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

#201

Post by didibus » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 6:26 AM UTC

waterlooman wrote: post #190

didibus wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ar…

I'm interested in real facts, thesis, explanations with substance.

There seem to be many variables whose correlations and effects are not well understood. You claim you've figured it out, that the only effect of increased housing price in the Toronto metro is simply due to migrants, foreign students and foreign investors. Okay, well I'm not against that explanation, but you got to back it up with something. Otherwise it's as good as any other, such as what I pointed too, the large number of single family unit being held by the retired or soon to be retired boomer generation.

My personal opinion, neither are the whole equation, the market of housing is complex, and I think we're far from understanding it, which is why there are simply no cities with landlocked and high populations that have figured out how to slow prices and make housing affordable yet.

But I'm totally willing to hear out anyone whose done some deep analysis and got some good thesis around it.

Personally, I wish politics allowed for testing policies and let people experiment with them a little more loosely without worry of saying ok this failed we're rolling it back and trying something else. If that was the case, I think it be curious to try something like stop taking migrants for a year and measure impact. Honestly the migrant argument is always being brought up, so if anything, it would confirm or deny more clearly that variable, and we could hopefully move on.

Also, you did get me curious into the data, but to be honest, the stats are hard to fully get clarity on what they include and do not. Like there are 600k foreign students, but that's the absolute total it seems, not a year over year increase. And students stay for a while, so it's not like each year there are 600k new students, it's often the same returning students. So we'd need to look at the year over year increase.

Finally, with these type of things, the flip side must also be considered. Based here: https://www.international.gc.ca/education/report-rapport/imp.... foreign students create 80k jobs in Ontario and provide substantial income to the local government. So that would need to be accounted as well if say we decided to restrict their numbers further.

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

#202

Post by fakedang » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 6:52 AM UTC

dheera wrote: post #99

DC1350 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google doesn't have an office in Toronto but Amazon employees don't make enough to buy houses. It doesn't matter though because most people in Toronto now make more money on real estate appreciation than they make from their jobs. Real estate gains are tax free so a modest 10% home price increase (it was 30% last year) is like earning at least an extra 150k pre tax

That's kind of sad though. It seems people own houses to sell them, instead of owning houses to own them. I feel like the whole point of owning a house is to customize it into a fairytale home of your dreams and never want to sell it. Otherwise I'd just rent.

In the current environment, it's cheaper to borrow and buy to sell.

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

#203

Post by QuixoticQuibit » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 7:20 AM UTC

executive wrote: post #192

andrecp11 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which city did you enjoy more and why? As someone who has entertained moving to either one day from Vancouver/Bc, am very curious!

Toronto is a failed city. Stay west.

Would be good to elaborate.

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

#204

Post by dsomers » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 8:30 AM UTC

waterlooman wrote: post #193

dsomers wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t listen to this guy. I’m Canadian and lived in Toronto for eight years. Toronto housing is expensive because of lax lending, bad zoning, and bad regulations. That’s it, Canadians are to blame for this. For an example Berlin is a similar physical size and population as Toronto, and has similar rate of high immigration, but has a lower cost of living relative to salaries. This is guy may not be racist, but he’s do…

I am blaming our immigration policy, not the "newcomers" as you say. Newcomers are obviously just doing what is best for them personally. Also, more than half of Germany's population rents housing. Most Canadians would not be satisfied with that.

And your still wrong. Too much of Toronto is zoned for single family homes which is the main driver of lack of affordable housing. When you walk around midtown Berlin you don’t see any single detached houses with big front yards. What you see are mid rise apartment blocks that the city of Toronto literally makes illegal to build in large parts of the city. Then you have the federal government that has totally failed to pump the brakes on lending. This is 100% above bad planning by Canadians, stop blaming immigration it’s a lame cop out when the city only has a population density of about 4500 per sq km which is quite a bit on the low side for a major city. Look in the mirror.

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

#205

Post by fakedang » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 9:23 AM UTC

coffeefirst wrote: post #101

jimmaswell wrote: post #28

Politicians like these are why innovation is so slow. Google was primed and ready to try something new but it was just too different for these people to handle. I don't even like every aspect of the Google city plan but it would have been an invaluable experiment.

Ever notice that for every problem, Google's first answer is 1. big data, 2. apply AI? I don't even mean to be snarky. If you're a hammer company full of hammer experts, you're going to see a lot of nails. One of the interesting city planning concepts I've seen is to build the houses with their backs to the roads. You still have a place for cars/deliveries/logistics, but it also forms a walkable neighborhood that's d…

> One of the interesting city planning concepts I've seen is to build the houses with their backs to the roads. You still have a place for cars/deliveries/logistics, but it also forms a walkable neighborhood that's designed for people. I've seen some small developments based on this--it feels like a big park, and the only real side effect was the coffee shop needed a second public facing door.

My cousin lives in Dubai in a similar neighborhood design of sorts. The front entrances face the general roadways to cars (which are mostly empty and lifeless), etc, but the back entrances face a central small sized park, in a cluster of maybe 12 homes or something. Essentially the park becomes the local meeting ground with lawns, play areas and barbecue spots, and the venue for celebrations of all sorts.

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

#206

Post by waterlooman » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 2:36 PM UTC

dsomers wrote: post #204

waterlooman wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am blaming our immigration policy, not the "newcomers" as you say. Newcomers are obviously just doing what is best for them personally. Also, more than half of Germany's population rents housing. Most Canadians would not be satisfied with that.

And your still wrong. Too much of Toronto is zoned for single family homes which is the main driver of lack of affordable housing. When you walk around midtown Berlin you don’t see any single detached houses with big front yards. What you see are mid rise apartment blocks that the city of Toronto literally makes illegal to build in large parts of the city. Then you have the federal government that has totally failed…

Look you can use whatever mental gymnastics you like to insist why we should all be content living in tiny condos and literal commie blocks but as I stated nobody wants to live in that because we have better standards. People want affordable single homes to raise a family. The solution is so absurdly simple yet you grasp at straws to avoid it.

Population growth is too high to meet demand for proper housing. Therefor, the solution is you cut back immigration, within a couple years demand for housing will fall dramatically. But no, you don't want to see prices fall, or you have something to gain with the immigration rate being high.

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

#207

Post by waterlooman » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 2:42 PM UTC

didibus wrote: post #201

waterlooman wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ar…

I'm interested in real facts, thesis, explanations with substance. There seem to be many variables whose correlations and effects are not well understood. You claim you've figured it out, that the only effect of increased housing price in the Toronto metro is simply due to migrants, foreign students and foreign investors. Okay, well I'm not against that explanation, but you got to back it up with something. Otherwise…

The solution is so simple, our population growth rate is too high relative to housing production, so the quickest, most immediate and obvious solution is to reduce immigration significantly. Within a couple years you will see housing demand fall and with it, prices! This isn't rocket science. And our economy must be able to sustain itself on a steady state population or we have a serious structural problem. You can still have immigration, but it must not be detrimental to the people living here.

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

#208

Post by josephwong » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 4:30 PM UTC

As a Torontonian, I often wonder how real estate prices can be so high given the total number of condos downtown and in the GTA in general???

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

#209

Post by throwawaysea » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 5:30 PM UTC

astrange wrote: post #176

imtringued wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>(a common argument used by urbanists when it comes to road infrastructure) This just proves that you don't know how housing works. I'm not even talking about the market itself. I'm just talking about the concept of being allowed to live in a building for money. You have to pay rent to live in a house/apartment. Alternatively you pay a mortgage or you buy the house outright. None of this applies to road infrastructur…

> People also get to decide whether they want denser apartments meanwhile the city planner forces road construction upon you whether your neighborhood really needs it or not. This isn't really right, you're confusing 60s style city planning with the modern approach. 60s style "urban renewal" built a lot of freeways everywhere without asking and destroyed many poor neighborhoods. This caused a backlash and the start o…

In Seattle it’s the opposite. Retirees are a minority at these meetings. Young urban or leftist activists are the majority, for example socialist housing advocates and homelessness advocates. They are well organized, seemingly have tons of time (potentially jobless?), and are aggressive, often staging protests outside city hall hearings and ensuring anyone else is shouted down. In many cases no one else is able to sign up on time to even speak, because the organizations these activists belong to are very disciplined about brigading the sign up page right on time. And who’s missing? The middle group - people with families or jobs.

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

#210

Post by didibus » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 6:53 PM UTC

waterlooman wrote: post #207

didibus wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm interested in real facts, thesis, explanations with substance. There seem to be many variables whose correlations and effects are not well understood. You claim you've figured it out, that the only effect of increased housing price in the Toronto metro is simply due to migrants, foreign students and foreign investors. Okay, well I'm not against that explanation, but you got to back it up with something. Otherwise…

The solution is so simple, our population growth rate is too high relative to housing production, so the quickest, most immediate and obvious solution is to reduce immigration significantly. Within a couple years you will see housing demand fall and with it, prices! This isn't rocket science. And our economy must be able to sustain itself on a steady state population or we have a serious structural problem. You can s…

> The solution is so simple, our population growth rate is too high relative to housing production, so the quickest, most immediate and obvious solution is to reduce immigration significantly. Within a couple years you will see housing demand fall and with it, prices

From my perspective, your rationale is a logical fallacy of the single cause.

If you're not familiar with it, I recommend reading:

* http://believingscience.blogspot.com/2016/08/todays-logical-...

* https://medium.com/@edeubanks/argumentum-ad-simplicitate-9f5...

Now what happens with this fallacy isn't that you're for sure wrong, but that you have determined for sure that you are right, yet there are multiple probable cause at play here, but you single one out and attribute that one as a sufficient cause without justification.

And personally, even if it was the single simple cause of high house prices in the Toronto metro, you still haven't addressed the opportunity cost. We don't have immigration out of generosity, most migrants are selected through a thorough application process, and we pull in people with labor skill that we need, or with wealth that we want them to bring over. This is true of foreign investors and students as well. There are reasons why we do so, because most analyst see it as a net positive for our economy. I'm with you where I would like our economy to sustain itself without any external investment, but what I would like and reality are two different things. Right now it doesn't seem like it would. So what are we going to do about that? If you cut out foreign investment, immigration and students you need a strategy for that or we'll just take a huge hit financially.

Also, keep in mind we have a decreasing workforce. Based on this article https://thoughtleadership.rbc.com/from-a-baby-boom-to-a-reti... the foreign workforce we're taking in isn't enough to fill the workforce gap we have due to an aging population. We're losing workers, this isn't steady state. That's why we ramped up immigration:

> For Canada as a whole, the challenge is to become more competitive even as we lose these established workers. Immigration is helping to grow our talent pool. We welcomed more than 300,000 new immigrants last year, about 60% of whom are skilled workers. The immigration minister has described this as “the new normal.” Yet it still doesn’t cover the annual retirement rate, so we’re going to have to get more creative.

It's going to be hard to manage without immigration, we just didn't have enough kids, and we didn't educate, teach and train our kids properly to be able to replace our workforce in a steady state. That's the other side of the problem. We take a few refugees as a feel good pat on the back, but the truth is, most immigration we take in is so that we can sustain our workforce, keep our businesses competitive and prevent our economy from crashing down. At least, that's the reason why we do so. Now maybe that's also a wrong conclusion, maybe there is another way, maybe people overblow the impact of not taking immigrants would have to our economy, but economics is hard, figuring out what is best for the economy isn't simple, in my opinion at least.