News   Nov 11, 2019
 13     0 
News   Nov 11, 2019
 372     1 
News   Nov 11, 2019
 1K     2 

Planned Sprawl in the GTA

MisterF

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,120
Reaction score
1,321
I should also say that in the US the real best selling car is the F-150, while in Canada it's the Civic (albeit the F-150 is close behind).
The best selling vehicle in Canada is the F150, with more than twice as many sold as the Civic. The Ram sells more than the Civic too. Cars make up 5 of the top 15 vehicles: the Civic, Corolla, Elantra, Mazda3, and Cruze. Canadians do buy more compacts than Americans; all our top selling cars are compacts while down there they buy mostly midsize. And they're even more into pickup trucks than we are.

The F Series are also the best selling vehicle worldwide, although not by the same margins as in North America.
 
Last edited:

MisterF

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,120
Reaction score
1,321
The f150 isn't really sold outside of North America no? the Ranger is Fords international pickup.
As of 2018, outside of the United States, Canada, and Mexico, the Ford F-150 is officially sold in most Caribbean countries(except Trinidad and Tobago, Saint Kitts and Nevis and Cuba), Suriname, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, the Middle East (including Afghanistan), Iceland, Angola, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Madagascar, the Dutch territories of Aruba, Curaçao, Saint Maarten and the British overseas territory of the Cayman Islands.

From Wikipedia (can't find a way to link to the Wikipedia website from the app)
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
15,382
Reaction score
4,326
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
From elsewhere in the world...

Single-Family Zoning Is an Urban Dinosaur

Minneapolis just banned the exclusionary zoning, a step more cities must take to increase density and spur growth.

From link.

The city of Minneapolis just launched a quiet revolution when the city council voted to abolish single-family zoning. This is an excellent move. Cities around the country should follow suit.

Single-family zoning laws say that the only thing you can build in these areas area are homes designed to accommodate one family. Most of these rules mandate large lot sizes, providing space for lawns, garages and setbacks from the street and neighboring properties. These rules also usually contain height limitations -- say three stories at most. Thus, single-family zoning reduces urban density, limiting the number of people who can live in a city.

This low density is bad for the U.S. economy. In recent decades, economic activity has become increasingly concentrated in cities. There’s a deep, fundamental reason for that. As manufacturing has become more automated, the drivers of the economy have shifted toward knowledge industries like software, medicine, finance and various high-tech fields. These industries require large concentrations of smart workers to function.
If cities fail to accommodate this major economic change, the boom in knowledge-based industries will be self-limiting. Even Google employees in the San Franciso Bay area have trouble affording housing near their workplace, causing the tech giant to look into the possibility of building them small, cheap apartments. Single-family zoning precludes such apartments, and generally limits the supply of housing in dense urban areas, thus increasing costs for both renters and first-time homebuyers. That may be choking off the drivers of U.S. growth.

Single-family zoning is also bad for economic equality. It makes it a lot harder for people of modest means to live in a thriving area, since these people tend only be able to afford apartments, townhouses or other smaller or multifamily dwellings. Blue-collar workers aren’t just being priced out of the country’s increasingly productive cities -- they’re being prevented from moving there in search of better opportunities. Urbanist Richard Florida refers to this in his book "The New Urban Crisis."

There’s also a racial dimension to the inequality that exclusionary zoning creates. Black families, which tend to earn less money, are kept out of white neighborhoods by their inability to afford the sprawling homes that cities mandate be built there. In fact, single-family zoning might have even been invented for just this purpose, as part of a large raft of approaches that cities used to keep higher-earning whites segregated from generally lower-earning black residents after race-based zoning was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1917. Eliminating this zoning is thus one important step on the road to integration.

Denser housing will also be good for the environment, as well as for human safety and happiness. Low-density cities, like the ones the U.S. tends to build, require lots of driving, which increases emissions of carbon and other pollutants, not to mention the risk of crashes. Urban sprawl contributes to habitat loss. In warm, dry states like California, sprawl also raises the risk of property damage and death from wildfires. Long commutes are also a source of unhappiness.

So for a number of reasons -- economic growth, racial and class equality, environmental protection and human happiness -- cities need to become denser. Minneapolis is leading the way. The city’s new plan even goes beyond simply banning one exclusive form of zoning by eliminating off-street parking requirements for new houses. And it allocates $40 million for subsidizing low-income housing and combatting homelessness.

The great hope is that Minneapolis will be the first of a flood of cities to eliminate the exclusionary housing policies of the past century. Cities that make housing more affordable will become more attractive for young knowledge workers, which in turn makes them more attractive for high-value companies. Accommodative housing policy is therefore a better bet for luring investment than offering lavish corporate incentives. Also, creating more places for blue-collar workers to live, and allowing them to move alongside wealthier city residents, will probably be good for the approval ratings of politicians that move against exclusionary zoning.

There’s also hope that national politicians will help prod cities to make the change. U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren has a new plan that would give block grants to cities that eliminate exclusionary zoning. Even Ben Carson, secretary of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, has suggested similar ideas.

Will allowing density trigger a new wave of white flight to the suburbs, starving cities of resources, as happened in the 1960s and 1970s? There are reasons to think that this time will be different. Crime rates are way down in most U.S. cities, near historic lows. And evidence shows that white Americans are much more willing to move to (and remain in) mixed-race neighborhoods than they were in previous generations.

So onward with urban density and the fight against exclusionary zoning. When the history of the new urban revival is written, Minneapolis may earn pride of place as the first city to make this necessary change.
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
15,382
Reaction score
4,326
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
Not going to happen in Ontario, under Doug Ford watch.

Could Oregon Become the First State to Ban Single-Family Zoning?
Rep. Tina Kotek (D-Portland), speaker of the Oregon House, is drafting legislation that would end single-family zoning in cities of 10,000 or more: "The state’s housing crisis requires a combination of bolder strategies."

From link.

Legislation being drafted in Oregon could become the nation's most dramatic effort to address the housing shortages and economic and racial segregation caused by zoning restrictions.

WW has learned that Oregon House Speaker Tina Kotek (D-Portland) is drafting a proposal that would require cities larger than 10,000 people to allow up to four homes to be built on land currently zoned exclusively for single-family housing.

"The state's housing crisis requires a combination of bolder strategies," says Kotek in a statement. "Oregon needs to build more units, and we must do so in a way that increases housing opportunity for more people. Allowing more diverse housing types in single family neighborhoods will increase housing choice and affordability, and that's a fight that I'm willing to take on."


"In a bold move to address its affordable-housing crisis and confront a history of racist housing practices, Minneapolis has decided to eliminate single-family zoning, a classification that has long perpetuated segregation," reported The New York Times on Dec. 13.

Portland has been dithering for more than four years on a related proposal for what's called "middle housing" that recently was delayed once again. This time, the delay is until the summer. Under Portland's proposal, as currently drafted, four units would be allowed in 96 percent of the cities' single family neighborhoods.

The city effort has proved controversial, attracting fierce opposition from neighborhood groups interested in preserving suburban-style housing even in urban cores.

But champions of zoning reform say allowing smaller dwellings or breaking up single-family homes into multiple units creates more housing and the chance to make housing more affordable in pricey neighborhoods.

Reversing those zoning restrictions could go a long way toward addressing the need for more housing, experts argue.

"The crux of the matter is land is the scarce commodity here," Oregon state economist Josh Lehner said this week, in a blog post arguing for exploring this type of change. "Outside of lava flows and seawalls, we're not making more of it. As a region grows, so too does housing demand which places upward pressure on housing costs."

Zoning reform could also address the economic and racial segregation of single-family neighborhoods.

The economic segregation of Portland neighborhoods matches neatly with its single-family zoning, and a segregationist history informed those restrictions, Sightline Institute's Michael Andersen wrote earlier this year.

"There are a few ways for a neighborhood in the Portland of 2018 to be reserved mostly for the well-off," he wrote. "But one of the most effective ways seems to be 'ban attached housing in 1924′"—the year Portland enacted its first single-family zoning.

Kotek's legislation is currently being drafted, but her official concept for the legislation sets a deadline of 16 months for cities to come up with a plan to allow for duplexes, triplex, quads as well as so-called housing "clusters." It applies only to cities of 10,000 or more within an urban-growth boundary.

The November's election, when Democrats won more seats in both houses of the Oregon Legislature, ensured that housing will play a key part in the legislative agenda next year, particularly a new attempt to pass tenant protections including an end to no-cause evictions and an overturn of the state's ban on rent control.

This proposal goes toward the other side of the equation, by addressing a root cause of rent increases—the failure to build enough housing stock to address the shortfall of affordable units.

Critics of Portland's proposal are likely to offer the same objection to Kotek's efforts: They fear it will cause the pace of demolitions to rise.

Kotek attempts to address that concern by proposing changes to the state's building code, which would allow single family homes to be divided more easily into multiple dwellings.

In his blog post this week, Lehner discusses the long-delayed Portland proposal and it's possible for Oregon to achieve major results from one policy change.

"By simply allowing for — not requiring — townhomes and triplexes to be built on existing lands in the City of Portland, the policy can accommodate 1 out of every 7 new Portland area households in the coming decade," he writes. "That is a big finding."
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
15,382
Reaction score
4,326
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
It continues...

San Francisco Eliminates Parking Minimums

From link.

In a win for housing affordability and walkability, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors voted last week to eliminate the city’s minimum parking requirements.

The reform, approved by a 7-4 vote [PDF, page 7] last Tuesday, makes SF the latest city to dump antiquated rules that constitute a huge hidden subsidy for driving. Hartford, Buffalo and Minneapolis have all either moved to or done away with parking minimums in the last two years alone.

According to estimates by SF’s planning department, minimum parking rules add between $20-50,000 to the cost of an apartment in the city. They also undermine pedestrian safety, requiring dangerous driveways to be built in some of the most densely populated, walkable areas of the city. And they also contributes to traffic, encouraging residents to own private cars, instead of take the train or bus or bike.

The mandatory parking rules date back to the 1960s and required [PDF], for example, one parking space for every six classrooms at an elementary school. In some places, they require one parking space per housing unit.

San Francisco has allowed developers to skirt those regulations through a exemption process. But this reform will make it much cheaper and easier to build at a walkable scale in one of the nation’s most walkable cities.
 

jje1000

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
4,180
Reaction score
1,611
Not so much on the topic of sprawl, but good to see some significant growth in Ontario's secondary and tertiary population centres in 2017-2018- I hope this can help put some meat on their good urban bones. Prairie growth has slowed due to the oil/gas crisis, but I also wonder if population growth in non-GTA Ontario is driven by a combination of boomers downsizing, recent immigrants bypassing Toronto, and young people looking for cheaper homes beyond the GTA:


https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/190328/dq190328b-eng.htm?HPA=1
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,334
Not so much on the topic of sprawl, but good to see some significant growth in Ontario's secondary and tertiary population centres in 2017-2018- I hope this can help put some meat on their good urban bones. Alberta's growth has slowed due to the oil crisis, but I also wonder if population growth in non-GTA Ontario is driven by a combination of boomers downsizing, recent immigrants, and young people looking for cheaper homes:
Wow! I knew Peterborough was 'adapting away from heavy industry and agricultural products' and 'bouncing back' but had no idea it was top!

I was in Peterborough last year asking some new entrepreneurs there how they felt about things. They were surprisingly positive. One was a bike shop, the other a musical instrument shop. Now I know why. I've got a soft spot for the place, although I prefer south of there (Port Hope and Cobourg and locale, but their new 'mojo' is well ingrained, but that's incredibly good news! Cycling is well supported there, and it's indicative of a mind-set promoting livability and health, which ties directly into the 'transformation'.

K/W also has lessons for others.

Wow...I've got to go back and take another look.
 

jje1000

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
4,180
Reaction score
1,611
Wow! I knew Peterborough was 'adapting away from heavy industry and agricultural products' and 'bouncing back' but had no idea it was top!

I was in Peterborough asking some new entrepreneurs there how they felt about things. They were surprisingly positive. One was a bike shop, the other a musical instrument shop. Now I know why. I've got a soft spot for the place, although I prefer south of there (Port Hope and Cobourg and locale, but their new 'mojo' is well ingrained, but that's incredibly good news!
It's always good to see the rest of Ontario growing, considering that there's always this image that the rest of Ontario is anemic compared to Toronto.

Obviously I think this still rings true in Northern Ontario, but a strong, urbanizing SWO means a strong heartland for Toronto. Mid-sized Ontario cities are also not bad places to be in- obviously you don't get the spectacle that Toronto presents or authentic Thai food, but there increasingly enough to do, combined with a decent 'Main Street' feeling that's getting harder to find in Toronto.

That being said, Hamilton is growing far too slowly, but I chalk this up to their city government being anti-growth, rather than specific city economic issues.
 
Last edited:

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,334
Hamilton is growing far too slowly
This is counter-intuitive, as house prices are pretty much GTA level now, but consulting that chart, you're right. I'm going to do some digging to try and find out why.

Here's the dichotomy:
Hot Hamilton: Economic growth to outpace national average ...

https://www.investinhamilton.ca/hot-hamilton-economic-growth-outpace-national-ave...

“It's almost in the Top 10 and shows our growth has been consistent over the last few years,” he said. “The uptick on the manufacturing side is especially good ...
Report suggests Hamilton area will lead province in growth this year ...

https://www.investinhamilton.ca/report-suggests-hamilton-area-lead-province-growth-...

The Hamilton-Burlington economy will be the fastest growing in 2012 among Ontario cities tracked in a new Conference Board of Canada report. The region is ...
Hamilton plans long-term growth strategy for a future with 780,000 ...

https://www.hamiltonnews.com/.../9048317-hamilton-plans-long-term-growth-strateg...

Nov 23, 2018 - With Hamilton's population slated to hit 780,000 by 2041, the city is currently working on multiple plans related to residential growth.
Population growth in Hamilton slowing slightly, census shows | CBC ...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/hamilton-census-1.3971922

Feb 8, 2017 - That number puts Hamilton slightly behind the national average of 5 per cent growth — though Canada's numbers dipped on the whole as well, ...
- : First four Google hits for "Hamilton Ontario growth".

Just checked your chart for circa:
Population change by census metropolitan area (CMA), 2017/2018, Canada

This is interesting...
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,334
Interesting analysis:
This is compelling reading!
[...]
I suspect Windsor’s relatively strong results here are due to returning workers.
[...]
Ouch. There is a mass exodus of people out of Toronto CMA. Not surprisingly, many of them are winding up in adjacent CMAs like Barrie and Oshawa. But we’re seeing the population flows as far away as London. We saw this first hand when we sold our house in London back in 2017 — pretty much everyone who inquired about it was currently living in Toronto.

The population migration doesn’t seem to be stretching further Southwest than that — we’re not seeing big increases in Windsor or Chatham-Kent.
[...]
One theory I hear a great deal is that the people leaving Toronto are retired people who are “cashing out” of their high-value homes and moving to somewhere less expensive. Fortunately, StatCan has migration data by age. Turns out, there’s some truth to this theory:
[...]
One of the largest cohorts of net intraprovincial “leavers” is people in their late 50s. Interestingly, we don’t see much movement past the age of 70. If you don’t leave Toronto soon after you retire, you’re probably there for good.

The two biggest cohorts of leavers aren’t retired people at all — they’re people in their early 30s, along with kids under the age of 5. Reason is blindingly obvious: Families are getting priced out of Toronto. Between housing and daycare costs, young families simply can’t make a go of it in Toronto.

Around the world, jobs are increasingly clustering in big cities, due to agglomeration effects. We are increasingly seeing a disconnect between where the jobs are, and where people are moving to. It used to be that people would move to where the jobs are. In the United States, that process started slowing down around 1990. By 2010, that process ground to a halt. I believe we’re seeing the same thing in Ontario, if not worse — people are actively moving away from regions of employment growth.
[...]
https://medium.com/@MikePMoffatt/examining-the-exodus-out-of-toronto-b10384daffb5

That sure throws a 'modified wrench' into the surmise of this string!

"The two biggest cohorts of leavers aren’t retired people at all — they’re people in their early 30s, along with kids under the age of 5."
Wow!

And therein is I think another major factor to places like Peterborough being at the top of the chart. People moving there want a 'new start', even if the jobs aren't 'prime'. Their family values are, and that's what's ultimate for them. And credit to them! These are the people that a 'rejuvenated' burgh needs.

Another point: "Ouch. There is a mass exodus of people out of Toronto CMA.". Again, very counter-intuitive, but it's based on very good methodology. That has real implications for inward investment into housing in Toronto, and not in a positive way save for prices plateauing, if not falling.

Many thanks for this @jje1000 !
 

thettctransitfanatic

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 7, 2017
Messages
1,427
Reaction score
401
This is compelling reading!

https://medium.com/@MikePMoffatt/examining-the-exodus-out-of-toronto-b10384daffb5

That sure throws a 'modified wrench' into the surmise of this string!

"The two biggest cohorts of leavers aren’t retired people at all — they’re people in their early 30s, along with kids under the age of 5."
Wow!

And therein is I think another major factor to places like Peterborough being at the top of the chart. People moving there want a 'new start', even if the jobs aren't 'prime'. Their family values are, and that's what's ultimate for them. And credit to them! These are the people that a 'rejuvenated' burgh needs.

Another point: "Ouch. There is a mass exodus of people out of Toronto CMA.". Again, very counter-intuitive, but it's based on very good methodology. That has real implications for inward investment into housing in Toronto, and not in a positive way save for prices plateauing, if not falling.

Many thanks for this @jje1000 !
Windsor is far away from the jobs. People go where the jobs go as they say.
 

jje1000

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
4,180
Reaction score
1,611
Windsor is far away from the jobs. People go where the jobs go as they say.
It is close to Detroit and Michigan (which is doing pretty well) though, so even ignoring Windsor's own economy, I think there's still a crossborder economic connection (i.e. parts suppliers, logistics).

But then again it might not be for the jobs- interesting note from SSP:
Blitz said:
According to realtors in the area, there are two main things going on:
  1. Retirees from the GTA selling their homes and moving to Windsor to retire.
  2. Younger people who left Windsor during the auto downturn 10 years ago to move to Alberta are coming back home.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=8522171&postcount=11989
 
Last edited:

thettctransitfanatic

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 7, 2017
Messages
1,427
Reaction score
401

Top