Planning for shrinking cities

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

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.

How do you think spillover really works?

Your post reeks of wishful thinking. "Why can't everyone else hate Toronto as much as me and cut their ties when they leave?"

In reality, spillover migration and commerce in particular is particularly sensitive to ease and cost of communication and transportation.

And this impacts us regionally as much as nationally. Why aren't more people living in Peterborough or Kingston, for example? I would argue that poor access to Toronto is a big part of it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by wave46

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.

I don't disagree on the environmental viewpoint. I'm just saying the reason we don't see as much spillover both in the personal and professional/commercial spheres is the cost and ease of transport.

Sure, someone isn't moving to Omaha necessarily. But nobody needs to move away from Omaha to do business successfully. Just ask Warren Buffett.

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

How do you think spillover really works?

Your post reeks of wishful thinking. "Why can't everyone else hate Toronto as much as me and cut their ties when they leave?"

In reality, spillover migration and commerce in particular is particularly sensitive to ease and cost of communication and transportation.

And this impacts us regionally as much as nationally. Why aren't more people living in Peterborough or Kingston, for example? I would argue that poor access to Toronto is a big part of it.

You're right that ease of travel matters. The West Coast of Newfoundland has far more people who commute to Alberta (but maintain their primary residence in Newfoundland and return home for a week or two every month when not working) than the Burin or Bonavista Peninsulas. The reason is simply because of all the commercial and chartered flight options to Alberta out of Deer Lake Airport, near the West Coast. If that wasn't there, these people would still have to leave but would instead buy a primary residence in Alberta, etc. You wouldn't go to rural towns on the West Coast and see giant McMansions with huge trucks and snowmobiles and ATVs and pleasurecraft parked on the doublewide driveway. All that would be in Fort Mac instead, and towns like Burgeo would look half boarded up.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by whatnext

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

I think it's actually quite plausible. The pattern is something like:

Q2: -20% (worst ever)
Q3: +15% (best ever)

Still not a good scenario.

[libtard]

People on this message board can’t bare the thought of population decrease in urban areas. Less density in urban centres is the worst thing they could possibly imagine. It means less skyscrapers, transit projects, retail, etc. Basically what this message board is all about

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by libtard

People on this message board can’t bare the thought of population decrease in urban areas. Less density in urban centres is the worst thing they could possibly imagine. It means less skyscrapers, transit projects, retail, etc. Basically what this message board is all about

It would also be rather unprecedented in all of human history. Pretty safe to bet against it.

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

How do you think spillover really works?

Your post reeks of wishful thinking. "Why can't everyone else hate Toronto as much as me and cut their ties when they leave?"

In reality, spillover migration and commerce in particular is particularly sensitive to ease and cost of communication and transportation.

And this impacts us regionally as much as nationally. Why aren't more people living in Peterborough or Kingston, for example? I would argue that poor access to Toronto is a big part of it.

I'm not sure how 'communication' is a problem these days. The internet gives you everything under the sun in that regard. And as for transportation how often would need to be able to fly back to Toronto?

Anyway my original point was people moving inter-provincially due to real-estate costs.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by libtard

People on this message board can’t bare the thought of population decrease in urban areas. Less density in urban centres is the worst thing they could possibly imagine. It means less skyscrapers, transit projects, retail, etc. Basically what this message board is all about

Exactly. Most here think that all growth is good growth ignoring the many negative consequences of rapid growth like grinding traffic, pollution, skyrocketing rentals and real estate, and an inability to get into post-sec.

Before these recent large increases in immigration rates many of our smaller CMAs had been suffering from stagnation and even declines for decades and as our immigration rates fall, they will MORE than return to these declines as their population ages with fewer of reproductive years. The more recent effect of "spillover" from the larger centres will also decline as urban housing prices begin to fall due to lower population growth which is one of the key reasons why people leave in the first place.

It's called "rightsizing" because it is an acknowledgement that some cities will never return to their endless growth scenarios and hence plans for that.

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Exactly. Most here think that all growth is good growth ignoring the many negative consequences of rapid growth like grinding traffic, pollution, skyrocketing rentals and real estate, and an inability to get into post-sec.

Before these recent large increases in immigration rates many of our smaller CMAs had been suffering from stagnation and even declines for decades and as our immigration rates fall, they will MORE than return to these declines as their population ages with fewer of reproductive years. The more recent effect of "spillover" from the larger centres will also decline as urban housing prices begin to fall due to lower population growth which is one of the key reasons why people leave in the first place.

It's called "rightsizing" because it is an acknowledgement that some cities will never return to their endless growth scenarios and hence plans for that.

The problem is our governance structure is not set up to handle growth. The overwhelming amount of growth is in the cities yet we have a 3 layer government system involved with funding and decision making.

Sometimes I wonder if we need to get rid of a layer of government...

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

The problem is our governance structure is not set up to handle growth. The overwhelming amount of growth is in the cities yet we have a 3 layer government system involved with funding and decision making.

That is very true.

Due to nearly all of our population growth happening due to immigration, it is nearly impossible for sociologists, demographers, and urban planners to make realistic demographic projections. This is due to immigration being a political decision and as well all know that can swing wildly depending upon parties in power and the public mood. Our current situation is a primary example.

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

That is very true.

Due to nearly all of our population growth happening due to immigration, it is nearly impossible for sociologists, demographers, and urban planners to make realistic demographic projections. This is due to immigration being a political decision and as well all know that can swing wildly depending upon parties in power and the public mood. Our current situation is a primary example.

Well I meant more specifically a subway or LRT typically depends on funding and decisions from the municipal, provincial and federal levels even though the growth is very immediate and concentrated in the cities.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

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.

Yet rural areas and small blue collar towns have been hardest hit by globalization, with jobs in Ohio or Michigan migrating to Mexico or China. Meanwhile, many industries in Toronto are protected domestic oligopolies like banks. Rogers and RBC are not the result of unbridled global capitalism.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by libtard

People on this message board can’t bare the thought of population decrease in urban areas. Less density in urban centres is the worst thing they could possibly imagine. It means less skyscrapers, transit projects, retail, etc. Basically what this message board is all about

Hardly. I actually prefer cities in the 500k - 1 million range. I find them decent for quality of life. But I'm realistic about what the trends are and how the economics of urbanization works.

What I find interesting is the whiners in this thread who somehow think trends that have been true for this entire country's history are suddenly going to a reverse on one recession. No evidence given. Just opinion and hopeful xenophobia betting against history.

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

I'm not sure how 'communication' is a problem these days. The internet gives you everything under the sun in that regard.

I was referring to the cost for companies. And that's not a minor thing in a country with some of the highest costs in the developed world.

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

And as for transportation how often would need to be able to fly back to Toronto?

You ever talk to anybody in business? Sit in a business lounge at an airport and listen to the convos. You'll start to see why travel costs are important. And the higher they are, the closer you need to be to a hub. Which, on the personal level, restricts quality employment in smaller cities. If you aren't flying from a hub, you're already incurring a time penalty. If the cost penalty gets substantial, the lower real estate cost may not be enough for a business to make it up.

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

Anyway my original point was people moving inter-provincially due to real-estate costs.

I would bet money that the number of people who have real estate costs as their primary driver for an inter-provincial moves is probably in the single digits (percentage wise). There are still tons of options for cheaper real estate in our populated provinces.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

That is very true.

Due to nearly all of our population growth happening due to immigration, it is nearly impossible for sociologists, demographers, and urban planners to make realistic demographic projections. This is due to immigration being a political decision and as well all know that can swing wildly depending upon parties in power and the public mood. Our current situation is a primary example.

An ignorant and unsubstantiated opinion. You know the feds do publish their immigration targets right? Can you find any sociologist, demographer or urban planner who is complaining about a lack of data? Let's see you back this BS up.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by someone123

Yet rural areas and small blue collar towns have been hardest hit by globalization, with jobs in Ohio or Michigan migrating to Mexico or China. Meanwhile, many industries in Toronto are protected domestic oligopolies like banks. Rogers and RBC are not the result of unbridled global capitalism.

So you agree that policies favour larger cities?

I'm happy that you finally see reality as I see it.

A service economy doesn't need lots of industrial towns. It is what it is. I'm not happy about the decline of manufacturing. But it is what it is. Governments of every stripe have decided that we will make our future on resource extraction and real estate. These aren't sectors that make for lots of jobs in mid-tier cities.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Hardly. I actually prefer cities in the 500k - 1 million range. I find them decent for quality of life. But I'm realistic about what the trends are and how the economics of urbanization works.

What I find interesting is the whiners in this thread who somehow think trends that have been true for this entire country's history are suddenly going to a reverse on one recession. No evidence given. Just opinion and hopeful xenophobia betting against history.

“Hopeful xenophobia” that’s pretty cringe. Get out of here with your sh*tty analogies

Also you can’t deny rate of population increase in this country has been steadily declining and that trend will continue

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

It would also be rather unprecedented in all of human history. Pretty safe to bet against it.

Are you sure about that? Doesn't every civilisation rise and fall? Where are the Hittites, the Assyrians, the Babylonians? Hell, how about the Atlantians? The city of Rome, a more recent example, went from a population of 1,000,000 at its peak to just a few thousand by the Middle Ages.

It's the rule, not the exception.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by libtard

“Hopeful xenophobia” that’s pretty cringe. Get out of here with your sh*tty analogies

Also you can’t deny rate of population increase in this country has been steadily declining and that trend will continue

not really.

statistics canada

if I was to plot a regression line, the slope would likely be significantly positive, even with so few data points.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

An ignorant and unsubstantiated opinion. You know the feds do publish their immigration targets right? Can you find any sociologist, demographer or urban planner who is complaining about a lack of data? Let's see you back this BS up.

Of course I know they publish their immigration targets but you should also know that governments renege on policies whenever the mood strikes them. We can bring in 200k this year, 800k next, and zero after that. As I stated, so much of our population growth is strictly due to immigration which is a POLITICAL decision. Anyone who thinks they can forecast what politicians will do in the future also thinks relying on the Tooth Fairy is sound financial planning.

Certainly not all but many of our cities {especially smaller ones and one's with older populations, few immigrants, and economically challenged ones} must start planning for a smaller, or at best stagnating, future. This does not mean defeatism but rather simply embracing a new reality which can very much IMPROVE the quality of life over what they have now. Smaller can be better just as bigger can be worse but are we {or our politicians and urban planners} up to the challenge? Clearly by most of the responses I have heard we are most decidedly not and it will be future generations who pay for our lack of vision.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by libtard

People on this message board can’t bare the thought of population decrease in urban areas. Less density in urban centres is the worst thing they could possibly imagine. It means less skyscrapers, transit projects, retail, etc. Basically what this message board is all about

Less density can also mean fewer people per residential unit, which can be seen as an improvement in living conditions, with little apparent change in the physical city itself. You could have an actual increase in sprawl or area while having a decrease in population.