10 ms·

> 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 aro

by 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.
- sagarm 7y ago
  > 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. You need a certain density of people to support a unique local arts & culture. The more people you have supporting amenities, the more you can support. Any city that depends heavily on cars for transportation has a natural limit on the number of people that can support an amenity, because transportation costs (like traffic) rise non-linearly with population. So IMO "world-class" and car-centric transportation infrastructure are incompatible.
- qazwse_ 7y ago
  > 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. For anyone curious, this is because Michelin doesn't publish a restaurant guide for Canada. No restaurant in Canada has a Michelin star.
  - flycaliguy 7y ago
    I'll just add that eating out in Toronto is amazing and a never ending adventure.
- gasbikesracecar 7y ago
  Great post other than your comment about Michelin star restaurants. To the best of my knowledge Michelin only reviews selected cities and Toronto isn't on that list (perhaps for a reason). So even the best restaurants there are ineligible until Michelin wants to include the city / area.
  - AzzieElbab 7y ago
    How about instead of Michelin stars you compare Chicago Tribune vs all of Toronto's newspapers combined? Or Chicago's art museums vs ROMA?

by mabbo 7y ago

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.

sagarm 7y ago
> 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. You need a certain density of people to support a unique local arts & culture. The more people you have supporting amenities, the more you can support. Any city that depends heavily on cars for transportation has a natural limit on the number of people that can support an amenity, because transportation costs (like traffic) rise non-linearly with population. So IMO "world-class" and car-centric transportation infrastructure are incompatible.
qazwse_ 7y ago
> 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. For anyone curious, this is because Michelin doesn't publish a restaurant guide for Canada. No restaurant in Canada has a Michelin star.
- flycaliguy 7y ago
  I'll just add that eating out in Toronto is amazing and a never ending adventure.
gasbikesracecar 7y ago
Great post other than your comment about Michelin star restaurants. To the best of my knowledge Michelin only reviews selected cities and Toronto isn't on that list (perhaps for a reason). So even the best restaurants there are ineligible until Michelin wants to include the city / area.
- AzzieElbab 7y ago
  How about instead of Michelin stars you compare Chicago Tribune vs all of Toronto's newspapers combined? Or Chicago's art museums vs ROMA?