Tag: ontario

• Why Revelstoke could become the next…

  

  Mackenzie Avenue, Revelstoke by Ian Houghton on 500px

  Despite being rainy and unusually warm, I had a great time in Revelstoke, BC. I first heard about the city a few years ago when I told a close friend of mine (who is an avid snowboarder) that I was going to Whistler. He told me: “Forget Whistler. Go to Revelstoke.”

  Revelstoke has been on the map for skiers and snowboarders for decades. Some consider it to be the helicopter skiing capital of the world. But there are only so many people who can afford $1,000+ per day skiing, so it wasn’t until 2007 when the first gondola opened up on Mount Mackenzie that people started calling Revelstoke the next Whistler, the next Jackson Hole, the next Zermatt, and so on.

  As both a snowboarder and a real estate developer, this is of course exciting. Everybody wants to be a part of the next big thing and they want to call it before anyone else. That’s how you make money – by being right about things before the masses catch on and/or when everyone else thinks you’re wrong.

  But 2007 happens to come before 2008. And 2008 wasn’t a kind year to the real estate community. Revelstoke was no exception.

  The condos at the base of the mountain weren’t selling (about half of the ones that did sell were sold to Canadians I was told). Expansion plans to become the largest ski resort in the world were scaled back. And the resort teetered on the brink of bankruptcy. But since then, new ownership has taken over the resort and the sentiment on the ground seems to be that Revelstoke – as a real estate play – is somewhere near the bottom.

  But something even more interesting is happening in Revelstoke, beyond just luxury condos at the base of a mountain. And since I was on the disabled list for the second half of my vacation, I had time to explore.

  I was fortunate enough to meet a local entrepreneur (who happened to also be from Toronto) and his message to me was clear: Ontario is moving in. Both talent and capital from Ontario are starting to flock to this small mountain town of almost 8,000 full-time residents (it’s technically classified as a city). And from my experience at the bars and restaurants in town, he appears to be right.

  Now, you might be thinking these people are just ski bums looking for an excuse to live in a mountain town. But is that such a unique and bad thing? Today’s up and coming generation is looking for lifestyle + career. And so if your city or community can offer both, you have a competitive advantage when it comes to attracting talent.

  Revelstoke knows they have the outdoor amenities and the “epic pow”, so now all they need to do is bring the businesses. And that’s exactly what Revelstoke wants to do. If you’re an entrepreneur or business owner, Revelstoke wants you to move there. I’m serious. The vision is to create a sustainable live, work, and play mountain community in the BC interior.

  I hope that happens.

  Drop me a line if you want to talk mountains and business.

  Post Update: The beautiful photo of Revelstoke at the top of this post was taken by Ian Houghton out of BC. This is his business website and this is his Facebook page. 

  2015.02.16

• Is Toronto’s urban growth boundary really making the city less affordable?

  

  This morning the Globe and Mail published an article by Toronto’s chief planner, Jennifer Keesmaat, called Greenbelts make cities more livable, affordable and transit-friendly.

  The headline immediately caught my attention because conventional economic wisdom would suggest that supply constraints – whether natural or artificially created – generally have a negative effect on housing affordability.

  To be clear though, I support Ontario’s greenbelt. I think an urban growth boundary is the right thing to have if we want to build sustainable, walkable, and transit-oriented communities. But I’m also not blind to some of the potential (negative) externalities.

  However, Keesmaat’s article got me wondering just how prevalent those externalities might be and to what extent our greenbelt is actually impacting housing affordability in Toronto. In her article she cites a recent report by the Pembina Institute that very clearly argues the following:

  “There is no shortage of land throughout the GTA [Greater Toronto Area] to build single-family homes for decades to come, but this land is predominantly located far from the City of Toronto and other established centres of employment in the GTA.”

  More specifically, the report found that of all the land available for development in the region (within our growth boundary), 81% of it is projected to still be unused by 2031. This got me thinking: it’s not that there isn’t land still available in the region; it’s that there isn’t land in the areas where demand is the greatest.

  Put differently, young families aren’t clamoring for single family homes in High Park and Leslieville because the greenbelt has restricted their ability to find new housing. They’re doing so because they want to live in neighborhoods like High Park and Leslieville.

  If you dive into the data, the report shows that in 2004 the average price of a detached home in Toronto was about $117,000 more than the rest of the Greater Toronto Area. As of 2013, that spread had grown to about $200,000. And indeed the data shows that it’s the core of the city where home prices seem to be appreciating the fastest.

  

  So when it comes to housing affordability and supply, the greenbelt may actually be a red herring. Releasing it would not increase the supply of housing in areas where demand is already high, which is probably why this same report also found that – with or without an urban growth boundary – most Canadian cities are seeing similar increases in home prices.

  So what should we be doing?

  I think we should do two things: (1) focus on accommodating more growth in the areas that people already want to live in, and (2) figure out ways to transform the less desirable areas into more desirable ones. This second one will be the hardest, because it’s likely going to mean changing car dependent areas into transit-oriented ones, which is no easy task.

  The good news though is that we are already doing these things. There’s more that I would like to see happen, but we’re headed in the right direction.

  If your city has a greenbelt or you have experience with greenfield development in the Toronto region, I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments. This is an area of development that I’ve never really been involved with.

  Image: Flickr

  2015.01.13

• GoPro city tours

  This past week was Toronto’s first real snowstorm of the season. It was awesome. I love snow. And part of the reason I love it, is because it means snowboarding season is here. Yes, the “mountains” in Ontario suck, but Quebec and Vermont aren’t too far away and every February there is The Annual.

  This year in preparation for the season I decided to splurge on a GoPro camera. We had a lot of fun filming last year in Jackson Hole and, since it looks like we’re going to have close to 10 people at this season’s Annual, I wanted to throw another camera into the mix. Expect another ski and snowboard video sometime in February 2015. We’re heading out to Alberta and British Columbia.

  I also ordered this mount for the camera:

  

  But as I was ordering the camera, I started to think about what else I could use it for. And then it hit me: city tours. One of the things I love to do in the summer is ride my bike around the city and explore. I like to find areas I don’t know very well, find new developments I may have missed, and generally just get to know the city more intimately.

  Being on a bike is really the perfect way to do this. You don’t cover enough ground walking and with driving you simply miss too much of the city. So what I want to do is strap my GoPro to my handle bars and bring you along for these exploratory bike tours. I think it could be a unique way to show you the city – even if you happen to also be from here.

  How does that sound?

  It likely won’t happen until the spring, but if you’re interested in joining me, let me know. I think this could be a lot of fun with a group of city geeks.

  Image: GoPro

  2014.12.13

• Is the world urbanizing or suburbanizing?

  

  The Economist recently published an essay called, A Planet of Suburbs – The world is becoming ever more suburban, and the better for it. The argument is basically that the “great urbanization” that everyone loves to talk about these days is actually a misnomer. From Chicago to Chennai, it’s not the urban core that’s growing. It’s the suburbs. And so what we’re seeing should actually be called the great suburbanization.

  The basis for this argument is that wealth fuels sprawl. As people become richer, they naturally consume more of everything – including space. It’s a natural market outcome.

  Take for example, the path of many of Toronto’s ethnic groups. In the first half of the 20th century, College Street was the Little Italy. Then it shifted north and St. Clair Avenue West became the more authentic Little Italy. Today, many Italians now live north of the city in Woodbridge. In fact, last weekend I was on St. Clair West and was disappointed to learn that one of my favorite butchers had closed up shop and “moved to Woodbridge.”

  However, there are also many supporters of the exact opposite outcome. From Edward Glaeser to Alan Ehrenhalt, many have argued that we’re in the midst of a “great inversion.” The suburbs are no longer a threat to urban centers. It’s the urban centers who are threatening the suburbs. The suburbs are dead. Long live the city.

  So which is it?

  Well, The Economist does cite two examples where true urbanization is actually taking place. It’s happening in Tokyo and London. In both cases, it’s the city center that is growing the fastest – not the suburbs. The explanation for Tokyo is its aging population. And the explanation for London is its restrictive greenbelt, which effectively stops the possibility of any further sprawl.

  Here in Toronto – where there is also a greenbelt in place – we know that the population of the downtown core is growing at an incredible pace. A recent report by the city – called Comprehensive to the Core – revealed that the downtown core is growing at 4 times the rate of the rest of the city.

  But what about the suburbs?

  If we look at the province of Ontario’s growth projections, it is indeed the suburbs which are expected to grow the fastest up until 2036. Here is a diagram showing percentage growth rates:

  

  In absolute numbers, the city of Toronto alone is expected to add about 0.66 million people between 2012 and 2036, and the suburbs are expected to add almost 1.9 million.

  There are a number of potential explanations for this differential, but I think it’s largely because land is cheaper in the suburbs, it’s easier to add new housing supply, population densities are lower, and we’re talking about very different land areas.

  The city of Toronto is 630 square kilometers. If you tack on the suburbs, the Greater Toronto Area is 7,124 square kilometers. That means Toronto makes up less than 9% of the total land area. And yet it is expected to contribute 25% of the region’s population growth. 

  Still, the suburbs are where the bulk of the population growth is expected to happen over the coming decades.

  However, the “great inversion” that authors like Alan Ehrenhalt have been talking about should not really be interpreted as the death of the suburbs. What he’s instead talking about is a socioeconomic or demographic reversal: center cities used to be poor and now they’re becoming rich.

  Here’s how he put it:

  What we are seeing is a reversal in which the words “inner city,” which a generation ago connoted poverty and slums, [are going to mean] the home of wealthier people and people who have a choice about where they live, and the suburbs are going to be the home of immigrants and poorer people. And Census figures show that that’s taking place.

  In this context, we are still living through the great urbanization. We’re seeing a shift in consumer preference and a shift in where wealth is choosing to locate. That’s a profound change.

  And while we’re obviously still suburbanizing, I don’t agree that we’re better for it. In fact, left unchecked, this demographic inversion could actually prove to be quite damaging to our suburbs.

  Image: Flickr

  2014.12.09

• The will to try new things

  

  I’m a big fan of wine. But in particular, I like and I support Ontario wines. And last night I was in Niagara-on-the-Lake for the Stratus Vineyards annual harvest party. It happens every year and, as the name suggests, it kind of marks the end of the growing season for the vineyard. I say kind of because not all varietals have been harvested by this time.

  At one point during the evening, I was speaking with the winemaker, J-L (Jean-Laurent) Groux, who is a native of the Loire Valley in France and first learned how to make wine in Burgundy and Bordeaux. And I asked him: why Niagara? Why did you bring your talent to Niagara? (When he came, Niagara would have had a great reputation for crappy wines.)

  He first responded by saying that he had been traveling around the world to different wine regions, and Niagara just so happened to be where he was when he ran out of money. But he went on to say that he saw Niagara as a place of opportunity. It was a region on the rise and he knew that he would have the creative freedom to experiment and do whatever he wanted.

  And that just wasn’t the case in France where tradition dictated. Good for Niagara.

  But as he was telling me all of this, I couldn’t help but think that it’s the classic business story of incumbents and disruptors. I’m not saying that French winemaking will get disrupted. I’m just saying that in a world of established wineries, corporations and other groups, it would seem impossible for them to be threatened in any way by upstarts. They, the incumbents, have more money, more people, and more resources all around.

  But what they sometimes lose along the way, is the will to try new things.

  2014.10.19

• Ontario allows wood frame buildings up to 6 storeys

  Yesterday it was announced that, starting January 1, 2015, the Ontario Building Code would be changed to allow wood frame buildings up to six storeys. Previous to this, the highest you could go was 4 storeys. 

  This change has been in the works for a number of years. And it’s already allowed in most of Europe and in other places in Canada, such as British Columbia. So it’s nice to see this finally happen here in Toronto.

  The reason this is a big deal, and worthy of a blog post, is that it changes the cost structure for mid-rise buildings. Simply put, wood frame buildings are cheaper to construct compared to reinforced concrete and other buildings materials.

  Some people think this just means developers will make greater returns. But I don’t think that’s the case (see microeconomics). The real opportunity here is to spur mid-rise development on sites that – before this change – would have been previously un-developable. That is, you just couldn’t make the numbers work.

  As much as mid-rise buildings make a lot of sense from an urban design standpoint, it’s not always easy to find good mid-rise development sites. Mid-rise buildings are generally less efficient to build compared to towers and you have a lot of fixed costs that don’t scale down just because you’re doing a smaller project.

  So what this change in cost structure will, hopefully, do is allow more product to enter the market. And since many big urban centers operate with perpetual supply deficits – precisely because it’s often so hard to build – this should actually help with affordability.

  2014.09.25

• Bad neighbors build wind turbines

  

  On Friday when I was driving up to Thornbury, I ended up taking a route that goes through Shelburne, Ontario. I’ve taken this route at some point before, but I don’t remember seeing so many wind turbines. I guess it must have been before this particular wind farm had been built out.

  It turns out that these wind turbines belong to the Melancthon wind facility, which is the largest installation in Canada. The facility contains 133 wind turbines and has the capacity to generate 545,000 megawatt hours each year – enough renewable energy to power roughly 70,000 households. The facility is owned and operated by TransAlta and they’ve entered into a 20-year contract to supply renewable energy to the Ontario Power Authority.

  But what I also happened to notice were the many signs posted around with wording like the title of this post: “Bad neighbors build wind turbines.” And after speaking about it with people over the course of this weekend, I very quickly learned that there was fierce community opposition to this project.

  The concern with wind turbines is typically twofold. People don’t like the way they look and they worry about the noise that they will generate. There’s even an alleged condition called “Wind Turbine Syndrome.”

  I personally think they look quite beautiful. They seem so symbolic of the future and progress. But I am intrigued by the noise concern and so I decided to do a bit of research. I found this video from the UK. The big takeaways are that living beside a main road is generally much louder than living beside a wind turbine, and that a wind turbine isn’t usually that much louder than a quiet suburb, until you get fairly close to it. So I wonder if it’s really as bad as people are making it out to be.

  Either way, the issue at hand is incredibly important. We’re talking about renewable energy. And while you may not like the look of wind turbines scattered across the horizon as much as I do, I strongly believe that we need to figure out ways to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. It’s for this reason that I’m a big supporter of both wind and solar power.

  So perhaps the counter to those signs scattered around Shelburne is the following: Responsible communities build wind turbines.

  Image: Wikipedia

  2014.07.28