Suburban Skylines

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

It's not needed to build 40 plus storeys with 400 plus units at the densities in suburban Vancouver and, to a lesser extent, Toronto. It's entirely a product of exorbitant values after 20 years of real estate speculation and institutional investors that finance billion dollar projects and also buy up huge blocks of suites/ buildings in no time. Few are going to invest years into selling and financing one tower when the only market are end users. They are going to break it up into smaller, more manageable phases.

Ya the projects that sell-out before they can even get a sales centre up aren't made up of second/third-generation+ Canadians. Cut off the cash-rich investors who are willing to lease the units to said longer-term residents and you're development timeline gets stretched out as end users actually have to scrounge up a downpayment, mortgage financing, etc. Doubtful an 80 floor tower gets built in Downtown Mississauga under those conditions.

[toddguy]

Trying to be objective as possible, and Vancouver wins the suburban skylines thread.

[samne]

Originally Posted by dleung

In Toronto, yes I've seen many elementary school kids in the city around 10 years old take the bus/subway/streetcar to school unaccompanied. From their conversations, they seem smarter and more well-adjusted than the kids in the suburban areas where some of my company's work is situated.

I was taking the subway in middle school and in high school which is very common.

[Centropolis]

mostly up to date skyline shot of clayton (missouri), except the crane is down but another is about to go up. last i checked, clayton was exceeding downtown fort worth in class a office space, to put it into perspective with "real" downtowns.


en.phorio.com

[dc_denizen]

Everyone in Philadelphia, nyc, dc, sf, Portland, Boston, Chicago will have experience taking transit from an early age. This whole argument is a straw man

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Real estate is one of the largest employers in either city. That's a load that development wouldn't be greatly affected if the bubble were to burst one day to the next. The scale and scope of development would be significantly smaller and shorter once the dust has settled and the economy started recovering.

It's not needed to build 40 plus storeys with 400 plus units at the densities in suburban Vancouver and, to a lesser extent, Toronto. It's entirely a product of exorbitant values after 20 years of real estate speculation and institutional investors that finance billion dollar projects and also buy up huge blocks of suites/ buildings in no time. Few are going to invest years into selling and financing one tower when the only market are end users. They are going to break it up into smaller, more manageable phases.

This is exactly it

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by samne

I was taking the subway in middle school and in high school which is very common.

i took a public transit bus to high school in suburban chicago, as did hundreds of my fellow classmates.

i went to a K-8 catholic grammar school 4 blocks from my childhood home, so i just walked/biked that distance. there's no need for transit to go a mere 1/2 mile.

7th grade was when i was allowed to ride the el into the city unsupervised with friends.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i took a public transit bus to high school in suburban chicago, as did hundreds of my fellow classmates.

i went to a K-8 catholic grammar school 4 blocks from my childhood home, so i just walked/biked that distance. there's no need for transit to go a mere 1/2 mile.

7th grade was when i was allowed to ride the el into the city unsupervised with friends.

Because Gen-X. We wandered everywhere as kids...

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by toddguy

Trying to be objective as possible, and Vancouver wins the suburban skylines thread.

I'll say Miami could give it a run for its money. Both are above many other cities/metros.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by jd3189

I'll say Miami could give it a run for its money. Both are above many other cities/metros.

Sorry, but it's Toronto by a long short

[Nite]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

This is exactly it

Toronto needs to find housing for 100,000 to 150,000 people each year.
So where would the housing come from if we don't continue to build up since we can't build out anymore?
Removing foreign investors would not change this fact, hence why without them we would still be building at the current pace.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

Because Gen-X. We wandered everywhere as kids...

Hence, Stranger Things.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Nite

Toronto needs to find housing for 100,000 to 150,000 people each year.
So where would the housing come from if we don't continue to build up since we can't build out anymore?

Even if you banned new construction, a very slight increase in existing household size would account for the additional people. And new immigrants and babies aren't driving new construction housing anyways.

Also, there's nothing forcing anyone to "build up". You can easily build the same densities at 5-7 floors as at 50 floors. Paris achieves much higher density with almost no highrises.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Hence, Stranger Things.

Yup. I was roughly the same age as the kids depicted in that show and it was pretty dead on.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by Nite

Toronto needs to find housing for 100,000 to 150,000 people each year.
So where would the housing come from if we don't continue to build up since we can't build out anymore?
Removing foreign investors would not change this fact, hence why without them we would still be building at the current pace.

There would likely be more purpose-built rental and more condos at a smaller scale. Even the population growth that Toronto experiences doesn't dictate a logical jump from SFH to 60+ storey suburban towers. The GTA could still intensify a whole lot of areas by building batches of 12-storey apartments. Cash-rich investors let developers skip that step and make more money building to ridiculous heights in ridiculous locations.

I don't think there would be the appetite to eat the holding costs of sitting on massive expensive lots waiting twice as long for a market full of actual end-users to hit pre-sales targets on something like M City Condos in Mississauga. Population growth is great, but in a vacuum it doesn't tell you about development patterns without considering demographics, developer profiles, market conditions, etc.

There is also still traditional subdivision growth as well, even if it has slowed down as the urban area becomes more constrained by the green belt.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by Nite

Sorry, but it's Toronto by a long short

Oh, forgot about Toronto. I haven't been there yet to know.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Also, there's nothing forcing anyone to "build up". You can easily build the same densities at 5-7 floors as at 50 floors. Paris achieves much higher density with almost no highrises.

For new greenfield development at the edge of the urban area sure. The suburban condo hotspots in the GTA are mostly around established "downtowns" or transit stops where land is not freely available though. You can't really economically level a couple square kilometers of SFH in Mississauga that sell at $1 million+ a pop to build Paris-type density. Once that initial layer of low-density residential is established is becomes hard to fully convert to something mid-rise with the nature of home ownership preferences and property rights.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

For new greenfield development at the edge of the urban area sure. The suburban condo hotspots in the GTA are mostly around established "downtowns" or transit stops where land is not freely available though. You can't really economically level a couple square kilometers of SFH in Mississauga that sell at $1 million+ a pop to build Paris-type density. Once that initial layer of low-density residential is established is becomes hard to fully convert to something mid-rise with the nature of home ownership preferences and property rights.

i'm always a bit amazed at suburban toronto's appetite for tall towers. you have so many areas of SFH's and then there will be a cluster of 30+ story towers looming over the houses at the end of the street.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7708...7i16384!8i8192

that kinda things would just not ever fly in suburban chicago. i don't understand how there isn't more NIMBY push-back against it in toronto. in 99% of suburban chicagoland, highrise/skyscraper proposals are so unilaterally DOA that they are hardly ever even proposed in the first place.

across the thousands of sq. miles that constitute suburban chicagoland, there are only like 20 buildings that rise above 200', and most of those are clustered in a small handful of places like downtown evanston and schaumburg, whereas in suburban toronto you have hundreds upon hundreds (perhaps thousands?) of such buildings.

it's a really interesting phenomenon from my perspective.

[toddguy]

Originally Posted by Nite

Sorry, but it's Toronto by a long short

Well I still favor Vancouver because of the natural scenery and topography-it just "sells" the skyscraper skyline clusters more to me. Toronto is amazing though. These are probably one and two for me.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i'm always a bit amazed at suburban toronto's appetite for tall towers. you have so many areas of SFH's and then there will be a cluster of 30+ story towers looming over the houses at the end of the street.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7708...7i16384!8i8192

that kinda things would just not ever fly in suburban chicago. i don't understand how there isn't more NIMBY push-back against it in toronto. in 99% of suburban chicagoland, highrise/skyscraper proposals are so unilaterally DOA that they are hardly ever even proposed in the first place.

across the thousands of sq. miles that constitute suburban chicagoland, there are only like 20 buildings that rise above 200', and most of those are clustered in a small handful of places like downtown evanston and schaumburg, whereas in suburban toronto you have hundreds upon hundreds (perhaps thousands?) of such buildings.

it's a really interesting phenomenon from my perspective.

Looks very similar to Wilshire Blvd. in west LA:

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0628...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0573...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0625...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0623...7i16384!8i8192