Planning for shrinking cities

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by wave46

I agree with your conclusion. Small towns by their nature have more limited opportunities, so unless you're content working in the industry they have to offer, you're kind of out of luck. Sure, there's a few professional-class positions but on the whole compared to a city the variety is peanuts.

It also depends what you're into. A small town isn't going to offer nightlife and entertainment options of a bigger city. So, unless you're into the outdoorsy thing your options will be quite limited there.

I think the culture of small towns is the product of this selection and that selection process tends to drive people who don't fit in there away.

It's also interesting to note how the link to little towns is broken through generations. The parents might be town lifers, but their children often move away for better opportunities. The link is completely severed with the grandchildren - the little town is just that weird place grandma and grandpa live. Unless there's something driving them back (and it has to be strong), it's a hard sale to get people to give up the amenities of a bigger city for a small town, especially one in the hinterland. I know - I've tried it.

All of this is absolutely true which is why we MUST plan for shrinking cities especially those CA under 100k. Bigger doesn't always mean better just as smaller doesn't have to mean worse.

For those who think that we should just let our smaller centres rot and die a slow and painful death then don't come bitching to us when we continue to lose agricultural land as they build new subdivisions while the older neighbourhoods shrink, higher GHG emissions as transit becomes untenable with a smaller number of users but having to provide new service in low density sprawl, having to build new schools when others nearby are closing, losing precious land to big box stores and parking while downtown rots, the loss of heritage buildings due to non-usage, lamenting all the ugly towns that scar the landscape, and seeing the death of unique M&P stores for more Timmies.
Conversely, don't bitch when the traffic in the big cities grinds to a halt, schools are running over capacity , transit is inadequate and cannot keep up with the ever rising population, and housing is both unaffordable and unavailable.

Planning for smaller cities is not only good for the effected cities but also for the larger ones and infinitely better for the environment which urbanites claim to cherish.

[Denscity]

Just my 2 cents my small town of Castlegar is actually growing and forecasted to grow quicker than any city in southeastern BC. We are not close to a bigger city (Kelowna is a 3.5hrs drive in a different region of the province). Next door Nelson has had the same population for half a century but is still very popular.
#forwhatitsworth

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by someone123

But you're talking about the people who ask about NB.

Yes, you did not quote the part of my post which began with pointing out that most don't consider it at all for most anything.

Originally Posted by someone123

A lot are never interested at all because they are turned off by stereotypes.

In NB's case this is simply because people don't know anything about it, or all that they know is that it's a highway through some trees en route to NS/PEI.

Originally Posted by someone123

Here in BC a lot of people rule out the Maritimes completely due to an assumed weak economy, remoteness, and poor climate. They basically think NB is a wasteland not worth investigating as a destination to move to.

Which is the same as what many in ON feel as well. NB doesn't do a good enough job distinguishing itself from that poor association. SJ does a decent enough job these days but it's held back by a lot of locals or others in NB that talk down about it most chances they get.

Originally Posted by someone123

For Moncton vs. Halifax a lot of it comes down to what style of place you want to live in. If you are a medium income earner and primarily just want a big house and lots of consumer goods, Moncton is a better bet. If you want more day-to-day urban amenities or vibrancy Moncton will not satisfy.

If i'm in Toronto recommending places to move to Halifax is typically at the top of the list. It's still urban but on a much smaller, more manageable scale. You can get big-city feel without living in one as such. Moncton is...a lot of strip malls and surface parking, although its Downtown is improving. You're right in that it's a good place if you want a house with a yard and not much else.

Originally Posted by someone123

It's a similar dynamic for people thinking about living in Vancouver. Do you have millions of dollars or make $200,000 per year or more and have a tolerance for multi-unit living? Then Vancouver is great. Are you going to earn $18 an hour and dream of home ownership? Don't even think about moving here! Maybe move to Moncton where you can have a middle class lifestyle.

Which is similar, if not more severe, than Toronto. The joke goes that most people 35 and under in Toronto really struggle to get by, and that the enjoyment of the city effectively breaks even with the extreme lack of disposible income once cost of living is factored in. I've been fortunate enough to find an apartment where i'm paying less than what I was in Ottawa (COVID is really driving rental prices down, folks), have a decent job, and don't spend a ton or have a ton of debt. Others aren't as fortunate, but the return is that under normal, non-pandemic situations, you're living in a world city with endless options and opportunities.

Even when I was living in Ottawa the joke was that if you wanted to do anything fun you'd go to Montreal or Toronto, and that's by extension more severe in a place like Moncton. I know people in Moncton that got that house with a yard and driveway but are exceptionally bored with just about everything else going on. It's a set of scales one way or the other for sure.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Denscity

Just my 2 cents my small town of Castlegar is actually growing and forecasted to grow quicker than any city in southeastern BC. We are not close to a bigger city (Kelowna is a 3.5hrs drive in a different region of the province). Next door Nelson has had the same population for half a century but is still very popular.
#forwhatitsworth

I wonder how much of that has to do with Nelson having a lack of developable land or just not allowing new development. Housing prices there are fairly high.

A static or declining population doesn't necessarily mean a town is dying or abandoned. Sometimes towns lose population as they gentrify and crowding goes down, and sometimes they are NIMBY central and don't grow because they don't allow any construction even though they are very desirable places to live.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by JHikka

If i'm in Toronto recommending places to move to Halifax is typically at the top of the list. It's still urban but on a much smaller, more manageable scale. You can get big-city feel without living in one as such. Moncton is...a lot of strip malls and surface parking, although its Downtown is improving. You're right in that it's a good place if you want a house with a yard and not much else.

You could also compare Moncton to the amorphous blob of quasi-rural subdivsions north of metro Halifax. Places like Sackville or Elmsdale are also meant for people who just want a big cheap house and/or lots of land.

I wonder if Moncton could ever be popular with Francophones in Quebec.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by someone123

I wonder if Moncton could ever be popular with Francophones in Quebec.

I just did some quick digging and QC and NB had relatively similar interprovincial movement both way between each other, ranging between 1.3K to 1.5K shifting from one province to the other...the only change was in 2018 and 2019 when NB's number moving to QC increased by 30% up to 1.8K and 1.9K. I wonder how much of this might be international immigrants that decided to move on to QC after landing in NB...the only major population intake change in NB in 2018 and 2019 was international immigration.

I can say that the number of people moving from QC to the Moncton CMA increased from 283 in 16/17 to 317 in 17/18.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/dail...cansim-eng.htm

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

Cost of living.

The lure of the bright lights of the big city is a bit overblown but seems more popular among city planner types and "urbanists" so these circles are going to have their biases. In the end of the day most people don't really care for the costs of those conveniences over owning a home or being able to afford a family. What's holding back smaller areas is investment in their infrastructure, from having high speed or fibre optic internet connections and quaint walkable downtowns. With the whole COVID thing this is the best time for semi-rural regions to capitalize on this emerging trend. People move to large cities because of employment reasons rather than living some exciting urbanist lifestyle.



Its funny because I've noticed this in reverse from Ontarians who moved east for university. ~10 years later most from those overlapping social circles it's the ones from the GTA who stayed in the Maritimes and refuse to move back

Now I'm on the wrong side of 30 and just about everyone who hasn't moved back yet are frantically trying to make it work, even if it means taking a pay-cut. The age of moving to the big city to live the great millenial yuppie dream is dead. My older brother is gay and he and his partner live in Vancouver, his partner is a GP to put it into context; both of them want to get the fuck out of Vancouver ASAP because for all of its qualities its just too goddamn expensive and the two of them would rather move back to the Maritimes and live in a small town. Maybe spend their free time hiking and fishing rather than hanging out at drag shows or whatever. There has been a monolithic push from just about everybody to escape the city.

For all the talk of booming big cities places like Toronto and Vancouver (and Montreal within Quebec) don't really have that great intraprovincial and interprovincial migration figures within their home provinces and the country.

Young Canadians do move to these places to study or take good entry-level jobs but in terms of settling down a huge chunk move out to those cities' suburbs, where if they go far enough they can get something like they'd have in... Moncton. Or to other cities (generally the next tier down). Some also skip the biggest cities altogether and immediately set their sights on places like Ottawa, Calgary, Halifax or Quebec City for their studies and job search.

JHikka has reported on his social circle in Toronto made up of Canadians "from away", but that's likely a minority phenomenon. My guess is that proportionately speaking you're more likely to meet 24-35 yo younger Canadians from "regional Canada" who've settled down in the second tier of cities than in the bigger ones.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

I just did some quick digging and QC and NB had relatively similar interprovincial movement both way between each other, ranging between 1.3K to 1.5K shifting from one province to the other...the only change was in 2018 and 2019 when NB's number moving to QC increased by 30% up to 1.8K and 1.9K. I wonder how much of this might be international immigrants that decided to move on to QC after landing in NB...the only major population intake change in NB in 2018 and 2019 was international immigration.

I can say that the number of people moving from QC to the Moncton CMA increased from 283 in 16/17 to 317 in 17/18.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/dail...cansim-eng.htm

Moncton is a modestly popular place for Québécois to move. It's got a francophone university that draws students and teaching staff, a fairly large Radio-Canada operation, plus Acadian institutions like L'Assomption which operate in French. It's also got a decent range of cultural options in French, and AFAIK regular cinemas there occasionally show movies in French - something they do not do in Ottawa.

Moncton is the Ottawa of the other side of Quebec. Though Ottawa has the advantage of allowing you to live in Quebec if you work there. Lots of Québécois who "move to Ottawa" never really change provinces.

Very roughly Ottawa and Moncton are the two bookends that mark the borders of the area where decent numbers of Québécois francophones will migrate to outside the province.

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by Denscity

Just my 2 cents my small town of Castlegar is actually growing and forecasted to grow quicker than any city in southeastern BC. We are not close to a bigger city (Kelowna is a 3.5hrs drive in a different region of the province). Next door Nelson has had the same population for half a century but is still very popular.
#forwhatitsworth

I'm kinda surprised the Cranbrook/Kimberley area doesn't have more people. The valley width there looks to be the largest in Southern BC and seems like it could theoretically support decent sized city. The area looks pretty scenic and still has a decent climate (though it's more Alberta climate than BC climate).

It must be the climate I guess...like why else is everyone cramming into a tiny valley in Kamloops but not Cranbrook which has much more developable space?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

Also, even if you do subscribe to the superficial language = culture theory I don't know how Acadians are supposed to fit into all of this. That is the oldest permanent resident European-derived culture in Canada and their native tongue is French. So how could they possibly be considered indistinguishable from Southern Ontario?

No one would ever say that Acadians are indistinguishable from Southern Ontario. Or even that they are part of Anglo-Canada.

They're one of a handful of asterisks in the "French in Quebec, English outside Quebec" oversimplification.

The exceptions that confirm the rule, so to speak.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

No one would ever say that Acadians are indistinguishable from Southern Ontario. Or even that they are part of Anglo-Canada.

They're one of a handful of asterisks in the "French in Quebec, English outside Quebec" oversimplification.

The exceptions that confirm the rule, so to speak.

They may be a small exception nationally but if you're talking about NB, Acadians or more generally Francophones are not a small demographic. Saying that the Moncton area is culturally indistinguishable from say Guelph is a real stretch. 46% of Monctonians declare that they speak French.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

They may be a small exception nationally but if you're talking about NB, Acadians or more generally Francophones are not a small demographic.

Of course. Remember where I am from?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

Saying that the Moncton area is culturally indistinguishable from say Guelph is a real stretch. 46% of Monctonians declare that they speak French.

Francophones outside Quebec and Anglo-Quebecers (increasingly, especially younger ones) are Canada's bridges between the solitudes. Their role is an interesting one but it does not negate the existence of the broader realities.

Francophones in a place like Moncton generally knew the Tragically Hip and their music and many likely mourned Gord Downie. Whereas Québécois francophones were pretty much oblivious to all of that.

Anglo-Quebecers I know shared and laughed at Têtes à Claques videos when they were all the rage, just like francophone Québécois did. But the humour in that would have been lost on 99% of Anglo-Canadians outside the province.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Francophones outside Quebec and Anglo-Quebecers (increasingly, especially younger ones) are Canada's bridges between the solitudes.

I agree.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Acajack

For all the talk of booming big cities places like Toronto and Vancouver (and Montreal within Quebec) don't really have that great intraprovincial and interprovincial migration figures within their home provinces and the country.

Young Canadians do move to these places to study or take good entry-level jobs but in terms of settling down a huge chunk move out to those cities' suburbs, where if they go far enough they can get something like they'd have in... Moncton. Or to other cities (generally the next tier down). Some also skip the biggest cities altogether and immediately set their sights on places like Ottawa, Calgary, Halifax or Quebec City for their studies and job search.

JHikka has reported on his social circle in Toronto made up of Canadians "from away", but that's likely a minority phenomenon. My guess is that proportionately speaking you're more likely to meet 24-35 yo younger Canadians from "regional Canada" who've settled down in the second tier of cities than in the bigger ones.

That's very true, Canadians don't migrate nearly as much as Americans. The big migrations to the West are not even comparable to how US southern and western states have exploded over the last 60 years.

For all the talk of the rise of the West, it's percentage of total population has only moved by about 5% in the last century. It's not that Eastern Canadians have flooded into Alberta and BC as much as Sask and Manitobans have. Canadians tend to stay closer to home.

This is advantageous for smaller cities as they have the ability to potentially draw some of them back without having to move thousands of km to do so. We saw this with the great exodus of Quebecers in the 60s & 70s where huge numbers fled Montreal but exceptionally few actually made it west of Toronto even though there were lots of jobs in the West and most had cheaper housing.

[Denscity]

Originally Posted by someone123

I wonder how much of that has to do with Nelson having a lack of developable land or just not allowing new development. Housing prices there are fairly high.

A static or declining population doesn't necessarily mean a town is dying or abandoned. Sometimes towns lose population as they gentrify and crowding goes down, and sometimes they are NIMBY central and don't grow because they don't allow any construction even though they are very desirable places to live.

Nelson does have a lack of developable land. Its perched on a mountainside with steep residential streets. The barely used airport would be absolutely prime but not much else is available. Many people from outside the region wanting to move to Nelson are discovering Castlegar luckily.

[Denscity]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

I'm kinda surprised the Cranbrook/Kimberley area doesn't have more people. The valley width there looks to be the largest in Southern BC and seems like it could theoretically support decent sized city. The area looks pretty scenic and still has a decent climate (though it's more Alberta climate than BC climate).

It must be the climate I guess...like why else is everyone cramming into a tiny valley in Kamloops but not Cranbrook which has much more developable space?

Yes I think its the climate? And far away from Kelowna and Vancouver both to visit and to move from. Sometimes Cranbrook is 7 degrees colder than Castlegar in the wintertime which is quite a difference considering the distance between the two cities.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

.

For those who think that we should just let our smaller centres rot and die a slow and painful death then don't come bitching to us when we continue to lose agricultural land as they build new subdivisions while the older neighbourhoods shrink, higher GHG emissions as transit becomes untenable with a smaller number of users but having to provide new service in low density sprawl, having to build new schools when others nearby are closing, losing precious land to big box stores and parking while downtown rots, the loss of heritage buildings due to non-usage, lamenting all the ugly towns that scar the landscape, and seeing the death of unique M&P stores for more Timmies.
Conversely, don't bitch when the traffic in the big cities grinds to a halt, schools are running over capacity , transit is inadequate and cannot keep up with the ever rising population, and housing is both unaffordable and unavailable..

Nope. Big metros adding 100k is more environmental friendly and manageable than trying to sustain small towns where everyone an acre lot and two pickup trucks. And that is why investment in cities needs to keep up with their growth.

If any city or town becomes undesirable or uncompetitive, let them fail. Or were you crying when towns were abandoned before?

List of Ghost Towns in Canada by province.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Nope. Big metros adding 100k is more environmental friendly and manageable than trying to sustain small towns where everyone an acre lot and two pickup trucks. And that is why investment in cities needs to keep up with their growth.

If any city or town becomes undesirable or uncompetitive, let them fail. Or were you crying when towns were abandoned before?

List of Ghost Towns in Canada by province.

I pray you actually don't believe that.

Even if you want every city under 100 k {200 k, 500 k, a million?} to die a slow and painful death, it will be the people in the large cities that are going to have to pay the financial cost of letting it happen.

Urban planning is exactly that............a plan to provide vital civic and social infrastructure for the future needs of the community. If a shrinking city doesn't plan for shrinkage then that means they are planning for growth. This means building new sewers, roads, transit, hospitals, schools, care homes etc that they know will never be used. That money has to come from somewhere and obviously with shrinking city/rural populations it will have to come from the urbanites meaning they get a lot less money for their exploding populations.

Planning is a necessity and should be based upon facts and not wild speculation or political motivations. Prudent planning for shrinking cities is excellent urban planning {which we unfortunately don't have} and in terms of quality of life it is those communities that will benefit the most and financially it will be the big city dwellers.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I pray you actually don't believe that.

Even if you want every city under 100 k {200 k, 500 k, a million?} to die a slow and painful death, it will be the people in the large cities that are going to have to pay the financial cost of letting it happen.

Urban planning is exactly that............a plan to provide vital civic and social infrastructure for the future needs of the community. If a shrinking city doesn't plan for shrinkage then that means they are planning for growth. This means building new sewers, roads, transit, hospitals, schools, care homes etc that they know will never be used. That money has to come from somewhere and obviously with shrinking city/rural populations it will have to come from the urbanites meaning they get a lot less money for their exploding populations.

Planning is a necessity and should be based upon facts and not wild speculation or political motivations. Prudent planning for shrinking cities is excellent urban planning {which we unfortunately don't have} and in terms of quality of life it is those communities that will benefit the most and financially it will be the big city dwellers.

Who said he wanted every city under 100K to die?

It is best where people go where the economic potential is. In the past that may have been rural centres but today that is not so. Cities of 50k-100k should be fine, if there is a reason for them. But there is no reason (and it would be hard to do anyway) to somehow encourage people to move to smaller centres. Why would anyone go there?