Last week, Joe Berridge, Partner at Urban Strategies, gave a presentation at the Institute on Municipal Finance & Governance titled, Toronto: The Accidental Metropolis. I’ve seen Joe give similar presentations to this one before, and I always thoroughly enjoy his focus on Toronto’s position as a global city.
Here is a slide from the presentation that projects out Toronto’s population to 2071 and compares it to the largest cities in the US.
But the two slides that have been really making the rounds online are the following ones. The first is a rendering of what downtown Toronto looked like in 2000.
I remember this time clearly. Queen West seemed to end at Spadina. King West and Ossington weren’t things. And “Richmond and Adelaide” felt like the greatest club district in the world. (If you’re not from Toronto, these references will likely mean nothing to you. Sorry.)
The second slide is a rendering of what Toronto will look like in 2025. The transformation is just incredible.
I’ve seen some people comment that the Toronto of 2000 was relatively affordable; the Toronto of 2018 is unaffordable; and the Toronto of 2025 will be even more unaffordable with all of this new development.
But I don’t understand that logic. Considering the growth rate shown in the first slide, imagine how unaffordable this city would be if we weren’t building new places for people to live and new places for people to work.
For the full slide deck, go here. And for recent aerial photos of Toronto’s downtown core, check out my Instagram page.
On the cover of the July 2018 issue of Harper’s Magazine is a picture of New York City – with Rafael Viñoly’s 432 Park Avenue as the focal point – and the title: Death of a Great American City. New York and the Urban Crisis of Affluence.
The long-form article is by Kevin Baker and it is an account of how New York City has transformed itself over the past few decades from a place of culture and character (and of cockroaches and discarded crack vials) into a place for the ultra-wealthy to buy ultra-luxury real estate that may or may not sit empty for more often than it is occupied.
“As New York enters the third decade of the twenty-first century, it is in imminent danger of becoming something it has never been before: unremarkable. It is approaching a state where it is no longer a significant cultural entity but the world’s largest gated community, with a few cupcake shops here and there. For the first time in its history, New York is, well, boring.”
This narrative and/or phenomenon is of course not unique to New York City, though it is surely more pronounced when you are one of, if not the, preeminent global city. In fact, I was sent this article by a reader who was wondering about the possible parallels here in Toronto. Thank you Natasha.
The desire, which is how Baker ends his article, is that New York City should be a city of “workers and eccentrics” as well as “visionaries and billionaires.” It should be a place for “street photographers” and “hedge fund operators.” That sounds like a pretty cool place to me.
But we all know how challenging this has proven to be for cities.
The New York City Department of City Planning has a very cool “metro region explorer” online that allows you to explore population, housing, and employment trends in the tri-state NYC Metropolitan Region. Start here and then click on “Learn More” to cycle through the slides and data.
One interesting takeaway is that population growth continues to centralize in the region’s core. Since 2010, 60% of the region’s population growth has taken place in the five boroughs of New York City, and in particular it has occurred in neighborhoods with strong rail transit.
There has also been a slowing in terms of the number of residents leaving New York City. Historically, people moved to the city in their 20′s and left in their 30′s. That trend is slowing.
I suspect this has to do with a combination of factors, including the shift toward a city-centered knowledge economy; the desire for walkability and urban amenities; the phenomenon of people getting married later in life (if at all); and so on.
The people who do leave the city are also more likely to leave for other parts of the U.S. than other parts of the region. This has led to a decline in the number of prime age (25-54 years old) workers in the suburbs.
Check out the Metro Region Explorer, here. There’s a lot of good stuff in there.