[neubilder]

BrockM is wrong. Downtown Hamilton contains thousands of historic buildings yet is extremely affordable. The same applies to downtown Brantford, Galt, London, Sarnia, Windsor etc.

Yes, or any rustbelt or midwestern city. His are opportunistic arguments that simply don't make sense. People like Wendell Cox and this Glaeser character are industry shills who use straw-man arguments as their modus operandi.

 

[neubilder]

"Organic market forces" is a phrase intended to neuter our democratic impulses by suggesting that changes are fated to happen and that citizens don't have choices or control.

Good point - anyone who describes these forces as organic should be reminded that cancer is also organic.

 

[brockm]

It's a parallel argument, not a straw man.

No, actually. It was a straw man argument.

In my argument the water is an impediment to development and is the cause for high real-estate values in Vancouver. Water parallels heritage districts in that they both serve as limits to growth. Does this mean that the water is the problem? No, the ocean is the draw. Just as historic districts are a draw. Does it make sense to destroy them because they cause scarcity and thus high prices

But, higher structures on Vancouver Island would increase the available space to live downtown. You're dancing around this point and saying it's irrelevant because other factors are more important. I disagree. And your statements to the effect that these other factors are more important are unsubstantiated. But, in the next paragraph you'll attempt to make an argument.

What I see as fundamentally wrong with your argument is that it uses rents/land values as it's sole criteria. But even with this narrow criteria, your argument is flawed. Take Tokyo for example, where the process of demolition and redevelopment to higher densities is almost 'organic' (so is cancer); downtown Tokyo rents are the highest in the world.

What's awesome about this argument is how fundamentally misleading it is. There are a few districts in Tokyo that allow for tall skyscrapers. But most districts impose ridged building height restrictions. But I'm sure you'll just tell me that doesn't matter. Because supply level apparently has no bearing on price level in your version of economics.

If we redevelop Toronto's historical buildings with highrise as you suggest, as long as Toronto remains the financial centre of Canada, rents will still rise, and depending on a multitude of factors, there will be nothing preventing prices from reaching stratospheric levels.

Let's rewrite this in it's logical form to break it down: Financial centers around the world have traditionally been very expensive places to live. Therefore, being a financial center, Toronto should be an expensive place to live. Or, more succinctly: post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Except perhaps that no-one will actually want to live in the core because it will be so devoid of heart. Retrospectively, in your dystopia one might wonder if the old 'deadwood' buildings might in fact have served to curtail the concentration of density and of wealth.

Or, how about this: the taller buildings could lead to a situation in which their sheer mass and arrangement, warping time and space around them, result in a complete collapse of the universe. Or we could just split the difference and say: argumentum ad consequentiam. There's some other fallaciousness in there, too. But I'm not going to be a stickler about it.

What is your goal? Is it to reduce rents? Property values? Speculation? Or is it to diminish the richness of the city?

You saved the most horrible (and downright insulting) part of your argument for last! And, I'll just let Wikipedia do the talking for me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive

 

[urbandreamer]

^Although really it's developers--acting as a group perhaps?--restricting supply.

The only scenario in which highrises would lead to lower housing costs would be unlimited speculation/building. Say building 100,000 units per year when there's only demand for 40,000 units.

So next door to you BrockM I will build 10,000 units.

 

[brockm]

Done with this discussion

Multiple posters have intimated that I'm a shill of some sort for developers.

To be honest, having been accused of this multiple times in this thread, and also seeing you casually accuse Edward Glaeser, the esteemed Fred and Eleanor Glimp Professor of Economics in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University, whose pretty much the leading economic researcher on urban development and big cities, I am led to the conclusion that you people are not worth continuing this argument with.

I will not defend my reputation to you. Or anyone else.

Not only do I not work for real estate developers in any way, shape or form -- or have any direct or indirect investments in real estate development, for that matter -- but I no longer even work in the financial industry.

I will argue the fine points of an argument ad nauseam. What I will not do, is discuss anything with a**holes who, without qualification, and only to serve their arguments, attempt to impugn my integrity.

F*ck off.

 

[adma]

I grimaced at the loss of those gems. What an awful time it must have been in that 2nd pic for urban enthusiasts in this city to see such destruction.

Though to be fair, such "urban enthusiasm" was comparatively suppressed-to-nonexistent at the time said destruction happened. We sometimes forget how (apparently) universal the old-crock judgment of Victoriana was in the Mad Men era--and, y'know, the parking lots might someday be the site of splashy new office or (esp. in the case of the St Lawrence zone) cultural complexes.

Of course, as Mad Men proves, there were lots of attitudes at the time we'd now consider "weird".

And again, as I've offered before re a whole slew of other heritage issues: yes, this is definitely a case of municipal heritage authorities having been asleep at the wheel through the years, and (John Howard connection aside) let's not pretend other supposedly "heritage-enlightened" burgs haven't similarly swept away blockfronts in recent times. However when it comes to the greater mass-perception optics, glazed-eyed Glaeserratiophiles such as brockm are shooting themselves in the foot. Like, y'know, Monsanto apologists. Or the pro-Vietnam technocrats of the latter-day Mad Men era...

 

[adma]

I will argue the fine points of an argument ad nauseam. What I will not do, is discuss anything with a**holes who, without qualification, and only to serve their arguments, attempt to impugn my integrity.

F*ck off.

You just impugned your own integrity.

 

[DarkSideDenizen]

Oh, to have strolled down those streets... Over to Maple Leaf Park for the ballgame, a hot dog and a cold beer.

 

[brockm]

You just impugned your own integrity.

I guess in your world, questioning peoples integrity as a component of their argument is fair and reasonable. And people, like myself, who react negatively to it, are just fools.

 

[neubilder]

I will argue the fine points of an argument ad nauseam. What I will not do, is discuss anything with a**holes who, without qualification, and only to serve their arguments, attempt to impugn my integrity.

F*ck off.

You're a real piece of work Mike, well done and cheers.

 

[neubilder]

But, higher structures on Vancouver Island would increase the available space to live downtown. You're dancing around this point and saying it's irrelevant because other factors are more important. I disagree. And your statements to the effect that these other factors are more important are unsubstantiated. But, in the next paragraph you'll attempt to make an argument.

Vancouver, not Vancouver Island. That's the big Island with the Capital at the bottom of it.

Tall structures replacing heritage would indeed increase the buildable 'FSR' (floor space ratio) of the downtown core, but prices would inevitably rise anyhow. So now you've despoiled your downtown, and a few years later you've got sky prices anyways. At risk of being accused of making more 'straw man arguments', that's a bit like Rob Ford wanting to sell off the Port Lands to make up a budget deficit. It's wasting an enduring resource as a stopgap measure. This is just illogical.

**My point is, I don't care if the preservation of heritage properties creates scarcity and thus inflation. This inflation will occur eventually anyways.

What's awesome about this argument is how fundamentally misleading it is. There are a few districts in Tokyo that allow for tall skyscrapers. But most districts impose ridged building height restrictions. But I'm sure you'll just tell me that doesn't matter. Because supply level apparently has no bearing on price level in your version of economics.

** see point above.

Let's rewrite this in it's logical form to break it down: Financial centers around the world have traditionally been very expensive places to live. Therefore, being a financial center, Toronto should be an expensive place to live. Or, more succinctly: post hoc ergo propter hoc.

One could just as well argue for salary caps, or the tightening up immigration policies or foreign investment. Any number of actions could be engineered to constrain property values. Or why not place a 50 storey homeless shelter at King and Bay. That ought to do the trick. (!?)

Or, how about this: the taller buildings could lead to a situation in which their sheer mass and arrangement, warping time and space around them, result in a complete collapse of the universe. Or we could just split the difference and say: argumentum ad consequentiam. There's some other fallaciousness in there, too. But I'm not going to be a stickler about it.

Uh, right.

You saved the most horrible (and downright insulting) part of your argument for last! And, I'll just let Wikipedia do the talking for me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are proposing that heritage buildings and districts be demolished in favour of new towers. I don't think I'm alone in seeing this as diminishing the richness of the city.

 

[valkoholic]

I've only been half-following this argument, but in brockm's defence this forum can be a pretty hostile place to voice opinions that aren't the current planning norms. It's human nature for people to get frustrated when they have (in their mind) an intelligent point to make and the world joins forces against them.

 

[brockm]

I've only been half-following this argument, but in brockm's defence this forum can be a pretty hostile place to voice opinions that aren't the current planning norms. It's human nature for people to get frustrated when they have (in their mind) an intelligent point to make and the world joins forces against them.

I am no stranger to having the world be against me. I suspect some people may have Googled and figured out who I am. I have a long history of being a political outsider and a contrarian. I have sat in many a debates with entire rooms booing my opinions. When it comes to being alone in a debate, I can hold my own.

It's not that I refuse to debate when everyone is disagreeing with me. I do that all the time. I did it when I was involved in party politics, I did it when I wrote for the Western Standard, I've done it within my line of work, etc. I'm comfortable being under attack. =)

What I don't abide is people questioning my motives and suggesting I'm a shill for anyone. Anybody who knows me, even my fiercest political opponents, would never say such a thing about me. I believe what I believe, and only because I believe it.

Those in this forum who have suggested such a thing will never experience the pleasure of my attention ever again. I'm sure they won't miss it. So everyone will be happy.

 

[neubilder]

I am no stranger to having the world be against me. When it comes to being alone in a debate, I can hold my own.

What I will not do, is discuss anything with a**holes who, without qualification, and only to serve their arguments, attempt to impugn my integrity. F*ck off.

It's not that I refuse to debate when everyone is disagreeing with me. I do that all the time. I did it when I was involved in party politics, I did it when I wrote for the Western Standard, I've done it within my line of work, etc. I'm comfortable being under attack. =)

I've always said that Wendell Cox is the Ann Coulter of urban planning. Well, I just went to http://westernstandard.ca/website/index.php and lo-and-behold, who is on the front cover being defended by said publication: Ann Coulter

Those in this forum who have suggested such a thing will never experience the pleasure of my attention ever again. I'm sure they won't miss it. So everyone will be happy.

Yes.

 

[brockm]

I've always said that Wendell Cox is the Ann Coulter of urban planning. Well, I just went to http://westernstandard.ca/website/index.php and lo-and-behold, who is on the front cover being defended by said publication: Ann Coulter


Yes.

Listen. I am tired of this. But you've forced me to respond because you're unable to resist continuing to character assassinate me.

In your valiant attempt to beclown me, through making a silly attempt to associate me with Ann Coulter based on the front page of a defunct magazine, others might be curious to read what I wrote about Ann Coulter while I wrote for the Western Standard: http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2009/02/socialism-conservatism-and-ann-coulter.html