Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 217 posts

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

#151

Post by otoburb »

waterlooman wrote: post #139
otoburb wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 al…

>>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.

Perhaps to put a more human perspective, I graduated with a STEM degree during a recession and it was horrible. Many classmates had their careers set back by many years.

If I have to choose again between prosperity and economic growth that seems to be strongly correlated with a growing and educated population via immigration vs. affordable housing coupled with few economics opportunities, I'll choose the first option almost every time.

There's no point being able to afford housing if there are no economic opportunities in the area. Detroit at its peak in the 1950s had a population of 1.8M and was the 5th largest city in America, but is now a shadow of its former glory due to various factors and it's population only 680K (37% of its peak). Incidentally, nearby Windsor seems to have experienced very gradual population growth (less than Toronto) but its economic prospects still look pretty bleak.

It seems like you believe something like that could never happen to Toronto because the Golden Horseshoe is one of the few habitable places to live in Canada, in which case we'll just have to agree to disagree on this counterfactual.

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

#152

Post by lhorie »

waterlooman wrote: post #121
OJFord wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada is crazily underpopulated compared to the UK for example - which is about the geographic size of.. what, Ontario alone maybe, but has double the population of all of Canada. So immigration is actively encouraged, which is perhaps unique among developed nations (depending only on our definition of 'actively encouraged' I suppose) which is probably 'correct' and could be massive for GDP, but.. shouldn't there al…

I would guess because most of the land in this country is not arable (fertile) or hospitable, so even though we have lots of land, only the southern strip is worth populating.

I don't think that's the reason. Barrie has a ton of farmland and it's just a hop away from Toronto. It's just that there's nobody incentivizing companies to put down headquarters in these smaller municipalities.

Several decades ago, north of Steeles was prairies and farmlands. The IBM headquarters was moved to that area in the 80s. CGI headquartered in Markham as well. Nowadays there are condos going up all over the place along the 407 and hwy 7.

If more companies did this instead of coveting to be as near union Station as possible, I believe the metropolitan area could still expand horizontally a great deal more before ever coming anywhere near permafrost.

It doesn't even take that much willpower either. Milton, for example, could easily attract companies by offering tax breaks. A lot of talent already commutes from there.

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

#153

Post by find »

waterlooman wrote: post #65
otoburb wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Feel sorry for the kids who finish a degree in STEM from Waterloo or UoT and end up working for 40k a year. The starting salary for STEM grads seem to be well above 40K CAD, perhaps even >65K CAD [1]. >> A down payment on a Toronto house should take 24 years to accumulate When you pair your linked article with the fact that the GTA has experienced net-positive population growth every single year since 1971[1] then…

>If a new grad wants a starter property in the city then perhaps start with the purchase of a studio/1-bed. This lacks the history on what people used to be able to purchase, not just in Toronto but in all of Southern Ontario, and now even as far away as the Maritimes. The purchasing power for the average Canadian to afford things that actually mater (like housing), is dropping like crazy. Allow me to give you my own…

(I'm actually immigrating to Toronto later this year.)

I understand your frustrations over immigration policy, and it's certainly not racist to wish for Canadians to enjoy the fruits of Canada. I just want to gently bring up the historical context that you've left out, but of which you are likely aware. ~5% of Canadians are indigenous, and most humans in Canada descend from recent immigrants who came to pursue a higher standard of living. Barring other humans, born in a slightly different time and place, from that same pursuit: doesn't that seem to be in tension with history?

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

#154

Post by overton »

Toronto needs to build more housing, period. It doesn't need to be "smart", it doesn't need to be "iconic", there just needs to be a lot of it and it needs to be close to amenities and jobs. As far as I can tell, the reason this is so difficult is a combination of powerful people making boatloads of money off the restricted supply, and inertia in favour of the low-density zoning that covers most of the city.

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

#155

Post by elixirnogood »

otoburb wrote: post #73
waterlooman wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If a new grad wants a starter property in the city then perhaps start with the purchase of a studio/1-bed. This lacks the history on what people used to be able to purchase, not just in Toronto but in all of Southern Ontario, and now even as far away as the Maritimes. The purchasing power for the average Canadian to afford things that actually mater (like housing), is dropping like crazy. Allow me to give you my own…

>> The standard of living and affordability has objectively dropped for young people today. [...] But according to some people, hey you can still get into the market! Just buy a condo! I remember the frenzy of the '89 housing bubble & early 90's bust especially in Toronto when mortgage interest rates were in the low teens and everybody and their dog was flipping property. The subsequent crash was painful but also all…

I've lived in both Bay Area and Toronto. Toronto has become absurdly expensive. You can get a 3-4 bedroom modern townhouse in Dublin/Pleasanton for 850K USD. It's common for a senior software engineer to make 200-230K. You can't buy an equivalent housing in Toronto for 850K CAD. Crappy townhouses in Richmond Hill go for 900K - 1M+ and similar housing will be 1.2 - 1.4M. it's also extremely difficult to make 200K+ CAD in Toronto (senior engineers make ~140K). A relative of mine does mortgages so has accurate statistics on how much people make.

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

#156

Post by lhorie »

dsomers wrote: post #148
lhorie wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that there's a lot of foreign capital getting parked in real estate in Toronto. I believe they were going to implement a vacancy tax similar to Vancouver next year to try to curb that

There’s not a lot of evidence that it’s not the locals creating a bubble because of speculation and lax lending. If you don’t believe me look up how nicely private mortgage debt in Canada correlates with the growth in housing prices in Canadian cities. Canadians hold one of the highest rates of personal debt in the OECD.

That's actually a really good point to ponder about. I've seen a number of news articles about predatory practices among real estate agents (I believe many hog anywhere from 3 properties or more to ride the bubble, there's unethical abuse of dual representation, there's bid secrecy, etc)

No doubt, there's also a great deal of greed and wealth signaling from the general population (especially among upper middle class) as well. Competition around high ranking school areas comes to mind. Not to mention rental properties are pretty much the go-to choice of passive income building that most people go for.

I would bet that if multiple property ownership was penalized by high taxes, real estate prices would come down real fast.

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

#157

Post by [deleted] »

dsomers wrote: post #146
otoburb wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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…

Condos built in Toronto are mostly terrible for anyone that’s not single. They’re basically Airbnb speculation boxes in the sky. The city suffers badly from “the missing middle“ problem because of bad zoning. It’s a big part of why I moved away after living there 8 years.

[deleted]

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

#158

Post by elixirnogood »

andi999 wrote: post #62
jdtbuchanan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure where you got the numbers but to buy a 1m condo in Toronto would require closer to 250k not 60k. And that isn’t taking into consideration the condo will also be up 8-10% next year.

My numbers are from the article linked in the post I answered to.

I don't think you can get a mortgage with a 6% downpayment anymore. Canadian real estate is a scam. Banks would lend to anyone with a 5% downpayment. The mortgages are insured by the government (CMHC), so essentially all the taxpayers are on the hook if the real estate market implodes. Banks will be fine though as usual.

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

#159

Post by gurubavan »

bregma wrote: post #129
f6v wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada is a democracy though. If what you’re saying is true, why won’t residents elect a government that can do something?

No one votes in municipal elections. It's what, a 25% participation rate? Cities like Toronto are run by a collection of special interest groups evenly divided into the developer-backed and BANANA-activist cliques, resulting in decades of deadlock.

Toronto 2018 - 41%

Toronto 2014 - 55%

Toronto 2010 - 51%

--

Boston 2017 - 29%

Boston 2013 - 38%

Boston 2009 - 31%

--

Chicago 2019 - 35% (first round)

Chicago 2015 - 34% (first round)

Chicago 2011 - 42%

--

NYC 2017 - 18%

NYC 2013 - 13%

NYC 2009 - --

LA 2017 - 20%

LA 2013 - 23%

LA 2009 - 18%

--

Vancouver 2018 - 39%

Vancouver 2014 - 44%

Vancouver 2011 - 35%

--

London 2016 - 45%

London 2012 - 38%

London 2008 - 45%

--

Tokyo 2020 - 55% (during pandemic)

Tokyo 2016 - 60%

Tokyo 2012 - 63%

--

Paris 2020 - 40% (during pandemic, lowest turnout on record ever)

https://www.toronto.ca/311/knowledgebase/kb/docs/articles/ci...

https://www.wbur.org/news/2017/11/08/voter-turnout-boston

https://chicagoelections.gov/en/election-results.asp?electio...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_New_York_City_mayoral_ele...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Los_Angeles_mayoral_elect...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/voter-turnou...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_London_mayoral_election

https://www.france24.com/en/20200628-liveblog-low-turnout-in...

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

#160

Post by saeranv »

rch wrote: post #67
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…

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 I get that this model favor large-scale, high-capital projects, but, given that it explicitly set's aside X% for the Doesn't more density + some X% set aside for affordable units generally positive? Maybe we need to play around with that X% better, but what's the alternative?
Post reply on HN