Comment 65907

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted July 08, 2011 at 23:51:26 in reply to Comment 65861

First off, thanks for bringing up the downsides of sky-high property values.

As for the house/condo dichotomy, you'd probably see that anywhere, including here (though perhaps not to the same extent). Condos are a very expensive option in general, and in most cases one could buy a much larger house for the same price, especially once fees are taken into account. Obviously, there's an element of false economy here - a condo is cheaper to build, needs less space, raw materials, energy and social investment, but it doesn't seem to reflect well in prices.

Also, it's worth noting that the income geography of typical European city is the reverse of North America's. In a city like Paris, suburbs exist for the poor, and have for centuries (Montmartre being the best known example), whereas urban cores are home to the wealthy. When you think of French suburbs, picture Scarborough, not Ancaster.

Does intensification have to mean gentrification or exclusion? Of course not (consider Hamilton's densest 'hoods). It is something that needs to be brought up, though. A very large number of people, especially those already in the inner-city, can't afford to pay for condos. And since none of us want slums, and most don't want sprawl either, this leaves a pretty big gap in current development plans.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds