Subscribe
My recent post titled "Canada must become a global superpower" has quickly become one of my most-read posts in the almost 12 years that I have been writing this daily blog. Within a few days, it quickly got to 11x the number of daily views that I typically get.
One of the points that I made was about Canada's population, and specifically the target set by the Century Initiative of 100 million Canadians by 2100. Today I'd like to expand on this point, because I'm seeing more people talk about it on the socials.
At the time of writing this post, Canada's official population clock from Statistics Canada was sitting at 41,591,151 people. So to reach 100 million in the next 75 years, it would mean we would need to grow our population by 58,408,861 people. At first glance, this seems like a big number. And to some, it has proven to be an unsettling proposition. But 75 years is a long time for compounding to work its magic.
For us to reach 100 million Canadians by 2100 it would mean that we would need to grow our population by a compounded annual growth rate of just 1.18% per year. On our current population base, that would mean about 490,000 new people next year. To put this into perspective, since Confederation in 1867, Canada's population growth rate has averaged around 1.2% per year.
So by arguing that we want to reach 100 million Canadians by 2100, we are, in a way, just saying "we should continue what we've been doing since 1867 and not change a whole lot." The status quo should inevitably lead us to 100 million people during this time period.
Of course, history isn't exactly the same. Canada's fertility rate was much higher in previous years. At the beginning of the 20th century it was nearly five children per woman. And in 1960, it was 3.81 births per woman, which placed us ahead of the US.
Today, we are 1.26 births per woman (2023), compared to 1.66 in the US (2022). We are now among the countries classified as having "lowest-low fertility." Meaning, we're sub 1.3. What this means is that we are now more dependent on immigration to maintain the same growth rate as before.
At the same time, it's not like we're unaccustomed to high immigration. Between 1901 and 1921, Canada's population increased by almost 3% a year on average. This was in large part because of immigrants from Europe, specifically the British Isles. And between 1901 and 1911, alone, Canada welcomed 1.2 million people. This is at a time when we had just over 5 million people in the entire country.
So in the end, 100 million Canadians by 2100 is probably not all that ambitious. A compound annual growth rate of 1.5% would, for example, have us grow to over 127 million people. That would be more of a stretch. There's also the important question of how quickly are we growing relative to other countries.
Whatever the exact target, I stand by what I said before. We should be aiming to lower the cost of living for Canadians, and in particular housing costs. We should make it easier for families to have more babies, should they choose to. And we should continue to attract the smartest and most ambitious people from around the world.
Back in 2022, Altus Group did a municipal benchmarking study where they looked at approval timelines, development charges, and a host of other factors that could be impacting housing affordability in Canadian cities. I blogged about it then and spoke specifically about its benchmarking of approval timelines. But I revisited it this morning after seeing Mike Moffatt tweet about it and I came across the below chart.
Also, approval timelines are less of a concern today. There are lots of zoned sites that are ready to go, but can't because of the market. Instead, what the below charge does is compare municipal charges on a per square foot basis for low-rise and high-rise housing. What's interesting is that in most cases, but in all cases in Ontario and BC, the charges are higher for high-rise housing.
Here is an interesting chart (source) showing housing starts in Canada, by type, between 2000 and 2023:
As recent as 2000, single-family houses accounted for 61% of total starts and multi-family housing accounted for 39%. This flipped somewhere around the financial crisis and, last year in 2023, the percentages were 23% and 77%, respectively. This is a meaningful inversion which has helped our cities become more vibrant and more conducive to non-car modes of transport.
My recent post titled "Canada must become a global superpower" has quickly become one of my most-read posts in the almost 12 years that I have been writing this daily blog. Within a few days, it quickly got to 11x the number of daily views that I typically get.
One of the points that I made was about Canada's population, and specifically the target set by the Century Initiative of 100 million Canadians by 2100. Today I'd like to expand on this point, because I'm seeing more people talk about it on the socials.
At the time of writing this post, Canada's official population clock from Statistics Canada was sitting at 41,591,151 people. So to reach 100 million in the next 75 years, it would mean we would need to grow our population by 58,408,861 people. At first glance, this seems like a big number. And to some, it has proven to be an unsettling proposition. But 75 years is a long time for compounding to work its magic.
For us to reach 100 million Canadians by 2100 it would mean that we would need to grow our population by a compounded annual growth rate of just 1.18% per year. On our current population base, that would mean about 490,000 new people next year. To put this into perspective, since Confederation in 1867, Canada's population growth rate has averaged around 1.2% per year.
So by arguing that we want to reach 100 million Canadians by 2100, we are, in a way, just saying "we should continue what we've been doing since 1867 and not change a whole lot." The status quo should inevitably lead us to 100 million people during this time period.
Of course, history isn't exactly the same. Canada's fertility rate was much higher in previous years. At the beginning of the 20th century it was nearly five children per woman. And in 1960, it was 3.81 births per woman, which placed us ahead of the US.
Today, we are 1.26 births per woman (2023), compared to 1.66 in the US (2022). We are now among the countries classified as having "lowest-low fertility." Meaning, we're sub 1.3. What this means is that we are now more dependent on immigration to maintain the same growth rate as before.
At the same time, it's not like we're unaccustomed to high immigration. Between 1901 and 1921, Canada's population increased by almost 3% a year on average. This was in large part because of immigrants from Europe, specifically the British Isles. And between 1901 and 1911, alone, Canada welcomed 1.2 million people. This is at a time when we had just over 5 million people in the entire country.
So in the end, 100 million Canadians by 2100 is probably not all that ambitious. A compound annual growth rate of 1.5% would, for example, have us grow to over 127 million people. That would be more of a stretch. There's also the important question of how quickly are we growing relative to other countries.
Whatever the exact target, I stand by what I said before. We should be aiming to lower the cost of living for Canadians, and in particular housing costs. We should make it easier for families to have more babies, should they choose to. And we should continue to attract the smartest and most ambitious people from around the world.
Back in 2022, Altus Group did a municipal benchmarking study where they looked at approval timelines, development charges, and a host of other factors that could be impacting housing affordability in Canadian cities. I blogged about it then and spoke specifically about its benchmarking of approval timelines. But I revisited it this morning after seeing Mike Moffatt tweet about it and I came across the below chart.
Also, approval timelines are less of a concern today. There are lots of zoned sites that are ready to go, but can't because of the market. Instead, what the below charge does is compare municipal charges on a per square foot basis for low-rise and high-rise housing. What's interesting is that in most cases, but in all cases in Ontario and BC, the charges are higher for high-rise housing.
Here is an interesting chart (source) showing housing starts in Canada, by type, between 2000 and 2023:
As recent as 2000, single-family houses accounted for 61% of total starts and multi-family housing accounted for 39%. This flipped somewhere around the financial crisis and, last year in 2023, the percentages were 23% and 77%, respectively. This is a meaningful inversion which has helped our cities become more vibrant and more conducive to non-car modes of transport.
Example: If you bought an 800 sf condominium in Toronto and the fees were based on the numbers in this report, you'd be paying $125 psf x 800 sf = $100,000 in municipal charges alone. Once again, I am of the opinion that our industry should find a way to transparently itemize these charges so that people/purchasers can see where their money is going.
Now, part of this has to do with higher land values for higher-density housing and municipal fees that are calculated based on appraised land value. But it's also driven by suite sizes becoming smaller (to make the end price more affordable for buyers and renters).
Here in Toronto, it doesn't matter if you're building an 800 sf two-bedroom or an 8,000 sf two-bedroom apartment, the development charge fee would be the same. And so it is perhaps not surprising that as suite sizes have come down and charges have gone up, so too did the costs on a per square foot basis.
But it raises an important and obvious question: Is this what we want? I mean, aren't we trying to encourage more infill housing in places where people don't need to drive and we can leverage existing services? Yes, that's what we are saying. Unfortunately, our charges suggest the opposite.
If you'd like to download a copy of the report, you can do that over here. Please keep in mind that this is data from 2022 and there have been changes since then. In many cases the fees are now higher, but in some cases, like in the City of Vaughan, the fees are now lower.
Cover photo by Scott Webb on Unsplash
I'm not exactly sure what he believes to be the solution, but I don't think this problem is as simple as "we've built some housing, we made our cities denser, and yet housing is still expensive -- more supply must not be the answer. Let's move on."
Among many other things, it's important to understand what kind of density we've been building. Because up until very recently, we've basically taken the position that single-family neighborhoods should never be touched, and that density should only go in very specific areas -- and only after a lengthy and expensive rezoning process has been completed.
We've designed new housing to be expensive.
But attitudes are changing all across North America. We are now starting to do two very important things: (1) we are opening up more of our cities to intensification and (2) we are now allowing more multi-family housing on an as-of-right basis. Meaning, no lengthy rezoning exercises and no risk of community opposition.
These are two fundamental changes that should alter the kind of density that gets built. And in my view, it's going to be a positive thing for Canadian cities.
Example: If you bought an 800 sf condominium in Toronto and the fees were based on the numbers in this report, you'd be paying $125 psf x 800 sf = $100,000 in municipal charges alone. Once again, I am of the opinion that our industry should find a way to transparently itemize these charges so that people/purchasers can see where their money is going.
Now, part of this has to do with higher land values for higher-density housing and municipal fees that are calculated based on appraised land value. But it's also driven by suite sizes becoming smaller (to make the end price more affordable for buyers and renters).
Here in Toronto, it doesn't matter if you're building an 800 sf two-bedroom or an 8,000 sf two-bedroom apartment, the development charge fee would be the same. And so it is perhaps not surprising that as suite sizes have come down and charges have gone up, so too did the costs on a per square foot basis.
But it raises an important and obvious question: Is this what we want? I mean, aren't we trying to encourage more infill housing in places where people don't need to drive and we can leverage existing services? Yes, that's what we are saying. Unfortunately, our charges suggest the opposite.
If you'd like to download a copy of the report, you can do that over here. Please keep in mind that this is data from 2022 and there have been changes since then. In many cases the fees are now higher, but in some cases, like in the City of Vaughan, the fees are now lower.
Cover photo by Scott Webb on Unsplash
I'm not exactly sure what he believes to be the solution, but I don't think this problem is as simple as "we've built some housing, we made our cities denser, and yet housing is still expensive -- more supply must not be the answer. Let's move on."
Among many other things, it's important to understand what kind of density we've been building. Because up until very recently, we've basically taken the position that single-family neighborhoods should never be touched, and that density should only go in very specific areas -- and only after a lengthy and expensive rezoning process has been completed.
We've designed new housing to be expensive.
But attitudes are changing all across North America. We are now starting to do two very important things: (1) we are opening up more of our cities to intensification and (2) we are now allowing more multi-family housing on an as-of-right basis. Meaning, no lengthy rezoning exercises and no risk of community opposition.
These are two fundamental changes that should alter the kind of density that gets built. And in my view, it's going to be a positive thing for Canadian cities.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
