Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not aware of any "high rise" apartments that are less expensive than low rise apartments. If anything, "high rise" inherently implies "high rent" - certainly in most of the U.S. So the rationale provided is irrational.
First, for starters if there is no "high rise" apartment then it simply isn't an option regardless of economic status. You generally will not find "high rise" apartments in anything but the largest cities in the U.S.
Second, people here in the U.S. value owning more than renting. So if they have the economic means to do so they typically purchase their home rather than rent.
Third, the vast majority of the U.S. has no interest in hamster-style living with neighbors. The majority prefers detached single-family homes.
Fourth, with very few exceptions "public transit" doesn't serve the vast majority of the local populace in the U.S. Cars offer independence. Even the poor have cars. Something on the order of 92% of U.S. households have at least one car. A majority of households (over 59%) have two or more cars. Where do you park your car in "high tower" apartment building when the local government and "planners" pursued anti-car policies? Who wants to live in a place where the local government adopts policies that make it difficult to get to work, difficult to take kids to school, difficult to get to appointments, difficult to get groceries, etc. because of irrational policies supposedly adopted for the good of the public? The public that values independence, options, or something other than hamster-style living live elsewhere.
The first wave of residential highrise building in Canada was rental buildings, in the "tower in the park" style. Architecturally, these are designed similar to US housing projects like Pruitt Igoe or Robert Taylor Homes.
Some highrise neighbourhood in Toronto from a similar time period.
St James Town
Thorncliffe Park
The Peanut/Parkway Forest (in the 1970s?)
Crescent Town
Typical features of these buildings are large floorplates (ex "slab" style buildings), brick or concrete facades, plain design, single use residential, with a decent amount of space separating the buildings (that space being filled with landscaping or parking). Generally modeled around Le Corbusier's "Ville Radieuse" designs.
Although there were a few housing projects among these, most of them were market rate, for-profit rental housing, intended to appeal to young urban professionals. Although those were the initial residents of these buildings, they eventually filtered down to lower incomes, and have been a source of relatively cheap market rate housing for decades now.
Toronto is by far the city where these buildings were built in the largest quantities, although there are a decent amount elsewhere in Canada too, more than in comparable sized US cities. Here's an example of some built around Fairview Mall in Kitchener (metro area 600,000).
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
First, for starters if there is no "high rise" apartment then it simply isn't an option regardless of economic status. You generally will not find "high rise" apartments in anything but the largest cities in the U.S.
Second, people here in the U.S. value owning more than renting. So if they have the economic means to do so they typically purchase their home rather than rent.
Third, the vast majority of the U.S. has no interest in hamster-style living with neighbors. The majority prefers detached single-family homes.
Fourth, with very few exceptions "public transit" doesn't serve the vast majority of the local populace in the U.S. Cars offer independence. Even the poor have cars. Something on the order of 92% of U.S. households have at least one car. A majority of households (over 59%) have two or more cars. Where do you park your car in "high tower" apartment building when the local government and "planners" pursued anti-car policies? Who wants to live in a place where the local government adopts policies that make it difficult to get to work, difficult to take kids to school, difficult to get to appointments, difficult to get groceries, etc. because of irrational policies supposedly adopted for the good of the public? The public that values independence, options, or something other than hamster-style living live elsewhere.
Canadians prefer owning rather than renting too, but in both countries, there is a segment of the population that can't afford to own, at least at the stage of life that they are currently at. The home ownership rate in both countries is identical - 66%.
The difference is that rather than highrise apartments like Toronto's, the lower income renter demographic in the United States is more likely to live in lowrise apartments like these.
During the 1980s, there were changes in regulations that made it less profitable to build rental highrises, and there was a reduction in highrise development, until things changed gears and the highrise condo boom began in the 2000s.
The condo era buildings tend to be closer together, with smaller square shaped floorplates, often taller (30-70 storeys, rather than 10-20), and glass curtain wall, no surface parking (only underground), closer together, often retail or office at the base, and smaller units (400-900sf rather than 700-1400sf in the rental towers).
4. Canadian building codes are tougher on woodframes, or that's my understanding. Can you even build five or six stories of wood on top of a concrete level or two?
I think for the longest time, the maximum for wood-frame was 4 stories.
There's another method of construction in Ontario though, using Insulated Concrete Forms, which really took off in the off-campus student housing market in Waterloo, ON in the 00s and 10s. Locals call them popcorn buildings, because popcorn and styrofoam have similar properties (white, lightweight/full of air), and because that construction method seems to really allow buildings to pop out of the ground... like popcorn, rising a dozen storeys in seemingly a matter of weeks. https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.47331...6656?entry=ttu
You are confusing apartments vs condos. In Canada they build lot of apartments in the 50s, 60s and 70s to house low income and millions of people coming from Europe that had little money for down payment for house.
I'm not confusing the two at all. You generally don't have tower housing for low income renters. Rent is less expensive for low rise housing. You referenced apartments, not condominiums, in your original post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubble99
These apartments where high rise.
In late 90s or early 2000s Canada started buildings condos for the middle class in Vancouver and Toronto with high restate cost and well these condos give people a place to stay that they can’t cough up a million dollars for house in Vancouver or Toronto.
High rise condominiums are expensive housing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubble99
In the US apartments and apartments complex are normally for the low income and poor.
It just the US gone down different path in post WW2 than Canada building lot of 2 to 6 story apartments where Canada built lot of high rise.
Again high rise is more expensive than low rise. Your rationale is irrational (at least for the U.S.). If one is poor, they do not seek out higher rent housing if there are other options.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 03-13-2024 at 07:36 PM..
The first wave of residential highrise building in Canada was rental buildings, in the "tower in the park" style. Architecturally, these are designed similar to US housing projects like Pruitt Igoe or Robert Taylor Homes.
...
Some highrise neighbourhood in Toronto from a similar time period.
St James Town
Thorncliffe Park
The Peanut/Parkway Forest (in the 1970s?)
Crescent Town
Typical features of these buildings are large floorplates (ex "slab" style buildings), brick or concrete facades, plain design, single use residential, with a decent amount of space separating the buildings (that space being filled with landscaping or parking). Generally modeled around Le Corbusier's "Ville Radieuse" designs.
Although there were a few housing projects among these, most of them were market rate, for-profit rental housing, intended to appeal to young urban professionals. Although those were the initial residents of these buildings, they eventually filtered down to lower incomes, and have been a source of relatively cheap market rate housing for decades now.
Toronto is by far the city where these buildings were built in the largest quantities, although there are a decent amount elsewhere in Canada too, more than in comparable sized US cities. Here's an example of some built around Fairview Mall in Kitchener (metro area 600,000).
Canadians prefer owning rather than renting too, but in both countries, there is a segment of the population that can't afford to own, at least at the stage of life that they are currently at. The home ownership rate in both countries is identical - 66%.
The difference is that rather than highrise apartments like Toronto's, the lower income renter demographic in the United States is more likely to live in lowrise apartments like these.
In part that's because high rise apartments do not exist for the most part in the U.S. So it's not an option. Where it is an option, high rise apartments are more expensive than low rise so "low income" isn't going to live in "high rise".
During the 1980s, there were changes in regulations that made it less profitable to build rental highrises, and there was a reduction in highrise development, until things changed gears and the highrise condo boom began in the 2000s.
The condo era buildings tend to be closer together, with smaller square shaped floorplates, often taller (30-70 storeys, rather than 10-20), and glass curtain wall, no surface parking (only underground), closer together, often retail or office at the base, and smaller units (400-900sf rather than 700-1400sf in the rental towers).
Sorry to hear the city supported condominium form of ownership. They are a pox as far as I'm concerned. Cities that pushed them deserve the inevitable end result. Chicago had hundreds that had to be torn down or have receivers appointed to make them viable/functional again. It's a terrible form of ownership designed primarily to benefit the developer and vendors, not the "owners". Apartment tenants have more rights than condo owners with respect to the property.
In part that's because high rise apartments do not exist for the most part in the U.S. So it's not an option. Where it is an option, high rise apartments are more expensive than low rise so "low income" isn't going to live in "high rise".
Sorry to hear the city supported condominium form of ownership. They are a pox as far as I'm concerned. Cities that pushed them deserve the inevitable end result. Chicago had hundreds that had to be torn down or have receivers appointed to make them viable/functional again. It's a terrible form of ownership designed primarily to benefit the developer and vendors, not the "owners". Apartment tenants have more rights than condo owners with respect to the property.
For some reason Canada never built urban city like this with houses ban in area and mostly mid or low rise apartments.
I'm not confusing the two at all. You generally don't have tower housing for low income renters. Rent is less expensive for low rise housing. You referenced apartments, not condominiums, in your original post.
High rise condominiums are expensive housing.
Again high rise is more expensive than low rise. Your rationale is irrational (at least for the U.S.). If one is poor, they do not seek out higher rent housing if there are other options.
Well may be back when the high rise apartments was built was for the middle class back when it was built the problem is lot of those high rise apartments are now in ghetto areas with poverty, crime and low income now. Where the condos are more middle class now in Canada and in better areas of the city.
The thing is Canada does not really have low rise apartments for the poor and low income like the US.
The difference is that rather than highrise apartments like Toronto's, the lower income renter demographic in the United States is more likely to live in lowrise apartments like these.
I think the main reason Canada did not built apartments like that is you can’t have good public transit with low rise apartments.In the US the poor are more likely to own car and drive.
Canada wanted good public transit so they opt for high rise apartments to maximize the density in the area.
I think the main reason Canada did not built apartments like that is you can’t have good public transit with low rise apartments.In the US the poor are more likely to own car and drive.
Canada wanted good public transit so they opt for high rise apartments to maximize the density in the area.
Are these public housing units?
Housing for the most part is built by the private sector. The country or local government is not the one building or making decisions about what is built. So your last sentence is likely not accurate.
Housing for the most part is built by the private sector. The country or local government is not the one building or making decisions about what is built. So your last sentence is likely not accurate.
Well, yes and no. If your customer base all have cars, then they're not going to require public transit access. If your customer base generally rely on public transit, they're not going to rent your apartments if said apartments don't have good access to it.
Canada wanted good public transit so they opt for high rise apartments to maximize the density in the area.
It probably has more to do with Canadian cities being more mono-centric with large downtowns that account for an out-sized share of jobs plus higher gas prices.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
