This morning I’m working on a presentation that I’m going to be giving one evening next week to a delegation coming in from the US. The title of the presentation is the title of this blog post: Toronto housing – where we came from and where we’re probably headed.
My plan is to start in and around the 50s and 60s and talk about Toronto’s first tower boom following the war. For this time period, I’m relying a lot on the work of Graeme Stewart of ERA Architects, who is one of, if not the, expert on post war towers in this city.
I’m then going to move onto our current high-rise condo boom and compare the two.
Because the interesting thing about the first boom is that, after it finished, we basically returned to the typical North American housing model: building single-family homes. And it wasn’t until this recent boom of the early 2000s that we once again resumed building more high-rise than low-rise housing. That is still the case today.
But the question I want to address is really, what’s next? Where are we headed? Is history going to repeat itself or is – dare I say – this time different?
I’ll eventually get to those questions here on Architect This City, but first I want to hear from you. So here’s what I’m proposing: leave your thoughts in the comment section below and I will feature the best ones in my presentation next week as the voices of Toronto. I’m sure many of you know that I’m a big fan of crowdsourced information.
So here goes. Where is Toronto housing headed and how will we be living in the next 10+ years? Will we be raising families up in towers or not? Please comment by Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 6pm (ET) to make sure I have time to feature you in the presentation.
Thanks for participating :)
Yesterday the Washington Post published a great chart showing the housing types of the 40 largest cities, by population, in the US. The list is ordered from lowest to highest according to the percentage of single-family houses in the city (green bar).
Here’s the chart:
Not surprisingly, many of the cities at the top of this list (meaning they have the lowest percentage of single-family houses) are in the older east coast cities.
It’s also interesting to see just how much the rowhouse dominates the urban landscape in Philadelphia and Baltimore. In Philadelphia, almost 60% of the housing stock is an attached rowhouse.
Housing is the backdrop for such a big portion of our lives. And when you live in a particular kind of home, it impacts your life whether or not you realize it. The dense rowhouses of Philadelphia and the single-family houses of Oklahoma City are the result of two very different kinds of urban landscapes.
In Toronto, that backdrop is in the midst of a dramatic change. More and more of us are now living in high-rise condos. That hasn’t always been the case, of course. It’s a recent shift. But it looks like it’ll be a big part of our future.
Ed Glaeser, Giacomo Ponzetto, and Yimei Zou recently published a new academic paper called, Urban Networks: Spreading the Flow of Goods, People and Ideas.
The paper looks at whether it’s more advantageous to build huge and consolidated mega-cities or build connected networks of smaller urban centers (perhaps connected by high speed rail). As countries like China rapidly urbanize, this is something that many people are thinking about.
In China, there is a lively urban planning debate about whether to facilitate the increased expansion of the vast agglomerations of Beijing and Shanghai or whether to focus on creating networks of cities that are smaller, albeit still much larger than almost all of the cities of Western Europe. The current government policy favors networks, in the hope that connected smaller cities may be free of the extreme downsides of mass agglomeration, such as extreme congestion, pollution and high housing costs.
Like most things, there are real trade-offs.
In the paper, they assume that larger cities lead to more urban amenities, which in turn serves as an important magnet for skilled workers. However, for unskilled workers who may not care/benefit from the same urban amenities, it is possible for them to dislike the bigger cities. In this case, the benefits do not outweigh the negatives of urban expansion and an urban divide is created (rich/poor).
One of the potential negatives is housing.
The attraction of denser, not larger, mega-cities is determined also by the elasticity of housing supply. When it is easy to add extra homes on a narrow plot of land, as in Texas, then density becomes more attractive. European urban networks may well be the right answer because history and regulation makes it so hard to build in Europe’s older cities. Even though China has usually been quite friendly towards skyscrapers, the sheer scale of the Chinese population may still make the case for urban networks.
If you’re interested in this topic, there’s a section (#2) in the paper on the history of urban networks that you might like.