I see a controversy on the horizon. It might not seem realistic now, but it could turn into one of those things where, by the time it actually presents itself, it’s too late to do anything about it and your opinion doesn’t even matter (like Wall Street excesses generating the financial crisis).
So I’m speculating a little here for the sake of being intellectually prepared to address it, if and when it becomes an issue.
In yesterdays Free Press editorial, Paul Berton advocated having a “wishlist we can all agree on” ready for the upcoming federal budget. It’s no secret governments around the world are going to be running deficits to generate economic stimulus, and much of the stimulus will take the form of infrastructure building. Berton made some vague gestures towards the importance of “productivity, research, and innovation,” but he doesn’t really elaborate (as your immodest blogger did here) or explain exactly how to way those against social programs and infrastructure.
The problem is, people who have gone into detail on how the government can promote future competitiveness have marginalized London. Seems we have a problematic (or at least ambiguous) role in Ontario’s, and Canada’s future.
I’m thinking specifically of Richard Florida and Roger Martin from the Martin Prosperity Institute. They’re preparing an economic report for Dalton McGuinty, expected to be finalized and made public in February, that will argue Ontario’s future competitiveness and environmental sustainability depends on the strength of cities — one city in particular: the Toronto megaregion.
In December they received a report from a team of civil engineers outlining the costs and benefits of a high-speed rail system for the region. Check out the map in the Toronto Star article. The rail network includes Waterloo, Hamilton, Niagara, Barrie — even Orillia and Peterborough. No London.
How does London compete (whether for tax dollars or for businesses looking to locate) against, say, Waterloo, which is already recognized as a high-tech centre, already has the benefit of being closer to Toronto, and now seems to be past a tipping point where even more benefits continue to cascade their way?
“But we’re ideally located mid-way to Detroit…”
Oh ya, good old Detroit…
“But research has shown London has the right population for a creative city, ranking in the top ten Canadian cities in indexes measuring diversity, education…”
Too bad it was Richard Florida who did that research. Maybe we’re not-quite-creative enough to cut it in the 21st century — just creative enough to take our future prosperity for granted.
Regardless of whether the high-speed rail thing ever goes through (I’m not counting on it — though if there was ever a time for it… it looks like a compelling proposal, combining current infrastructure spending and a foundation for future prosperity) it’s apparent that proposals to strengthen Canada’s major cities will only become louder and more frequently heard in coming years.
With this on my mind I noticed a book at the library yesterday: Urban Nation by Alan Broadbent. In it, he makes the case we’ve all heard before:
Canada’s cities are crippled by a lack of financial and governing clout. Their infrastructures are crumbling and their citizens are disaffected by the inability of municipal government—or any government, for that matter—to act on the issues that influence their constituents’ lives. Cities generate a disproportionate amount of Canada’s wealth and are home to the majority of the population, yet they have no means to control their own destinies.
In over two hundred pages, London is mentioned once — in the history section, as an example of a “farm town” that evolved into a “regional city” in the early 20th century. Apparently Broadbent doesn’t think too highly of London’s present or future.
We shouldn’t assume anyone else does either.
{ 3 comments }
I’ll add Urban Nation to my ‘next up’ list, Brian.
We are in an interesting and challenging geographical position and could be left behind, in a sense, as the Golden Triangle around Toronto continues to be the center of important development.
I don’t know if there’s anything terrible about being a pleasant, niche city, though I’m just not sure if we’ll remain pleasant as we spread far and wide, or what niche we can fill.
As the 10th largest city in Canada (aren’t we still?) we should be able to stand for something. We throw ‘Forest City, Creative City’ around a bit but does that appeal or generate support from the majority of citizens in our geographical area?
I sometimes feel residents of small towns and cities have an easier time with their identity (e.g., St. Mary’s, Stratford, Port Dover) than we do.
Our size is a factor to some degree: We’re too big to be comfortable just with Festival City and too small to feel we have much weight.
Are we just stuck in the middle, doing middling things? That’s not terrible.
Keep thinking, and making others think.
Gord Harrison
Thanks Gord, you put it perfectly. Doing pleasant, middling things isn’t terrible — but being “stuck” that way (like being stuck anywhere — as in, being without any control or opportunity to manoeuver) is bad.
You zeroed-in on exactly the ideas I’m going to develop further. It is a very “interesting and challenging position” — a challenge I love the more I look at it.
I looked up the census info (sort of — on Wikipedia). London is still #10 if you go by “metropolitan areas.” As an “urban centre” we’re #11 (K-W leaps ahead), and as a “municipality” we drop to #15 (after Mississauga, Brampton, Surrey, and Laval).
Great reading. Thanks for this.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 4 trackbacks }