[Catapult]

Vacancy rates are still pretty low in Toronto - about 2.1% vs Canada avg of about 2.5% according to CMHC. This should keep rents pretty decent and continue to drive demand.

 

[junctionist]

I foresee that in the future, downtown will be the only part of the City that receives any investment and there will be a huge wealth and influence gulf between the downtown and the inner suburbs. This is already happening, and I'm not exactly a prophet for revealing this, but I think it will widen and become even more pronounced. To be somewhat controversial - and I'm not saying I endorse this - the only transport investment Toronto needs to maintain its current growth patterns is a high quality rail link to the airport. This basically connects the global centre that is downtown Toronto to the rest of the world, bypassing the inconvenience of a rapidly declining inner suburbia whose citizens matter less and less in a neoliberal world. In a way, the Island Airport serves this sort of "window to the world" role for downtown Toronto already - connecting the downtown elite with other downtown elite in global cities that are at least a short haul flight away: New York, Chicago, Montreal, Boston, etc.

It seems very irresponsible to write off vast sections of the city through rhetoric like this. The inner suburbs have vast potential for urbanization and transformation into great parts of the city, where more people want to invest in. The government may have to take the first steps in leading investment through projects like transit expansion perhaps more radical reconstruction projects. To be responsible is to identify the problem, in this case the widening gulf between downtown and the suburbs, and address it, not expect elites to simply ignore it. I think that we as a people are much more capable of doing something about addressing decline rather than writing off large parts of the city and forgetting about them. I suppose you said that you don't endorse such an irresponsible attitude, so why suggest such a dystopian reality?

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

It seems very irresponsible to write off vast sections of the city through rhetoric like this. The inner suburbs have vast potential for urbanization and transformation into great parts of the city, where more people want to invest in. The government may have to take the first steps in leading investment through projects like transit expansion perhaps more radical reconstruction projects. To be responsible is to identify the problem, in this case the widening gulf between downtown and the suburbs, and address it, not expect elites to simply ignore it. I think that we as a people are much more capable of doing something about addressing decline rather than writing off large parts of the city and forgetting about them. I suppose you said that you don't endorse such an irresponsible attitude, so why suggest such a dystopian reality?

It isn't that the inner suburbs don't have great potential, or that they do not play an important role in the city. In fact the inner suburbs are essentially playing the role the inner city did decades ago, being a place where immigrants can settle, form communities, and establish themselves. And if the amount of construction seems impressive in the outer edges of the 416 right now, in 20 years time when more suburban employment centres are established and these areas slowly get tied into the rest of the city with expanding transit networks, the development will more than likely be spectacular.

But for the moment Hipster's point still stands. In terms of what the inner suburbs offer the business community (aside from cheap, flexible labour...for better or for worse) there isn't a lot right now. And any benefits that do come too these areas will probably be more accidental than intentional. Regional rail is a good example since it will be a huge boost to many of these neighbourhoods. But only because they happen to lie in the middle of the outer suburbs and not because they are being targeted specifically. Maybe it's a somewhat harsh way to see it, but there are always going to be parts of the city where time has made them outdated and somewhat irrelevant and just like inner city neighbourhoods, time (and more importantly people in general) will find a new role for them.

 

[adma]

Yet, the "Chicago-ing" of Toronto doesn't sound like an appetizing prospect...

 

[taal]

Yet, the "Chicago-ing" of Toronto doesn't sound like an appetizing prospect...

Can you elaborate on this ?

 

[Admiral Beez]

A new colleague at work just moved from France and is looking for a condo to rent downtown. He's seen a few places, but interestingly he's getting call backs from the landlords asking him if he's still interested and offering incentives like flat screen tvs. In a landlord's market this would be unusual.

 

[Automation Gallery]

In a landlord's market this would be unusual.

Not really when they are charging 2-3 thousand bucks a month.

 

[CN Tower]

Not really when they are charging 2-3 thousand bucks a month.

First of all that's a 50% swing in asking rents you are quoting. Second, it makes no difference whether the asking rent is $1000 or $3000. If it was a hard rental market the unit would rent itself. You wouldn't need to spend $1000 on incentives to attract tenants. Perhaps if the asking rent was $10,000 it would be a nominal cost but not at these levels.

Folks, it looks like the 10,000+ completions have hit the market and we are finally seeing that spike in vacancies that some of us predicted over in the Real Estate discussion forum.

It may not be a real blizzard outside but there is a true vacancy blizzard coming to the rental market.

 

[Catapult]

First of all that's a 50% swing in asking rents you are quoting. Second, it makes no difference whether the asking rent is $1000 or $3000. If it was a hard rental market the unit would rent itself. You wouldn't need to spend $1000 on incentives to attract tenants. Perhaps if the asking rent was $10,000 it would be a nominal cost but not at these levels.

Folks, it looks like the 10,000+ completions have hit the market and we are finally seeing that spike in vacancies that some of us predicted over in the Real Estate discussion forum.

It may not be a real blizzard outside but there is a true vacancy blizzard coming to the rental market.

October's CMHC vacancy rates for Toronto were below the Cdn average of 2.5%. So unless things have changed a lot since October, your statement that there is a vacancy blizzard is unfounded - an anecdote here and there does not necessarily reflect the market.

 

[Hipster Duck]

It seems very irresponsible to write off vast sections of the city through rhetoric like this. The inner suburbs have vast potential for urbanization and transformation into great parts of the city, where more people want to invest in. The government may have to take the first steps in leading investment through projects like transit expansion perhaps more radical reconstruction projects. To be responsible is to identify the problem, in this case the widening gulf between downtown and the suburbs, and address it, not expect elites to simply ignore it. I think that we as a people are much more capable of doing something about addressing decline rather than writing off large parts of the city and forgetting about them. I suppose you said that you don't endorse such an irresponsible attitude, so why suggest such a dystopian reality?

Well, there is what I would like to happen and then there is what I think will happen. Those are two very different scenarios. To me, it would be irresponsible to only have some utopian fantasy about what you would like and not have a plan B to deal with making the city the best it could be under the circumstances that it finds itself. Worse, it would be naive not to acknowledge that certain groups of people have much more of a say in shaping our city than others, and then plan for some kind of miracle world where those people aren't considered. You may be thinking that there is vast potential for urbanization and transformation in the inner suburbs, but the vast majority of people who have the power and wealth to make these kinds of decisions don't seem to share your view. I'm not sure transit is the magic bullet here, otherwise most of the Danforth east of Coxwell wouldn't be part of this decaying grey belt.

I'm not a right wing champion of the free market, but we should be pragmatic: if the rich want to build a megaproject that disproportionately benefits them, we should piggyback onto it and make some concessions that benefit a larger segment of society. That's why I cited the airport rail-link case: it's not going to be used by working class people, but if we ask higher governments to pony up just a little more dough to make it a regional rail line shared with the airport express, we have a good chance of making it a fairly equitable project. Projects for the well-heeled and the downtown elite go through regardless (notice how David Miller's attempt to quash the island airport bridge did nothing to stop the success and expansion of the island airport), so we have a good chance of actually getting this transport project completed over, say, a Finch west LRT or even the parts of Transit City that aren't on the chopping block.

 

[Hipster Duck]

In the end, people will tend to find a way if they are motivated enough. And maybe it is a bit frustrating at times when our favourite projects don't make the grade because they don't meet the needs of the business community or offer enough return on investment. But is that really bad? ...High speed rail illustrates this really well. I will point out that I am a huge supporter of high speed rail (and rail in general) and cannot wait for the day it comes to The Corridor. And it can be a bit frustrating at times to see more and more countries start to develop it while we don't. But I think our time is very close and I think there are a lot of really good reasons why it should have taken this long. Yes studies have shown it would be cost effective to operate the service, but only when serving the most major centres, skipping most of the smaller towns along the way (small centres do matter and provide a significant number of passengers). It is great that city centres and business districts are well connected, but up until recently, how strong were those urban centres, and just as important, how many of the business elite and other generally well to do folk with disposable income and a tendency to travel on the train lived downtown or near one of the suburban stations? Yes, the train serves a wide range and class of people, but its going to be those business class travellers that really help sell the project...


So what is the point of going through why high speed rail has failed? One, I think it's a great example of an infrastructure project failing to materialize due to the business community not seeing a real value in it. Once they say there is a need for this in strong numbers, it will almost certainly be a go.

I've talked to planners and planning theorists about this, and they are generally in agreement that if it's seen as good for business or the wealthy, it's generally a go. This applies pretty much everywhere. For example, a lot of people wonder aloud why the government won't help bicycling in North America whereas they take an active role promoting bike infrastructure in the Netherlands or Denmark. What they're missing is that the bike is perceived as a transportation form for the lower classes or people who don't have much of a say - like students - in North America, whereas a large number of upper middle class professionals and even executives historically rode their bike to work in The Netherlands. If a CEO rides his bike to a meeting, he has considerably more influence on policy during his private dinner conversation with government ministers than a 100 students protesting in front of parliament.

Another great example is here in Canada, where a Vancouver planner told me that the Canada Line was the greatest thing since sliced bread because it got the wealthiest downtown residents to reconsider public transit. The Canada line is not only the cheapest way to get from downtown to the airport, but it is also by far the fastest and most dependable way to get to the airport. As he tells it, a friend's wife who lives in a fantastic penthouse in Coal Harbour "who would never shop anywhere other than Holt Renfrew" now sings the praises of TransLink because she uses it to get to the airport to jet off to international destinations.

Once HSR comes on line in California, and links major, affluent business areas together, I think you will witness a sea change in HSR mentality in North America.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

It seems very irresponsible to write off vast sections of the city through rhetoric like this. The inner suburbs have vast potential for urbanization and transformation into great parts of the city, where more people want to invest in. The government may have to take the first steps in leading investment through projects like transit expansion perhaps more radical reconstruction projects. To be responsible is to identify the problem, in this case the widening gulf between downtown and the suburbs, and address it, not expect elites to simply ignore it. I think that we as a people are much more capable of doing something about addressing decline rather than writing off large parts of the city and forgetting about them. I suppose you said that you don't endorse such an irresponsible attitude, so why suggest such a dystopian reality?

I haven't followed this thread closely (and clearly the discussion is much deeper than my knowledge), nor am I trying to be argumentative...

However, is there an appetite in the inner suburbs for the type of urbanization that you speak of? We've experienced the push back from Yonge and Eg residents against the very redevelopment that would bring investement in transit and the like. A similar scenario has played out along Sheppard E where condos have followed the subway line. Will places like your Junction `hood be willing to accept whatever population increases (and the development that goes hand in hand) or will they cry that it will disrupt the very character that brought them there. Will Beach residents accept that a portion of the homes there will be torn down and replaced with 3-20 storey developements so that it can become more than what it is now.

Getting back to the Junction example. With the potential of an electrified regional rail, rail link to the airport, and (hopefully) Eglinton LRT (or whatever) the region should be ripe for massive reinvestment both in residental and maybe even office development. Are the current residents ready for that. Again sorry to pick on you but while I agree that the inner suburbs (which are largely low density) are ripe for reinvestment and redevelopment given improved amenities like transit, generally what is found is that residents resist the type of change that goes along with these new services. Make sense?

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

Another great example is here in Canada, where a Vancouver planner told me that the Canada Line was the greatest thing since sliced bread because it got the wealthiest downtown residents to reconsider public transit. The Canada line is not only the cheapest way to get from downtown to the airport, but it is also by far the fastest and most dependable way to get to the airport. As he tells it, a friend's wife who lives in a fantastic penthouse in Coal Harbour "who would never shop anywhere other than Holt Renfrew" now sings the praises of TransLink because she uses it to get to the airport to jet off to international destinations.

Once HSR comes on line in California, and links major, affluent business areas together, I think you will witness a sea change in HSR mentality in North America.

It's too bad a lot of those who advocate better transit often seem hostile to the more affluent segments of society since they are very often the trend setters (it was the affluent who could first afford suburban living and sparked a multi-generation in how people viewed thinking). It will also be the same group that plays a huge part in the urban revival that is going on as we speak. Not that i think the rich are the only people that should be catered too, far from it, but getting them onboard as you said can bring benefits to a lot of other people as well.

A far as California and HSR is concerned I think it will have a huge impact in the United States, but, I think just how cities are developing in much different ways in the US and Canada, HSR will also follow this trend. I can definitely see HSR in the US primarily being about connecting only the most affluent areas. In Canada, though connecting the economic centres will be primary economic reason for HSR, you will see far more socialist ideals injected into the system to ensure that smaller, less well off centres are also offered access. For all the fear of NAFTA and economic globalization causing Canada to be sucked more and more into the US's orbit, the opposite has happened. Likewise, Canada could be first out of the gate on HSR and it would probably have almost no impact on what happens in the US. But really, so long as we get a HSR system suited to our country and companies, such as Bombardier, capitalize on a huge economic opportunity when the States does adopt HSR....who cares.

 

[junctionist]

Well, there is what I would like to happen and then there is what I think will happen. Those are two very different scenarios. To me, it would be irresponsible to only have some utopian fantasy about what you would like and not have a plan B to deal with making the city the best it could be under the circumstances that it finds itself. Worse, it would be naive not to acknowledge that certain groups of people have much more of a say in shaping our city than others, and then plan for some kind of miracle world where those people aren't considered. You may be thinking that there is vast potential for urbanization and transformation in the inner suburbs, but the vast majority of people who have the power and wealth to make these kinds of decisions don't seem to share your view. I'm not sure transit is the magic bullet here, otherwise most of the Danforth east of Coxwell wouldn't be part of this decaying grey belt.

There's no need for a plan B if we confront the issue head on, rather than writing off an area. It doesn't matter at all what view the people who have the money and power are thinking right now about my view, that's subject to change. Moreover, a new generation may not tolerate the indifference of elites, and new elites will emerge who will have a different understanding of the issues at hand, especially in a city with so many immigrants. It happens time and time again in modern history. Maybe an uprising will be needed, a new '68, but I think that those with power and money are quite capable of figuring out how to make these places profitable before it comes to that. It's up to ordinary people to hold them accountable any way they can. The last thing we need is American-style inequality between the rich and poor most evident in cities with their written-off "ghettos"; that's not the Canadian legacy. The elites know a beautiful city in Philadelphia, their little part of it. The rest either know suburbs and vast stretches of decay. A city doesn't have to end up like that.

There is no magic bullet. Transit will work in some places well, in others it won't. But stagnation can't be an option. Renewal schemes may be necessary. Neoliberalism will fade as people realize their wages are stagnating and how much money it takes to bailout elites.

I'm not a right wing champion of the free market, but we should be pragmatic: if the rich want to build a megaproject that disproportionately benefits them, we should piggyback onto it and make some concessions that benefit a larger segment of society. That's why I cited the airport rail-link case: it's not going to be used by working class people, but if we ask higher governments to pony up just a little more dough to make it a regional rail line shared with the airport express, we have a good chance of making it a fairly equitable project. Projects for the well-heeled and the downtown elite go through regardless (notice how David Miller's attempt to quash the island airport bridge did nothing to stop the success and expansion of the island airport), so we have a good chance of actually getting this transport project completed over, say, a Finch west LRT or even the parts of Transit City that aren't on the chopping block.

I agree. That's not disturbing like a suggestion that the Union-Pearson link will be the only project built because the suburbs are decaying and those people don't really matter.

However, is there an appetite in the inner suburbs for the type of urbanization that you speak of? We've experienced the push back from Yonge and Eg residents against the very redevelopment that would bring investement in transit and the like. A similar scenario has played out along Sheppard E where condos have followed the subway line. Will places like your Junction `hood be willing to accept whatever population increases (and the development that goes hand in hand) or will they cry that it will disrupt the very character that brought them there. Will Beach residents accept that a portion of the homes there will be torn down and replaced with 3-20 storey developements so that it can become more than what it is now.

Getting back to the Junction example. With the potential of an electrified regional rail, rail link to the airport, and (hopefully) Eglinton LRT (or whatever) the region should be ripe for massive reinvestment both in residental and maybe even office development. Are the current residents ready for that. Again sorry to pick on you but while I agree that the inner suburbs (which are largely low density) are ripe for reinvestment and redevelopment given improved amenities like transit, generally what is found is that residents resist the type of change that goes along with these new services. Make sense?

The problem with using The Junction as an example is that it has experienced the wave of revival of walkable downtown-style neighbourhoods. Gentrification is happening, for better or for worse. There are plenty of businesses along our main streets again. We already have some high density parts, but we also have the Stock Yards area to transform, and believe me, I salivate at the prospects. And so do the residents who came to the avenue study wanting condos with retail on the ground floor along St. Clair. Currently, more than half the land isn't used for anything but parking lots; the rest is big-box stores. We're talking huge tracts of land where thousands of people could live, and with plenty of opportunities for office and retail. Other urban neighbourhoods without Stock Yards of their own may see houses converted to condos, laneway housing, redevelopment of insignificant buildings for midrise buildings. At this point though, urban neighbourhoods don't seem to be the issue. Most are dense with good prospects for revitalization through subtle changes that probably won't affect their character.

Some inner suburban areas, on the other, may need transformation. As people living there see increased crime, general dreariness and little increase in property values, they're going to start to think that more radical action may be necessary. Hence, they may become more open to redevelopment of strip malls and suburban shopping centres, tower-in-the-park green spaces, and perhaps ambitious projects like the creation of new avenues by pulling down the houses whose backyards front arterials. The potential is absolutely incredible, and if there's anything that Modernist planning has taught us, is that the government things with cities that a lot of people can't even imagine. Back then, it was often negative, but we can learn from those mistakes and preserve the good and recreate what we observe that works in urban areas.

 

[Ervin]

Just waiting for the crash now. The longer this blind construction goes on for, the harder the fall will be.