Subscribe
Here's an interesting, though not shocking, chart from a recent Globe and Mail article talking about "Canada's dysfunctional housing market." What is noteworthy is that Toronto is dead last when it comes to the number of new 3+ bedroom homes built between 2016 and 2011.
Peterborough, for example, is a census metropolitan area with somewhere around 130,000 people. And yet, based on this data, it is building more family-sized homes than Toronto.
Why this is not surprising is that the vast majority of new homes now built in Toronto are high-density and built out of reinforced concrete. This means that they are relatively expensive on a per square foot basis.
In fact, you could argue that mid-rise housing -- the exact high-density type that is supposed to be most attractive to families -- is the most expensive to build. What this means is that if you're building a 3+ bedroom home in this way, it's not going to be affordable to most.
It also means that people are going to go shopping elsewhere: Ottawa, York, Simcoe, Durham, and so on. The expected market outcome is decentralization. But in my mind, this raises an important question: Is this what people really want?
This is a great debate. And many will argue that grade-related suburban housing is exactly what people want. What we are seeing is a result of raw consumer preference.
However, the costs are so skewed in favor of low-rise housing, that I think it's hard to say with absolute certainty the degree in which this is true. What if higher-density 3+ bedroom homes were the cheaper option? My bet is that we would see a lot more centralization.
The development charge rate for a 2+ bedroom apartment in the City of Toronto is currently $80,690 per unit (effective June 6, 2024). As development charges work, this is supposed to pay for the growth-related impacts of adding a 2+ bedroom apartment in the city.
However, the above chart suggests that there are also impacts to not building that 2 or 3 bedroom apartment in an already developed area next to existing infrastructure. It means the home goes somewhere else (further away) or doesn't get built at all.
Both of these outcomes also have costs.
I went to bed last night watching President Biden's address to the Canadian Parliament (full transcript, here.). And I woke up this morning to this Globe and Mail article about Canadian competitiveness. In it, Tony Keller talks about some of the things that are broken in this country (shockingly housing comes up), and compares Canada to Argentina (an example of too many bad decisions) and to South Korea (an example of many good decisions).
All of this got me thinking about leadership.
Leadership is a great burden. As a leader, people are looking to you for decisions, for direction, and for you to instil confidence. They are also scrutinizing your every word and action. And in today's world, they are waiting to criticize you on social media and/or make a funny meme out of your most recent misspeak. As a developer, I get to interface with municipal politicians probably more than your average person, and I can tell you with confidence that it is a thankless job I would never want.
I can only imagine having to constantly worry about your employment and what people are thinking. Given this incentive structure, I'm sure we'd all act accordingly. It is truly public, service. At the same time, I know that it is not only unproductive -- but dangerous -- to pander to just what is thought to be politically popular. And we have spoken many times before on this blog about housing and land use policies that may be popular, but aren't at all effective -- or worse, are counterproductive.
What we should be demanding from our leaders are difficult decisions. These are the decisions that probably feel uncomfortable and that may require some personal sacrifice, but that are ultimately the right decisions for our collective long-term prosperity. It is about ambitiously deciding where we want to go and who we want to become, and then taking meaningful actions, however unpopular they may be, to get there.
Don't just tell me what I want to hear. Lead me. Push me. Be bold. In the end, we will respect you for your personal sacrifices and the difficult decisions you are making on our behalf. This is the great burden -- but also the great opportunity -- of leadership, and it behooves us to empower it. To borrow from Tony Keller, "there's no reason we [Canada] can't be the most prosperous and successful society on earth."
The founder and Editor-in-Chief of Monocle Magazine, Tyler Brûle, recently had a nice trip to Ottawa:
If you’ve never been to Ottawa, don’t bother. Of all the G7 capitals, it’s one that hardly conjures up much in the way of attractive images. Don’t believe me? Try it. What comes to mind? What stands out? You see what I mean? No Big Ben, no Lincoln Memorial, no Eiffel Tower. Ottawa might have had an easier time when Germany was partitioned and Bonn was its capital but that credit ran out when Berlin was reinstated as Haúptstadt and the Brandenburg Gate roared back as a symbol for the Federal Republic’s capital.
He and his mom also thoroughly enjoyed their hotel:
We walked into the bar and the whole space seemed gripped by a similar force that plagued the front desk: no speed, movement or sense of urgency. A man-child showed us to the table and barely said a word. His colleagues at the bar were having their own discussion, disconnected from the patrons around them. I started to laugh. My mother urged me to stop. “It’s incredible that this is the best that our country can do for people coming to the capital, no?” I said.
As an unabashedly proud Canadian, this is deeply upsetting. It is upsetting because a lack of movement, a lack of urgency, and an overall lack of engagement are truly terrible qualities to possess. But more importantly, it is upsetting because one could argue that Tyler's Ottawa and hotel experiences were a microcosm of some broader national issues around Canadian complacency.
Here's an interesting, though not shocking, chart from a recent Globe and Mail article talking about "Canada's dysfunctional housing market." What is noteworthy is that Toronto is dead last when it comes to the number of new 3+ bedroom homes built between 2016 and 2011.
Peterborough, for example, is a census metropolitan area with somewhere around 130,000 people. And yet, based on this data, it is building more family-sized homes than Toronto.
Why this is not surprising is that the vast majority of new homes now built in Toronto are high-density and built out of reinforced concrete. This means that they are relatively expensive on a per square foot basis.
In fact, you could argue that mid-rise housing -- the exact high-density type that is supposed to be most attractive to families -- is the most expensive to build. What this means is that if you're building a 3+ bedroom home in this way, it's not going to be affordable to most.
It also means that people are going to go shopping elsewhere: Ottawa, York, Simcoe, Durham, and so on. The expected market outcome is decentralization. But in my mind, this raises an important question: Is this what people really want?
This is a great debate. And many will argue that grade-related suburban housing is exactly what people want. What we are seeing is a result of raw consumer preference.
However, the costs are so skewed in favor of low-rise housing, that I think it's hard to say with absolute certainty the degree in which this is true. What if higher-density 3+ bedroom homes were the cheaper option? My bet is that we would see a lot more centralization.
The development charge rate for a 2+ bedroom apartment in the City of Toronto is currently $80,690 per unit (effective June 6, 2024). As development charges work, this is supposed to pay for the growth-related impacts of adding a 2+ bedroom apartment in the city.
However, the above chart suggests that there are also impacts to not building that 2 or 3 bedroom apartment in an already developed area next to existing infrastructure. It means the home goes somewhere else (further away) or doesn't get built at all.
Both of these outcomes also have costs.
I went to bed last night watching President Biden's address to the Canadian Parliament (full transcript, here.). And I woke up this morning to this Globe and Mail article about Canadian competitiveness. In it, Tony Keller talks about some of the things that are broken in this country (shockingly housing comes up), and compares Canada to Argentina (an example of too many bad decisions) and to South Korea (an example of many good decisions).
All of this got me thinking about leadership.
Leadership is a great burden. As a leader, people are looking to you for decisions, for direction, and for you to instil confidence. They are also scrutinizing your every word and action. And in today's world, they are waiting to criticize you on social media and/or make a funny meme out of your most recent misspeak. As a developer, I get to interface with municipal politicians probably more than your average person, and I can tell you with confidence that it is a thankless job I would never want.
I can only imagine having to constantly worry about your employment and what people are thinking. Given this incentive structure, I'm sure we'd all act accordingly. It is truly public, service. At the same time, I know that it is not only unproductive -- but dangerous -- to pander to just what is thought to be politically popular. And we have spoken many times before on this blog about housing and land use policies that may be popular, but aren't at all effective -- or worse, are counterproductive.
What we should be demanding from our leaders are difficult decisions. These are the decisions that probably feel uncomfortable and that may require some personal sacrifice, but that are ultimately the right decisions for our collective long-term prosperity. It is about ambitiously deciding where we want to go and who we want to become, and then taking meaningful actions, however unpopular they may be, to get there.
Don't just tell me what I want to hear. Lead me. Push me. Be bold. In the end, we will respect you for your personal sacrifices and the difficult decisions you are making on our behalf. This is the great burden -- but also the great opportunity -- of leadership, and it behooves us to empower it. To borrow from Tony Keller, "there's no reason we [Canada] can't be the most prosperous and successful society on earth."
The founder and Editor-in-Chief of Monocle Magazine, Tyler Brûle, recently had a nice trip to Ottawa:
If you’ve never been to Ottawa, don’t bother. Of all the G7 capitals, it’s one that hardly conjures up much in the way of attractive images. Don’t believe me? Try it. What comes to mind? What stands out? You see what I mean? No Big Ben, no Lincoln Memorial, no Eiffel Tower. Ottawa might have had an easier time when Germany was partitioned and Bonn was its capital but that credit ran out when Berlin was reinstated as Haúptstadt and the Brandenburg Gate roared back as a symbol for the Federal Republic’s capital.
He and his mom also thoroughly enjoyed their hotel:
We walked into the bar and the whole space seemed gripped by a similar force that plagued the front desk: no speed, movement or sense of urgency. A man-child showed us to the table and barely said a word. His colleagues at the bar were having their own discussion, disconnected from the patrons around them. I started to laugh. My mother urged me to stop. “It’s incredible that this is the best that our country can do for people coming to the capital, no?” I said.
As an unabashedly proud Canadian, this is deeply upsetting. It is upsetting because a lack of movement, a lack of urgency, and an overall lack of engagement are truly terrible qualities to possess. But more importantly, it is upsetting because one could argue that Tyler's Ottawa and hotel experiences were a microcosm of some broader national issues around Canadian complacency.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog