A look at past forecasts for Toronto

[scarberiankhatru]

Okay, this will clear things up:
http://www.colliersmn.com/prod/ccgrd.nsf/publish/D07CA1DF11E42476852576790062E553/$File/Colliers+Q3+2009+GTA+Office+Statistics.pdf

About 86 million square feet in ALL OF TORONTO and all classes.

After I thought about it for a while - we probably added a bit more then 6 million over the last 20 years. But no where near 50/60!

Anyway the point is - there has been quite a bit less growth since the 1980's then was predicted back then in the city of Toronto.

You're still wrong. That's 86M in downtown and midtown, not the whole city. We've probably built 6M just in Etobicoke, North York, and Scarborough since 1988. Also, I said it was "closer to 60M" than 6M, not that it was exactly 60M. The short list ShonTron mentioned is at least 5M and there's still dozens of other towers that have gone up, each with hundreds of thousands of square feet of office space.

The point is that people looking exclusively at office towers tend to look only at the handful of tallest towers while ignoring shorter ones, conversions, people working from home, etc., and tend to ignore employment growth in places like institutions. The 905 has grown more than the 416 since 1988 but the 416 could not, under any circumstances, have accommodated all of this growth.

 

[waterloowarrior]

from that Collier's list "For the purpose of this report, buildings with less than 10,000 sf of office space and buildings owned and occupied by the government have not been included in the office inventory"

 

[taal]

You're still wrong. That's 86M in downtown and midtown, not the whole city. We've probably built 6M just in Etobicoke, North York, and Scarborough since 1988. Also, I said it was "closer to 60M" than 6M, not that it was exactly 60M. The short list ShonTron mentioned is at least 5M and there's still dozens of other towers that have gone up, each with hundreds of thousands of square feet of office space.

The point is that people looking exclusively at office towers tend to look only at the handful of tallest towers while ignoring shorter ones, conversions, people working from home, etc., and tend to ignore employment growth in places like institutions. The 905 has grown more than the 416 since 1988 but the 416 could not, under any circumstances, have accommodated all of this growth.

Right, North York is included in the NORTH office market and the other fringe suburbs in the corresponding EAST/WEST office markets.

Anyway, so do you not think the commercial property tax has slowed our development in terms of employment? By that I mean how are business taxes are disproportionately higher then the suburbs that surround us (yes, our residential taxes are lower). Clearly the edges of Toronto suffer the most because of this.

I think it's hard to argue employment in the city has lagged behind it's potential for whatever reason.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I think it's hard to argue employment in the city has lagged behind it's potential for whatever reason.

Its potential. Its.

It's hard to argue anything when you're basing everything on numbers that are simply wrong and on projections (made by who? assuming what?)...projections are almost always wrong.

 

[taal]

Its potential. Its.

It's hard to argue anything when you're basing everything on numbers that are simply wrong and on projections (made by who? assuming what?)...projections are almost always wrong.

All Toronto's employment growth numbers are far behind its own estimates.
I don't think we've even recovered from the past few recessions and our current employment numbers have still not bounced back.

Now, lets recall the last 5/10 years - take the suburbs - there's been nearly 0 growth in almost all of Toronto's suburbs. Is this 'normal' / 'fine' ? Isn't it clear there's some sort of problem?

 

[Glen]

Its potential. Its.

It's hard to argue anything when you're basing everything on numbers that are simply wrong and on projections (made by who? assuming what?)...projections are almost always wrong.

What you are missing is the amount of employment space that has been lost. Either that or this city has had a major decrease in employment density. How can you support the idea that this city's economy has been doing well by pointing out a substantial increase in employment space while ignoring the fact that there has been no net increase in jobs? How do you reconcile that?

While it is unrealistic to expect similar growth rates from a mature city compared to new outlying areas, there should be some growth.

This city has stood still for nearly a generation.


From Vital signs 2006......

The population of Toronto in 2006 was 2,503,281, up only 0.9 per cent since 2001, far less growth than had been projected.


From 2000 to 2006, the number of jobs in Toronto declined by 1.6 per cent.
---------
The region is home to 42 per cent of Ontario's population and contributes 47per cent of its gross domestic product.


In 2006, the population of the region was 5,113,149, up 9.2 per cent since 2001 (4,682,897).


From 2000 to 2006 the number of jobs in the region excluding Toronto grew by 27.8 per cent.
OVERALL

The region outside Toronto is doing the growing. Toronto appears to have stalled.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

All Toronto's employment growth numbers are far behind its own estimates.
I don't think we've even recovered from the past few recessions and our current employment numbers have still not bounced back.

Now, lets recall the last 5/10 years - take the suburbs - there's been nearly 0 growth in almost all of Toronto's suburbs. Is this 'normal' / 'fine' ? Isn't it clear there's some sort of problem?

There's hardly a city in the world that isn't ambitious with projections. No one likes to plan for shrinkage and no politician or bureaucrat likes to herald stagnation. Projections are typically made during times of peak production or peak growth, which always aggravates the gap between hype and future reality.

Did I say there's no problem? Or did I say that it's hard to argue it with people basing things on flawed numbers?

What you are missing is the amount of employment space that has been lost. Either that or this city has had a major decrease in employment density. How can you support the idea that this city's economy has been doing well by pointing out a substantial increase in employment space while ignoring the fact that there has been no net increase in jobs? How do you reconcile that?

While it is unrealistic to expect similar growth rates from a mature city compared to new outlying areas, there should be some growth.

This city has stood still for nearly a generation.

From Vital signs 2006......

The city has stood still, except for that one time in the past generation when half the city was built/rebuilt from the ground up. Most of the 905 is stagnant or declining but the region as a whole grows because of a few booming tracts on the fringe.

Yes, employment density has probably been decreasing. I know you think that jobs like foundry worker or investment banker are the only jobs that count, but a lot of those manufacturing jobs are gone and aren't returning. Other jobs have grown in manufacturing's wake.

You do realize that the Toronto employment survey makes this little statement at the end, right?

This survey does not capture people who work from home, or who have “no usual place of work” e.g. contract workers, and many involved in the film industry and other activity that is not place-specific on a daily basis.

That's mildly damning considering where much of the job growth has been in recent decades. What more needs to be said? Other than: are these jobs worse or lower paying than the clerks and support staff that fill MINT towers, or the garment workers in Scarborough quasi-sweatshops?

Try trotting out newer or more accurate numbers. Of course, without things like a Secret Shoppers Guild to query, this is impossible. How many people have no place of work other than eBay or Craigslist these days? Informal daycare providers? Freelance housepainters relying on word of mouth? Medical/drug experiment test subjects?

 

[taal]

All we'd simply need to do is compare Toronto's numbers with other similar size (similar position) cities. Chicago? Montreal? ... what has growth been like then.

Your point regarding contractors / those who are not counted is valid but they should be present in equal quantities in the 905.

Anyway, you seem to indicate there is a problem in the above post. That's all I'm trying to establish - not everything is business as usual here. I agree the cities projection for growth are probably way off track but nearly 0 growth in any of Toronto's fringes is not a good sign.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

The main problem here is dreary and silly doom-and-gloom scenarios based on dubious and/or misinterpreted numbers.

 

[taal]

The main problem here is dreary and silly doom-and-gloom scenarios based on dubious and/or misinterpreted numbers.

I'm very much afraid this is the attitude that brought us to the current position we're in today - the position you seem so afraid to recognize.

This is not a non-issue, while yes some might overstate it there's a clear problem with the amount of employment growth in the 416 ... there's still land available - in quite a few cases rent is lower then the 905, yet we see little to no development (yes the land may be slightly more expensive, I'm not even sure about that) < this is all referring to the fridges of our city

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I'm very much afraid this is the attitude that brought us to the current position we're in today - the position you seem so afraid to recognize.

This is not a non-issue, while yes some might overstate it there's a clear problem with the amount of employment growth in the 416 ... there's still land available - in quite a few cases rent is lower then the 905, yet we see little to no development (yes the land may be slightly more expensive, I'm not even sure about that) < this is all referring to the fridges of our city

You're not making much sense.

The actual position we're in today is that we've managed to rebound from recession and counter declines in manufacturing even as more and more people move away from traditional 9-to-5 jobs and traditional work sites.

So some projection made in the 80s says we should have X and Y by now...who cares other than a few people on the internet who are unable to properly interpret numbers and are concerned solely with 416/905 squabbles? The projections are totally irrelevent now. We're not even in the same municipalities anymore, we have new official plans, jobs have changed, and on and on.

 

[Glen]

Also keep in mind: office renewals in "the Kings", or Liberty Village, etc...

Wasn't Liberty Village the old Massey Ferguson lands?

 

[Glen]

The city has stood still, except for that one time in the past generation when half the city was built/rebuilt from the ground up. Most of the 905 is stagnant or declining but the region as a whole grows because of a few booming tracts on the fringe.

You really should travel outside of the city.

Yes, employment density has probably been decreasing. I know you think that jobs like foundry worker or investment banker are the only jobs that count, but a lot of those manufacturing jobs are gone and aren't returning. Other jobs have grown in manufacturing's wake.

Considering the advantages that locating in the city has for office type employment like public transit, more lively and connected environs, etc. the city should have been able to do better.

You do realize that the Toronto employment survey makes this little statement at the end, right?

Yes I do. So long as the methodology doesn't change the differences remain significant. Besides that I did not quote the Toronto Employment Survey.


This thread was meant as a flashback, to see how ambitious the city was a generation ago. Yes shit happens. Real Estate bubble popping, recession, etc, yet one cannot argue with the trends. From employment opportunities, fiscal sustainability, demographics and wage disparity, Toronto is doing poorly.

 

[taal]

You're not making much sense.

The actual position we're in today is that we've managed to rebound from recession and counter declines in manufacturing even as more and more people move away from traditional 9-to-5 jobs and traditional work sites.

So some projection made in the 80s says we should have X and Y by now...who cares other than a few people on the internet who are unable to properly interpret numbers and are concerned solely with 416/905 squabbles? The projections are totally irrelevent now. We're not even in the same municipalities anymore, we have new official plans, jobs have changed, and on and on.

As I said in my last post, forget the predictions in the 80s just have a look back at the last 5/10 years - show me this supposed growth. Yes there has been some in central Toronto, and by that I mean dowtown and downtown only. What about the rest of the city?

The 905 is stagnant? Travel to Hi-way 7 and the 404 / Check out the area beside the airport. I wouldn't call any of this stagnant.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

You really should travel outside of the city.

I doubt you've ever been south of Steeles...your knowledge of the city seems confined to what's contained in press releases or think tank reports.

Considering the advantages that locating in the city has for office type employment like public transit, more lively and connected environs, etc. the city should have been able to do better.

It did well enough under the circumstances and you can't argue with that. That's what matters. Toronto's CBD is as dense with office-type jobs as any other CBD in the world and much of this has been built since 1988. Just because someone projected a place like Scarborough Centre, for instance, would receive X thousand more office jobs doesn't mean it was ever realistic...maybe if it still had a mayor, there'd be more of a fight to lure office jobs out there. Everyone but you seems to notice that there's a lot more to 'employment' than office jobs nowadays compared to the 80s.

edit - given the limited transportation improvements since 1988, how much more 'skyscraper employment' growth would have been possible? GO takes more and more people to the CBD and the 407 and a few other highway projects take people around the 905, but almost nothing has been done for transit or roads in the 416 since the 80s. Having all the jobs in the 416 and all the homes in the 905 would be a complete disaster. Finding the right balance of jobs and homes and fitting transportation links to their various locations throughout the GTA hasn't always been done perfectly, but there's good reason to be optimistic (http://m-w.com/dictionary/optimistic)...we can always do better, but the important thing is that we did alright.

Yes I do. So long as the methodology doesn't change the differences remain significant. Besides that I did not quote the Toronto Employment Survey.

The methodology becomes increasingly problematic when an increasing proportion of jobs are not counted via a quick chat with a secretary or a PR liaison.

Oh, and where do you think Vital Signs or anyone else gets its data?

As I said in my last post, forget the predictions in the 80s just have a look back at the last 5/10 years - show me this supposed growth. Yes there has been some in central Toronto, and by that I mean dowtown and downtown only. What about the rest of the city?

You said nothing of the sort in your last post. What on earth is so horrible about an arbitrary period of a few years bringing less office job growth than what was theoretically possible to certain select neighbourhoods in the city?

If you'd bother reading my posts, you'd notice I mentioned the booming instutitional sector, among others. Oh, right, those jobs aren't jobs.

The 905 is stagnant? Travel to Hi-way 7 and the 404 / Check out the area beside the airport. I wouldn't call any of this stagnant.

[Re-]read and try again. Hint: also think about population. Hint: also note what Glen said.