It is a list of the densest downtowns in Canada (people per square kilometer). But to be more precise, it is a list of the densest primary downtowns for each census metropolitan area.
In the case of Toronto, for instance, it considers downtown Toronto, but it does not consider downtown Mississauga, downtown Brampton, or any other "downtowns" across the CMA. And in the case of Vancouver, it ignores important centers such as Burnaby.
Many were quick to point this out on Twitter and it is a fair comment. Our cities are often more polycentric than a chart like this might make it seem.
The other thing to consider is that these density numbers are dependent on what you assume as the boundary for each downtown. For downtown Vancouver it's a fair bit easier because it is a peninsula surrounded by water.
But for downtown Toronto, it's more nebulous. Where do you draw the line? In this case, Statistics Canada is using the same downtown boundary as what's in our Official Plan, but that happens to include the lower-density University of Toronto lands. So are we comparing apples to apples?
I don't know. But go Hamilton!
Here is an interesting housing chart from Ryerson University's Centre for Urban Research (CUR) using data from CMHC:
What it shows is (1) the number of new housing using created through the addition of secondary suites, such as basement apartments and laneway suites; (2) the number of housing units lost to demolition or "deconversions", such as when a duplex or triplex gets converted (back) to a single-family home; and then (3) the net new units added over the last three years.
Rachelle Younglai and Chen Wang's recent piece in the Globe and Mail on suburban household debt (in Canada) has a number of interesting stats. Here are some of them:
Looking at debt service ratios across the country, the most financially stressed neighborhoods in Canada are almost exclusively in the suburbs. (Map of the Greater Toronto Area shown at the top of this post. Data from Environics Analytics.)
It is a list of the densest downtowns in Canada (people per square kilometer). But to be more precise, it is a list of the densest primary downtowns for each census metropolitan area.
In the case of Toronto, for instance, it considers downtown Toronto, but it does not consider downtown Mississauga, downtown Brampton, or any other "downtowns" across the CMA. And in the case of Vancouver, it ignores important centers such as Burnaby.
Many were quick to point this out on Twitter and it is a fair comment. Our cities are often more polycentric than a chart like this might make it seem.
The other thing to consider is that these density numbers are dependent on what you assume as the boundary for each downtown. For downtown Vancouver it's a fair bit easier because it is a peninsula surrounded by water.
But for downtown Toronto, it's more nebulous. Where do you draw the line? In this case, Statistics Canada is using the same downtown boundary as what's in our Official Plan, but that happens to include the lower-density University of Toronto lands. So are we comparing apples to apples?
I don't know. But go Hamilton!
Here is an interesting housing chart from Ryerson University's Centre for Urban Research (CUR) using data from CMHC:
What it shows is (1) the number of new housing using created through the addition of secondary suites, such as basement apartments and laneway suites; (2) the number of housing units lost to demolition or "deconversions", such as when a duplex or triplex gets converted (back) to a single-family home; and then (3) the net new units added over the last three years.
Rachelle Younglai and Chen Wang's recent piece in the Globe and Mail on suburban household debt (in Canada) has a number of interesting stats. Here are some of them:
Looking at debt service ratios across the country, the most financially stressed neighborhoods in Canada are almost exclusively in the suburbs. (Map of the Greater Toronto Area shown at the top of this post. Data from Environics Analytics.)
In looking at the chart, you'll see that the City of Toronto actually lost about 2,000 units from its existing housing stock between 2019 and 2021. Again, these numbers only consider what's happening in the city's existing low-rise residential housing stock. They don't factor any of the housing supply being delivered through new condominiums and multi-family apartments.
Still, it's evidence for something that is perhaps already well known: many of Toronto's low-rise neighborhoods are losing people. They are losing people because the existing structures are housing fewer residents and they are losing people because we make it difficult to build new housing. We want them to be "stable." But stable built form doesn't necessarily mean that things aren't changing on the inside.
Now compare this to what's happening in Brampton (a suburb of Toronto). CUR is calling Brampton the land of secondary suites. Over the last three years, it added nearly 11,000 housing units and was on pace (at the time the data was published) to create nearly 6,000 last year alone (most of which are basement apartments). This is all within its existing housing stock.
With all of this, I think there's an interesting question about about how much of this is being driven by market demand and how much of this is being driven by land use policies. There's obviously demand for expensive single-family homes in Toronto, which is why "deconversions" are happening. But to what extent does this change if/when we become more permissive around multi-unit dwellings?
I think it depends on how we craft the policies.
34 of the top 100 most financially strained neighborhoods in Canada are located in Brampton, Ontario.
Brampton has grown at 2x the rate of Toronto over the last decade.
43% of Brampton's housing was built between 2001 and 2016.
80% of homeowners in Brampton have a mortgage compared to 63% across the Toronto region as a whole.
80% of Brampton's property tax revenue comes from residential property (not surprising). In comparison, 47% of Toronto's property tax revenue comes from commercial properties.
About 2/3 of Brampton's work force leaves the city for their job. This makes sense given the above point.
The other thing the article talks about is the increase in the average household size in many suburban communities as a result of people renting out parts of their house.
One Brampton gentleman is quoted as saying that he rents his basement out to 3 or 4 students and his upstairs bedrooms to two truckers. This translates into typically 6 vehicles parked in his driveway.
Assuming this is the trend, I wonder how much of this additional income is being reported to CRA. Because if it's not, then it could be throwing of these debt ratios and making the financial situation look more dire than it is.
In any event, I think this speaks to, among other things, the role that many suburban communities now serve for new immigrants coming to Canada. They are doing what they can to try and get ahead.
It's also worth noting that if you look at the above map of the Greater Toronto Area, the lowest "debt spots" are in fact where homes tend to be the most expensive -- the core.
Map: The Globe and Mail
In looking at the chart, you'll see that the City of Toronto actually lost about 2,000 units from its existing housing stock between 2019 and 2021. Again, these numbers only consider what's happening in the city's existing low-rise residential housing stock. They don't factor any of the housing supply being delivered through new condominiums and multi-family apartments.
Still, it's evidence for something that is perhaps already well known: many of Toronto's low-rise neighborhoods are losing people. They are losing people because the existing structures are housing fewer residents and they are losing people because we make it difficult to build new housing. We want them to be "stable." But stable built form doesn't necessarily mean that things aren't changing on the inside.
Now compare this to what's happening in Brampton (a suburb of Toronto). CUR is calling Brampton the land of secondary suites. Over the last three years, it added nearly 11,000 housing units and was on pace (at the time the data was published) to create nearly 6,000 last year alone (most of which are basement apartments). This is all within its existing housing stock.
With all of this, I think there's an interesting question about about how much of this is being driven by market demand and how much of this is being driven by land use policies. There's obviously demand for expensive single-family homes in Toronto, which is why "deconversions" are happening. But to what extent does this change if/when we become more permissive around multi-unit dwellings?
I think it depends on how we craft the policies.
34 of the top 100 most financially strained neighborhoods in Canada are located in Brampton, Ontario.
Brampton has grown at 2x the rate of Toronto over the last decade.
43% of Brampton's housing was built between 2001 and 2016.
80% of homeowners in Brampton have a mortgage compared to 63% across the Toronto region as a whole.
80% of Brampton's property tax revenue comes from residential property (not surprising). In comparison, 47% of Toronto's property tax revenue comes from commercial properties.
About 2/3 of Brampton's work force leaves the city for their job. This makes sense given the above point.
The other thing the article talks about is the increase in the average household size in many suburban communities as a result of people renting out parts of their house.
One Brampton gentleman is quoted as saying that he rents his basement out to 3 or 4 students and his upstairs bedrooms to two truckers. This translates into typically 6 vehicles parked in his driveway.
Assuming this is the trend, I wonder how much of this additional income is being reported to CRA. Because if it's not, then it could be throwing of these debt ratios and making the financial situation look more dire than it is.
In any event, I think this speaks to, among other things, the role that many suburban communities now serve for new immigrants coming to Canada. They are doing what they can to try and get ahead.
It's also worth noting that if you look at the above map of the Greater Toronto Area, the lowest "debt spots" are in fact where homes tend to be the most expensive -- the core.
Map: The Globe and Mail
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog