Highways in Canada

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by biguc

My point about St. John's isn't about living in the country or in suburbia, it's that people who want a suburban lifestyle could all live in villages and towns on lakes and coves. There could be a hundred places like this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.4643404,...V7wbL-y5G85yjCFRLrQnw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

and no places like this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5620926,...a188.91557-ro1.06069-fo100!7i7680!8i3840

It wouldn't drastically change distribution of services or convenience or anything, just people would live in really nice places instead of really dumpy places.

It's not really that simple as you have servicing issues, density levels (it would be much lower density), etc.

[biguc]

Taken on the whole, yeah, but where the people actually live would be about as dense, maybe even denser.

These areas could have the same population (I don't know and it's not material to my point) but the latter is better organized because they're in villages instead of weird acreage sprawl; services are easier to provide and people enjoy more local lives.

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.0361036,-97.0492006,7957m/data=!3m1!1e3

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.0571648,12.5782957,7617m/data=!3m1!1e3

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by biguc

My point about St. John's isn't about living in the country or in suburbia, it's that people who want a suburban lifestyle could all live in villages and towns on lakes and coves.

It wouldn't drastically change distribution of services or convenience or anything, just people would live in really nice places instead of really dumpy places.

Beautiful remote little towns and villages are always playing a losing battle against convenience. The suburbs of a reasonably large city (in this case St. John's) aren't so expensive as to drive people away. Then one is but a few minutes from high schools, a trip into the office (which will happen) and amenities of modern life.

'It's cheap and bucolic' only counts for so much if one has to commute an hour to do anything. As much as car-dependent suburbia is bad, portraying exurbia as better (despite their eco-image in the media) is patently false.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by biguc

My point about St. John's isn't about living in the country or in suburbia, it's that people who want a suburban lifestyle could all live in villages and towns on lakes and coves. There could be a hundred places like this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.4643404,...V7wbL-y5G85yjCFRLrQnw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

and no places like this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5620926,...a188.91557-ro1.06069-fo100!7i7680!8i3840

It wouldn't drastically change distribution of services or convenience or anything, just people would live in really nice places instead of really dumpy places.

People live there as that is what they want. For the past 100 years, we have been told that suburbia is the place to go. This pandemic has made people realize their postage stamp sized area or their condo isn't all it is cracked up to be. Some of the places that have seen skyrocketing home sale prices are the smaller cities and towns. I was able to sell my old home almost double what I paid for it 5 years ago this fall. That is insane!! Yes, Toronto and Vancouver are seeing high prices, but everywhere else is seeing even higher rates based on the last few years. Many are getting out of their apartments or moving to a nicer place. I fully expect the exodus trend to continue for some time well after the country is opened back up and back to where it was with jobs and the economy. This may mean that populations might stabilize in the bigger cities enough for infrastructure, like highways and transit to catch up with demand.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

There are lots of jobs available locally,

There's a big difference between jobs available and jobs that people are qualified for and want to do.

For example, I'm trained as an engineer. I have zero interest in working as a truck driver or an accountant.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

...and if you are someone who can work remotely, why would you ever live in the city ever again?

Because most people can't work remotely. Or at least not to the point where they can work 100% remotely.

Apple most famously has told its employees they should expect to be back in the office full time in September. And work from home will be restricted to two days a week, for a total of two weeks a year with management approval.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2021/06/07/back-to-the-office-nothanks/?sh=641251e75fb2

I expect most companies will fall somewhere on the spectrum. Not as harsh as Apple. And not as laissez-faire as 100% WFH remote.

My own workplace is contemplating a return to 2-3 days in the office per week. And I would bet that most companies are leaning in that direction. Heck, I want to be in the office a few days week.

Also, I always tell people that if your job can be done 100% remotely, the day is coming when you won't have a job and your replacement will be in Manila or Hyderabad. Also, if I can truly work 100% remotely, why the heck would I hole up in an exurb of Sudbury and not be on a beach in Mexico? 100% remote opens up a whole lot more options beyond Canada.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The same reason someone is buying a +$1 million condo in Toronto or Vancouver. I own about half an acre on a lake with cell service, cable internet, paved road and garbage pick up all for under half of that.

You seem to be struggling with the idea that people might not want that lifestyle.

I've spent a ton of time in my military career in smaller towns and ruralish areas. And I think most of them suck. Lots of obese people pulling up to the Tim's drive thru in their F150 for that double-double. Gross. You couldn't pay me enough to live that lifestyle.

Our pretty little towns like Perth or Stratford are the exception. Not the norm. Let's be honest. They use those pictures on the brochure. Your reality is mostly suburban lifestyle on steroids.

But for people who love isolation, love to grow things, have pets, etc, that's their jam and I don't begrudge them enjoying it.

[thewave46]

From observed experience, the decision making comes to this:

1. Where do I/my spouse work?
2. Where are my family/children located?
3. Pretty much everything else.

The exurbs and small towns are generally far from employment. Which means that even if I have a job, my spouse may find it quite hard. My kids will eventually live elsewhere too, because they're not all going to do the same thing I did.

This is how small towns and places die, basically. All the beauty and low cost won't save the forestry towns of northern British Columbia, because nobody goes to live in an isolated place with minimal employment prospects. Somewhere like Elliot Lake, ON is a dead town because the young move out. There's nothing for them employment-wise aside from the healthcare facilities that tend to the elderly living there. Rather unsurprisingly, the town is in decline.

Once the young go, that's it. They go off an have their own kids, who will regard the small town as 'that weird place grandma and grandpa live'. They'll never be back.

[Truenorth00]

Small towns in Europe are often struggling. And they have beautiful old buildings, a walkable town centre with a nice square usually, and rail connections. If they can't compete, there's no hope for a lot of small Canadian towns which are all of that rural attitude you'd find in Europe with none of the charm or convenience.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by thewave46

There's nothing for them employment-wise aside from the healthcare facilities that tend to the elderly living there. Rather unsurprisingly, the town is in decline.

Paint the kids as whiners for daring to dream beyond wiping grandpa's ass for a living. And then tell them they are fools for wanting better cities. Guilting them is a surefire strategy right? I see this all the time with the talking point about how there are jobs in small towns.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Also, I always tell people that if your job can be done 100% remotely, the day is coming when you won't have a job and your replacement will be in Manila or Hyderabad.

That's a good point. I'd also add that if the CEO and C-suite want to go back to the office (which is the case in most companies), then you either:

a) have little choice in the matter, or,
b) ought to go back to the office unless you want to be professionally ignored and have your career sidelined

Before the pandemic, I observed that a lot of the teams that were in a favoured position, being close to the CEO and his/her strategic objectives were working in office, while some of the more back office and peripheral teams were already being migrated to WFH.

By the end of this decade, I think telling people you "work from home" will be a negative social marker of status.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I see this all the time with the talking point about how there are jobs in small towns.

I'm not as pejorative of small towns as this, but I definitely understand the limitations of what they offer having lived in a couple.

Many of them hang by one or two major employers, often in resource-based industries. If one's skills are incompatible with the economy of the place, it's a hard slog. It is extremely unlikely that over the long-term one's entire family will remain there when there's so much on offer elsewhere in this country.

Then comes the intangible. What scratches the itch of happiness/satisfaction? Maybe the outdoors does. This is fine. If not, again, it'll be a hard slog past the first year or so because that's all there is.

"But it's cheap!" only works as a hook if one isn't miserable.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

By the end of this decade, I think telling people you "work from home" will be a negative social marker of status.

It pretty much already is. There's no way to have a real social relationship over Zoom. So the only folks getting face time with decisionmakers are those who are actually going to the office. Permanent WFH will be reserved for those who are less important and those who can be outsourced.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

By the end of this decade, I think telling people you "work from home" will be a negative social marker of status.

It depends. Many people who work as independent professionals have done the "work from home" thing for a long time... a fair chunk of Winnipeg's legal community has been working remotely during the summer for quite some time and working from your laptop in your Lake of the Woods cottage certainly doesn't connote anything negative.

Most people who work for corporations, institutions, governments are not in upper management and won't make it to the top ranks... that's a simple fact. So is it really a "negative social marker of status" if you are a professional working for a company earning $100K plus but spending most of your working days from home? Are your neighbours going to look the other way when you pass by on the sidewalk?

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by esquire

It depends. Many people who work as independent professionals have done the "work from home" thing for a long time... a fair chunk of Winnipeg's legal community has been working remotely during the summer for quite some time and working from your laptop in your Lake of the Woods cottage certainly doesn't connote anything negative.

Most people who work for corporations, institutions, governments are not in upper management and won't make it to the top ranks... that's a simple fact. So is it really a "negative social marker of status" if you are a professional working for a company earning $100K plus but spending most of your working days from home? Are your neighbours going to look the other way when you pass by on the sidewalk?

It'll be the accessibility that makes things difficult.

Sure, for a lot of mundane stuff WFH is fine. However, if you're inaccessible to come into the office for a team meeting or to fix a problem, it'll start to drag on one's career.

Right now, exceptional circumstances encourage leeway. As those circumstances abate, the leeway's going to be less. Upper management will get more annoyed that one's hours away and often not available to fix things in person. I accomplish more with a 5 minute in-person meeting than a dozen e-mails.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by esquire

It depends. Many people who work as independent professionals have done the "work from home" thing for a long time... a fair chunk of Winnipeg's legal community has been working remotely during the summer for quite some time and working from your laptop in your Lake of the Woods cottage certainly doesn't connote anything negative.

Most people who work for corporations, institutions, governments are not in upper management and won't make it to the top ranks... that's a simple fact. So is it really a "negative social marker of status" if you are a professional working for a company earning $100K plus but spending most of your working days from home? Are your neighbours going to look the other way when you pass by on the sidewalk?

No, obviously it won't be a huge blemish, as social markers go, and obviously people who run their own companies and work from home will not fall into this category. But I think people will drop the fact that they work for themselves in conversation, and people who work from home for a known company with a bricks and mortar office will find creative ways to dodge the question if they're asked questions about office life.

Even if the vast majority of workers won't make it to upper management, there is still the whole "temporarily embarassed millionaires" aspect to professional life, where there is some expectation that everyone gets promoted up the ranks over time. Also, there will be members of teams that work in the office as a badge of honour regardless of their rank or seniority. Like if you're a new grad, and your parents humblebrag to their friends that their son or daughter has this really innovative office space to work in.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by esquire

It depends. Many people who work as independent professionals have done the "work from home" thing for a long time... a fair chunk of Winnipeg's legal community has been working remotely during the summer for quite some time and working from your laptop in your Lake of the Woods cottage certainly doesn't connote anything negative.

Most people who work for corporations, institutions, governments are not in upper management and won't make it to the top ranks... that's a simple fact. So is it really a "negative social marker of status" if you are a professional working for a company earning $100K plus but spending most of your working days from home? Are your neighbours going to look the other way when you pass by on the sidewalk?

I'd agree with this - it also really varies by industry and position. Even within my friend circle there are some people who fully expect to return to the office because that's part of the culture at their workplace, whereas others have been told that barring a few events work will essentially be permanently WFH. The latter cases were generally at least partly remote prior to COVID and had processes for things like onboarding already set up.

In my specific case there isn't a huge amount of benefit to being in the office so I probably won't. I already have a good working relationship with senior management and if anything it's made the approvals process quicker. If I cared a bit more about advancing into senior management (I don't) I'd have to be prepared to spend more time in the office, but that would be largely a result of advancement as opposed to getting facetime in prior to.

This all being said there's a big difference to WFH where you can pop into the office once in a while for certain things vs living on the other side of the world and in a different timezone.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

That is relatively rare in rural locations, provided you aren't in a remote location (different than rural).

This is still very much an issue in parts of British Columbia. Rough terrain and mountains can also have an impact.

For what it's worth, the area I was staying in had no clear FM radio reception either, except from a 50,000 watt station from Bellingham - despite there being a local FM station nearby. It could just be an area that radio transmitters have trouble reaching.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Also, I always tell people that if your job can be done 100% remotely, the day is coming when you won't have a job and your replacement will be in Manila or Hyderabad. Also, if I can truly work 100% remotely, why the heck would I hole up in an exurb of Sudbury and not be on a beach in Mexico? 100% remote opens up a whole lot more options beyond Canada.

I am going to be 100% WFH going forward beyond the pandemic. With the cost of living in this country, I have not ruled out eventually going to work from another country that is more affordable, where I might be actually able to buy property. I make a reasonably good salary but it is very hard to get ahead financially as food costs increase and housing is becoming out of reach. There are other countries that have very inexpensive housing by Canadian standards, and within a reasonable time zone.

Within Canada, I have absolutely no interest in living in a metro area smaller than 500,000 people, at least as long as I'm single, and Metro Vancouver is the best fit for my lifestyle. There are multiple cities in Ontario that meet this criteria but the lifestyle fit just isn't there for me. Calgary could work for me too, but I don't have any existing social network there.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by thewave46

It'll be the accessibility that makes things difficult.

Sure, for a lot of mundane stuff WFH is fine. However, if you're inaccessible to come into the office for a team meeting or to fix a problem, it'll start to drag on one's career.

Right now, exceptional circumstances encourage leeway. As those circumstances abate, the leeway's going to be less. Upper management will get more annoyed that one's hours away and often not available to fix things in person. I accomplish more with a 5 minute in-person meeting than a dozen e-mails.

I have generally found throughout the pandemic that it does take longer to solve problems and get things done. It is very hard to get in touch with colleagues in a timely manner online, whereas before you could just go over to their desk and see if they have a moment.

95% of the time it's inconsequential, but at times it does have customer impacts.

I also find there's far less cross-department interaction when you're not working from the office. I think cross-department interaction has been undervalued in the discussion over WFH.

[Innsertnamehere]

I agree that offices will return in large numbers - but I genuinely believe that many are planning on keeping a handful of days a week at home as an employee benefit. Many will want to and will be expected to be in the office at least a few days a week to get that all-important face-to-face time, but many will also spend fridays and mondays (or whatever) at home.

The reality is coming out of the pandemic workplace expectations will vary wildly from job to job. This trend was already occurring prior to the pandemic, but it's been accelerated with COVID.

Looking at my social network, I have some working 100% remote, some who have been in the office every single day the employer was legally allowed for them to be there, and many in between. Looking forward to post-covid I'm seeing a similar range of expectations from still being 100% in the office to people being expected to be in 3 days a week to people only having to be in for major meetings to 100% remote work, depending on the position and job. For me personally I expect it to be in the middle, I'll likely have more flexibility to work from home a few days a week as well as go to the office as much as I want, but I expect there to still be expectations of being in the office a minimum number of days a week.

To relate this back to the thread title, It will be interesting to see how increased WFH impacts travel patterns. I expect more hyper-commuting, but also reduced peak traffic loads on the highway network. I feel like we are already starting to see this, where off-peak traffic levels in the GTA are already more or less back to normal (take a look at what traffic was like this weekend), but rush hours are still much, much more subdued.

[davee930]

Is it just me or should a two lane road with lights that goes through a town NOT be called a highway? Just annoying to me but I have issues