Planning for shrinking cities

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by esquire

I wonder if that will be a lasting legacy of this episode? It is possible that we have been so seduced by cheap "China prices" for goods that we have turned a blind eye to the compromises involved, including quality and reliability.

I hope so. One other aspect not discussed often enough is the lack of repairability of many of these items, which is wasteful and bad for the environment in general.

I'm old enough to recall a time when a TV repairman was a viable career, whereas now most of that stuff is sent to the landfill, or 'recycling' (where most of it ends up in the landfill) when something goes wrong with it.

So many items are made cheaply, so they have a short service life. Parts are not easily available, or tend to cost so much that it's actually cheaper to just buy a new one and throw away the old one. In many cases, they are just not designed in such a way that they can be easily serviced as well.

Personally, I think it would be an improvement to move to a situation where the products are of higher quality, with associated higher costs, but are also made to be repairable so that the higher cost can be spread over a longer service life, and thus be better for everybody, except perhaps those nations who have built their economies from making cheap crap.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I have not read through this entire thread, so I apologize if this has already been discussed, but rather than to continue to follow an economic strategy that relies on continual growth, should we not instead be looking at other ways of surviving economically that do not depend on continual population growth?

The main reason I ponder this is that somewhere out there in the distant or not so distant future, there is an end point when continued growth is no longer possible. i suspect that this will result in great hardships for the human race, and am wondering if this concept is even on the radar of world leaders at the moment.

Just a thought that I've been pondering for some time...

[ssiguy]

Guys let's drop the manufacturing and Chinese export conversation or take them over to another thread and keep this one on topic. Thanks.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The main reason I ponder this is that somewhere out there in the distant or not so distant future, there is an end point when continued growth is no longer possible. i suspect that this will result in great hardships for the human race, and am wondering if this concept is even on the radar of world leaders at the moment.

It is true that we can't have an ever-increasing population but then again the number of people that can be sustained with a high quality of life goes up with technological development. When the world had only 1 billion people, a higher percentage of them lived in poverty than today. It is not even clear if their environmental impact was lower; a lot of people used wood for fuel and deforested huge areas.

I can't help but notice that a lot of the projections of doom and gloom from a shrinking population just haven't panned out. Japan isn't collapsing or even doing badly. Most analyses of Japan's performance are flawed because they look at total economic output when they should look at the standard of living. People adapt to changing circumstances. One change we have seen is that people participate in the work force for a longer period of time. Back in 1960, the typical 60 year old was in poor health and unable to work. People imagined that having a large population of 60-100 year olds would be a huge burden. I don't think that's how it has panned out. In the future, I believe most people will be healthy into their 80's and working in your 70's will be considered more normal (and a 30 year old might be considered a "youth", still early on in career and life development).

Many dire predictions have the same flaw: take the current trend and project it forward without considering the consequences and human adaptation. That's what a bunch of early covid models were. So I think that both the likelihood of shrinking populations and the impact of that scenario are smaller than what the doom and gloomers say.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

It is true that we can't have an ever-increasing population but then again the number of people that can be sustained with a high quality of life goes up with technological development. When the world had only 1 billion people, a higher percentage of them lived in poverty than today. It is not even clear if their environmental impact was lower; a lot of people used wood for fuel and deforested huge areas.

I can't help but notice that a lot of the projections of doom and gloom from a shrinking population just haven't panned out. Japan isn't collapsing or even doing badly. Most analyses of Japan's performance are flawed because they look at total economic output when they should look at the standard of living. People adapt to changing circumstances. One change we have seen is that people participate in the work force for a longer period of time. Back in 1960, the typical 60 year old was in poor health and unable to work. People imagined that having a large population of 60-100 year olds would be a huge burden. I don't think that's how it has panned out. In the future, I believe most people will be healthy into their 80's and working in your 70's will be considered more normal (and a 30 year old might be considered a "youth", still early on in career and life development).

Many dire predictions have the same flaw: take the current trend and project it forward without considering the consequences and human adaptation. That's what a bunch of early covid models were. So I think that both the likelihood of shrinking populations and the impact of that scenario are smaller than what the doom and gloomers say.

Good points. Thanks for weighing in on this.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I'm old enough to recall a time when a TV repairman was a viable career, whereas now most of that stuff is sent to the landfill, or 'recycling' (where most of it ends up in the landfill) when something goes wrong with it.

So many items are made cheaply, so they have a short service life. Parts are not easily available, or tend to cost so much that it's actually cheaper to just buy a new one and throw away the old one. In many cases, they are just not designed in such a way that they can be easily serviced as well.

Personally, I think it would be an improvement to move to a situation where the products are of higher quality, with associated higher costs, but are also made to be repairable so that the higher cost can be spread over a longer service life, and thus be better for everybody, except perhaps those nations who have built their economies from making cheap crap.

A lot of people are under this impression, but I don't see much evidence that the same consumer products were more durable then than they are now.

Often, I think this is a selection bias based on the fact that a handful of very durable, high quality products that people bought a long time ago are still in use in non-stressful applications, and they tend to think that this was how everything was made back then. For example, people often inherit heirloom furniture made from some hardwood that they rarely use that would have cost their relatives a months' salary several generations ago, and then compare it to the particle board IKEA dresser they use every day that they bought for $50.

One of the reasons why there was a need for a TV repairman back in the day is because TVs were, frankly, badly assembled. I remember, as a kid, the Japanese-made TV we had in the 80s barely lasting into the 90s before the tube blew out. I remember my parents' 1980 Toyota being a rustbucket that needed major fixes by 1988, while my 2012 Mazda 3, with more kms on the clock, still drives like new. My first generation discman, made in Japan, which I remember saving up to buy for $300 (in 1994 dollars), lasted just 4 years.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

For example, people often inherit heirloom furniture made from some hardwood that they rarely use that would have cost their relatives a months' salary several generations ago, and then compare it to the particle board IKEA dresser they use every day that they bought for $50.

If I have a criticism right now it's that it's hard to tell what's good or bad. There's the old heirloom hardwood stuff, the $50 IKEA stuff you know is poor quality (but maybe a good value), and then a big middle ground of $800 mystery items. Online shopping has made this much worse.

I find it tough in general to upgrade beyond cheap quality stuff these days, unless I want to spend 5x the cost for a 60% chance of getting something that's better. No doubt some of this is economies of scale but I think there's a failure to connect up good quality manufacturers with consumers, and filter the good sellers from the bad on the internet. Most online reviews are fake.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

A lot of people are under this impression, but I don't see much evidence that the same consumer products were more durable then than they are now.

Often, I think this is a selection bias based on the fact that a handful of very durable, high quality products that people bought a long time ago are still in use in non-stressful applications, and they tend to think that this was how everything was made back then. For example, people often inherit heirloom furniture made from some hardwood that they rarely use that would have cost their relatives a months' salary several generations ago, and then compare it to the particle board IKEA dresser they use every day that they bought for $50.

One of the reasons why there was a need for a TV repairman back in the day is because TVs were, frankly, badly assembled. I remember, as a kid, the Japanese-made TV we had in the 80s barely lasting into the 90s before the tube blew out. I remember my parents' 1980 Toyota being a rustbucket that needed major fixes by 1988, while my 2012 Mazda 3, with more kms on the clock, still drives like new. My first generation discman, made in Japan, which I remember saving up to buy for $300 (in 1994 dollars), lasted just 4 years.

Out of respect for ssiguy’s request, I will not go into a long response, but let’s just say I go back a little further than you and recall many cases to support my post. I lived in those times and repaired many things which today would just be thrown out. This is not some nostalgic view of the past, materials and design were typically more conducive to long life and repair, and I actually do not see a reason why we couldn’t return to this, other than consumers’ expectations of price point.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

My crystal ball's in the shop but there's mounting evidence that that's where we're headed...

A recession is not really economic disruption in the long run. It's a normal part of the business cycle. When I say economic disruption I'm thinking of technological changes or trade flows that precipitated the decline of some cities. Think of the end of company towns or the decline of several Hanseatic ports. There was a time when Brugges was larger than London, for example. Absent that kind of massive disruption, cities don't tend to go into decline.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

I do wonder, however, how all the people working from home right now might impact our cities in the long term. It is reasonable to assume that some companies who previously didn’t allow WFH may embrace it as a result of the pandemic after it’s over. If their employees don’t need to come to the office every day, it could open up new opportunities for people who live in other cities but don’t wish to move. For example, people in London or Kingston who could get a Toronto job without moving, but travelling to the office once a week or less.

This could potentially have some long term benefits for cities within some distance of major cities like Toronto.

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Statistics Canada has consistently shown the Toronto CMA experiencing a net loss in population to other parts of Ontario over the past decade; in other words more people move from Toronto to other parts of Ontario than the other way around. Although some of the move has been to nearby areas such as Hamilton and Oshawa, areas like London and Kingston have also gained people from Toronto.

Toronto CMA’s population growth in recent years has been from immigration outside Canada.

Toronto has a net loss in intra-provincial migration. Not a net loss in population. That needs to be distinguished.

And while I do think the new WFH trend will change the new normal, I don't think we suddenly jump into a situation where WFH means work from anywhere. There will still be a need to meet occasionally in person. There will still be collaborative workspaces. After all, the tech sector has long been used to WFH and has still gotten more concentrated in large cities, as an example.

London also proves my infrastructure point. Without that line it's what 3 hrs to downtown Toronto during the rush? London becoming a true exurb of Toronto needs that high speed rail connection. I'd imagine London would draw 2-3x as many residents away from Toronto (annually) if that existed. Ditto for KWC and even Stratford.

If VIA's HFR happens, we'll get to see the effect of an improved rail connection on Peterborough. 1 hr from Toronto, 2 hrs from Ottawa, hourly service, makes it a suddenly very strategic location.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

The Agincourt Mall is spared as it is proposed for a residential redevelopment. No mention of the dreaded 'lifestyle centre'

Bari has bigger fish to fry these days than its shopping malls. I think they had population decline without a shopping mall crisis to fight.

I knew cupcakes and olive oil would spark a response in you.

Was the Agincourt mall an Aging Court of a mall?

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Was the Agincourt mall an Aging Court of a mall?

It never really had a food court from my late 70's-90's memories of it. It had a sit down restaurant (Agincourt Mall restaurant - unique name ) and another sit down restaurant in the Woolco. It was an aging corpse of a mall for the last 30 + years..not quite Cloverdale Mall level though.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If VIA's HFR happens, we'll get to see the effect of an improved rail connection on Peterborough. 1 hr from Toronto, 2 hrs from Ottawa, hourly service, makes it a suddenly very strategic location.

I grew up in Peterborough, and I think it's quite charming, but it's been struggling in recent years.

Like a lot of smaller cities, I think a lot of it is its own fault. A few years ago, I was trying to move back to Ontario from Vancouver and I was considering starting a family in Peterborough. After all, the city was affordable and I had fond memories of growing up there. I spent a week networking around and more or less gave up. Not only would my job involve a demotion, but I found that the one or two people I met working in my field in Peterborough were extremely entitled and also not doing stuff that was really that smart or interesting, and they gave off a vibe as if they ran the place (which, in a way, they did). It was very much a "big fish in a small pond" thing. My parents no longer live in Peterborough, and doing interesting well-paying work is more important to me than having a house with a yard for $300k, so I bailed on Peterborough. Whenever people muse about why more young people don't move to smaller towns, this is what I tell them.

Anyway, with HFR, Peterborough would be more competitive because you can live in Peterborough without relying on Peterborough's pathetic professional job market.

[goodgrowth]

Peterborough is not that much further from the GTA than Barrie and Barrie is growing pretty well. Suspect it will starting seeing strong growth soon.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

Peterborough is not that much further from the GTA than Barrie and Barrie is growing pretty well. Suspect it will starting seeing strong growth soon.

Barrie has GO service and a very direct freeway connection. Peterborough has decent highway access. But no GO train. This is what HFR might deliver.

[ssiguy]

One thing that this coronavirus has shown us however is that working from home is not only convinient and vastly cheaper for the workers themselves in commuting expenses, potential savings in child care, and vastly cheaper housing but also cheaper for businesses.

Technology advancements have shown businesses that telecommuting can be just as effective as having the workers come into the office everyday which saves them a small fortune in office lease payments. Added to this they probably are left with a happier and less stressed workforce leading to higher productivity.

This could be a real boom to many cities that are still within a reasonable distance of the physical office itself where they still may have to go to once a week. London is a prime example and is now growing at the fastest rate in a generation and is now the 2nd fastest growing city in country despite still not in in top 10 in immigration draw. It's growth is coming from other residents within the province which is far more sustainable than their demographic {and hence economic} growth being reliant upon politics of the day with immigration rates.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

It never really had a food court from my late 70's-90's memories of it. It had a sit down restaurant (Agincourt Mall restaurant - unique name ) and another sit down restaurant in the Woolco. It was an aging corpse of a mall for the last 30 + years..not quite Cloverdale Mall level though.

Any updates on the status of the world-famous Honeydale Mall in Etobicocacola?

[ssiguy]

Truenorth00.......you mention Stratford and with this I disagree.

Remember Torontonians are urbanites and have come to expect that any city they move to has similar levels of amenities. London is no Toronto but it offers the housing options, entertainment, nightlife, concerts, shopping, restaurants, social services, education, post-secondary, transit, healthcare, government services, and urban vitality that a smaller city like Stratford simply can't. Most Torontonians would go nuts moving to such a small city.

Added to this is that London, being a regional centre and having 800,000 within a 50 km radius means most larger business probably also has a main/regional office in the city so telecommuters can also use it as a resource or meetings without having to trek to Toronto.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Truenorth00.......you mention Stratford and with this I disagree.

Remember Torontonians are urbanites and have come to expect that any city they move to has similar levels of amenities. London is no Toronto but it offers the housing options, entertainment, nightlife, concerts, shopping, restaurants, social services, education, post-secondary, transit, healthcare, government services, and urban vitality that a smaller city like Stratford simply can't. Most Torontonians would go nuts moving to such a small city.

Added to this is that London, being a regional centre and having 800,000 within a 50 km radius means most larger business probably also has a main/regional office in the city so telecommuters can also use it as a resource or meetings without having to trek to Toronto.

I think you’re forgetting Stratford’s proximity to both London and K-W. Not much longer a drive than you’d have getting to Toronto’s downtown amenities from parts of the city.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Barrie has GO service and a very direct freeway connection. Peterborough has decent highway access. But no GO train. This is what HFR might deliver.

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

Peterborough is not that much further from the GTA than Barrie and Barrie is growing pretty well. Suspect it will starting seeing strong growth soon.

For whatever reason, Toronto's growth is also a lot stronger northward and westward than eastward. York and Peel have way more people than Durham, for example.