Office space
Office development plays an important role in the growth of nodes and their ability to meet their planning goals. Because office employment lends itself to high density and can co-exist easily with other land uses thanks to a relative absence of negative externalities, it is ideally suited to the density and mixed-use objectives of nodes.
Until recently, office building construction was an active sector of the economy that contributed to the development of nodes. Table 11 shows the evolution of office space between 1970 and 2005 in downtown Toronto and the four nodes under investigation: the Yonge-Eglinton node, North York Centre, Scarborough Town Centre, and Mississauga City Centre. For comparison purposes, data for the GTA are also presented.
Office development in nodes must be viewed in the context of GTA-wide trends, characterized by years of accelerated construction until 1990, when the pace of office growth slowed down. The post-1995 period is marked by particularly low office completion rates. The recent decline may be attributed to over-construction during the 1980s, an increase in the number of small office buildings (less than 1,858 m2 or 20,000 ft2), which fall under the size threshold for the buildings from which Table 11's data are derived, an increase in the number of people working from home, and a transformation of the Toronto region economy that favours service employment more than offices (Illegems and Verbeke, 2003; Lang, 2003). Whatever the cause, the decline in the construction of medium-sized and large office buildings has important consequences for land use planning and the development of mixed-use centres such as nodes and UGCs.
As Table 11 shows, office development in downtown Toronto largely conforms to the GTA pattern: rapid expansion followed by a substantial slowdown in completion rates. However, several differences set downtown office trends apart from metropolitan-wide trends. One is a slower office development rate from 1975 to 1990, responsible for a gradual decline in the share of GTA office space found in downtown Toronto. Another is the near standstill in office construction in downtown Toronto since 1995.
Table 11: Evolution of office space in the GTMA,* downtown Toronto, and nodes, 1970 to 2005
|
|
GTMA |
Downtown Toronto |
Yonge-Eglinton |
|||||
|
|
Square Metres |
% Change |
Square Metres |
% Change |
% of GTMA |
Square Metres |
% Change |
% of GTMA |
|
1970 |
4,055,837 |
|
2,445,607 |
|
60.3 |
157,069 |
|
3.9 |
|
1975 |
5,547,247 |
36.8 |
3,353,923 |
37.1 |
60.5 |
245,151 |
56.1 |
4.4 |
|
1980 |
7,102,906 |
28.0 |
3,912,717 |
16.7 |
55.1 |
257,146 |
4.9 |
3.6 |
|
1985 |
9,063,078 |
27.6 |
4,792,178 |
22.5 |
52.9 |
322,911 |
25.6 |
3.6 |
|
1990 |
12,412,252 |
37.0 |
5,631,591 |
17.5 |
45.4 |
361,964 |
12.1 |
2.9 |
|
1995 |
13,850,077 |
11.6 |
6,380,501 |
13.3 |
46.1 |
375,722 |
3.8 |
2.7 |
|
2000 |
14,421,365 |
4.4 |
6,405,073 |
0.4 |
44.4 |
375,722 |
0 |
2.6 |
|
2005 |
15,249,535 |
5.7 |
6,456,667 |
0.8 |
42.3 |
375,722 |
0 |
2.5 |
|
|
North York Centre |
Scarborough Town Centre |
Mississauga City Centre |
||||||
|
|
Square Metres |
% Change |
% of GTMA |
Square Metres |
% Change |
% of GTMA |
Square Metres |
% Change |
% of GTMA |
|
1970 |
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
20,485 |
|
0.5 |
|
1975 |
59,927 |
|
1.5 |
24,068 |
|
0.4 |
36,742 |
79.9 |
0.7 |
|
1980 |
160,832 |
168.5 |
2.3 |
54,865 |
128.0 |
0.8 |
101,386 |
176.0 |
1.4 |
|
1985 |
225,702 |
40.4 |
2.5 |
135,953 |
147.8 |
1.5 |
145,506 |
43.6 |
1.6 |
|
1990 |
497,957 |
120.6 |
4.0 |
229,850 |
69.1 |
1.8 |
250,399 |
72.0 |
2.0 |
|
1995 |
619,445 |
24.4 |
4.5 |
232,079 |
1.0 |
1.7 |
273,840 |
9.4 |
2.0 |
|
2000 |
619,445 |
0 |
4.3 |
232,079 |
0.0 |
1.6 |
273,840 |
0 |
1.9 |
|
2005 |
671,469 |
8.4 |
4.4 |
232,079 |
0.0 |
1.5 |
273,840 |
0 |
1.8 |
Source: Altus InSite Research. (c) 2007 Altus InSite.
* The GTMA corresponds to the built up area of the GTA (the Regional Municipalities of Halton, Peel, York, and Durham, and the City of Toronto).
Three nodes, Yonge-Eglinton, Scarborough Town Centre, and Mississauga City Centre, have experienced a total absence of office construction since 1995. In fact, the Yonge-Eglinton node and Scarborough Town Centre have seen little office growth since 1990. As a result, the proportion of metropolitan-wide office space contained in these nodes has declined. The Yonge-Eglinton node reached a peak of 4.4 per cent in 1975; the present proportion is 2.5 per cent. In Scarborough Town Centre the highest proportion of metropolitan office space was achieved in 1990; it has since declined from 1.8 to 1.5 per cent. Mississauga City Centre, which fared a little better than the other nodes, held a maximum of 2 per cent of the metropolitan office space in 1990 and 1995; this proportion has since fallen to 1.8 per cent. Office space trends in North York Centre have diverged from those in the three other nodes. For one, accelerated office development ended later, in 1995. For another, the node has experienced a recent surge in office growth, thanks to the construction of a 50,166 m2, 21-storey building in 2004.
A further illustration of recent office floor space trends is shown in Maps 5 and 6. The GTMA contains over 14.8 million m2 of commercial office space, of which 3.8 million has been constructed since 1990. Buildings of over 10,000m2 of floor space account for half of all office buildings and 80 per cent of all floor space constructed since 1990.9 A 2005 Canadian Urban Institute study for the Toronto Office Coalition indicates that between 1993 and 2005, 62 per cent of new office floor space was constructed in non-transit-supportive office parks. Less than 6 per cent was constructed in commercial subcentres, including North York Centre, Scarborough Town Centre, and Mississauga City Centre (CUI, 2005: Table 2-1).
The Growth Plan seeks to attract office buildings larger than 10,000 m2 to areas served by existing or planned higher-order transit, which the Plan defines as heavy and light rail or buses in their own rights-of-way. The two maps show the location of office floor space built after 1990 in buildings larger and smaller than 10,000 m2. In each map, floor space has been aggregated up to a 1-km grid. Each coloured square on the map indicates the presence of at least one building; the darker the colour, the more floor space within the square. The maps indicate that, with the exception of downtown Toronto and North York Centre, office space has been added in areas that are not served by higher-order transit. Rather, highway access is currently the primary determinant of office location. The two major concentrations of office floor space that have emerged since 1990 are at Pearson Airport and the nexus of Highways 404, 7, and 407 -- both off the major transit grid. Meadowvale and, to some extent, the QEW corridor in Oakville illustrate the potential for linking office development to the GO rail system.
Overall, Table 11 and Maps 5 and 6 reflect a deceleration in office development and increasing preference on the part of those who build and occupy offices for dispersed rather than concentrated, high-density locations. Office construction trends contrast sharply with the present surge in high-density residential development. It will be difficult for the nodes to achieve their mixed-use and public transit objectives if they cannot attract more office development. Office jobs are important in generating trips to and from nodes, and increases in the number of such jobs provide an opportunity to improve transit services and modal shares. In addition, the concentration of large numbers of workers in office buildings fosters synergistic effects with shops, restaurants, and entertainment establishments.10 If current office growth and office location tendencies persist, not only will the further development of existing nodes be thwarted, but prospects for new UGCs will be bleak.
Map 5: Major office floor space constructed 1990-2004 (buildings less than 10,000m2)
Map 6: Major office floor space constructed 1990-2004 (buildings more than 10,000m2)
How to read Maps 5 and 6:
These maps employ an approach originated by Lang (2003), who mapped the location of office floor space for 13 American metropolitan areas. To create the maps, the region is divided into a grid of one-square kilometre cells, within which office floor space is summed. The darker the colour of a cell, the more floor space it contains. This gives an impression of the clustering or dispersion of floor space that a map of establishments (which may be of any floor area size) would fail to present. It should be emphasized that for a cell to appear on the map, it must contain at least one establishment. Note that the datasets created by brokers do not consistently contain non-leased space. This includes hospitals, universities, and buildings wholly owned by governments.
Source: Built-up Urban Area: Neptis Foundation, June/August 2004. The 2004 built-up urban area is derived from 2004 Landsat Thematic Mapper 5 imagery. Municipal Boundaries: Statistics Canada, 2001. Major Roads and Highways: National Road Network, 2005. GO Stations: GO Transit, 2005. Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) Subways (including Scarborough RT): TTC, 2005. Hydrography: National Topographic System, 1:50,000 & 1:250,000, 1992-1998.
Office floor space data was generously provided to the Neptis Foundation by Altus InSite, http://www.altus-insite.com/about/default.asp
Occupation profiles
Table 12 shows the occupation categories of employees of workplaces in all the study areas, as well as in the Airport Corporate Centre (along Highway 401) and the Highway 404-Steeles Avenue business parks and the GTA as a whole. The most remarkable finding is the absence of a clear employment hierarchy between downtown Toronto and most of the other study areas, which would have suggested the existence of a front office-back office relationship between central and more peripheral locations. Downtown Toronto, the Yonge-Eglinton node, the Yonge Street corridor, North York Centre, Mississauga City Centre, the Mississauga East corridor, and downtown Oakville all contain roughly similar proportions of management jobs.11 Specialized and professional jobs, such as those belonging to the natural and applied sciences, and to the health and social science categories, are also well represented in several study areas.
Similarities in categories of employment do not necessarily translate into firms that are alike, however. Gad observed a tendency for the headquarters of Canadian firms to locate in downtown Toronto, whereas the head offices of subsidiaries were more likely to opt for suburban locations (Gad, 1991).
The study areas that perform worst in terms of employment status are Scarborough Town Centre and downtown Kitchener, both of which have a low score for management occupations. They do, however, contain many specialized and professional occupations.
The relative importance of retailing in the different study areas is mirrored in the proportion of employees in sales and service occupations. For example, among the three mature suburban nodes, North York Centre ranks lowest and Mississauga City Centre highest for the proportion of occupations in this category.
The absence of the front office-back office relationship in the case of downtown Toronto and the nodes extends to the expressway-oriented business parks. There is no evidence of lower employment status in these parks relative to downtown Toronto or the nodes. In fact, the proportion of management occupations in the two business parks is slightly higher than that of downtown Toronto. Differences in the employment profiles of business parks relative to those of most study areas reflect an absence or limited presence of public-sector employment, which explains low proportions of occupations related to Type E occupations (social sciences, education, government, and religion). Moreover, their facilities and locations do not seem to appeal to people engaged in arts, culture, recreation, and sport occupations.
On the other hand, the occupation profile of the business parks reflects the presence of some manufacturing establishments taking advantage of their plentiful space. Downtown Toronto, the nodes, and the smaller downtowns are distinguished from the business parks by a wider range of office-related employment, because of the presence of private- and public-sector workplaces. The office orientation of many of the study areas also differentiates the employment profiles of their workplaces from those of the GTA as a whole.
Table 12: Employment by occupation in workplaces located in the study areas
|
Occupation Type |
Downtown Toronto |
Yonge-Eglinton |
Yonge Street Corridor |
North York Centre |
Scarborough Town Centre |
Mississauga City Centre |
Mississauga East Corridor |
Downtown Oakville |
Downtown Kitchener |
Airport Corporate Centre |
Highway 404-Steeles |
Greater Toronto Area |
|
Type A: Management |
62,770 16.9% |
3,925 15.9% |
8,560 16.3% |
5,130 15.1% |
2,955 10.9% |
3,715 15.6% |
3,235 16.0% |
510 15.3% |
2,750 10.9% |
9815 17.5% |
8,665 17.5% |
343,655 13.7% |
|
Type B: Business, Finance and Administration |
123,580 33.3% |
6,480 26.2% |
13,890 26.5% |
13,250 39.0% |
8,070 29.8% |
6,190 26.0% |
5,180 25.6% |
1,100 32.9% |
6,645 26.2% |
16360 29.2% |
12,915 26.1% |
565,065 22.6% |
|
Type C: Natural and Applied Science |
40,085 10.8% |
2,465 10.0% |
4,780 9.1% |
3,650 10.7% |
1,995 7.4% |
1,705 7.2% |
1,075 5.3% |
160 4.8% |
1,735 6.8% |
7260 13.0% |
7,880 15.9% |
206,900 8.3% |
|
Type D: Health |
18985 5.1% |
715 2.9% |
2,160 4.1% |
1,530 4.5% |
2,155 8% |
780 3.3% |
920 4.6% |
105 3.1% |
1,940 7.7% |
360 0.6% |
510 1% |
108,550 4.3% |
|
Type E: Government and Religion |
36,605 9.9% |
1,865 7.5% |
4,605 8.8% |
3,010 8.9% |
2,095 7.7% |
1,830 7.7% |
2,175 10.8% |
165 4.9% |
2,140 8.4% |
1335 2.4% |
1,095 2.2% |
193,000 7.7% |
|
Type F: Arts, Culture, Recreation, Sport |
18,235 4.9% |
1,265 5.1% |
3,065 5.8% |
970 2.9% |
570 2.1% |
665 2.8% |
530 2.6% |
200 6.0% |
710 2.8% |
695 1.2% |
925 1.9% |
80,950 3.2% |
|
Type G: Sales and Services |
58,305 15.7% |
5,810 23.5% |
11,950 22.8% |
5,225 15.4% |
5,270 19.5% |
7,795 32.7% |
5,060 25.0% |
1,035 31% |
4,815 19% |
7730 13.8% |
7,970 16.1% |
531,660 21.2% |
|
Type H: Trades, Transport, Equipment |
8,440 2.3% |
2,025 8.2% |
2,905 5.5% |
805 2.4% |
1,670 6.2% |
805 3.4% |
1,380 6.8% |
45 1.3% |
2,230 8.8% |
6565 11.7% |
4,570 9.2% |
246,075 9.8% |
|
Type I: Primary Industry |
475 0.1% |
45 0.2% |
110 0.2% |
110 0.3% |
60 0.2% |
100 0.4% |
70 0.3% |
10 0.3% |
55 0.2% |
155 0.3% |
65 0.1% |
18,015 0.7% |
|
Type J: Manufacturing, Utilities |
3,845 1.0% |
145 0.6% |
480 0.9% |
285 0.8% |
2,205 8.2% |
255 1.1% |
585 2.9% |
10 0.3% |
2,320 9.2% |
5715 10.2% |
4,875 9.9% |
209,040 8.4% |
|
Total |
371,325 100% |
24,740 100.1% |
52,505 100% |
33,965 100% |
27,045 100% |
23,840 100.2% |
20,210 99.9% |
3,340 99.9% |
25,340 100% |
55985 99.9% |
49,470 99.9% |
2,502,725 99.9% |
Source: Statistics Canada, special tabulations.
Notes
9. Dataset includes all buildings over 20,000 ft2 (1,858 m2). Government and institutional buildings are excluded.
10. If office under-development impedes multi-functionality and adversely affects public transit use, office over-development can endanger mixed-use and the 24-hour activity of study areas by crowding out other activities.
11. Management is a better indicator of higher-order occupations than the business, finance, and administration category, because this latter group is largely composed of secretarial and clerical jobs.