Planning for shrinking cities

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

They stay because the feds help cover their costs and clustering. If Toronto, etc. is so great then why is there is so little migration from within Canada to those cities? The idea that Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto are so much greater than other cities because they are bigger is old school European thinking. In reality they're not. Vancouver is a nice place to visit but to live there is a totally different story. Vastly overrated as is Toronto.

I've personally known many Canadians who've moved to Toronto.

I'd imagine that being the respective employment centres for each province in the high end of their fields (you're not top 1% employment jobs in Hearst, ON) provides a substantial economic benefit to those cities.

In fact, the world seems to be ever moving to a handful of prime cities for that very reason. London and Paris crush other cities in England and France with respect to economic clout. Beijing and Shanghai make Chengdu and Wuhan look like podunk outposts. Tokyo towers over Sapporo and Osaka.

It seems a natural byproduct of capitalism - the best breeds an attractant for the best.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by wave46

I've personally known many Canadians who've moved to Toronto.

I'd imagine that being the respective employment centres for each province in the high end of their fields (you're not top 1% employment jobs in Hearst, ON) provides a substantial economic benefit to those cities.

In fact, the world seems to be ever moving to a handful of prime cities for that very reason. London and Paris crush other cities in England and France with respect to economic clout. Beijing and Shanghai make Chengdu and Wuhan look like podunk outposts. Tokyo towers over Sapporo and Osaka.

Not every country follows this pattern though. The US is more decentralized and its metropolitan areas are specialized. New York is the biggest city and #1 for finances but not #1 for technology companies or entertainment. Many smaller metros have major company HQs that offer top tier jobs. And of course lots of people pick a place to live for reasons other than career.

In Germany or Switzerland you find lots of experts and companies based in different small towns and many different cities. It's not true at all that the top talent all moves to Berlin.

In the future I think it would be good for Canada to develop many vibrant metropolitan areas, more mobility between cities (instead of just "born in Ontario" -> "move to Toronto"), and more specialization. I think this was prevented from happening in the past by poor transportation links, protectionism, and the small domestic market.

[goodgrowth]

There's sort of compounding/concentrating effecting of all the immigration heading towards a few cities. If we just had more large cities then the growth would be more distributed.

An overwhelming amount of our immigrants comes from countries where a city probably consists of 10M+ people and therefore probably don't even consider much outside of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver...

[ssiguy]

I think we can certainly all agree that our immigration rate will plunge over the next few years due to very high unemployment. I did, however, NOT say that immigration would stop after that but would be greatly reduced. Even a 50% decline over the medium term would lead to many of our cities facing, at best, population stagnation but with a much older one. Many of our once shrinking or stagnating cities have begun to see growth in the last few years but EXCLUSIVELY due to immigration.

Even cities that are growing slowly are going to see huge swaths of their urban areas suffer profound de-population. How will we plan for these dying neighbourhoods? How will we avoid urban decay? How will we expand our transit infrastructure when large areas of our cities are seeing declining ridership? How will we justify closing many schools in one area and opening others just 10 km away? How will adapt to apt or commercial buildings that aren't full and eventually close down due to economic unviability? How will we justify municple services be continued in a shrinking community? How will cities financially cope and maintain current critical infrastructure with an ever shrinking revenue stream?

These are very valid and timely questions. Our 200 year urban planning paradigm of "build it and they will come" has to be rethought and the successful cities of tommorrow will be the ones that start planning for it now.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by someone123

Not every country follows this pattern though. The US is more decentralized and its metropolitan areas are specialized. New York is the biggest city and #1 for finances but not #1 for technology companies or entertainment. Many smaller metros have major company HQs that offer top tier jobs. And of course lots of people pick a place to live for reasons other than career.

In Germany or Switzerland you find lots of experts and companies based in different small towns and many different cities. It's not true at all that the top talent all moves to Berlin.

In the future I think it would be good for Canada to develop many vibrant metropolitan areas, more mobility between cities (instead of just "born in Ontario" -> "move to Toronto"), and more specialization. I think this was prevented from happening in the past by poor transportation links, protectionism, and the small domestic market.

This sounds great in theory. In reality? It's not happening. We're quickly moving away from countries competing with each other to basically cities and their megaregions competing with each other. And for that size matters to some degree. Toronto can't compete with New York or LA or London or Paris for investment and jobs. It's not on that level. And to get to that level, it will have to grow. Till that happens, Canada as a whole suffers economically because we don't have a single city that's Alpha+ (Toronto is ranked as an Alpha city and Montreal is Alpha-).

This isn't just something I made up either. There is plenty of academic study and entire indices for ranking and comparing cities. There's a lot of economic factors behind these rankings. Multinationals use them to decide on investment, where satellite offices are built, where talent can be pooled, etc.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glob...search_Network

It's the nature of economics that favours larger cities in the information age. The more you concentrate capital and labour, the greater the multiplier effect. For this reason, the larger and higher ranked cities will always prevail over the rest, absent some kind of external influence (government policy or spending).

As for the US being more distributed. That's a simple function of having 320+ million people and a $20 trillion economy. They is what allows the US to be "distributed". A country with the population of Poland would be vastly economically inefficient if we distributed our population to the same extent. The only way we'll get to the point where Winnipeg and Edmonton and Saskatoon are truly large metros is when Canada has 100+ million. And that is a long, long way off (if ever).

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This sounds great in theory. In reality? It's not happening. We're quickly moving away from countries competing with each other to basically cities and their megaregions competing with each other. And for that size matters to some degree. Toronto can't compete with New York or LA or London or Paris for investment and jobs. It's not on that level. And to get to that level, it will have to grow. Till that happens, Canada as a whole suffers economically because we don't have a single city that's Alpha+ (Toronto is ranked as an Alpha city and Montreal is Alpha-).

This isn't just something I made up either. There's an entire index and ranking for comparing cities. There's a lot of economic factors behind these rankings. Multinationals use them to decide on investment, where satellite offices are built, where talent can be pooled, etc.

And this is why Toronto is the #1 city for growth in Canada, leaving the Lethbridges and Londons in the dust. The smaller towns are inherently less productive and therefore will fail to attract newcomers.

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

I expect Google, Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft to leave middling San Francisco and Seattle. They should move to real megaregions like Paris or Tokyo or New York so that they can attract some talent. Or maybe somebody will creatively put San Francisco in a California megaregion, glomming it to LA so it can appeal to corporate decision-makers. Or maybe there should be a West Coast megaregion. Then the crisis will be solved (or the handy-wavy megaregion theory can be adapted to fit the data).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

These are very valid and timely questions. Our 200 year urban planning paradigm of "build it and they will come" has to be rethought and the successful cities of tommorrow will be the ones that start planning for it now.

Every recession there's someone like you thinking we're going to end immigration. And every recession they are proven wrong.

It's the illiteracy on basic economic concepts that leads to these kinds of ideas. And they abound in this forum.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by someone123

And this is why Toronto is the #1 city for growth in Canada, leaving the Lethbridges and Londons in the dust. The smaller towns are inherently less productive and therefore will fail to attract newcomers.

Percentage growth on a small base number.

Originally Posted by someone123

I expect Google, Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft to close up shop soon too and leave middling San Francisco and Seattle. They should move to real megaregions like Paris or Tokyo or New York so that they can attract some talent.

Glad you mentioned those companies. Notice that none of them started or grew in Bumfuck, Ohio. And when they do consider building major new facilities, it's not in Bumfuck, North Dakota. The same applies in Canada. And that is just pure economics in play. For better or for worse.

[someone123]

Glad you mentioned those companies. Notice that none of them started or grew in Bumfuck, Ohio. And when they do consider building major new facilities, it's not in Bumfuck, North Dakota. The same applies in Canada.

I am trying to square that with this:

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Toronto can't compete with New York or LA or London or Paris for investment and jobs. It's not on that level. And to get to that level, it will have to grow. Till that happens, Canada as a whole suffers economically because we don't have a single city that's Alpha+ (Toronto is ranked as an Alpha city and Montreal is Alpha-).

Toronto's too small to be successful and we need an Alpha+ (super-duper-mega) city (all hail Richard Florida). But San Francisco and Seattle also support this argument when they're no bigger than Toronto, yet developed tech sectors as robust as those in the bigger urban regions of the world?

BTW Wikipedia says they invented Alpha++ now so Alpha+ might not be good enough anymore. And little Zurich is on par with Toronto. How embarrassing!

[ssiguy]

So what do we do? Just pretend like it will never happen and then when it does scream "we never saw it coming!".

Even if we do return to decent immigration rates again, that will take years. Canada's economy is in FAR worse shape than most of our Western peers due to oil exports, our real estate dependency, and most of all our crushing levels of personal debt..........the highest in the OECD and twice the levels of the US. Oyur unemployment rate will remain high for at least 5 years and probably a decade. Whether governments or businesses want more immigrants or not is irrelevant as the politicians will do what's in their best interests and there will be absolutely no public appetite or tolerance for immigration when millions of Canadians remain unemployed. A return to levels we have seen recently will be political suicide and every party knows it.

To expect that we as a nation or our cities just to continue growing like they have for the last 200 years is shockingly ignorant and, much worse, irresponsible.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by someone123

I am trying to square that with this:



Toronto's too small to be successful and we need an Alpha+ (super-duper-mega) city (all hail Richard Florida). But San Francisco and Seattle also support this argument when they're no bigger than Toronto, yet developed tech sectors as robust as those in the bigger urban regions of the world?

BTW Wikipedia says they invented Alpha++ now so Alpha+ might not be good enough anymore. And little Zurich is on par with Toronto. How embarrassing!

This is a bit of a strawman argument. Does that model translate perfectly to every industry and every cluster? No. But as a measure of how much capital flows though and economic influence is asserted? It absolutely works.

Also, none of this has to do with Florida and his shuckster efforts at trying to get rust belt cities to put up hipster cafes and pay for football stadiums.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is a bit of a strawman argument. Does that model translate perfectly to every industry and every cluster? No. But as a measure of how much capital flows though and economic influence is asserted? It absolutely works.

Also, none of this has to do with Florida and his shuckster efforts at trying to get rust belt cities to put up hipster cafes and pay for football stadiums.

Richard Florida produces the Global Economic Power Index and a bunch of mushy articles on this stuff. I guess his are not as good as the other ones.

One question for you is why we should think these models have any predictive power. On top of that there's little correlation between population and where urban regions land on this list. The list of bigger urban regions on earth is completely different from these Alpha-Beta city lists. So even if you agree that the Alpha/Beta stuff matters it's unclear that adding more people will confer Alpha+ status.

Saying you want Toronto to be in the highest possible tier is pretty much tautological if you are in favour of economic growth. But why do you think it's a zero-sum game and there has to be "focus" on Toronto pulling ahead of other Canadian cities? I don't think it is zero sum, mainly because a lot of Canadian cities are thousands of km away from Toronto, and also because most of the migrants to Toronto come from outside of Canada.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

So what do we do? Just pretend like it will never happen and then when it does scream "we never saw it coming!".

Even if we do return to decent immigration rates again, that will take years. Canada's economy is in FAR worse shape than most of our Western peers due to oil exports, our real estate dependency, and most of all our crushing levels of personal debt..........the highest in the OECD and twice the levels of the US. Oyur unemployment rate will remain high for at least 5 years and probably a decade. Whether governments or businesses want more immigrants or not is irrelevant as the politicians will do what's in their best interests and there will be absolutely no public appetite or tolerance for immigration when millions of Canadians remain unemployed. A return to levels we have seen recently will be political suicide and every party knows it.

To expect that we as a nation or our cities just to continue growing like they have for the last 200 years is shockingly ignorant and, much worse, irresponsible.

Your thesis rests entirely on public support for immigration collapsing so much that politicians panic and cut immigration to zero. Not happening.

And mostly it won't happen entirely because there's no factory that we get immigrants from. Immigration is self-correcting. If the job market is poor, economic migrants will take their time moving, seek PR extensions, etc. Immigrants are people who act economically rationally. Just like everyone else.

Also, while some segments of the public may not want more immigrants, there's industry screaming at the government about talent they need and maybe even threatening to move if they don't get it. Just see the tech boom Canada has had from Trump tightening immigration to the US. You think the government wants to make the same mistake here?

Ultimately, this comes up every single recession. And every single time, the government of the day makes some noise about cutting immigration (knowing full well that a lot of immigrants will simply delay moving on their own). And after a year or two we're right back to pre-recession levels.

I see no reason why this recession will be any different than any previous one. As for unemployed Canadians. I assure you that no business or politician gives a shit. Can't train rig pigs to code. So the alternative is moving that coding job out of Canada. That is the choice the CEO offers the Minister when they chat.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by someone123

Richard Florida produces the Global Economic Power Index and a bunch of mushy articles on this stuff.

One question for you is why we should think these models have any predictive power. On top of that there's little correlation between population and where urban regions land on this list. The list of bigger urban regions on earth is completely different from these Alpha-Beta city lists. So even if you agree that the Alpha/Beta stuff matters it's unclear that adding more people will confer Alpha+ status.

Saying you want Toronto to be in the highest possible tier is pretty much tautological if you are in favour of economic growth. But why do you think it's a zero-sum game and there has to be "focus" on Toronto pulling ahead of other Canadian cities? I don't think it is zero sum, mainly because a lot of Canadian cities are thousands of km away from Toronto, and also because most of the migrants to Toronto come from outside of Canada.

It's because I recognize the model as reality that I say the idea that other cities will suddenly boom is bunk. Absent massive government intervention or some kind of major economic disruption (like an oil crash), we have an established pecking order of cities in this country. That pecking order has not changed substantially for most of this country's history. But if you really want to believe that Lethbridge is going to be the commercial centre of Canada be my guest.....

What we should be aiming for is moving all our cities up the list. That would be a sign of growing economic influence and success. And to that end, yes, Toronto, moving up the list benefits Canada. As does Montreal or Vancouver or Calgary doing the same. And this is why you won't see governments making active policy that directs growth elsewhere. As quite a few folks here keep hoping for.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's because I recognize the model as reality that I say the idea that other cities will suddenly boom is bunk. Absent massive government intervention or some kind of major economic disruption (like an oil crash), we have an established pecking order of cities in this country. That pecking order has not changed substantially for most of this country's history. But if you really want to believe that Lethbridge is going to be the commercial centre of Canada be my guest.....

Old census rankings:

150 years ago: Montreal, Quebec City, Toronto, Halifax, Saint John

100 years ago: Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Hamilton

50 years ago: Montreal, Toronto, Edmonton, Vancouver, Calgary

We need to realize that Montreal's been in that #1 spot since the beginning. That's our Alpha city and it's unrealistic to think this might ever change.

In all seriousness though, of course nobody thinks Lethbridge will be the commercial centre of Canada. My larger point is that I think Canada's economic life is fairly distributed and I think we might even see more of that in the future. In recent years we have seen immigration transition from being a big-city phenomenon in Canada to being more evenly distributed, and we have become more focused on global trade. Lethbridge seems to be doing OK even though it's just a small town far away from Canada's most Alpha cities.

[Truenorth00]

I should add. I don't necessarily think that megacities offer the highest quality of life. I think they are quite simply a function of the economic age we live in and national competitiveness means that governments will favour boosting those megacities, often at the expense of smaller cities. We see this, for example, in how Toronto gets billions in transit funding in Ontario, as I discussed in another thread. This is reality. It's why I find it so bizarre that people seem to think that we're going to have a huge problem with abandoned suburbs. We won't. A far bigger problem is the collapse of rural Canada and the possibility that even more small towns will become economically unviable after this downturn.

[logan5]

Top economists predict never before seen job growth for the latter half of this year. A wave of immigration is sure to follow...

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Exhibit A of speaking out of your ass. You really don't understand what you are talking about.

Par for the course for the guy that called our country a POS.

Expressing an opinion many hold is speaking out of my ass?

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

They stay because the feds help cover their costs and clustering. If Toronto, etc. is so great then why is there is so little migration from within Canada to those cities? The idea that Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto are so much greater than other cities because they are bigger is old school European thinking. In reality they're not. Vancouver is a nice place to visit but to live there is a totally different story. Vastly overrated as is Toronto.

A LOT of Ontarians from across the province have moved to Toronto and the rest of the GTA for many years and have done so recently. A large portion of my friends from when growing up in Timmins live in Toronto. At least a third of them live there. A lot are in Ottawa as well. The most obvious reason why people from here move to Toronto or Ottawa is for opportunities.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by logan5

Top economists predict never before seen job growth for the latter half of this year. A wave of immigration is sure to follow...

Job growth based on where we are now. They're still saying that the U.S. will have double-digit unemployment all of 2021.