|
|
|
|
|
by lhorie
1924 days ago
|
|
I don't think that's the reason. Barrie has a ton of farmland and it's just a hop away from Toronto. It's just that there's nobody incentivizing companies to put down headquarters in these smaller municipalities. Several decades ago, north of Steeles was prairies and farmlands. The IBM headquarters was moved to that area in the 80s. CGI headquartered in Markham as well. Nowadays there are condos going up all over the place along the 407 and hwy 7. If more companies did this instead of coveting to be as near union Station as possible, I believe the metropolitan area could still expand horizontally a great deal more before ever coming anywhere near permafrost. It doesn't even take that much willpower either. Milton, for example, could easily attract companies by offering tax breaks. A lot of talent already commutes from there. |
|
Perhaps decades ago I'd be content with commuting out to the middle of nowhere by car to work for a large company as a lifelong employee. Perhaps those circumstances still exist, but there is a comparatively large number of people living downtown that won't touch transit-poor suburb offices with a 10-pole stick. If you're setting up shop in the suburbs, you will get a pick of only suburb residents.
On the other hand, if you're setting up shop in downtown, you get a pick of both downtown and suburb dwellers. The latter will drive anyway, so it matters comparatively little whether you drive from Mississauga to Milton or from Mississauga to Toronto. Plus a lot of people can find a GO station somewhere and get downtown that way. Good luck commuting to a Milton campus by train from Markham.
Furthermore, with Toronto in the centre of the population bell curve, it's not even just downtown employees vs. suburb employees. It's also that by building on one edge of the municipal area, you will have a harder time to attract people from the other edge. Mississauga to Milton isn't too bad, Ajax to Milton is twice the distance vs. to downtown Toronto.
So in the end, it all goes back to making a choice between locations with relatively broad appeal and a lot of competition, or niche locations that work great for a considerably lower potential selection of employees. Large international companies are finding that they are competitive enough to win employees in the downtown job market while still benefiting from the broad base of talent available there. You'd have to give them unprofitably high tax breaks to make them give up their talent pool.
Smaller shops may try out the niche strategy in the suburbs and may find it to work well for their purposes. But I guess those were not the target of your call for suburban HQs. They're also not at a size at which Milton would consider giving out tax breaks.
There can always be exceptions, although as a general tendency the house is stacked against suburb HQs. Maybe with a drawn-out WFH trend this could change, but for now I still don't see it happening.