Planning for shrinking cities

[someone123]

Originally Posted by isaidso

The idea that Canada can only have 1 such city is odd. Another bizarre mindset is that in order for one city to prosper, another must fail. Not only can Canada produce lots of alpha cities going forward but it's in our national interest that this happen. And on a side note, Toronto is big enough to compete globally with any city. You don't need 20 million people to do that.

I think this attitude seems sort of plausible from an Ontario-centric perspective but it looks much stranger from the other side. A lot of Canada is far away from Ontario and there are often local impediments to economic success that barely register at the national level and have nothing to do with Ontario.

One small regional economic development example I can think of is urban infill in the Halifax region. The developers tend to be immigrants and their descendants (Globe and Mail article about Lebanese developers in Halifax), and in a lot of cases the successful buildings they constructed (high-end rentals) were new to the region. Without these immigrants I doubt the city would have developed as nicely in recent years. None of that significantly impacts Toronto or is significantly impacted by Toronto. In fact Ontario-based builders tend not to take on projects in Atlantic Canada much, and barely touched the Halifax market until recently. Local immigrants really paved the way in the industry, seizing opportunities that might have otherwise been ignored.

[goodgrowth]

It's been my opinion that real-estate prices will a create spill-over effect(inter-provincial migration) from the expensive provinces(BC and Ontario) into the cheaper provinces.

Simply no way that everyone (particularly younger people) will keep pace and will have to consider other options.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think this attitude seems sort of plausible from an Ontario-centric perspective but it looks much stranger from the other side. A lot of Canada is far away from Ontario and there are often local impediments to economic success that barely register at the national level and have nothing to do with Ontario.

Toronto's competition isn't other Canadian cities. It's other global cities. Ditto for Montreal and Vancouver.

Think about the same arguments applied in the US and you'll see how absurd they are. Nobody would see Duluth or Albuquerque as competing with New York or LA. Doesn't mean those smaller cities don't serve a purpose. Just that the league they are playing in is different.

Originally Posted by someone123

I
One small regional economic development example I can think of is urban infill in the Halifax region. The developers tend to be immigrants and their descendants (Globe and Mail article about Lebanese developers in Halifax), and in a lot of cases the successful buildings they constructed (high-end rentals) were new to the region. Without these immigrants I doubt the city would have developed as nicely in recent years. None of that significantly impacts Toronto or is significantly impacted by Toronto. In fact Ontario-based builders tend not to take on projects in Atlantic Canada much, and barely touched the Halifax market until recently. Local immigrants really paved the way in the industry, seizing opportunities that might have otherwise been ignored.

But we've just been told about how immigrants are destroying our cities and making them unlivable?

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

It's been my opinion that real-estate prices will a create spill-over effect(inter-provincial migration) from the expensive provinces(BC and Ontario) into the cheaper provinces.

Simply no way that everyone (particularly younger people) will keep pace and will have to consider other options.

Spillover would be great. But we aren't seeing it as much nationally or even regionally because transportation and communication infrastructure in this country is inadequate for that.

Consider how Southern Ontario would have developed if there was proper regional rail from London to Peterborough and Niagara Falls to Barrie. And I don't mean just commuter trains.

Or how much places like Winnipeg and Saskatoon would have grown if air travel was cheaper in Canada, allowing for more commerce to originate in those cities.

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Spillover would be great. But we aren't seeing it as much nationally or even regionally because transportation and communication infrastructure in this country is inadequate for that.

Consider how Southern Ontario would have developed if there was proper regional rail from London to Peterborough and Niagara Falls to Barrie. And I don't mean just commuter trains.

Or how much places like Winnipeg and Saskatoon would have grown if air travel was cheaper in Canada, allowing for more commerce to originate in those cities.

Not sure what transportation or communication infrastructure has to do with inter-provincial migration...

If someone moves from one province to another they either get on a plane or pack up the car and drive...so I'm not really sure what you are talking about..

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

Not sure what transportation or communication infrastructure has to do with inter-provincial migration...

If someone moves from one province to another they either get on a plane or pack up the car and drive...so I'm not really sure what you are talking about..

People don't just fly or talk on the phone for the move out. Commerce, relationships, even hobbies become a whole lot easier and possible from outside a major metro with good communication and transport links. Moving from Toronto to Winnipeg wouldn't be as big a deal if it was cheap to fly back more often, for example. This is something that Americans and Australians and Europeans all seem to understand, but seems like such a strange concept to Canucks.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by logan5

Top economists predict never before seen job growth for the latter half of this year. A wave of immigration is sure to follow...

That’s laughable. Did you just pull that out of thin air?

Airlines, hotels and restaurant jobs are pretty much toast this year. There’s not going to be a huge demand for labour.

The whole “we need workers” to replace the old folks argument is laughable. So many warehouse and service jobs will be replaced through AI in the coming years.

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

People don't just fly or talk on the phone for the move out. Commerce, relationships, even hobbies become a whole lot easier and possible from outside a major metro with good communication and transport links. Moving from Toronto to Winnipeg wouldn't be as big a deal if it was cheap to fly back more often, for example. This is something that Americans and Australians and Europeans all seem to understand, but seems like such a strange concept to Canucks.

This sounds more like “I couldn’t really move from Toronto and if I did i need to keep one foot in Toronto” vs just “I moved”.

Lots of people move and fly home once a year at best. Once every few years in a lot of cases.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

People don't just fly or talk on the phone for the move out. Commerce, relationships, even hobbies become a whole lot easier and possible from outside a major metro with good communication and transport links. Moving from Toronto to Winnipeg wouldn't be as big a deal if it was cheap to fly back more often, for example. This is something that Americans and Australians and Europeans all seem to understand, but seems like such a strange concept to Canucks.

I don't know if cheap flights would really change that.

Someone from New York isn't likely to move to Omaha despite the cheap flights.

You'd need an additional motivation of some sort for both cases.

One might argue that having cheap flights would be bad for the environment as it would induce more travel. Moving more people to chilly Winnipeg with its car-dependent transport options, large swaths of low-density large homes and higher natural gas heating requirements would be worse than keeping that same person in dense Toronto with its subways and somewhat warmer temperatures.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

It's been my opinion that real-estate prices will a create spill-over effect(inter-provincial migration) from the expensive provinces(BC and Ontario) into the cheaper provinces.

Simply no way that everyone (particularly younger people) will keep pace and will have to consider other options.

There would be some of that.

I suspect that the spill-over would be contained in Ontario's case. The next province to the east requires functional French. The next one to the west is 1600km away.

If you want cheap, Ontario has cheap places relatively closer than Manitoba within its own borders.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by logan5

Top economists predict never before seen job growth for the latter half of this year. A wave of immigration is sure to follow...

And they all lived happily ever after.

[Spocket]

The other thing that should be stated is that a declining national population doesn't mean that cities don't still see growth. In fact, that's what tends to happen: As the national population declines, the cities see growth as people migrate to them in search of jobs.

Take Moscow. Russia has usually seen population decreases over the past couple of decades. In spite of this, Moscow has grown from around ten million since 2000 to over 12.5 million now.

[foolworm]

What does 'planning for shrinking cities' even mean? For instance, in a growing city planners would designate areas slated for development and start expanding utility service, prep for construction etc. Is a shrinking city supposed to look at neighbourhoods, decide that there aren't enough residents to cover the required services, and shut off the taps? The sane response is to try and attract people and business to set up shop and reverse the trends - planning to shrink a city is like planning to write your will when getting sick instead of seeking medical attention.

Saying the immigration rate will plummet is begetting the question since it presupposes the government's policy is to restrict immigration. By and large people still want to come to Canada, and there's nothing to indicate that the pandemic has permanently diminished people's desire to relocate.

If you look at Saskatchewan, its population has hovered around the million mark for almost a century, yet its cities have continued to expand and grow. Even the Maritimes, which are the go-to domestic example of decline, show cities continuing to tread water as opposed to flat out failing. Planning for shrinking cities is asking the wrong question, because urbanization is the overwhelming trend in developed countries. It is the rural populace that declines and suffers the most.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by whatnext

That’s laughable. Did you just pull that out of thin air?

In the spirit of the original post that started this thread, yes, I absolutely pulled that out of thin air.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by foolworm

What does 'planning for shrinking cities' even mean? For instance, in a growing city planners would designate areas slated for development and start expanding utility service, prep for construction etc. Is a shrinking city supposed to look at neighbourhoods, decide that there aren't enough residents to cover the required services, and shut off the taps? The sane response is to try and attract people and business to set up shop and reverse the trends - planning to shrink a city is like planning to write your will when getting sick instead of seeking medical attention.

The American Rust Belt definitely has cities that have had to plan for decline. "Look at neighbourhoods, decide that there aren't enough residents to cover the required services, and shut off the taps" was a very real process in Detroit, for example. The alternative was for the city to continue to pay large amounts of money that it didn't have to service huge areas of vacant/uninhabited/unused land.

It's unlikely that Fort McMurray, for example, will continue to grow forever. Plans there likely take that into account. One of Saint John (NB)'s recent municipal plans was based around projections of short-term population decline followed by longer-term growth.

[foolworm]

Originally Posted by Hali87

The American Rust Belt definitely has cities that have had to plan for decline. "Look at neighbourhoods, decide that there aren't enough residents to cover the required services, and shut off the taps" was a very real process in Detroit, for example. The alternative was for the city to continue to pay large amounts of money that it didn't have to service huge areas of vacant/uninhabited/unused land.

It's unlikely that Fort McMurray, for example, will continue to grow forever. Plans there likely take that into account. One of Saint John (NB)'s recent municipal plans was based around projections of short-term population decline followed by longer-term growth.

Detroit was the result of urban decay though, which is a different thing altogether. Metro Detroit never stopped growing, and the commercial / cultural core is infamous for being propped up by monies donated from the exurbs while the city administration had to declare bankruptcy.

It's true that unlimited growth is unsustainable, but the point is sustainability. Large centres should be sufficiently diversified and generate enough economic activity that ceteris paribus, they would be the last places to start shrinking.

I would note that Fort Mac is an exception that proves the rule - it is a boom town similar to Klondike-era Dawson City, which at one point ranked in the top 10(!) population centres of Canada. Additionally, Fort Mac is technically not a city but a hamlet, so if it goes belly up then then Province of Alberta will have to step in (which would be very interesting because municipalities can't run deficits). I suppose that is the real 'out' for a shrinking city, although I reckon other factors (urban decay, loss of major employment sectors etc.) will kill a city loooong before demographics would.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by foolworm

Detroit was the result of urban decay though, which is a different thing altogether. Metro Detroit never stopped growing, and the commercial / cultural core is infamous for being propped up by monies donated from the exurbs while the city administration had to declare bankruptcy.

Yes, but at a municipal level, Detroit (the city) did have to deal with the problems of population loss, a shrinking tax base, and an unmanageable amount of land/dispersal of things. This kind of stuff involved planning in order to make it manageable again. There is urban decay in Canadian cities, many have gone through periods where the central city declined in population while the metro grew, and again there are a lot of resource-oriented cities in Canada that have always felt somewhat temporary to begin with and would logically decline in population at some point.

[ssiguy]

I said some cities will always grow but the reality is that many will just stagnate as even a 50% decline in immigration rates would cause many cities to see recent population growth come to an abrupt end.

There maybe urban areas that still manage growth but growth is always very uneven. One suburb maybe booming while another declines. One neighbourhood within the same city maybe growing while others are experiencing depopulation. To just merrily assume that our cities will grow into eternity is falacy and irreponsible.

I am quite dumbfounded by how many of you fail to appreciate that many of our cities CMA/CAs will shrink or stagnate in the decades to come. What you don't understand about the fact that our birth rate has plunged in the last 70 years is beyond me.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I said some cities will always grow but the reality is that many will just stagnate as even a 50% decline in immigration rates would cause many cities to see recent population growth come to an abrupt end.

There maybe urban areas that still manage growth but growth is always very uneven. One suburb maybe booming while another declines. One neighbourhood within the same city maybe growing while others are experiencing depopulation. To just merrily assume that our cities will grow into eternity is falacy and irreponsible.

I am quite dumbfounded by how many of you fail to appreciate that many of our cities CMA/CAs will shrink or stagnate in the decades to come. What you don't understand about the fact that our birth rate has plunged in the last 70 years is beyond me.

Because there's no evidence that a national loss of population contributes to that phenomenon. In fact, the exact opposite seems to happen. Japanese cities have continued to enjoy healthy growth despite Japan's falling population.

[MolsonExport]

If metro populations start to crash (they won't; on the contrary, for most urban areas, growth levels will resume within a couple of years), rural regions will first have to be decimated. People go where the jobs are (unless people are moving up to Fort Mac for the wonderful climate and [Andrew?] sheer natural beauty ). The jobs are not in the hinterlands. Despite palm trees and a blue water coastline, Maple Creek (SK) is shedding people.

I regularly work with demographers in Sociology and Geography. None are predicting a population crash in the urban areas (aside from a few places that are relatively remote and based on--yup, you guessed it!--natural resource extraction).

[wave46]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

If metro populations start to crash (they won't; on the contrary, for most urban areas, growth levels will resume within a couple of years), rural regions will first have to be decimated. People go where the jobs are (unless people are moving up to Fort Mac for the wonderful climate and [Andrew?] sheer natural beauty). The jobs are not in the hinterlands.

We've already seen this phenomenon in Canada.

The outports of Newfoundland. The small resource towns of Northern Ontario and Manitoba. The declining rural regions of northern New Brunswick, Cape Breton and Nova Scotia.

The only rural areas that haven't declined are areas that are based around farming. They haven't really boomed either, as the labour force is about what they need to keep the agricultural industry going.

The other exception was the oil industry, but it remains to be seen where that goes.