We are on the verge of a land use revolution!

A couple of recent developments have again shed light on the future use of land, and as seems to be the case in most futuristic developments, the roles predict a different reality than what we’re seeing today.

The first, and closest to home, is the development of the railway lands into the Rail Deck Park. This will turn that 150m-wide ditch immediately south of Front Street West that physically separates the downtown business core from the waterfront into green space. This will serve as an attractive transition between business and recreational areas, provide more recreational space for the downtown core and encourage pedestrian traffic between the waterfront and the cultural diversity just north of it.

As unveiled, the plan involves covering the unsightly railroad tracks leading out of Union Station - a kilometre stretch from the Rogers Centre to Bathurst Street - and then paving over the deck with the typical park landscape of trees, grass, footpaths and benches.

The 21-acre park would be unique for downtown Toronto and though only a fraction of the 843 acres of the world-famous Central Park in New York, it would become a signature feature for the city and entice the same type of visitors and use as the iconic Manhattan green space. It would also provide a gathering place for some of the downtown residents whose numbers are expected to double over the coming 15 years.

The plan is far from done, requiring zoning amendments, and negotiations with Metrolinx (which owns the railway tracks) and CN (which owns the airspace over the tracks). There is also the question of funding, with some noting that Chicago’s Millennium Park (similar in size at 24.5 acres) cost just shy of $500 million US (half of it borne by taxpayers).

Mayor Tory is hoping to also have the private sector pitch in for the project (as it did in Chicago with some $200 million). It should be noted, though, that Millennium Park is far removed from simply green space.

A staff report on the project is expected in September 2016, but it seems like one of those ideas that makes a lot more sense than tearing down or burying the main transit avenue into the downtown core.

The other exploration about the future use of land actually relates to the way technology might change the way people look at property ownership.

Anybody who’s been raised in the post-war era (in other words, pretty much all of us) has grown up with the idea that you buy property in order to provide a stable retirement, either by having a home for which you no longer have to pay or an asset you can liquidate in order to sustain your lifestyle. Or both.

But technology is having a say in how we live our lives right now and how much our retirement plans may have to change.

According to a recent study by Bankrate south of the border, many people still consider homeownership an investment despite what the housing bubble did to separate owners from their residences and force them back into rentals. But the same study states that homes as investments are not as effective as stocks for investments.

The main reason, says the study, is that technology has allowed us to squeeze more out of the land we own, so a farmer who might have had to buy up more land in order to yield more crops can now yield more crops from a smaller parcel. That means that land that might have been at a premium even a decade ago, is now not so much in demand and that means suburban land values have not increased as quickly as they had in the past.

Meanwhile, cities are attracting more residents with the creation of more jobs, particularly in tech sectors. That means a demand for housing for more people. And since cities don’t have a lot of extra land on which to build new housing units, they are either building upwards or subdividing residential spaces to cram more people into the same space.

Now overall, that’s good because we’re getting more use out of the available land, and slowing the past trend of turning farmland into suburban housing. But for those buying land in the hopes that it will translate into retirement savings, that may not happen as quickly as with good stock investments.

Of course, a home will always have two key benefits over stock: you don’t have to have an MBA to effectively buy a home, and you can’t live in your portfolio.