[Glen]

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



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

Well, I did say in post 39 the same thing.

 

[taal]

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.

Why B) if Toronto is addressing this now and it's enticed new development it's safe to say we *shouldn't* be lagging in the future. Then again there still hasn't been much in the way of suburban Toronto development over the last 10 years.

 

[Glen]

Why B) if Toronto is addressing this now and it's enticed new development it's safe to say we *shouldn't* be lagging in the future. Then again there still hasn't been much in the way of suburban Toronto development over the last 10 years.

Some new development received a proffered rate for 5 years. On top of that, there has been no due diligence (from the city) wrt what the most effective tax rate would be. Looking at the new development, it may be that the resting rate of ETBC, is only enticing for large office's that have an need to be located in the core. It is certainly not low enough for most small businesses.

 

[Uncle Teddy]

OK, now remove all those that were:

A. Planned or being planned in April, September & October
B. Started after Toronto repaved Yonge Street between King and Queen
C. Developed by someone left handed.

You do realize that we had a massive overbuild of office and condos in the 80's right? Many major developers (BCED, O&Y, Bramalea, Tridel etc.) went bust in the early 90's because of this overbuild. You don't think that had a major reason why the 90's were a bad time for new construction? It took a decade to absorb all that space.

 

[Glen]

OK, now remove all those that were:

A. Planned or being planned in April, September & October
B. Started after Toronto repaved Yonge Street between King and Queen
C. Developed by someone left handed.

You do realize that we had a massive overbuild of office and condos in the 80's right? Many major developers (BCED, O&Y, Bramalea, Tridel etc.) went bust in the early 90's because of this overbuild. You don't think that had a major reason why the 90's were a bad time for new construction? It took a decade to absorb all that space.

On the one hand you dismiss my contentions when I offer that the majority of the properties listed were in the pipeline prior to the 1988-89. On the other you state that there was a massive overbuild in the 80's (I agree), which gave Toronto an over abundance of office space.

Your arguments also ignore that office development did occur during Toronto's hangover period, just not in the city proper. Between 2000 and 2006, slightly over 14 million s.f. of office space was developed across the GTA with 90% of it occurring outside of Toronto.

 

[Epi]

That list from TOBuilt isn't near complete...

Missing massive BMO campus at Steeles and Victoria Park.
Missing massive campus/tower at Steeles and Woodbine.
Missing Transamerica building in NYCC.
Missing a few smaller developments in NYCC as well.

Not to mention a bunch of new developments at York University, the University of Toronto, Ryerson University which include lab/office/classroom space, etc etc etc

 

[Archivist]

TOBuilt is complete with respect to 12-storeys and above buildings; it is not complete for shorter buildings, though they are sometimes included.

Transamerica is now known as Aegon Place, and is on the list. Most of the stuff for York University, Ryerson etc. could be included but would not be categorized in the database as "Office", but rather as "Educational" spaces.

 

[Glen]

Some people might want to have a look at what was cancelled.

ex.

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?buildingID=84015,84169,84168,84167,84166&orderby=buildingIDorder

or closer to home

http://www.urbantoronto.ca/showpost.php?p=189032&postcount=321
NB. according to the scuttle but in that thread Brookfield Place Phase 3, Richmond Adelaide Centre 3, 151 Front Street and maybe One City Hall 2, are highly doubtful.

 

[urbanboom]

^

Those are some pretty ugly buildings in the first one. Are they the ones that were proposed in the 70s to go where old city hall is today? If so, I'm sure glad that didn't happen, those would be quite the concrete mass...ew.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Yes, all Glen can do at this point is move the goalposts.

That list of towers is not a comprehensive list of office space added to the city since 1988. There's stuff like the ACC tower, or the Steelestech complex (of which about 500K sq.ft has been built so far), or, unmentioned, an unknown number of small and forgettable professional buildings.

Glen moans about how we're losing all of our employment lands to condos. This is rubbish. How much of the rezoned land was being used as parking lots? Most of it. That Hemson report assumes future projects at sites like Consumers will build only *surface parking*...surface parking! There's already about 15,000 surface parking spots in the Consumers office park, yet all the city has to do to open up the redevelopment potential of these vast acres of pavement is change its transit policies and extend the Sheppard subway, or simply chip in to the cost of parking structures.

Glen has also forgotten that the Avenues projects will see hundreds of acres of land rezoned to mixed use. All those houses along Sheppard and Finch that are filled with lawyers and doctors and psychics? Those are recent conversions, with some low-rise employment buildings recently finished and with more to come. If anyone thinks we're running out of room for office jobs, their opinions aren't worth the electricity needed to display them on a monitor. What we don't have much room for is stuff like distribution warehouses or Mills malls...most of these jobs could never have fit in the 416 unless we wanted to destroy our city to make room.

There's been a few relatively high-profile residential projects built/proposed on sites near subway stations, but the problem with this is certainly not the simple loss of employment space. Even with the trend towards AreBe Centres that would have two 30 storey towers built instead of one 60 storey tower, taking up twice the land, short buildings can be redeveloped and new subway lines can be built. The real problem, if any, is the city-building impact of plunking down [mostly ugly] condos in the middle of central/entertainment/civic sites (like within a block or two of Union Station, or on top of the Rose Garden in North York), a symptom of the city giving in to developers and not caring and wanting to get parking lots redeveloped right now, with no regard to the end result. So garbage like Infinity or Gibson Square or 18 Yonge ends up occupying a showcase site, and the next hotel or museum or courthouse or corporate HQ that comes along may have to settle for a lesser site...less visibility, less foot traffic, less impact on the quality of the street wall and street life, etc.

Those are some pretty ugly buildings in the first one. Are they the ones that were proposed in the 70s to go where old city hall is today? If so, I'm sure glad that didn't happen, those would be quite the concrete mass...ew.

They'd go where Old City Hall is...and where the Eaton Centre is...and where the other towers around the Eaton Centre are. In other words, we'd have to forego a heck of a lot more jobs than just those in the OCH courts to get these towers.

 

[Glen]

Glen moans about how we're losing all of our employment lands to condos. This is rubbish. How much of the rezoned land was being used as parking lots? Most of it.

Once again you offer up your opinion as fact, with no supporting evidence at all. You are also ignoring the number of sites that were previously planned as commercial that changed to residential. Along with the fiscal consequences of such.

That Hemson report assumes future projects at sites like Consumers will build only *surface parking*...surface parking! There's already about 15,000 surface parking spots in the Consumers office park, yet all the city has to do to open up the redevelopment potential of these vast acres of pavement is change its transit policies and extend the Sheppard subway, or simply chip in to the cost of parking structures.

Cough, NYCC.

Not surprisingly you are missing the point of the proformas in the Hemson reports which is....

In the City of Toronto, Most New Development in the
Districts Is Not Economically Competitive
The pro forma analysis suggests that most new development
in the Employment Districts would not be economically
competitive from the perspective of the private landowner or
investor

Glen has also forgotten that the Avenues projects will see hundreds of acres of land rezoned to mixed use.

Yay, will will soon be the world leader in ground floor retail.

All those houses along Sheppard and Finch that are filled with lawyers and doctors and psychics? Those are recent conversions, with some low-rise employment buildings recently finished and with more to come.

Those converted homes have been there for years. You seem to be making things as you go along.

What I have been lamenting, and the point you are missing, is not necessarily the loss of employment land, it is the loss of the commercial assessment base (acutal and relative) and opportunity.

You might want to keep your eye on the news in the next little while. The financial ramifications of Toronto's lopsided growth will be spelled out for you.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Once again you offer up your opinion as fact, with no supporting evidence at all. You are also ignoring the number of sites that were previously planned as commercial that changed to residential. Along with the fiscal consequences of such.

Again, you're bitching about the acreage allotted to each land use...you know this allotment changes every year, right? You mentioned countless employment buildings lost to non-employment uses...name them. Parking lots and fields are not employment buildings, by the way. We've already proven you wrong about everything else you've said in this thread.

Not surprisingly you are missing the point of the proformas in the Hemson reports which is....

In the City of Toronto, Most New Development in the
Districts Is Not Economically Competitive
The pro forma analysis suggests that most new development
in the Employment Districts would not be economically
competitive from the perspective of the private landowner or
investor

Yeah, hence the need to extend the Sheppard subway. The city of Toronto encouraged suburban office districts but never built transit to serve them...meanwhile, the 905 encouraged suburban office districts and saw highway projects completed to serve them. Hence the need to tweak the tax policies, to lobby for more corporate HQ and offer creative incentives, and so on...who ever said we shouldn't do all this?

Yay, will will soon be the world leader in ground floor retail.

If you're at all familiar with Toronto - and you don't seem to be aware of anything other than the content in the intros and conclusions you copy and paste from reports you haven't fully read - you'll know that low-rise employment buildings are being built along Avenues in addition to condos and retail. Only a fraction of the city is currently Avenueizing, but this is changing and increasing.

Those converted homes have been there for years. You seem to be making things as you go along.

The houses have been there for years, but the conversion process is recent and ongoing. Learn to read.

What I have been lamenting, and the point you are missing, is not necessarily the loss of employment land, it is the loss of the commercial assessment base (acutal and relative) and opportunity.

You're bitching about the loss of employment land. We can bolster the tax base in the future by replacing parking lots and 1-2 storey buildings with towers. As if we're going to run out of opportunities to build towers. Duh. Is this stuff too complicated for you?

You might want to keep your eye on the news in the next little while. The financial ramifications of Toronto's lopsided growth will be spelled out for you.

The only lopsided thing here is your pathetic argument. The job forecasts you're moaning about are based on population growth. Toronto's rate of job growth has exceeded its population growth since 1988. For the sake of the future health of the 416, there's all kinds of policies that should be tweaked, including taxes and transit. It's an ongoing process.

 

[Glen]

Again, you're bitching about the acreage allotted to each land use...you know this allotment changes every year, right? You mentioned countless employment buildings lost to non-employment uses...name them. Parking lots and fields are not employment buildings, by the way. We've already proven you wrong about everything else you've said in this thread.

Six million sq ft. of such space was mentioned in the opening post. Try to keep up.

Yeah, hence the need to extend the Sheppard subway. The city of Toronto encouraged suburban office districts but never built transit to serve them...meanwhile, the 905 encouraged suburban office districts and saw highway projects completed to serve them. Hence the need to tweak the tax policies, to lobby for more corporate HQ and offer creative incentives, and so on...who ever said we shouldn't do all this?

You do realize that the Yonge St. subway has been there for a while, don't you? Yet many planned offices were re zoned to residential and never saw the light of day.

you'll know that low-rise employment buildings are being built along Avenues in addition to condos and retail. Only a fraction of the city is currently Avenueizing, but this is changing and increasing.

Because you said so?

The houses have been there for years, but the conversion process is recent and ongoing. Learn to read.

Nope. Many converted houses have been there for over 15 years. I used to drive by them daily.

You're bitching about the loss of employment land. We can bolster the tax base in the future by replacing parking lots and 1-2 storey buildings with towers. As if we're going to run out of opportunities to build towers. Duh. Is this stuff too complicated for you?

I have never said that Toronto has an insufficient amount commercial development sites. It is you who is making this the issue. What I have been saying, and you keep ignoring, is that the very important non residential assessment base not developed, or maintained is relative size. Having potential and realizing it are different things. The financial consequences also seem to be escaping you.

Toronto's rate of job growth has exceeded its population growth since 1988.

Care to provide some numbers?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Six million sq ft. of such space was mentioned in the opening post. Try to keep up.

Oh dear, you're really out of it.

That six million was the supposedly lost office space in CityPlace since 1988. Concord's CityPlace didn't even exist in 1988, so your wrath was misplaced, and you've been shown that far, far more than 6M sq.ft of office space was built in Toronto after 1988, including millions of sq.ft of office space in 'CityPlace,' before you childishly changed the goalposts and forgot what the hell you were rambling on about.

Again, where's your list of "countless small office buildings" that were lost?

You do realize that the Yonge St. subway has been there for a while, don't you? Yet many planned offices were re zoned to residential and never saw the light of day.

Since when is the Consumers office park on Yonge? Try to keep up.

Those offices were never planned in the way you think you were. Most of them were just Mel Lastman's long-term dream of "one day, I hope to see Yonge lined with office towers!" You don't seem aware that these towers would have been quite short - one 50 storey tower holds more jobs than three 15 storey towers. There's always room for towers.

Because you said so?

I have to say so because you're clueless. Yes, some employment/professional buildings have been built in Avenues zones. Not a million of them, but only a few km of the city has been Avenueized and the redevelopments are far from complete. Drive along Finch or Sheppard and you'll see them. Wait 20 years and you'll see more, on more streets.

Nope. Many converted houses have been there for over 15 years. I used to drive by them daily.

Subtract 15 from 2010. I'll wait. Is the number higher or lower than 1988? That's what I thought.

Of course, more houses have been converted since the 80s/90s, and more will be converted in the future, particularly as vast stretches of arterial suburbia Avenueize. There's lots of backyards along Sheppard and Finch that will be rezoned soon.

I have never said that Toronto has an insufficient amount commercial development sites. It is you who is making this the issue. What I have been saying, and you keep ignoring, is that the very important non residential assessment base not developed, or maintained is relative size. Having potential and realizing it are different things. The financial consequences also seem to be escaping you.

You have repeatedly brought up the loss of employment sites. That's why you made this thread. Your first post was erroneously lamenting the loss of CityPlace office space.

Care to provide some numbers?

I meant 1983, not 1988. My monitor is fuzzy and 8s look like 3s so I didn't change it. But it's also true for 1996, and probably for 2003, as well.

Everyone cherry picks stats, but unless you're honest about it, your arguments come across as desperate, hysterical, baseless fearmongering. So do all the reports you link to...these reports are pessimistic because optimism will not induce policy changes.

 

[Glen]

That six million was the supposedly lost office space in CityPlace since 1988. Concord's CityPlace didn't even exist in 1988, so your wrath was misplaced, and you've been shown that far, far more than 6M sq.ft of office space was built in Toronto after 1988, including millions of sq.ft of office space in 'CityPlace,' before you childishly changed the goalposts and forgot what the hell you were rambling on about.

CityPlace existed before Concord's involvement.

Ok Waldo, where is the millions of sq. ft. of office's?

While you may claim that I have moved the goalposts, that is simply not true. Not acknowledging the latencies involved in planning and development in order to justify your position is dishonest. By your logic one can claim that Dubai is doing fine, just by looking at all that has been built in the last two years.

Again, where's your list of "countless small office buildings" that were lost?

They are in York and Peel.

Since when is the Consumers office park on Yonge? Try to keep up.

The analogy was to demonstrate the spurious link you made to commercial development and public transit. In an area (Yonge and Sheppard), that was served by a subway, the opposite happened. Next time I will make it more obvious for you.

Those offices were never planned in the way you think you were. Most of them were just Mel Lastman's long-term dream of "one day, I hope to see Yonge lined with office towers!"

Nope. There were approvals that were changed. you might also want to have a look at figure 4.3.1 here.

have to say so because you're clueless. Yes, some employment/professional buildings have been built in Avenues zones. Not a million of them, but only a few km of the city has been Avenueized and the redevelopments are far from complete. Drive along Finch or Sheppard and you'll see them. Wait 20 years and you'll see more, on more streets.

Of course how silly of me and the rest. That is why there has been so little commercial development. We need the city to be Avenueized.

Subtract 15 from 2010. I'll wait. Is the number higher or lower than 1988? That's what I thought.

The conversions happened before Sheppard being 'Avenueized', or the construction of the subway. Using them of an example of what will happen citywide after 'Avenueizing' and Transit improvements, is false.