If Canadians Want Houses, Give Them Houses!

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Beedok

That might depend on the numbers moving to Barrie, Oshawa, Hamilton (Flamborough), etc. for cheap housing. Most of the growth for some surrounding communities is GTA commuters.

When I said "GTA" I included these areas. Suburban migration shouldn't count as a relocation from one metro area to another (even though it technically does).

So ya. To make my point clearer: the GGH definitely has positive net domestic migration when recent immigrants are factored out.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

anywhere in the 416. He'll likely be going to Oakville, Innisfil, Bolton or Whitby.

Plus, there is also "native-born" flight (I won't call it "white flight") out of all of the central city areas towards outer suburban areas and even exurbia.

I was talking about Toronto's metro, not the city proper of Toronto. Should have made that clearer.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

On the contrary, StatsCan assembles this every year from tax-filing data. The data is crazily detailed. This is the Toronto CMA data (can't link to CANSIM tables directly). What's really interesting is that even among young people (20-35) migration out of the city to elsewhere in Ontario is negative. This may include relatively recent immigrants leaving Toronto after arriving there initially, but the data doesn't confirm or dis-confirm that. Burlington isn't part of the CMA, nor are Whitby and Oshawa, so maybe everyone is moving there, but I suspect if there were GTA-specific numbers they'd be negative too. It's not unusual, a lot of sizable metro areas see the same kind of thing in Canada.

That was my point though--that recent immigrants leaving after a few years is clouding up the data, and no published data exists to confirm what the numbers are after excluding this group, which is truer picture of domestic migration.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

There are major differences between the Dutch [?] example osmo showed and the 905 townhouse development you show. I don't think they're comparable neighbourhood products.

The Dutch example has a human sense of scale, an intimate narrow "Woonerf" roadway that's adaptable to all users, including pedestrians and children playing, and good landscaping that softens the hard edges and provides some greenery. The Dutch example might be located in the suburbs, but it's functionally urban by North American standards.

The Toronto example is completely suburban, despite its high density. The road is enormous and invites no other users than cars. The landscape is harsh and unforgiving with little greenery other than some shrubs and a strip of grass.

Simply put: I would happily live in the Dutch example. I would never live in the Toronto example.

That's another reason why urban living is something that Canadians aspire to more than Americans. A typical Canadian suburb, at least in the GTA, is sort of a "worst of all worlds". If we control for things like school quality, crime, property taxes and other things that impact quality of life more than design, many Canadian suburbs are pretty grim places. They lack the greenery, privacy, space and ease of driving of American suburbs, and they also lack the amenities, stores and proximity and intimate design of urban neighbourhoods. They're not even cheap in most cases.

Absolutely, but I think the point was about housing typologies and cost, not urban design.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

The Dutch example might be located in the suburbs, but it's functionally urban by North American standards.

I'm not sure this is really true. It's very pedestrian friendly within the context of the neighbourhood and much more pleasant aesthetically for sure. It's probably not any less autocentric however. A quick look at google maps shows that there are any number of similar Dutch neighbourhoods on the outskirts of cities/towns where one would have to drive (or at least take a bus) for any shopping or other daily needs. In many cases there just isn't anything within walking distance save maybe a corner store, which is the same as in many Canadian examples.

If I had to live in one I'd pick the Dutch for sure, but I'd prefer not to live in either.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Absolutely, but I think the point was about housing typologies and cost, not urban design.

Right, but the point I was trying to make - and I think I got lost in the details - was that the neighbourhood matters more than the housing type to a lot of people.

I think people who prefer suburbia would rather live in a townhouse with a nice patio that opened on to a public woodlot, than live in a single family home on a tiny lot with no trees where you stare into your neighbour's master bedroom. For suburbanites, studies show that the things they value are neighbourhood things: people in similar stages of their life cycle (e.g. other families with young children, perceived safety, a feeling that kids can play in the street without getting run over, access to the things they use regularly, etc.) rather than things that the home, as a structure, provides.

I think the premise of the original article - "Canadians want houses" - is flawed.

Rather than just build single family houses, the focus should be on designing new neighbourhoods that a range of people like. On this forum, we constantly lament that we've forgotten how to design decent, medium-density urban neighbourhoods from scratch since the end of the Second World War. But I would also argue that sometime in the mid-1980s we forgot how to design decent suburban environments for the people who want them.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

That was my point though--that recent immigrants leaving after a few years is clouding up the data, and no published data exists to confirm what the numbers are after excluding this group, which is truer picture of domestic migration.

I'm not sure that recent immigrants leaving after a few years is making Toronto's numbers worse; if anything, it might be making them better. The Toronto CMA has been losing its share of the country's immigration in recent years (150,000 in 2001, down to only 69,000 last year) but it still has very high retention of those immigrants who do come, second only to Calgary.

This kind of "secondary migration" has been subject to a fair bit of study. This study shows that immigrants are less likely than native-born Canadians to leave Toronto, and this one shows that Toronto has the country's second-highest immigrant retention rate--nearly 90 percent after five years. So if not for immigrants, that negative domestic migration would be even higher.

Of course, the most recent data there is based on the 2009 cohort of immigrants, and this kind of stuff can change. (For example, Halifax, my city, had an abysmal 10-year retention rate of less than 50 percent of the 2001 immigrant cohort. But more recent data indicates that this has improved to nearly 80 percent. So this stuff can change quickly, and maybe things have worsened in Toronto, but I'd be surprised if they've deteriorated that much.)

Out of curiosity I looked at the domesic migration for all the CMAs in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Unlike Toronto, they all have positive migration from within Ontario, and it's probably safe to presume a lot of that is from Toronto-proper. But the positive numbers still come to less than half Toronto's losses, and all have negative migration with other provinces.



So, even if you extend the definition of Toronto to the whole GGH, and exclude secondary migration of immigrants, I think Toronto would still have negative numbers.

None of this is very surprising though; it's common to large North American cities.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Right, but the point I was trying to make - and I think I got lost in the details - was that the neighbourhood matters more than the housing type to a lot of people.

I think people who prefer suburbia would rather live in a townhouse with a nice patio that opened on to a public woodlot, than live in a single family home on a tiny lot with no trees where you stare into your neighbour's master bedroom. For suburbanites, studies show that the things they value are neighbourhood things: people in similar stages of their life cycle (e.g. other families with young children, perceived safety, a feeling that kids can play in the street without getting run over, access to the things they use regularly, etc.) rather than things that the home, as a structure, provides...

You don't have to go far to see that isn't always the case. Most of the new houses in Richmond are huge, all paved in front and a tiny backyard.

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I think the premise of the original article - "Canadians want houses" - is flawed.

Rather than just build single family houses, the focus should be on designing new neighbourhoods that a range of people like. On this forum, we constantly lament that we've forgotten how to design decent, medium-density urban neighbourhoods from scratch since the end of the Second World War. But I would also argue that sometime in the mid-1980s we forgot how to design decent suburban environments for the people who want them.

The study just repeats what studies have said all along, given the money the majority prefer a SFH. They will settle for something else if it isn't possible. Planners seem intent on ramming multifamily down everyone's throats, perhaps because most of them live in urban environments.

Given this, perhaps less emphasis should be placed on getting SFH neighbourhoods to accept multifamily in their midst and more spent letting those large postwar lots be subdivided into smaller lots. It would likely be an easier battle because owners could see the immediate personal benefit: two new houses instead of their aging one, they can sell one and live in the other.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I'm not sure that recent immigrants leaving after a few years is making Toronto's numbers worse; if anything, it might be making them better. The Toronto CMA has been losing its share of the country's immigration in recent years (150,000 in 2001, down to only 69,000 last year) but it still has very high retention of those immigrants who do come, second only to Calgary.

This kind of "secondary migration" has been subject to a fair bit of study. This study shows that immigrants are less likely than native-born Canadians to leave Toronto, and this one shows that Toronto has the country's second-highest immigrant retention rate--nearly 90 percent after five years. So if not for immigrants, that negative domestic migration would be even higher.

Of course, the most recent data there is based on the 2009 cohort of immigrants, and this kind of stuff can change. (For example, Halifax, my city, had an abysmal 10-year retention rate of less than 50 percent of the 2001 immigrant cohort. But more recent data indicates that this has improved to nearly 80 percent. So this stuff can change quickly, and maybe things have worsened in Toronto, but I'd be surprised if they've deteriorated that much.)

Out of curiosity I looked at the domesic migration for all the CMAs in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Unlike Toronto, they all have positive migration from within Ontario, and it's probably safe to presume a lot of that is from Toronto-proper. But the positive numbers still come to less than half Toronto's losses, and all have negative migration with other provinces.



So, even if you extend the definition of Toronto to the whole GGH, and exclude secondary migration of immigrants, I think Toronto would still have negative numbers.

None of this is very surprising though; it's common to large North American cities.

You really have a knack for digging up fascinating info!

[landpirate]

A lot of it also has much to do with housing prices. I've anecdotally seen many people retiring, going through a divorce or with growing families who want to find more reasonably priced housing. Hamilton was the go to place for a while but it's also getting pricy, increasingly they're looking even further afield to small towns within (insane) commuting distance to Toronto.

[manny_santos]

My experience growing up in the suburbs of London, Ontario: very, very little interaction with neighbours; 100% white. Road hockey did not exist where I grew up. I'm told a block party was organized once, maybe in 1987, but due to lack of interest it hasn't happened since.

For me growing up, people of black or other origins were people who only existed on TV - Gordon on Sesame Street is the earliest example I remember. I did not meet a black person in real life until I was 13, and I hadn't even heard of Islam until 9/11 (I was 15 at that time) - I only knew religions outside of Christianity and Judaism even existed thanks to Apu on The Simpsons. My high school was literally 99.9% white.

This was suburban London only 20 years ago.

[1overcosc]

^ Wow. I went to high school in rural Ontario about 10 years ago and even then, there were about 5-10 non-whites in my grade, most of them Aboriginal or black-white mixed race.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

For me growing up, people of black or other origins were people who only existed on TV - Gordon on Sesame Street is the earliest example I remember. I did not meet a black person in real life until I was 13, and I hadn't even heard of Islam until 9/11 (I was 15 at that time) - I only knew religions outside of Christianity and Judaism even existed thanks to Apu on The Simpsons. My high school was literally 99.9% white.

This was suburban London only 20 years ago.

I remember being about six or seven years old in the suburbs of Ottawa (Orleans) and a black guy came to the door one night, canvassing for a political candidate or representing a charity or something. I MUST have seen non-white people on TV or elsewhere, but seeing one in real life was all new to me, and I didn't quite get it. I remember that I said something incredibly embarrassing, simply out of childlike bafflement at this man's pigmentation. I can't recall what. That would've been about 25 years ago.

The country has changed though; my nieces growing up in rural New Brunswick today are exposed to more diversity than I was in suburban Ottawa. And many suburban areas are now more diverse than city centres, so...

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

My experience growing up in the suburbs of London, Ontario: very, very little interaction with neighbours; 100% white. Road hockey did not exist where I grew up. I'm told a block party was organized once, maybe in 1987, but due to lack of interest it hasn't happened since.

For me growing up, people of black or other origins were people who only existed on TV - Gordon on Sesame Street is the earliest example I remember. I did not meet a black person in real life until I was 13, and I hadn't even heard of Islam until 9/11 (I was 15 at that time) - I only knew religions outside of Christianity and Judaism even existed thanks to Apu on The Simpsons. My high school was literally 99.9% white.

This was suburban London only 20 years ago.

Wow, I remember rural Saskatchewan being more diverse than that 25 years ago.

[SignalHillHiker]

We were very diverse. White Roman Catholics AND white Anglicans. But that was only for my last year of high school, when the denominational school system was replaced with a secular, public one (73% voted in favour in the referendum). I got to keep my school, at least, so just had to deal with the influx of Protestants. Sucked for them, though... graduating from a school you only spent a year in.

Seriously, though... there was one "black" girl. I think she was actually Indian. And there were a shitload of newcomers from the former Yugoslavia, at least 25% of my class, but they were white.

That's all that come to mind. There were some asian students but not in my grade.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

When I said "GTA" I included these areas. Suburban migration shouldn't count as a relocation from one metro area to another (even though it technically does).

So ya. To make my point clearer: the GGH definitely has positive net domestic migration when recent immigrants are factored out.

Someone could conceviably commute from Otawa-Gatineau to Montreal. Mirabel is only about an hour and a half from Ottawa's downtown. If someone moved from Montreal to Gatineau should they not count as a relocation?

[ssiguy]

I appreciate those figures but times have changed DRAMATICALLY in the last 18 months.

I don't have any computer skills but if you look up the Ontario government quarterly population up date, Ontario has grown by 168,000 1st quarter to quarter......1.2% which is about 30,000 more than the previous year and the province is now enjoying net interprovincial gains and very importantly from Alberta.

I have pathetic computer skills so if someone could put up the stats that would be great.

[ssiguy]

I do know what people are talking about when they talk about the lack of social interaction in suburbia but credit where it's due, suburban development is far different that it use to be.

A lot more homes having front porches and close to the road creates so much more social interaction than typical suburban developments that they actually get cheaper insurance. There are many trails that now wander thru the areas that encourages more walking. The new developments are much more densely populated and are also far less homogenious than they use to be.

I don't like suburbia as a general rule but they have greatly improved over even 10 years ago.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You really have a knack for digging up fascinating info!

It's interesting how counterintuitive these statistics can be. The reality on the ground changes quickly, often in a matter of months, but people's opinions are "sticky".

The goin' down the road narrative for Atlantic Canada hasn't changed all that much from the early 1990's even though just about all of the cities there have better than average employment prospects. As of July, Alberta's unemployment rate is higher than Nova Scotia's, but I bet you could easily find people in NS who think that they would have dramatically better economic prospects in AB (the "I'll get paid $30/hour to work at McDonald's in Calgary!" type stuff).

Similarly I also suspect that poor quality housing (per dollar, like most things; equivalent to "expensive housing" even if people often don't realize) and transportation problems have cost a lot more than people realize in Toronto and Vancouver. Certainly they have a major impact on standard of living but also in terms of opportunity cost from lost business, etc. A lot of places have a hard time hiring and retaining talent in Vancouver purely because of the housing costs.

[niwell]

Wow - my childhood in the 80s/90s in suburban Calgary seems downright diverse. Although we didn't really have any black kids at school till grade 7 or so. I was pretty well acquainted having visited family in Toronto every year and seeing people of all backgrounds though.