Why can't US cities build urban housing in mass like Canada?

[Tuckerman]

We will never get these population lists (MSAs, CSAs, whatever) straight because the underlying measurement assumptions always mix different entities. First off, is the problem of the political cities and jurisdictions which are differently defined - thus huge metro areas, particularly in the USA, may have a core city that is just a small percentage of the population. Second, some cities and urban area meld into each other and are actually twin cities or contiguous cities with two or more cores, e.g. Dallas-Ft Worth; the LA area; SF area; Wash-Balt, etc. Some are relatively stand-alone, e.g. Atlanta, Phoenix, Houston, maybe even Chicago and certainly Montreal and Vancouver.So in making comparisons we always have to state clearly the comparison base and we will always have multiple lists with different bases. In any case there are more interesting comparisons such as the global cities lists that contain more variables of interest. If we are comparing mass housing it is clear that we need to consider percentage of metro population living in complex mid and high rise purpose built developments. In that comparison most Canadian cities of any size are in a different league from the USA. The USA does well in high rise office building, but pales in residential high rises.

[middeljohn]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No, median income is higher in the U.S. than in Canada.

Wealthy people and income gaps have nothing to do with medians. I think you're confusing medians with means, which would be highly affected by skewed incomes.

Nominal incomes are higher in Canada, PPP incomes are higher in the US.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by middeljohn

Nominal incomes are higher in Canada, PPP incomes are higher in the US.

Ok, and nominal incomes aren't really relevant to anything, because there's no context to nominal incomes.

Again, salaries are lower and home prices are higher, and there are no tax benefits to Canadian homeownership. Owning real estate, on average, is much more costly in Canada than in the U.S.

[YannickTO]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

We will never get these population lists (MSAs, CSAs, whatever) straight because the underlying measurement assumptions always mix different entities. First off, is the problem of the political cities and jurisdictions which are differently defined - thus huge metro areas, particularly in the USA, may have a core city that is just a small percentage of the population. Second, some cities and urban area meld into each other and are actually twin cities or contiguous cities with two or more cores, e.g. Dallas-Ft Worth; the LA area; SF area; Wash-Balt, etc. Some are relatively stand-alone, e.g. Atlanta, Phoenix, Houston, maybe even Chicago and certainly Montreal and Vancouver.So in making comparisons we always have to state clearly the comparison base and we will always have multiple lists with different bases. In any case there are more interesting comparisons such as the global cities lists that contain more variables of interest. If we are comparing mass housing it is clear that we need to consider percentage of metro population living in complex mid and high rise purpose built developments. In that comparison most Canadian cities of any size are in a different league from the USA. The USA does well in high rise office building, but pales in residential high rises.

Excellent post. Since it will never be a consensus between everyone and so many things that we have to take into account, on a «official statistics« point of view, I still prefer to list cities with its urban area population. To me, when I look Google Earth and make comparisons, the urban area figures are making sense. Otherwise, like you said, there are too many variants in MSA/CSA calculations, especially with rural counties.

I look at urban areas of the World as I would look at my SimCity game. I know it might be lame to say that, but that's how I look at it. I remember playing SC4, back in the days, and I had this huge metro area of about 20 million and I looked at it in terms on square miles used.

It's simple, any urban area is an area with continuous established population, on land, from any direction possible, is a valid urban area. Then we can analyze the major economic centres within those urban areas, which makes it fascinating to analyze and study. Of course, massive mountains, canyons, lakes, bays, farmland or other factors can be determined to separate those areas and it's logical. How to get the numbers right then? In terms of accurate population? That's another issue. There will always be people NOT counted, we all know that.

«Urban Areas census 2010 USA / Population Centres 2011 Canada« are the only numbers I use. I've put them all together in a very detailed personal excel spreadsheet that I've been working on for years now (the data should be revised each year, with proper estimates, in my opinion), and I like what I see when I compare to Google Earth. Canada listed down to 1000+ little urban areas, US stopped at 2500+ population. So I had to make a choice and remove the Canadian urban areas that are less than 2500, unfortunately. I always include Land Area as well in my charts.

[middeljohn]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Ok, and nominal incomes aren't really relevant to anything, because there's no context to nominal incomes.

Again, salaries are lower and home prices are higher, and there are no tax benefits to Canadian homeownership. Owning real estate, on average, is much more costly in Canada than in the U.S.

Goods are, on average, priced higher here. Gas especially, but that's due to the governments adding tons of taxes on them.

There are tax benefits to home ownership, they're just limited. Also, our real.estate market is one of the most stable ones in the world, so yes you pay more for houses, but you also feel very secure knowing you'll be making money, not losing, once you sell.

http://blog.comfree.com/2012/03/01/t.../#.Uzra4lVE0uo

Overall we pay quite a bit more taxes, however we get a lot of services back in return that I gladly pay taxes for. I wouldn't give up my universal healthcare just to save one or tow thousand bucks a year (how much is a health insurance plan in the States, a xouple hundred a month?). Our property and gas taxes are high, but in return our roads are in excellent condition, public transit is well developed in even small metro areas. Our public schools are excellent. Low income neighbourhoods get the same quality education as the high income neighbourhoods. Electronics have environmental taxes added on which go to recycling them properly so to extract reusable elements from them.

For the most part I agree with what we get taxed on (and how much), because the ends justify the means in my opinion. My family member would've had to sell his house to get the same cancer treatment in the States that he got here for free. My grandparents visit the doctor once a week each and don't pay a cent. They never even worked here. One day when I'm old and sick I won't have to worry about how I'm going to pay for this stuff either. It's a fair trade for a higher tax while I'm young.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No, median income is higher in the U.S. than in Canada.

Wealthy people and income gaps have nothing to do with medians. I think you're confusing medians with means, which would be highly affected by skewed incomes.

I'm not getting anything confused. Mean income (the quotient of the total income divided by the number of earners) is highly skewed by small numbers of people with huge incomes, while median income (the point at which the line between the top 50% of earners and the bottom 50% earners is drawn) is much less so. Average wages and income is so often measured in terms of the former, that it can cause people to draw misleading conclusions about who actually has how much income.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Ok, and nominal incomes aren't really relevant to anything, because there's no context to nominal incomes.

There's no context to them until we give it one by examining the situation and understanding the underlying economics. That's exactly what we're doing; we aren't just looking here looking at meaningless stats.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Again, salaries are lower and home prices are higher, and there are no tax benefits to Canadian homeownership. Owning real estate, on average, is much more costly in Canada than in the U.S.

Again, salaries are not lower for the middle-class doing the buying, and that's part of the reason behind the difference in the housing preferences between the countries. The fact that some types of real estate are more expensive here is another.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'm not getting anything confused. Mean income (the quotient of the total income divided by the number of earners) is highly skewed by small numbers of people with huge incomes, while median income (the point at which the line between the top 50% of earners and the bottom 50% earners is drawn) is much less so. Average wages and income is so often measured in terms of the former, that it can cause people to draw misleading conclusions about who actually has how much income.

Again, you seem to be confused, because you claimed that medians were a poor measure because of more rich people in the U.S. As you state (and I agree) medians are irrelevent to a discussion of skewed incomes.

Medians are almost always used to look at relative wealth, and the relative differences in skewing of incomes across nations are essentially irrelevent. Means are obviously highly affected by high concentrations of wealth at the top or bottom.

[Urbanguy]

All I know is that for a metro that's still currently under a million (at least for another year or so) -- Honolulu is BOOMING with residential high & midrises & there's more to come over the next several years.

[isaidso]

How well received is high rise living in Honolulu? It's expensive real estate and I see parallels to it and similarly expensive real estate in places like Vancouver and Toronto. High rise residential is the only option for middle class people in these Canadian cities. It's either a unit in the sky or remain priced out of the market.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Again, you seem to be confused, because you claimed that medians were a poor measure because of more rich people in the U.S. As you state (and I agree) medians are irrelevent to a discussion of skewed incomes.

He's not confused at all. Median income is a far better measure as it strips out extremes and goes a long way in explaining why middle income Canadians have equal or better purchasing power to their counterparts in the US.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Again, you seem to be confused, because you claimed that medians were a poor measure because of more rich people in the U.S. As you state (and I agree) medians are irrelevent to a discussion of skewed incomes.

Medians are almost always used to look at relative wealth, and the relative differences in skewing of incomes across nations are essentially irrelevent. Means are obviously highly affected by high concentrations of wealth at the top or bottom.

No, I implied that mean was a poor measure in terms of this discussion since it's greatly affected by the small number of very high earners who don't have much affect on the middle and lower-end housing market. Perhaps re-read my statements because you seem to be getting my statements mixed up and assuming that it's me who's confused.

[dc_denizen]

I thought the median Canadian and American incomes were roughly equal in terms of PPP.

[Urbanguy]

Originally Posted by isaidso

How well received is high rise living in Honolulu? It's expensive real estate and I see parallels to it and similarly expensive real estate in places like Vancouver and Toronto. High rise residential is the only option for middle class people in these Canadian cities. It's either a unit in the sky or remain priced out of the market.

Yes, it's real estate is very expensive there but there's a huge & growing demand for high rise living especially in the area known as Kaka'ako which is located between Downtown Honolulu & Waikiki where just from one developer alone there are plans to build over 20 high rises there, then there are others in Waikiki, just east of it & out west to one of Honolulu's suburbs called Aiea (overlooks Pearl Harbor) where 5 have just gotten approved today by the city council. Another 4 are proposed for another suburb called Kapolei. 7 other condos are proposed fronting (facing the Ocean) Ala Moana Shopping Center. There's just a whole bunch all over the city being proposed, approved, under construction or about to start soon.

A few examples that I had just mentioned.

Kaka'ako - 3 of which could be as high as 700 feet.


Aiea - near Pearl Harbor - a centralish suburb


Kapolei area - Western suburb

[Dr Nevergold]

Originally Posted by jpdivola

Why have Canadian cities been so much more successful at building urban housing that their American counterparts?

Sure we have some urban development, but on a per capita basis it comes nowhere near the level that Canadian cities like Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Ottawa build. Seems Canadian cities are in the middle of a virtuous cycle where urban housing attracts urban amenities, which in turn attracts more people to urban living. Because there is lots of new supply prices stay affordable.

US cities by contrast seem stuck in the SF/NYC/Bos/DC model where the city is very desirable, but the city limits housing development, which makes urban living super expensive. The market is basically telling these cities build more housing. Yet, the cities restrict development.

Alternately, we have lots of sprawling cities that are stuck in the chicken and the egg trap. There isn't much desire to live in the urban core since most of the jobs and amenities are in the upscale suburbs.

How was Canada able to avoid this problem? Fixing the sunbelt/rustbelt sprawl problem is difficult. But, fixing the problem of the trendy urban cities being too expensive seems much more clear cut..build, build, build.

Here is an article, showing what I mean: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/comme...ondo_boom.html

Interesting question, not sure there's a precise answer. One thing is for sure: remember people have opinions, but not real answers.

Despite the mild uptick in multi-family housing in the US, most of it is typically extremely low density suburban apartment stock and not particularly urban or transit oriented. It kind of defeats the purpose of building multi-family housing in my opinion.

What sets Canadian multi-family housing apart is that most buildings are accessible to transit with high frequency. If you're in suburban Toronto, Vancouver, or Montreal your bus service will undoubtedly be better than in suburban New York or Chicago.

When you compare a PACE bus in suburban Chicago to the regional transit agencies like York or Mississauga around Toronto, you can see PACE has a lot of routes that only come hourly. Many of the transit lines in York region or Halton come every 10 or 15 minutes just like the city. You can't realistically expect people to rely on infrequent transit. So there is this issue in the US that to live an urban lifestyle, you pretty much are obligated to live in the most expensive, central parts of the city. This may contribute to why people chose one over the other.

[memph]

Originally Posted by Dr Nevergold

What sets Canadian multi-family housing apart is that most buildings are accessible to transit with high frequency. If you're in suburban Toronto, Vancouver, or Montreal your bus service will undoubtedly be better than in suburban New York or Chicago.

When you compare a PACE bus in suburban Chicago to the regional transit agencies like York or Mississauga around Toronto, you can see PACE has a lot of routes that only come hourly. Many of the transit lines in York region or Halton come every 10 or 15 minutes just like the city. You can't realistically expect people to rely on infrequent transit. So there is this issue in the US that to live an urban lifestyle, you pretty much are obligated to live in the most expensive, central parts of the city. This may contribute to why people chose one over the other.

I think it depends on the suburbs. I don't think transit is that great in Halton, nor in Durham. Peel and York are pretty decent, though still in a league below the outer 416. I don't know as much about Montreal, but presumably there's a pretty big difference between suburbs like Saint-Leonard (former suburb at least) and suburbs like Sainte-Julie.

What is true though is that the apartments are being built with a preference for more central locations that are better served with transit, at least in Toronto, and I'm pretty sure Vancouver too (Montreal less so).


A solid majority of sales lately have been in Toronto, with most of the rest in the parts of Peel and York that are better served by transit.

[dc_denizen]

How is it factual that "most of the American new-build multifamily housing stock is extremely low-density suburban in nature", as asserted above? Source?

[mhays]

I bet that most regions have swung to having much more urban formats than suburban ones....though some city construction threads still have "urban" sites with surface parking.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

How is it factual that "most of the American new-build multifamily housing stock is extremely low-density suburban in nature", as asserted above? Source?

I don't think it's even true in the sprawliest metro areas. Most multifamily tends to be built in more urban, dense, locations, even if we're talking the Phoenix/Charlotte/Dallas type places.

[Dr Nevergold]

Originally Posted by memph

I think it depends on the suburbs. I don't think transit is that great in Halton, nor in Durham. Peel and York are pretty decent, though still in a league below the outer 416. I don't know as much about Montreal, but presumably there's a pretty big difference between suburbs like Saint-Leonard (former suburb at least) and suburbs like Sainte-Julie.

What is true though is that the apartments are being built with a preference for more central locations that are better served with transit, at least in Toronto, and I'm pretty sure Vancouver too (Montreal less so).


A solid majority of sales lately have been in Toronto, with most of the rest in the parts of Peel and York that are better served by transit.

You're right, by Canadian standards the transit in York region has been cut and is kind of "bla". But VIVA is a very competitive system for suburbia. Much better form of transport than you find in any American suburb for a local transit solution.

Condo towers in places like Markham have accessible transit solutions, which in turn makes it more competitive to live in. Who would choose to live in a condo that doesn't have transport access? Transport is a key function. This may explain why condo towers are so popular in suburban Toronto.

I'm not sure that chart is a good thing. Condo prices are obviously in a bubble right now, in the early 00's you could purchase a one bedroom condo in a nice, sleek new tower for under $200,000, sometimes around the $150k mark. I remember years ago the Eclipse towers in Scarborough, right off the RT system for rapid access to the city, had bachelor and 1 bedroom condo selling brand new for $150-175k. You could get a sizable two bedroom with lots of room and storage for $200-250k... Today the same units are costing $300k-500k? This does indicate a bubble, but not necessarily one that will reduce the desire to live in multi-family housing. If the bubble pops it will be more affordable for people, so I am actually rooting for a pop soon. Not a drastic pop, but a mild recess in home prices is warranted in the GTA.

One of the more interesting town centres coming up is Vaughn Metropolitan Centre. I hope some of the condos they build in this area are affordable, Vaughn has potential to become another North York since its on the Spadina subway, and it'd offer quick access to downtown Toronto without downtown Toronto prices. Potentially. If they start selling those condos at $300-500k, I doubt it'll grow as quickly as North York once did.

This opens up a new can of worms, how do you keep speculators from Dubai or Hong Kong from buying 20% of the condos in a building and then reselling them or jacking up the price because they only see it as an investment?

[memph]

Originally Posted by Dr Nevergold

You're right, by Canadian standards the transit in York region has been cut and is kind of "bla". But VIVA is a very competitive system for suburbia. Much better form of transport than you find in any American suburb for a local transit solution.

Condo towers in places like Markham have accessible transit solutions, which in turn makes it more competitive to live in. Who would choose to live in a condo that doesn't have transport access? Transport is a key function. This may explain why condo towers are so popular in suburban Toronto.

I'm not sure that chart is a good thing. Condo prices are obviously in a bubble right now, in the early 00's you could purchase a one bedroom condo in a nice, sleek new tower for under $200,000, sometimes around the $150k mark. I remember years ago the Eclipse towers in Scarborough, right off the RT system for rapid access to the city, had bachelor and 1 bedroom condo selling brand new for $150-175k. You could get a sizable two bedroom with lots of room and storage for $200-250k... Today the same units are costing $300k-500k? This does indicate a bubble, but not necessarily one that will reduce the desire to live in multi-family housing. If the bubble pops it will be more affordable for people, so I am actually rooting for a pop soon. Not a drastic pop, but a mild recess in home prices is warranted in the GTA.

One of the more interesting town centres coming up is Vaughn Metropolitan Centre. I hope some of the condos they build in this area are affordable, Vaughn has potential to become another North York since its on the Spadina subway, and it'd offer quick access to downtown Toronto without downtown Toronto prices. Potentially. If they start selling those condos at $300-500k, I doubt it'll grow as quickly as North York once did.

This opens up a new can of worms, how do you keep speculators from Dubai or Hong Kong from buying 20% of the condos in a building and then reselling them or jacking up the price because they only see it as an investment?

I disagree with you on prices. Eclipse is not that expensive right now, it's one of the cheaper places to buy a relatively new condo, probably because Scarborough in general is not very expensive. From MLS listings, it seems like a 1 bed condo there is around $250k. The $300-$500k condos would be bigger and in a more desirable location than a 1 bed in Eclipse. If prices have gone from $150-175k to $250k, that wouldn't be out of line with price increases for low rise homes. The Brampton 1970s townhouse neighbourhood where I used to live saw the prices go up from about $170k to $280k since 2001. My parents bungalow roughly doubled in value in the same time. I think low rises in much of the GTA have experienced price increases greater than Eclipse, and condos in general. If there is a housing bubble in the GTA, I don't think it's just condos.

And if condo prices in Vaughan end up being that high, that'll just mean a bigger profit for developers, and that they'll build even more.

As for the effect of transit on condos in the burbs, I think it's a bit more complicated. I think a lot of the people buying condos in these areas are not going to be taking transit that much, at least in Peel and York (NYCC is different). However, it could be playing a role in keeping prices at the lower end of the market higher (i.e. older apartments and townhouses), which leads to higher prices for mid market housing (i.e. new condos). This would make them more profitable to build.

I would say the typical condo buyer in York Region or Mississauga is

-Small household size, so that buying a single family home would be a waste, even though SFH would often cost less per sf, SFH still costs about double overall since it's so much bigger
-Can afford something new, so probably middle class
-Don't want to pay the premium associated with living downtown Toronto, likely because they don't work there, but in the suburbs
-Likely drive to work (though a small minority take transit)
-Want to have good access to jobs and amenities like shopping, or parks

[PremierAtlanta]

Originally Posted by Dr Nevergold

Despite the mild uptick in multi-family housing in the US, most of it is typically extremely low density suburban apartment stock and not particularly urban or transit oriented. It kind of defeats the purpose of building multi-family housing in my opinion.

I really wish people would take a little care when making such blanket statements. All it would take is a simple google search to disprove this statement. This is especially troubling coming from a "Global Moderator".

As others have said, I would love to see this "Global Moderator's" source.