I am a real estate developer and I believe in progress. But I also fundamentally believe in balancing progress and preservation. I’ve said this before.

This morning, Alex Bozikovic of the Globe and Mail, published a piece on the epic Mirvish + Gehry proposal for Toronto’s Entertainment District. It’s called, “Frank Gehry and David Mirvish’s tall order in Toronto.”

Now, I’ve said before that I like this project. I don’t mind the height and I don’t buy the argument that there aren’t enough public spaces in the area. There’s David Pecaut Square directly to the south that could use a few more warm bodies in it.

But as I also said before, I think the key concern here is one of heritage. There are 4 heritage designated buildings on the site dating back to as early as 1901. Here’s where they sit:

The Anderson Building (1915) is particularly unique. Here’s a larger photo (via blogTO):

So while I’m excited by the prospect of a real Gehry project in Toronto, I think we need to figure out a way to find a balance. Preserve the facades, build on top, or relocate them. Do something besides wipe the slate clean.

As Bozikovic rightly points out in his article, “Toronto has a sophisticated culture of working with heritage buildings.” There are lots of great examples of how we managed to move forward as a city, without erasing our past.

And in many ways, I see this ability to work with and build upon heritage buildings as an emerging Toronto vernacular. I mean, what could be more appropriate for the most diverse city on the planet than an architectural style–of our own–that blends and layers history with disparate design ideologies.

I sense an opportunity.

We could have Gehry’s white sinuous curves drape over the heritage buildings. Make them become a literal unveiling of Toronto’s past and a metaphor for the sophisticated way in which we build upon legacy.

It’s too easy to just demolish everything. We’re better than that.

Instead of talking about the latest Rob Ford scandal (honestly, how is he still mayor?), I’d like to focus on his abilities as a transportation strategist.

Here’s an excerpt from a Toronto Star article published this morning that talks about the urban vs. suburban divide in this city and our inability to depoliticize transit planning. It’s called, "Suburban envy only makes things worse: James."

In another committee room, councillors were debating the proposed downtown relief subway line — only, they were afraid to name it such. Downtown is a section of the city that dares not voice its name, for fear that aggrieved suburbanites will rise up and object.

This is not hyperbole. Not long ago, the mayor indicated he is not interested in the relief line until there are subways on Sheppard East and on Finch West. Why? Because downtown “has enough subways.”

Downtown has enough subways? Do you think Ford looked at population density, number of stops, ridership levels, and so on, in order to come up with this position? Or did he just look at where his voter base resides?

We need to get past this downtown vs. suburban schism. We’re all in this together. In fact, the whole Golden Horseshoe region is in this together. And until we start acting as a unified entity, we’re not going to reach our full potential. 

Earlier this week I connected with a Ryerson student doing a piece on Toronto’s condo rental market. She emailed me and asked if I would mind answering a few questions. Here are my responses.

Generally speaking, why is Toronto continuing to see such a rapid increase in the number of condos in development? 

A lot of what we’re seeing is policy driven. It stems from the Places to Grow Act and the continued push towards intensification. It actually mirrors a similar boom we saw in the 70s. In both cases, it was policy driven and the market responded.

The other factor is a growing consumer preference for more walkable and urban neighborhoods. People are sick of long commutes and so we’re seeing a return to city centers and downtowns. This is happening across all demographic segments, though Millennials and Baby Boomers seem like particularly strong ones.

Is that boom, and the consequent rush by developers to create new units for rapid sale, affecting the quality of design and accessibility in new condo developments in Toronto?

When you have a hot market, you’re going to get lots of people rushing in and trying to make money. Whether it’s real estate, tech or some other industry, it’s to be expected. And I’m sure it impacted some projects negatively. But that market is gone in Toronto.

And regardless of the pace of development, there will always be varying degrees of quality across builders. The unfortunate thing for consumers is that it’s not always easy to tell which is which.

One of the things we’re trying to do (at TAS) is integrate consumer education more into our sales and marketing programs. Mechanical equipment, as one example, isn’t the most exciting thing to to talk about, but we want consumers to know what they’re buying into.

Prices are rising (you could buy a house outside the city for the price of some of Toronto’s tiny bachelor units, if I’m not mistaken…) - So what is making condo ownership so desirable in spite of the high cost relative to space? 

Again, it’s being driven a lot by lifestyle. People want walkable communities, they want to be close to amenities and they want to drive less. And they’re willing to give up space for that. 

When considering and comparing the cost of a home, I think it’s important to consider some of the indirect costs, such as transportation costs, travel times, quality life and so on.

Sure a home in the suburbs may be a lot cheaper, but what’s my total, all-in, cost? If you need to own 2 cars and you spend 2 hours commuting everyday, there’s a real cost to that. If you place a big value on your time (as I do), the cost equation isn’t so skewed all of a sudden.

Are more people choosing to live in rental condos instead of buying, because of the inaccessible cost? If so - why are we still seeing so many new ‘rental condo units’ being built, rather than purpose-built apartment units?

Condos are being built because, in most cases, it’s the highest-and-best use for the land. It’s the most profitable. And investors have been more than willing to step up and fill the rental needs of the market. But with the condo market now coming down from record levels, I wouldn’t be surprised if we start seeing more purpose-built apartments.

Would you say that the majority of condo rentals on the market are owned by foreign investors who depend on building management to liaise with renters? If so, why are they choosing to buy units in Toronto?

I have no idea. It’s even hard to tell how many units are just investor owned, let alone local versus foreign. Because there are tax implications if you don’t owner occupy a unit, buyers have an incentive not to disclose. Overall, I find it problematic that the marketplace is so opaque. I wish there was a way to bring perfect information.

With respect to why they choose to buy in Toronto, there are a bunch of reasons. Real estate has been a phenomenal investment in Toronto over the past decade and that’s attracted a lot of investor attention. There are also segments that just want capital preservation in a safe and stable country. Even without great returns, that’s a valuable proposition for some foreigners. And of course, Toronto is a great city. Talent wants to live here and that’s important.

Generally speaking, is there a certain LOCAL demographic (ie, boomers, post-boomers) that are investing in condos for the purposes of renting them out? What makes that investment so desirable?

Again, there isn’t great data on this. 

What I will add to the investor topic is that, despite the fact that investors often get a lot of flack, they do serve two important needs in the marketplace for both developers and consumers. The first one we’ve already talked about. Investors provide rental housing in Toronto at a time when few, new, purpose-built rental apartments are being constructed.

The second one is that investors help to get projects under construction and built. I’ve heard one developer refer to them as providing a kind of short-term financing. Because consumers don’t always want to commit to a unit that might be built 4-5 years out, developers rely on investors to buy pre-sale units so that the project can get underway. Once construction is complete, these units then often get sold to end users who are now ready to commit and move in.