News   Mar 28, 2024
 275     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 327     1 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 685     0 

NYCC, Etobicoke CC, STC: Relics of the past?

denfromoakvillemilton

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
7,398
Reaction score
1,426
Location
Downtown Toronto, Ontario
In the post 1950's world, Metro Toronto also had three downtowns besides south of Bloor Street. North York City Centre, Etobicoke City Centre(also known as Islington City Centre West), and Scarborough Town Centre. These areas were supposed to be the lynchpins of suburban Toronto. But as 20th century moved on, businesses increasingly chose to move to places like Burlington, Oakville, Vaughan, Thornhill, Richmond Hill, Whitby and Ajax. By the late 1990's imo, these three places were in steep decline, as the commercial taxes rates in Metro were much higher then average in the communities I just mentioned. And on top of that, any new Toronto business chose to be Downtown, south of bloor street.

My question is this. Should we be doing our best to attract new businesses to these areas, at it would nominally cut down on commutes? Or should we admit that the suburban downtown in Toronto has failed, and focus on making them the next great urban communities, phase two of the current condomania if you will. Or is there a middle ground that can be reached here?


What do you think?
 
Last edited:
Middle ground is best I'd say. None of them are complete disasters and all have signs of growth, albeit not all that significant (save NYCC) and mostly residential. Slowly urbanizing them should be key. Transit should be based on where people are actually going though, but the three are fairly well tied-into the system already (including the future SRT replacement). At some point trends will adjust slightly and they could indeed be "hot spots" again. Business growth should be aimed at 905 companies looking for new space, rather than those seeking Triple AAA space. There's probably some opportunities, especially as the commercial tax rates ease closer to parity.
 
NYCC seems successful to me. It definitely has huge residential growth, and always had several big office buildings. Why is it "in decline"?
 
The idea that these centres would become significant enough to challenge the traditional CBD (south of Bloor), or at worse provide an alternative failed. In part (and I admit this is anecdotally) because if you choose to stay away from the downtown core than the difference in tax rates between these secondary cores and the suburban cores of the 905 makes the 905 more appealing.

Secondly while these areas were supposed to reduce traffic congestion, they in fact increased it. These centres simply never built up the critical mass of jobs/residents that South of Bloor has, or even a fraction of that. Couple that with now having to service multiple centres with multiple transit lines and you will rarely reach the ridership densities to justify anything buy busses. The CBD benefits because all transit lines lead there and so it has high ridership. Think about one of these centres now, trying to get people to commute on transit to NYCC for example from Mississauga, or Vaughan, or Ajax/Whiby, etc, etc, there simply would not be enough people going there to create a transit line. Couple that with now having multiple destinations only further divides an already small potential ridership base. So what happens is people choose to drive and cause congestion on the roads.

Part of the problem I think was that the City chose it's centres rather willy nilly, choosing already developing centres or traditional centres of Pre-Metro cities (Etobicoke CC etc) rather than taking a full perspective and saying "where do we have a coming together of at least 2 forms of higher order transit, and how can we better serve that area better to make it more attractive for business development?".
 
If these centres fail simply because they built newer ones further out in suburbia with lower taxes, it doesn't make them sustainable. Mississauga is raising its taxes now, so will the ambitious MCC fail in a generation as well in favour of, say, Oakville or Burlington? No, I think they'll be succeed with the right planning. Concentrating transit and amenities will attract more office and residential development. They should have more space geared towards small and medium sized businesses, not just corporations. The city has to take its role seriously in continuing with this legacy of the Metro Toronto area because the suburbs need these communities. Scarborough centre needs revitalization to keep growing.
 
Id like to see the city cut taxes at both the Etobicoke CC as well as the STC to encourage businesses to set up shop. NYCC has enough residents in that area that it doesnt look like the roads can handle much more so if anything it needs development with less parking spots then anything. If 905 can build mini city centres there is no reason that Toronto cant in its suburbs other then because it is charging the same taxes which is really a joke considering it doesn't give businesses a incentive to stay rather then to head only a few kms away and save a good amount of money. Downtown businesses absorb these taxes for the privileged to say they are downtown. There isnt any prestige in opening a business at STC or Etobicoke on the other hand.
 
You want to reduce traffic in Toronto the proper way? Instead of spending billions on LRT and additional subways, we should competitively cut taxes at ECC, STC, and NYCC.
 
ha .... no where close, where did you get your figures from ...

There were plans years ago to match by 2020 or so but it fell apart. The city of Toronto will never have tax rates on par with the 905, the difference today is so large, it would take an astronomical shift between residential and commercial rates, no politicsion in their right mind would ever propose this.

Keep in mind, when tax rates are raised now, (i.e. say a 1% increase to residential) commercial rates can only go up 1/3rd this amount ... but this is a province wide initiative, not just Toronto wide. This means its basically impossible for Toronto to ever get on par, because the suburbs could never introduce a huge new tax burden on the commercial side.


Anyway the arguments above about why SCC / NYCC have not panned out are spot on. But what will be interesting is VCC ... given it has subway access ... what happens here, time will tell. Will it even surpass NYCC ? From a commercial property point of view.
 
I thought we weren't raising our commercial tax rates anymore in order to allow inflation to take its course so that by 2017 we would have comparable rates to the suburbs?

And I wouldn't call NYCC a failure.
 
No, I definitely would not consider NYCC a failure by any means either. If anything, it has been a suburban success. Granted, it had a lot going for it even prior to the amalgamation with both condo and retail development already set in motion during the Mel Lastman mayoral years.

The biggest issue with NYCC, as others have pointed out, is accessibility. Yes, there are 2 subway stations serving this location, but actually getting to Sheppard-Yonge station or North York Centre is not the easiest or most convenient for everyone. For drivers, it's even worse. The Yonge St north exit from the 401 east was only recently updated to allow for multiple exit lanes off the highway. The single lane Yonge St north exit from the 401 west is a complete joke. Way too much congestion as a result. I think they need to improve the infrastructure around NYCC, as difficult as it will be, in order for it to maximize its potential.
 
None of them are disasters, but, with the exception of NYCC which was a village centre (Lansing) on an established artery (Yonge street), most of the new city centres of the GTA were really attempting to fit a square peg through a round hole. So, bad idea but not a terrible outcome. Urban vibrancy forms organically and builds off what already exists and can't really be jumpstarted on a farmer's field. I don't think they're failures, because places like SCC and MCC would have been low density commercial sprawl surrounding a mall (like Vaughan Mills or Markville) rather than higher density enclosed residential complexes surrounding a mall, which, I suppose, makes better use of transit infrastructure and provides some visual interest.

At least "Places to Grow" recognizes that growth should occur in existing urban areas, including suburban ones like downtown Brampton, downtown Oshawa and Port Credit. Add to that the fact that condo builders naturally gravitate to the urban or urbanizing parts of the region, and at least we aren't making the same mistakes again.
 
None of them are disasters, but, with the exception of NYCC which was a village centre (Lansing) on an established artery (Yonge street), most of the new city centres of the GTA were really attempting to fit a square peg through a round hole. So, bad idea but not a terrible outcome. Urban vibrancy forms organically and builds off what already exists and can't really be jumpstarted on a farmer's field. I don't think they're failures, because places like SCC and MCC would have been low density commercial sprawl surrounding a mall (like Vaughan Mills or Markville) rather than higher density enclosed residential complexes surrounding a mall, which, I suppose, makes better use of transit infrastructure and provides some visual interest.

At least "Places to Grow" recognizes that growth should occur in existing urban areas, including suburban ones like downtown Brampton, downtown Oshawa and Port Credit. Add to that the fact that condo builders naturally gravitate to the urban or urbanizing parts of the region, and at least we aren't making the same mistakes again.

This is true. I also counter to people wh0o say the subway would have helped, that Etobicoke had the subway, and they are in the same rut.
 
None of them are disasters, but, with the exception of NYCC which was a village centre (Lansing)

The old stores on Yonge wouldn't be from old Lansing or Willowdale (except for a few converted homes which would have been moved back), as Yonge wouldn't have been six lanes when they were still small towns. They would've been built between the wars I'd guess.
 
Anyway the arguments above about why SCC / NYCC have not panned out are spot on. But what will be interesting is VCC ... given it has subway access ... what happens here, time will tell. Will it even surpass NYCC ? From a commercial property point of view.

Agreed. VCC will be interesting to watch. I foresee a sizable boondoggle...but then again, people said the same about Canary Wharf.

Speaking of Canary Wharf-esque style of building, I find a bit of hypocrisy in my thinking. Part of me dislikes attempts to attain rival CBDs, but at the same time I envision a prominent business district for the Lower Don Lands and Port Lands. Would the same arguments against attaining rival downtowns like STC, NYCC hold true for our currently derelict waterfront?
 

Back
Top