Hume: Are Toronto condo towers slums in the making?

[kkgg7]

Maybe this is disgustingly optimistic, but what if, in the future, our metropolis became less centralised, with less of a concentration of desirable services and prestige employment? What if, instead of becoming even bigger wastelands than they already are, the suburbs started to bring in the same services, amenities, and employment opportunities that right now make "closer to the core" so desirable?
Just sayin. I personally think our society has its head too far up its ass for this to play out, but I had to say it.

Well, Los Angles is the closest thing that matches what you described. The city's downtown is not a desirable place to live, although with many jobs. Nobody in LA when buying a house would say "I want to live as close to downtown as possible".

Instead, the giant city developed several sizable centres outside the traditional downtown, Century City, mid-Wilshire, Glendale, Santa Monica, Burbank, Westwood etc each with abundance of urban amenities and employment.

[LordWanker]

Well, Los Angles is the closest thing that matches what you described. The city's downtown is not a desirable place to live, although with many jobs. Nobody in LA when buying a house would say "I want to live as close to downtown as possible".

Instead, the giant city developed several sizable centres outside the traditional downtown, Century City, mid-Wilshire, Glendale, Santa Monica, Burbank, Westwood etc each with abundance of urban amenities and employment.

But is that not running against your belief than anyone living in the suburbs aka low density environment, is an idiot and living in an unsustainable lifestyle?

[kkgg7]

But is that not running against your belief than anyone living in the suburbs aka low density environment, is an idiot and living in an unsustainable lifestyle?

yes, it is.
Despite the multiple centres, Los Angeles is still incredibly car dependent and pedestrian unfriendly (with very few walkable neighbourhoods), most because of its low rise nature and everything is still so far apart. People do drive a car just to buy 2 pounds of bananas.

On the other hand, Manhattan even has 2 Home Depot stores in midtown just by the subway. That's called sustainable lifestyle.

[LordWanker]

yes, it is.
Despite the multiple centres, Los Angeles is still incredibly car dependent and pedestrian unfriendly (with very few walkable neighbourhoods), most because of its low rise nature and everything is still so far apart. People do drive a car just to buy 2 pounds of bananas.

On the other hand, Manhattan even has 2 Home Depot stores in midtown just by the subway. That's called sustainable lifestyle.

However most of Manhattan, was developed before cars existed and has geographical restrictions too.

[RC8]

So? We built our infrastructure for cars based on a very poor understanding of all the factors it involved. Our world is full of resource and geographical restrictions, and car-dependency is inherently unsustainable regardless of which fuel you use to power the cars.

[MTown]

Well, Los Angles is the closest thing that matches what you described. The city's downtown is not a desirable place to live, although with many jobs. Nobody in LA when buying a house would say "I want to live as close to downtown as possible".

Instead, the giant city developed several sizable centres outside the traditional downtown, Century City, mid-Wilshire, Glendale, Santa Monica, Burbank, Westwood etc each with abundance of urban amenities and employment.

LA is nothing like what I'm talking about. My scenario still includes a highly desirable core. You may as well have said Detroit so I could really have a laugh.

[Palma]

One thing not mentioned is that it is not uncommon in places like NY to have buyers combine two or more adjacent smaller apartments and remodel them into one. I'm sure it's been done in Toronto too, but is probably rare today and probably not worth the hassle and cost given other options.

2011 NY Times Article about Combining Apartments

If these small units are destined to lose value (investors have a fire sale? lol) in the future but Toronto still maintains its vibrancy in the core, some enterprising families may find an opportunity here to build urban family living space on a discount.

I have always thought the same thing - once there is a correction in condo prices and depending on how low things get - it would be a great opportunity to be able to buy 2 small units and eventually combine them into one. After all if people are able to afford downtown condo prices today and house prices, they will likely be able to afford buying 2 condos when prices fall assuming their jobs are stable I guess.

[kkgg7]

LA is nothing like what I'm talking about. My scenario still includes a highly desirable core. You may as well have said Detroit so I could really have a laugh.

didn't you say "less centralised, with less of a concentration of desirable services"? that's exactly how Los Angeles is.

[MTown]

didn't you say "less centralised, with less of a concentration of desirable services"? that's exactly how Los Angeles is.

Right, I saw your comparison as off because of how you mentioned LA's core as not being very desirable which is not what I want for Toronto. I guess we're on the same page...ish.