Toronto Forma | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners

[brockm]

Urban planners and such will jump all over me for this, but the economist in me calls shenanigans on this "balanced growth" meme that gets thrown around. I assert it to be an economic fallacy, writ large.

That, if developers are not restrained by the popular will of the electorate through their elected officials, they will out-build the underlying infrastructure and we'll have an "unsustainable" situation.

None of this makes any sense whatsoever. It's a classic economic fallacy that presupposes that it's even possible for development to exceed available resources and remain viable. And even if it could happen, that developers would build something that couldn't be supported, as doing so would ultimately undermine profitability.

Everyone agrees that Toronto's transit system is wholly inadequate to support the growth. Yet the growth still happens. People still move downtown in record numbers. Yet, some people will say: we need to control growth until transit catches up. Why? These things are self-balancing. If transit becomes so over-capacity in an area that it's unfeasible to live there, people will move. The change in desirability will affect prices in those areas. Etc.

The idea that people will just keep flooding in until there's an "unsustainable" situation is counter to absolutely every we know about how people operate as economic actors. Yet, urban planning enthusiasts run around asserting what will happen absent intervention as if it's a foregone conclusion unworthy of debate. Then, we continue to build entire plans based on premises which really should be proven. Not presumed.

If downtown living becomes "unsustainable", population influx will slow, stop and eventually reverse. If people are flooding in at higher and higher rates, you have a pretty good indicator that stuff is sustainable right now.

These apocalyptic call-to-arms are very common and almost always wrong.

If you listened to agricultural experts 1970s, you might remember the alarm bells sounded about an impending global famine that was supposed to hit in the early 1990s; China's population growth was supposed to result in a complete over-stretch of their agricultural capacity and the whole country was supposed to starve to death. Yet, somehow, despite it's population growth, China today is a net food exporter. And the only reason that's true, is not because some "planner" came up with some grand plane to stave off disaster, but actually because the opposite happened: China reformed it's agriculture towards a more free market model -- allowing prices to be set by market forces.

Yet, urban planners advance the same fallacy as China's former agricultural planners. If not for their wisdom and interventionism, market forces will overburden the city's infrastructure, destroy livability and reduce the urban experience to a cesspool of throw-away architecture. The only thing holding back this asserted natural consequence of the market, is their special experience certified by their degree in urban planning.

No matter what aspect of economic life we're talking about, there's always some "experts" ready to step up and claim they're the only ones who can save us from doom. And, as Dan Gardner so eloquently shows in his fantastic book Future Babble, these people are almost entirely always wrong.

 

[buildup]

brockm - you are correct.

Furthermore, if infrastructure is inadequate then more infrastructure will get built. Unless a country is flush with cash, infrastructure only gets built when what exists is over-stretched. This is precisely why the Yonge relief line and so forth are now being advanced in a serious way. Its a direct response to increased density. Large proposals such as Mirvish/Oxford etc will likewise stimulate (and finance through tax revenues) more infrastructure.

Simply put, what must happen, will happen.

(hearing someone make the case for free market responses, demand supply equilibrium etc is refreshing. I hope you're not dogmatic to the point of denying global warming?)

 

[RC8]

The only reason why 'apparently' you can let developers do as they wish is because we have thousands of regulations (accumulated over generations) about how you are supposed to build things in the city that must be followed by every developer.

Ultimately the care with which these regulations are made is the main determinant of a healthy city. Because the market does not account for vital things like future energy prices, cities which had little regulations during the 1960s are now substantially poorer than they were before (their citizens slaves to the automobile). Now they are so cash-strapped they lack the resources to adapt to new realities. All in all a silly and ideologically-driven way to build something. An insult to pragmatism.

 

[brockm]

(hearing someone make the case for free market responses, demand supply equilibrium etc is refreshing. I hope you're not dogmatic to the point of denying global warming?)

I don't deny global warming. I'm a free market libertarian with georgist tendencies (sometimes called a geolibertarian). I'm definitely not a conservative. But my views on urbanism are much like those of Edward Glaeser.

 

[pman]

Very well put. In architecture school I've found that there is great support for this same idea, that you should not be building endless lists of proposals until you have the transit/park/etc. infrastructure in place. It's easy to look around now and go "Life in downtown Toronto is pretty good, there is room for more development!" but the thing you have to think about is the FUTURE. Five, ten, twenty years from now. And we know how quickly things change in this city... look at how quickly areas like the Entertainment District or Southcore have mushroomed up. And these changes are not always positive, in fact they often come with huge consequences if there are not parks, public space (galleries and restaurants and cafes and shopping are NOT public spaces) and transit to balance them out.

It's interesting that in a city with standards for developers as low as Toronto (we really don't make them jump through any hoops apart from giving us some Section 37 money), the first people (the Wong-Tams or Vaughans of our city) who want to raise the standards a bit and question some aspects of development proposals are despised so much on UrbanToronto. I hope that these are just the more vocal posters here who hold this opinion since I was under the impression that there were more critical thinkers on this site than just skyscraper/development fanboys.

While I'm not a "skyscraper/development fanboy", I'm also not a big fan of maximizing sprawl, which is what we'll get if we don't allow serious intensification of the core. It's not that complex:

1. Canada takes around 200k to 250k immigrants a year.
2. The government can't tell them where to move after their first residence, and if it attempted to do so the Supreme Court would strike the law down on Charter grounds.
3. We need immigrants given our low fertility rate, so attempting to reduce immigrant numbers probably isn't a smart option.
4. Around 75k to 100k of those immigrants choose to settle in the GTA, as is their right.
5. They need housing.
6. They will either be housed on existing urban sites, which will be intensified, or on greenfield sites.
7. If the Province restricts greenbelt development it will just leapfrog to places like Innisfil, giving GTA sprawl an even bigger footprint.
8. Neighbourhood groups in the City will oppose almost all development on principle - witness the recent spat over a 6-storey condo proposal on Queen East.

Given the choice between intensification or sprawl, I'd suggest the former is a better option. I'd also suggest that core-area intensification shouldn't put that much strain on transit or transportation, since walking is clearly a preferred mode of transportation over driving or the TTC for most core-area trips under 15 minutes.

 

[brockm]

Because the market does not account for vital things like future energy prices, cities which had little regulations during the 1960s are now substantially poorer than they were before (their citizens slaves to the automobile).

The idea that de-urbanization, particularly in North America was merely an example of "poor regulation" or market forces run amok is just plain wrong. There are elements of truth to it which make for good anecdotes. Like, the Detroit automakers buying up streetcar lines, only to shut them down to be replaced by buses. A lot of this did indeed happen.

But I'd argue that government intervention had just as much to do with it as car-pushing automobile manufacturers. In fact, government's actively promoted the development of car suburbs, building highways to nowhere on an "if we build it, they will come approach" throughout the United States. Not stopping there, the government encouraged home ownership through subsidies, both direct and indirect.

A failure to predict future energy prices is not a market failure or the result of poor regulation. In fact, trying to predict the price of anything into the distant future is a nonsense exercise, in my opinion. In fact, the price of everything today, measured in cost per time-worked at the average industrial wage is far lower (cheaper in most cases) than most people ever imagined thirty years ago.

And if you look at energy prices on an efficiency-adjusted basis, with newer cars coming out getting more than 50mpg and people buying LED lightbulbs that consume 1/10th the power for the same amount of light, you once again see market forces at work, reacting in real-time to the new reality.

I've found if you bet against doomsayers, you'll always win the bet.

 

[brockm]

While I'm not a "skyscraper/development fanboy", I'm also not a big fan of maximizing sprawl, which is what we'll get if we don't allow serious intensification of the core.

Yep.

 

[RC8]

The idea that de-urbanization, particularly in North America was merely an example of "poor regulation" or market forces run amok is just plain wrong. There are elements of truth to it which make for good anecdotes. Like, the Detroit automakers buying up streetcar lines, only to shut them down to be replaced by buses. A lot of this did indeed happen.

But I'd argue that government intervention had just as much to do with it as car-pushing automobile manufacturers. In fact, government's actively promoted the development of car suburbs, building highways to nowhere on an "if we build it, they will come approach" throughout the United States. Not stopping there, the government encouraged home ownership through subsidies, both direct and indirect.

A failure to predict future energy prices is not a market failure or the result of poor regulation. In fact, trying to predict the price of anything into the distant future is a nonsense exercise, in my opinion. In fact, the price of everything today, measured in cost per time-worked at the average industrial wage is far lower (cheaper in most cases) than most people ever imagined thirty years ago.

And if you look at energy prices on an efficiency-adjusted basis, with newer cars coming out getting more than 50mpg and people buying LED lightbulbs that consume 1/10th the power for the same amount of light, you once again see market forces at work, reacting in real-time to the new reality.

I've found if you bet against doomsayers, you'll always win the bet.

I'm actually not thinking so much of North American cities (where governments and privates cooperated to impose car-dependency on all), but rather of examples in the developing world where governments really did provide developers with blank slates at times. Whether developments were hi-rise or low-rise, they usually led to poorly connected cities where developers externalised as many costs as they could.

There's many examples in places like Montevideo (Uruguay) and Lima (Peru) where, if governments had demanded greater densities, retail, bike lanes, and public spaces back in time, the well being of citizens would have been massively improved.

Nowadays with (modern energy prices) properties have lost most of their value, and people who invested their savings buying these houses in the first place are now empty-handed, relying on government subsidies to commute to work.

Meanwhile, neighbourhoods in those same cities that adopted sensitive planning guidelines continue to thrive.

Cities need to act in ways that maximise social, financial, and environmental stability. The track record of government-intervention ranges from dismal to wonderful depending on the quality and coherence of planning policies. The track record of unregulated development ranges from dismal to wonderful depending on factors well beyond anyone's control.

 

[diminutive]

Very well put. In architecture school I've found that there is great support for this same idea, that you should not be building endless lists of proposals until you have the transit/park/etc. infrastructure in place. It's easy to look around now and go "Life in downtown Toronto is pretty good, there is room for more development!" but the thing you have to think about is the FUTURE. Five, ten, twenty years from now. And we know how quickly things change in this city... look at how quickly areas like the Entertainment District or Southcore have mushroomed up. And these changes are not always positive, in fact they often come with huge consequences if there are not parks, public space (galleries and restaurants and cafes and shopping are NOT public spaces) and transit to balance them out.

I don't disagree that development of public services and amenities has lagged residential development substantially. I don't think anyone would dispute that or argue it's a good thing. Though, a point which doesn't get mentioned as frequently, is that Toronto is in some ways playing catch-up in terms of downtown residential population. If you start counting in the 1980s, core population has roughly tripled with no major change in infrastructure. But if you start counting before WW2, our core population has only doubled while we've added things like the subway network. I doubt there's much, if any, spare capacity left in the core by this point, but the recent population boom should be contextualized as following decades of urban exodus and (reasonably) substantial infrastructure investment.

I'd say a good chunk of our current condoboom is in response to nearly a half century of drastic underinvestment in the core's residential sector, while the core simultaneously saw huge growth in terms of transit (subway) commercial (financial district) and cultural infrastructure.

More importantly though, brockm's point is right; your (and that of others) argument is essentially Malthusian, as shown by your use of words like 'sustainable' which don't make much sense here. Let's assume builders, being solely profit oriented, do in fact overbuild in the downtown core. Standard theory suggests an oversupply would lead to a decline in prices, in turn inhibiting new supply. There shouldn't be a 'tragedy of the commons' situation here as developers obviously internalize concerns like price, unlike (say) GHG emissions in the case of global warming.

Continuing the assumption, so what if developers exceed the 'sustainable' amount of residential property and prices do decline. What's the big deal? Some mini-Donald Trumps would loose their shirts, but it's not like the core area will collapse or turn into a ghetto. I don't think you've clearly explained what would happen if we exceed the 'sustainable' level of density (nor, for that matter, have you suggested what the level would even be).

p.s. In the interest of not coming off as a 'fanboy' or something, I want to emphasize that I do think there are problems with the City's development regime. I think the looser development regulations in the core area have generally sucked development away from other parts of the city with more stringent zoning.

 

[Hanlansboy]

So essentially you do just want more tall towers and density for the hell of it? Yeah, I still think I'll take the Wong-Tam approach, thank you!

Please don't put words in my mouth Spire, did you read all my post? First, no one builds skyscrapers "for the hell of it", secondly, as I mentioned, we need adequate infrastructure built to keep up with the ever increasing demand. Increased density tends to come with the territory when building so many high rises with in blocks of one another. If you prefer Kristen's approach, that's fine, but I still stand by my original comment, she shoots things down far too fast. Yes, many times a compromise is reached, and the good thing I will say about her is she gets the developers to spend some cash for neighbourhood improvement, but, I fear the very same developers are eventually going to build elsewhere knowing they face immediate opposition. Let me make one thing perfectly clear, a city is only as good as its councilors, bottom line is it's up to them to establish both financial and urban growth. I can't express in words just how much I love my city, how proud I am to be both a Torontonian and a Canadian. We are the symbol for Canada, a symbol of strength, power, wealth, and growth. Over the past decade I've watched, in bewildered awe, as my city has literally grow up. All cities, throughout the world, go through periods of growth, ours has exceeded most. We are an internationally recognized city, with a reputation for many things, I don't want anything jeprodizing that. We are at a crucial tipping point, when markets can go either way. We've worked so hard to get where we are at, we simply cannot afford to have business being turned away by anyone. I'm well aware nothing lasts forever, and markets constantly fluctuate, but if we are to plan for our future, do we really want a skyline lacking what could have been? I'm finding it difficult to express accurately the impact of negative attitudes on our cities future. I'm sure Wong-Tam is a lovely person, I've not had the opportunity to meet her in person, and I will acknowledge she does have what she believes her cities best intentions at heart, rather, her best intentions for the city. Perhaps I mis-worded my previous posts. I'm not attacking her character, moreover, her methods. But, that's just my humble opinion, I can only hope she, Adam Vaughn, and the rest if city council realize just how fortunate we are to have so many developers interested in building here. I have no doubt we have a bright future ahead of us, how long it takes us to get here is what concerns me.

 

[someMidTowner]

Please don't put words in my mouth Spire, did you read all my post? First, no one builds skyscrapers "for the hell of it", secondly, as I mentioned, we need adequate infrastructure built to keep up with the ever increasing demand. Increased density tends to come with the territory when building so many high rises with in blocks of one another. If you prefer Kristen's approach, that's fine, but I still stand by my original comment, she shoots things down far too fast. Yes, many times a compromise is reached, and the good thing I will say about her is she gets the developers to spend some cash for neighbourhood improvement, but, I fear the very same developers are eventually going to build elsewhere knowing they face immediate opposition. Let me make one thing perfectly clear, a city is only as good as its councilors, bottom line is it's up to them to establish both financial and urban growth. I can't express in words just how much I love my city, how proud I am to be both a Torontonian and a Canadian. We are the symbol for Canada, a symbol of strength, power, wealth, and growth. Over the past decade I've watched, in bewildered awe, as my city has literally grow up. All cities, throughout the world, go through periods of growth, ours has exceeded most. We are an internationally recognized city, with a reputation for many things, I don't want anything jeprodizing that. We are at a crucial tipping point, when markets can go either way. We've worked so hard to get where we are at, we simply cannot afford to have business being turned away by anyone. I'm well aware nothing lasts forever, and markets constantly fluctuate, but if we are to plan for our future, do we really want a skyline lacking what could have been? I'm finding it difficult to express accurately the impact of negative attitudes on our cities future. I'm sure Wong-Tam is a lovely person, I've not had the opportunity to meet her in person, and I will acknowledge she does have what she believes her cities best intentions at heart, rather, her best intentions for the city. Perhaps I mis-worded my previous posts. I'm not attacking her character, moreover, her methods. But, that's just my humble opinion, I can only hope she, Adam Vaughn, and the rest if city council realize just how fortunate we are to have so many developers interested in building here. I have no doubt we have a bright future ahead of us, how long it takes us to get here is what concerns me.

"Planning for the future" doesn't mean build tall towers everywhere. It's that exact overzealous attitude that is causing mayhem in places like Dubai and China, where megaprojects are built on a whim with little thought for how they will effect people or infrastructure in the future. If people like Vaughan and Wong-Tam thought the way you did, we would be in a lot of trouble. People need to be able to say no the ridiculous. New York and Dubai both have a lot of skyscrapers....the key difference is that NYC developed organically - Dubai was forced because nobody had the power to say no.

 

[buildup]

No-one is proposing that we build towers "everywhere". Every major tower under discussion is in a very concentrated area - on Yonge, Bloor or just off King. I wont even address the Oxford development because that area is already huge in scale. Over 95% of Toronto's area is off limits to tall towers.
These condos are not buillt on spec, if buyers aren't making deposits - they wont get built.
And we established earlier today that infrastructure will by neccessity follow along, although always a bit behind.

 

[Oliver Tweed]

This is an interesting debate, and probably the right one to be having. I want these towers built as planned because I think it's a huge opportunity for this city and we don't know when an opportunity like this will come along again. I believe they will be magnificent as finished products.

That said, it seems that this debate isn't really about these towers, it's about highrise development in general. These towers have just become very high profile symbols of the condo boom. I agree that we need to look closely at infrastructure, but let's not throw out this opportunity while we figure everything out. We're not yet that close to saturation that we need to panic. There's still room for growth.

Infrastructure will get built when the need is so great that we have no other choice, and likely not before then. Toronto's agonizing history of public transit false starts is all the proof we need that planning ahead for big capital projects simply doesn't work with the political structure we have. I wish it did, but it doesn't. So, while downtown congestion might get worse before it gets better, eventually we'll have no choice but to address it. The more development, the closer we get to that tipping point. I say bring it on. Cities around the world would kill for the chance to experience this kind of renaissance. We should embrace this.

 

[diminutive]

"Planning for the future" doesn't mean build tall towers everywhere. It's that exact overzealous attitude that is causing mayhem in places like Dubai and China, where megaprojects are built on a whim with little thought for how they will effect people or infrastructure in the future. If people like Vaughan and Wong-Tam thought the way you did, we would be in a lot of trouble. People need to be able to say no the ridiculous. New York and Dubai both have a lot of skyscrapers....the key difference is that NYC developed organically - Dubai was forced because nobody had the power to say no.

Dubai isn't exactly comparable to Toronto, though. We don't have a government flush with cash and no democratic oversight intent on building all kinds of flashy tall buildings to satisfy some Sheik's ego (or, more cynically, to funnel public money into the hands of developers). Toronto being 'overzealous' towards condos or not, that doesn't happen here. Highrise development here is mostly market based. And we have seen cases where developers have to scale back proposals due to insufficient market interest.

China is quite a different case all together. The Yangtze Delta Region alone houses, what, 100 million people? The housing demands are simply orders of magnitudes higher and the argument could probably be made that there are far too few 'megaproject' residential complexes.

It does seem worth noting that in places like China (or HK & Singapore & Seoul) earlier, where you are dealing with millions of people moving into cities the planning regimes have definitely favored large scale high rise development of a kind which would be unthinkable here. Not that Toronto hasn't had to host increasing density, but going from 50k core residents to 100k over the past half century seems quaint compared to the (tens?) of millions of new residents cities like Shanghai or Seoul have had to absorb. Morally and politically it would probably have been untenable for Asian governments NOT to embark on these huge residential projects while millions of people lack appropriate housing in order to maintain (overwhelmingly Eurocentric) perceptions of public amenities like parkettes.

 

[maestro]

China is quite a different case all together. The Yangtze Delta Region alone houses, what, 100 million people? The housing demands are simply orders of magnitudes higher and the argument could probably be made that there are far too few 'megaproject' residential complexes.

You couldn't be more wrong. China is overbuilding to a degree matched by no one. Tens of millions of apartments sit empty and entire cities are ghost towns except for the cranes on the horizons. It can be considered a make work project to keep citizens employed and the economy turning.