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

181–190 of 217 posts

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

#181

Post by didibus »

waterlooman wrote: post #120
didibus wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think lowering the number of immigrants coming in would lower the prices of housing? Any thesis around it?

We airdrop a population the size of Waterloo region (500-600k) of people into the country every year. They need somewhere to live. I don't think I need to say much more. I am aware that there can be other factors, but this is the (as I said) elephant no one wants to discuss publicly.

The 2020 stats say it's 250k, so not quite 500k/600k. But that's only the nominator, the population is aging and dying, and the birth rate is low, so the fact that 250k immigrants come in per year doesn't actually mean there is a need for more housing.

So we have 300k deaths each year, 350k population growth of which 250k is immigrants, for a 1% YoY population increase.

So you'd expect a need to grow housing by 1% and that would flatten prices, but it doesn't, so I feel there's more to it.

> but this is the (as I said) elephant no one wants to discuss publicly

I just did like 30min of googling, and almost all articles discussed immigration as a factor for Toronto high prices. So I'm not sure it's an elephant, it just doesn't seem like the simple explanation people want it to be. It isn't obvious at all that just lowering the number of immigrants the country accepts per year would have a drastic impact on Toronto prices. It seems there's many other factors at play. And you also need to consider all the other impact to the overall economy that lowering the number of migrants would have as well.

I think people just don't really know, it's a hard problem, there's no clear solution, and so no one can come up with actionable remediations.

One thing that I saw which might be a bigger elephant is the fact that old people don't downgrade, they stay occupying the single family residence they've owned for their entire retirement and end of life. Making no room for others. When they most likely no longer take advantage of the city or the extra space afforded by their home, and that limits the pool of homes dramatically. Especially considering Toronto has issues building more since land is scarce, and taxes are high for construction + zoning. I feel the thought was always that when you retire, you cash out your Toronto home, and downsize somewhere else cheaper, making room for others in Toronto, but this doesn't seem to be happening. And this is compounded with life expectancy growing year over year.

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

#182

Post by frongpik »

alexashka wrote: post #108
hourislate wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Fed Gov and BoC have no choice but to keep interest rates at zero and continue to play with numbers to keep the ponzi going so the whole Country doesn't collapse. You also have to take into consideration that there is no where else to find any work but in the big cities. The whole damn situation is a mess with no way out. Feel sorry for the kids who finish a degree in STEM from Waterloo or UoT and end up working…

> The whole damn situation is a mess with no way out. I think there are definitely ways out, just not ones that please everyone involved. I for one don't even understand what Toronto as a city does (I've lived here for 20+ years). What valuable services does Toronto provide? I see bank skyscrapers downtown, some tourist attractions and a whole lot of people sitting in offices that need not be downtown, doing dubious…

It offers the rich from China and other countries a safe place to park their money. Office workers are just decorations to make this place look legit.

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

#183

Post by sexy_seedbox »

sneak wrote: post #172

There is a third option: a fully automated, smart sensor city that isn't built by an ad company that wants identity-linked behavioral profiles above all else. It's just as technically possible as the Google-shadow-profile one. Sadly I don't think those will be built in my lifetime.

You mean the Venus Project? If yes, then that will sadly never be built in our lifetime.

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

#184

Post by bawolff »

hourislate wrote: post #27
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…

The Fed Gov and BoC have no choice but to keep interest rates at zero and continue to play with numbers to keep the ponzi going so the whole Country doesn't collapse. You also have to take into consideration that there is no where else to find any work but in the big cities. The whole damn situation is a mess with no way out. Feel sorry for the kids who finish a degree in STEM from Waterloo or UoT and end up working…

Live in canada. Have stem degree. I might not be raking in that sweet fb in silicon valley level of cash, but i certainly make more than 40k

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

#185

Post by refurb »

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…

Why would you expect a city to remain affordable forever? Like if my grandparents bought a home in lower Manhattan I should be able to too?

Cities come and go in desirability and some stay very desirable. Some cities undergo a transformation from swaths of single family homes to nothing but condo towers that cost more than homes.

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

#186

Post by totony »

29083011397778 wrote: post #143
u678u wrote: post #106

Vancouver and Toronto really suffer because they're the warmest parts of a huge cold country and everyone wants to live there. Maybe global warming will mean more people will want to live further North or inland. Ideally the government would try harder like not tax people who live in smaller cities.

Let me start with the reminder that global warming means wider, less predictable swings. Not just warmer weather. But more to the point, taxing people less doesn't always help. Alberta, with it's no provincial sales tax, is a place I'm leaving for the exact reason that there's no money for infrastructure or services. Without taxes there are no backstops for me to fall back on (like a robust transit system). To me, th…

Selective lowering of taxes doesn't imply less money for infrastructure for the affected areas. Gov could (should imo) tax big cities more to develop underdeveloped cities.

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

#187

Post by alexashka »

frongpik wrote: post #182
alexashka wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The whole damn situation is a mess with no way out. I think there are definitely ways out, just not ones that please everyone involved. I for one don't even understand what Toronto as a city does (I've lived here for 20+ years). What valuable services does Toronto provide? I see bank skyscrapers downtown, some tourist attractions and a whole lot of people sitting in offices that need not be downtown, doing dubious…

It offers the rich from China and other countries a safe place to park their money. Office workers are just decorations to make this place look legit.

That's been my impression as well, but it feels like a terribly inefficient setup.

It's almost like trying to write software with every member of the team spending 9/10 of their time jockeying for power, with the product being an afterthought no one gives much credence to.

That's what living has felt like thus far - people are completely engulfed in making sure they get theirs (work at FAANG on these forums), followed by making sure their kids get theirs. At some point, there's got to be someone who says hey, you know this rat race is human made and we can totally try something else right?

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

#188

Post by duhast »

waterlooman wrote: post #120
didibus wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think lowering the number of immigrants coming in would lower the prices of housing? Any thesis around it?

We airdrop a population the size of Waterloo region (500-600k) of people into the country every year. They need somewhere to live. I don't think I need to say much more. I am aware that there can be other factors, but this is the (as I said) elephant no one wants to discuss publicly.

House prices in Australia keep going up despite zero net immigration.

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

#189

Post by hedora »

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…

If you want to avoid rent seeking, then you should advocate for affordable housing that people can afford to buy.

In California, only 1/3rd of the population has enough income to afford a house. San Francisco is much, much worse.

Subsidizing developers to build (likely high-crime) housing so they can extract income from people with Instead, they should subsidize (or at least stop actively blocking) construction of new homes that the average person can afford to purchase, and then put them up for sale, not rent.

(Edit: I think we agree.)

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

#190

Post by waterlooman »

didibus wrote: post #181
waterlooman wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We airdrop a population the size of Waterloo region (500-600k) of people into the country every year. They need somewhere to live. I don't think I need to say much more. I am aware that there can be other factors, but this is the (as I said) elephant no one wants to discuss publicly.

The 2020 stats say it's 250k, so not quite 500k/600k. But that's only the nominator, the population is aging and dying, and the birth rate is low, so the fact that 250k immigrants come in per year doesn't actually mean there is a need for more housing. So we have 300k deaths each year, 350k population growth of which 250k is immigrants, for a 1% YoY population increase. So you'd expect a need to grow housing by 1% an…

Keep in mind that your numbers do not include international students as an immigration pathway and the number of people here on 10 year residency which can include "temporary" foreign workers. For example in 2019 there were 640k international students in the country, a significant percentage of them will also choose to stay here or are here on 10 year visas and they are not counted in the stats you gathered. There are an additional 550,000 TFWs here, many on long term visas. Again, not counted in your stats, nor are illegals.

The government also obfuscates the number of foreign buyers of housing because it only takes 6 months to gain permanent residency, and those with permanent residency are not counted as foreign buyers.

Saying "we just don't really know", and "its a hard problem" is troubling to me, its basically saying that we shouldn't bother getting to the root of the issue because you'd rather we didn't. So far with your stats that you googled, the one possible cause you offer is that elderly people might be holding onto their homes. Really?? Not, for example, speculators who can capitalize on the fact that we have guaranteed, consistent, artificial, foreign population growth since the 1980's? And why was this done? The conservative party ramped up immigration to gain favor of the immigrant voting block, and all other parties adopted the same approach.

Post reply on HN