Airport expansion and waterfront property values
As I've stated in an earlier post, I wish that Porter and the Island
Airport did not exist. I really don't get how putting a busy commercial
aiport on our waterfront makes sense. The waterfront in my view should
be a quiet place where we can go to in order to escape the hustle and
bustle of the city and daily life.
Some folks, like Mr. Deluce can afford a Muskoka cottage (and as I understand it he has one.) And why do people prefer to escape to waterfront cottages which are far more expensive than cottages without lakefront? Recreation is one reason but the primary reason is the calmness and peacefulness that being by water gives you. Have you heard that many lakes have banned jet skis in Muskoka?
But that is me and how I feel about Toronto's waterfront. The more important question is how do the majority of people feel.
Consider this fact: property values on central harbourfront (I'm using Harbour Square as a proxy) have increased significantly since Porter began operations. And more importantly, Harbour Square values have risen even more than the average downtown condo since Porter's inception. This tells me that the average harbourfront resident does not feel that Porter has had any material negative impact on their neighbourhood. In fact it shows that there has been no negative impact.
And one may then conclude that if Porter has not had a negative impact on harbourfront residents, then the airline certainly hasn't had any negative impact on visitors to the waterfront (visitors either from Toronto or tourists.)
One can then surmise that if Porter has not negatively impacted visitors to the waterfront, then Porter has had a very significant positive impact on Torontonians because of its convenience, outstanding service and increased competition for Air Canada and others.
I for one thought that the expansion of Porter would have a significant negative impact on waterfront real estate values. WELL, I WAS 100% WRONG!
Note: I understand that the airport may have negatively impacted property values to some degree closer to the airport. But this does not change the argument I used in this post.
WMABO
Some folks, like Mr. Deluce can afford a Muskoka cottage (and as I understand it he has one.) And why do people prefer to escape to waterfront cottages which are far more expensive than cottages without lakefront? Recreation is one reason but the primary reason is the calmness and peacefulness that being by water gives you. Have you heard that many lakes have banned jet skis in Muskoka?
But that is me and how I feel about Toronto's waterfront. The more important question is how do the majority of people feel.
Consider this fact: property values on central harbourfront (I'm using Harbour Square as a proxy) have increased significantly since Porter began operations. And more importantly, Harbour Square values have risen even more than the average downtown condo since Porter's inception. This tells me that the average harbourfront resident does not feel that Porter has had any material negative impact on their neighbourhood. In fact it shows that there has been no negative impact.
And one may then conclude that if Porter has not had a negative impact on harbourfront residents, then the airline certainly hasn't had any negative impact on visitors to the waterfront (visitors either from Toronto or tourists.)
One can then surmise that if Porter has not negatively impacted visitors to the waterfront, then Porter has had a very significant positive impact on Torontonians because of its convenience, outstanding service and increased competition for Air Canada and others.
I for one thought that the expansion of Porter would have a significant negative impact on waterfront real estate values. WELL, I WAS 100% WRONG!
Note: I understand that the airport may have negatively impacted property values to some degree closer to the airport. But this does not change the argument I used in this post.
WMABO
Comments