University Of Toronto Nature Of Employment Lands


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

University Of Toronto Nature Of Employment Lands

  1. 1. HEMSON<br />The Nature of Employment Land <br />Urban Studies Program, Innis College <br />University of Toronto<br />Antony Lorius<br />February 8th, 2011<br />
  2. 2. Background and Introduction <br />Hemson Consulting works primarily for the public sector <br />Planning for employment land is a primary area of expertise<br />Many studies undertaken as part of Growth Plan conformity <br />
  3. 3. Topics for today:<br />What is employment land?<br />Employment land in the Growth Plan context<br />The density issue <br />Key challenges <br />3<br />
  4. 4. What is Employment Land?<br />One of three land use planning-based employment types<br />Employment Land (ELE)<br />Major Office<br />Population-related<br />Defined as land occupied by industrial-type buildings <br />Distinct from notion of “Employment Areas”<br />4<br />
  5. 5. Distinction between employment by type and by area is important <br />5<br />
  6. 6. Employment Land Is Strongly Oriented to the Transportation Network<br />404<br />Whitby-Oshawa<br />400<br />Caledon<br />Markham<br />Pickering-Ajax<br />Vaughan<br />407<br />407<br />401<br />401<br />427<br />427<br />410<br />410<br />Toronto<br />Toronto<br />LBPIA<br />Brampton<br />Georgetown<br />401<br />401<br />Guelph<br />Mississauga<br />Mississauga<br />Approximate Extent of<br />Developed Urban Area<br />Milton<br />QEW<br />403<br />403<br />QEW<br />Developed & Developing<br />Employment Areas<br />407<br />407<br />Waterloo<br />Major Office Development In Employment Areas<br />International Airports<br />Intermodal Yards<br />Oakville<br />Kitchener<br />401<br />Cambridge<br />Burlington<br />Hamilton<br />403<br />Woodstock<br />Brantford<br />Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd.<br />NTS<br />
  7. 7. Toronto Is Also Part of a System of Major North American Trade Corridors<br />Sault Ste. Marie<br />Montreal<br />Ottawa River<br />Georgian<br />Bay<br />St. Lawrence River<br />ONTARIO<br />Lake Huron<br />I-87<br />401<br />Toronto<br />I-75<br />Lake Ontario<br />U.S.A.<br />Hamilton<br />Rochester<br />I-90<br />Lake Michigan<br />Albany<br />Buffalo<br />Sarnia<br />I-69<br />U.S.A.<br />Detroit<br />US 219<br />I-94<br />Chicago<br />Lake Erie<br />I-90 and I-87<br />Proposed NAFTA “Super-Highway”<br />connecting Toronto to Atlanta<br />and Miami<br />I-90<br />Toledo<br />US 219<br />Proposed NAFTA “Super-Highway”<br />connecting Toronto to Atlanta<br />and Miami<br />I-79<br />I-75<br />I-94<br />Chicago and upper<br />midwest. Western<br />Canada and USA<br />I-77<br />I-77 and I-79<br />Pittsburgh and Ohio Manufacturing<br />centres and points south<br />I-75 and I-69<br />Auto and Manufacturing Corridors:<br />Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee<br />and Alabama. Connections to <br />Mexican manufacturing centres via<br />Ciudad Juarez and Nuevo Laredo<br />NTS<br />Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd.<br />
  8. 8. Employment Structure Continues to Evolve<br />
  9. 9. Declines in Manufacturing Employment Do Not Necessarily Mean Less Land Need <br />
  10. 10. Manufacturing is Not The Only Economic Activity on Employment Land<br />
  11. 11. GTA Economy Remains Highly Oriented to Industrial Space <br />
  12. 12. From a strategic planning perspective, Employment land is important <br />Long-term economic outlook remains positive<br />Employment land is required to accommodate economic growth <br />Nature of industry seems to be changing more than built space requirements <br />
  13. 13. Muskoka<br />Halliburton<br />GEORGIAN BAY<br />Hastings<br />Peterborough<br />Kawartha<br />Lakes<br />Simcoe<br />Grey<br />Northumberland<br />Dufferin<br />Durham<br />York<br />Wellington<br />Peel<br />Toronto<br />LAKE ONTARIO<br />Halton<br />Perth<br />Waterloo<br />Hamilton<br />Brant<br />Oxford<br />Niagara<br />GTAH<br />Outer Ring<br />Haldimand<br />Norfolk<br />NTS<br />Employment land in a Growth Plan context <br />By 2031, 11.5 million people<br />5.6 million jobs<br />Good planning principles<br />
  14. 14. Promoting Economic Vitality is a key element of the Growth Plan<br />Ensure availability of sufficient land for employment (Section 2.2.1)<br />Protect and preserve Employment Areas (Section 2.2.6)<br />Minimize conversion of employment land to non-employment use (Section 2.2.6)<br />
  15. 15. “Value Gap” Is the Main Factor Driving Pressure for Conversion <br />Land supply is highly restricted<br />Residential or retail is worth more than employment land in most cases <br />Potential to achieve increased value creates a strong incentive for conversion <br />
  16. 16. 825, 855 and 863 Bay Street, Toronto<br />Before Re-zoning & Sale January 2000<br /><ul><li>Purchase Price Before - $2 Million, $60 per square foot
  17. 17. Paved parking lot
  18. 18. Site Area – 33,368 square feet
  19. 19. Official Plan – Mixed Use Area
  20. 20. Zoning Description – Commercial Residential, height limit 22 storeys and 7.8 times density
  21. 21. Official Plan and Rezoning Amendments approved in February 2004 for 15.4 times density</li></ul>After Re-Zoning & Sale May 2004<br /><ul><li>Purchase Price After - $14.41 Million, $432 per square foot
  22. 22. 2 Towers, 41 & 38 storeys, 633 units and 531 parking stalls (Murano Condominiums)
  23. 23. Total GFA - 512,754 s.f. (Residential GFA 503,540 s.f., Commercial GFA 9,214 s.f.)</li></ul>Value Increase (January 2000 to May 2004)<br /><ul><li>$ Value Increase - $12,400,000
  24. 24. % Value Increase - 620%</li></li></ul><li>1510-1520 Lakeshore Road West, Oakville<br />Before Re-zoning & Sale July 2006 (assembly of 3 parcels)<br /><ul><li>Purchase Price Before - $4.365 Million, $45 per square foot
  25. 25. 3 old houses, 6,500 s.f. fruit market and garden centre
  26. 26. Site Area – 96,703 square feet
  27. 27. Zoning Description – R-02 (allowing detached houses)
  28. 28. Application was submitted in June 2006 to amend the Official Plan & Zoning By-Law to allow a 140-suite seniors apartment building. Total GFA – 135,000 s.f. </li></ul>After Re-Zoning application & Sale August 2007<br /><ul><li>Purchase Price After Rezoning Application - $8.0 Million, $83 per square foot
  29. 29. Another application was submitted in June 2008 to remove the existing buildings and re-develop the lands with 15 detached dwellings</li></ul>Value Increase (July 2006 to August 2007)<br /><ul><li>$ Value Increase - $3,635,000
  30. 30. % Value Increase - 83%</li></li></ul><li>3037 Derry Road West, Milton<br />Before Re-zoning & Sale December 2003<br /><ul><li>Purchase Price Before - $3.1 Million, $6 per square foot
  31. 31. Vacant industrial building of 52,140 square feet
  32. 32. Site Area – 537,966 square feet
  33. 33. Zoning Description – EMP (Employment)
  34. 34. Application was submitted in August 2006 to amend the Official Plan & Zoning By-Law to allow a 129,000 s.f. retail plaza</li></ul>After Re-Zoning application & Sale February 2008<br /><ul><li>Purchase Price After Rezoning Application - $7.35 Million, $14 per square foot
  35. 35. Site specific official plan and zoning by-law amendments were approved by OMB on April 9, 2008</li></ul>Value Increase (December 2003 to February 2008)<br /><ul><li>$ Value Increase - $4,250,000
  36. 36. % Value Increase - 137%</li></li></ul><li>751 King Street West, Toronto<br />Before Re-zoning & Sale July 2001<br /><ul><li>Purchase Price Before - $1.45 Million, $143 per square foot
  37. 37. Retail Plaza of 7,700 square feet with 4 stores
  38. 38. Site Area – 10,127 square feet
  39. 39. Official Plan – Mixed Use Areas
  40. 40. Zoning Description – Commercial / Residential permitting 2.5 times density
  41. 41. Official Plan and Rezoning Applications submitted August 2005, Amendments approved in March 2006 for 6.32 times density</li></ul>After Re-Zoning Application & Sale September 2005<br /><ul><li>Purchase Price After - $2.8 Million, $276 per square foot
  42. 42. 16 storey condominium, 282 units, with retail uses at grade & 3 levels of underground parking (259 spaces)
  43. 43. * Total GFA - 290,601 s.f. (Residential GFA 276,381 s.f., Commercial GFA 19,772 s.f.) </li></ul>Value Increase (July 1 to September 2005)<br /><ul><li>$ Value Increase - $1,350,000
  44. 44. % Value Increase - 93%</li></ul>* Note: GFA based on larger land assembly of 46,016 square feet inc. 775 King Street West<br />
  45. 45. 1815 Yonge Street, Toronto<br />Before Re-zoning & Sale July 6, 2006<br /><ul><li>Adjusted Purchase Price Before - $5.9 Million, $221 per square foot
  46. 46. Two vacant office buildings and parking lot
  47. 47. Site Area – 26,673 square feet
  48. 48. Official Plan – Mixed Use Area
  49. 49. Zoning Description –CR T3.0 C3.0 R2.5 & CR T2.0 C2.0 R2.0, (maximum GFA of 73,272 s.f. and 2.5 times density)
  50. 50. Official Plan and Rezoning Applications submitted June, 2007</li></ul>After Re-Zoning Application & Sale August 2007<br /><ul><li>Purchase Price After - $13.5 Million, $506 per square foot
  51. 51. 29 storeys, 216 units and 234 parking stalls
  52. 52. Proposed GFA – 213,213 s.f. (8 times density)</li></ul>Value Increase (July 2006 to August 2007)<br /><ul><li>$ Value Increase - $7,600,000
  53. 53. % Value Increase - 129%</li></li></ul><li>Growth Plan also Provides Direction on location and use of Employment Land <br /><ul><li>Shift major office and institutional to transit-supportive locations (
  54. 54. Preserve lands near major transportation infrastructure (Section
  55. 55. Facilitate transit-supportive, compact built forms (Section</li></li></ul><li>The Density Challenge <br /><ul><li>Growth Plan defines an “envelope” within which planning for growth must occur
  56. 56. Accommodate 40% residential intensification
  57. 57. Plan to achieve a density of 50 residents and jobs per ha on Greenfield
  58. 58. Both will be difficult to achieve, but particularly density at it relates to employment land</li></li></ul><li>Most new residential communities exceed the Growth Plan density target<br />Single-Detached, Milton 2000s<br />Net Density: 37 uph<br />Estimated Growth Plan Density<br />62<br />Semi-Detached, Markham 2000s<br />Net Density: 48 uph<br />Estimated Growth Plan Density<br />71<br />Rowhouse, Oakville 1990s<br />(with laneway)<br />Net Density: 63 uph<br />Estimated Growth Plan Density<br />100<br />Rowhouse, Markham 2000s<br />Net Density: 92 uph<br />Estimated Growth Plan Density<br />145<br />
  59. 59. Most Employment Land does not: Average is approximately 30 jobs per net ha <br />Employment densities are higher than in the past, but now stable:<br />Downward trends in goods production and distribution <br />Upward trend of denser office uses integrated into industrial building <br />Increasing amount of “flex space” that accommodates a wide range of uses <br />24<br />
  60. 60. Trends help explain geographical variation of densities across the region <br />25<br />
  61. 61. Difficult to significantly shift employment density with planning policy <br /><ul><li>Embodies a wide range of characteristics in a single statistical measure
  62. 62. Unlike residential, not a close relationship between built form and occupancy
  63. 63. Planning can control built form and location, but not density of employment or the structure of the economy</li></li></ul><li>The density may seem low, but compared to what?<br /><ul><li>Growth Plan? A target with no direct economic relationship
  64. 64. Other industrial places in North America? No, probably not
  65. 65. Asia? Yes, often much denser, which is an artefact of a low wage economy </li></li></ul><li>Higher employment densities are not necessarily better<br /><ul><li>Firms have a ‘natural’ incentive to use land efficiently – it costs money
  66. 66. Most of our economic development goals point to lower densities
  67. 67. Industrial-type densities are inversely related to job skill, education and salary</li></li></ul><li>Not clear if a planning objective related to density is even helpful….<br /><ul><li>Building density (coverage) and productive cubic space has increased over time
  68. 68. Whole new ‘breed’ of building has emerged, larger, more automated, offices combined with manufacturing or distribution
  69. 69. In theory, a better measure of density would be GDP per ha </li></li></ul><li>Key Issues and Challenges<br />How structural economic change translates to employment land not well understood <br />You may think there is “wasted” space but do you really know?<br />Are we ready to regulate out certain jobs, businesses, tax revenue simply because the density is low? <br />