brockm
Active Member
Yes. But I have already isolated this by using the lease listing data from MLS. There's no regulation on what price you can ask for a new tenant.
|
|
|
91 King Street East (Albany Club, 25s, WZMH Architects)
- Thread starter androiduk
- Start date
Yes. But I have already isolated this by using the lease listing data from MLS. There's no regulation on what price you can ask for a new tenant.
neubilder
Banned
It's a parallel argument, not a straw man. In my argument the water is an impediment to development and is the cause for high real-estate values in Vancouver. Water parallels heritage districts in that they both serve as limits to growth. Does this mean that the water is the problem? No, the ocean is the draw. Just as historic districts are a draw. Does it make sense to destroy them because they cause scarcity and thus high prices?
What I see as fundamentally wrong with your argument is that it uses rents/land values as it's sole criteria. But even with this narrow criteria, your argument is flawed. Take Tokyo for example, where the process of demolition and redevelopment to higher densities is almost 'organic' (so is cancer); downtown Tokyo rents are the highest in the world. If we redevelop Toronto's historical buildings with highrise as you suggest, as long as Toronto remains the financial centre of Canada, rents will still rise, and depending on a multitude of factors, there will be nothing preventing prices from reaching stratospheric levels. Except perhaps that no-one will actually want to live in the core because it will be so devoid of heart. Retrospectively, in your dystopia one might wonder if the old 'deadwood' buildings might in fact have served to curtail the concentration of density and of wealth.
What is your goal? Is it to reduce rents? Property values? Speculation? Or is it to diminish the richness of the city?
Last edited:
k10ery
Senior Member
For anyone who doesn't know the Glaeser argument he's citing, there's a short version of it here: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/reservations-about-landmark-preservation/
It's a lousy argument to tie yourself to, if you want to convince us you're a good economist. Glaeser is arguing that preservation is bad, because high real estate prices in historic districts are a sign of artificial scarcity.
Any good economist knows that high prices are EITHER because of low supply or high demand -- the latter of which makes more sense in this case. Prices are high because people value preservation and want to live around it. Even a historic district usually has a few empty lots for redevelopment.
Glaeser knows this. He's being disingenuous I think, to carry forth his more general argument against NIMBYs, and in favour of densification.
adma
Superstar
Again: I love the way brockm uses the word "protectionism" in lieu of preservation or conservation or any other such common terminology. I think of it as angry code language by those with an axe to grind, along the lines of homophobes who use the term "homosexualist".
Get this straight, brockm. As long as you engage in this "protectionism" talk, you'll gain about as much sympathy as a Monsanto apologist.
Get this straight, brockm. As long as you engage in this "protectionism" talk, you'll gain about as much sympathy as a Monsanto apologist.
thecharioteer
Senior Member
I guess I've had it wrong all these years. The blitzkreig of post-war Victorian/Georgian Toronto was actually a good thing because it made the city more affordable. It was also not the result of deliberate planning policies that encouraged parking near the core, but "organic" market forces at work. Hmmmm.
Last edited:
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Wow. its painfull to digest that these buildings are no longer with us.
Ramako
Moderator
Those photos are downright depressing.
Grimace
Active Member
They're only depressing because of your emotion romantic notions.
Lenser
Senior Member
Indeed. They were wonderful, weren't they?
AlbertC
Superstar
I grimaced at the loss of those gems. What an awful time it must have been in that 2nd pic for urban enthusiasts in this city to see such destruction.
Bayer
Senior Member
Xray_Crystal_Junkie
Senior Member
What's with the old pictures of Europe? Surely if that were Toronto I'd recognize such buildings.
... Ohh
... Ohh
RC8
Senior Member
Because a) the quality of craftmanship and attention to detail in buildings pre-1950s is unbelievable compared to what followed and what we build today, and b) old buildings have already paid for themselves over the years and its owners are more likely to rent out to unique non-franchised exciting tenants, rather than the 'safe-bets' that new buildings understandably choose to go for.
Visit 401 Richmond if you have the chance, it's a restored old warehouse rented to artists. It's full of plants, warmth, light, and human-scaled goodness. It's psychologically very enhancing. Walk around its hallways and offices, courtyard, and green roof, and try and picture carrying out the same project in a recently built building.
You can also look at retail along WQW and realise that if we allowed developers to build new buildings and replace the old victorians there's no way the current tenants would be maintained.
Finally, rich people like well-maintained 1800s landscaping. They really dig it, as it's very well thought out and aesthetically pleasing. A neighbourhood that projects that image instantly raises the value of its properties. Do you think the Flatiron building would be a beloved landmark if it was a modernist triangle? Do you think the St. Lawrence market would be what it is today if the South Market had been torn down?
flonicky
Senior Member
"Organic market forces" is a phrase intended to neuter our democratic impulses by suggesting that changes are fated to happen and that citizens don't have choices or control.
urbandreamer
recession proof
BrockM is wrong. Downtown Hamilton contains thousands of historic buildings yet is extremely affordable. The same applies to downtown Brantford, Galt, London, Sarnia, Windsor etc.