Why Do Canadian Skylines Overperform Relative To Their Metro Populations?

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Maldive

Well the notion of barren nothingness when you leave a city is kinda absurd, particularly the big 3:

Well aside from Toronto, there are no other CMA's inside Canada that are adjoining or close. Toronto is an outlier.The GGH is Canada's Bay area or Eastern Seaboard. For example,Ottawa couldn't really expand it's CMA even if it wanted to get ridiculous by trying to. You head West out of Ottawa and there's nothing. That's what I meant. American, and European cities have more rural and hinterlands that they could draw from, and absorb into their Metro figures..A city like Winnipeg can't. With all due respect,I don't think St. Louis at first glance looks like a city of almost 3.0m for example, the same way that Vancouver looks much larger then Pittsburgh which has about the same population. I suspect that St .Louis has a ton of rural or exurbs to draw from.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Canadians are much more apt to live in large multifamily buildings. This (mostly) accounts for the difference.

Yes..Good and valid point!. I was more or less saying the same thing in my original post, but in a longer roundabout way. It's exactly that combined with less exurbs/rural development.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Razor

Well aside from Toronto, there are no other CMA's inside Canada that are adjoining or close. Toronto is an outlier.The GGH is Canada's Bay area or Eastern Seaboard. For example,Ottawa couldn't really expand it's CMA even if it wanted to get ridiculous by trying to. You head West out of Ottawa and there's nothing. That's what I meant. American, and European cities have more rural and hinterlands that they could draw from, and absorb into their Metro figures..A city like Winnipeg can't. With all due respect,I don't think St. Louis at first glance looks like a city of almost 3.0m for example, the same way that Vancouver looks much larger then Pittsburgh which has about the same population. I suspect that St .Louis has a ton of rural or exurbs to draw from.



Yes..Good and valid point!. I was more or less saying the same thing in my original post, but in a longer roundabout way. It's exactly that combined with less exurbs/rural development.

Metro Vancouver has the Abbotsford CMA directly to the east (200 000+) which has Chilliwack directly east of it (100 000+). The Fraser Valley population is now over 3 million.

Also Victoria CMA (400 000+) and Nanaimo (100 000+) are also within Vancouver’s realm of influence being directly across the Georgia Straight.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Razor

Yes..Good and valid point!. I was more or less saying the same thing in my original post, but in a longer roundabout way. It's exactly that combined with less exurbs/rural development.

Yeah, and forget about cities like Toronto and Vancouver. Random low-desirability, low-growth Canadian cities are much more apartment oriented than their U.S. counterparts. Compare Sarnia, ON to Port Huron, MI. They're sister-cities of similar size and economic makeup, but Sarnia has clusters of apartment blocks everywhere, and Port Huron has basically none.

Also, like every comparative observation, you can twist to fit whatever agenda. We could ask "why do Canadian cities underperform relative to the U.S. in terms of nice, large SFH?"? Port Huron has far more nice SFH than Sarnia. It's all perspective.

[dc_denizen]

Melbourne lacks Vancouver’s historical orientation towards mid rise apartments , yet is building tons of suburban apartments which look exactly like towers in suburban vancouver and are oriented toward the same market of high net wealth Chinese

Places like surrey would not look like they do without Chinese demand .

Melbourne’s example provides proof that China , and not smart growth and moral superiority , is the reason for 40 story suburban clusters

[nito]

Using China as a reason for development in some cities is a bit of a simplistic point. New York City is experiencing population decline (unlike Melbourne or Vancouver) but that doesn’t mean that all the new towers going up in New York are being developed for overseas investment purposes…

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah, and forget about cities like Toronto and Vancouver. Random low-desirability, low-growth Canadian cities are much more apartment oriented than their U.S. counterparts. Compare Sarnia, ON to Port Huron, MI. They're sister-cities of similar size and economic makeup, but Sarnia has clusters of apartment blocks everywhere, and Port Huron has basically none.

Also, like every comparative observation, you can twist to fit whatever agenda. We could ask "why do Canadian cities underperform relative to the U.S. in terms of nice, large SFH?"? Port Huron has far more nice SFH than Sarnia. It's all perspective.

Sarnia and Port Huron -

EHB_4363 by edwardhblake, on Flickr

FYI here are the apartment towers.

Sarnia, Ontario by Applejack 25, on Flickr

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by nito

Using China as a reason for development in some cities is a bit of a simplistic point. New York City is experiencing population decline (unlike Melbourne or Vancouver) but that doesn’t mean that all the new towers going up in New York are being developed for overseas investment purposes…

NYC isn't experiencing population decline and relative population growth has zero to do with anything in this conversation.

And it's indisputable that some Canadian and Australian cities have real estate booms largely due to Chinese investment. Of course one can debate the relative level of causation but no one can seriously argue that the Vancouver RE market isn't impacted by Chinese money.

[nito]

Originally Posted by Crawford

NYC isn't experiencing population decline and relative population growth has zero to do with anything in this conversation.

According to the USCB, New York City has experienced population loss in the past two years, taking the population back to where it was in 2013.

Population growth, QE inflating asset prices, government policies, credit liquidity are far more easily identifiable reasons behind housing booms.

[M II A II R II K]

And then there are exceptions where Montreal doesn't have much of a skyline for it's size and Des Moines punches above it's weight.

[Sam Hill]

Canada doesn't over-perform; the US under-performs. I believe it's largely due to our "American-dream," white-picket-fence, SFH culture.

I feel it in my daily American existence. I'm constantly reminded that one can have a lot more space for a lot less money out in the burbs. People living the suburban life apply pressure every day: "Jesus! You're paying how much for a one-bedroom?" "Man, I was down there the other day and it took me like 10 minutes just to find a place to park! I don't know how you live down there!"

Not only does more square-footage for the buck mean each kid gets his/her own room, but you're keeping up with the Joneses.

In much of America, "I live in an apartment" still means "I'm a loser that hasn't made anything of myself yet."

In much of America, not owning a car still means, "I'm a loser and can't get a date."

In much of America, riding the bus still means, "I'm poor."

The culture is changing and there has definitely been a rise in the so-called urbanist movement and an increased desire for walkable neighborhoods, but we still have a long, long way to go - both in terms of cultural change, and in terms of massive infrastructure and policy change.

I suspect in a couple decades, US cities will start getting seriously dense due to cultural changes driven by environmental reasons and whatnot. For now though, I feel like COVID is going to be a temporary setback. I sure wouldn't mind having my own little mini-palace with its own private driveway and it's own private green space right about now. Being trapped down here in the city where I can't go outside without turning doorknobs, pushing buttons, and walking a sidewalk crowded with mask-wearers is making me wish, just a little bit, for that white picket fence. And I can't be the only one feeling this way.

[JManc]

In much of America, having a car isn't really about status but a necessity and buses in most cities aren't really that efficient in getting from point A to point B; it often involves transfers and longer commute times. High school kids even really don't care about having cars anymore and have to be drug kicking and screaming to the DMV.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by Razor

Well aside from Toronto, there are no other CMA's inside Canada that are adjoining or close. Toronto is an outlier.The GGH is Canada's Bay area or Eastern Seaboard. For example,Ottawa couldn't really expand it's CMA even if it wanted to get ridiculous by trying to. You head West out of Ottawa and there's nothing. That's what I meant. American, and European cities have more rural and hinterlands that they could draw from, and absorb into their Metro figures..A city like Winnipeg can't. With all due respect,I don't think St. Louis at first glance looks like a city of almost 3.0m for example, the same way that Vancouver looks much larger then Pittsburgh which has about the same population. I suspect that St .Louis has a ton of rural or exurbs to draw from.



Yes..Good and valid point!. I was more or less saying the same thing in my original post, but in a longer roundabout way. It's exactly that combined with less exurbs/rural development.

I disagree, St. Louis and Pittsburgh both feel like their respective sizes from an American perspective. Also, outside of the West End Vancouver looks like typical Pacific Northwest suburbia.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Razor

With all due respect,I don't think St. Louis at first glance looks like a city of almost 3.0m for example, the same way that Vancouver looks much larger then Pittsburgh which has about the same population. I suspect that St .Louis has a ton of rural or exurbs to draw from.

yes and no. there wasnt much out there for metro st. louis to swallow or pump up its numbers with though (especially where the vast ozark forests buttress the region) so its not like smaller population centers and higher density rural areas were absorbed like a metro area say in ohio or new jersey or something. its bulk is basically endless, contiguous (excepting the river valleys) cul-de-sac tier expansion that emanated from the core city.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by goat314

I disagree, St. Louis and Pittsburgh both feel like their respective sizes from an American perspective. Also, outside of the West End Vancouver looks like typical Pacific Northwest suburbia.

In more than a few skyline shots, Vancouver could be mistaken for a bigger city than Montreal.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Acajack

In more than a few skyline shots, Vancouver could be mistaken for a bigger city than Montreal.

driving into vancouver from washington state feels like i am entering a region of 5 million but anemic automobile infrastructure (small tunnels, narrow espressways, lack of blvds). also feels more than vaguely east asian/chinese with the spread of highrises, really bad/weird traffic chokepoints, good/clean transit, and chinese language signs on farms, etc but with crystalline air. it may be one of the most disorienting (in a general sense) places in north american ive been both physically (when i was driving across the plain i wasnt sure which skyline to move towards) and in other ways.

its sort of super-global feel almost superceeding its pacific north american foundation. like its disconnectedly hovering over itself.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Acajack

In more than a few skyline shots, Vancouver could be mistaken for a bigger city than Montreal.

Vancouver has a lot of apartment towers, so I guess it does make the skyline look more filled out. But other than that it doesn't feel like a city that's larger than Pittsburgh, IMO. They feel about the same size on the ground.

I think some of the explanation for why Canadian cities have more towers is simple timing. Cities in North America that have grown a lot post-1970 have built more towers in general. Canadian cities, except maybe Montreal, have grown in tandem with American Sun Belt cities.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by goat314

I disagree, St. Louis and Pittsburgh both feel like their respective sizes from an American perspective. Also, outside of the West End Vancouver looks like typical Pacific Northwest suburbia.

I was referring to just the skyline, but yes..No doubt on the ground they probably do feel similar..You simply can't make a city "feel bigger" then what it really is, unless you have endless events..Calgary most definitely would feel about it's true size on the ground, but through pics it's skyline compares to metros of 3m+.

Originally Posted by Acajack

In more than a few skyline shots, Vancouver could be mistaken for a bigger city than Montreal.

I agree, but at the right angles you could really see the heft of Montreal's skyline..It's fairly deep, and looks about right for it's size IMO.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think some of the explanation for why Canadian cities have more towers is simple timing. Cities in North America that have grown a lot post-1970 have built more towers in general. Canadian cities, except maybe Montreal, have grown in tandem with American Sun Belt cities.

But have Sun Belt cities really built a lot of towers? My impression is that, Miami aside, Sun Belt cities are remarkable for how fast they've grown and how few highrises they've thrown up (from a Canadian perspective).

Also, Montreal is now growing at Sun Belt levels (I think it's among the 10 fastest growing metros in all of the US and Canada), and they're putting up a lot of highrises. What they lack in height, they're making up in quantity - particularly in the 10-20 storey range.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

But have Sun Belt cities really built a lot of towers? My impression is that, Miami aside, Sun Belt cities are remarkable for how fast they've grown and how few highrises they've thrown up (from a Canadian perspective).

Places like Austin and Charlotte are building a lot of towers.

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Also, Montreal is now growing at Sun Belt levels (I think it's among the 10 fastest growing metros in all of the US and Canada), and they're putting up a lot of highrises. What they lack in height, they're making up in quantity - particularly in the 10-20 storey range.

Yeah, it makes sense that they are building because Montreal is growing fast again. If Cleveland, Pittsburgh, or Detroit were growing fast right now there would be a ton of towers going up in those cities.

[mhays]

"A lot" means something very different in TO/V vs. equivalent US cities.