M
Mike in TO
Guest
Never mind the NIMBYs -- this boom is a rare success
JOHN BARBER
The surest sign that any long boom is about to bust is the emergence of speculation that maybe this time it never will. But at some point, the temptation becomes irresistible. The housing boom in Toronto, which has been going hard for almost a decade now, is a marvel that continues to defy all sensible predictions of impending decline. It is so outstanding it demands audacious theories to explain it.
One such theory might be that we actually know what we're doing up here, and we're doing it better than almost any of our competitors. Even some of the most attractive U.S. cities -- Boston, Chicago, San Francisco -- are losing population as high housing prices, combined with low levels of new construction, squeeze out middle-class workers. They are losing ground, in danger of becoming what U.S. urbanist Joel Kotkin called "amusement parks for the rich, the nomadic young and tourists."
But Toronto continues to grow, in large part because it builds so much new housing. Nothing serves an urban economy better than new housing. And among established North American cities -- specifically, those that compete economically with their own suburbs -- none builds more of it than Toronto.
Decrying the anti-development politics that restricts the supply of housing in New York City, Harvard economist Edward Glaeser noted recently that that city permitted only 21,000 new units in the entire decade of the 1990s -- compared to 13,000 units in 1960 alone.
Despite a population one-third the size of New York's and the experience of a severe recession in the early 1990s, Toronto gained more than three times as many new housing units over that decade. Now the city proper, not including its even boomier hinterland, is gaining about 15,000 new units a year -- more even than New York in its postwar heyday.
Contrary to all appearances, some observers say that Toronto is allergic to tall buildings. Contrary to their own experience, developers still complain about red tape and political obstruction. In truth, no city in North America is growing taller faster than Toronto. And not since the 1960s has any political regime been as developer-friendly as the one so firmly ensconced at Toronto City Hall today.
That unlikely blend -- a laissez-faire leftist government -- captures the essence of what seems to make Toronto different. At its best, it's a brilliant system.
Downtown politicians have traditionally been pro-development: Deputy Mayor Joe Pantalone automatically approves of absolutely anything that requires the employment of construction workers, while gay Councillor Kyle Rae thinks everybody should live in a high-rise south of Bloor. Former Mayor Barbara Hall's most successful initiative was to spark downtown development by repealing obsolete regulations.
What's new is how that tradition has expanded to capture the entire amalgamated city: first almost by stealth, in the form of a notably pro-growth official plan -- as fashioned by the downtown planners who first practised radical deregulation under Ms. Hall -- and then by storm, in the form of a bombproof political majority on council.
Anti-development activism in Toronto today is confined almost exclusively to suburban and quasi-suburban enclaves that elect the most conservative politicians. They support property rights ideologically while doing everything in their power, politically, to suppress them. But that doesn't matter because, collectively, they're a hundred miles out of power.
This happy system does not always work rationally or predictably (although, compared to New York's ultra-influential Landmarks Preservation Commission, the Ontario Municipal Board is a model of enlightened governance). But it does have a clear bent.
It also has limits. Rookie Councillor Adam Vaughan captured a supposedly safe New Democratic ward with an anti-condo campaign. Other regime-friendly groups, such as the artists of booming Liberty Village, are getting restless.
Such "charismatic abutters" can be a real nuisance, according to Prof. Glaeser, citing novelist Tom Wolfe's furious opposition to a new development in his uptown Manhattan neighbourhood. "Not since Kevin Kline tried to persuade the Landmarks Commission by quoting Richard II on proportionality has a zoning fight been so exciting," he wrote in The New York Sun.
But the biggest flaw with the Toronto system, in the view of the political majority that sponsors it, is its total dependence on private capital. It goes without saying that the Miller regime would prefer to spend more money on subsidized housing for the poorest citizens. But with such money in short supply, the relatively unfettered free market is creating what Prof. Glaeser calls "true" affordability in Toronto. "True affordability doesn't mean a small number of artificially cheap units," he wrote, "but a large number of units that reduces prices for everyone."
Apart from the hundreds, even thousands, of new citizens standing in the skirts of every developer, business benefits by having local workers who can afford to live in the cities where they operate. A steady supply of new housing is the golden key to future prosperity.
If you're more concerned about saving the planet, the way forward is identical: More apartments inside city limits, less sprawl outside.
The great thing about Toronto's pro-development consensus is that it is producing such positive effects. Someday, the cycle will turn. In the meantime, miraculously, the boom goes on.
jbarber@globeandmail.com
JOHN BARBER
The surest sign that any long boom is about to bust is the emergence of speculation that maybe this time it never will. But at some point, the temptation becomes irresistible. The housing boom in Toronto, which has been going hard for almost a decade now, is a marvel that continues to defy all sensible predictions of impending decline. It is so outstanding it demands audacious theories to explain it.
One such theory might be that we actually know what we're doing up here, and we're doing it better than almost any of our competitors. Even some of the most attractive U.S. cities -- Boston, Chicago, San Francisco -- are losing population as high housing prices, combined with low levels of new construction, squeeze out middle-class workers. They are losing ground, in danger of becoming what U.S. urbanist Joel Kotkin called "amusement parks for the rich, the nomadic young and tourists."
But Toronto continues to grow, in large part because it builds so much new housing. Nothing serves an urban economy better than new housing. And among established North American cities -- specifically, those that compete economically with their own suburbs -- none builds more of it than Toronto.
Decrying the anti-development politics that restricts the supply of housing in New York City, Harvard economist Edward Glaeser noted recently that that city permitted only 21,000 new units in the entire decade of the 1990s -- compared to 13,000 units in 1960 alone.
Despite a population one-third the size of New York's and the experience of a severe recession in the early 1990s, Toronto gained more than three times as many new housing units over that decade. Now the city proper, not including its even boomier hinterland, is gaining about 15,000 new units a year -- more even than New York in its postwar heyday.
Contrary to all appearances, some observers say that Toronto is allergic to tall buildings. Contrary to their own experience, developers still complain about red tape and political obstruction. In truth, no city in North America is growing taller faster than Toronto. And not since the 1960s has any political regime been as developer-friendly as the one so firmly ensconced at Toronto City Hall today.
That unlikely blend -- a laissez-faire leftist government -- captures the essence of what seems to make Toronto different. At its best, it's a brilliant system.
Downtown politicians have traditionally been pro-development: Deputy Mayor Joe Pantalone automatically approves of absolutely anything that requires the employment of construction workers, while gay Councillor Kyle Rae thinks everybody should live in a high-rise south of Bloor. Former Mayor Barbara Hall's most successful initiative was to spark downtown development by repealing obsolete regulations.
What's new is how that tradition has expanded to capture the entire amalgamated city: first almost by stealth, in the form of a notably pro-growth official plan -- as fashioned by the downtown planners who first practised radical deregulation under Ms. Hall -- and then by storm, in the form of a bombproof political majority on council.
Anti-development activism in Toronto today is confined almost exclusively to suburban and quasi-suburban enclaves that elect the most conservative politicians. They support property rights ideologically while doing everything in their power, politically, to suppress them. But that doesn't matter because, collectively, they're a hundred miles out of power.
This happy system does not always work rationally or predictably (although, compared to New York's ultra-influential Landmarks Preservation Commission, the Ontario Municipal Board is a model of enlightened governance). But it does have a clear bent.
It also has limits. Rookie Councillor Adam Vaughan captured a supposedly safe New Democratic ward with an anti-condo campaign. Other regime-friendly groups, such as the artists of booming Liberty Village, are getting restless.
Such "charismatic abutters" can be a real nuisance, according to Prof. Glaeser, citing novelist Tom Wolfe's furious opposition to a new development in his uptown Manhattan neighbourhood. "Not since Kevin Kline tried to persuade the Landmarks Commission by quoting Richard II on proportionality has a zoning fight been so exciting," he wrote in The New York Sun.
But the biggest flaw with the Toronto system, in the view of the political majority that sponsors it, is its total dependence on private capital. It goes without saying that the Miller regime would prefer to spend more money on subsidized housing for the poorest citizens. But with such money in short supply, the relatively unfettered free market is creating what Prof. Glaeser calls "true" affordability in Toronto. "True affordability doesn't mean a small number of artificially cheap units," he wrote, "but a large number of units that reduces prices for everyone."
Apart from the hundreds, even thousands, of new citizens standing in the skirts of every developer, business benefits by having local workers who can afford to live in the cities where they operate. A steady supply of new housing is the golden key to future prosperity.
If you're more concerned about saving the planet, the way forward is identical: More apartments inside city limits, less sprawl outside.
The great thing about Toronto's pro-development consensus is that it is producing such positive effects. Someday, the cycle will turn. In the meantime, miraculously, the boom goes on.
jbarber@globeandmail.com