adma
Superstar
And also, to some degree the 'burbs are getting a bit "built out" within existing designated growth boundaries; which together with the condo/intensification boom in the 416 has led to something closer to "parity".
|
|
|
Population of Toronto (Including Census Counts)
- Thread starter hawc
- Start date
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Yup. Mississauga is fully built out now. They need to build up.
Speaking of that, I wonder... has any of the explosive office growth we’ve seen Downtown spilled into the suburbs?
Speaking of that, I wonder... has any of the explosive office growth we’ve seen Downtown spilled into the suburbs?
rbt
Senior Member
That depends on the timeframe. Gobs of office development along highway corridors in the 90's and early 2000's.
The Colliers market report includes low-rise proposals/construction outside the downtown core though I can't seem to login at the moment (their website is broken).
Research That Matters | Colliers
www.collierscanada.com
Edit: It let me create a new account, albeit in a crashy way.
Here's a rough summary of new supply based on the graphs included in the report from Q1 2015 to Q1 2019:
Downtown: ~3.2M sqft
Midtown: ~150k sqft
GTA North-East: ~800k sqft
GTA West: ~1M sqft
Expected (Q1 2019 through Q1 2021):
Downtown: ~3.4M sqft
Midtown: ~150k sqft
GTA North-East: ~300k sqft
GTA West: 0 sqft
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Related tidbit from the Ontario Line Business Case:
Looking elsewhere in the 2006 report, we can see how severely the Province has underestimated the growth of the City of Toronto. The city was projected to add approximately 15,000 people annually, to reach a population of 3.05 Million in 2031. We've now exceeded the 2031 target in 2018-2019, growing by 28,000 people annually, nearly 2x faster than the projections produced in 2006.
The bulk of this growth is concentrated in the Downtown Core, with high growth also in Etobicoke Centre and North York Centre. Note that this is from 2016, and I suspect Downtown has absorbed even more of that growth recently :
Source: mapping-torontos-population-growth
I'm really concerned about the planning implications of these inaccurate growth projections. The infrastructure we have planned for Toronto of 2031 is not designed to accommodate a population that could very well exceed 3.5 Million by that point (assuming we continue to add 28,000 people annually, as we have between now and 2006). The adequacy of our Downtown streetcar fleet concerns me the most, but this impacts every aspect of planning across the city. Also, what does the business case look like for a lot of these suburban infrastructure expansions (RER included), if office growth in those regions isn't as high as anticipated?
Also keep in mind that the bulk of the growth since 2006 has been within the past 5 years or so, where we've seen growth of 50,000 to 100,000 people annually. If those numbers are sustained, in an high-growth scenario we could be adding another 900,000 people by 2031, for a population of more or less 4 Million. I don't really expect those numbers to be sustained, (3.4 to 3.7 Million is a lot more reasonable for 2031) but it's no longer a scenario that is out of the realm of possibility, especially with the massive growth in Downtown office space planned within the next 5 years inducing even more people to move into the City of Toronto. The success of RER is going to be critical to keep the growth we see in the City of Toronto under control.
I assume that Downtown has exceeded growth relative to the 2031 growth projections in the 2006 Ontario Populations Projections Update from the Ministry of Finance.
Looking elsewhere in the 2006 report, we can see how severely the Province has underestimated the growth of the City of Toronto. The city was projected to add approximately 15,000 people annually, to reach a population of 3.05 Million in 2031. We've now exceeded the 2031 target in 2018-2019, growing by 28,000 people annually, nearly 2x faster than the projections produced in 2006.
The bulk of this growth is concentrated in the Downtown Core, with high growth also in Etobicoke Centre and North York Centre. Note that this is from 2016, and I suspect Downtown has absorbed even more of that growth recently :
Source: mapping-torontos-population-growth
I'm really concerned about the planning implications of these inaccurate growth projections. The infrastructure we have planned for Toronto of 2031 is not designed to accommodate a population that could very well exceed 3.5 Million by that point (assuming we continue to add 28,000 people annually, as we have between now and 2006). The adequacy of our Downtown streetcar fleet concerns me the most, but this impacts every aspect of planning across the city. Also, what does the business case look like for a lot of these suburban infrastructure expansions (RER included), if office growth in those regions isn't as high as anticipated?
Also keep in mind that the bulk of the growth since 2006 has been within the past 5 years or so, where we've seen growth of 50,000 to 100,000 people annually. If those numbers are sustained, in an high-growth scenario we could be adding another 900,000 people by 2031, for a population of more or less 4 Million. I don't really expect those numbers to be sustained, (3.4 to 3.7 Million is a lot more reasonable for 2031) but it's no longer a scenario that is out of the realm of possibility, especially with the massive growth in Downtown office space planned within the next 5 years inducing even more people to move into the City of Toronto. The success of RER is going to be critical to keep the growth we see in the City of Toronto under control.
Last edited:
innsertnamehere
Superstar
High office growth in the core only bolsters the need for RER - as a commuter feeder system to the hyper-job cluster that is downtown.Related tidbit from the Ontario Line Business Case:
I assume that Downtown has exceeded growth relative to the 2031 growth projections in the 2006 Ontario Populations Projections Update from the Ministry of Finance.
Looking elsewhere in the 2006 report, we can see how severely the Province has underestimated the growth of the City of Toronto. The city was projected to add approximately 15,000 people annually, to reach a population of 3.05 Million in 2031. We've now exceeded the 2031 target in 2018-2019, growing by 28,000 people annually, nearly 2x faster than the projections produced in 2006.
View attachment 196562
The bulk of this growth is concentrated in the Downtown Core, with high growth also in Etobicoke Centre and North York Centre. Note that this is from 2016, and I suspect Downtown has absorbed even more of that growth recently :
Source: mapping-torontos-population-growth
I'm really concerned about the planning implications of these inaccurate growth projections. The infrastructure we have planned for Toronto of 2031 is not designed to accommodate a population that could very well exceed 3.5 Million by that point (assuming we continue to add 28,000 people annually, as we have between now and 2006). The adequacy of our Downtown streetcar fleet concerns me the most, but this impacts every aspect of planning across the city. Also, what does the business case look like for a lot of these suburban infrastructure expansions (RER included), if office growth in those regions isn't as high as anticipated?
Also keep in mind that the bulk of the growth since 2006 has been within the past 5 years or so, where we've seen growth of 50,000 to 100,000 people annually. If those numbers are sustained, in an high-growth scenario we could be adding another 900,000 people by 2031, for a population of more or less 4 Million. I don't really expect those numbers to be sustained, (3.4 to 3.7 Million is a lot more reasonable for 2031) but it's no longer a scenario that is out of the realm of possibility, especially with the massive growth in Downtown office space planned within the next 5 years inducing even more people to move into the City of Toronto. The success of RER is going to be critical to keep the growth we see in the City of Toronto under control.
Growth is of course different than the Growth Plan Projections, as the growth plan took a look at the GTA through rose coloured glasses and spread population growth around according to politics (everybody gets growth!). Reality is some parts of the GTA like Durham are under performing on their population growth projections, while Toronto is way over-absorbing it's projected growth.
The way the Growth Plan was written is actually quite funny - it spoke of intensification, but then set it's growth projections almost as if most development would still be suburban greenfield. I think it's biggest fatal flaw was that it presumed that as intensification rates increased, growth would shift to intensified sites within the same municipality. For example, instead of Brampton building subdivisions, it would start building high-rises. It failed to realize that a big reason people move to the suburbs is for low-rise greenfield housing stock. If they are going to live in a condo, they will live in a more urban location. It also failed to predict that the suburban office market would crater with the shift to vast gains in downtown employment.
What's essentially happened is that "intensification" stock is getting built in urban, desirable locations, and greenfield is getting built where it still can on the outer 905 (Simcoe County, etc.). The inner 905 municipalities where previous population and employment growth had dominated have slowed considerably.
Add on top of it's failed assumptions the fact that the GTA is growing at a higher rate than it projected as a whole, and you get the result where a few municipalities are growing far faster than expected, while others are moving slower. I know "desirable" municipalities like Markham and Burlington are above projected growth as well, as they can support an intensification market better than areas like Milton and Newmarket which previously fueled their growth with affordable access to low-rise housing stock.
This has resulted in Toronto seeing crazy population gains while a lot of 905 municipalities grow below projections.
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Makes sense. If I’m in the market for a condo, I’m going to favour just about anywhere in Toronto over Brampton.
Anyways I feel that having most of GTA’s intensification in the City of Toronto is ultimately a good thing, for fiscal sustainability, ecological sustainability and transport. A problem with these 905 intensification plans is that these intensified lands just end up being highly auto dependant, since people living there are going to need cars to travel pretty much anywhere outside of the small intensified area.
City Council this month approved a motion to investigate allowing more so-called “missing middle” developments on yellowbelt lands within the City of Toronto. Yellowbelt developments should theoretically be more family oriented (larger units, quieter streets, more access to green space and similar amenities compared to condos). Assuming the city eases yellowbelt restrictions, this could have the effect of suppressing demand for greenfield developments in the 905 (in favour of Toronto yellowbelt developments), as those greenfield developments are also primarily targeted towards the family-oriented market. Only time will tell; hopefully the City moves quickly on this matter.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
I agree that having intensification occur in Toronto is much better overall. Condos in Downtown Mississauga most assuredly produce higher transit ridership and lower rates of vehicle use than a house on the edge of Mississauga, but a condo at King and Bathurst is going to produce almost 0 vehicle trips, and support even more sustainable forms of transportation than transit, walking and cycling.
The rapid growth of employment in the core is great for sustainability, as driving rates into the core have been flat for over a decade. This means that essentially every job created downtown is serviced by transit and active transportation trips.
GO Transit means that the jobs stay accessible to the entire GTA too.
Last edited:
Towered
Senior Member
Where are these yellow belt areas?
jje1000
Senior Member
More info here: http://www.mapto.ca/maps/2017/3/4/the-yellow-belt
The next goal to set for "missing middle" advocates is to push for a more streamlined development process, or something that gets closer to a right-to-build system- tilting the table back in favor of individual developers and small-scale development. This, combined with a strategy of improving superblock permeability would probably begin the process of 'desuburbanizing' the suburb and repairing 50-years of misdevelopment.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Seems like we’re witnessing this effect here in Toronto as well, perhaps at the expense at other GTHA and Canadian cities (either a good or bad thing, depending on POV):
Why America’s Richest Cities Keep Getting Richer
Why America’s Richest Cities Keep Getting Richer
Northern Light
Superstar
This is a trend which does indeed require intervention.
Its a two-parter, in that, the intervention certainly can't aim to stifle so-called super cities overall; but nor can it simply be to mitigate the effects either on the poorest citizens of those cities or less successful jurisdictions.
Balance, as always, is a tricky thing.
On the one hand we want to ask, how can we create more distributed superstardom as it were. Two population centres of 3,500,000 have less intense pressures than one of 7,000,000.
Can we build a second spire or a third in a successful region; and/or create another region that has the potential to succeed to reduce the over-heating of another?
I think we can; but governments have a poor track record of picking winners; the focus should more likely be on removing certain infrastructure barriers to growth where the potential already seems obvious.
In general, concentration of talent is still, partially, a function of less than ubiquitous high-speed internet (its absence precludes a remote worker from being involved in a daily staff meeting etc.); as well as low travel speeds between various jurisdictions.
Highspeed rail, for instance (intercity and commuter) can allow someone living 200km from the big city to be there in an hour for a meeting. Its absence all but ensures a 2-hour drive time minimum which is increasingly less practical.
***
Once we turn from trying to balance growth a bit, and share the growth story, a bit..............we have to turn to the problem of service workers, and the working class more broadly, in regions with intense growth and high real estate values.
There's little question that raising minimum wages and working conditions by legislative fiat is going to be a portion of the solution; and that on the wage front, we will have to differentiate between the expensive areas and lower cost ones.
ie. a Minimum wage for most of Ontario might be reasonably set at $18 per hour CAD and give someone a reasonable chance of self-support in an entry-level job; but in Toronto that number is going to have to be higher, perhaps as much as 20% higher, so $21.60 per hour for someone to just barely get by.
But that may still prove insufficient for single-earners, or those with children. Yet, we can't raise minimum wages to say $30 per hour. This means looking carefully at the role of the state or non-profits in providing housing in order to further close economic gaps.
***
For mid-sized cities, I think they can largely stay healthy, even if they don't get the most swank restos or opera halls. Its simply a question of finding their niche in the economy and catering to people who prefer a somewhat less rushed, urban lifestyle.
I'm more concerned about the small cities and towns that are already shrinking. The ones where there are no great social ills, nor any other obvious reason for failure except they really are too small.
Some may be able to join the mid-sized club, but I strongly suspect others will require financial assistance for managed decline/shrinkage.
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I'd say your best bet would be to try and get within the commutershed of these primate cities. where possible through infrastructure development (particularly rail).
AoD
AoD
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Is this really what we want to encourage, when the result will probably be increased sprawl and all the issues associated?
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
