WEBVTT
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:05.200
Now, if you write about the housing crisis as Sabrina and I do, you'll often get comments like this one.
00:00:05.440 --> 00:00:11.439
Not everybody can live in Toronto, so Canada should create more cities to give young people new places they can afford.
00:00:11.759 --> 00:00:20.000
Sometimes it's from someone who has already got their home, but sometimes a version of it even comes from people looking to buy a home for the first time.
00:00:20.320 --> 00:00:29.519
If a home in Toronto and Vancouver is too expensive, why does it feel like the only other choice is to move somewhere without jobs or to spend enormous amounts of our lives commuting?
00:00:29.679 --> 00:00:37.280
Today on Classonomics, we'll talk about why it seems impossible for Canada to create a new city and whether we'd even really want to if we could.
00:00:37.759 --> 00:00:42.159
Classonomics, hosted by Sabrina Maddow and Mike Moffat.
00:00:42.719 --> 00:00:45.439
Creating new cities is a nice idea in theory.
00:00:45.600 --> 00:00:48.640
Toronto wasn't always this giant metropolitan area.
00:00:48.799 --> 00:00:50.880
If we did it before, we could do it again.
00:00:51.039 --> 00:00:59.679
And in theory, the people who are trying to get into the housing market at this point could get in early in this new city where homes would presumably be much cheaper.
00:00:59.920 --> 00:01:10.719
They could invest early, set down their roots there, grow families, and not have to deal with the challenges that come with densifying an older city with infrastructure that wasn't originally built with so many people in mind.
00:01:10.879 --> 00:01:13.439
And let's be honest, Canada has a lot of space.
00:01:13.599 --> 00:01:23.040
A lot of it isn't easy to develop, but there's no reason why we couldn't see London or Peterborough or Kingston become their own big cities, similar to Toronto or Vancouver.
00:01:23.280 --> 00:01:30.959
To be clear, everybody should move to London, but you know, when we look at this practically, like in my mind, it comes down to two questions.
00:01:31.120 --> 00:01:33.920
First, the question is what do we mean by a city?
00:01:34.000 --> 00:01:37.280
And it turns out that's not pedantic that that really matters.
00:01:37.439 --> 00:01:43.280
And secondly, like what is the mechanism that people have in mind when they say, okay, we should create new cities?
00:01:43.439 --> 00:01:48.400
Because, in a very real sense, we are creating new cities, and Canada always has.
00:01:48.640 --> 00:02:00.159
So, you know, if we go back all the way 25 years ago to 2001, since then the city of Toronto's population has grown by less than 30%, you know, city of Montreal by less than 20%.
00:02:00.879 --> 00:02:04.879
But at the same time, you know, Milton's population has grown fivefold.
00:02:04.959 --> 00:02:08.560
It's gone from like 30,000 people to 150,000 people.
00:02:08.879 --> 00:02:11.120
Brampton's has more than doubled in size.
00:02:11.280 --> 00:02:13.199
They've added a half a million people.
00:02:13.520 --> 00:02:17.039
Vaughan and Surrey and Markham have nearly doubled.
00:02:17.199 --> 00:02:20.960
You know, Kitchener is twice as big as it was in the mid-1990s.
00:02:21.120 --> 00:02:27.919
Even places, you know, Chestermere, Alberta, like it used to have like 4,000 people, is soon going to have 40,000.
00:02:28.159 --> 00:02:34.319
So we are seeing new cities getting created, but they're doing so in an organic way rather than a planned way.
00:02:34.639 --> 00:02:34.879
Right.
00:02:34.960 --> 00:02:39.680
And I really don't think that's what people have in mind, though, when they talk about Canada needing more cities.
00:02:39.840 --> 00:02:44.319
I think what they're actually picturing is having more metro areas like the GTA.
00:02:44.479 --> 00:02:50.800
Now, most of the places that you just mentioned on your list, while technically cities, are really just Toronto expanding outward.
00:02:51.120 --> 00:02:51.840
Yeah, exactly.
00:02:52.000 --> 00:02:54.080
I do think that that is what people have in mind.
00:02:54.240 --> 00:03:04.400
When they say Canada needs more cities, what they really mean is that we need more big metros, not that, you know, the GTA needs to have kind of more satellite uh cities around that.
00:03:04.639 --> 00:03:10.080
But even there, you know, our big metros are often growing slower than some of our smaller ones.
00:03:10.240 --> 00:03:21.120
Now, it certainly feels like the GTA has rapidly grown over the last couple of decades, but go back to 2001, it's actually only the 14th fastest growing metro out of 41.
00:03:21.439 --> 00:03:27.599
Vancouver's only 12th, and Montreal is all the way down to 34th out of 41.
00:03:27.840 --> 00:03:32.080
So if you look at what's our fastest growing metros, it's Calgary and Edmonton.
00:03:32.400 --> 00:03:33.360
They're one and two.
00:03:33.599 --> 00:03:36.719
And you might think, okay, well, those are those count as big metros.
00:03:37.120 --> 00:03:43.199
But if you look at the next four after that, it's Kelowna, Red Deer, Chilliwack, and Saskatoon.
00:03:43.439 --> 00:03:45.039
You know, these aren't big cities.
00:03:45.199 --> 00:03:49.520
They're not places with NHL teams, or they don't even have CFL teams for that matter.
00:03:49.680 --> 00:03:54.960
You know, though I do think the Rough Riders claim the entire province of Saskatchewan, not just Regina.
00:03:55.039 --> 00:04:04.719
But the point is remaining that these are not places that would be considered big metros, but they are growing faster than your Toronto's, your Vancouver's, and your Montreals.
00:04:05.120 --> 00:04:14.639
Yeah, that's really interesting that our existing big metros are falling behind smaller ones on growth, which very much has to do, I would think, with the cost of living, especially housing in these cities.
00:04:14.800 --> 00:04:22.560
And then you add to that decreased benefits like high unemployment and stagnant wage growth in what are supposed to be the country's economic centers.
00:04:22.720 --> 00:04:29.199
So essentially, if you're choosing to live in these places, you're getting all of the cons of city life without a lot of the historical pros.
00:04:29.519 --> 00:04:37.759
But that said, even with all this growth amongst smaller metros, it still feels like we don't have that many metros for a country of our size.
00:04:38.079 --> 00:04:42.879
Yeah, it certainly feels that way, but it it turns out we're kind of right where we should be.
00:04:42.959 --> 00:04:50.240
Uh, you know, Canada has six metros that have a million people or more, which are our six metros with NHL teams.
00:04:50.399 --> 00:04:53.600
Uh, we do have a seventh NHL team, which is in Winnipeg.
00:04:53.759 --> 00:04:56.800
And my apologies to Winnipeg, you don't make the cut here.
00:04:56.879 --> 00:04:58.720
You're not in the million-person club.
00:04:58.879 --> 00:05:05.199
But, you know, we could say, okay, six uh metros doesn't feel like a lot, but Canada only has 40 million people.
00:05:05.439 --> 00:05:11.360
So, you know, you look at that, okay, we do have a limit on how many million-person metros we can have.
00:05:11.519 --> 00:05:19.360
And if we compare ourselves to countries at a similar stage of economic development or population, we're right where we should be.
00:05:19.439 --> 00:05:23.040
You know, Italy and Spain only have five metros with a million people.
00:05:23.279 --> 00:05:27.360
France has seven, South Korea has eight, the UK has 10.
00:05:27.519 --> 00:05:33.120
And these are all countries that have larger populations than Canada, but they are still in the same ballpark.
00:05:33.279 --> 00:05:37.519
You know, so it simply isn't true that Canada has an unusually small number of metros.
00:05:37.839 --> 00:05:47.040
We're right where we should be, or even arguably have more than we should have, or more than you would expect, given the fact that we are only 40 million people.
00:05:47.360 --> 00:05:47.600
Right.
00:05:47.680 --> 00:05:50.560
All those places are geographically smaller than Canada, though.
00:05:50.639 --> 00:05:55.839
You'd think with our massive size, we'd spread out more and have more metros, or that's what a lot of people say, anyways.
00:05:56.079 --> 00:06:00.800
Yeah, and I do think it's one of the reasons why we have six and not say five or four.
00:06:00.959 --> 00:06:10.720
And it's hard to compare Canada to a lot of other countries, uh, because there's not that many other countries that uh have both of our size and our population.
00:06:11.040 --> 00:06:16.079
You know, Canada's population density is less than five people per square kilometer.
00:06:16.240 --> 00:06:26.000
And there's only four countries in the world that have more than 10 million people and a population density of under 10, let alone under five.
00:06:26.319 --> 00:06:32.319
And two of those countries, Australia and Kazakhstan, they have fewer metros than Canada.
00:06:32.480 --> 00:06:39.360
So we look at those and go, okay, well, you know, we're not behind them by any uh stretch of the imagination.
00:06:39.600 --> 00:06:52.319
And if we expanded our criteria and go, okay, let's look at every country with a population density under 20, we're gonna add five additional countries to our list, and four of them have fewer metros than than Canada.
00:06:52.560 --> 00:06:57.040
The remaining exception there is Saudi Arabia, which has seven to R6.
00:06:57.600 --> 00:07:08.240
So outside of one really big underpopulated countries, uh, you know, geographically speaking, big countries with small populations generally don't have that many metros.
00:07:08.480 --> 00:07:11.040
And so Canada really isn't an exception.
00:07:11.279 --> 00:07:19.439
Part of the problem, though, is obviously that while we're geographically large, a lot of that square footage, so to speak, is northern with climates most people don't want to live in.
00:07:19.600 --> 00:07:26.079
I mean, there are already enough complaints about whether in quote unquote southern Canadian cities like Toronto or worse, Ottawa.
00:07:26.240 --> 00:07:26.959
Sorry, Mike.
00:07:27.120 --> 00:07:31.040
So I'm curious what other country is the exception to this rule you mentioned.
00:07:31.439 --> 00:07:33.120
Well, I'm sure everyone's guessed by now.
00:07:33.199 --> 00:07:39.519
And you have if you haven't, or or you want to guess, you could uh throw a comment uh on the comment board.
00:07:39.680 --> 00:07:41.839
But the one exception here is Russia.
00:07:42.000 --> 00:07:50.079
Now, Russia has 17 metros of over a million persons, and that's uh three and a half times as many as Canada.
00:07:50.240 --> 00:07:54.480
But Russia's population is also about three and a half times as large as Canada.
00:07:54.560 --> 00:07:56.240
So it's it's kind of scaled that way.
00:07:56.399 --> 00:08:01.519
Though when the Soviet Union broke up, Russia's population was over five times that of Canada.
00:08:01.600 --> 00:08:04.079
So, you know, we're we're growing quite a bit faster than they are.
00:08:04.240 --> 00:08:08.959
But we got to make clear like Russia didn't exactly get that many metros organically.
00:08:09.120 --> 00:08:24.959
Like there was the forced migration of roughly six million people during Stalin's reign, as well as more voluntary migration as the Soviets created new centers of manufacturing um across a country that were, you know, not so close to Europe.
00:08:25.199 --> 00:08:30.800
So I think it should go without saying that I don't think Canada should be trying to emulate Russia.
00:08:30.959 --> 00:08:36.399
Uh and I particularly say that to you because Vladimir Putin banned you from visiting Russia.
00:08:36.559 --> 00:08:40.240
And I gotta say, that's a badge of honor I'm still jealous of.
00:08:40.399 --> 00:08:46.559
And because of that, because we want to keep you around, I will say Canada should not emulate Russia.
00:08:47.120 --> 00:08:48.080
Definitely not.
00:08:48.240 --> 00:09:00.399
Um, the solution is by no means rounding up young people and forcing them to migrate to rural areas or northern areas in hopes that cities will magically spread up around them.
00:09:00.720 --> 00:09:01.360
Well, that's just it.
00:09:01.600 --> 00:09:05.360
So when people ask, okay, why doesn't Canada simply create more cities?
00:09:05.440 --> 00:09:13.120
I often wonder what exactly they're picturing, because I I'm quite certain they don't mean, you know, Stalinist relocations of working people.
00:09:13.279 --> 00:09:17.200
So I'd love to get sort of more details on, okay, what exactly do they have in mind?
00:09:17.440 --> 00:09:20.320
Yeah, I mean, there have got to be other options besides that, though.
00:09:20.559 --> 00:09:21.840
Yeah, there certainly are.
00:09:22.000 --> 00:09:24.399
And the history of them is not great.
00:09:24.639 --> 00:09:30.559
You know, the success story of creating new cities that people typically point to are in the United Kingdom.
00:09:30.720 --> 00:09:38.080
And this was some initiatives done between the end of World War II through to the late 1960s, and they're called New Towns.
00:09:38.320 --> 00:09:41.200
And there was this whole kind of new towns movement around them.
00:09:41.440 --> 00:09:44.960
And these were built under some fairly unique circumstances.
00:09:45.200 --> 00:09:52.320
And the most successful new towns were ones that were fairly proximate to existing big cities like London.
00:09:52.480 --> 00:09:56.960
So that's really not that much different than how Milton is growing uh so quickly.
00:09:57.120 --> 00:10:02.960
You know, these new towns were built a little bit more uh planned and a little bit less organically.
00:10:03.120 --> 00:10:06.879
But a lot of these new towns were still in the orbit of big cities.
00:10:06.960 --> 00:10:09.120
They weren't necessarily creating new metros.
00:10:09.600 --> 00:10:11.279
Those are your success stories.
00:10:11.440 --> 00:10:20.720
But if we look at the research, you know, back in 2002, the UK government studied the effectiveness of these new towns and they came to the following conclusion.
00:10:20.879 --> 00:10:22.480
I'm just going to read a quote here.
00:10:22.720 --> 00:10:28.960
The new towns are no longer new, and many of the quickly built houses have reached the end of their design life.
00:10:29.200 --> 00:10:38.240
The master plans dictated low density development with large amounts of open space and housing segregated from jobs, shopping, and business services.
00:10:38.399 --> 00:10:43.120
These created a car dependency and are now not considered sustainable.
00:10:43.360 --> 00:10:50.799
Well, that's the same basic criticisms that urbanists make about uh suburban communities in the 905 around Toronto.
00:10:50.960 --> 00:10:59.519
So, you know, I'm kind of failing to see the distinction here between you know what was done in the UK and what Canada has kind of done organically.
00:10:59.679 --> 00:11:08.000
Again, with the subtle differences that the UK did it in more of a planned way, we did it in more of an organic way, but we got to the same place.
00:11:08.799 --> 00:11:11.200
Has Canada ever tried creating new towns like that?
00:11:11.440 --> 00:11:12.159
Yeah, we have.
00:11:12.240 --> 00:11:15.440
So not all of our initiatives were organic in nature.
00:11:15.600 --> 00:11:20.639
You know, the famous, most famous example is Don Mills, which is now part of the city of Toronto.
00:11:20.799 --> 00:11:26.639
You know, it was built as a planned new town in the early 1950s, but again, that's not creating a metro.
00:11:26.720 --> 00:11:30.320
Yeah, it's creating a suburb uh of uh of Toronto.
00:11:30.399 --> 00:11:32.240
It's creating a part of the GTA.
00:11:32.480 --> 00:11:40.799
Now, there are cases of countries or provinces trying to create entire new metros, not just trying to create new suburban towns.
00:11:40.960 --> 00:11:53.600
Uh, my favorite example is in the late 1960s, the province of Ontario developed a plan to create a new manufacturing metro on Lake Erie, just south of Brantford, uh, and they called it Townsend.
00:11:54.000 --> 00:12:04.159
And Townsend was meant to have a population of a quarter of a million people, you know, basically become uh a metro the size of uh Kelowna or some of the ones that we mentioned earlier.
00:12:04.399 --> 00:12:16.879
And the the core idea behind it is that Townsend would attract all of these manufacturing plants, which would attract all of these workers and develop a new metro and take that pressure off of Toronto.
00:12:17.120 --> 00:12:30.320
But as it turns out, uh it didn't go anywhere because it didn't make sense for manufacturers to locate there because Townsend wasn't near supply chains, it wasn't near amenities like Highway 401 or Highway 403.
00:12:30.879 --> 00:12:36.320
Australia is also famous for such schemes, and most of those ended up in failure as well.
00:12:36.480 --> 00:12:46.480
Similar to Townsend, the Australians were trying to create a new city uh that they called Monardo, uh, that was supposed to take uh population pressures off of Adelaide.
00:12:46.559 --> 00:12:48.399
It was about 80 kilometers away.
00:12:48.480 --> 00:12:54.639
And they wanted to build a metro like Townsend that would be about 200,000 people by the year 2000.
00:12:54.799 --> 00:12:57.919
Well, today it has a population of 203.
00:12:58.480 --> 00:13:02.559
Not 203,000, but 203 people total.
00:13:02.879 --> 00:13:04.559
Minor difference, minor difference.
00:13:04.799 --> 00:13:06.799
Just a little bit of a difference, right?
00:13:06.879 --> 00:13:08.639
That's a failure by any definition.
00:13:08.720 --> 00:13:17.600
You know, how uh no matter how much slack you're willing to uh give government, you know, being being off by uh what's that, like 100,000 percent, that's not good.
00:13:17.840 --> 00:13:26.000
And my favorite thing is that they they set all of this land aside uh to be uh an industrial park and to be homes and so on.
00:13:26.159 --> 00:13:27.279
It's now a zoo.
00:13:27.360 --> 00:13:29.679
Uh and I like it's now kind of a safari reserve.
00:13:29.759 --> 00:13:38.159
I I hear it's quite nice, uh, you know, but what they did is basically, you know, create uh a place for zebras to live and not for people.
00:13:38.399 --> 00:13:47.840
So if we look at Australia or other places, you know, the only real success stories are places like Canberra, where Australia created a whole city to house their government.
00:13:48.080 --> 00:13:58.559
So, like, unless the province of Ontario is going to like move Queen's Park to Wawa or something, these plans always end up being a massive waste of tax dollars that end in failure.
00:13:58.799 --> 00:14:10.320
And all of these initiatives you mentioned, though, are quote unquote big government approaches where the government is trying to get people to move to a specific location of their choosing in a highly centrally planned way.
00:14:10.559 --> 00:14:20.240
So isn't there any free market version of this where instead of government doing more, it does less through having lower taxes or regulations in underpopulated parts of the country?
00:14:20.480 --> 00:14:25.440
Yeah, it's a it's a fair question because a lot of this really does show the failures of central planning.
00:14:25.519 --> 00:14:31.120
So we go, okay, can we achieve the same outcomes of central planning by doing so through a free market approach?
00:14:31.279 --> 00:14:34.960
And we'll say that obviously taxes and regulations do matter on the margin.
00:14:35.120 --> 00:14:46.320
And they determine why a tech firm might choose to locate in Silicon Valley or Austin, Texas, or why a manufacturer might locate in South Carolina versus Ohio.
00:14:46.559 --> 00:14:52.720
But all of the incentives and deregulations are not going to get a tech firm to move to West Virginia.
00:14:53.039 --> 00:14:54.240
It just doesn't make sense.
00:14:54.399 --> 00:15:01.360
That, you know, like the manufacturers with Townsend, companies need access to supply chains and talent and infrastructure.
00:15:01.519 --> 00:15:04.720
And those are only located at a handful of places.
00:15:04.960 --> 00:15:12.960
And so it doesn't make sense for companies uh to move there and you know, changing regulations and taxes doesn't really change that.
00:15:13.200 --> 00:15:18.399
And frankly, if companies are that mobile, they can do business anywhere, it doesn't matter where on the planet they'd be.
00:15:18.559 --> 00:15:28.799
Like, why would they move to like Northern Ontario when they could move to like Bangladesh or Mexico or someplace where wages are far below what they would ever be in Canada or the United States?
00:15:29.440 --> 00:15:40.639
We look at the individual level, you know, getting people to move, people already have a massive incentive to move to places like Northern Ontario where housing is like five times cheaper than it is in the GTA.
00:15:40.960 --> 00:15:44.159
But people, for the most part, aren't making that move.
00:15:44.480 --> 00:15:49.919
So you go, okay, how much more incentives can there be for people to make that move?
00:15:50.000 --> 00:15:52.639
Because they need to, it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem.
00:15:52.720 --> 00:16:00.000
You know, they need to move somewhere that has work, but companies are going to locate someplace that that has workers.
00:16:00.320 --> 00:16:02.559
So, you know, these schemes don't really work either.
00:16:02.720 --> 00:16:09.840
And they always lead to me to ask, like, if we could reduce these regulatory barriers with no side effects, like, why wouldn't we just do that everywhere?
00:16:10.000 --> 00:16:12.879
Like, we have some regulation that doesn't make sense in the GTA.
00:16:12.960 --> 00:16:18.639
Like, why would we just abolish that for Northern Ontario and say, well, this rule doesn't make sense.
00:16:18.720 --> 00:16:20.399
Let's just get rid of it entirely.
00:16:20.720 --> 00:16:20.960
Yeah.
00:16:21.039 --> 00:16:31.120
And to be honest, even if we could create a new city and tell job seekers and priced out families to move there, the idea strikes me as unfair because it divides the country then into haves and have nots.
00:16:31.279 --> 00:16:41.360
It creates a situation where only the haves should be able to live in whatever city they want, whereas the have-nots are forced to be in these isolated parts of the country, not of their choosing.
00:16:41.519 --> 00:16:44.559
But fairness aside, would that even be practical?
00:16:44.879 --> 00:16:45.279
You're right.
00:16:45.360 --> 00:16:48.639
So it's not only just not fair, but it's also really not practical.
00:16:48.799 --> 00:16:55.840
You know, the idea that young people can all move to one city and older homeowners can remain in existing cities simply doesn't work.
00:16:56.000 --> 00:17:05.200
Like you can't have all the rich older people living in the city of Toronto and all the personal support workers and nurses living in Thunder Bay or Southeast Saskatchewan.
00:17:05.359 --> 00:17:08.000
Like a society simply can't function that way.
00:17:08.160 --> 00:17:18.480
There needs to be room in every single community for people of various wealth and income levels, or else you're not going to have the workers you need in the healthcare system or the education system and so on.
00:17:18.640 --> 00:17:24.319
So every community has to have a diversity of age and has to have a diversity of income levels.
00:17:24.640 --> 00:17:37.359
And this idea of, okay, let's ship all the young people off to more remote parts of the country, it fails to understand why people live where they do and why businesses locate in one place or another.
00:17:37.680 --> 00:17:41.599
Cities are not simply warehouses for humans that could be placed anywhere.
00:17:41.920 --> 00:17:47.119
As I mentioned before, the proximity to amenities and supply chain and infrastructure all matters, right?
00:17:47.279 --> 00:17:54.799
So you can't build cars and have auto workers in Churchill, Manitoba, you know, any more than you can move the oil sands to Mississauga.
00:17:54.880 --> 00:18:04.799
Like a lot of these places and a lot of these businesses are in specific locations for specific reasons, and you just can't kind of wave that away by government diktat.
00:18:04.960 --> 00:18:07.519
People are going to locate where it makes sense for them.
00:18:07.759 --> 00:18:08.079
For sure.
00:18:08.160 --> 00:18:23.599
And I think more than that, um, of course, there's economic reasons for moving as well, but people choose to live in existing cities because of culture and access to the arts and all these other things that would take a very long time if they could ever be built up somewhere else to be built up.
00:18:23.680 --> 00:18:26.480
So there's that entire aspect of it as well.
00:18:26.720 --> 00:18:29.119
Thank you so much, everyone, for watching and listening.
00:18:29.279 --> 00:18:33.920
And to our producers, Meredith Martin and Kara Stern and our editor, Sean Foreman.
00:18:34.319 --> 00:18:41.920
If you have any thoughts or questions about why everybody should move to London, Ontario, please send us an email to missing middle podcast at gmail.com.
00:18:42.160 --> 00:18:43.759
And we'll see you next time.
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:05.200
Now, if you write about the housing crisis as Sabrina and I do, you'll often get comments like this one.
00:00:05.440 --> 00:00:11.439
Not everybody can live in Toronto, so Canada should create more cities to give young people new places they can afford.
00:00:11.759 --> 00:00:20.000
Sometimes it's from someone who has already got their home, but sometimes a version of it even comes from people looking to buy a home for the first time.
00:00:20.320 --> 00:00:29.519
If a home in Toronto and Vancouver is too expensive, why does it feel like the only other choice is to move somewhere without jobs or to spend enormous amounts of our lives commuting?
00:00:29.679 --> 00:00:37.280
Today on Classonomics, we'll talk about why it seems impossible for Canada to create a new city and whether we'd even really want to if we could.
00:00:37.759 --> 00:00:42.159
Classonomics, hosted by Sabrina Maddow and Mike Moffat.
00:00:42.719 --> 00:00:45.439
Creating new cities is a nice idea in theory.
00:00:45.600 --> 00:00:48.640
Toronto wasn't always this giant metropolitan area.
00:00:48.799 --> 00:00:50.880
If we did it before, we could do it again.
00:00:51.039 --> 00:00:59.679
And in theory, the people who are trying to get into the housing market at this point could get in early in this new city where homes would presumably be much cheaper.
00:00:59.920 --> 00:01:10.719
They could invest early, set down their roots there, grow families, and not have to deal with the challenges that come with densifying an older city with infrastructure that wasn't originally built with so many people in mind.
00:01:10.879 --> 00:01:13.439
And let's be honest, Canada has a lot of space.
00:01:13.599 --> 00:01:23.040
A lot of it isn't easy to develop, but there's no reason why we couldn't see London or Peterborough or Kingston become their own big cities, similar to Toronto or Vancouver.
00:01:23.280 --> 00:01:30.959
To be clear, everybody should move to London, but you know, when we look at this practically, like in my mind, it comes down to two questions.
00:01:31.120 --> 00:01:33.920
First, the question is what do we mean by a city?
00:01:34.000 --> 00:01:37.280
And it turns out that's not pedantic that that really matters.
00:01:37.439 --> 00:01:43.280
And secondly, like what is the mechanism that people have in mind when they say, okay, we should create new cities?
00:01:43.439 --> 00:01:48.400
Because, in a very real sense, we are creating new cities, and Canada always has.
00:01:48.640 --> 00:02:00.159
So, you know, if we go back all the way 25 years ago to 2001, since then the city of Toronto's population has grown by less than 30%, you know, city of Montreal by less than 20%.
00:02:00.879 --> 00:02:04.879
But at the same time, you know, Milton's population has grown fivefold.
00:02:04.959 --> 00:02:08.560
It's gone from like 30,000 people to 150,000 people.
00:02:08.879 --> 00:02:11.120
Brampton's has more than doubled in size.
00:02:11.280 --> 00:02:13.199
They've added a half a million people.
00:02:13.520 --> 00:02:17.039
Vaughan and Surrey and Markham have nearly doubled.
00:02:17.199 --> 00:02:20.960
You know, Kitchener is twice as big as it was in the mid-1990s.
00:02:21.120 --> 00:02:27.919
Even places, you know, Chestermere, Alberta, like it used to have like 4,000 people, is soon going to have 40,000.
00:02:28.159 --> 00:02:34.319
So we are seeing new cities getting created, but they're doing so in an organic way rather than a planned way.
00:02:34.639 --> 00:02:34.879
Right.
00:02:34.960 --> 00:02:39.680
And I really don't think that's what people have in mind, though, when they talk about Canada needing more cities.
00:02:39.840 --> 00:02:44.319
I think what they're actually picturing is having more metro areas like the GTA.
00:02:44.479 --> 00:02:50.800
Now, most of the places that you just mentioned on your list, while technically cities, are really just Toronto expanding outward.
00:02:51.120 --> 00:02:51.840
Yeah, exactly.
00:02:52.000 --> 00:02:54.080
I do think that that is what people have in mind.
00:02:54.240 --> 00:03:04.400
When they say Canada needs more cities, what they really mean is that we need more big metros, not that, you know, the GTA needs to have kind of more satellite uh cities around that.
00:03:04.639 --> 00:03:10.080
But even there, you know, our big metros are often growing slower than some of our smaller ones.
00:03:10.240 --> 00:03:21.120
Now, it certainly feels like the GTA has rapidly grown over the last couple of decades, but go back to 2001, it's actually only the 14th fastest growing metro out of 41.
00:03:21.439 --> 00:03:27.599
Vancouver's only 12th, and Montreal is all the way down to 34th out of 41.
00:03:27.840 --> 00:03:32.080
So if you look at what's our fastest growing metros, it's Calgary and Edmonton.
00:03:32.400 --> 00:03:33.360
They're one and two.
00:03:33.599 --> 00:03:36.719
And you might think, okay, well, those are those count as big metros.
00:03:37.120 --> 00:03:43.199
But if you look at the next four after that, it's Kelowna, Red Deer, Chilliwack, and Saskatoon.
00:03:43.439 --> 00:03:45.039
You know, these aren't big cities.
00:03:45.199 --> 00:03:49.520
They're not places with NHL teams, or they don't even have CFL teams for that matter.
00:03:49.680 --> 00:03:54.960
You know, though I do think the Rough Riders claim the entire province of Saskatchewan, not just Regina.
00:03:55.039 --> 00:04:04.719
But the point is remaining that these are not places that would be considered big metros, but they are growing faster than your Toronto's, your Vancouver's, and your Montreals.
00:04:05.120 --> 00:04:14.639
Yeah, that's really interesting that our existing big metros are falling behind smaller ones on growth, which very much has to do, I would think, with the cost of living, especially housing in these cities.
00:04:14.800 --> 00:04:22.560
And then you add to that decreased benefits like high unemployment and stagnant wage growth in what are supposed to be the country's economic centers.
00:04:22.720 --> 00:04:29.199
So essentially, if you're choosing to live in these places, you're getting all of the cons of city life without a lot of the historical pros.
00:04:29.519 --> 00:04:37.759
But that said, even with all this growth amongst smaller metros, it still feels like we don't have that many metros for a country of our size.
00:04:38.079 --> 00:04:42.879
Yeah, it certainly feels that way, but it it turns out we're kind of right where we should be.
00:04:42.959 --> 00:04:50.240
Uh, you know, Canada has six metros that have a million people or more, which are our six metros with NHL teams.
00:04:50.399 --> 00:04:53.600
Uh, we do have a seventh NHL team, which is in Winnipeg.
00:04:53.759 --> 00:04:56.800
And my apologies to Winnipeg, you don't make the cut here.
00:04:56.879 --> 00:04:58.720
You're not in the million-person club.
00:04:58.879 --> 00:05:05.199
But, you know, we could say, okay, six uh metros doesn't feel like a lot, but Canada only has 40 million people.
00:05:05.439 --> 00:05:11.360
So, you know, you look at that, okay, we do have a limit on how many million-person metros we can have.
00:05:11.519 --> 00:05:19.360
And if we compare ourselves to countries at a similar stage of economic development or population, we're right where we should be.
00:05:19.439 --> 00:05:23.040
You know, Italy and Spain only have five metros with a million people.
00:05:23.279 --> 00:05:27.360
France has seven, South Korea has eight, the UK has 10.
00:05:27.519 --> 00:05:33.120
And these are all countries that have larger populations than Canada, but they are still in the same ballpark.
00:05:33.279 --> 00:05:37.519
You know, so it simply isn't true that Canada has an unusually small number of metros.
00:05:37.839 --> 00:05:47.040
We're right where we should be, or even arguably have more than we should have, or more than you would expect, given the fact that we are only 40 million people.
00:05:47.360 --> 00:05:47.600
Right.
00:05:47.680 --> 00:05:50.560
All those places are geographically smaller than Canada, though.
00:05:50.639 --> 00:05:55.839
You'd think with our massive size, we'd spread out more and have more metros, or that's what a lot of people say, anyways.
00:05:56.079 --> 00:06:00.800
Yeah, and I do think it's one of the reasons why we have six and not say five or four.
00:06:00.959 --> 00:06:10.720
And it's hard to compare Canada to a lot of other countries, uh, because there's not that many other countries that uh have both of our size and our population.
00:06:11.040 --> 00:06:16.079
You know, Canada's population density is less than five people per square kilometer.
00:06:16.240 --> 00:06:26.000
And there's only four countries in the world that have more than 10 million people and a population density of under 10, let alone under five.
00:06:26.319 --> 00:06:32.319
And two of those countries, Australia and Kazakhstan, they have fewer metros than Canada.
00:06:32.480 --> 00:06:39.360
So we look at those and go, okay, well, you know, we're not behind them by any uh stretch of the imagination.
00:06:39.600 --> 00:06:52.319
And if we expanded our criteria and go, okay, let's look at every country with a population density under 20, we're gonna add five additional countries to our list, and four of them have fewer metros than than Canada.
00:06:52.560 --> 00:06:57.040
The remaining exception there is Saudi Arabia, which has seven to R6.
00:06:57.600 --> 00:07:08.240
So outside of one really big underpopulated countries, uh, you know, geographically speaking, big countries with small populations generally don't have that many metros.
00:07:08.480 --> 00:07:11.040
And so Canada really isn't an exception.
00:07:11.279 --> 00:07:19.439
Part of the problem, though, is obviously that while we're geographically large, a lot of that square footage, so to speak, is northern with climates most people don't want to live in.
00:07:19.600 --> 00:07:26.079
I mean, there are already enough complaints about whether in quote unquote southern Canadian cities like Toronto or worse, Ottawa.
00:07:26.240 --> 00:07:26.959
Sorry, Mike.
00:07:27.120 --> 00:07:31.040
So I'm curious what other country is the exception to this rule you mentioned.
00:07:31.439 --> 00:07:33.120
Well, I'm sure everyone's guessed by now.
00:07:33.199 --> 00:07:39.519
And you have if you haven't, or or you want to guess, you could uh throw a comment uh on the comment board.
00:07:39.680 --> 00:07:41.839
But the one exception here is Russia.
00:07:42.000 --> 00:07:50.079
Now, Russia has 17 metros of over a million persons, and that's uh three and a half times as many as Canada.
00:07:50.240 --> 00:07:54.480
But Russia's population is also about three and a half times as large as Canada.
00:07:54.560 --> 00:07:56.240
So it's it's kind of scaled that way.
00:07:56.399 --> 00:08:01.519
Though when the Soviet Union broke up, Russia's population was over five times that of Canada.
00:08:01.600 --> 00:08:04.079
So, you know, we're we're growing quite a bit faster than they are.
00:08:04.240 --> 00:08:08.959
But we got to make clear like Russia didn't exactly get that many metros organically.
00:08:09.120 --> 00:08:24.959
Like there was the forced migration of roughly six million people during Stalin's reign, as well as more voluntary migration as the Soviets created new centers of manufacturing um across a country that were, you know, not so close to Europe.
00:08:25.199 --> 00:08:30.800
So I think it should go without saying that I don't think Canada should be trying to emulate Russia.
00:08:30.959 --> 00:08:36.399
Uh and I particularly say that to you because Vladimir Putin banned you from visiting Russia.
00:08:36.559 --> 00:08:40.240
And I gotta say, that's a badge of honor I'm still jealous of.
00:08:40.399 --> 00:08:46.559
And because of that, because we want to keep you around, I will say Canada should not emulate Russia.
00:08:47.120 --> 00:08:48.080
Definitely not.
00:08:48.240 --> 00:09:00.399
Um, the solution is by no means rounding up young people and forcing them to migrate to rural areas or northern areas in hopes that cities will magically spread up around them.
00:09:00.720 --> 00:09:01.360
Well, that's just it.
00:09:01.600 --> 00:09:05.360
So when people ask, okay, why doesn't Canada simply create more cities?
00:09:05.440 --> 00:09:13.120
I often wonder what exactly they're picturing, because I I'm quite certain they don't mean, you know, Stalinist relocations of working people.
00:09:13.279 --> 00:09:17.200
So I'd love to get sort of more details on, okay, what exactly do they have in mind?
00:09:17.440 --> 00:09:20.320
Yeah, I mean, there have got to be other options besides that, though.
00:09:20.559 --> 00:09:21.840
Yeah, there certainly are.
00:09:22.000 --> 00:09:24.399
And the history of them is not great.
00:09:24.639 --> 00:09:30.559
You know, the success story of creating new cities that people typically point to are in the United Kingdom.
00:09:30.720 --> 00:09:38.080
And this was some initiatives done between the end of World War II through to the late 1960s, and they're called New Towns.
00:09:38.320 --> 00:09:41.200
And there was this whole kind of new towns movement around them.
00:09:41.440 --> 00:09:44.960
And these were built under some fairly unique circumstances.
00:09:45.200 --> 00:09:52.320
And the most successful new towns were ones that were fairly proximate to existing big cities like London.
00:09:52.480 --> 00:09:56.960
So that's really not that much different than how Milton is growing uh so quickly.
00:09:57.120 --> 00:10:02.960
You know, these new towns were built a little bit more uh planned and a little bit less organically.
00:10:03.120 --> 00:10:06.879
But a lot of these new towns were still in the orbit of big cities.
00:10:06.960 --> 00:10:09.120
They weren't necessarily creating new metros.
00:10:09.600 --> 00:10:11.279
Those are your success stories.
00:10:11.440 --> 00:10:20.720
But if we look at the research, you know, back in 2002, the UK government studied the effectiveness of these new towns and they came to the following conclusion.
00:10:20.879 --> 00:10:22.480
I'm just going to read a quote here.
00:10:22.720 --> 00:10:28.960
The new towns are no longer new, and many of the quickly built houses have reached the end of their design life.
00:10:29.200 --> 00:10:38.240
The master plans dictated low density development with large amounts of open space and housing segregated from jobs, shopping, and business services.
00:10:38.399 --> 00:10:43.120
These created a car dependency and are now not considered sustainable.
00:10:43.360 --> 00:10:50.799
Well, that's the same basic criticisms that urbanists make about uh suburban communities in the 905 around Toronto.
00:10:50.960 --> 00:10:59.519
So, you know, I'm kind of failing to see the distinction here between you know what was done in the UK and what Canada has kind of done organically.
00:10:59.679 --> 00:11:08.000
Again, with the subtle differences that the UK did it in more of a planned way, we did it in more of an organic way, but we got to the same place.
00:11:08.799 --> 00:11:11.200
Has Canada ever tried creating new towns like that?
00:11:11.440 --> 00:11:12.159
Yeah, we have.
00:11:12.240 --> 00:11:15.440
So not all of our initiatives were organic in nature.
00:11:15.600 --> 00:11:20.639
You know, the famous, most famous example is Don Mills, which is now part of the city of Toronto.
00:11:20.799 --> 00:11:26.639
You know, it was built as a planned new town in the early 1950s, but again, that's not creating a metro.
00:11:26.720 --> 00:11:30.320
Yeah, it's creating a suburb uh of uh of Toronto.
00:11:30.399 --> 00:11:32.240
It's creating a part of the GTA.
00:11:32.480 --> 00:11:40.799
Now, there are cases of countries or provinces trying to create entire new metros, not just trying to create new suburban towns.
00:11:40.960 --> 00:11:53.600
Uh, my favorite example is in the late 1960s, the province of Ontario developed a plan to create a new manufacturing metro on Lake Erie, just south of Brantford, uh, and they called it Townsend.
00:11:54.000 --> 00:12:04.159
And Townsend was meant to have a population of a quarter of a million people, you know, basically become uh a metro the size of uh Kelowna or some of the ones that we mentioned earlier.
00:12:04.399 --> 00:12:16.879
And the the core idea behind it is that Townsend would attract all of these manufacturing plants, which would attract all of these workers and develop a new metro and take that pressure off of Toronto.
00:12:17.120 --> 00:12:30.320
But as it turns out, uh it didn't go anywhere because it didn't make sense for manufacturers to locate there because Townsend wasn't near supply chains, it wasn't near amenities like Highway 401 or Highway 403.
00:12:30.879 --> 00:12:36.320
Australia is also famous for such schemes, and most of those ended up in failure as well.
00:12:36.480 --> 00:12:46.480
Similar to Townsend, the Australians were trying to create a new city uh that they called Monardo, uh, that was supposed to take uh population pressures off of Adelaide.
00:12:46.559 --> 00:12:48.399
It was about 80 kilometers away.
00:12:48.480 --> 00:12:54.639
And they wanted to build a metro like Townsend that would be about 200,000 people by the year 2000.
00:12:54.799 --> 00:12:57.919
Well, today it has a population of 203.
00:12:58.480 --> 00:13:02.559
Not 203,000, but 203 people total.
00:13:02.879 --> 00:13:04.559
Minor difference, minor difference.
00:13:04.799 --> 00:13:06.799
Just a little bit of a difference, right?
00:13:06.879 --> 00:13:08.639
That's a failure by any definition.
00:13:08.720 --> 00:13:17.600
You know, how uh no matter how much slack you're willing to uh give government, you know, being being off by uh what's that, like 100,000 percent, that's not good.
00:13:17.840 --> 00:13:26.000
And my favorite thing is that they they set all of this land aside uh to be uh an industrial park and to be homes and so on.
00:13:26.159 --> 00:13:27.279
It's now a zoo.
00:13:27.360 --> 00:13:29.679
Uh and I like it's now kind of a safari reserve.
00:13:29.759 --> 00:13:38.159
I I hear it's quite nice, uh, you know, but what they did is basically, you know, create uh a place for zebras to live and not for people.
00:13:38.399 --> 00:13:47.840
So if we look at Australia or other places, you know, the only real success stories are places like Canberra, where Australia created a whole city to house their government.
00:13:48.080 --> 00:13:58.559
So, like, unless the province of Ontario is going to like move Queen's Park to Wawa or something, these plans always end up being a massive waste of tax dollars that end in failure.
00:13:58.799 --> 00:14:10.320
And all of these initiatives you mentioned, though, are quote unquote big government approaches where the government is trying to get people to move to a specific location of their choosing in a highly centrally planned way.
00:14:10.559 --> 00:14:20.240
So isn't there any free market version of this where instead of government doing more, it does less through having lower taxes or regulations in underpopulated parts of the country?
00:14:20.480 --> 00:14:25.440
Yeah, it's a it's a fair question because a lot of this really does show the failures of central planning.
00:14:25.519 --> 00:14:31.120
So we go, okay, can we achieve the same outcomes of central planning by doing so through a free market approach?
00:14:31.279 --> 00:14:34.960
And we'll say that obviously taxes and regulations do matter on the margin.
00:14:35.120 --> 00:14:46.320
And they determine why a tech firm might choose to locate in Silicon Valley or Austin, Texas, or why a manufacturer might locate in South Carolina versus Ohio.
00:14:46.559 --> 00:14:52.720
But all of the incentives and deregulations are not going to get a tech firm to move to West Virginia.
00:14:53.039 --> 00:14:54.240
It just doesn't make sense.
00:14:54.399 --> 00:15:01.360
That, you know, like the manufacturers with Townsend, companies need access to supply chains and talent and infrastructure.
00:15:01.519 --> 00:15:04.720
And those are only located at a handful of places.
00:15:04.960 --> 00:15:12.960
And so it doesn't make sense for companies uh to move there and you know, changing regulations and taxes doesn't really change that.
00:15:13.200 --> 00:15:18.399
And frankly, if companies are that mobile, they can do business anywhere, it doesn't matter where on the planet they'd be.
00:15:18.559 --> 00:15:28.799
Like, why would they move to like Northern Ontario when they could move to like Bangladesh or Mexico or someplace where wages are far below what they would ever be in Canada or the United States?
00:15:29.440 --> 00:15:40.639
We look at the individual level, you know, getting people to move, people already have a massive incentive to move to places like Northern Ontario where housing is like five times cheaper than it is in the GTA.
00:15:40.960 --> 00:15:44.159
But people, for the most part, aren't making that move.
00:15:44.480 --> 00:15:49.919
So you go, okay, how much more incentives can there be for people to make that move?
00:15:50.000 --> 00:15:52.639
Because they need to, it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem.
00:15:52.720 --> 00:16:00.000
You know, they need to move somewhere that has work, but companies are going to locate someplace that that has workers.
00:16:00.320 --> 00:16:02.559
So, you know, these schemes don't really work either.
00:16:02.720 --> 00:16:09.840
And they always lead to me to ask, like, if we could reduce these regulatory barriers with no side effects, like, why wouldn't we just do that everywhere?
00:16:10.000 --> 00:16:12.879
Like, we have some regulation that doesn't make sense in the GTA.
00:16:12.960 --> 00:16:18.639
Like, why would we just abolish that for Northern Ontario and say, well, this rule doesn't make sense.
00:16:18.720 --> 00:16:20.399
Let's just get rid of it entirely.
00:16:20.720 --> 00:16:20.960
Yeah.
00:16:21.039 --> 00:16:31.120
And to be honest, even if we could create a new city and tell job seekers and priced out families to move there, the idea strikes me as unfair because it divides the country then into haves and have nots.
00:16:31.279 --> 00:16:41.360
It creates a situation where only the haves should be able to live in whatever city they want, whereas the have-nots are forced to be in these isolated parts of the country, not of their choosing.
00:16:41.519 --> 00:16:44.559
But fairness aside, would that even be practical?
00:16:44.879 --> 00:16:45.279
You're right.
00:16:45.360 --> 00:16:48.639
So it's not only just not fair, but it's also really not practical.
00:16:48.799 --> 00:16:55.840
You know, the idea that young people can all move to one city and older homeowners can remain in existing cities simply doesn't work.
00:16:56.000 --> 00:17:05.200
Like you can't have all the rich older people living in the city of Toronto and all the personal support workers and nurses living in Thunder Bay or Southeast Saskatchewan.
00:17:05.359 --> 00:17:08.000
Like a society simply can't function that way.
00:17:08.160 --> 00:17:18.480
There needs to be room in every single community for people of various wealth and income levels, or else you're not going to have the workers you need in the healthcare system or the education system and so on.
00:17:18.640 --> 00:17:24.319
So every community has to have a diversity of age and has to have a diversity of income levels.
00:17:24.640 --> 00:17:37.359
And this idea of, okay, let's ship all the young people off to more remote parts of the country, it fails to understand why people live where they do and why businesses locate in one place or another.
00:17:37.680 --> 00:17:41.599
Cities are not simply warehouses for humans that could be placed anywhere.
00:17:41.920 --> 00:17:47.119
As I mentioned before, the proximity to amenities and supply chain and infrastructure all matters, right?
00:17:47.279 --> 00:17:54.799
So you can't build cars and have auto workers in Churchill, Manitoba, you know, any more than you can move the oil sands to Mississauga.
00:17:54.880 --> 00:18:04.799
Like a lot of these places and a lot of these businesses are in specific locations for specific reasons, and you just can't kind of wave that away by government diktat.
00:18:04.960 --> 00:18:07.519
People are going to locate where it makes sense for them.
00:18:07.759 --> 00:18:08.079
For sure.
00:18:08.160 --> 00:18:23.599
And I think more than that, um, of course, there's economic reasons for moving as well, but people choose to live in existing cities because of culture and access to the arts and all these other things that would take a very long time if they could ever be built up somewhere else to be built up.
00:18:23.680 --> 00:18:26.480
So there's that entire aspect of it as well.
00:18:26.720 --> 00:18:29.119
Thank you so much, everyone, for watching and listening.
00:18:29.279 --> 00:18:33.920
And to our producers, Meredith Martin and Kara Stern and our editor, Sean Foreman.
00:18:34.319 --> 00:18:41.920
If you have any thoughts or questions about why everybody should move to London, Ontario, please send us an email to missing middle podcast at gmail.com.
00:18:42.160 --> 00:18:43.759
And we'll see you next time.
