4 ms·

" Google isn't doing us a favor here. They're just another developer trying to make a bunch of money off of our huge need for additional housing." Though I don

" Google isn't doing us a favor here. They're just another developer trying to make a bunch of money off of our huge need for additional housing." Though I don't like the prospects of Google doing this, there are two issues with the comment: - Google is probably 'doing the city a favour'. Google has a gadgillion dollars we've handed to them, and their de-facto cost of capital (internally at least) is very cheap. The project probably won't make them a dime, it's borderline one of those 'moonshot' things, a speculative project that they can maybe learn from, get some PR, a giant branding exercise. They could easily lose a lot of money. They are definitely not doing this is a regular 'real estate play'. - Toronto 'desperately needs housing'? Then why is Toronto very aggressively bringing in 100K people per year into the city? That seems like a dumb thing to do with a 'lack of housing'? Housing prices are a function of market demand, interest rates, and distorted somewhat by small amounts of inelastic demand from elsewhere. But your original comment i.e. disusland is apt: the land is very valuable. The city should ideally zone it for whatever purpose we think is best, and then sell it. Then it will very actively 'used' for the purposes in which we have zoned it, and we don't need to worry at all about managing it. Surely there are some strategic things we could to, but again that has a lot to do with zoning: maybe we want a big park, maybe a huge shopping mall, maybe 10000 identical homes, maybe 10000 entirely unique homes, maybe giant factories, maybe tiny factories - we can mostly zone and regulate for what we want.

dade_ 7y ago
There are so many uninformed opinions here. The land is already being developed, it is well underway. There is substantial infrastructure, and decontamination projects ongoing for many years. Waterfront Toronto is a three level of government partnership (Federal, provincial and local) that plans the public spaces, roadways, transit and sells the land to developers to fund their activities (so yes, a lot of money). Sidewalk labs partnered with them to integrate smart city ideas, etc. The complexities of the situation are due to the fact that Sidewalk labs is really just the front end of many different companies that would provide the technology to make it happen.
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  Sorry, but for ostensibly 'so many uniformed opinions' - you have provided no facts at all to validate this position. ... and ironically your comment "Sidewalk labs partnered with them to integrate smart city ideas," is effectively not true, it's far beyond that. "There is substantial infrastructure, and decontamination projects ongoing for many years" comment I think is possibly misrepresentative as well, it implies 'the work has started' - when really it hasn't - moreover, I did not indicate that 'nothing has been done'. Again: 1) To the OP's point: this is a strategic, highly speculative project for Google, possibly not money making in the direct sense, and it's likely Toronto could come out ahead in some way (though I doubt it). Google is a massively cash flush entity, looking for ways to spend money. 2) Toronto doesn't have a desperate housing problem - it has a housing pricing problem. The Google project is not really relevant anyhow (it's small and will have less housing than zoning permits) 3) The city should zone and regulate the land for 'whatever purposes are suitable' and then that's mostly it, which is an opinion, but not exactly controversial as this is what most cities, including Toronto, do all of the time. To your points: A) Google is not gong to 'integrate smart city ideas' - they want to be considerably more than that, they want to effectively be a municipal of entity: they'll plan, subcontract, 'micro zone' etc.. Their plans go far beyond just tech, or just communications, just consultation - even into the realm of construction materials, architecture, sub-planning, even taxation! See the leaked data [1]. I actually would agree if Google were involved only to 'help with some IT/tech issues' or even 'advising' on developing some aspects of information etc. but this goes way beyond that. B) The 'Sidewalks Labs' relevant work has not been planned or started, of course some municipal infrastructural activities that have been going on for some time, but that's a general activity. 'Decontamination' is obviously something that would have to be done irrespective of whatever they built (i.e. shops, factories, parks etc.) Sidewalks Labs hasn't yet even proposed a detailed curriculum of what's going to happen, it's not fair to indicate that 'work has been ongoing for some time' even though some basic municipal activity has been. [1] https://www.engadget.com/2019/02/15/alphabet-sidewalk-labs-toronto-tax-revenue/ https://www.engadget.com/2019/02/15/alphabet-sidewalk-labs-t...
mabbo 7y ago
> Then why is Toronto very aggressively bringing in 100K people per year into the city Toronto doesn't choose who comes here. It's not stealing people from around the world and forcing them to come, nor does it try to stop anyone from migrating. Toronto is just a great city and the world wants to live here. We're the most multicultural city on the planet for that reason. We're something special, and I live here in part because I celebrate that special quality. Second, and more importantly, as you said the price of housing is a function of supply and demand. With rising demand, supply side must keep up to prevent housing prices from looking like Vancouver or San Francisco. Where we do agree is in what should be done: zone for tall buildings and dense land use, auction the land, build as much as we can as quickly as we can.
- wmil 7y ago
  > We're the most multicultural city on the planet for that reason. "Most multicultural city" a city slogan, not some sort of factual statement.
  - mabbo 7y ago
    I disagree. Pick any specific measurable metric for what "multicultural" means and Toronto usually comes out on top, or in the top 3. There have been some studies done on the subject. Even just googling "Most multicultural city" will usually give you back Toronto or a top 5 list that includes it. It's not just marketing bullshit.
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  1) Your point on source of population growth is not true. Toronto knows how many people come there as a function of overall migration and is a very active participant in migration policy. Moving 100K people / year into Toronto is part of the plan. On a national level, we plan for this, knowing very well how many are going to Toronto. 2) Toronto does not grow 'because it's a great city'. It's only 'great' relative to the options of most of it's poor migrants from Philippines, China, India etc.. Having a 'decent government with basic laws' is not 'great', it's just 'normal'. (Edit: I grew up in Toronto hence my strong opinion, and wasn't able to put it in perspective until I lived abroad in many places) Ironically, for all of it's 'multiculturalism', Toronto is actually a very bland, uninspiring, nondescript place where nothing really happens. It's mostly American big box retail, foreign cars, nondescript architecture. Toronto has tons of Starbucks', Tim Horton's. It actually 'has everything' (i.e. the Opera House, decent public transport, major sports teams) - all the checkmarks, but nothing stands out on a world class scale. Toronto is a grand exercise is 'basic civic function' but almost nothing more than that. To given an example - Toronto doesn't even have a single Michelin starred restaurant. Not one. Ever. Chicago has about 20. Seoul has about 20. Not that Chicago and Seoul are 'better overall' - but they have enough identity, character, soul, character, productivity (i.e. money) to do notable things. Can you name a single product or service designed in Toronto that anyone, anywhere else is the world can name? Or uses? Can you name a really important international company HQ'd in Toronto? Admittedly, being able to incorporate a lot of people very fairly from around the world and get them education, jobs, integrate them fairly well - is in fact something 'notable' for which Canada/Toronto doesn't get enough credit. We should be proud of that. But beyond secular civic issues - Toronto is a 'non place'. This is why people that have established roots in more aspirational places are not flocking to Toronto. People 'flee' to Toronto to escape crappy conditions. People from Kyoto, Stockholm and Zurich are not thinking 'oh, we really need to move to Toronto, they have so many Starbucks'. They're not coming. 3) "Where we do agree is in what should be done: zone for tall buildings and dense land use" I don't really agree at all. I say cut the number of people coming to the city substantially (i.e. normalize the rate of immigration) which would entail obviously a national strategy, and also put some special conditions on foreign speculation. After the last 20 years of re-construction, Toronto already has enough density. I don't see any point at all in growing into a massive, vertical city with tons of traffic and density is positive in any way, for anyone frankly. Then we can talk to Google about some things for which they have great expertise: information management and connectivity (i.e. not building neighbourhoods), and hopefully do it in a way that respects people's privacy.

dade_ 7y ago

There are so many uninformed opinions here. The land is already being developed, it is well underway. There is substantial infrastructure, and decontamination projects ongoing for many years. Waterfront Toronto is a three level of government partnership (Federal, provincial and local) that plans the public spaces, roadways, transit and sells the land to developers to fund their activities (so yes, a lot of money). Sidewalk labs partnered with them to integrate smart city ideas, etc. The complexities of the situation are due to the fact that Sidewalk labs is really just the front end of many different companies that would provide the technology to make it happen.

sonnyblarney 7y ago
Sorry, but for ostensibly 'so many uniformed opinions' - you have provided no facts at all to validate this position. ... and ironically your comment "Sidewalk labs partnered with them to integrate smart city ideas," is effectively not true, it's far beyond that. "There is substantial infrastructure, and decontamination projects ongoing for many years" comment I think is possibly misrepresentative as well, it implies 'the work has started' - when really it hasn't - moreover, I did not indicate that 'nothing has been done'. Again: 1) To the OP's point: this is a strategic, highly speculative project for Google, possibly not money making in the direct sense, and it's likely Toronto could come out ahead in some way (though I doubt it). Google is a massively cash flush entity, looking for ways to spend money. 2) Toronto doesn't have a desperate housing problem - it has a housing pricing problem. The Google project is not really relevant anyhow (it's small and will have less housing than zoning permits) 3) The city should zone and regulate the land for 'whatever purposes are suitable' and then that's mostly it, which is an opinion, but not exactly controversial as this is what most cities, including Toronto, do all of the time. To your points: A) Google is not gong to 'integrate smart city ideas' - they want to be considerably more than that, they want to effectively be a municipal of entity: they'll plan, subcontract, 'micro zone' etc.. Their plans go far beyond just tech, or just communications, just consultation - even into the realm of construction materials, architecture, sub-planning, even taxation! See the leaked data [1]. I actually would agree if Google were involved only to 'help with some IT/tech issues' or even 'advising' on developing some aspects of information etc. but this goes way beyond that. B) The 'Sidewalks Labs' relevant work has not been planned or started, of course some municipal infrastructural activities that have been going on for some time, but that's a general activity. 'Decontamination' is obviously something that would have to be done irrespective of whatever they built (i.e. shops, factories, parks etc.) Sidewalks Labs hasn't yet even proposed a detailed curriculum of what's going to happen, it's not fair to indicate that 'work has been ongoing for some time' even though some basic municipal activity has been. [1] https://www.engadget.com/2019/02/15/alphabet-sidewalk-labs-toronto-tax-revenue/ https://www.engadget.com/2019/02/15/alphabet-sidewalk-labs-t...

mabbo 7y ago

> Then why is Toronto very aggressively bringing in 100K people per year into the city Toronto doesn't choose who comes here. It's not stealing people from around the world and forcing them to come, nor does it try to stop anyone from migrating. Toronto is just a great city and the world wants to live here. We're the most multicultural city on the planet for that reason. We're something special, and I live here in part because I celebrate that special quality. Second, and more importantly, as you said the price of housing is a function of supply and demand. With rising demand, supply side must keep up to prevent housing prices from looking like Vancouver or San Francisco. Where we do agree is in what should be done: zone for tall buildings and dense land use, auction the land, build as much as we can as quickly as we can.

wmil 7y ago
> We're the most multicultural city on the planet for that reason. "Most multicultural city" a city slogan, not some sort of factual statement.
- mabbo 7y ago
  I disagree. Pick any specific measurable metric for what "multicultural" means and Toronto usually comes out on top, or in the top 3. There have been some studies done on the subject. Even just googling "Most multicultural city" will usually give you back Toronto or a top 5 list that includes it. It's not just marketing bullshit.
sonnyblarney 7y ago
1) Your point on source of population growth is not true. Toronto knows how many people come there as a function of overall migration and is a very active participant in migration policy. Moving 100K people / year into Toronto is part of the plan. On a national level, we plan for this, knowing very well how many are going to Toronto. 2) Toronto does not grow 'because it's a great city'. It's only 'great' relative to the options of most of it's poor migrants from Philippines, China, India etc.. Having a 'decent government with basic laws' is not 'great', it's just 'normal'. (Edit: I grew up in Toronto hence my strong opinion, and wasn't able to put it in perspective until I lived abroad in many places) Ironically, for all of it's 'multiculturalism', Toronto is actually a very bland, uninspiring, nondescript place where nothing really happens. It's mostly American big box retail, foreign cars, nondescript architecture. Toronto has tons of Starbucks', Tim Horton's. It actually 'has everything' (i.e. the Opera House, decent public transport, major sports teams) - all the checkmarks, but nothing stands out on a world class scale. Toronto is a grand exercise is 'basic civic function' but almost nothing more than that. To given an example - Toronto doesn't even have a single Michelin starred restaurant. Not one. Ever. Chicago has about 20. Seoul has about 20. Not that Chicago and Seoul are 'better overall' - but they have enough identity, character, soul, character, productivity (i.e. money) to do notable things. Can you name a single product or service designed in Toronto that anyone, anywhere else is the world can name? Or uses? Can you name a really important international company HQ'd in Toronto? Admittedly, being able to incorporate a lot of people very fairly from around the world and get them education, jobs, integrate them fairly well - is in fact something 'notable' for which Canada/Toronto doesn't get enough credit. We should be proud of that. But beyond secular civic issues - Toronto is a 'non place'. This is why people that have established roots in more aspirational places are not flocking to Toronto. People 'flee' to Toronto to escape crappy conditions. People from Kyoto, Stockholm and Zurich are not thinking 'oh, we really need to move to Toronto, they have so many Starbucks'. They're not coming. 3) "Where we do agree is in what should be done: zone for tall buildings and dense land use" I don't really agree at all. I say cut the number of people coming to the city substantially (i.e. normalize the rate of immigration) which would entail obviously a national strategy, and also put some special conditions on foreign speculation. After the last 20 years of re-construction, Toronto already has enough density. I don't see any point at all in growing into a massive, vertical city with tons of traffic and density is positive in any way, for anyone frankly. Then we can talk to Google about some things for which they have great expertise: information management and connectivity (i.e. not building neighbourhoods), and hopefully do it in a way that respects people's privacy.