Planning for shrinking cities

[WhipperSnapper]

I really don't see coronavirus have too much impact on long term immigration figures especially under this administration's policies. I'm not very concerned about shrinking cities. That will happen over a very long period.

My bigger concern that could have immediate impact is the direction of living space particular in a place like Toronto. Tens of thousands of units have been built meant to be "affordable" places to sleep and not multi-functional spaces you spend most of the day. The possibility of some jobs being mandatory work from home in the near future ... particularly if the pandemic lasts well into next year ... is increasingly probable. Lease rates are too high to give everyone a work station with increased social distancing measures. It will be a long time, maybe never, before we see office and technology analysts side by side 12 inches apart, 8 hours a day ... lol...overtaxing the HVAC systems.

The quaint small towns aren't cheap. The driving force behind the people I know that have relocated out of Toronto is something completely irrelevant from coronavirus. There could be an uptick. It will still be niche.

[goodgrowth]

Where are all these so called "shrinking cities" anyway? Out of all the CMA's there are maybe 4 in Northern Ontario/Atlantic Canada that you could define as stagnant, but not really shrinking.

[Dengler Avenue]

The quaint small towns aren't cheap.

Why is that? Property tax?

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Why is that? Property tax?

I'm thinking many of the quaint small towns have restrictive property developments for the purpose of keeping these places 'quaint'. They don't want to be overrun with development, so they very much limit what can be built.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The thing is small towns can actually be charming. And they can have good options. But that is not the case in most of Canada. Most of our small towns are sprawl on steroids. Same generic architecture and unwalkable neighbourhoods as any suburban subdivision. Same chain stores. Same chain restaurants (only with less ethnic food options). What exactly is appalling about that?

If our small towns had real vision, they'd be building wonderful walkable neighborhoods. They'd have farm-to-table restaurants and microbreweries and town squares. Instead, you get an acre lot, hang out at Tim's, drive everywhere in your pickup, shop at Walmart and dine at Kelsey's or Swiss Chalet. And you get to be obese for that lifestyle!

Heh. Freudian slip, huh?

The Venn diagram of people who want a charming little walkable town has major overlap with the people who would be quite happy to live in the core of a city. In this case, the latter offers much more to do beyond the small town, so the upside for a small town to build this - outside of a few touristy places - is pretty limited.

Anyway, my guess about the appeal is that most people just want a cheaper, smaller version of the suburbs with more space. What's the appeal of trading all the hustle and bustle of the city if you can't get a little more space?

Honestly, as much as people whine about government not doing the right thing, the real issue is in the mirror. People love pickups/SUVs, mass-market beer, living in the snout-house suburbs and cheap-o generic restaurants.

[MolsonExport]

Yes, there are more than a few quaint smaller towns. Some are very nice (e.g., Stratford, St. Mary's, in Ontario; many smallish towns on Vancouver Island and in the Maritimes).

Unfortunately a lot of small towns have been dying a slow death for decades, and it really shows. Places like Drumbo https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2366...7i13312!8i6656

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

nah, because these smaller cities are quite boring, and most people don't want boring. Covid will not last forever.

Actually many people do or at least relative quiet. The reality is that a city the size of London, 99% of what the average person needs or does in the course of their daily lives can be found just as easily there as in Toronto.

When it comes to shopping, entertainment, social/health/government services, post-secondary, restaurants, housing, nightlife etc, London offers what Toronto does. That certainly is not the case with smaller centres like Woodstock, Stratford, or Belleville. Those cities don't' offer the amenities that London does and what Torontonians have come to expect...........it would be too big a shock to the system. Transit dependent/optional people could also not live in those smaller cities while they can in London.

Yes, Toronto has a broader range of options and more of everything but it is still within easy reach of London for those weekend shopping/theatre/festival outings.

[whatnext]

This didn't seem to get much notice here but in the USA the Center for Disease Control recommended that upon reopening employees be encourage to drive singly to work and avoid mass transit:

...The agency also upended years of advice on commuting, urging people to drive to work alone, instead of taking public transit or car-pooling. To make this feasible for employees, the C.D.C. suggested companies offer reimbursement for parking or single-occupancy rides...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/u...rus-today.html

Faced with a long commute a lot of people are going to push for WFH to continue.

[MolsonExport]

London straddles the boundary between big and medium sized cities. It lacks the cultural amenities and ethnic neighborhoods of the big three. It can satisfy most shopping needs, and provides a comfortable quality of life. The city centre is still struggling and I don't get enough of that "downtown feel" that I get in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, and to a lesser extent, Calgary, Ottawa, Edmonton, Quebec City and Winnipeg.

My favorite medium sized (under 1 million metro) cities in Canada are
1) Quebec City (hands down)
2) Halifax
3) Victoria

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by KnoxfordGuy

you've never been to a small town in Atlantic Canada then have you?

I have. And the exception doesn't disprove the rule. There's the occasional charming small town in every province. Doesn't mean the bulk of them are like that.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

When it comes to shopping, entertainment, social/health/government services, post-secondary, restaurants, housing, nightlife etc, London offers what Toronto does.

This is like saying Walmart and Nordstrom are the same because they're both department stores. I like London, but this is laughably not true. Or more than likely anybody who thinks this spent all their time in Mississauga and thinks this is what Toronto is about. In that case, I'd agree. London is like what they perceive Toronto to be.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

While that certainly is not the case with smaller centres like Woodstock, Stratford, or Belleville. Those cities don't' offer the amenities that London does and what Torontonians have come to expect..........

Nah. They offer the same chain stores and restaurants as suburban Toronto and London too. But sure no Barakat to get a shawarma I guess....

Originally Posted by ssiguy

it would be too big a shock to the system. Transit dependent/optional people could also not live in those smaller cities while they can in London.

You're packing in lots of assumptions. First of, anyone who is transit dependent is probably not leaving Toronto if they can help it. Especially not for a city where transit is seen as a college student service not worth investing in. Next, you're assuming that people who leave Toronto expressly want medium sized cities and not smaller cities or large towns. Given number of people who commute from Belleville, Cobourg, Orangeville, etc. it's not entirely clear this is the case. And certainly the growth in these cities and towns shows they are as attractive as cities like London and Kitchener.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Yes, Toronto has a broader range of options and more of everything but ir is still within easy reach of London for those weekend shopping/theatre/festival outings.

The same is true for many of these other places. Heck, Belleville and Cobourg are more accessible than London by VIA and about the same drive to Toronto.

[urbandreamer]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Yes, there are more than a few quaint smaller towns. Some are very nice (e.g., Stratford, St. Mary's, in Ontario; many smallish towns on Vancouver Island and in the Maritimes).

Unfortunately a lot of small towns have been dying a slow death for decades, and it really shows. Places like Drumbo https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2366...7i13312!8i6656

I was in Drumbo a few weeks ago and surprise it's got a large new subdivision going up! Sure not as large as you see in Tavistock, New Dundee, New Hamburg or Baden but still growth. Same goes for towns like Brussels, Atwood, Seaforth, Exeter, Mitchell: steady growth. Elmira, Milverton, Listowel, Hanover, Elora, Fergus, Port Elgin and Wingham are seeing tremendous growth. I remember seeing these towns in the 80s and 90s and thought they'd be dead by now. (I see a lot of conservative Xtians: Dutch Reform, Mexican Mennonites, South Asians and Filipinos moving into these new developments, reflected by the new restaurants and grocery stores, Xtian schools and RC schools opening in these small communities.)

[theman23]

The only people who are transit dependent in London are students who live in ghettos and have minimal travel requirements or the poor who have no choice.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

London straddles the boundary between big and medium sized cities. It lacks the cultural amenities and ethnic neighborhoods of the big three. It can satisfy most shopping needs, and provides a comfortable quality of life. The city centre is still struggling and I don't get enough of that "downtown feel" that I get in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, and to a lesser extent, Calgary, Ottawa, Edmonton, Quebec City and Winnipeg.

My favorite medium sized (under 1 million metro) cities in Canada are
1) Quebec City (hands down)
2) Halifax
3) Victoria

Indeed all those cities are beautiful and liveable but none offer the advantages of London.

Quebec City is only an option for Francophones and the primary reason for heading to Quebec from Montreal doesn't exist....cost. Montreal is still a cheap city to live in so the cost benefits really aren't there.

Halifax can't get ex-large city influx because there are none for nearly a 800 km till you hit Montreal and Halifax has the same cost of living so again there is no advantage financially.

Victoria is indeed cheaper than Vancouver but that's not saying much as it is still has the 3rd most costly real estate in the country. Vic to Van is at least 4 hours and that's assuming you don't have to wait 2 or 3 ferry waits to get on one. Of course you also don't have the advantage of being able to go at the last minute but rather has to be well planned ahead of time. This is to say nothing of the fact that it's bloody expensive with the driver and one passenger costing $200 return. It also has no rail connections.

London really is in that "sweet spot" offering all amenities an urbanite requires yet is within easy and quick travel distance and offers the affordable housing options to make the move worthwhile in the first place.

[urbandreamer]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Nah. They offer the same chain stores and restaurants as suburban Toronto and London too. But sure no Barakat to get a shawarma I guess....

Ha I think the hate for Woodstock and Belleville is their growth is mostly driven by working class factory workers. However, both places are surprisingly diverse and filled with dozens of shawarma shops.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You're packing in lots of assumptions. First of, anyone who is transit dependent is probably not leaving Toronto if they can help it. Especially not for a city where transit is seen as a college student service not worth investing in. Next, you're assuming that people who leave Toronto expressly want medium sized cities and not smaller cities or large towns. Given number of people who commute from Belleville, Cobourg, Orangeville, etc. it's not entirely clear this is the case. And certainly the growth in these cities and towns shows they are as attractive as cities like London and Kitchener.




The same is true for many of these other places. Heck, Belleville and Cobourg are more accessible than London by VIA and about the same drive to Toronto.

I could see Woodstock turning into another Brantford or Cambridge: 100k+ population with a large number of warehouse/manufacturing facilities.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by wave46

Heh. Freudian slip, huh?

Ha. Autocorrect....

Originally Posted by wave46

The Venn diagram of people who want a charming little walkable town has major overlap with the people who would be quite happy to live in the core of a city. In this case, the latter offers much more to do beyond the small town, so the upside for a small town to build this - outside of a few touristy places - is pretty limited.

Anyway, my guess about the appeal is that most people just want a cheaper, smaller version of the suburbs with more space. What's the appeal of trading all the hustle and bustle of the city if you can't get a little more space?

There's diverse tastes in any group. But most of our small towns chose to cater to one kind of audience only. And they keep wondering why they are losing young people and the only city escapees they get are retirees.

Originally Posted by wave46

Honestly, as much as people whine about government not doing the right thing, the real issue is in the mirror. People love pickups/SUVs, mass-market beer, living in the snout-house suburbs and cheap-o generic restaurants.

Yes and no. I don't feel like the alternatives are given enough play. And sometimes there's some corrupt interests behind that. Great recent example from Ottawa. We just had a debate on adding land to the urban boundary. It was mostly suburban councillors who supported it and investigations into their donors revealed that most of their donations come from developers and from donors who don't live in their wards. It is of course, in the interest of these developers to give a choice between shoebox condos in the core and SFD in the suburbs. Redeveloping old bungalow lots into. Duplexes, townhouses and low-rise condos isn't nearly as profitable. But you can bet a lot of the public would prefer that if given the option.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Some real fantasy thinking.....

1) Condos cost way more than $200k in the GTA.

2) There's very few WFH policies that say you can live anywhere. Most will have some attendance commitment after Covid.

3) Plenty of options in suburban Toronto or the extended commuter range of Toronto. Like London or Barrie or even Bowmanville.

4) Most people value their community networks more than land. You won't find people moving to North Bay for an acre lot anytime soon.

People have been predicting the demise of Toronto since Confederation. It's hilarious to see that every generation there's a lot who hasn't learned and repeats those predictions.

1) I was being nice.

2) Once a week? Once a month? True that they may have that, but really, if you move far enough, you and your family could get a better home life without sacrificing your career, if it can be done.

3) True, but even those places are going up. I am thinking cottage country, for starters.

4) with those networks broken for the short term, people may look further than we might think.

I don't think Toronto will demise, but those that can move, might do it sooner and further.

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

Where are all these so called "shrinking cities" anyway? Out of all the CMA's there are maybe 4 in Northern Ontario/Atlantic Canada that you could define as stagnant, but not really shrinking.

I think the premise is based on most covid numbers. Maybe the largest cities stagnate while smaller ones grow.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

London straddles the boundary between big and medium sized cities. It lacks the cultural amenities and ethnic neighborhoods of the big three. It can satisfy most shopping needs, and provides a comfortable quality of life. The city centre is still struggling and I don't get enough of that "downtown feel" that I get in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, and to a lesser extent, Calgary, Ottawa, Edmonton, Quebec City and Winnipeg.

My favorite medium sized (under 1 million metro) cities in Canada are
1) Quebec City (hands down)
2) Halifax
3) Victoria

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Indeed all those cities are beautiful and liveable but none offer the advantages of London.

Quebec City is only an option for Francophones and the primary reason for heading to Quebec from Montreal doesn't exist....cost. Montreal is still a cheap city to live in so the cost benefits really aren't there.

Halifax can't get ex-large city influx because there are none for nearly a 800 km till you hit Montreal and Halifax has the same cost of living so again there is no advantage financially.

Victoria is indeed cheaper than Vancouver but that's not saying much as it is still has the 3rd most costly real estate in the country. Vic to Van is at least 4 hours and that's assuming you don't have to wait 2 or 3 ferry waits to get on one. Of course you also don't have the advantage of being able to go at the last minute but rather has to be well planned ahead of time. This is to say nothing of the fact that it's bloody expensive with the driver and one passenger costing $200 return. It also has no rail connections.

London really is in that "sweet spot" offering all amenities an urbanite requires yet is within easy and quick travel distance and offers the affordable housing options to make the move worthwhile in the first place.

I have lived in London, Halifax and Victoria. All were very livable, but Victoria is too expensive. Moving up island may be what many do instead if they don't need to be in the office every day.

[ssiguy]

Anyway, London is the 2nd fastest growing metro in the country so it definately doesn't have to worry about shrinkage and neither do Halifax or Victoria although Quebec City, while probably will never shrink, may have to contend with population stagnation.

Still gets back to the basic issue however, how do we effectively deal with shrinking towns and cities? Before the far higher rates of immigration we have seen in the last 5 years, there were several Canadian cities shrinking and a scores of towns that, at best, were at population stagnation. This combined with the fact that slow/stagnating/shrinking places are also uniformaly older. Now that immigration has fallen significantly due to COVID, these places must again face reality.

It takes strong leadership to face the population and tell them the reality but the rewards are worth it. Youngstown Ohio, which has lost more than half it's population is the poster child of excellent "right sizing". It's entire urban planning now is based upon a shrinking population and how to make the city more liveable while it does. So far, they have done exceptionally well and the once dead downtown and soared back to life and has become very vibrant.

[Truenorth00]

Let's have a list of these shrinking cities. So we know which cities we are actually discussing. I don't see shrinking population for the top 20 CMAs which hold at least 70% of Canada's population. So which cities are we discussing?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Let's have a list of these shrinking cities. So we know which cities we are actually discussing. I don't see shrinking population for the top 20 CMAs which hold at least 70% of Canada's population. So which cities are we discussing?

This pandemic has been around for about 3 months. Give it 5 years and you'll likely see those cities have a slightly lower, or stagnated population.

You are not going to see this in 3 months of lockdown.