Economist: Toronto, nice but broke

[lordmandeep]

northwest etibcoke as well

 

[Glen]

By Downtown you are referring to the FIRE (finance, insurance and real estate) sector, I agree. It is one of the few, if only, area in which Toronto has had any success. With employment reaching near its all time highest levels. Which means that the cumulative shortfall is even higher in the other areas.

 

[taal]

Yes those in particular but office vacancy throughout downtown is at an all time low and that includes more then such industries ... Health care / pharmaceuticals / institutional / to name a few are others that are very hot.

 

[BobBob]

One thing to keep in mind when considering all these stats is that the "City of Toronto" now includes the downtown and other central areas, as well as vast suburban areas which are ending their first cycle, in a way.

If one looked at the old City of Toronto, I think the picture would be a lot different in terms of both employment and population growth.

The overall statistical stagnation in the big City of Toronto has a lot to do with decline in old suburbs, which hold no advantage (and have several disadvantages) over their cheaper and fresher cousins on the outskirts.

Bunching Scarborough and Etobicoke with downtown is just confusing the issue and mangling the statistics. They are very different places.

 

[Glen]

The focus on 'entrenched' firms whom need to be located downtown has obscured the larger picture of where the 'footloose' firms decide to locate. Increasingly, those firms that do not require to be downtown choose not to locate midtown instead, but out of town in the 905 region. This is a trend that has a very negative effect on the city's revenue.

Here is a paper on the subject. Albeit old and in need of some hindsight revision.

http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~nowlan/papers/commercial_taxes.pdf

 

[Glen]

The overall statistical stagnation in the big City of Toronto has a lot to do with decline in old suburbs, which hold no advantage (and have several disadvantages) over their cheaper and fresher cousins on the outskirts.

Bunching Scarborough and Etobicoke with downtown is just confusing the issue and mangling the statistics. They are very different places.

The truth is that the 905 region is not cheaper. Taxes are cheaper but land cost are considerably higher (up to twice as much).

 

[299 bloor call control.]

pardon me? land costs in the sprawling business parks are considerably lower than in the central city. that's why you have high density to increase your return on the cost of the land.

or am i missing something?? :S

 

[Glen]

pardon me? land costs in the sprawling business parks are considerably lower than in the central city. that's why you have high density to increase your return on the cost of the land.

or am i missing something?? :S

From Toronto's Long Term Employment Land Strategy.
http://www.toronto.ca/business_publications/pdf/TEDCO-Hemson-rep-jan-07.pdf

As illustrated by the graph below, the value of industrial land
has risen rapidly in the GTA, particularly in the City of
Mississauga around the airport and in the City of Vaughan.
Industrial land in Toronto is inexpensive relative to these
locations, particularly near the edges of the City abutting the
905.

Keep in mind that when comparisons are made it must be done on a 'like' for 'like' basis. You cannot compare a downtown location to a suburban one. What you can easily do though is compare a single property over time. If in 1986 one was to have spent $1,000,000 on industrial land in Mississauga today it would be worth over $4,000,000. By comparison if that money was spent in Toronto it would be worth on average today $1,800,000. This is a trend that holds true in most other commercial areas.