News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.3K     0 

canarob

canarob

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
1,648
Reaction score
993
With the greenbelt limiting land use and the hunger municipalities have for development fees, I think this will be a growing trend across the inner 905, which might have the unintended consequence of pushing industry even farther afield.

In some respects, I would imagine mixed-use developments with office space are probably more realistic for places like Markham that may be priced out of the large-scale industrial developments anyway, but whether or not these projects will truly house the same number of jobs is a pretty big question.

http://www.yorkregion.com/news-stor...l-zones-being-designated-for-residential-use/

Markham is converting about 70 hectares or just under 10 per cent of its total employment lands to allow for other uses including residential, commercial and retail.

About 50 hectares of that space had been set aside as future industrial lands, forecast to accommodate more than 3,000 industrial jobs.

The changes would add close to 7,500 new residences, from detached homes to high density condominiums.

“There is a strong desire from people who want to come and live in the Markham community,†Mayor Frank Scarpitti said.

“But we also have to attract jobs to the community. A balance between the world now and the future world needs to take place.â€

Markham is expected to be the location for about 202,500 jobs by 2031, which is about 30 per cent of the region’s total employment forecast.

Currently, Markham has about 675 hectares of vacant land set aside for future employment needs to 2031. Of that, 35 per cent is dedicated for major office space, 35 per cent for industrial uses and 30 per cent for retail, commercial and service uses as prescribed by the region.
Click to expand...
 
Converting industrial/employment lands for residential use is very problematic.

Firstly, it hurts your tax base. The net revenue from commercial lands is always higher...so those lands end up generating less revenue. Secondly as the population grows and the growth in employment lands does not....there is more stress on roads/transit.

It is bad planning.
 
I wonder if that's as true for somewhere like Markham with high residential taxes and rock bottom corporate taxes though? Do a couple of warehouses or squat office towers really pay as much in taxes as 2,000 condo units?

I do agree that in the long term you need local jobs for a host of reasons, many of which you mentioned, but I wonder if some burbs would be better off with a "southcore model" that just mixes in office space with residential buildings? There seem to be a number of vacant industrial buildings near Warden and 14th, and a host of other light industrial sites that have been undevelopped for over a decade, so leaving space for old school office parks and office/warehouse combos might be unrealistic at this point. The new office building in downtown Markham will apparently house 2,000 people, and is connected to transit, which I would guess is the sort of thing we should be shooting for again in the future.
 
canarob said:
I wonder if that's as true for somewhere like Markham with high residential taxes and rock bottom corporate taxes though? Do a couple of warehouses or squat office towers really pay as much in taxes as 2,000 condo units?
Click to expand...

It is hard to measure on the information that we have here whether the gross taxation would be higher or lower but net I would bet on the commercial use generating more. Schools, hospitals, libraries, etc are costs which go up much faster with residential development than commercial.
 
canarob,

Corporate property taxes are still higher than residential ones, so they are only 'rock bottom' compared to Toronto's. Nonetheless, when it comes to Municipalities and the requirement of balanced budgets, looking at only the tax revenue side of the equation can be misleading. As TOareaFan pointed out, you must also look at the expenses. Most of the operating and capital budgets are for the benefit of residents. As long as they pay less taxes and generate more expenses than non residential, any increase in residential development or reduction in nonresidential development will have a negative effect on budgets.

This is the same point I brought up regarding Toronto's Portlands. From a financial perspective the city would be far better off leaving the land vacant rather than having new residential development.
 
Good points, TOareaFan and Glen.

I do wonder what the perfect mix between residents and jobs would be though. Markham is already a suburb that has more people commuting into it than out (I believe it and Mississauga are the only two where this is the case). The more jobs the better, I guess, but there might be a point where it's just not happening.

Also, given many companies are in relatively dense office buildings and often have employees who can work from home much of the time, are we over estimating the amount of land needed for employment? Is it really better to leave prime land vacant for decades?
 
Depending on the location of the prime land, it might still be using municipal infrastructure (roads/sewers) when vacant but will be paying very little property taxes. Retail and industrial I think might generate $8-15 million in property value per hectare compared to $15-20 million per hectare for low residential and much more for high density residential ($50-$200 million?). Retail, especially the regional malls most people drive to, generates a lot of automobile traffic compared to residential which means traffic signals and road widenings. Industrial generates truck traffic which does exponentially more damage to roads. They both require fire and safety, roads, sewer/water, snow ploughing and transit. The main additional cost for residential is parks and rec and libraries (maybe waste disposal? do industrial/commercial dispose of their waste themselves?). Libraries is a pretty small cost, parks is more but if it's high density it's not much either since parks area is usually a % of total area and decreases per capita as density increases, although rec/performing arts centres would probably stay similar.

Schools and hospitals are a provincial responsibility no? And what does it matter to the province if the population growth is in Markham or Innisfil in terms of paying for schools and hospitals?

High density office is most likely better than low rise residential, but as for retail, low density office and industrial I think a more detailed analysis is needed, I wouldn't assume that it's better.
 
Last edited:
Memph, it does not appear that you are making a distinction between operating and capital costs. Nonetheless your model seems to suggest that there is a scenario which could produce a surplus. This alone makes makes it implausible. I did some research on this for Don Drummond when he was at TD. While there is certainly many debatable issues, such as how much does the non residential portion of policing cost, the most conservative estimate was that the non residential sector was paying over $2 for every $1 dollar received in services or benefits. Again, within the confines of a balanced budget where expenses must equal receipts, it is implicit that the residential sector is subsidized.
 
drum118 said:
Are there any places like is in 905 or Ontario/Canada? A sure waste of not only good land, but resources. What is the lost of unsold cars on the company bottom line?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-16/where-worlds-unsold-cars-go-die
Click to expand...

Most auto assembly plants will have some parking lots to store the cars they make. A few years ago (maybe during the recession, don't remember exactly when) there was a temporary parking lot at 403 and Upper Middle for Ford that got to be pretty full with cars, but they've since emptied that out and are now down to just using the regular lots next to the factory.
 
Memph said:
Most auto assembly plants will have some parking lots to store the cars they make. A few years ago (maybe during the recession, don't remember exactly when) there was a temporary parking lot at 403 and Upper Middle for Ford that got to be pretty full with cars, but they've since emptied that out and are now down to just using the regular lots next to the factory.
Click to expand...

Having space at the factory was standard in the past, but being more on time delivery these days, very little is use of it. They come off the line to get in line for the next rack for loading. Less up front cars are built without firm orders to cut the over stock cars in dealers lots. Since there are less dealer these day and the risk of loosing the rights to sale cars, dealers have started to cut back on the numbers of up front cars on their lot.

The photos as noted of cars that cannot be sold as there are too many built in the first place as well no demand for them.

I don't know of any places likes the one in the photos in Canada, but don't follow thing like this in the first place.
 
Isn't there a place like this in downview park ?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top