Toronto/Chicago comparisons

[RC8]

Mtown,

Why would that even matter when his arguments are (thankfully) not based on anecdotal personal experience?

 

[freshcutgrass]

Exactly what is it about guys like Deluce who are obsessed with starting up and running "private" airlines into the ground...using as much taxpayers money as possible in the process?

Deluce is a special case though...it seems he has a plan to litigate his way to profitability. He launches outlandishly massive law suits as often as I have hot meals.

How about the one he launched against the City of Toronto (naming Miller specifically) when the city cancelled the bridge. $505 million dollars in damages. For an airline that only existed on paper?

Good thing the sitting mayor at the time was not an uneducated binge-drinking crack head...it was a Harvard educated lawyer (and a fairly accomplished one at that), and that lawsuit went...nowhere. He turned around and sued the feds and got some kind of undisclosed settlement.

 

[TOareaFan]

This public land could be put to better use. It's 215 acres of the most prime land in all of canada. It has an estimated value of $2billion. This does not include valuable waterfront land on the mainland that has to be used for parking and other airport uses.

Just wondering what that $2billion valuation is based on? What kind of land use is projected to produce the valuation of a bit over $9 million an acre? Land value is heavily influenced by land use.

You think you will like the new tunnel? $82 million for that plus another $20 million for ferry improvements. So, over $100 million to shave what...2 minutes of your 400 foot trip? Does that sound like good value to you? You must be a big fan of the Scarborough subway then?

Depending on when you arrive at the terminal, that tunnel could shave 15 minutes or so off the trip to the island. If you get there just as the doors to the ferry close you will just jump in the elevator and head across on foot. Since the true cost to the tunnel is $5 per trip (it is being paid for by user fees) then $5 for 15 minutes savings does not seem outlandish...especially if it is the key 15 minutes in making or not making your flight

 

[junior43]

Just wondering what that $2billion valuation is based on? What kind of land use is projected to produce the valuation of a bit over $9 million an acre? Land value is heavily influenced by land use.

That was my question as well. It's only worth that, if you intend to sell to developers for building condos.

If the city built a park in it's place. It's value would be zero - since the city refuses to sell it.

Take High park for example. What's it worth? Semi impossible to say since it's not for sale. A developer could evaluate it (or the island) for a value, but since it's not actually for sale, it's pointless.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Oh, hell no am I fan of this new iteration of the Scarborough subway.

It matters only insofar as I'm curious about whether or not you fly from there. Curiosity.

The land has no monetary value to be spoken of if it is to be converted to parkland. That is not to say it has no value of another kind.

I just think the airport is an asset, even in spite of the dodgy TPA. I'm obviously not the only one who uses it; I was merely saying why I liked it. I know it's not about me....I'm no Ford, thinking the city is my personal playground.

So, the TPA is shady. Deluce is a greedy asshole. The land is valuable. Got it. I agree with you on all three points and still think the airport is an asset.

Oh, and my favourite "private" airline is a damn good airline and since I do travel enough (for pleasure), I may as well use it, especially given where I live.

Anyway, what REALLY shouldn't exist down there is the Gardiner....but now we're just mad derailing this thread.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I agree with you on all three points and still think the airport is an asset.

Well technically speaking, it's actually a liability.

but now we're just mad derailing this thread.

Maybe not......didn't Chicago have basically the same set up with Meigs? Even they had the good sense to get rid of it.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Well, if you're looking at it from a financial perspective and set on the facts you presented, then, yeah....looks like what one would call a liability.


As for Meigs....I don't know what that is. Chicago had a similarly-located airport with a similar ownership/management structure, anchored by a similarly-sized airline? Or a similarly-located elevated highway?

 

[RC8]

High Park and most other parks have enormous financial value. They raise property values around them and arguably city-wide, which then leads to a larger amount of money that ends up in city coffers via property taxes.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Perhaps, but they have no defined financial value. As for ascertaining what defined contribution they make to surrounding property values, good luck. There are a long list of other factors that contribute to property values before proximity to parks.

 

[RC8]

Furthermore, by promoting physical and psychological well-being, they reduce our expenditure in policing and healthcare.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Just wondering what that $2billion valuation is based on? What kind of land use is projected to produce the valuation of a bit over $9 million an acre?

Based on on a valuation of $1billion ten years ago. And yes, that is based on the land being developed (how much development is not clear). $9 million/acre is pretty cheap for prime downtown waterfront real estate.

but they have no defined financial value.

Of course they do...all assets owned by the City have a value, and there are highly practical reasons for doing so.

As for ascertaining what defined contribution they make to surrounding property values, good luck.

Wrong again. Studies have shown the value of a single tree in your front yard and a 100-foot radius around it. Toronto's tree inventory alone has a replacement value of $7billion, and it provides the equivalent of $60 million per year in ecological services. Toronto couldn't borrow money if it didn't have values on all its assets.

 

[TOareaFan]

Based on on a valuation of $1billion ten years ago. And yes, that is based on the land being developed (how much development is not clear). $9 million/acre is pretty cheap for prime downtown waterfront real estate.

Very few (I would suggest none) sites of any size have their full acreage as "developable". It is the developable acreage that any developer would pay for. So, let's say, that land did not have an airport on it and was available for sale to developers...they would need (before assigning a price/value to it) to know 1) what percentage would/could be developed....2) what density would be allowed and 2) what the cost would be (in terms of deconstructing the airport, dealing with any environmental matters and getting/building access to this newly developed land) would be involved (these would be deducted from the price).

So, if we assume a reasonably high 50% developable then you are up around $18 mil per acre which is only justifiable if you are talking about a pretty significant amount of density on that developable land.

The point is, however, that shutting the airport to access that $2billion value is not easy and, in the end, is the type of land use that this would create what people are wanting there?

Wrong again. Studies have shown the value of a single tree in your front yard and a 100-foot radius around it. Toronto's tree inventory alone has a replacement value of $7billion, and it provides the equivalent of $60 million per year in ecological services. Toronto couldn't borrow money if it didn't have values on all its assets.

I have never seen a study that financially values trees...not saying there isn't one but I have never seen it. I will say that in any other area a $7billion asset producing a $60 million annual return would be considered a pretty much waste of assets (.86% return on equity)...maybe, since I have not read the study, I am misunderstanding the co-relation.

 

[Ladies Mile]

Perhaps, but they have no defined financial value. As for ascertaining what defined contribution they make to surrounding property values, good luck. There are a long list of other factors that contribute to property values before proximity to parks.

You're joking.

"Park view" in New York City means "more expensive apartment than identical apartment in same building without park view." It is the same elsewhere in North America at least and I assume globally. Now if you mean no one has run numbers on exactly what the difference represents then perhaps so. But it shouldn't be impossible to calculate.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Hmmm....yes, perhaps I shouldn't post right after waking up.

And, Ladies Mile, you're right, this thread has taught me that, apparently, nothing is impossible to calculate.

 

[freshcutgrass]

The point is, however, that shutting the airport to access that $2billion value is not easy and, in the end, is the type of land use that this would create what people are wanting there?

No, I think the point is that the current airport is a poor use of valuable public assets. Beyond all of the obvious reasons why this is not compatible with other land uses in the general area (recreation, cultural, schools residential bird sanctuary), it is a very poor economical use of a valuable public asset. Not only does it not make money for the city, it actually costs the city...millions.

The TPA has no interest in what is good for Toronto....their interest in increasing business at the airport is that it might start making money for them, and possibly meet their mandate as a Federal Port Authority to be economically self-sufficient, which they aren't. Which is another good reason why the TPA should be dissolved.

I will say that in any other area a $7billion asset producing a $60 million annual return would be considered a pretty much waste of assets

Then you should petition the City to stop planting trees.

Or...perhaps you missed the point