Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen
The claims about collectivism vs individualism, zoning, and greenbelts mostly misses the point. If the US was building nearly all SFH and no TOD (like say, 2000-2008) these arguments might be relevant. But how can they be squared with the fact of record multifamily development in the US, often in very suburban cities like Houston and Dallas?
|
People are coupling/marrying later, having kids later, and not really "established" till 40, So there's a huge need for rental housing in the U.S., whether or not a given area is urban or transit oriented. A metro like Dallas, adding a million people+ per decade, will need lots of housing of all types.
In Canada, apples to apples SFH housing is extremely expensive, and salaries are lower, so in addition to the later coupling and population growth, you have a need for smaller-scale urban units. Canada has very expensive SFH but multifamily generally isn't more expensive than the U.S.
If you're an expat professional looking for downtown rental housing in, say, Chicago and Toronto, the Chicago housing will be more expensive. You can live in a luxury highrise in the best part of downtown Toronto for like $1,500/month U.S. But Chicago is considered relatively cheap because suburban SFH are apples to apples cheaper, and because 1/3 of the metro housing stock is basically off-limits. There's no Gary or Dolton in Toronto.