News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.8K     0 

Admiral Beez said:
The Downsview subway station is underused, so there's certainly transit capacity available. Better than building thousands of more condo units downtown. Though I do hope if this comes to pass that they build more mid-rise condos. I suppose I'm using the wrong name for that station http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2017/04/ttc-renaming-downsview-station-sheppard-west-may
Click to expand...
Downsview has seen a series of botched development plans in the past, one could only pray that City Planning (and the Feds, since much is still under their regulatory jurisdiction) gets it right.

I agree on 'mid-rise', and there's a lot of pressure, ironically from *some* developers, to do it that way. I can't find it now, either the Star or Globe featured an op-ed piece on it last week. I was suitably impressed that many developers want to 'fit in' with the neighbourhood, not choke it with sky-rise. Partial fault lies with Province and the Planning Act and associated acts.

As Toronto planners tell it, midrise development could well be this city’s saviour. Lining the main streets with four- to 11-storey buildings, they argue, would provide housing for thousands without overwhelming the neighbourhoods of which they are part.

So why are so many midrise projects greeted with howls of outrage by disapproving locals and/or unimpressed planners? Each one is treated as if it were an affront to civic good taste and municipal well-being. Getting the go-ahead for something as benign as a six-storey condo can be as arduous and expensive as a 60-storey tower.

The latest example is, of course, an eight-storey condo proposal for 321 Davenport Rd. It has turned neighbourhood luminaries including author Margaret Atwood and businessman Galen Weston into nattering nabobs of NIMBYism. Opponents of the project insist it will ruin the Annex and destroy their quality of life.

Hmmm. This isn’t the first time such arguments have been heard. Who could forget the saga of 109 Ossington Ave? Though not as august as the Annex, neighbourhood NIMBYs came out in force to fight the six-storey, 85-unit, condo. Though it replaced a used-car lot — a used-car lot! — residents complained it was too high, that it would block the sun, increase congestion and contribute to the gentrification of a street whose inhabitants apparently revelled in its griminess. [...]
Click to expand...
http://www.metronews.ca/views/2017/...ht-future-in-toronto-like-it-or-not-hume.html

The rail line and subway are both exquisitely located to service that land.

Admiral Beez said:
Alabama has a much better business enviromment than Ontario. Labour is much cheaper due to Right To Work http://statelaws.findlaw.com/alabama-law/alabama-right-to-work-laws.html, energy and transportation costs and corporate taxes are lower.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I feel bad as if I'm 'touting' that, but the US market, as with the CSeries, is an essential one, and that appears to fit well with Airbus' already established presence there. Of course, the deal made so far is just for the CSeries Project, but symbiosis is obvious for the Q Series too. Whether a second assembly plant could be built in....Morocco, for instance (Airbus have a plant there) to utilize cheaper labour is another question.

Admiral Beez said:
Is the runway wholly owned by Bombardier?
Click to expand...
I was delving on that last night, don't have links handy, but yes, they have clear title to ownership. I was surprised since I would have thought it was leased, but it predates federal ownership adjacent. I'm curious if it would retain Transport Canada regulation if sold though?

It is a silver lining to the loss of good jobs, but that land can and will be put to very good use.....one hopes!
 
Admiral Beez said:
Of course this begs the question, why are labour, energy and tax cost so high for manufacturing business in Ontario compared to Alabama? I can understand vs Mexico, but Ontario should to be able to compete against the US.
Click to expand...
I think you have it backwards. It should be: "Considering the high cost of labour, energy and tax being so high in Ontario, why is *productivity* so low?"

You can have a low-cost environment, and yet atrocious productivity. Just ask BBD rail on that with their claimed "supply" problems from off-shore.

On the other hand, Germany is a high-cost energy, labour and tax nation, but with very high productivity. Ontario's productivity is poised to go down even further. Education levels are slipping badly.
 
steveintoronto said:
On the other hand, Germany is a high-cost energy, labour and tax nation, but with very high productivity. .
Click to expand...
In good part due to their ability to export to both Europe and the world in undervalued Euros relative to what German exports would cost under DMs.
steveintoronto said:
Ontario's productivity is poised to go down even further. Education levels are slipping badly.
Click to expand...
If Canadian exports were pegged to the Mexican Peso we'd be rocking productivity too.
 
Admiral Beez said:
In good part due to their ability to export to both Europe and the world in undervalued Euros relative to what German exports would cost under DMs. If Canadian exports were pegged to the Mexican Peso we'd be rocking productivity too.
Click to expand...
You confuse cost of production with productivity.

The euro is actually strong right now. Although there are various ways to term 'productivity', here's a general description:
What is 'Labor Productivity'
Labor productivity is a measure of economic growth within a country. Labor productivity measures the amount of goods and services produced by one hour of labor; specifically, labor productivity measures the amount of real gross domestic product (GDP) produced by an hour of labor. Growth in labor productivity depends on three main factors: investment and saving in physical capital, new technology, and human capital.
Click to expand...
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/labor-productivity.asp

And here's an OECD chart for 2015: (Note Germany, the UK, and Canada even below the UK) Mexico is at the bottom, at #35. Their *cost of production* is low, but their productivity is very low. In some factories, it is much higher than the national index, but the point is that Canada's productivity is low, and getting worse.
http://time.com/4621185/worker-productivity-countries/

There's a phenomenon of all advanced nations slowing in productivity growth:
Productivity growth continues to slip in advanced economies, and the phenomenon may be contributing to growing inequality, according to an analysis by the Organisation of Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD).

Productivity gains slipped in the decade between 2004 and 2014, compared to 1996-2004, according to an analysis by the OECD. Canada’s labour productivity growth rate dropped to an average of 0.9% during 2004-2014, down from an average of 1.4% between 1996 and 2004. Productivity in the United States slowed from 2.5% to 1.2%, with marked declines following the 2008 financial crisis.

The trend is similar for countries like Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany and Korea. Productivity growth has been increasing in emerging economies like China and India, but that growth is now starting to level off.

“Investment in information and communication technology for example has fallen as a share of GDP in recent years in many countries, particularly in Germany, Sweden, Japan and the US,” the OECD explains. “Business dynamism, measured by start-up rates and the pace with which new firms displace less productive companies, has also slowed significantly in many OECD economies.”

The OECD calls the phenomenon a “paradox” because productivity declines are being seen in sectors that were expected to experience productivity gains driven by technological advances, including finance, information, communication and insurance. [...]
Click to expand...
https://www.biv.com/article/2016/5/productivity-growth-slows-canada/

The promises of electronic technology being our saviour are starting to ring hollow.
 
steveintoronto said:
You confuse cost of production with productivity.
Click to expand...
True to an extent, but to an already industrious and productive people as the Germans, having their cost of production and export prices artificially devalued by their more laggardly PIIGS neighbours can't but help boost both productivity and production.
 
Last edited:
Amare said:
The amount of condos that will be built the day the downsview plant is sold off will be absolutely mind blowing. Of course im operating under pure speculation here, but since Toronto is so unimaginative these days, that's probably the only outcome that would come out of a sale of these lands.
Click to expand...

Lots of condos. And not much high quality employment for the people who live in them.
 
kEiThZ said:
Lots of condos. And not much high quality employment for the people who live in them.
Click to expand...
I often wonder what all the people residing in the thousands of new condo units along the Gardiner do for a living. I imagine it’s a mix of overcrowded multigenerational families and fraternity-like partidom singles.
 
Admiral Beez said:
I often wonder what all the people residing in the thousands of new condo units along the Gardiner do for a living. I imagine it’s a mix of overcrowded multigenerational families and fraternity-like partidom singles.
Click to expand...
I believe Keesmaat commented on that some months back, in reference to the need for more amenities and transit options. IIRC, the figure was about 50% young singles, many of whom work downtown, many walking distance from IT or similar jobs.
 
I'll be blunt here, Wilbur Ross is an outright fool so I wouldn't take one word from his mouth with a grain of salt.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top