|
|
|
- Thread starter sodapop
- Start date
old boy
Senior Member
Hi, thanks for the stats, however, I was actually asking how many of CANADA'S top 500, 1000 companies or the ones trading on the TSX are located in downtown Calgary only vs downtown Toronto only (i.e. not metro Calgary vs metro Toronto). I know Toronto's power is several times higher than Calgary's but with the population being five times higher (metro areas), Calgary is still ahead in per capita terms (and the gap is widening). Another point to note is that Toronto has 75-80 million square feet of office space but Calgary's downtown including what they call "beltline" (think West of Uni, East of Yonge type situation), along with the construction that has taken place in the last five years, actually has 45-47 million square feet of office space (meaning Toronto downtown only has 60% more office space than Calgary downtown).
The fact that you say to look at metro areas instead of downtowns is my main point, in that, the non-downtown areas (almost exclusively 905) have added office space at a far faster clip than what we all would like to see - downtown, especially buildings connected to the PATH!
I remember reading somewhere that in the 1990s the GTA had added absorbed 27 million square feet of office space but I have a feeling only 4-5 million of that was in the downtown - imagine having even 10 million of that in the core instead - imagine the synergy, the energy, the new skyscrapers, the skyline, the power....
Yes, Bay Street is not as prominentI completely agree with the advantages of being downtown, particularly if connected to the PATH and we all want that, however, much of the new office growth has been in the outer areas - not just back-office, even mid range and Head office ones - I know, 'cause I have been looking for accounting/finance jobs on many different sites and most of them (asides from banking and insurance) are not in the downtown core! It's interesting that you say the high-level executives want their offices where they live and that makes sense theoretically, i guess, but is that the reality? I doubt it because if it was true wouldn't the mid-town office markets (along Yonge from Bloor to Steeles) have seen more absorption that what they have so far (given so many of Toronto's old money neighbourhoods are just off of Yonge north of Bloor)? As well, there is actually a subway line along Yonge and still we don't see new office absorption in these mid town markets.
A personal disclaimer (again) in order to prevent bashing and hatred: I like Toronto and am planning to move there so I'm not against anything in Toronto; I want the GTA, particularly the City of Toronto, to prosper! I bring up Calgary because I think it's more powerful than people in the East like to admit and what gets me is the denial of the fact that it could become a serious contender to Toronto's numero uno position (let's not be like the sleeping hare)!
I don't think it's hatred and bashing we're talking about here. People, both pro and agin' the city, still call Toronto " Hogtown ", and to no apparent affect. Calgary, then, is just a step above, when referred to as " Cowtown ". All just silly nicknames, anyway.
Glen
Senior Member
What you say describes today, not tomorrow. Your perspective is that of a tenant, not a developer. Compare net rents across the GTA. You will see that While the core produces much higher gross rents, the net to the building owner is nearly the same. As such it is hard to justify the premium in land prices in the core. On top of that, the recent additions are the result of a tax breaks Without which, the city would have continued to sit out on any meaningful expansion in the office market.Recall that between 2000 and 2006, slightly over 14 million s.f. of office space had been developed across the GTA. 90% of which was not in the city. Conversely the program has made some older properties less competitive and improvements to them would penalize them. We might expect to see a number of lower prestige buildings fall into decay.
So while there will always be many firms that are attached to the core, there is no guarantee that these firms will have the bulk of their operations in the FD. Agglomeration in another area can quickly change the attractiveness and act as a magnet for future growth.
Observer Walt
Senior Member
I doubt that Bay Street will lose any of its allure during the foreseeable future (next couple of decades at least). There is a real difference between those firms who are located on Bay or the immediate surroundings (a couple fo blocks) and those who are outside the area, even by only a few blocks. As someone already mentioned, being on the PATH versus being only a few doors away from it can make a difference. I am talking about firms who are willing to pay for that much of a difference. These are head offices of large "Fortune 500" firms, law firms, accounting firms, and of course the big banks. There is little comparison between Bay Street and secondary nodes like Bay and Bloor (even though Yorkville is nearby), the North York City Centre, etc.
The only thing that has remarkably changed is the recent extension of the true financial district south of the tracks, but still on Bay or only a block away (York Street), and very crucially located on the PATH, with a direct walking connection to Union Station. Some rumors (which I am not sure I buy) tell us that the next significant new development to be announced will be at 45 Bay Street, across from the ACC.
As for Calgary, this city has had amazing growth. I wish them all the best. I'll even say that their growth is healthier for Canada overall. But it has been commented on extensively that they are still pretty much all about oil and gas, and the services directly dependent on those (law firms, accounting firms). In the longer run, gas especially is not a growth business. Oil may or may not be, depending on technological advances. Calgary is nowhere near as diversified as Toronto. There is certainly no chance of Calgary fading away, but it will not challenge Toronto as a centre of finance.
The only thing that has remarkably changed is the recent extension of the true financial district south of the tracks, but still on Bay or only a block away (York Street), and very crucially located on the PATH, with a direct walking connection to Union Station. Some rumors (which I am not sure I buy) tell us that the next significant new development to be announced will be at 45 Bay Street, across from the ACC.
As for Calgary, this city has had amazing growth. I wish them all the best. I'll even say that their growth is healthier for Canada overall. But it has been commented on extensively that they are still pretty much all about oil and gas, and the services directly dependent on those (law firms, accounting firms). In the longer run, gas especially is not a growth business. Oil may or may not be, depending on technological advances. Calgary is nowhere near as diversified as Toronto. There is certainly no chance of Calgary fading away, but it will not challenge Toronto as a centre of finance.
Last edited:
taal
Senior Member
Again we keep jumping back to comparing the core of Toronto with the rest of the GTA and elsewhere. Let's forget that for a second - it's normal for rentals rates to be higher in the core, this won't scare away tenants. This is actually the saving grace for the core as Glen pointed out due to taxes it's not as profiitable for landlords (and hence developers) to build buildings anywhere in Toronto. But the higher rent can justify it to a certian degree.
But what about the rest of Toronto, we all seem to be accepting the fact that stagnant growth (no growth) in the norm and somehow that's OK - the rest of Toronto consists of over million people, a huge city within it self and yet it's seen nothing. This is what scares me in the long run. I can imagine area outside the core continue to stay stagnate - maybe they won't lose any tenants but areas in the 905 will keep growing. This will further the divide between the core of Toronto and the rest - it'll likely continue to increase the flow of the middle class as well. Some areas which servce as small employment sectors and residential areas i.e. anywhere on the Yonge line and seemingly increasing the Spadia line will continue to see growth - again it's the rest of Toronto ...
But what about the rest of Toronto, we all seem to be accepting the fact that stagnant growth (no growth) in the norm and somehow that's OK - the rest of Toronto consists of over million people, a huge city within it self and yet it's seen nothing. This is what scares me in the long run. I can imagine area outside the core continue to stay stagnate - maybe they won't lose any tenants but areas in the 905 will keep growing. This will further the divide between the core of Toronto and the rest - it'll likely continue to increase the flow of the middle class as well. Some areas which servce as small employment sectors and residential areas i.e. anywhere on the Yonge line and seemingly increasing the Spadia line will continue to see growth - again it's the rest of Toronto ...
lead82
Senior Member
This is where city policy can help influence some commercial business growth in the suburban areas of Toronto.If the city can offer some tax incentives to companies that relocate to the city then we can increase employment in the city and improve the lives of the middle and lower classes by improving access to jobs that are commutable by transit. Right now those that live in the inner suburbs trend to work in the 905 region and are forced to drive to work, since they is poor transit in the 905.
taal
Senior Member
Yes exactly, tax breaks would be great - apparently they're some in place and they helped with the development of the buildings we see downtown - but is it not enough for outside the core ?
The province is lowering their business education component for Toronto by 2014 so that should help a certain degree.
Another thing that worries me - there's always talk about helping small business in Toronto (and Onatario for that matter), frankly I don't care about them
Not to sound mean ... but any sort of tax break better apply to larger offices and the like.The mom and pop setups are very much locational in the sense they locate where the people are - we should really care about the larger employers.
I'm probably not making sense to a certain degree as I'm sure I'm missing a huge segment of small businesses but all I'll say is more (the majority?) of them locate where the people are.
Dan416
Senior Member
To the person who said Mississauga is for poor shmucks, clearly you haven't driven down Mississauga Rd, Mineola or Lorne Park.
taal
Senior Member
I agree that statement was silly to say the least and uncalled but it wasn't targeting where 'rich' people chose to locate rather where certain businesses do. In other words, clearly many suburbs are populated by many afluant residents and such streets exist but that doesn't necessarily mean large businesses locate there.
What's makes the comment completely baseless though is Mississauga is actually the candian head quarters for many of the worlds largest companies that do business in Canada.
maestro
Senior Member
Not another one of these stupid threads that comes down to the tax situation between the 905 vs 416. It has an impact but, it's hardly the underlying factor you guys make it out to be. Think of Mississauga City Centre. Also, the 905 is at least still in the 416's catchment and the political lines beyond some revenue bases are almost entirely arbitrary. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm surprised for a guy such as Glen, for example, being so passionate about Toronto's competitive advantage that he's so much more concerned about the 905 than the hundreds of Bay Street jobs being outsourced to India.
It's an absurd question that requires an absurd answer. A new Bay Street may end up outside of Canada.
It's an absurd question that requires an absurd answer. A new Bay Street may end up outside of Canada.
Last edited:
adma
Superstar
And if you examine the aesthetics in such zones (particularly of the last quarter century), they can be poor schmucks, all the same...
Glen
Senior Member
tall,
I would worry first about the type of properties that a lot of small businesses operate out of. They are subject to having their properties values in a 'highest and best use' way. So regardless of what a property is now, if as of right zoning allows for higher density (think St. Clair, Spadina, College etc.) those properties will be valued and taxed based on their potential value. What this does is promote redevelopment into more condos with ground floor retail. The retail component is usually without character and is taxed at the uncapped rates, so the demand is poor, and they largely remain vacant. Think about the situation though, the city is barley competitive in the one area in which it should have a major advantage, Class 'A' type offices. For any other
other type it is so utterly uncompetitive that it should we worrying. The majority of employment is scattered outside of the type in the class "A' office class.
Maestro,
I am very concerned about outsourcing. I disagree with it completely. Not just for Bay St. Jobs, but for all jobs. It is my firm belief that the first priority of any government should be full employment. While I usually do not talk about it in the Toronto forum, I have mentioned it here at UT. While outsourcing and mercantilism are issues that cannot be controlled by city hall, the tax issue is one that can. It is an issue, there is no denying it.
I would worry first about the type of properties that a lot of small businesses operate out of. They are subject to having their properties values in a 'highest and best use' way. So regardless of what a property is now, if as of right zoning allows for higher density (think St. Clair, Spadina, College etc.) those properties will be valued and taxed based on their potential value. What this does is promote redevelopment into more condos with ground floor retail. The retail component is usually without character and is taxed at the uncapped rates, so the demand is poor, and they largely remain vacant. Think about the situation though, the city is barley competitive in the one area in which it should have a major advantage, Class 'A' type offices. For any other
other type it is so utterly uncompetitive that it should we worrying. The majority of employment is scattered outside of the type in the class "A' office class.
Maestro,
I am very concerned about outsourcing. I disagree with it completely. Not just for Bay St. Jobs, but for all jobs. It is my firm belief that the first priority of any government should be full employment. While I usually do not talk about it in the Toronto forum, I have mentioned it here at UT. While outsourcing and mercantilism are issues that cannot be controlled by city hall, the tax issue is one that can. It is an issue, there is no denying it.
jje1000
Senior Member
Glen, have you actually talked to the city about the issue yet? Have you called Rob Ford?
Glen
Senior Member
Yes, I have talked o the city about this before. The official response is that the ETBC and CIP programs were adequate. I disagreed. I have not talked to anyone at the city since Rob Ford has become Mayor, but I will soon.
Glen
Senior Member
As evidence about the dangers of an over reliance on the office sector have a look at it relative size in the downtown. ........
Downtown, is the largest employment
cluster in the GTA, where 420,500
jobs make up over one-third of the
all jobs found in the City. After five
years of continued progressive growth,
Downtown saw a decline of 4,400 jobs
or 1.0% over 2008. Thus the Downtown
has weathered the recession better than
the City as a whole.
Downtown is a hub for Office related
employment (especially Finance,
Insurance, Real Estate and Business
Services), leading academic institutions
and the growing health service sector.
The employment profile of Downtown
Toronto is varied compared with that
found in any of the Centres. Office
jobs such as law firms, computer
services, management consultants,
and investment services continue to
dominate the employment intensity in
this area. Office employment is currently
273,300 or 65.0% of total Downtown
employment. The Office sector declined
by 3,100 jobs over the past year. This
decrease can be attributed to downtown
institutions such as the finance and
insurance sub-sectors trimming the
workforce in order to cope with the
decline in the economy. Employment in
the Service sector also declined by 1,700
jobs. The Institutional sector was the
only segment in Downtown that grew,
with 1,900 jobs more than in 2008.
From the 2009 Toronto Employment Survey.
So the Downtown make up 1 third of the total employment base in the city. Of that 1 third 65% is office employment. The city can't afford to ignore the viability of the 78% of employment.
Downtown, is the largest employment
cluster in the GTA, where 420,500
jobs make up over one-third of the
all jobs found in the City. After five
years of continued progressive growth,
Downtown saw a decline of 4,400 jobs
or 1.0% over 2008. Thus the Downtown
has weathered the recession better than
the City as a whole.
Downtown is a hub for Office related
employment (especially Finance,
Insurance, Real Estate and Business
Services), leading academic institutions
and the growing health service sector.
The employment profile of Downtown
Toronto is varied compared with that
found in any of the Centres. Office
jobs such as law firms, computer
services, management consultants,
and investment services continue to
dominate the employment intensity in
this area. Office employment is currently
273,300 or 65.0% of total Downtown
employment. The Office sector declined
by 3,100 jobs over the past year. This
decrease can be attributed to downtown
institutions such as the finance and
insurance sub-sectors trimming the
workforce in order to cope with the
decline in the economy. Employment in
the Service sector also declined by 1,700
jobs. The Institutional sector was the
only segment in Downtown that grew,
with 1,900 jobs more than in 2008.
From the 2009 Toronto Employment Survey.
So the Downtown make up 1 third of the total employment base in the city. Of that 1 third 65% is office employment. The city can't afford to ignore the viability of the 78% of employment.