Latest news with #citygrowth
Globe and Mail
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Globe and Mail
How to win the housing density debate
When making the argument for more housing in cities, advocates and politicians should consider why the federal carbon fuel charge failed. Climate change is a real and pressing issue. But rather than make it clear that sacrifice would be needed, Ottawa chose to pretend that reducing carbon emissions would be painless. It would have been more effective to acknowledge that no solution to climate change would be pain-free, but then make a convincing case that any other approach would hurt more. To put it crassly, appeal to people's self-interest. A similar approach can be applied to the urgent debate over how cities should grow. Focusing on the need for housing because it will make cities more affordable, while a noble goal, can be too abstract a way to overcome entrenched resistance. Instead, cities should acknowledge that neighbourhoods will change, and not everyone will like the result. But the cost of inaction is worse: real estate costs rising so high they strangle what makes cities attractive to their residents. Again, appeal to self-interest if that's what it takes to convince people. Editorial: The slow crawl of cities on housing reform People are attracted to cities for their economic opportunities and cultural appeal. But there aren't many ways cities can accommodate a growing population: a small number of tall towers, expanding forever into the countryside or adding a large number of buildings that are a bit bigger than traditional houses. Relying on tall buildings to house people puts far too much development in a handful of sites while sprawl requires long commutes and destroys the countryside. Widespread mid-scale development can be the Goldilocks option. But there is a long-standing hostility to density in English-speaking Canada. 'Townhouses today, slums tomorrow' is a sentiment that upset residents will give voice to in planning meetings. That hostility underpinned the sad failure of Toronto city council this week, which abandoned a plan for a citywide authorization of multiplexes of six units. Obviously, politicians and planners need to listen respectfully to resident concerns – and then explain how more people improves both neighbourhoods and cities. Focus on the good of density instead of spending political capital reassuring residents that more homes won't change their area. Because those neighbourhoods will change. They have to. But at the same time, it's easy to make the case that cities can't be great without allowing enough density. Museums and art galleries need to draw from a deep pool of people to find enough patrons, and generous donors. Schools need engaged families and bustling classrooms. Local retailers need potential shoppers within walking distance, as this space has argued before. And successful restaurants need to attract both customers and quality employees. CMHC gives up on comparing housing affordability to 2004 levels Which brings us to the second point. Without more homes, where are restaurant and other service staff going to live? What about huge numbers of other low-level workers who make cities function? And don't forget the artists and musicians who keep urban life interesting. Consider also the middle-income people already being priced out of cities. A recent report from the Toronto-area think tank Civic Action found that essential workers in health care, education and the trades were struggling to afford homes. If none of this sways existing homeowners, remind them of their own offspring. Surely, they want them living closely enough to visit easily? Housing more people in the same area is also, frankly, cheaper. Less road and sewer is required for each home. Transit and garbage collection are more efficiently provided. The cost of library services is spread among more people. In sum, greater density allows more of the vibrancy and amenities that urban dwellers want – with less of the taxes and long commutes they don't. In the case of housing, there's a strong case to made that less expensive homes will bring tangible and noticeable benefits even for those who won't live in them. The Toronto city politicians who supported increased density failed to make that case aggressively enough – a warning sign for other city councils. This space does not need to be convinced by pro-housing arguments. But not everyone agrees that cities must change. If advocates can't make that case, politicians with different priorities will carry the day, as Toronto just found out.
The Standard
24-06-2025
- The Standard
Students' housing needs must not be met at the expense of long-haul tourism
While student housing is critical, the number of foreign tourists visiting the city is growing rapidly. (REUTERS, SING TAO)
Fox News
22-05-2025
- Business
- Fox News
Broken cities, bad governance: Blue state city residents voting with their feet
On the surface, newly-released data from the Census Bureau looks to be good news for big cities. In the wake of the Covid panic that drove residents to the suburbs and beyond, city populations generally rebounded. "Cities of all sizes grew on average from 2023 to 2024," the Bureau reported. "Cities of all sizes, in all regions, showed faster growth and larger gains". The number – 94 percent of cities showing population growth – is impressive, overall. But a closer look tells another story – about some of the largest "blue" state cities, governed by Democratic mayors. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Philadelphia continue to have lower populations than in 2020. New York City has had the largest drop – from 8.805 million to 8.478 million, or 3.7 percent. Philadelphia's population has fallen by 1.9 percent; Chicago's by 1 percent, and LA's by .5 percent. An even slightly-closer look at these cities' quality of life and affordability – factors that are the function of the effectiveness of their local governments – offers explanations for the trend. Housing costs in New York, according to the national tracking service RentCafe, are 21.8 percent higher than the national average – despite the fact that the city has more price-regulated and public housing than any other. Low turnover rates in the nearly 1 million rent-stabilized apartments help drive up the price of the remaining market-rate housing, as city residents play a costly game of housing musical chairs, with those not able to get apartments priced artificially low forced to pay more. Where is housing cheaper? Look to Houston, which has gained 3.9 percent in population. Its housing costs are the mirror image of New York City's – 21 percent lower than the national average. Not surprisingly, Houston's population, per the Census, is 3.9 percent higher than it was in 2020. To explain Chicago's population loss, look to its crime rate. The Windy City last year led the nation in murders – 653 – almost twice the number of Baltimore, the city with the second-highest number. Instances of gang violence have spread from the low-income South Side to the "miracle mile" of downtown's Michigan Avenue. Yet for the privilege of being subjected to high crime, Chicagoans have paid more and more – and more – in property taxes. As the civic group Chicago Federation reports, between 2014 and 2024, Chicago increased its property taxes by $2.7 billion, or 53.3 percent, compared to an inflation rate of 35 percent. The separate property tax levied by the Chicago Public School (CPS) district, increased $1.4 billion, from $2.4 to $3.8 billion. Yet, according to the Illinois Policy Institute, "in spring 2024, 30.5% of CPS students in third through eighth grade met proficiency standards in reading and 18.3% were proficient in math." A 2022 report found that, in 55 Chicago public schools, zero percent of students were proficient in either. Los Angeles, another population loser, stands out on another measure: street homelessness, as exemplified by the tent encampments in its Skid Row area. The city's 71,000 homeless constitute, per the Brookings Institution, 670 for every 100,000 residents. Even more notably, 70 percent of LA's homeless, some 472 per 100K are "unsheltered", higher than any major city except San Jose—which is also among the few cities with lower populations than in 2020. It's no wonder that California Governor Gavin Newsom, with his eye on higher office, has moved to ban street encampments in the state. The other population-losing cities have their own versions of the same stories. Philadelphia ranks among the homelessness leaders, with 18 percent of the homeless among the "unsheltered", the highest number among cities in the Northeast. The unsheltered homeless rate in San Jose, down 1.6 percent in population, stands at 77 percent, the nation's highest. It's fair to argue that the combination of mild weather and air-conditioning, over the long term, has lured Americans from the Northeast and Midwest to the Sunbelt. But the new Census data shines a light on what's happening right now, as cities even in California as well as the Rust Belt and the Northeast, fail to recover their pre-Covid population levels. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that ineffective governance has played a role; crime and homelessness, high tax levels and poor-performing public schools are not magnets to draw back former residents or draw in new ones. The fact that all the population-losing cities are run by Democratic mayors helped Donald Trump win the popular vote; even in New York City he ran better than he had in 2020. Cities can be the engines of economic innovation and prosperity. But not if local government fails to provide effective essential services. Americans have given a negative Census report card on just those services, delivered to some of our largest cities.
