sixrings
Senior Member
i still havent heard a reasonable response to why toronto simply couldnt change the tax rate for areas like nycc, kipling or stc. just because we havent done this in the past doesnt mean we cant in the future.
|
|
|
Will Toronto have a second CBD?
- Thread starter kkgg7
- Start date
i still havent heard a reasonable response to why toronto simply couldnt change the tax rate for areas like nycc, kipling or stc. just because we havent done this in the past doesnt mean we cant in the future.
Jonny5
Senior Member
Well I was a kid in the 90's but I remember that too, as we were still using textbooks from the 60's. At least for French, and really, why not? The language didn't change. Anyway, I remember talk about pills for food and space cars to the moon etc... but I don't think that matters with respect to what I was talking about. The technology already exists. Businesses are really just way behind the technology curve; they are still cranking out trillions of paper documents every day, and still having people travel across the world to attend a meeting. They are still even having employees commute to a central office every day when they can do a part, or most, or all of their work at home. At some point in the next 50 years I think businesses will wake up and make some massive changes and that will be the end of the CBD.
Last edited:
taal
Senior Member
This isn't really an argument against a CBD, or the one in Toronto. Rather, simply put, the amount of office space required per employee. You're right that this has been trending downward, you're talking about even more radical shifts such that this number becomes extremely small. Based on the premise of many people working from home and the like.
I can see it happening, but when it does you'll see less office construction everywhere, not just the CBD. So to me this a global macro issue.
taal
Senior Member
I've wondered that my self quite a bit. I think there are some very small incentives for the building new offices buildings. Clearly the role they play is very minor.
I agree something along these lines would be great. Not sure how easy it is to actually execute in reality.
I was dreaming up an idea that makes building offices more attractive for both property developers and landlords, but does little to renters. Otherwise, what happens to all the old stock of buildings ? If you're just talking about cutting the rate period (in any area) then you need to make up the income, a likely political career ending move.
Anyway I don't have much hope, I think we'll continue to see *some* development in the core, and none anywhere else in the 416. Even the development in the core will be muted compared to what it good be.
I mean Toronto even predicts this much. Supposedly in the future (~2030) there will be 1.6 million workers in the 416, from 1.3/4 today. The 905 will go from the high 700,000+ to over 2 million, way eclipsing Toronto overall.
sixrings
Senior Member
but a prediction is just that, a prediction. It seems that toronto is conceding that this is inevitable rather than fixable. There is no reason a simple tax break and some creative incentives couldnt steal those businesses away from 905. I just cant understand how the 905s business can more then double and ours go up slightly without a fight. If we can figure out this is a bad recipe someone in council must see this as well as a problem. Finally I cant imagine what the traffic will be like if the 905 keeps the businesses. There is no way to build sufficent road space for the added cars and no way to add comparable transit. Its frusterating to be building all this transit without encouraging businesses to be built arround it. In fact its insane.
MisterF
Senior Member
Working from home is never going to replace going to the office on a large scale. It's not just about meetings, it's about face to face contact all day long and informal conversations about what you're working on. Even in meetings, people are often sharing documents, presenting ideas, and interacting in ways that are impossible without face to face contact. Not to mention that humans are social animals. I think I'd go crazy working at home by myself all day.
taal
Senior Member
But this prediction has been holding true the last 5 / 10 years i.e. minimal to no growth in Toronto's overall employment, while there has been a lot in the 905.
sixrings
Senior Member
sometimes it almost takes rock bottom before people recognize they NEED to change or become irrelevant.
kkgg7
Banned
so true. Most people would agree those who "work from home" have the least chance to get promoted.
Human are social animals. If order to get a head, one needs his boss to like him personally first, and no boss will give the best promotion opportunity to someone he only meets once a month.
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
A couple of comments:
-Toronto already has nodal employment areas. There will not be a new CBD. Our existing downtown is vast in size
-I think that more office space in the future will exist at small scales outside of nodal clusters
-The area of Toronto and the GTA is vast beyond the imagination of most people in the world. Utterly vast. In Europe or Asia North York city centre would be a completely different city with farmland in between Toronto and North York. All of central London (a fairly sprawly city) fits between St. Clair and the Lake. In Taipei Yonge and Eglington is a commuter suburb
-If I was putting my money where my mouth was I would not buy commercial real estate in say that highway 7 belt taal is pointing out. You could do really well now but within 20 years the amorphous shifting of demographics and land-use could leave you high and dry, coupled with the invitable Mississauga style tax wall that will hit all municipalities relying on development growth on new lands.
-Toronto already has nodal employment areas. There will not be a new CBD. Our existing downtown is vast in size
-I think that more office space in the future will exist at small scales outside of nodal clusters
-The area of Toronto and the GTA is vast beyond the imagination of most people in the world. Utterly vast. In Europe or Asia North York city centre would be a completely different city with farmland in between Toronto and North York. All of central London (a fairly sprawly city) fits between St. Clair and the Lake. In Taipei Yonge and Eglington is a commuter suburb
-If I was putting my money where my mouth was I would not buy commercial real estate in say that highway 7 belt taal is pointing out. You could do really well now but within 20 years the amorphous shifting of demographics and land-use could leave you high and dry, coupled with the invitable Mississauga style tax wall that will hit all municipalities relying on development growth on new lands.
pw20
Active Member
IMO - we're more likely to start seeing greater office development in a more mid-sized scale along King West and King East... GreatGulf's King East Centre and the Richmond Adelaide Complex by Allied are examples of this... coupled with continued office construction in the 905 - I doubt we'll see a true second CBD.
taal
Senior Member
Let's talk Allies Queen Richmond Center West ... still to date no lead tenant announced, they were hoping to find a tenant over a year ago ... not sure there's really that much demand outside the core ... for whatever reason. While we're seeing 1million+square feet prosoals in the airport area (in many office buildings), while others in the area are already under construction / completing.
kkgg7
Banned
Are you sure about your statement? Beyond the imagination of most people in the world?
The City of Toronto is 630 km sq, about exactly the same size as the area within Shanghai's "outer ring", the urban area. Chicago covers similar land area as well. Why is it "beyond imagination"?
North York Center is only 15km from Front St, hardly an impressive distance. Shanghai's "inner ring" (city core) itself is 16 km wide, east to west, and beyond that ring, you can still drive for 30 minutes and still see highly dense urban areas such office towers, department stores and condo buildings (I did that only the past Oct). With farmland in between? Not to mention Toronto is extremely South-North linear and there is hardly much density 2 km away from Yonge St.
The Municipality of Rio is twice the size of Toronto.
Toronto by world standard is a mid size city, on the smaller side. That's a fact.
Toronto's downtown is big in North American standards. In global terms, I doubt it can make the top 20.
I have been trying to constrain myself not to talk too aggressively, but still can't help refuting this kind of megalomaniac statement which can't be farther from the truth.
Last edited:
RC8
Senior Member
The GTA is 50th in the world in terms of population. It's 36th in the world in terms of area.
Therefore, kkgg7, the statement that you jumped on, which was that the GTA has a much larger area than many larger cities was correct, and your nonsensical rant uncalled for.
It's also worth pointing out that most people's "world standards" try and ignore asian cities on purpose. They provide a terrible standard of living for the most part, with a few notable exceptions. No one aspires to become like them, just like you wouldn't aspire to replicate the built form of Caracas (Venezuela), in spite of its apparent density.
The only large benefit most (including myself) see in some asian cities is that they are less car-dependent and thus more eco-friendly. However, that has been achieved much more successfully in Europe.
The quality of a city isn't just down to density and population.
EDIT: Commute-times are a perfect example of this. Asian cities often have the world's worst commute times, together with the likes of Toronto, Los Angeles, and NYC. Places like Barcelona, on the other hand, have very short commutes. Do you think that European urban planners look at North American cities as anything other than an example of how to screw things all over? Most asian cities serve only that purpose to me, much like N. American cities should serve that purpose to them.
EDIT #2: Reading the original post, the poster was wrong about Asia, so sorry for not giving you some credit.
Therefore, kkgg7, the statement that you jumped on, which was that the GTA has a much larger area than many larger cities was correct, and your nonsensical rant uncalled for.
It's also worth pointing out that most people's "world standards" try and ignore asian cities on purpose. They provide a terrible standard of living for the most part, with a few notable exceptions. No one aspires to become like them, just like you wouldn't aspire to replicate the built form of Caracas (Venezuela), in spite of its apparent density.
The only large benefit most (including myself) see in some asian cities is that they are less car-dependent and thus more eco-friendly. However, that has been achieved much more successfully in Europe.
The quality of a city isn't just down to density and population.
EDIT: Commute-times are a perfect example of this. Asian cities often have the world's worst commute times, together with the likes of Toronto, Los Angeles, and NYC. Places like Barcelona, on the other hand, have very short commutes. Do you think that European urban planners look at North American cities as anything other than an example of how to screw things all over? Most asian cities serve only that purpose to me, much like N. American cities should serve that purpose to them.
EDIT #2: Reading the original post, the poster was wrong about Asia, so sorry for not giving you some credit.
Last edited:
k10ery
Senior Member
I don't think that's allowed. Under provincial law, the city must have one tax rate for each class city-wide. You can have HIGHER taxes in some areas to pay for special services. The Harris-Eves government did create some pilot projects for "Tax Incentive Zones" (called Enterprise Zone in the US) but they never did much with it, and I think McGuinty just let it die.
Not obvious you'd want it anyway. Sure a lower tax in the outer 416 might bring some business back from the burbs. But if it was more than just a few brownfield sites it might just cannibalize Toronto's tax revenue from the downtown core. A dangerous game to start playing.