better to actually leave housing up to the free market, without government intervention such as the CHMC making the taxpayer liable for peoples mortgages and artificially inflating the value of land through the greenbelt.

Locally grown fruits and vegetables are a luxury while housing is a nessessity. Most of the fruit and vegetables I've seen at No Frills is imported.

Agree with this. In a situation where the largest expense(housing) has become out of control it has to be the priority. There is also the thing that you can't straight up import housing to offset domestic supply issues like you can with almost any other good. It's not an option. So the argument is basically choosing local apples over housing? haha alright. Not to mention housing costs negatively impact disposable income to spend on things like produce.

I also highly highly doubt it's even the zero-sum game people are making it out to be. It assumes all land(farm or otherwise) in Southern Ontario is maxed out in terms of use/productivity. It's a false dilemma like a lot arguments about economic issues.

[WhipperSnapper]

Housing costs in the GTA is related to population growth and population growth is dependent on people moving to the country on a temp or permanent basis. Yeah, you can control housing requirements with importing.

The GTA has many places that are underdeveloped but, they exist and are occupied. As unfortunate it is to see ecological spaces replaced with housing, It's not practical/ economical to contain the high level growth experienced in the GTA entirely through redevelopment. It would take putting the crisis above ownership and renter rights for it to be practical and cost effective.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Housing costs in the GTA is related to population growth and population growth is dependent on people moving to the country on a temp or permanent basis. Yeah, you can control housing requirements with importing.

The GTA has many places that are underdeveloped but, they exist and are occupied. As unfortunate it is to see ecological spaces replaced with housing, It's not practical/ economical to contain the high level growth experienced in the GTA entirely through redevelopment. It would take putting the crisis above ownership and renter rights for it to be practical and cost effective.

The other reason for the population growth is that is where the governments subsidize businesses, One would think if the governments started investing elsewhere that the growth would slow down.

"If you build it, they will come"

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I think there should just be more targeted ALR-type protections of agricultural land. For example most of the productive farmland in NS is in the Annapolis Valley, which is not immediately adjacent to Halifax, though it is likely that if Halifax's population growth was pushed beyond where it already is now by adding a bunch of factories, sprawl would spill over into the Valley because ultimately it's much easier and quicker to build on farmland than to build on non-farmland in much of the country, including here. A lot of the farmland is also not actively being farmed - with much of it being properties that were passed down through families to people who had no interest in being farmers, and just kind of abandoned the orchards/fields. In a lot of ways I think a better approach would be for governments to incentivize farming - if farmland is actively being used it seems less likely to get sold off for development, and if it's not actively being used then it's not really "farmland".

NS does have some land use protections. I think they are built into county MPSs and some may only cover active farms. Hants County and farther east has some farmland too and in general there is probably a lot of farmland that isn't being used as you suggest. You can see on satellite photos how there is so much more farming on PEI, but the conditions right across the Northumberland Strait might be pretty similar. I wonder how much of that is just policies and land use alternatives.

In NS if you draw a line running parallel with the longer axis of the province the better farmland is to the north, with Halifax mostly being rocky. The rockier areas also have more lakes. This was a drawback before the age of railways and highways but I don't think it matters much now and may even be an advantage as it leaves room for growth with minimal impact. Basically, you can put a major metro area in central NS around Halifax Harbour and then it will have a bunch of farmland maybe 10-20 minutes away from the edge which is just about perfect.

NS has no class 1 soil based on the federal standard but it does have class 2 and one thing that pushes an area into class 2 is "moderate slopes". But depending on what you want to grow a south-facing slope for example can be better than flat land. I was a bit surprised to see the suggestion that the classification isn't just about the soil itself. In some planning documents you can see comments from people bemoaning this class 2-4 thing which makes people think that a lot of farmland is subpar and not so worthy of protection from development. This might be competing with wetland protections too. Almost anything is either farmland or has some kind of lakes/waterways on it. But the farmland is scarcer in NS.

[wg_flamip]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

Opening up unproductive farmland and brownfields for tract housing in the 905 will help kill the artificial scRcity that contributes to overpriced condos and rentals in the 416. Some people act like allowing the free market for tract housing in the 905 is anti urban.
A healthy free market needs options for everyone or else the base price of a condo unit will soar

And talk about an alarmist article and lack of critical thinking
It would be cost prohibitive to build tract housing on the sedimentary rock of the escarpment.

And I noticed a lot of greenbelt protestors by Queens Park are the same crew of NIMBY Beaches homeowners in Toronto who drive around in SUVs and rally against secondary units and anything over 4 floors on Queen St E

There's this misconception that the Greenbelt starts right at the edge of the GTA's suburban fringe. In reality, there are vast tracks of undeveloped and unprotected "white belt" lands between the two that could absorb growth for years (even decades) before the Greenbelt is opened up to development.

There's also a misconception that large developers want to build as much as possible as quickly as possible, and that governments, their NIMBY backers and malicious heritage/environmental protectionists are to blame for the housing crisis. Private developers have no incentive to flood the market and reduce the value of their product and are therefore sitting on thousands upon thousands of approved yet unbuilt units.

Of course, we are also experiencing a significant shortage of labour and materials that also affects the capacity of private developers to develop in approved areas as well as the ability of municipal governments and utility companies to build the necessary supporting infrastructure.

Don't be mistaken: The goal of opening up currently protected lands to potential development is not to build but rather to drive up the value of the otherwise viable farmland that investors have banked over the years and allowed to grow fallow.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Wigs

When's the last time you've driven around Niagara? It's some of the best agricultural land in the entire nation, combined with Niagara's excellent microclimate sandwiched between 2 Great Lakes and the escarpment.

Also the Niagara escarpment is a UNESCO Biosphere reserve.

In the early autumn I went to a local apple orchard. The new owners, South Asian family from Brampton-GTA no less, bought the decades old orchard and reinvested huge sums into it. The owners friendly son showed me and my Dad a tour of the farm, with one new high density plot of 10,000 new Apple trees, and another plot with 1,000+ more of various varieties, in addition to other fruits and vegetables they grow, including garlic. This is one farm example among many. There's more to Niagara than 100 wineries, dozens of golf courses, and derelict industrial land.

The owners son said he actually loved Niagara and that it wasn't a sea of endless cookie cutter subdivisions and strip malls like Brampton has become.

This makes my heart swell as a Canadian. Rural areas tend to be the least welcoming for non "old-stock" people in any country. With our crazy immigration numbers, it had to be only a matter of time before first or second generation immigrants started showing up in the agricultural sector.

My parents both grew up on farms in Niagara, and about half of their generation and the subsequent ones (some fifty people in three generations following my grandparents, now gone) still live there in the cities and towns. I have strong ties there and can't help but feel moved by this story.

My grandparents were young children when they and their families fled Ukraine following the Communist revolution. They eventually ended up in Niagara and took over small farms. They were immigrants too. The circle of life in Canada.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

That's great, but they are one of the lucky privileged few who could afford to buy an apple Orchard in Niagara.

Call me radical but it's better to actually leave housing up to the free market, without government intervention such as the CHMC making the taxpayer liable for peoples mortgages and artificially inflating the value of land through the greenbelt.

Locally grown fruits and vegetables are a luxury while housing is a nessessity. Most of the fruit and vegetables I've seen at No Frills is imported.

My last trip to a Niagara peach orchard, I heard an interesting story from the farmer, who was maybe around 70 years old.

When he was young, they used to pick their peaches early in the morning, then in the late morning, midday, early afternoon they'd drive all over Southern Ontario delivering their peaches directly to each grocery store. The farmers made all the wholesale cost themselves. Consumers buying groceries after work could buy fresh peaches, a mere 12 hours off the tree, from their local supermarket during peach season.

Now, they're not allowed to do that. All their peaches have to be delivered to a central food depot in Toronto where they sit in boxes for days while they slowly get distributed. The result is the distributors pocket all the money and consumers don't get the benefits of local produce at all anymore.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by rousseau

This makes my heart swell as a Canadian. Rural areas tend to be the least welcoming for non "old-stock" people in any country. With our crazy immigration numbers, it had to be only a matter of time before first or second generation immigrants started showing up in the agricultural sector.

My parents both grew up on farms in Niagara, and about half of their generation and the subsequent ones (some fifty people in three generations following my grandparents, now gone) still live there in the cities and towns. I have strong ties there and can't help but feel moved by this story.

My grandparents were young children when they and their families fled Ukraine following the Communist revolution. They eventually ended up in Niagara and took over small farms. They were immigrants too. The circle of life in Canada.

Great story, rousseau! I love hearing about Niagara history.
This family is from an agricultural heritage in India so as the son Raj told us "it's in my blood to farm". He's really a super guy and I'm glad there's families taking over the decades, if not century plus old farms and reinvesting. This particular apple orchard will be super productive once those 11,000+ trees start producing. And this farm is only around 35 acres in size. Raj said high density farming is changing the game in the Apple industry, and that they work with the Vineland agricultural institute for assistance with the latest techniques and practices.
https://www.vinelandresearch.com/
He told us that the multi generational Niagara farm owners have been a wealth of information and resource for them as well so it's great to see farmers all helping each other succeed.

It's so strange to me that my fellow Canadians want to build housing on this amazing soil. Once it's built on folks, we never get it back.
Being completely reliant on fruits and vegetables produced thousands of kilometers away in South America, SE Asia, China, or elsewhere is foolish. And if you don't realize how ridiculous it is to have food sent from 5,000-7,000 kms away, well clearly your brain works differently.

The 3 largest cities, and smaller towns in Niagara all have the room to densify their urban centres. St. Catharines recently built two 21 storey apartments, one 18 storey is under construction downtown and another 20 something about to start construction downtown, with plans to build the region's highest residential, a 37 storey tower on a vacant lot as well.

Yes, Niagara has quite a sizable population of those with Ukrainian heritage. I'd estimate it to be at least 30,000+ but don't know exact figures. Everyone knows someone with Ukrainian heritage that's why this War on Ukraine hits harder to me. My Dad's best friend was a proud Ukrainian(RIP), his family lived through the mass forced starvation/millions of deaths of Holodomor in the 1930s, and escaped the Stalin regime in 1950.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

My last trip to a Niagara peach orchard, I heard an interesting story from the farmer, who was maybe around 70 years old.

When he was young, they used to pick their peaches early in the morning, then in the late morning, midday, early afternoon they'd drive all over Southern Ontario delivering their peaches directly to each grocery store. The farmers made all the wholesale cost themselves. Consumers buying groceries after work could buy fresh peaches, a mere 12 hours off the tree, from their local supermarket during peach season.

Now, they're not allowed to do that. All their peaches have to be delivered to a central food depot in Toronto where they sit in boxes for days while they slowly get distributed. The result is the distributors pocket all the money and consumers don't get the benefits of local produce at all anymore.

It's unfortunate that is the case. He's probably talking about the Ontario Food Terminal in Toronto which is THE warehouse for all of Ontario.
At least the farmers can still sell direct to consumer at the farm stand on-site. If one is good at using social media they'll develop a loyal customer base. It appears more and more people want food grown locally if they can get it. In Niagara we grow the bounty that Canadian soil and growing conditions can provide.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This was an interesting post that I don't believe anyone responded to.

The reason for the growth in the "inner ring" of Montreal is probably because it's mostly made up of a huge amount of "plex" type of housing that is highly valued in the 2020s by urbanite types.

Due a different era when the city had a big development boom, much of the "inner ring" of Toronto has towers in the park style housing that was built in the 60s and 70s, and this isn't as highly valued or sought after these days.

Absent of any context or understanding of the formulas used it's kind of useless information, but just at a glance it seems a bit suspect. Categorizing areas on whether they're <10, 20, or >30 minutes from the city centre is vague & imprecise, and not necessarily comparable from place to place (ie. 30 minutes travel time could still be within in the inner city of a bigger city, but would be rural in a smaller one). That would also suggest it's the population within a given radius from the core, which again means very different things in an inland river city vs. a coastal or lakeside one (ie. half of any radius as measured from downtown Toronto is water).

Also, growth in the suburbs doesn't necessarily mean sprawl; or vice versa. Montreal is the most sprawling of Canada's "big 3"; while Vancouver & Toronto's suburban growth is mostly in the form of multi-family infill. In their case, growth is mostly just occuring in the areas that are currently zoned to accommodate it - which primarily means the downtown and suburban city centres.

[whatnext]

Wait, how can this be so? Some SSPers swore foreign buying had little or no effect on prices?

Vancouver’s real estate outlook isn’t so sunny for sellers
Kerry Gold
SPECIAL TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL
PUBLISHED YESTERDAY

A year ago, the outlook for sellers of residential real estate in the Vancouver area was optimistic, with industry experts foreseeing a continued upward trajectory of home prices after a year of near record-setting sales. The forecast for 2023 is not so cheerful.

Vancouver realtor Bryan Yan, who specializes in high-end properties, had predicted last year that prices for detached homes in 2022 would increase by 15 per cent and 10 per cent for condos. But there was a caveat. Those increases were dependent on the Bank of Canada holding interest rates in check, a move that would throw cold water on the market. He says his prediction held true until the spring, but then inflation and the Bank’s big move on interest rates changed everything....

...BCREA chief economist Brendon Ogmundson noted the drastic change from this time last year, with mortgage rates that have more than doubled affecting sales.

Mr. Yan now predicts a 10 to 15 per cent dip for overall home prices in the Lower Mainland in the year ahead. He forecasts a condo price drop of 15 to 20 per cent, and presales about the same. He attributes that partly due to the federal government’s upcoming ban on non-Canadian real estate purchases, beginning in January. The prohibition prohibits foreign buying for two years.

“If you think about a ban on foreign buyers, prices will come down like crazy.”...(bold mine)

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-est...state-outlook-isnt-so-sunny-for-sellers/