Downtown Highrise Condos: The Good and the Bad

23 02 2010

Here in downtown Toronto, you don’t have to walk far to find yet another construction site for a new ‘luxury’ highrise condominium project.   However, this isn’t just isolated to Toronto.  Around North America, Australia and even some parts of Europe, the construction of large scale condominium developments is in full force throughout the downtowns of many major urban centers.    This resurgence of living downtown has certainly had some positive effects on the urban fabric of these downtowns.  These residents help any number of businesses throughout the downtown and help to create a real center again in many of the major cities throughout the world.  The larger number of residents throughout the center of the city also provide it with increased safety and a larger retail presence.

Yet, all this comes with a price, especially when every little bit of space is now being replaced with yet another condo tower.  In Toronto, this is very much a reality.  The condo projects in the City Place development is a prime example.  City Place is a massive multi-building development on the west side of downtown Toronto.  In theory, the project seems like a good idea.  The project tries to create a neighbourhood atmosphere for it’s residents while providing those that live in City Place with easy access to the downtown and some spectacular views from their condos.  Yet, is a project like this too much?  Walking around City Place provides a different reality:  a neighbourhood full of giant similiar looking glass condo towers providing absolutely no sense of place and no sense of scale from street level.

But the faceless feel of some of the condos isn’t the only issue.  All these private ‘luxury’ condo developments are closing off many prime sites throughout Toronto that could be used for something more public.  Greenspace is an obvious choice, yet in the case of Toronto, the real need for the city are an increase in attractions that attract both locals and tourists alike.   Instead, these highrise condos provide another skyscraper that can really only be enjoyed by those that live there.

In the end, while there is absolutely nothing wrong with the development of many of these new downtown condominium projects, it is perhaps the sheer number that is most alarming.  While more and more condo towers get built, it creates a downtown that is less commercial and more residential and a downtown that is less public and more private.





America’s Drunkest Cities

8 02 2010

Men’s Health has compiled a list ranking cities in the United States on their level on intoxication.  Interesting.  And while you’re first guess for the drunkest may be New Orleans or Las Vegas, the winner is actually Fresno, California.   Reno, Nevada and Billings, Montana round out the top 3.  The least intoxicated city in the States?  Boston, Massachussetts.   As soon as I read the list, I just had to know how it was possibly compiled.  According to U.S.A. today, the list “drew upon such data as death rates from alcoholic liver disease, booze-fueled car crashes, frequency of binge-drinking in the past month, number of DUI arrests, and severity of DUI penalties.”

Drunkest Cities:

  1. Fresno, California
  2. Reno, Nevada
  3. Billings, Montana
  4. Riverside, California
  5. Austin, Texas

Least Drunk Cities:

  1. Boston, Massachussetts
  2. Yonkers, New York
  3. Rochester, New York
  4. Salt Lake City, Utah
  5. Miami, Florida

While the list shouldn’t be taken too terribly seriously, it does provide some solid insight and some real surprises.  You can check out the full list over at U.S.A. Today.





6th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey: 2010

2 02 2010

Demographia International recently posted their 6th annual housing affordability survey which compares the median household income to the median housing prices in various metropolitan areas throughout North America, Australia, New Zealand and the UK.  The survey splits the cities into three different categories (the numbers represent the ratio between the median housing price and the median household income):

  • Affordable (< 3.0)
  • Moderately Unaffordable (3.1 – 4.0)
  • Seriously Unaffordable (4.1 – 5.0)
  • Severely Unaffordable (> 5.0)

The most affordable cities were generally those that have high crime rates and a high degree of vacancies.  These include such places as Detroit (1.6), Indianapolis (2.2), and Cleveland (2.4).   However, some less devastated regions throughout United States and Canada still fit into the affordable category including Atlanta (2.1), Houston (2.9) and Dallas (2.7).

On the opposite side of the scale, Vancouver ranked as the most unaffordable metropolitan area at a whopping 9.3 ratio.  Sydney was second at a 9.1 and the Sunshine Coast down in Australia rounded out the top 3 at a 9.0.  Interestingly, while New York City and San Francisco may have the highest cost of living, their higher income levels somewhat make up for this giving them a ratio of 7.0.

A lot of this isn’t anything new, however it does provide an exceptional and entertaining reference for anyone looking to move sometime in the near future.  You can find the full pdf on the Demographia International site.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.