Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

211–217 of 217 posts

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

#211
post #200
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?

Immigrants typically concentrate in big cities, increasing demand for limited housing and jobs.

I don't disagree that this is a possible hypothesis, but I have a problem with weasel words like "typically". Is this the case in Toronto? And is it the case that it is in large enough quantity and that they have the money to put the kind of pressure to single handily raise the prices of housing to the levels we have today?

That this contributes slightly to the the high prices of some specific neighborhoods in Toronto sounds reasonable to me. But that it is the single cause of prices in the entire Toronto metro, or that without it the prices would halve themselves accross the board, I just don't feel convinced of. The data doesn't add up. There's clearly a lot more at play here.

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

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I suppose you don’t read anything about population demographics in Canada. If you did you’d realize we have a very low birth rate. Without immigration Ontario and Canada will fail, like Italy and Japan we’ll be stuck in economic stagnation and ever increasing debt load, until we can’t pay for basic social services or people are forced to work 80 hour weeks to get by.

When did your family come to Canada? Why do you think you should be the abetter of when it’s full? It’s been growing for 200 years and and at any point people could point to a Canadian city and say it’s full because that’s completely subjective in a country that could easily fit the world’s population.

You’re also completely missing the mark on what I’m saying a increasing density. I’m not talking about shoving people in tiny condos, I’m saying the housing that’s zoned for single detached houses should be zoned to be five story walk ups with beautiful courtyards like London, Paris, or the city I live in now, Amsterdam. These aren’t small condos, they’re large flats that families can live in, it’s not uncommon for families to have multiple floors. You know what people and kids do that don’t have back yards, they walk to a local park and interact with their community, and it make a much healthier and social community. Compared to most European capitals Toronto is a bland shithole, keep your ugly McMansion, keep your ugly car depended suburbs, keep your obesity, and bad food, keep your lame two weeks of vacation where you come to visit European cities you refuse to learn lessons from. Honestly get fucked, I’m over it, people like you are so ignorant it makes me never want to come back to Canada. There, are you happy, Toronto minus one person.

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

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 si…

Luckily switching to online meetings should solve both problems, now everyone can attend from home and nobody can scream at you.

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

#214
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Milton doesn't necessarily have more capacity or willpower to offer tax breaks than Toronto, and the incentives for companies are stacked.

Perhaps decades ago I'd be content with commuting out to the middle of nowhere by car to work for a large company as a lifelong employee. Perhaps those circumstances still exist, but there is a comparatively large number of people living downtown that won't touch transit-poor suburb offices with a 10-pole stick. If you're setting up shop in the suburbs, you will get a pick of only suburb residents.

On the other hand, if you're setting up shop in downtown, you get a pick of both downtown and suburb dwellers. The latter will drive anyway, so it matters comparatively little whether you drive from Mississauga to Milton or from Mississauga to Toronto. Plus a lot of people can find a GO station somewhere and get downtown that way. Good luck commuting to a Milton campus by train from Markham.

Furthermore, with Toronto in the centre of the population bell curve, it's not even just downtown employees vs. suburb employees. It's also that by building on one edge of the municipal area, you will have a harder time to attract people from the other edge. Mississauga to Milton isn't too bad, Ajax to Milton is twice the distance vs. to downtown Toronto.

So in the end, it all goes back to making a choice between locations with relatively broad appeal and a lot of competition, or niche locations that work great for a considerably lower potential selection of employees. Large international companies are finding that they are competitive enough to win employees in the downtown job market while still benefiting from the broad base of talent available there. You'd have to give them unprofitably high tax breaks to make them give up their talent pool.

Smaller shops may try out the niche strategy in the suburbs and may find it to work well for their purposes. But I guess those were not the target of your call for suburban HQs. They're also not at a size at which Milton would consider giving out tax breaks.

There can always be exceptions, although as a general tendency the house is stacked against suburb HQs. Maybe with a drawn-out WFH trend this could change, but for now I still don't see it happening.

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

#215
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something makes me think that ain’t gonna happen...

But this is what's been happening. It's happening in the bay area too.

"Past performance is no guarantee of future results"

The housing market can only grow as far as people are willing and able to pay for. Sure, you may have a few international investors distorting the picture, but for the wider masses of homes you still need a strong local base to prop up the average price.

My impression is that in Toronto, we went from a market that's affordable enough for lower-to-mid-income households to a market that's only affordable to high-income households. Apparently there are still enough people to finance this. But with another doubling of prices vs. salaries, I feel like even high earners wouldn't be able to buy in en masse, and that's where there's a limit to price growth. Not sure about the exact number, but we're probably not far off from it at this point.

There's also the issue with interest rates, which may be able to fall a little further and dip into negative territory when the next regression comes, but we probably won't be able to replicate the decrease in rates over the last 10 to 30 years. And lower rates are really what drove up housing prices in the recent past.

Of course, if companies start to approach Bay Area salaries, we'll raise the price growth limit as well. Personally, I don't worry too much about housing options for software developers and more about the gap between us and the low-wage retail, restaurant, underpaid or underemployed rest of the city. Who cares about home ownership when your friends are moving back to their parents in the prairies.

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

#216
post #214
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Milton doesn't necessarily have more capacity or willpower to offer tax breaks than Toronto, and the incentives for companies are stacked. Perhaps decades ago I'd be content with commuting out to the middle of nowhere by car to work for a large company as a lifelong employee. Perhaps those circumstances still exist, but there is a comparatively large number of people living downtown that won't touch transit-poor subu…

> Maybe with a drawn-out WFH trend this could change

What's interesting is that the two companies I mentioned are both very large (offices in multiple cities) and don't have butts-in-seat cultures (people already worked from home a lot even pre-pandemic).

The point about Ajax to Milton being a very long commute is quite valid though Ajax could also try to attract companies of its own. The go train point is fair, but not critical IMHO. People can and do move. And for better or for worse, these municipalities do have very strong car cultures as of today. Living in Scarborough to commute to Markham is a pain in the neck by public transit, but trivial by car (and consider that downtown traffic and parking story isn't great compared to free parking virtually everywhere in Markham, so there's some amount of mutual exclusion there). Also IMHO, the infrastructure follows demand. Some stretches of Hwy 7 have public transit lines now; there's clearly a desire to build out a local scene that isn't centered around downtown Toronto.

I think defending the idea of cramming downtown more and more is more based on status quo, and ultimately it's not going to be sustainable. Downtown Toronto has already grown upwards quite a bit; at the pace condos are going up, it's eventually going to run out of parking lots to convert to vertical space. I think developing new talent-attracting centers is going to be important regardless; better to get the ball going before it becomes an unavoidable necessity.

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

#217
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 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

Our of curiosity, is $250+k genuinely a fairly common salary in SF, or are you exaggerating to make a point? Surely that must only account for a very small number of the total residents who work in particular industries.
Post reply on HN