Planning for shrinking cities

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

It's because we have one level of government mostly in charge of immigration and another level mostly in charge of planning cities....so there is a disconnect.

A very good point and a very key problem for planner in both large and smaller cities.

Historically, planning was based upon forecasts provided by sociologists and economist. They could make reasonable estimations of growth based upon such things as the birth rates, mortality, life expectancy, family size, economic prospects and to a far less level, immigration, Today, our population growth is nearly exclusively due to immigration which can't be forecast with any degree of certainty because it is a political decision.

Immigration rates could be 500k one year, zero the next, and then 800k the year after that all depending upon the whims of the government in power.

[SaskScraper]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper
That was the weighing the options that my husband & I did when deciding on putting down roots. My husband had enough of London, the expense for diminishing reward and being on treadmill with smaller light at end of tunnel always seeming to take forever to arrive.

Also just the value for personal space and room to breathe, there's a saying in London that water you drink has already been through several people/filtration cycle since first falling as rain, reaching river/pond, or aquifer before coming out of your tap. There's also a statistic that anywhere you maybe in London you are single digit meters away from a rat. If we were to move back, probably will be into real estate career in Brighton.

Picking place to live in Canada came down to making value for money stretch. Start out in Vancouver, Calgary or Toronto and get on that treadmill to have limited funds or the time to do the things we like to do in free time. Or go to mid sized city that has 95% of all the amenities as of a big city.

Saskatoon is diverse enough, with educational institutions, economical, social & cultural to offer what cities two or three times the size have. Large enough house (for us with no kids, just a dog) & each having cars for short commute & able to easily get to anywhere in city with decent street/bridge network. Plus ablility to enjoy entertainment options in the city or parks in surrounding areas makes for more time to relax & enjoy, there's another statistic that Saskatoon is number one for sports spectator & participation in Canada. This rather than tick off hours early each morning in transit just to get to job, never mind back home at end of day.
Also being centrally located in North America with decent air connections makes it easy to get to places we like to go, ...even if just weekend in Vegas or Phx or something.

That said we're still young, but once we build more equity, not to say we won't move or split half time to live in US like snowbirds do each Winter, neither me or husband are enthusiastic snow shovelers, which makes Saskatoon even more sense with low snow fall average by Canadian standards.

Smaller or mid sized cities especially for those looking to establish education/career & finances can be a faster track to freedom 55, Here's hoping anyway

Originally Posted by le calmar

Out of curiosity, what made you chose Saskatoon over Regina? Is it more dynamic?

Choice had mostly to do with having more closer family & friends in Saskatoon as opposed to Regina, where I do though have cousins and aunts/uncles etc, I was able to transfer with work to either Saskatoon or Regina if I wanted but
additionally University of Saskatchewan is a much larger University with more programs. Nothing against U of Regina though, its coop program is strong & U of R is well regarded nationally, larger than University of Winnipeg for example.

Saskatoon is a little more avant-garde & cosmopolitan than Regina I would say. Husband & I like to checkout theatre, concerts, new Remai modern gallery installations, the city's culinary offerings, & festivals throughout the year. Saskatoon seems to have somewhat more & bigger festivals, whether it's Nuit Blanche, Fringe fest, Winterruption, Sask's Comic con Entertainment Expo, & Western Canada's largest music festival SaskTel Jazz Fest. Regina also has a list of festivals such as Regina Folk fest and hosted Saskatchewan Fashion Week for almost a solid decade, plus Regina hosts Agribition each year, the largest trade show in the Province and largest of its kind in Canada.

Saskatoon tends to have more options for participation sports groups geared for my likes. Outside of University sports or major junior league hockey or baseball, professional sports has Regina's Mosaic Stadium with Riders and Saskatoon has SaskTel Arena with Rush and Rattlers if being a spectator is more your thing. Regina as Capital is more government, corporate and business based with province's crown corporations headquartered there. Saskatoon is more educational, mining companies, and research based & entrepreneurial and has a more youthful vigor and creative vibe which maybe explains more bars & clubs & why Saskatoon's downtown gets busier at night, where as Regina's downtown is busiest in the day time.

Everything else is mostly cosmetic, Saskatoon has a beautiful setting with sandy beaches and river running through it, Regina has one of the largest urban parks in North America and Wascana lake. Both cities have decent sized airports and road system with belt expressways in each city which make getting around each city in loop or through centre relatively easy. Saskatoon has a lot of bridges making navigating city easy but rush hour traffic snarls can slow down speed more than most any other city it's size I can think of. Regina probably has the superior road system, only flooding of underpasses below railway crossing during large rain deluges impact Regina's traffic the worst. Climate in each city is virtually the same, Saskatoon has a slightly warmer overall year average temperature but Regina has slightly warmer daytime temperatures for the most of the year. Regina is slightly windier and slightly more snow in Winter but also slightly more hours of sun per year.

Most everything else different between the two cities I can think of is splitting hairs.

[ssiguy]

If the federal parties decided to put the good of the nation above their political aspirations {which they most decidedly won't}, they would form an all-party committee to look at immigration at a non-partisan level and come to some kind of consensus about the numbers Canada should be letting in each year for the next 30.

The numbers don't have to be totally inflexible but all parties should be able to form some kind of mutual understanding of what the levels should be and stick to them. For example they all don't have to agree it should be 1% per year indefinitely but perhaps 0.8% to 1.2% of total population per year. This would allow for the numbers to reflect the current economic, social, {and yes} political situations of the day but still provide some form of continuity that can be planned around. I'm obviously not talking about extreme situations like we are currently in with COVID as it really is a once in a century event.

This would be highly beneficial to big and small cities so they can plan with some form of certainty. It would also make financial sense for the government itself so it can make realistic long-term financial planning. Even business would hail such an idea as they too could finally have some reasonable growth expectations based upon sound practices and not political whim.

[Spocket]

^^^Well, tying immigration rates to the economy makes sense. However, that probably also means a reduction in refugees which strikes me as, well, not very humanitarian.

But that aside, a point system that gives extra points for those willing to settle in more remote or less desirable areas would be helpful. I've never been a fan of the idea that Canada will have one megacity in the future which attracts the overwhelming majority of international immigrants.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

If the federal parties decided to put the good of the nation above their political aspirations {which they most decidedly won't}, they would form an all-party committee to look at immigration at a non-partisan level and come to some kind of consensus about the numbers Canada should be letting in each year for the next 30.

The numbers don't have to be totally inflexible but all parties should be able to form some kind of mutual understanding of what the levels should be and stick to them. For example they all don't have to agree it should be !% per year indefinitely but perhaps 0.8% to 1.2% of total population per year. This would allow for the numbers to reflect the current economic, social, {and yes} political situations of the day but still provide some form of continuity that can be planned around. I'm obviously not talking about extreme situations like we are currently in with COVID as it really is a once in a century event.

This would be highly beneficial to big and small cities so they can plan with some form of certainty. It would also make financial sense for the government itself so it can make realistic long-term financial planning. Even business would hail such an idea as they too could finally have some reasonable growth expectations based upon sound practices and not political whim.

It seems to me there is political consensus, which is why we have moderate immigration year after year no matter the party. It makes us richer, so it shall continue. You're confusing your own desires with the reality of the situation.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

It seems to me there is political consensus, which is why we have moderate immigration year after year no matter the party. It makes us richer, so it shall continue. You're confusing your own desires with the reality of the situation.

How do we deal with the right wing nut jobs who always complain that immigrants steal their jobs?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

How do we deal with the right wing nut jobs who always complain that immigrants steal their jobs?

Ignore them, as they are ignored today. While the conservatives sometimes court these voters, when in power they will choose the easy option that makes the country richer over the long term.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Immigration rates could be 500k one year, zero the next, and then 800k the year after that all depending upon the whims of the government in power.

This is pure hyperbole. There is fluctuation on non-immigrant visas (students, TFWs, etc.). But there is still plenty of consistency on immigration across the board. And the last Conservative government we had, both created the TFW program and didn't draw down permanent resident intake at all.

[ssiguy]

There is no consensus {political or societal} on immigration or TFW or student Visas for that matter. It is still at the whim of the party in power and they are only interested in political advantage. This is why we have to be concerned about a right-wing government shrinking immigration to very low levels claiming they take everybody's job or conversely left-wingers who claim that unless you support high immigration you somehow are nothing but a racist.

A general LONG-term plan agreed to by all parties gives cities, big and small, more confidence in how they should be planning for future growth and government services. This is essential in our current demographic situation where immigration now accounts for 80% of our population growth. Whether one thinks the numbers should be higher or lower than what they are now is not the point. There has to be some form of guarantee about what the numbers will be so proper planning can be done based upon statistical science and not on wild speculation of political wins which is what we have now.

As for the idea directing immigrants to more remote locations, it's a good idea but would not stand a Constitutional challenge as it inhibits mobility rights enshrined in the Charter.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

There is no consensus {political or societal} on immigration or TFW or student Visas for that matter.

If there is no consensus why do both our federal governing parties essentially take in hundreds of thousands of permanent residents every year? Show some evidence of this lack of consensus. A lack of policy/legislation does not imply a lack of consensus.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

It is still at the whim of the party in power and they are only interested in political advantage.

This is true for just about everything. You could argue there's no consensus on federal involvement in infrastructure or for providing student loans or funding education and healthcare. But so many of the policies and programs in these areas don't operate on legislation but established consensus that governments follow regardless of the colour of their jerseys.

Legislation wouldn't make much difference either. A government that is so willing to upend consensus would probably also be in the majority and able to legislate their way out of obstruction to such changes.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

This is why we have to be concerned about a right-wing government shrinking immigration to very low levels claiming they take everybody's job or conversely left-wingers who claim that unless you support high immigration you somehow are nothing but a racist.

You're talking about politics. In reality, government operates pretty damn consistently. There may be disagreement on the numbers. But there is no broad support in Canada for the extreme positions you bring up as strawmen here. There's no party advocating for open borders. And the one party that advocated for heavy cuts to immigration during the last election didn't win a single seat in Parliament. So, no, we don't need to be worried about such extreme positions.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

A general LONG-term plan agreed to by all parties....

Would not really ever be trusted or protected by the governing party, especially if such an agreement was negotiated while they were out of power. And would be unenforceable outside of voters penalizing them at the ballot box for violating the agreement. Canadians just don't care as much of this as you do.

[whatnext]

From Bloomberg today:

The Suburban American Dream Is Going to Make a Comeback
The pandemic has negated many of the advantages of expensive cities and revealed new disadvantages.
By Barry Ritholtz
June 9, 2020

What happens when all of the advantages of living in big cities go away and new disadvantages of expensive urban density are revealed? This week's guest on Masters in Business, activist real estate hedge-fund manager Jonathan Litt, founder and chief investment officer of Land & Buildings Investment Management LLC, says he thinks it means a rebirth of the American dream of suburban home ownership.

Litt has spent the past 25 years as a strategist and an investor in both public real-estate securities and direct property ownership. Litt says the work-from-home experiment during the coronavirus pandemic has turned out better than expected: Productivity is higher and new technologies create a much better experience than in the shorter post-Sept. 11 version.

The high costs in big cities such as New York and San Francisco likely mean new challenges for commercial real estate and investing in real-estate investment trusts that own office buildings. His biggest bets are in the suburban single-family home market. He said he is expecting the annual population loss of about 1% from big urban centers to increase as post-pandemic millennials and city-dwellers rediscover the appeal of suburbia...

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...&sref=x4rjnz06

[Truenorth00]

We're learning that suburbs aren't as safe as people think because there's inevitable concentration at service points (grocery store, gas station, etc.):

https://www.citylab.com/life/2020/03...-risks/607783/

Turns out that the safest places to be are smaller metros, not the suburbs of large metros.



Source: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2020/...l-data/609394/

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

We're learning that suburbs aren't as safe as people think because there's inevitable concentration at service points (grocery store, gas station, etc.):

CNBC had a real estate expert on about six weeks ago and he was saying that there is a huge uptick in people from NYC buying large properties in CT and southern NJ. We're talking huge houses with LOTS of land. He said people realize now that they don't need to go into the office in order to do their jobs. They can live where they want and if they need to go into the city for whatever reason it's relatively close by.

The NY Times had a big piece this past weekend IIRC on people torn between leaving or staying in NYC. According to their analysis of cellphone records about 420K people have left NYC from March to May. That's a lot of people! Younger people were most likely to have left because of cost. The people they interviewed for the most part said they love the city but are sick of never getting ahead and having such small places to live in. Older and more established people can't believe anyone would leave because it's so great. If you tons of money or bought a place decades ago when things were affordable, I'm sure NYC is probably impossible to beat other than for weather.

[Truenorth00]

Give it a year or two before we see if it's an actual trend.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Give it a year or two before we see if it's an actual trend.

Yeah. I don't believe there'll be much in it. Perhaps a softening in demand, but it'll just be soaked up by people who'd like to live in cities but couldn't' afford it before.

[urbandreamer]

It's already a trend. Small towns and smaller cities are booming.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Yeah. I don't believe there'll be much in it. Perhaps a softening in demand, but it'll just be soaked up by people who'd like to live in cities but couldn't' afford it before.

I think events like these are decision points. Those that were thinking about it before are pushed to do it. Etc. Companies are compelled to enable WFH. But eventually, we'll also see some migration the other way. As those who couldn't afford it jump in to urban living.

Also, applying the New York context to Toronto is laughable. Most of the 416 is still suburban. There's condos downtown and along every subway line. But most of the GTA's population stays in houses. It's all very different from Manhattan or even say Brooklyn.

And yeah I want to see how many people stick it out permanently. It's quite the lifestyle change from living in NYC where you can get practically anything delivered any time of day to living in some suburb where your choices are all chains that you need to drive to.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

It's already a trend. Small towns and smaller cities are booming.

More than migration to suburbs, this would be awesome to see.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Yeah. I don't believe there'll be much in it. Perhaps a softening in demand, but it'll just be soaked up by people who'd like to live in cities but couldn't' afford it before.

Why would they be able to afford it now? The people who own those properties are extremely wealthy and can hold for the price they want. No one is going to be getting a deal unless a lot more people leave.

[milomilo]

My comment was directed at the implication that people are moving away from cities. Perhaps they will, but different people will move in to replace them. I don't think there is going to be widespread abandonment of previously attractive high density areas.