Ontario in the Creative Age: First Thoughts

by Brian on 02-06-2009

in business,canada,civics,economics,general,london

Disappointed but not surprised by the report that came out yesterday (summary, via).

I had a bit invested in this since I wrote about the expected proposals back in January. At first glance I would seem to be proven wrong because I suggested that London risks being marginalized if we don’t assume more responsibility for our own destiny, and lo and behold — London was *mentioned* in the report!

But when I see London’s leadership celebrating the fact that the city is *mentioned* in a 46 page report on Ontario’s economy, my bullshit alarm goes off. 

Look at it the other way: would it be remotely acceptable if London was not mentioned? This is a comprehensive report on the future of Ontario’s economy — more specifically, a report with a focus on the role of cities in Ontario’s economy. London is the unambiguous centre of one of the most populous regions in Ontario, that’s not a case we have to make or a citation we should be celebratory over; to not be mentioned in such a report would be a gross oversight.

When London is mentioned as part of the “Toronto/Greater Golden Horseshoe/Ottawa/London” mega-region I have to wonder… I don’t suppose many Londoners consider themselves as part of the same cohesive region as Ottawa — except that we’re both in Ontario and Canada — so that mega-region (perhaps we should call it a “meta-region”: a beyond region) is just another way of saying “cities in Ontario”… except for a handful of ’left behind’ cities like Sudbury and Windsor (sorry).

Also note that in the media release, Richard Florida claimed that the meta-region ”from London through Kitchener-Waterloo through Toronto and Ottawa — together comprises one of the world’s largest economic mega-regions that helps make Ontario one of the most advanced and productive jurisdictions on Earth.”

That’s clearly part of a sales pitch — a pitch for Ontario, not London. We’re all lumped together to boost the stats so we can say we’re one of the “largest… most advanced and productive jurisdictions on Earth.”

In fact, I wonder, how many times is London mentioned in that report anyways? Five times, by my count. But twice it’s London England, not London Ontario. So, three times.

One mention is in the long mega-region designation I already quoted. Another is on a pie chart of the proportion of “Ontario’s creativity oriented occupations in city-regions” (Toronto has 47%, then Ottawa with 13%, Hamilton with 5%, then London and K/W each have 4%, then it just says “all others” with 27%). The third mention lists London as an example of a city with “commuters inside a community (e.g. inside Toronto or London).”

Hardly compelling stuff.

But compelling enough for the London Free Press to run the headline, on Page 1 of today’s paper, ”City cited as new-economy maverick.” The mayor was impressed too. She says (according to that article), ”the province is seeing London on the radar much more than ever before.”

On the radar? How about on page 34. If there is anywhere it actually means something to be mentioned it’s here, where they list the regions that are “well positioned for the creative age” (compared to the other two types of places: ”older industrial cities like Windsor, Hamilton, Oshawa…” and rural/remote or inner-city areas “that are increasingly disconnected from the creative economy”).

The three regions cited as “well positioned for the creative age” are Toronto, Greater Ottawa, and the Kitchener-Waterloo/Cambridge/Guelph region. Not London…

Then when you consider this:

Creativity and innovation are generated by talented, skilled people – people who increasingly see greater benefits from living in larger, denser regions where people and ideas are fast moving. While a slower pace and non-metropolitan living will appeal to some, it’s clear that they do not offer benefits to enough creative workers to sustain these smaller more distant locations. These disconnected places face a future of decline unless they are better connected to the first Ontario.

Ontario needs to find ways to connect those regions that could potentially be left behind to the winners and build more connective fibre. Some weak connections are already in place, but we need to build more substantial connections and further unify the Toronto/Greater Golden Horseshoe/Ottawa/London mega-region. At the same time, we need better connections between the mega-region to outlying areas. [my emphasis]

So where do we fit into that? We’re not specifically cited as “well-positioned for the creative economy,” nor are we specifically cited in any other category. London is simply mentioned — when we come down to it — as being a city in Ontario. That’s it.

The rest is up to us. The category London will fall into a decade from now depends on our own resourcefulness and will… and creativity. If we leave it up to Queens Park or Parliament Hill and U of T academics to decide what London has to contribute, we’ll surely fail. Stop celebrating and create…

More coverage on the report from The Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star.

Part of an ongoing series on London’s future… there’s still a lot more to discuss.

Related Posts:

Tagged as: cities, economics, london, ontario in the creative age, strategy