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.
In Canada most apartments are upper mid and high rise, well you don’t really see 2 to 6 story apartments like you do in the US. I read some where the reason was culture differences where low income and poor in the US are more likely to own car and drive so they opt for clusters of low rise apartments with parking lots. Where in Canada the low income and poor are more likely to take public transit so they opt for high rise apartments.
So if this is case if I’m understanding it the mode of transportation is well determine if it is high rise or low rise. As I read that high rise apartments have better public transit than low rise apartments sprawl out in different parts of the city.
This makes me question how Canada become more culturally more public transit than say the US and why? Some say it could be well it dates back to post WW2 where in Canada there was less of middle class than the US that had higher middle class at time and lots and lots of European immigration in post WW2 in Canada where in the US less immigration at the time and strong middle classs. This is only thing I heard to explain why Canada is more culturally more public transit than say the US.
Some say the rest belt cities in the US with higher density had overcrowding problem and lots of crime so on and city planners in south and midwest and west coast opt for more low density to counter those problem. Where Canada never experience rust belt city problems.
Well other thing is a lot of mid rise apartments in Canada are more in bad condition and more ghetto like and ghetto area where the high rise apartments are better condition and better area. The strange thing is in the US the opposite is the case. Not sure why this is the case as I never found out why.
Canada is a large country, but the population is mostly limited to a small region close to the US border, and the Great Lakes region in particular. The joke used to be that the Canadians lived there because the reception of US television stations was better. The US is much more spread out. There are problems with building more than 4-6 stories in small cities, such as getting water pumped up that high. Many of these buildings were constructed without elevators, too. In rural counties like Wayne county, Ohio, where Wooster is located, the tallest structure is the grain elevator. We do have at least two 4-6 story apartment buildings in Wooster, but these are for elderly and low income residents.
Canada is a large country, but the population is mostly limited to a small region close to the US border, and the Great Lakes region in particular. The joke used to be that the Canadians lived there because the reception of US television stations was better. The US is much more spread out. There are problems with building more than 4-6 stories in small cities, such as getting water pumped up that high. Many of these buildings were constructed without elevators, too. In rural counties like Wayne county, Ohio, where Wooster is located, the tallest structure is the grain elevator. We do have at least two 4-6 story apartment buildings in Wooster, but these are for elderly and low income residents.
Well clearly Canada does not have problem pumping water up to in those high rise apartments and high rise condos.
The sun belt cities mostly had growth post WW2 and are mostly sprawling suburbs with low density unlike Canada suburbs that are dense and less sprawling, even Canada prairie provinces are less sprawling than the southern US cities.
It also not uncommon to see high rise residential in Canada in small communities of only 50,000 people or 100,000 people and cities of only 200,000 people to have many high rise apartments and witch is also not uncommon to plonked down high rise residential in low density suburb away from the down town area or urban core areas. And lot of these high rise residential are next to mall, park or major street or highway.
Well you just don't see those 2 to 6 story apartments in Canada. Well BC has way more mid rise residential than Ontario there are still lots of high rise residential in the greater Vancouver area. I notice Canada builds more mid rise if it is building for the elderly. But in Ontario it is mostly upper mid rise and high rise residential.
A lot of these high rise apartments in Canada got built in the 50s and 60s and 70s. And now the high rise condo boom going on now in Canada.
Only 50,000, 100,000, 200,000 people? That's a lot of people, in my humble opinion. I live near Wooster, Ohio, which is approaching 28,000. That's plenty of people. Wayne county, Ohio is approaching 120,000, which is a lot of people. Water pressure of 100 psi will go up 231 ft (23 stories). High rises require booster pumps. Wooster has 3 water pressure zones: high, intermediate, and low. 100 psi is what you see at the water plant. At 50 psi, that's not quite enough to reach 12 stories.
In Canada most apartments are upper mid and high rise, well you don’t really see 2 to 6 story apartments like you do in the US. I read some where the reason was culture differences where low income and poor in the US are more likely to own car and drive so they opt for clusters of low rise apartments with parking lots. Where in Canada the low income and poor are more likely to take public transit so they opt for high rise apartments.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubble99
So if this is case if I’m understanding it the mode of transportation is well determine if it is high rise or low rise. As I read that high rise apartments have better public transit than low rise apartments sprawl out in different parts of the city.
This makes me question how Canada become more culturally more public transit than say the US and why? Some say it could be well it dates back to post WW2 where in Canada there was less of middle class than the US that had higher middle class at time and lots and lots of European immigration in post WW2 in Canada where in the US less immigration at the time and strong middle classs. This is only thing I heard to explain why Canada is more culturally more public transit than say the US.
Some say the rest belt cities in the US with higher density had overcrowding problem and lots of crime so on and city planners in south and midwest and west coast opt for more low density to counter those problem. Where Canada never experience rust belt city problems.
Well other thing is a lot of mid rise apartments in Canada are more in bad condition and more ghetto like and ghetto area where the high rise apartments are better condition and better area. The strange thing is in the US the opposite is the case. Not sure why this is the case as I never found out why.
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.
Only 50,000, 100,000, 200,000 people? That's a lot of people, in my humble opinion. I live near Wooster, Ohio, which is approaching 28,000. That's plenty of people. Wayne county, Ohio is approaching 120,000, which is a lot of people. Water pressure of 100 psi will go up 231 ft (23 stories). High rises require booster pumps. Wooster has 3 water pressure zones: high, intermediate, and low. 100 psi is what you see at the water plant. At 50 psi, that's not quite enough to reach 12 stories.
Compared to the US no. The Dallas Fort Worth has 7 million, Houston mentro 7 million, Miami mentro 6 million, Tampa bay 3 million , New York 19 million, LA 13 million, Chicago 9 million, Philadelphia 6 million, Atlanta 6 million, Detroit 6 million, Phoenix 5 million, San Diego 5 million, Boston 5 million so on. US cities are measured in millions of people.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is what I’m trying to understand how Canada becoming more culturally public transit than the US. From what I understand there was lots and lots and lots of European immigrants in the 50s, 60s and 70s and they had little to no money for down payment for house and so they built lots of high rise apartments in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Also Canada middle class was not has strong has the US. They go on to say because of the lots and lots and lots of European immigrants they opt more fore public transit because in their country it was very common. So there was public transit city planning policies because of the culture of public transit unlike the US.
I read that high rise apartments and higher density you can have better public transit than low rise apartments spread out in different parts of the city. So this may explain one of the factors why there so many high rise apartments in Canada.
1. Canadian cities allow highrises pretty broadly, typically in many parts of town. In the US many cities restrict them to small areas.
2. Despite #1, Canadian cities tend not to have large areas that allow density overall, relative to multifamily demand. Highrises get built in those zones, and woodframes tend to go up in the limited areas where only woodframes are allowed.
3. Canadian highrise building codes are easier than in the US. Or so say my past co-workers who have built towers in both countries.
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?
5. Canadian financial rules related to deposits make financing condos dramatically easier.
6. Canadian condo liability rules are less onerous on developers, keeping prices down. The condo market tends to prefer concrete for permanent value. In the US (many states) the rules have reduced condo production to a trickle, leaving rentals as the main type that gets built.
1. Canadian cities allow highrises pretty broadly, typically in many parts of town. In the US many cities restrict them to small areas.
2. Despite #1, Canadian cities tend not to have large areas that allow density overall, relative to multifamily demand. Highrises get built in those zones, and woodframes tend to go up in the limited areas where only woodframes are allowed.
3. Canadian highrise building codes are easier than in the US. Or so say my past co-workers who have built towers in both countries.
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?
5. Canadian financial rules related to deposits make financing condos dramatically easier.
6. Canadian condo liability rules are less onerous on developers, keeping prices down. The condo market tends to prefer concrete for permanent value. In the US (many states) the rules have reduced condo production to a trickle, leaving rentals as the main type that gets built.
One think that is more culturally different in the US is density level areas take for example New York one area has very high density that is urban than other area that is very high but not has much has the other area and other area more like street care suburb with lots of row houses the same with Philly. And take LA you got high density here and medium density here and low medium density here. And other thing the US has these areas the urban areas and these are the suburb areas. Canada cities don’t seem to have this.
Take for example Toronto it has very high density similar to New York but most of Toronto is one big suburb out side of the down town area. Where Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough are mostly suburb with apartments towers but has high density similar to New York. Where if Toronto was a US city Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough would be more like Philly or mid rise apartments but houses are ban. In other words mid rise apartments or row housing is okay but not houses at all and down town area of Toronto houses are not okay or mid rise apartments but only high rise apartments.
Well Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough is mostly a suburb with high rise apartments it lacks more urban feel like this in Europe.
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.
