Building our smaller cities.

[swimmer_spe]

Right now Toronto and Vancouver are unaffordable. This to me is a great reason to find a way to grow smaller cities.I am not talking about making Mississauga grow, or Abbotsford expand, but cities that are not connected to the area to grow and become strong cities of their own right.

For example, I live in Greater Sudbury. It has low cost of property. You can still find decent property for under $200k. The area is crying for skilled trades, so, good jobs here do exist. But, we don't seem to draw people here.

So, what are things that smaller cities can do to draw more people to them?

[suburbanite]

Create a waterfront that Chinese investors want to buy condos on. Can be a river, lake, pond, puddle, anything.

[Dengler Avenue]

If you attract too many, though, prices are gonna go up again. Also, in the case of Sudbury, things will probably get better if we ever send the Highway 400 up there. (The problem, though, I have to admit, is that the similar argument doesn't hold water when it comes to North Bay...)

[milomilo]

Build more houses where the jobs are and the people want to live is the solution. The government can't geographically relocate the economy.

[Razor]

I know Greater Sudbury..Considering that it started off as basically a mining town, it grew to an impressive size and status as the unofficial capital of Northern Ontario. Most mining towns don't end up growing to the size of Sudbury, as far as I know. In Sudbury's case, I don't know what to add..It seemed to have done all the right things with having Science North, University, taxation centre as well as being the regional shopping and service hub for Northern Ontario. Maybe aggressive marketing to attract investments and let critical mass do it's thing? immigration marketing campaigns even?

[swimmer_spe]

I am not specifically speaking of where I live, bot other cities like mine that are not within one of the major cities that are facing skyrocketing cost of living.

[WhipperSnapper]

This is a sensitive issue. I do think there is a role for government to play. Our immigration policy is based on cities like Sudbury which are crying for people however, immigrants are settling in places that aren't struggling for people but are suffering extreme affordability. It's one thing if they have jobs lined up in Toronto etc. but, that is usually not the case. A higher percentage than ever are also unemployable. It doesn't help Sudbury taxpayers but, it's still much cheaper for the unemployable to be in Sudbury than downtown Toronto. I also think there is greater potential to turn them into economic participants in a place like Sudbury than in Toronto.

[Fischbob]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The government can't geographically relocate the economy.

The thing is, it doesn't really have to. The nature of a lot of skilled work these days is that it can be done from almost anywhere. That's not to say that there aren't advantages to spatially clustering certain specialized economic activity (look at the continued momentum of Silicon Valley, for example), but as housing in North American "superstar cities" gets further and further out of reach for even highly remunerated households, there is definitely an opportunity for smaller metros to be the location of more employment.

The key question is how long it will take for the private sector to adjust to big-city inefficiencies like congestion and unaffordable housing, and start more optimally distributing its productive activity. On the order of decades?

I don't see a radical reordering of the Canadian urban hierarchy in our near future. But most of our smaller cities have plenty of room to grow and would welcome the influx of people to support more local services and amenities. I wouldn't be so dismissive of, at a minimum, giving them a policy environment that allows them to pursue a growth agenda.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

This is a sensitive issue. I do think there is a role for government to play. Our immigration policy is based on cities like Sudbury which are crying for people however, immigrants are settling in places that aren't struggling for people but are suffering extreme affordability. It's one thing if they have jobs lined up in Toronto etc. but, that is usually not the case. A higher percentage than ever are also unemployable. It doesn't help Sudbury taxpayers but, it's still much cheaper for the unemployable to be in Sudbury than downtown Toronto. I also think there is greater potential to turn them into economic participants in a place like Sudbury than in Toronto.

I have always thought that an immigrant should be told where they must live for the first few years of their time in Canada. The problem is, that goes against the constitution and would be shut down quickly.

But think, immigration gets granted, and you live in an area that needs workers of your background. This can include any trade or even labourers. We would see smaller cities grow and we would see a more vibrant community.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

This is a sensitive issue. I do think there is a role for government to play. Our immigration policy is based on cities like Sudbury which are crying for people however, immigrants are settling in places that aren't struggling for people but are suffering extreme affordability. It's one thing if they have jobs lined up in Toronto etc. but, that is usually not the case. A higher percentage than ever are also unemployable. It doesn't help Sudbury taxpayers but, it's still much cheaper for the unemployable to be in Sudbury than downtown Toronto. I also think there is greater potential to turn them into economic participants in a place like Sudbury than in Toronto.

If Canadians don't want to move to Sudbury, why should we expect new immigrants to?

Also, our immigration policy isn't based on what's good for Sudbury. It's based on national level data which drives policy.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

But think, immigration gets granted, and you live in an area that needs workers of your background. This can include any trade or even labourers. We would see smaller cities grow and we would see a more vibrant community.

If they need the workers, they should be able to a wage sufficient to attract talent. Immigrant or otherwise. Geolocking migrants is merely away to suppress their earning potential, and by extension that of Canadians who would compete with them in the job market.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If Canadians don't want to move to Sudbury, why should we expect new immigrants to?

Also, our immigration policy isn't based on what's good for Sudbury. It's based on national level data which drives policy.

If we can figure out a way to get Canadians to Sudbury (because there are jobs there), we should figure out how to do that and how much it will cost. But if it is cheaper and easier to get immigrants to go there instead, then that would be the greater focus.

[Truenorth00]

Want to make smaller towns and cities attractive? Make them livable and connect them.

I've traveled a lot. Inside and outside Canada. I find small towns and cities in Europe charming. I'd genuinely consider living in one. In Canada, with a few exceptions that's rarely the case.

In Europe, rail connections to major centres are frequent, fast and reasonably priced. Any smaller centre on a trunk line is set. You don't feel disconnected. Even if you don't travel to the big city often. In Canada. Passenger rail? What's that?

In Europe, those small towns retain some sense of urbanity. Walkable cores. Plenty of apartments and small houses within walking distance to the core. In Canada, most small towns are sprawl on steroids since any of the "city folk" who move, do so for cheap acreage. That in turn means, no walkable charming downtown, but a main street full of pickup trucks.

The worst part here is that I see zero intention on the part of these communities to change. Instead, we see comments like these. "How can we force people to move here against their will?"

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Want to make smaller towns and cities attractive? Make them livable and connect them.

I've traveled a lot. Inside and outside Canada. I find small towns and cities in Europe charming. I'd genuinely consider living in one. In Canada, with a few exceptions that's rarely the case.

In Europe, rail connections to major centres are frequent, fast and reasonably priced. Any smaller centre on a trunk line is set. You don't feel disconnected. Even if you don't travel to the big city often. In Canada. Passenger rail? What's that?

In Europe, those small towns retain some sense of urbanity. Walkable cores. Plenty of apartments and small houses within walking distance to the core. In Canada, most small towns are sprawl on steroids since any of the "city folk" who move, do so for cheap acreage. That in turn means, no walkable charming downtown, but a main street full of pickup trucks.

The worst part here is that I see zero intention on the part of these communities to change. Instead, we see comments like these. "How can we force people to move here against their will?"

I agree. Small towns, at least in the prairies, are almost entirely shit here. I don't really see any benefit though to central government trying to get people to move to them. If they are nice, they will grow. If they suck, they will dwindle and decline into nothing.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I agree. Small towns, at least in the prairies, are almost entirely shit here. I don't really see any benefit though to central government trying to get people to move to them. If they are nice, they will grow. If they suck, they will dwindle and decline into nothing.

Being an immigrant is already a very daunting thing. Even in the age of Skype. Then you want to force march them to communities without fellow immigrants, limited support services and a higher likelihood of facing hostility, for what? To ensure there's enough pickup drivers to keep the parking lot at Tim's full?

Better transport links might mitigate some of the difficulty. But we live in a country where flights are expensive, and passenger rail outside of the Corridor is effectively non-existent. Heck, it's not even useable enough in the Corridor to support the smaller communities there.

The urban development though.... It's shockingly atrocious in so many of these places. Even outside the Prairies. It's almost like they are determined to remove as much charm as possible.

You should think being the country, dining options might be amazing, as the one saving grace. But no, you'll get to choose from Kelseys or Casey's or Boston Pizza or something the locals might call Chinese food. And God help you if you're vegetarian as some immigrants are these days....

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Being an immigrant is already a very daunting thing. Even in the age of Skype. Then you want to force march them to communities without fellow immigrants, limited support services and a higher likelihood of facing hostility, for what? To ensure there's enough pickup drivers to keep the parking lot at Tim's full?

Better transport links might mitigate some of the difficulty. But we live in a country where flights are expensive, and passenger rail outside of the Corridor is effectively non-existent. Heck, it's not even useable enough in the Corridor to support the smaller communities there.

The urban development though.... It's shockingly atrocious in so many of these places. Even outside the Prairies. It's almost like they are determined to remove as much charm as possible.

I don't really care too much, but if there was some strategic reason that it was important to boost a particular town that was lacking in workers and had outsized importance, then it wouldn't be the worst idea. I'd ask the question though; if the place is so important, why aren't they paying the wages necessary to get people to move there?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I don't really care too much, but if there was some strategic reason that it was important to boost a particular town that was lacking in workers and had outsized importance, then it wouldn't be the worst idea. I'd ask the question though; if the place is so important, why aren't they paying the wages necessary to get people to move there?

Fort Mac drew people from across Canada. And Alberta broadly drew immigrants from abroad during the boom. Money talks. Yet that's the one thing that these small town employers never seem to want to offer.....

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Fort Mac drew people from across Canada. And Alberta broadly drew immigrants from abroad during the boom. Money talks. Yet that's the one thing that these small town employers never seem to want to offer.....

And there's nothing to worry about if they don't. If there is no economic purpose to a place, it will transfer its population to somewhere else that does need the workers.

It might be worth getting people to move to our medium sized good cities though. Canada is better off with more immigration regardless, so they need somewhere to go. I'm not sure there is much benefit to continuing to pump up Vancouver and Toronto, especially as they refuse to sort out their housing situation (and never will). But somehow directing immigration to the secondary cities would not only provide the country wide stimulus of immigration, it would boost the economies of those cities, cities that should more easily be able to beef up their infrastructure and house moderate numbers of immigrants.

[Bishop2047]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Fort Mac drew people from across Canada. And Alberta broadly drew immigrants from abroad during the boom. Money talks. Yet that's the one thing that these small town employers never seem to want to offer.....

This is huge. I lived and worked in rural SK for a few years and never heard the end of communities hard up for trained staff (I work in Medicine). Rather than making employment more enticing by better schedules/pay/work-life balance it seemed that they were hellbent on burning people out. I moved to a city (Saskatoon) as soon as I could find similar pay and I was now in a place I wanted to live.

I presently live in a smaller city, and I think all smaller cities will have issues with retention, primarily due to lack of types of employment. Sudbury/Saint John NB/Red Deer/Trois-Rivieres/Sarnia should attract more blue collar workers, while cities like Kingston/Fredericton/Charlottetown/Saskatoon will offer more for tech and academic employment. Most of these cities in the 50,000-400,000 obviously offer a wide variety of employment but still have certain dominant industries.

This inevitably leads to a certain amount of out migration (as well as immigration). The cure obviously is diversification, and I think most small to mid-sized cities are doing a pretty decent job of this.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Want to make smaller towns and cities attractive? Make them livable and connect them.

I've traveled a lot. Inside and outside Canada. I find small towns and cities in Europe charming. I'd genuinely consider living in one. In Canada, with a few exceptions that's rarely the case.

In Europe, rail connections to major centres are frequent, fast and reasonably priced. Any smaller centre on a trunk line is set. You don't feel disconnected. Even if you don't travel to the big city often. In Canada. Passenger rail? What's that?

In Europe, those small towns retain some sense of urbanity. Walkable cores. Plenty of apartments and small houses within walking distance to the core. In Canada, most small towns are sprawl on steroids since any of the "city folk" who move, do so for cheap acreage. That in turn means, no walkable charming downtown, but a main street full of pickup trucks.

The worst part here is that I see zero intention on the part of these communities to change. Instead, we see comments like these. "How can we force people to move here against their will?"

Tried to give this post a thumbs up!