News   May 17, 2024
Masterplanned Community Proposed Near Northfield ION in Waterloo
 2.9K     5 
News   May 17, 2024
Sevoy's 1515 Pickering Parkway to Join Pickering's Growing Downtown
 2.1K     3 
News   May 17, 2024
Canada’s Most Important Transit Oriented Development
 11K     10 

Planned Sprawl in the GTA

Based on your formula, the family would save $1000 a month on mortgage payments. However they will likely need a second car, which is at least another $300-400 dollars a month plus the increased cost of commuting. There have been studies that show the costs are in fact similar if not higher to live in the suburbs. That doesn't include the value of time, which people in Canada seem to not value much. Commuting for 60-90 mins each way is a horrible waste of time. Living in a big house but not having the time to use it outside of weekends.

I much prefer the more sensible European approach to cities where people live in apartments close to work/school/services and have a country house or cottage outside the city for weekend visits or vacation.

The suburbs are an awful compromise. You're tightly packed in with little greenery or space between houses. You must drive everywhere. There are few things walking distance. The new yards are city size. Yet the huge space inside the house today is wasted with stuff not needed. It's not very sustainable to me.

James said:
I think one of the problems is that moving out to suburbs is still more financially viable for the majority of people out there. Consider the difference between buying a home in Toronto for, say, $1M versus a house in the suburbs for $750k. Based on a 20% down payment, the $1M will set you back roughly $4,000/mth in mortgage payments versus the $750k house setting you back $3,000/mth, with all other home related costs being equal. That $1,000/month difference can still make sense despite the additional costs of commuting, car insurance, etc. One major downside, of course, is time. That said, a lot of people are still willing to de-value their personal time and trade that time for a bigger house in a quiet residential neighborhood.
Click to expand...
 
^ You definitely don't need to convince me! I love living in the city and wouldn't have it any other way.

I've read those studies as well but I think some of the stated figures are a little under-represented. A lot of people aren't deciding between a house in the suburbs and a condo in the city. They want to live in the city, but they want to live in a decent-sized detached 2-storey single family home in central Toronto, which would actually be $2M+. Contrast those figures to a new detached single family home in the suburbs (and by suburbs, I don't mean Richmond Hill) that might be in the $1M range and now you're talking a monthly mortgage payment of $8,000+/mth versus $4,000/mth. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people are still willing to take on an additional car, additional costs, live in a cookie cutter neighborhood and increase their daily commuting time, just to have that 2-car garage, manicured lawn and white picket fence.
 
I think it's important to remember who's being squeezed here. The people who are trying to decide between a $2m home in Leaside vs a $1m home in Mississauga are probably going to have 2 cars regardless of where they live. And will likely be commuting by GO transit from the suburbs if they work downtown.

The lower-middle class/squeezed middle class family that's looking at more affordable houses in Brampton, Milton, Durham may very well be spending less than the average of $10,000 per year on their cars. If they take GO transit, driving to the GO parking lot and grocery isn't going to add much expenses, it was about 5-10,000 km per year for my parents who did that so about $600 for gas, $1000 for insurance, if it's a reliable economy car that you drive until you can't, depreciation is maybe $1000 per year, maintenance $800 so about $3500 per year. Oh and parking is free, unlike in the core where you often have to pay, because most families, even in the city, will still have at least one car. GO transit will cost about $1000-1500 more than TTC though.

So either you pay an extra $5000 a year on transportation or an extra $300k for a 3-4 bedroom 1500-2000 sf home on a piece of land that you own. Sure you can save some time commuting by living in the city, but you aren't going to get a refund for the time you save and when you can barely afford your house in the suburbs, you're not going to pay an extra $10k+ per year to save 30-45 min a day in commuting.

That's just one set of circumstances, which is nuclear family type households earning $60-100k per year.

You also have smaller households - empty nesters, young singles and young couples with no kids, and then you have the larger multi-generational households. You have the lower income households, single parents, recent immigrants, people working entry level service sector jobs. And then you have the higher income upper middle class and upper class households. All of these can be found in the suburbs, and they each have different reasons for being there.

Another thing to remember though is that most suburbanites don't work downtown. For example, only 4% of Brampton's workers work in downtown Toronto. Commuting by cars within the suburbs isn't that bad compared to by transit in the core, so overall the average commute for suburbanites isn't actually longer.
2014-06-30-Commutetimes.png

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2014-06-30-Commutetimes.png

That might start to change as industrial employment which was quite big in the suburbs has been faltering for the last decade, and white collar employment is shifting back to downtown.

Regarding the "just live in a smaller home" argument. It's not clear how fair that is. If you look at the census data, which gives both average # of rooms per housing unit and average household size down to the census tract level, they're more closely correlated to income than to location.

Examples

Beaches-East York: 5.4 rooms, 2.3 HH size, 2.35 rooms/HH
Spadina-Fort York: 3.8 rooms, 1.7 HH size, 2.24 rooms/HH
Davenport: 5.3 rooms, 2.5 HH size, 2.12 rooms/HH
Toronto Centre: 3.5 rooms, 1.7 HH size, 2.06 rooms/HH
Toronto Danforth: 5.3 rooms, 2.3 HH size, 2.30 rooms/HH

Mississauga: 6.3 rooms, 3.0 HH size, 2.10 rooms/HH
Markham: 6.9 rooms, 3.3 HH size, 2.09 rooms/HH
Ajax: 7.1 rooms, 3.1 HH size, 2.29 rooms/HH
Milton: 7.4 rooms, 3.0 HH size, 2.47 rooms/HH
Brampton: 6.7 rooms, 3.5 HH size, 1.91 rooms/HH

Easy to live in a 1-2 bedroom apartment when you have no kids, but when you adjust for household sizes, residents of the urban core do not seem to be trading space for location.
 
Cheap Gas, More Driving Make 2016 an Especially Deadly Year on U.S. Streets

From link.

Screen-Shot-2016-08-26-at-10.03.00-AM.png


The number of traffic deaths in America each year is so staggering, it almost defies comprehension — about 35,000 lives lost is the norm. But 2016 is shaping up to be even worse.

Emma Kilkelly at Mobilizing the Region reports on newly-released data from the first half of 2016 showing a disturbing increase in traffic deaths:

The National Safety Council (NSC) recently estimated that motor vehicle fatalities rose 9 percent in the first six months of 2016 compared to 2015, and 18 percent compared to 2014. At this rate, 2016 is shaping up to be the deadliest year for driving since 2007. This Labor Day weekend is on track to be the nation’s deadliest since 2008, with 438 fatalities projected over the three-day period.

The jump in traffic fatalities coincides with sinking gas prices and an uptick in driving. During the first half of 2016, U.S. motorists collectively drove 3.3 percent more compared to last year, reaching 1.58 trillion miles traveled. The recent upswing in miles driven has been linked to the availability of cheap gas and a sharp increase in traffic deaths.

Pedestrians and bicyclists already account for more than one in four traffic deaths in New York and New Jersey, and fifteen percent in Connecticut. In New Jersey alone, traffic deaths surged 12 percent during the first half of 2016. The number of bicyclists killed in New York City so far in 2016 has already exceeded the total number of fatalities in 2015.

The need for safer streets is clear, but not every community is answering the call.

The American traffic fatality rate was already far worse than peer nations, and now the gap is probably even wider. As Deborah Hersman of the National Safety Council said, “Our complacency is killing us.”

Elsewhere on the Network today: Amateur Planner explains how a maddeningly indirect bus route in the Boston area got to be so “wiggly.” Cyclelicious relays a news item that erroneously blamed a 12-year-old bicycle rider for making a school bus driver veer into a ditch. And Transport Providence considers how much safer and more pleasant the city could be if it were willing to sacrifice a few parking spaces.
Click to expand...
 
Memph said:
The data seems to contradict their conclusions. The increase in fatalities is much larger than the increase in driving, so there seems to be something else going on.
Click to expand...

The way the the graphs are drawn just makes it look that way. There was almost 10% increases for both rate of fatalities and driving.
 
doady said:
The way the the graphs are drawn just makes it look that way. There was almost 10% increases for both rate of fatalities and driving.
Click to expand...
Nope, the graph confirms what I said. The graph doesn't show how much the amount of driving increased, only how much the rate of fatalities per miles driven increased. For some reason, driving x amount of miles seems to be 10% more likely to cause an accident in 2016 vs 2014.
 
Memph said:
Nope, the graph confirms what I said. The graph doesn't show how much the amount of driving increased, only how much the rate of fatalities per miles driven increased. For some reason, driving x amount of miles seems to be 10% more likely to cause an accident in 2016 vs 2014.
Click to expand...

Oh I see what you mean now. I was confused by the graph there.

But still, just because one variable causes a second variable to change, does that mean the effect always has to be directly proportional?

For example, it could be that more people driving has an exponential effect on the safety of cyclists and pedestrians (which as the article notes accounts for 1/4 of deaths). The more and more that cyclists and pedestrians disappear (either because of death or switching to car), the more and more unsafe it becomes for those that remain. Because safety for cyclists and pedestrians is not just about the amount of cars on the streets but also the amount of cyclists and pedestrians on the street (i.e. "safety in numbers").
 
Memph said:
I think it's important to remember who's being squeezed here. The people who are trying to decide between a $2m home in Leaside vs a $1m home in Mississauga are probably going to have 2 cars regardless of where they live. And will likely be commuting by GO transit from the suburbs if they work downtown.

The lower-middle class/squeezed middle class family that's looking at more affordable houses in Brampton, Milton, Durham may very well be spending less than the average of $10,000 per year on their cars. If they take GO transit, driving to the GO parking lot and grocery isn't going to add much expenses, it was about 5-10,000 km per year for my parents who did that so about $600 for gas, $1000 for insurance, if it's a reliable economy car that you drive until you can't, depreciation is maybe $1000 per year, maintenance $800 so about $3500 per year. Oh and parking is free, unlike in the core where you often have to pay, because most families, even in the city, will still have at least one car. GO transit will cost about $1000-1500 more than TTC though.

So either you pay an extra $5000 a year on transportation or an extra $300k for a 3-4 bedroom 1500-2000 sf home on a piece of land that you own. Sure you can save some time commuting by living in the city, but you aren't going to get a refund for the time you save and when you can barely afford your house in the suburbs, you're not going to pay an extra $10k+ per year to save 30-45 min a day in commuting.

That's just one set of circumstances, which is nuclear family type households earning $60-100k per year.

You also have smaller households - empty nesters, young singles and young couples with no kids, and then you have the larger multi-generational households. You have the lower income households, single parents, recent immigrants, people working entry level service sector jobs. And then you have the higher income upper middle class and upper class households. All of these can be found in the suburbs, and they each have different reasons for being there.

Another thing to remember though is that most suburbanites don't work downtown. For example, only 4% of Brampton's workers work in downtown Toronto. Commuting by cars within the suburbs isn't that bad compared to by transit in the core, so overall the average commute for suburbanites isn't actually longer.
2014-06-30-Commutetimes.png

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2014-06-30-Commutetimes.png

That might start to change as industrial employment which was quite big in the suburbs has been faltering for the last decade, and white collar employment is shifting back to downtown.

Regarding the "just live in a smaller home" argument. It's not clear how fair that is. If you look at the census data, which gives both average # of rooms per housing unit and average household size down to the census tract level, they're more closely correlated to income than to location.

Examples

Beaches-East York: 5.4 rooms, 2.3 HH size, 2.35 rooms/HH
Spadina-Fort York: 3.8 rooms, 1.7 HH size, 2.24 rooms/HH
Davenport: 5.3 rooms, 2.5 HH size, 2.12 rooms/HH
Toronto Centre: 3.5 rooms, 1.7 HH size, 2.06 rooms/HH
Toronto Danforth: 5.3 rooms, 2.3 HH size, 2.30 rooms/HH

Mississauga: 6.3 rooms, 3.0 HH size, 2.10 rooms/HH
Markham: 6.9 rooms, 3.3 HH size, 2.09 rooms/HH
Ajax: 7.1 rooms, 3.1 HH size, 2.29 rooms/HH
Milton: 7.4 rooms, 3.0 HH size, 2.47 rooms/HH
Brampton: 6.7 rooms, 3.5 HH size, 1.91 rooms/HH

Easy to live in a 1-2 bedroom apartment when you have no kids, but when you adjust for household sizes, residents of the urban core do not seem to be trading space for location.
Click to expand...

I think there are, as one would expect, a variety of motivations and issues as to where people choose to live.

I personally prefer the City, and I think many younger suburban kids/millennials feel the same way.

But yes, cost-of-housing, be it single-family detached or otherwise is a problem, and in so far as you simply need 3 bedrooms, those are harder to come by in the City and the cost, in condo form, may well exceed that single-family detached in the burbs.

****

That said I don't think it serves anyone well to see this as either/or.

Toronto (proper) has lots of room for more single-family homes by redeveloping select areas.

Imagine redeveloping the areas at the edge of the Bridal Path. I don't mean the 10M+ mansions; but the 1-2M homes that abut said real estate.

Most of their lots are large enough to accommodate a 3 for 1 swap, while still providing large yards by the standards of today's burbs.

That makes the land cost, let's say, $500,000 per home, assuming a developer cost of $250,000 for construction of each home, the new homes could be sold at a healthy profit at $1.25M each.

That's not affordable, but a drastic increase in supply at that price point, in that area, will force down the cost of older, less desirable stock.

Moreover, if the City/Province were involved, allowing a total re-arrangement of the road grid, it should be possible to increase the ratio to 4:1 while maintaining relatively large lots.

This could bring prices under the 1M mark in that area, and suppress pricing in less desirable areas, by as much as 25%

I realize the serious political challenges is such a move, and am not suggesting, at least in that area, its all that realistic.

But there are a variety of other areas where some creative re-planning could offer a reasonable effort at more space inside a home (family-friendly) with a modest back yard, but within financial reach of the majority.

****

On the other hand, there is a need to adjust expectations and accommodate those w/less room.

Its always struck me as funny than many new Toronto area homes, have a living room, a family room and a rec room and sometimes an office too.

That's a lot of non-bedroom/bathroom/kitchen/dining space, far more than most folks on Earth have and rather more than needed.

At the same time, if we ask people to do w/less sq. feet; we have to make that practical. A smaller kitchen, means a smaller fridge, and fewer cupboards.

That means a need to grocery shop more often, which means less Costco and more neighbourhood market.

It also means efficient cupboard layouts that don't waste space (back of lower cupboards for most people, or highest upper).

Fewer bathrooms means educating families not to freak out that someone can be in the shower, while someone else is getting ready for work/school

It means having outfitters at major provincial/national parks that rent all the equipment you need when you're up there, rather than having to own it all for 1-3 trips per year.

Less space for cars, means a need for more walkable journeys to stores and schools and much better transit.

And various other space-saving moves (retractable TV anyone?)

If the powers that be focus some energy on making smaller living easier; while making bigger living a bit more affordable inside the City......the shift away from sprawl can be accelerated.
 
salsa said:
Neptis report concludes that lack of land supply is not to blame for rising home prices. Only 20% of the land available for housing has been developed in the last 10 years.

https://www.thestar.com/business/20...ot-to-blame-for-rising-home-prices-study.html
Click to expand...

Developers claim they haven't developed this land because the lands aren't serviced by utilities, such as water. But it has historically been the responsibility of developers to pay the capital costs to have their developments serviced.

From what I understand, it costs around $70,000 per household for a typical sized development to be connected to utilities. On top of that, it costs around $350,000 to $400,000 to build a new home (from what people in construction have told me). So we're looking at at least $420,000 to build a new home, and that doesn't even include land acquisition costs and various ancillary costs. So my theory about the historically low supply of new homes is that the value of these homes would not exceed the costs of building them, meaning that developers will not be willing to develop on these lands. This also would explain the rising costs of detached homes, since we have low supply with a large amount of buyers in the market. It seems that people might not be willing to pay the prices necessary to build homes on these lands. Any thoughts?
 
^not really. Municipalities put in the servicing for lands, and finance it with development fees. Developers have no input, especially not on the large lake access sewers that they dig up from Lake Ontario. There are rules about municipalities keeping a 3 year supply of serviced land for a reason.

the only infrastructure the developers actually build are the sewers within the subdivision. The initial servicing projects are run by the municipality. Developers pay around $70,000 in development fees per unit for detached, depending on the unit and municipality. On top of that is land costs, cost of building the house, and the cost of installing the infrastructure within the subdivision itself. It is important to remember however that these developments are also very long term projects, with several years before the developers get returns. Even with 20% profit margins, they are spread over a 4 year development period (actually much longer, but most spending is towards the end of the development cycle) meaning the profit margins get slimmer in terms of annual return.
 
I assumed the $70,000 referred to the cost of the infrastructure within the subdivision itself. Development fees are not quite as high as $70,000 afaik.

How do you think other areas are able to build housing at lower costs then? A new suburban 3 bedroom detached house is about $400-450k in Edmonton, $300-350k in London and cheaper still in the United States, like about $120-150k in Indianapolis. Meanwhile in Toronto's suburbs such a house would cost $600k in Brampton or Durham, and $900k to $1m in York.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top