News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

A needed blast of sanity from Chris Hume. Particularly, re: the point that if Toronto were just more like Dallas (!) everything would be peachy.



Don't believe the reports of Toronto's demise


CHRISTOPHER HUME
Okay everyone, take a Valium. Reports that Toronto is about to become a suburb needn't be taken seriously.

What set off the rash of media stories about the city's demise was a "scoresheet" released Tuesday by the Toronto Board of Trade that points outs the 905 is growing faster than the 416.

This argument has been heard many times, and comes as no surprise. Business, which rarely manages to see beyond the bottom line, can operate more cheaply in suburbia, 905, where land costs less. Mexico is cheaper still, not to mention China and India.

Where would you rather live?

The report, which fails to take into account the full cost of suburban development – environmental degradation, growing congestion, low quality of life, and unsustainable building – also compares the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area with 20 other city regions. The authors, quoting statistics gathered by the Conference Board of Canada, tell us that the GTA ranks fourth (along with New York, Boston and London) behind Calgary, Dallas and Hong Kong.

Who are they trying to kid? Is the board seriously suggesting Toronto would be better off if it were more like Calgary and Dallas, even Hong Kong? If that's the case, then leave us out. Despite what the Board of Trade might think, its number one and two cities globally are acknowledged civic disasters whose growth and prosperity have been achieved at a terrible price.

The report offers a few interesting observations, but its authors don't appear to have a clear understanding of the point of the exercise.

As board president and CEO Carol Wilding tells it, the only criterion that really matters is growth. Growth, she makes clear, counts above all else. That's why Dallas and Calgary rate so high.

Though Wilding admits her data are several years out of date, one might have thought that in the midst of the Great Recession, even a business mouthpiece would know the world is starting to move beyond the growth-at-any-cost mentality. After all, that's what got us into this mess in the first place. Surely, we might have learned something. Apparently not.

Although Toronto finished fourth, Wilding complains it ranks down "among the laggards."

"We think Toronto can be Number 1," she declares, in full cheerleader mode.

The report does mention that one in five Torontonians is "low-income," but doesn't address the shamefully low minimum wage in Ontario.

To Wilding's credit, however, she does point out that although "Toronto's immigrant population is often cited as one of its great economic advantages ... the economic dividend from that workforce isn't being fully realized."

Wilding must have taken a cab to the board to deliver her speech that day. The effort various professional organizations put into keeping out foreign-born practitioners is a disgrace.

But like so many others, she is content to perpetuate the 905/416 divide. Though this strategy worked for former premier Mike Harris, it represents yesterday's thinking. The fact is that economic development will speed the 905's transformation into something more urban. Indeed, the process has started. The issue the suburbs must deal with is the appalling legacy of developer-controlled planning. As has become painfully clear, sprawl cannot be sustained, regardless of growth rates.

But already, suburban communities from Markham to Mississauga have realized this and have changed their planning regimes. Densely built communities organized around public transit are now the order of the day. Given the damage done in the past 60 years, however, it remains to be seen how successful they will be.

The point isn't that Toronto's about to become a suburb, but that the suburbs are becoming cities.

Christopher Hume can be reached at chume@thestar.ca
 
The report does mention that one in five Torontonians is "low-income," but doesn't address the shamefully low minimum wage in Ontario.


actually after 2010 it will have one of the highest in NA...
 
I don't think that there is a lot of evidence that minimum wage helps the poor more than leaves many of them unemployable.
 
Yeah Dalton increased the wage to really make sure the NDP never rise in Ontario.
 
Yeah Dalton increased the wage to really make sure the NDP never rise in Ontario.

Whoops, misread that ... you mean Ontario will have one of the highest minimum wages in North America ...

This post can be deleted!
 
To a limited degree, Toronto has become like New York, San Francisco and Chicago where the concentric ring model doesn't apply anymore.
 
Yet another rebuttal from the intelligent and astute John Barber in the Globe. What I like about him best is his style of faintly mocking such silly reports, while admitting, as he does in this article, that there are serious issues that need addressing in our city (as, indeed, every city in the world has), but that this simply isn't one of them.

Congrats to the fabulists for this week's stories about crumbling Toronto

JOHN BARBER
April 11, 2009

What can we feel bad about today? It's always a challenge to meet public demand for regular confirmation of brute prejudices. "Toronto in decline" is a script that will play forever, but finding data to support the notion can be troublesome.

Anyone with eyes in their head can see it's not true. Even today, with cranes still swinging and subway trains bulging, Toronto remains anomalously buoyant. One almost wishes the indicators would not tempt fate, but here's another: Seasonally adjusted housing starts in Canada rose 13 per cent from February to March, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. reported this week, eliciting widespread shock and instant skepticism among market watchers.

They're not wrong about the national picture, but the March blip is real. It's the national influence of the stubbornly continuing Toronto condo boom. Remove that from the equation and the rest of the country is collectively, expectedly down.

The necessary job of dragging Toronto down too is made even more difficult by all those pesky outside experts - KPMG, Mercer Consulting, The Economist Intelligence Unit, Foreign Policy magazine, Standard & Poor's - that continue to publish surveys ranking it, by every measure imaginable, as one of the world's best cities.

In light of such honest impressions backed by sound data, it takes real ingenuity to find new ways to tell locals what they really want to hear - that the city is going to hell in a handcart. So congratulations to the earnest fabulists responsible for this week's stories about crumbling Toronto declining into a suburb of its own suburbs.

The notion has kicked around for a long time, but this week's revival originated in a long, foggy report by the Board of Trade that, on its face, seems to show Toronto doing extremely well in the ranking such exercises typically produce - ahead of Boston, London and New York, miles ahead of Los Angeles and Barcelona.

But forget that. On Page 37, it says: "Declining economic conditions for the city are happening in lock-step with rising fortunes in the 905 region."

It's hardly surprising that none of the statistical evidence then offered, relating to income, employment, building permits and productivity, shows any evidence whatsoever of the alleged decline of the city. Why bother actually proving something that everybody already knows? On the other hand, you can make Toronto look bad by showing the 905 doing even better in selected economic categories.

The same trick would make every growing city in the world look like a loser. The board's data show only that cities grow out, with the obvious result that they are always growing faster at the developing edge than the built-up centre. Now that "905" is done and the urban frontier is moving further out, you could use the same data to prove that Mississauga has become a suburb of Milton.

The report tells "a tale of two cities," board chair Carol Wilding told The Toronto Star. The city and its suburbs are "mirror images" of one another, she added, with evidence of a "doughnut effect" as urbanites commute outward for employment opportunities they can't find in the city.

Not only does the report provide no evidence to back such statements, it ignores easily available evidence proving the opposite. In 1991, according to city data, there were 119,200 more people commuting into Toronto for work than there were people commuting out. In 2006, there were 232,200 more people commuting in than out.

The real story is that there are now about 100,000 more commuters on the move - in every direction. Most telling is the huge increase in commuter rail traffic over the same period, up from about 35 million riders a year - almost all commuting into Toronto jobs - to almost 60 million today.

Clear away the preconceptions, along with the arbitrary area-code distinctions, and what you see is a growing and increasingly integrated labour market. But not the Board of Trade, which really should know better.

Toronto's continuing weak performance in job creation, which still shows the effect of huge losses in the 1990s, is a genuine problem the city is trying to address with a plethora of tax breaks and incentives. But one of the reasons for the 416/905 differential in job growth is the fact that an earlier generation of city workers has retired and stayed in place. More people than ever are commuting to work in Toronto, but geography and demographics have conspired to lengthen the distance they need to travel.

So there you have it: the full horror story, complete with a giant hole in the middle. It suggests, to paraphrase Ms. Wilding, the doughnut effect.
 
The necessary job of dragging Toronto down too is made even more difficult by all those pesky outside experts - KPMG, Mercer Consulting, The Economist Intelligence Unit, Foreign Policy magazine, Standard & Poor's - that continue to publish surveys ranking it, by every measure imaginable, as one of the world's best cities.

Except for the fact that all those reports measured the performance of the GTA. When Toronto proper was/is looked at in isolation, the picture changes. Which was the point of the BoT comments.

BTW does anyone know where John got his traffic stats from?
 
Except for the fact that all those reports measured the performance of the GTA. When Toronto proper was/is looked at in isolation, the picture changes. Which was the point of the BoT comments.

BTW does anyone know where John got his traffic stats from?

Yeah, I'd very much like to know that as well. While I agree the first report in the star was off base, as mentioned by many the tone of the report it self was not carried over in the article. It seems we're now seeing the opposite i.e. it's a non-issue - things are rosy in Toronto proper, which no mater where your coming from is completely off base.

That stat is very interesting though - it seems very wrong to me :)
 
Barber isn't saying that things are rosy, just more subtle.

The traffic stats could be a result of the demographics he refers to in his second last paragraph

But one of the reasons for the 416/905 differential in job growth is the fact that an earlier generation of city workers has retired and stayed in place. More people than ever are commuting to work in Toronto, but geography and demographics have conspired to lengthen the distance they need to travel.

More people commute into the city for work because there are fewer people of working age living in the city (or at least the old suburbs). Younger people working in the city live in the 905 suburbs and have to commute into the city. This suggestion, that there are significant populations, and neighbourhoods, of retirees in the 416, is consistent with the patterns of low population growth that we saw in the last census.
 
The bottom line: Canada is just a suburb of the USA.:)

Because people live in Canada and commute to America to work? :confused:

Anyways, a more accurate statement would be that America is largely one giant suburb. It's possible to drive from Boston to Tampa Bay without leaving the suburbs at all.
 
For as uninhabitable as I think some of the GTA suburbs are, we've got nothing on American suburbia. Try opening google maps and looking at the suburbs of Phoenix or Vegas. They go on forever.
 
Anyways, a more accurate statement would be that America is largely one giant suburb. It's possible to drive from Boston to Tampa Bay without leaving the suburbs at all.


American is quite empty even with its much larger populations.
 

Back
Top