A recent post on …scale down, Windsor featured an article by Avi Friedman. Mr. Friedman described the trend of small town populations declining and city populations growing. He goes on to tell us that high-rise development will evolve into high-density clusters and the residents will be serviced by economical transit services and so on.
Last week the Star reported that the city of Windsor’s population increased 3.5% from 209,218 in 2001, to 216,473 in 2006. What is more important is how Windsor grew. The population of the central part of the city experienced significant population losses –“areas west of Pierre saw steep, double digit dives" - while the outer edge of the city saw new housing development and increased, lower density population. We should be very concerned about this because the cost to provide basic municipal services increases significantly as the area increases. If the density is too low it will mean even higher tax bills or much less service per taxpayer. So far, Avi Friedman’s future is not playing out here.
It could be because Avi Friedman’s future doesn’t apply to all cities. I came across the 19.20.21 project the other day. The 19.20.21 project is a multi-media study of the nineteen largest cities in the world as they approach populations of 20 million (or grow even larger) in the twenty-first century. If the world’s largest cities are going to grow even larger, will Canada’s largest cities grow too, at the expense of smaller, economically distressed cities? The almost gravitational pull of the larger cities, more jobs and more opportunities in an increasingly centralized economy may be irresistible to people desperate for work.
In his recent presentation to the Greater Windsor Homebuilders Association, Dennis DesRosiers said that the worst wasn’t over for us in Windsor yet. The CIBC’s Metro Monitor (Dec. 7, 2007) says, “Reflecting the difficulties in the manufacturing sector, cities such as Windsor and Saguenay still face major challenges.” Another CIBC report on the same day reported that October to November of this year 16,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in Canada. With this kind of economic outlook (and the looming disaster of the “sub-prime mortgage fiasco” still playing out in the financial markets) and the pull of the big cities, will Windsor see a population increase in the next census or will the population start to decline?
If our population declines, is it a bad thing? No. If our population continues to grow, is it a bad thing? No. If our density continues to decrease, is it a bad thing? Yes.
We are already seeing the cost of lower density development on our utility bills and in the current city budget discussions. Less service with bigger bills to keep it all spread out.
How can we get the leaders of this city to understand that what is happening is going to turn out horribly wrong? Perhaps we can file a class action suit and sue to city for negligence or incompetence? Just a thought.
I want to repeat a paragraph from Chris’ first post on …scale down, Windsor.
“So now it's time for our community leaders to add a new term to their repertoire ...scale down. By scaling down our drive to grow for the sake of growing, we will in turn strengthen our community. (Organisms in a natural environment do not grow in perpetuity. At some point in their existance they reach their limit to growth and start to mature and strengthen) By redirecting the millions of dollars we're allocating to auto-centric infrastructure, we can invest in welcoming, pedestrian-scaled walkable neighbourhoods. By scrutinizing our current fixation on Big-Box retail development being built on agricultural greenfield sites, we will reinvest in our locally owned Mom-And-Pop stores that keep our wealth right here in Windsor where it belongs.”What we are talking about is the survival of the City of Windsor. Scaling down our community isn’t about branding, or marketing or appealing to certain demographics. It isn’t a mental exercise, or a “wouldn’t it be nice” thing. If this city does not scale down it will go bankrupt or we will, trying to pay our taxes and user fees
James Coulter is an Engineering Technologist with the School of Building, Design and Construction Technology at St. Clair College. His opinions are plentiful and may not reflect those of his employer or the teaching faculty at the college.
7 comments:
I say add James as a writer ad bump Mark.
I like the part where we sue the city.
Hey now. This isn't "Survivor", you know. Nobody's getting "bumped" off our island. Mark brings an insight and knowledge of our downtown that can only help us in our struggle to lift Windsor out of the doldrums that it is currently stuck in. He isn't going anywhere, at least not by our hands.
My suggestion to you, Anon, is if there is a particular SDW contributor that you disagree with, use the comments section to start a discussion about it. If you have anything constructive to say in response to anything we've written, please say so. That is what SDW is all about - deepening our level of understanding of issues through meaningful discussions. The "commentor's" comments are just as important as the "contributor's" contributions.
We've developed pretty think skin at SDW and can handle criticism quite effectively, but unwarranted and unsubstantiated attacks are a no-no.
Welcome to the return of the city state. But interesting that our own city fuels this trend. How sad.
Can you provide a link to Mr. Friedman's post?
I case James needed to supporting evidence, according to the Star and AM800 today we are "delaying" the purchase of new fire trucks to build a new fire station to support east end sprawl communities. Hmm, I bet there wasn't a "build a new firestation" surcharge when those communities were planned and built.
I bet we would see great investment in the built environment if the true cost of sprawling were passed onto the consumer. Alas, consumers usually only respond when it hurts them in the pocketbook.
The Avi Friedman piece is featured in "Trending Toward Windsor" on November 27.
Post a Comment