[scarberiankhatru]

Again, just because you say that "the city *has* done a decent job with employment since 1988", does not make it so. Your belief, relying on statistics from one source and a disclaimer that some amount may be missed due to data collection methods and those who work from home, yet ignore all other sources (StatsCan) that show a similar trend. The trends are the same using StatsCan data, with a consistent methodology. Unless you are suggesting that only people in Toronto work from home.

You might want to have a look at pages 12 and 50 of this report. Between 89 and 04 the city lost 7.4% of Full and Part Time jobs. The number of residents that commuted outside of the city for work increased by 27% between 91-01.

It's done better than you think, but of course it could have done better - when is that never the case? You're bitching about the city's health but all you're looking at is office jobs and the relative population growth rates of the 416 and the 905...the problem is your whining, not the reports' various methodologies.

The percentage of uncounted jobs is similar in both the 905 and the 416, but this percentage is increasing over time. The nature of work is changing and basing the health of the city on what a few summer interns can glean from chatting with secretaries is clearly increasingly insufficient and easily enough to put a dent in job projections. This has already been explained to you. You really think a few office towers in lieu of condos along Spadina would have done absolutely anything other than prevent a few office towers from going up in later years? Get real. Employment growth in the 905 wasn't surprising and was necessary as the 416 could not possibly have accommodated all of the GTA's growth, employment or residential.

Here's the truth: full- and part-time employment in Toronto actually rose 13.5% between 1996 and 2008 and over 18% since 1983. Statistics...they can prove anything! The job totals were unchanged between 1987 and 2006, but that's not a very exciting number...certainly not exciting enough to get councillors and think tanks to support action of any kind. The "sky is falling" folk like you tend to only cherry-pick figures from one peak to the next trough because they seem scarier, but Miller knows to throw you a bone now and then.

Yep, those places are in the 905 cities.

Wrong again. Those jobs are found at home or at non-fixed sites. An additional 200,000 work in the 905.

Sure it does, just not exclusively. It also counts self employed and those employed but absent from work.

You also seem to be ignoring the impact of a diminished assessment base.

No, it doesn't include 416-based jobs, just 416-dwelling workers. Try reading the reports you dredge up.

You're assuming the base will drop like a thermometer and that nothing else will pick up the slack.

If you think that everything is/was fine then good for you. Even thought i files in the face of numerous studies. Even the Mayor gets it!

The report I linked to before describes your thinking perfectly....

You know what I think because I've already said this: that we did a decent job under the circumstances but that we could always do better. Just about every rational person would agree with me.

Here's a summary of what you think:

 

[Glen]

It's done better than you think, but of course it could have done better - when is that never the case? You're bitching about the city's health but all you're looking at is office jobs and the relative population growth rates of the 416 and the 905...the problem is your whining, not the reports' various methodologies.

We will have to agree to disagree wrt how well the city has done. Other the TOC report, everything I referenced was relating to overall employment. Office employment is Toronto's strong suit. The fact that it did poorly there, yet still better than all other sectors, is troubling.

You really think a few office towers in lieu of condos along Spadina would have done absolutely anything other than prevent a few office towers from going up in later years? Get real. Employment growth in the 905 wasn't surprising and was necessary as the 416 could not possibly have accommodated all of the GTA's growth, employment or residential.

Yes I do think that it would have made a difference. Economically, it would have increased the size of the assessment base. A back of the envelope calculation shows an additional 50 million per year in property taxes.

The job totals were unchanged between 1987 and 2006, but that's not a very exciting number...certainly not exciting enough to get councillors and think tanks to support action of any kind.

That ignores the fact that the municipalities around Toronto grew tremendously, both in population and employment, and Toronto could not benefit. The entire region was prospering, Toronto was not. It would be like having the only house on the street that did not go up in value.

No, it doesn't include 416-based jobs, just 416-dwelling workers. Try reading the reports you dredge up.

It implicitly does.

You're assuming the base will drop like a thermometer and that nothing else will pick up the slack.

Nothing will replace it that places as little burden on the cities finances and produces as much tax revenue.

PS. I would much rather be in the same club as Don Drummond, Jack Mintz, Glen Miller, etc. than in yours.........

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Yes I do think that it would have made a difference. Economically, it would have increased the size of the assessment base. A back of the envelope calculation shows an additional 50 million per year in property taxes.

Where would the jobs have come from to fill those extra 6M sq.ft? The *only* consequence would have been building 6M sq.ft of office space sooner...and having it built farther from Union station. There's tons of room downtown for more office towers, and tons of room across the rest of the city. There's been a very small number of condos built on high-profile or high-potential office zones, but in no way does this limit Toronto's total employment potential.

That ignores the fact that the municipalities around Toronto grew tremendously, both in population and employment, and Toronto could not benefit. The entire region was prospering, Toronto was not. It would be like having the only house on the street that did not go up in value.

Toronto has prospered...employment is up 18% since 1983, for one thing, and has outstripped population growth both in that period and in the post-recession period of the mid-90s to the present. My cherry-picked stats prove that your cherry-picked stats are wrong. Find better stats.

Of course, some 905 municipalities are virtually built out now...they will suffer in coming decades. No more greenfields, no more development levees, more burdensome poor people and seniors and so on.

It implicitly does.

It explicitly doesn't. Look up "labour force" in the dictionary, please, if you think "labour force" refers to the location of jobs.

Nothing will replace it that places as little burden on the cities finances and produces as much tax revenue.

Every report you dredge up refers to warning signs and uses scary threats like "bedroom community," as if the entire CBD and all the hospitals and universities are going to close up shop tomorrow and move to Milton...you're talking like we're well on our way down some precipitous slope of decay and running around like Chicken Little with his head cut off.

 

[Glen]

Where would the jobs have come from to fill those extra 6M sq.ft? The *only* consequence would have been building 6M sq.ft of office space sooner...and having it built farther from Union station. There's tons of room downtown for more office towers, and tons of room across the rest of the city. There's been a very small number of condos built on high-profile or high-potential office zones, but in no way does this limit Toronto's total employment potential.

The jobs, specifically the location of such, would have come from the areas where they went instead. Places like Mississauga, Vaughan and Markham. As such Toronto has a smaller commercial assessment base than it would have. They financial implications of this seems to be alluding you.

It explicitly doesn't. Look up "labour force" in the dictionary, please, if you think "labour force" refers to the location of jobs.

Well, duh. If you cannot see any relationship between where a labour force is and where the jobs that the have are located then then there is nothing more to say. Never mind the financial implications as mentioned above.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

The jobs, specifically the location of such, would have come from the areas where they went instead. Places like Mississauga, Vaughan and Markham. As such Toronto has a smaller commercial assessment base than it would have. They financial implications of this seems to be alluding you.

If the jobs would have gone to Toronto, they would have gone to Toronto. They didn't. Towers don't fill up with tenants just because they're built. Get a clue. And the word is eluding.

Well, duh. If you cannot see any relationship between where a labour force is and where the jobs that the have are located then then there is nothing more to say. Never mind the financial implications as mentioned above.

Poor attempt at changing the subject there. The economic indicators report does not include job location counts; the TES does, but it counts a percentage of jobs that is decreasing over time, making the report increasingly ineffective at revealing the city's true economic health. Toronto's labour force does not refer to the number of jobs in Toronto...and given the whining you do about 416/905 differences and given that this thread is about the location of jobs, shouldn't you at least try to understand what you're babbling about?

Employment has grown faster than population in the 416 over the past generation, and since forecasts are often as simple as taking population and multiplying by participation rates, a failure to meet job forecasts can be 'blamed' on a failure to meet population forecasts, forecasts which can be impossible to achieve with realistic demographic and market conditions. Condemning the city's record of job creation due to the death of manufacturing, the recession, birth rate declines, more divorces, and increased longevity is simply idiotic.

 

[Glen]

If the jobs would have gone to Toronto, they would have gone to Toronto. They didn't. Towers don't fill up with tenants just because they're built.

Buildings will never get filled up if they are never built. Especially when your tax climate makes it so ...

In the City of Toronto, Most New Development in the
Districts Is Not Economically Competitive

For the scenarios tested, the analysis indicates a shortfall
of revenues between the net present value of the cost of
developing new buildings and their leased-up investment
value, for both the pure office and industrial
scenarios examined.

Poor attempt at changing the subject there. The economic indicators report does not include job location counts; the TES does, but it counts a percentage of jobs that is decreasing over time, making the report increasingly ineffective at revealing the city's true economic health. Toronto's labour force does not refer to the number of jobs in Toronto...and given the whining you do about 416/905 differences and given that this thread is about the location of jobs, shouldn't you at least try to understand what you're babbling about?

What don't you understand here? Toronto does not collect income tax. As far as its economic health is concerned, the relative size of its assessment base, in particular the ratio of residential to non residential, is paramount. TES, the economic indicators, StatsCan (inc the origin destination data), and countless other data shows that Toronto has fallen far behind.

Its not if they are employed, but where they are employed that makes a difference for Toronto.

Employment has grown faster than population in the 416 over the past generation,

Then explain why in 1989 we had an unemployment rate of 3.9% and an employment rate of 69.8% while in 2009 the unemployment rate is more than double and the employment rate is ~66%.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Buildings will never get filled up if they are never built. Especially when your tax climate makes it so ...

If towers were guaranteed to be filled with new-to-Toronto tenants, there'd be a lot more towers getting built. If you build it they will come? No, not exactly.

What don't you understand here? Toronto does not collect income tax. As far as its economic health is concerned, the relative size of its assessment base, in particular the ratio of residential to non residential, is paramount. TES, the economic indicators, StatsCan (inc the origin destination data), and countless other data shows that Toronto has fallen far behind.

Its not if they are employed, but where they are employed that makes a difference for Toronto.

The TES fails to count an increasing percentage of jobs. That's just the way the labour market and workplace are moving and there's nothing Toronto can do about it, unless it wants to, for instance, ban the internet. The economic indicators report does not count jobs or state the location of jobs, which you'd know if you'd looked at it.

Toronto's site-fixed jobs have grown 18% since 1983 and over 13% since 1996...these periods have also seen dozens and dozens and dozens of office and other employment towers erected. We've done reasonably well despite the recession and, among other things, some of the city's policies. Blustery think tank and consultant reports try to frighten the city into action to change policies (many of which should be changed, like its transit and tax policies) or are commissioned by one group at the city to influence another. Some people, like you, take this fear-mongering at face value. Obviously, if you want to get policies changed, you need to focus on the negatives and ignore the positives, tweaking stats where necessary.

Then explain why in 1989 we had an unemployment rate of 3.9% and an employment rate of 69.8% while in 2009 the unemployment rate is more than double and the employment rate is ~66%.

There's these things called aging and retirement...do you really think they only affect Toronto and won't ravage the 905 in a few years? Also, the city can't exactly force working age people and only working age people to live within the 416...Toronto can only handle a fraction of the GTA's growth. It doesn't have the land and it isn't willing to destroy itself to make room.

 

[kettal]

It's great that Glen has to compare the lowest unemployment year in history to the current recession, to make a point. wasn't unemployment at about 10% by 1991?

 

[Glen]

It's great that Glen has to compare the lowest unemployment year in history to the current recession, to make a point. wasn't unemployment at about 10% by 1991?

The 1989 period was chosen because of the date of the article that I originally posted.

Nonetheless the city has failed in economic performance. Regardless of scarberiankhatru's opinion. Time frame chosen only tells part of the story. One needs to look at larger trends. In a global recession, poor performance can be expected. What I have been saying is that when a large part of the world was booming, and the areas immediately surround Toronto were growing, Toronto was losing jobs and had a shrinking assessment base. Different rates of growth should be expected, not different trajectories.

On top of that, while scarberiankhatru likes to point to 'dozens of office towers built since 1988', which he refuses to list, he also continues to ignore the loss of the commercial assessment base (185 acres between 2000-05 alone).

You should read this.

Toronto’s suburban Employment Districts are at risk of becoming bedroom communities for the 905. A number of disturbing trends have emerged over the past number of years. Toronto is under pressure to permit employment lands to be redeveloped for other uses. The primary cause is the higher economic return that can be achieved from other uses, especially residential. Over time the potential to achieve this higher value from the land leads to pressure for conversion. Ultimately this has and is leading to a loss of employment land and a loss of future employment opportunities. In fact, Toronto is not keeping pace with job growth as compared to the 905. Figure 1 below shows the change in employment levels compared to the base year of 1989, on an annual basis. Toronto has yet to return to the 1989 employment level while the 905 has seen significant new employment growth.

(a) There are approximately 100,000 fewer jobs in the City today than in 1989, however over the same time frame employment in the surrounding region increased by approximately 800,000.
(b) From 2000 to June 2005 Toronto has lost over 185 acres of employment land, translating into a loss of over 4,000 potential jobs.
(c) Toronto has become a net exporter of its manufacturing labour force sending 19,300 residents to the 905. In 2005, there were 209,300 Toronto residents employed in manufacturing activities although there are only 190,000 positions in Toronto.
(d) In 2001, it was shown that 39,185 people commuted from Vaughan to Toronto, while 40,635 people commuted from Toronto to Vaughan showing a reversal in commuting trends that had existed for decades.

Maintaining stable and competitive Employment Districts has many benefits. Toronto Historically provides over 30% of the City’s total employment in the suburban ring. This sets Toronto apart from many North American jurisdictions. These jobs (many of which are in themanufacturing sector) are within Toronto borders and offer its citizens a range and diversity of job opportunities not found in other large urban areas. While a continuing loss of employment to the 905 is itself a concern, ongoing employment sprawl increases commuting times for Toronto’labour force to workplaces outside of Toronto, decreases economic productivity, and create associated negative impacts on the environment and public transit.

 

[Uncle Teddy]

On top of that, while scarberiankhatru likes to point to 'dozens of office towers built since 1988', which he refuses to list

Scotiatower - 1988
Brookfield Place - 1990-1992
There's others from that era that I can't be bothered to track down.

Recent years.
TransAmerica Life - NYCC
Rogers South Tower expansion
Maritime Life
Vast campus at 404 and south side of Steeles
Bay Adelaide
RBC
Telus
Mars
18 York (underconstruction)
Corus (underconstruction)

 

[taal]

Your missing one around Yonge and Queen as well (this was more recent - 5/10 years).


Either way, that's not 'a lot' by any chance given the amount of time in question.

 

[CDL.TO]

TOBuilt.ca says the following office towers were built between 1989 and 2009:

1. [425 Adelaide Street East] 1989
2. [One Toronto Street] 1989
3. [100 Sheppard Avenue East] 1989
4. [West Metro Corporate Centre 1] 1989
5. [West Metro Corporate Centre 2] 1989
6. [West Metro Corporate Centre 3] 1989
7. [100 Yonge Street] 1989
8. [North York City Centre] 1989
9. [Place Nouveau Offices] 1989
10. [Waterpark Place II] 1990
11. [Canada Trust Tower] 1990
12. [Minto Plaza 2] 1990
13. [320 Front Street West] 1990
14. [330 Front Street West] 1990
15. [Corporate Plaza] 1990
16. [Bell ActiMedia Tower] 1990
17. [AT&T Canada] 1990
18. [70 York Street] 1990
19. Dundee Place 1991
20. [Bay Wellington Tower] 1991
21. [Ernst & Young Tower] 1991
22. [Xerox Centre] 1991
23. [Towers Perrin, South Tower] 1991
24. [Clarica Centre 3] 1991
25. [Clinical and Community Services Centre] 1991
26. [Concorde Corporate Centre] 1991
27. [300 Consilium Place] 1991
28. [49 Ontario Street] 1991
29. [One Queen East] 1991
30. [Atria III] 1991
31. [438 University Avenue] 1991
32. [Metro Hall South] 1991
33. [Yonge - Richmond Centre] 1991
34. [5001 Yonge Street] 1991
35. [CBC Broadcast Centre] 1992
36. [Metro Hall West] 1992
37. [Metro Hall North] 1992
38. [Rogers AT&T Centre] 1992
39. [Starwood Centre] 1992
40. [The 250] 1992
41. [Yonge-Norton Centre] 1992
42. [North American Life Centre North Tower] 1992
43. [King's Tower Business Centre] 1993
44. [Nestle Building] 1994
45. [180 Simcoe Street] 1994
46. [220 Bay Street] 1995
47. [Simcoe Place] 1995
48. [Maritime Life Building] 2003
49. [Aegon Place] 2004
50. [Toronto Medical Discoveries Tower] 2005
51. [SAS Canada Headquarters] 2005
52. [Mackenzie Investments Tower] 2006
53. [Bay-Adelaide Centre West Tower] 2009
54. [RBC Centre] 2009

 

[taal]

Right, doesn't seem 88 was a good date to pick, but have a look at 1995+ there's nearly nothing expect for the last few downtown. Next to nothing outside of the core, why is that?

 

[Glen]

TOBuilt.ca says the following office towers were built between 1989 and 2009:

1. [425 Adelaide Street East] 1989
2. [One Toronto Street] 1989
3. [100 Sheppard Avenue East] 1989
4. [West Metro Corporate Centre 1] 1989
5. [West Metro Corporate Centre 2] 1989
6. [West Metro Corporate Centre 3] 1989
7. [100 Yonge Street] 1989
8. [North York City Centre] 1989
9. [Place Nouveau Offices] 1989
10. [Waterpark Place II] 1990
11. [Canada Trust Tower] 1990
12. [Minto Plaza 2] 1990
13. [320 Front Street West] 1990
14. [330 Front Street West] 1990
15. [Corporate Plaza] 1990
16. [Bell ActiMedia Tower] 1990
17. [AT&T Canada] 1990
18. [70 York Street] 1990
19. Dundee Place 1991
20. [Bay Wellington Tower] 1991
21. [Ernst & Young Tower] 1991
22. [Xerox Centre] 1991
23. [Towers Perrin, South Tower] 1991
24. [Clarica Centre 3] 1991
25. [Clinical and Community Services Centre] 1991
26. [Concorde Corporate Centre] 1991
27. [300 Consilium Place] 1991
28. [49 Ontario Street] 1991
29. [One Queen East] 1991
30. [Atria III] 1991
31. [438 University Avenue] 1991
32. [Metro Hall South] 1991
33. [Yonge - Richmond Centre] 1991
34. [5001 Yonge Street] 1991
35. [CBC Broadcast Centre] 1992
36. [Metro Hall West] 1992
37. [Metro Hall North] 1992
38. [Rogers AT&T Centre] 1992
39. [Starwood Centre] 1992
40. [The 250] 1992
41. [Yonge-Norton Centre] 1992
42. [North American Life Centre North Tower] 1992
43. [King's Tower Business Centre] 1993
44. [Nestle Building] 1994
45. [180 Simcoe Street] 1994
46. [220 Bay Street] 1995
47. [Simcoe Place] 1995
48. [Maritime Life Building] 2003
49. [Aegon Place] 2004
50. [Toronto Medical Discoveries Tower] 2005
51. [SAS Canada Headquarters] 2005
52. [Mackenzie Investments Tower] 2006
53. [Bay-Adelaide Centre West Tower] 2009
54. [RBC Centre] 2009

OK, now remove all those that were:

A. Planned or being planned prior to 1988 (take off the first 42 off the list)
B. Started after Toronto addressed its tax rate disparity (take off the last 2)
C. Developed by the city of other levels of government.

 

[CDL.TO]

OK, now remove all those that were:

A. Planned or being planned prior to 1988 (take off the first 42 off the list)
B. Started after Toronto addressed its tax rate disparity (take off the last 2)
C. Developed by the city of other levels of government.

Now you're just moving the goalposts. Why didn't you make state those qualifications when you said:

scarberiankhatru likes to point to 'dozens of office towers built since 1988', which he refuses to list

Instead of after I took the time and effort to compile that list.

The Bay-Adelaide Centre was planned before 1988. Planning always goes back a long way.