Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Canada is crazily underpopulated compared to the UK for example - which is about the geographic size of.. what, Ontario alone maybe, but has double the population of all of Canada.

So immigration is actively encouraged, which is perhaps unique among developed nations (depending only on our definition of 'actively encouraged' I suppose) which is probably 'correct' and could be massive for GDP, but.. shouldn't there also be deliberate attempts to build new cities? My outsider's limited perspective is that it seems to be mostly left to natural progress, which means.. immigrants gravitate towards Vancouver & Toronto, and everywhere that exists just gets slightly bigger and much more expensive.

Why isn't there massive intentional city building to go along with it?



I would guess because most of the land in this country is not arable (fertile) or hospitable, so even though we have lots of land, only the southern strip is worth populating.


I don't think that's the reason. Barrie has a ton of farmland and it's just a hop away from Toronto. It's just that there's nobody incentivizing companies to put down headquarters in these smaller municipalities.

Several decades ago, north of Steeles was prairies and farmlands. The IBM headquarters was moved to that area in the 80s. CGI headquartered in Markham as well. Nowadays there are condos going up all over the place along the 407 and hwy 7.

If more companies did this instead of coveting to be as near union Station as possible, I believe the metropolitan area could still expand horizontally a great deal more before ever coming anywhere near permafrost.

It doesn't even take that much willpower either. Milton, for example, could easily attract companies by offering tax breaks. A lot of talent already commutes from there.


Milton doesn't necessarily have more capacity or willpower to offer tax breaks than Toronto, and the incentives for companies are stacked.

Perhaps decades ago I'd be content with commuting out to the middle of nowhere by car to work for a large company as a lifelong employee. Perhaps those circumstances still exist, but there is a comparatively large number of people living downtown that won't touch transit-poor suburb offices with a 10-pole stick. If you're setting up shop in the suburbs, you will get a pick of only suburb residents.

On the other hand, if you're setting up shop in downtown, you get a pick of both downtown and suburb dwellers. The latter will drive anyway, so it matters comparatively little whether you drive from Mississauga to Milton or from Mississauga to Toronto. Plus a lot of people can find a GO station somewhere and get downtown that way. Good luck commuting to a Milton campus by train from Markham.

Furthermore, with Toronto in the centre of the population bell curve, it's not even just downtown employees vs. suburb employees. It's also that by building on one edge of the municipal area, you will have a harder time to attract people from the other edge. Mississauga to Milton isn't too bad, Ajax to Milton is twice the distance vs. to downtown Toronto.

So in the end, it all goes back to making a choice between locations with relatively broad appeal and a lot of competition, or niche locations that work great for a considerably lower potential selection of employees. Large international companies are finding that they are competitive enough to win employees in the downtown job market while still benefiting from the broad base of talent available there. You'd have to give them unprofitably high tax breaks to make them give up their talent pool.

Smaller shops may try out the niche strategy in the suburbs and may find it to work well for their purposes. But I guess those were not the target of your call for suburban HQs. They're also not at a size at which Milton would consider giving out tax breaks.

There can always be exceptions, although as a general tendency the house is stacked against suburb HQs. Maybe with a drawn-out WFH trend this could change, but for now I still don't see it happening.


> Maybe with a drawn-out WFH trend this could change

What's interesting is that the two companies I mentioned are both very large (offices in multiple cities) and don't have butts-in-seat cultures (people already worked from home a lot even pre-pandemic).

The point about Ajax to Milton being a very long commute is quite valid though Ajax could also try to attract companies of its own. The go train point is fair, but not critical IMHO. People can and do move. And for better or for worse, these municipalities do have very strong car cultures as of today. Living in Scarborough to commute to Markham is a pain in the neck by public transit, but trivial by car (and consider that downtown traffic and parking story isn't great compared to free parking virtually everywhere in Markham, so there's some amount of mutual exclusion there). Also IMHO, the infrastructure follows demand. Some stretches of Hwy 7 have public transit lines now; there's clearly a desire to build out a local scene that isn't centered around downtown Toronto.

I think defending the idea of cramming downtown more and more is more based on status quo, and ultimately it's not going to be sustainable. Downtown Toronto has already grown upwards quite a bit; at the pace condos are going up, it's eventually going to run out of parking lots to convert to vertical space. I think developing new talent-attracting centers is going to be important regardless; better to get the ball going before it becomes an unavoidable necessity. </two-cents>




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: