Building Boom Set to Vault Toronto Past Chicago in Skyscraper Rankings

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by memph

It's not that puzzling. They still left a fair bit of greenfields open for sprawl, especially considering the sprawl is dense enough to fit quite a lot of new homes into a relatively small area. There still is quite a lot of land available for further sprawl in places like Caledon, Whitby, East Gwilimbury and Milton but there's only so much interest in commuting from Brooklyn in Whitby to Downtown Toronto. The recent job growth has been centered on Toronto and to a lesser extent more close in suburbs like Mississauga, Vaughan, Oakville and Markham.

The number of housing units in Toronto still increased by 67,000 from 2006 to 2011 which is pretty substantial, but the city was also dealing with declining household sizes in several neighbourhoods and a lot of those 67k units were 1 bedroom condos.

A lot of people are going to lose their jobs with the advent of AI absorbing labour, job automation, outsourcing/downsizing. So people who were not previously priced out when they had their tech job will be in the next 5-10 years.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Is this skyscraper boom in Old Toronto fueled more by increasing NIMBY resistance to growth in the outer parts of the city and CMA, or rather more a reflection of lifestyle tastes/preferences and market forces? If it’s the latter, that probably explains the more utilitarian look of the skyline, as the bulk of it is residential. Nevertheless, that skyline model rendering is impressive.

Canadian urban planning policies did a U-turn around 20-25 years ago. Continued sprawl became viewed as unsustainable so polices changed in favour of intensification of already developed land and TOD (Transit Oriented Development). It's about building clusters of high density that can support higher order PT like a subway or LRT stop. In that cluster one would also build retail, hospitals, schools, entertainment, cultural offerings, etc. so the desire/need to head downtown for everything diminishes. It cuts down on congestion, pollution, travel time, etc. "Live where you work".

In Toronto specifically, it coincided with the establishment of a giant Green Belt. Greater Toronto - Hamilton (population 7,680,502 in 2019) has the lake on one side and the Green Belt on the other. So continued sprawl now has a physically barrier. Some development is permitted in the Green Belt but it's been largely curtailed. A lot of intensification happens in the form of row housing and mid-rises although it's the high-rises that get all the attention.

A third factor is the cultural shift in Canadian society. People have a far higher penchant for urban living than existed before. They want walkable streets and amenities (restaurants, shops, entertainment, services) close by. People are more environmentally conscious too. Many are willing to give up suburban life for a high rise condo.

Regarding the stripped down cookie cutter look of many condo towers it bears mentioning that Canada is a far more egalitarian country than the United States. Almost all tower construction in the US is built for the affluent. In Canada some are built for the affluent, a ton are built for the masses, and some are actually social housing. The lower price points reflect that. So you might see a soulless sterile glass tower in Toronto but the US equivalent of that is actually ghetto housing in a US slum. In that context, they're actually quite good.

Toronto Social Housing


https://timelapse.stealthmonitoring.com/regentpark/


Green Belt

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Canadian urban planning policies did a U-turn around 20-25 years ago. Continued sprawl became viewed as unsustainable so polices changed in favour of intensification of already developed land and TOD (Transit Oriented Development). It's about building clusters of high density that can support higher order PT like a subway or LRT stop. In that cluster one would also build retail, hospitals, schools, entertainment, cultural offerings, etc. so the desire/need to head downtown for everything diminishes. It cuts down on congestion, pollution, travel time, etc. "Live where you work".

In Toronto specifically, it coincided with the establishment of a giant Green Belt. Greater Toronto - Hamilton (population 7,680,502 in 2019) has the lake on one side and the Green Belt on the other. So continued sprawl now has a physically barrier. Some development is permitted in the Green Belt but it's been largely curtailed. A lot of intensification happens in the form of row housing and mid-rises although it's the high-rises that get all the attention.

A third factor is the cultural shift in Canadian society. People have a far higher penchant for urban living than existed before. They want walkable streets and amenities (restaurants, shops, entertainment, services) close by. People are more environmentally conscious too. Many are willing to give up suburban life for a high rise condo.

Regarding the stripped down cookie cutter look of many condo towers it bears mentioning that Canada is a far more egalitarian country than the United States. Almost all tower construction in the US is built for the affluent. In Canada some are built for the affluent, a ton are built for the masses, and some are actually social housing. The lower price points reflect that. So you might see a soulless sterile glass tower in Toronto but the US equivalent of that is actually ghetto housing in a US slum. In that context, they're actually quite good.

This entire post is bullshit. Why do some Canadians cling to this faux exceptionalism? You live in America North, with minor differences. You aren't "more egalitarian", you're slightly poorer. Canadians don't have a "higher penchant for urban living", they have less reason to live in the burbs. There has been no paradigm change in recent years, either.

I remember Toronto 20-25 years ago. It was at least as different from American cities as today. There has not really been any relative change. Toronto was always characterized by limited (by NA standards) sprawl, high transit ridership and dense highrise apartment construction. Toronto has been heavily immigrant, cosmopolitan and high-priced for decades. Boosters already called it "NY run by the Swiss" in the 1970's. But these are really nuanced differences; someone living in the GTA does not have an appreciably different lifestyle than someone living in Dallas or Minneapolis.

And the crap about luxury highrises in Toronto being the equivalent of U.S. trailer parks and housing projects is absurd. New construction luxury towers are for higher income households, in both countries, obviously.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This entire post is bullshit. Why do some Canadians cling to this faux exceptionalism? You live in America North, with minor differences. You aren't "more egalitarian", you're slightly poorer.
.

Why do you insist on both being confrontational/dislikable and saying things are are completely erroneous?

More egalitarian is measurable and provable as fact.

There's this thing called the Gini Co-efficient, you might want to look into it.

Canada has a Gini of ~.32

The U.S. is ~.37

The lower number indicates less inequality.

In the OECD Canada ranks as the #23 country in terms of economic equality

The U.S. ranks as #31

Materially lower.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ncome_equality

This isn't about the relative wealth at the median which is highly comparable between the U.S. and Canada.

Its that we lower income in the top quintile and higher income (after transfers) in the bottom quintile.

Which is ....ummmmm....more egalitarian by definition.

Its not in factual terms, better or worse. Its not a national bragging contest, its math.

And yours is wrong Crawford.

PS, you can also look up the poverty rate in each country here:

https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=66670

The U.S. rate is 50% higher than Canada's.

It is what it is.

Canada is an imperfect country that needs to improve in any number of ways; but it is more egalitarian than the U.S.

Whether that's the provision of health insurance, or lower tuitions or cash transfers or higher labour standards (still way too low).

But we are a more equal society.

****

Outside of that, Canada is materially different in respect of being a bilingual nation, and not just in Quebec.

In having much higher immigration.

Much lower violent crime.

Again, there are trade-offs; I'm happy w/them; but to each their own.

To suggest the two countries are more similar than they are is simply wrong.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I remember Toronto 20-25 years ago. It was at least as different from American cities as today. There has not really been any relative change. Toronto was always characterized by limited (by NA standards) sprawl, high transit ridership and dense highrise apartment construction. Toronto has been heavily immigrant, cosmopolitan and high-priced for decades. Boosters already called it "NY run by the Swiss" in the 1970's. But these are really nuanced differences; someone living in the GTA does not have an appreciably different lifestyle than someone living in Dallas or Minneapolis.

Most of Toronto's high-rise apartments were constructed in the 60s and 70s. There was a serious decline in 80s and 90s, and transit ridership started to decline, and only in starting the 00s did we see another high-rise boom, coinciding with increasing transit ridership. So isaidso post is correct. The planning policies started to change 20-25 years ago.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Doady

Most of Toronto's high-rise apartments were constructed in the 60s and 70s. There was a serious decline in 80s and 90s, and transit ridership started to decline, and only in starting the 00s did we see another high-rise boom, coinciding with increasing transit ridership. So isaidso post is correct. The planning policies started to change 20-25 years ago.

No, Toronto has been a multifamily-oriented and transit-oriented city since it came of age 50 years ago. There is no fundamental difference vis-a-vis American cities relative to the recent past. Yonge-Bloor and Yonge-Eglington weren't much different in the 1980's relative to today, Toronto had the same two main subway lines as today, the city was vibrant and centralized, and centered along Yonge, just like today. It grew, obviously, but the character hasn't changed.

If your point is "Toronto today has more highrises and transit usage than 20 years ago", that's quite obvious and true of almost any city worldwide, including most in the U.S. It isn't a paradigm change; there are larger transnational macro factors at work. And it has almost nothing to do with local "planning"; this narrative that cities are ultimately the products of bureaucratic brainpower; that Dallas would be Montreal if they just had a few more egghead planners, is nonsensical.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

QUOTE]

It is what it is.

Canada is an imperfect country that needs to improve in any number of ways; but it is more egalitarian than the U.S.

Whether that's the provision of health insurance, or lower tuitions or cash transfers or higher labour standards (still way too low).

But we are a more equal society.

****

Outside of that, Canada is materially different in respect of being a bilingual nation, and not just in Quebec.

In having much higher immigration.

Much lower violent crime.

Again, there are trade-offs; I'm happy w/them; but to each their own.

To suggest the two countries are more similar than they are is simply wrong.

I think where the frustration comes from is that Canada’s equality seems a bit limited to Americans? A great deal of the Canada’s current immigration pool comes from the educated middle classes of Asian countries — who are ultimately expected to fund Canadian real estate investments.

But Canada has never truly experienced a mass migration of the truly desperate and destitute -not at least in the past 100 years- which is when a society’s egalitarian virtues are put to the real test. There is nothing comparable to the Syrian refugee crisis or Great Northern Migration.

Personally, I think that the comparison of Canada to Minneapolis is not too far off the mark. White Canadian culture resembles white Midwestern culture more than Canadians would probably care to admit. I’m honestly not sure Canadian society could endure the level of illegal immigration that the U.S. and parts of Europe experience without serious friction and backlash.

Also seems the shakiest part of Toronto’s expectations for growth. There will likely always be plenty of willing immigrants for the foreseeable future. Whether they are skilled and educated immigrants is less certain and if Canadians would accept a less qualified group.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

I think where the frustration comes from is that Canada’s equality seems a bit limited to Americans? A great deal of the Canada’s current immigration pool comes from the educated middle classes of Asian countries — who are ultimately expected to fund Canadian real estate investments.

But Canada has never truly experienced a mass migration of the truly desperate and destitute -not at least in the past 100 years- which is when a society’s egalitarian virtues are put to the real test. There is nothing comparable to the Syrian refugee crisis or Great Northern Migration.

What does this have to do with whether Canada is more egalitarian than the U.S.?

I'm lost.

First off, the statement is more egalitarian, not most or perfectly.

Second, egalitarian within the society is distinct from something resembling an open border.

Third, Canada took in more than 50,000 Syrian refugees that's a large number for a nation of 38M.

In 2019 Canada took in more refugees in absolute numbers (for resettlement, not temporary camps) than any other country on the planet.

So I'm again going to suggest this is weird line to draw on your part.

*******

Personally, I think that the comparison of Canada to Minneapolis is not too far off the mark. White Canadian culture resembles white Midwestern culture more than Canadians would probably care to admit. I’m honestly not sure Canadian society could endure the level of illegal immigration that the U.S. and parts of Europe experience without serious friction and backlash.

What does the level of illegal immigration have to do with egalitarianism or with cultural differences between the U.S. and Canada?

Further, let me suggest to you that Minneapolis has a homicide rate of over 7 per 100,000 to Toronto's 3 in a bad year.

That there are many more people lacking health insurance in Minneapolis than any Canadian city.

Police violence is higher there, so is racial segregation.

Don't think they have many French speakers either.

I've spent time in Minneapolis. Its less different to Canadian cities than some others.

But it doesn't really feel anything like one.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

Outside of that, Canada is materially different in respect of being a bilingual nation, and not just in Quebec.

In having much higher immigration.

The United States is not a monolingual nation, if that's what you're implying.

Also, Canada doesn't have "much higher immigration" than the United States. Canada's foreign-born population is about 20% of total population, and the U.S.'s is about 14%.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The United States is not a monolingual nation, if that's what you're implying.

That's not what I was implying. However, there is a material difference.

Also, Canada doesn't have "much higher immigration" than the United States. Canada's foreign-born population is about 20% of total population, and the U.S.'s is about 14%.

Just looked the numbers up.

U.S. 13.6%
CAN 21.9%

So the Canadian number is 61% higher. Not an immaterial difference.

As to the immigration rate:

In 2018 the US took in 1.1M immigrants which is 0.3% population growth

In 2018 Canada took in over 330,000 immigrants or just under 1% of population, 3x the U.S. rate.

****

Why is there some obsession among a minority of American posters here to insist that Canada is just the 51 state in all but name?

Really, its rather a bit much.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

That's not what I was implying. However, there is a material difference.




Just looked the numbers up.

U.S. 13.6%
CAN 21.9%

So the Canadian number is 61% higher. Not an immaterial difference.

As to the immigration rate:

In 2018 the US took in 1.1M immigrants which is 0.3% population growth

In 2018 Canada took in over 330,000 immigrants or just under 1% of population, 3x the U.S. rate.

****

Why is there some obsession among a minority of American posters here to insist that Canada is just the 51 state in all but name?

Really, its rather a bit much.

That's still not a humongous difference, and I think it's absurd that anyone would hold onto this point.



https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/...ts-51048ff1f9/

The United States has the largest foreign-born population in the world by absolute numbers, and the 5th largest by percentage. Ordered by percentage, the U.S. is just behind Canada, which is ranked 4th. Again, not a material difference.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

That's still not a humongous difference, and I think it's absurd that anyone would hold onto this point.



https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/...ts-51048ff1f9/

The United States has the largest foreign-born population in the world by absolute numbers, and the 5th largest by percentage. Ordered by percentage, the U.S. is just behind Canada, which is ranked 4th. Again, not a material difference.

We can cite different sources +/- 1.4%, but why bother?

As someone who has spent extensive time time in the U.S. and lives in Canada; the difference is self-evident.

That you don't see it doesn't really phase me.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

We can cite different sources +/- 1.4%, but why bother?

As someone who has spent extensive time time in the U.S. and lives in Canada; the difference is self-evident.

That you don't see it doesn't really phase me.

I literally grew up on the U.S./Canadian border. I know Canada pretty well.

[edale]

It does perplex me when Canadians boast about how welcoming their country is to immigrants and how self-congratulatory they are about that. Your immigration policy of only taking the wealthy and educated (I guess outside of refugee resettlements) is pretty gross. It's like you guys were super late to the game, and now that America has Trump (hopefully not much longer) and you guys are welcoming immigrants, it's like the past...80 years never happened? Come on. Canada has long been a very racially homogenous country. Much, much more than the US. That's changed in the past ~20 years, in that Canada is becoming more diverse, but that's hardly a point to brag about.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I literally grew up on the U.S./Canadian border. I know Canada pretty well.

Crawford also claims to know Canada really well and work in Toronto semi-regularly.

He also posts things that aren't true and suggest a complete lack of knowledge in fact.

I'm not saying that's the case w/you.

But I am saying being a some-time visitor; going to a few tourist sites, or thinking Windsor is representative of Canada.......might be not the most fulsome knowledge base.

Regardless we disagree, and its entirely apparent that no matter what facts I present you'll insist they don't matter.

Shrug.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

Crawford also claims to know Canada really well and work in Toronto semi-regularly.

He also posts things that aren't true and suggest a complete lack of knowledge in fact.

Could you please point out these multitudes of things that "aren't true"? Any hints of the claimed "complete lack of knowledge"? You wouldn't be mindlessly trolling now, would you?

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Could you please point out these multitudes of things that "aren't true"? Any hints of the claimed "complete lack of knowledge"? You wouldn't be mindlessly trolling now, would you?

Uhh, I don't need to go far, scroll up the page to post #563 (yours).

You made statements which I factually corrected, with citations.

That happens all the time with you. Multiple Canadian/Toronto-based posters have called you out on it.

No need to regurgitate.

And I'm not trolling; I have no desire to argue.

I simply wish people who knew a lot less than what they claim would stop over-reaching.

We're not talking about smarts; there's no insult hidden or overt.

We're simply talking reaching past one's actual knowledge to seem more informed that one actually is on a particular subject.

It really is irksome.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

You made statements which I factually corrected, with citations.

No, you made no such corrections.

In fact you didn't even address any of my statements, didn't even stick to the thread topic (Toronto); and instead decided to "inform" us with fascinating tidbits about French speakers in Quebec and your inability to understand a statistical distribution.

Originally Posted by Northern Light

That happens all the time with you. Multiple Canadian/Toronto-based posters have called you out on it.

SSP has some homers, yourself included. I get zero flack from non-homers, who comprise the overwhelming majority of Canadian SSP members.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Could you please point out these multitudes of things that "aren't true"? Any hints of the claimed "complete lack of knowledge"? You wouldn't be mindlessly trolling now, would you?

It would take months to lay out every piece of nonsense that you spew.

I can't believe you're still pushing this "Canada is poor" garbage, nobody takes you seriously.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No, Toronto has been a multifamily-oriented and transit-oriented city since it came of age 50 years ago. There is no fundamental difference vis-a-vis American cities relative to the recent past. Yonge-Bloor and Yonge-Eglington weren't much different in the 1980's relative to today, Toronto had the same two main subway lines as today, the city was vibrant and centralized, and centered along Yonge, just like today. It grew, obviously, but the character hasn't changed.

As I said, most of the high-rises in the GTA were built in the 60s and 70s, very little in the 80s and 90s.

Yonge-Bloor and Yonge-Eglinton are pre-war neighbourhoods with served by subways lines built in the 50s. So of course they haven't fundamentally changed since the 80s. They are not 80s neighbhourhoods and the subways serving them were not built in the 80s, so I don't see what the fuck is the point of comparing them in the 80s vs. today and concluding planning in the GTA has not changed much.

I was comparing neighbhourhoods built in the 80s and 90s to neighbourhoods building in 00s and 10s. I figured that would be most logical comparison when trying to see how planning in the GTA has changed in the past 20-25 years. Instead, you have the nerve to say isaidso's "entire post is bullshit" because of Yonge-Bloor and Yonge-Eglinton, pre-war neighbourhoods with 60+ year old subway service? He talks about differences in the past 20-25 years and you talk about 60-70 years? Come on.

If your point is "Toronto today has more highrises and transit usage than 20 years ago", that's quite obvious and true of almost any city worldwide, including most in the U.S. It isn't a paradigm change; there are larger transnational macro factors at work. And it has almost nothing to do with local "planning"; this narrative that cities are ultimately the products of bureaucratic brainpower; that Dallas would be Montreal if they just had a few more egghead planners, is nonsensical.

I was referring to the design and transit within certain new subdivisions in the suburbs, like Uptown Oakville, Mississauga City Centre, Markham Centre.

If you want to believe these places are typical of new suburbs everywhere including the US and that transit ridership has been increasing all over the US the past 20 years, more power to you.