Toronto swaps Google-backed, not-so-smart city plans for people-centred vision • Hacker News Board

Re: Toronto swaps Google-backed, not-so-smart city plans for people-centred vision

#131

Post by routerl » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 6:56 PM UTC

PoignardAzur wrote: post #114

routerl wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He did not make that up. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/alphabets-sidewalk-labs-want...

This is arguing in bad faith. The article talks about > proposed taking a portion of Toronto property taxes, development fees and increased land value to build a smart city on the eastern waterfront [...] which would amount to an estimated $6 billion over 30 years 6 billion dollars isn't astronomical for a major urban development project. And Google being paid based on increases in property taxes gives them an incent…

> Google being paid based on increases in property taxes...

... isn't what the article or Alphabet were talking about. They were discussing being paid property taxes, period, not simply taking the property tax delta caused by their real estate development.

And anyway, if I buy a house and pay property taxes, then improve the property so that my property taxes increase, I don't get to keep that increase. Why should Alphabet? But _even this_ is less radical than what Alphabet was proposing, as I've explained above. Alphabet was directly seeking a subsidy from the city, to be taken as a percentage of property taxes.

You may not think of this as unacceptable, in which case I wish you luck attracting such an offer to your own city. But over here, we don't want it.

Re: Toronto swaps Google-backed, not-so-smart city plans for people-centred vision

#132

Post by otoburb » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 7:01 PM UTC

waterlooman wrote: post #85

otoburb wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> What would that growth be after 25 years of constant 1% growth/year? 1.01^25 = 1.282 or 28.2% growth. Sounds like a good bet to try to grow economic activity in the region if the immigrants are typically educated and are net-positive contributors. Canada's total fertility rate (TFR) is 1.47[1] which is well below the natural replacement rate of 2.1. I'm not blindly advocating that we grow at any cost, but it's imp…

And if 28% population growth over 25 years results in insane housing affordability for younger generations, why are you still fine with that? I really don't understand this argument. You value total population growth and total economic growth over standard of living? Because with current trends it should be obscenely obvious that this approach isn't working. Population growth (at a much lower more sustainable rate) c…

>>Population growth [...] can be incentivized by literally paying people more money to have Children.

Some countries tried this approach with mixed results.[1] Given that we're both worried about the debt-to-GDP (i.e. profligate deficit spending by the federal and some provincial governments) I think the budgets are better spent attracting immigrants with skills, education and in many cases capital assets they bring to the country rather than baby bonuses.

Quebec still pays a baby bonus[2] but a Stats Canada study[3] showed their fertility rate over four decades was only 1.59 vs. Ontario's 1.46 -- still well below a steady-state no-growth replacement rate of 2.1.

>>And did it occur to you that perhaps our low birthrate has something to do with the increasing lack of opportunity to improve in this country?

This plays a role, but a lot of economic thinking (rightly or wrongly) finds a strong correlation between how developed a country is and declining TFRs even when there is a boom period of economic growth and opportunity.[4][5][6]

[1] https://www.prb.org/low-fertility-countries-tfr/

[2] https://www.rrq.gouv.qc.ca/en/programmes/soutien_enfants/pai...

[3] https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2018001/article...

[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255510/

[5] https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/events/pdf...

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

Re: Toronto swaps Google-backed, not-so-smart city plans for people-centred vision

#133

Post by Tiktaalik » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 7:07 PM UTC

clairity wrote: post #118

rch wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I can tell, the affordable housing movement has been broadly co-opted by developers who leverage grants and incentives to expand their portfolios of rent generating assets. Regulations which include language like "X% of units must be for renters making There is a genuine affordable (and equitable) housing movement, largely built on urban equity-cooperatives and community land trusts, but those promising eff…

> "Regulations which include language like 'X% of units must be for renters making yes, regulatory capture at work. any time a stipulation is prescriptive rather than (largely) descriptive, it's quite likely a mistargeted regulation. being numerical makes it seem objective, but despite that, it doesn't lead to the implied/explicit intent, which is more equitable housing. it's a token gesture meant to veil the true in…

> what we need is to explicitly encourage human-scale ownership and development everywhere, through every means available, including zoning reform and tax policy.

People focus on the zoning a lot, but it really is the tax policy.

Look around Vancouver and you'll see little three story walk up apartments all over. They stopped making them in 1993 because the incoming Liberal government adopted an incredible deficit slaying austerity approach which was in vogue at the time. The federal government completely got out of participating in housing at all. Beneficial tax policy that encouraged small apartment development was ended and since '93 pretty much the only thing that was built after was condos.

Effectively the current housing affordability crisis in Canada can be traced back to this early 90s austerity decision. Nothing filled the void left by the government pulling away from housing development.

The relatively much more spendy contemporary Liberal government has made lots of noises about housing investment, but they really haven't done much at all to undo the damage of the '93 Liberals.

Re: Toronto swaps Google-backed, not-so-smart city plans for people-centred vision

#134

Post by snidane » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 7:07 PM UTC

rubyist5eva wrote: post #14

As someone that lives in Toronto and is moving out in the middle of the month to go back home near family. The idea that Toronto is going to focus on "affordability" is laughable. It's one of the most expensive cities to live in in the world, and the incompetent city council, mayor and all the way up to the provincial government are doing absolutely everything they can to keep it that way - mostly without even realiz…

Isn't it the case everywhere in the world, in the post 2008 crisis world, to have society's prosperity tied directly to the real estate bubble? Most exacerbated in metro areas.

Only the most stupid politicians would want to kill the peoples' prosperity by popping the bubble, wouldn't they?

Re: Toronto swaps Google-backed, not-so-smart city plans for people-centred vision

#135

Post by kitcar » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 7:08 PM UTC

Terretta wrote: post #107

kitcar wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're saving using after-tax dollars, savings 10% of 170K top line is therefore not $17K. For interest, according to https://turbotax.intuit.ca/tax-resources/canada-income-tax-c... net on $170K is $111,547, meaning closer to $11K / year

So, 23 years instead of 24? Or 3.5 years instead of 3? Your correction without conclusion doesn’t seem helpful in deciding which calculation is least wrong.

The math is $1,000,000 is the average price of a house in Toronto[1]. You usually need 20% down for a house at $1M or more[2]. Therefore you need $200,000 downpayment, which at $11K / year is about 18 years, assuming no compounding (which at least today is basically the case currently in Canada with interest rates where they are).

It should be noted though that it is pretty rare to reach $175K salary in the GTA before turning 30 (Average household income in Toronto is sub $100K[3]). Therefore for the majority of people it will take more than 18 years to build up that down-payment, which could be where the number in the article came from.

[1] https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/average-gta-home-price-to-top-1-m.... [2] https://www.moneysense.ca/spend/real-estate/cmhc-tightens-mo... [3] https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/data-research-maps/to...

Re: Toronto swaps Google-backed, not-so-smart city plans for people-centred vision

#136

Post by moufestaphio » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 7:09 PM UTC

otoburb wrote: post #56

rubyist5eva wrote: post #14

As someone that lives in Toronto and is moving out in the middle of the month to go back home near family. The idea that Toronto is going to focus on "affordability" is laughable. It's one of the most expensive cities to live in in the world, and the incompetent city council, mayor and all the way up to the provincial government are doing absolutely everything they can to keep it that way - mostly without even realiz…

>> It's one of the most expensive cities to live in in the world, [...] Toronto was ranked as the 98th most expensive city in the world; not even in the top 50, even though it's the 4th largest city in North America. Perhaps it's more accurate to say that Toronto and Vancouver are unaffordable and expensive cities for domestic Canadians to live in. >> Our debt to GDP is out of control. Our federal government keeps bo…

>> Toronto was ranked as the 98th most expensive city in the world; not even in the top 50.

So, I'm not going to look into different methodologies that are used, but Toronto is often ranked near the top of least affordable cities.

For example: http://demographia.com/dhi.pdf

Re: Toronto swaps Google-backed, not-so-smart city plans for people-centred vision

#137

Post by throwawaysea » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 7:22 PM UTC

rubyist5eva wrote: post #14

As someone that lives in Toronto and is moving out in the middle of the month to go back home near family. The idea that Toronto is going to focus on "affordability" is laughable. It's one of the most expensive cities to live in in the world, and the incompetent city council, mayor and all the way up to the provincial government are doing absolutely everything they can to keep it that way - mostly without even realiz…

Is it really that these cities are poorly managed or just that everyone feels entitled to live in the most expensive and desirable places? I don’t get the point of building up more - it’s just going to induce more demand (a common argument used by urbanists when it comes to road infrastructure). The real fix is that people need to spread out, and stop feeling like there are only two places to live in across such a large land. But no one wants to hear that they’re not entitled to have the exact job/city/pricing/conditions they feel they deserve.

Re: Toronto swaps Google-backed, not-so-smart city plans for people-centred vision

#138

Post by otoburb » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 7:30 PM UTC

moufestaphio wrote: post #136

otoburb wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> It's one of the most expensive cities to live in in the world, [...] Toronto was ranked as the 98th most expensive city in the world; not even in the top 50, even though it's the 4th largest city in North America. Perhaps it's more accurate to say that Toronto and Vancouver are unaffordable and expensive cities for domestic Canadians to live in. >> Our debt to GDP is out of control. Our federal government keeps bo…

>> Toronto was ranked as the 98th most expensive city in the world; not even in the top 50. So, I'm not going to look into different methodologies that are used, but Toronto is often ranked near the top of least affordable cities. For example: http://demographia.com/dhi.pdf

>>Toronto is often ranked near the top of least affordable cities.

When the only factor is home ownership, which is the focus of URI's study, this is absolutely correct. But then I think back to how absolutely unaffordable housing was across the GTA in the late 80s, after which point people were able to buy back in again when the housing market corrected 40% in most of the GTA, with certain areas of Toronto (not the GTA) dropping by over 50%.

Homeowners generally want housing prices to rise indefinitely, but this is in direct opposition to younger cohorts wanting affordable entry points to home ownership.

The URI study also doesn't mention anything about renting. There are rumbles that Toronto developers have built too many properties (condos primarily), so perhaps an oversupply will benefit both renters and potential homebuyers if/when property prices correct.

Re: Toronto swaps Google-backed, not-so-smart city plans for people-centred vision

#139

Post by waterlooman » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 7:40 PM UTC

otoburb wrote: post #132

waterlooman wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if 28% population growth over 25 years results in insane housing affordability for younger generations, why are you still fine with that? I really don't understand this argument. You value total population growth and total economic growth over standard of living? Because with current trends it should be obscenely obvious that this approach isn't working. Population growth (at a much lower more sustainable rate) c…

>> Population growth [...] can be incentivized by literally paying people more money to have Children. Some countries tried this approach with mixed results.[1] Given that we're both worried about the debt-to-GDP (i.e. profligate deficit spending by the federal and some provincial governments) I think the budgets are better spent attracting immigrants with skills, education and in many cases capital assets they bring…

I am not sure what you are showing other than that you believe our population growth from mass immigration needs to continue despite the negative outcomes.

In 1985 our population was 25 million, and today it is now 38 million. Most of that population growth can be attributed to mass immigration. But we have no new cities or towns. We are simply crowding ourselves out of the minimal amount of cities and arable land along a southern strip that we can inhabit.

Also I don't think Japan is a negative example of population decline. They are an example of a country being able to maintain its standard of living, productivity, and its economy despite a stagnant population.

I strongly believe that if population growth through mass immigration continues (and mostly likely will), standards will continue to worsen across most of the country.

Re: Toronto swaps Google-backed, not-so-smart city plans for people-centred vision

#140

Post by cobookman » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 7:41 PM UTC

otoburb wrote: post #56

rubyist5eva wrote: post #14

As someone that lives in Toronto and is moving out in the middle of the month to go back home near family. The idea that Toronto is going to focus on "affordability" is laughable. It's one of the most expensive cities to live in in the world, and the incompetent city council, mayor and all the way up to the provincial government are doing absolutely everything they can to keep it that way - mostly without even realiz…

>> It's one of the most expensive cities to live in in the world, [...] Toronto was ranked as the 98th most expensive city in the world; not even in the top 50, even though it's the 4th largest city in North America. Perhaps it's more accurate to say that Toronto and Vancouver are unaffordable and expensive cities for domestic Canadians to live in. >> Our debt to GDP is out of control. Our federal government keeps bo…

Toronto is expensive given the amount jobs are paying in the area.

SF a condo might be 1M, but getting paid 250k+ for a job is fairly common.

In Toronto the condo might be 1M (CAD), but getting paid 250k+ CAD is not common.

By all accounts Toronto is more expensive than SF