Earlier this month, the Royal Bank of Canada and the Pembina Institute co-published a report on Toronto’s housing market called "Priced Out". The overarching argument is that homebuyers in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) are being “priced out” of the areas in which they really want to live, which happen to be walkable and transit-oriented neighborhoods.
In fact, according to their research, 80% of residents in the GTA would be willing to sacrifice space (size of house and yard) if it meant they could live in a more walkable and urban neighborhood. But at the same time, more than 70% of GTA residents say that they live where they do because of affordability reasons, not because of actual preference. This, of course, isn’t new. It’s the whole “drive to affordability” notion—just keep driving until you can afford the housing.
Overall though, the report does reinforce a macro tend that I’ve discussed many times here at Architect This City. People are returning to cities in droves (or would at least like to, if they can afford it).
If you’re interested, the report also has some good data on Toronto and Canada’s housing markets.
Here’s how average home prices in Canada trended between 1980 and 2012. Vancouver became a total outlier starting in the early 90s (thanks Hong Kong).
And here’s a look at housing completions (so new construction) by product type in the Greater Toronto Area. Note how apartments/condos surpassed single-detached houses in and around 2008.
One of the main reasons why I hear people oppose certain development projects is because of a lack of infrastructure. Whether it’s roads, transit or something else, the concern is that what we have is inadequate to service what we’re about to build.
Now, I understand that we can’t completely overburden the city, but I still have fundamental concerns with this line of thought.
The population of the Greater Toronto Area is expected to grow by 2.5 million people over the next 20 some years, to almost 9 million people by 2036. What this means is that growth is happening and it doesn’t really care whether or not we have the “right” infrastructure in place. It’s coming and we need to figure out how best to house these people while at the same time building the most livable and prosperous city on the planet.
And I’m not sure most people appreciate that if we don’t build up (intensification) it means we’re going to be building out (sprawl). Again, the growth isn’t going to stop. And this represents an even greater strain on our region’s infrastructure (both built and natural) because it puts people into less intense land use and into cars.
So what I’m going to suggest is that instead of asking if our current infrastructure will handle the future, we ask why the future hasn’t been built into our current infrastructure? It’s a question of being proactive, rather than reactive.
We should be demanding better infrastructure instead of holding back progress because of our inability to properly city build. We should be demanding the best as opposed to knocking everything else down to the lowest common denominator.
A perfect example of this is transit.
I strongly believe that transit is one of, if not the, biggest issue facing our region today. Decades of disinvestment are really showing my friends. And if we don’t get our act together, the impact on our quality of life, our environment, and our economic productivity is only going to worsen.
We need to be asking the right questions: Is the development the problem or is the real problem our infrastructure deficit?
On September 18th, 2013, the Premier of Ontario, Kathleen Wynne, established a “transit investment strategy advisory panel.” Their mandate was to advise the Province on how to respond to the revenue tools proposed by Metrolinx (also an Ontario agency) to fund transit expansion in the region. Well that panel has just released their final report and you can read it here.
I’d like to highlight 3 things from the report.
1.
The first is their assessment of how Canada’s transit policy framework stacks up against our competitors. Here’s a snippet:
"Canada remains the only G8 country without a coordinated national framework of policies and programs for funding expansion and renewal of transit systems. As shown in the chart opposite, a review of national transit policy frameworks done by the Canadian Urban Transit Association indicates that Canada ranks at the bottom in terms of its engagement in urban public transit."
And here’s the chart they’re talking about. I hope it’s legible.
2.
The second is their conclusion on highway tolls:
"Although highway tolls can raise a significant amount of revenue and influence travel behaviour, they are expensive, complicated, and require a lot of lead time to implement. Once transit alternatives are in place, road tolls meet our criteria and are a valid option. Following the opening of the new Highway 407 East, the Province has the option of designating the new toll revenue to the Next Wave. For now, however, the Panel has not recommended Highway Tolls as a revenue source."
If you’ve read any of my posts on electronic road pricing, you’ll know that I support the pricing of roads and congestion.
3.
The third is their list of what they call “next wave projects”, which are essentially priority projects. Here’s their list for phase one of it:
Relief Line
GO Two-Way All Day (excluding Lakeshore)
Hurontario LRT
Electrification of Union-Pearson Express
Yonge North Subway (partial extension, delivered after Relief Line is in service)
Priority portions of other rapid transit – Hamilton, Durham, Dundas, Brampton
I’m happy to see the relief subway line on the top of that list.
If you have any thoughts on transit planning in the Greater Toronto Area, I would love to hear from you in the comment section below.