In the early 20th century, the Lakehead cities of
Port Arthur and Fort William were amidst an economic boom fueled by the
expansion of the Canadian wheat economy in the west and the Lakehead’s role as
a port and transport centre. As the boom
progressed, population surged and the years from 1900 to 1914 saw massive
growth with the population growing from just over 6,000 people to 30,000 – a 400
percent increase. With this boom, the
need for housing was paramount and the same era saw a massive construction
surge with numerous houses built.
Indeed, it seemed like the growth would never end and plans
were afoot to bring huge swaths of land into readiness for what was certainly
to become the Chicago of the North. The
pre-1920 period saw residential subdivisions planned and sometimes started for
the Kam River Islands, Parkdale (which incidentally was zoned for 25-foot lots
as far back as 1907), The Alma Adair Addition and the areas currently between
Lakehead University and Confederation College now off Central Avenue and to be
known as Inter-Ocean Park.
The Great Boom came to an end not only at the Lakehead but
across Canada and for decades Thunder Bay was marked by huge swaths of land
that eventually reverted to the municipality for non-payment of taxes and
evolved into informal green spaces throughout the city. Along with large
swathes of greenery in the centre of the city, many neighbourhoods have also
had patches of green space on empty lots that were never developed. While these lands sometimes evolved into official
parks or parkettes, for the most part they were simply green space – owned by
the city. Visually, they made for a
vision of forest within the city and in practical terms, while they served no
obvious productivity need, they did harbour wildlife and absorb rainwater. One only needs to see what happens to the
inter-city area after a major deluge given that most of the green space there has
been paved over. If anything, the urban
green space contributed to that intangible Thunder Bay often advocates as one if
its attractions – quality of life.
Fast forwarding to the present, after decades of economic
and population stagnation, it once again appears that Thunder Bay’s hour has struck
and a boom – albeit a modest one - is underway.
With infusions of public infrastructure money, growing demand for
transport services and mining activity in the region, employment
and population have finally begun rising again with some of that growth boosted
by recent immigration of permanent and temporary residents. According to Statistics Canada numbers,
between 2015 and 2024, the CMA population rose from 124,719 to 133,063 while
the City of Thunder Bay proper rise from 110,298 to 117,100 – increases of 6.7 and
6.2 percent respectively.
There is a demand for housing and with the assistance of
federal and provincial housing money, Thunder Bay has embarked on a plan to
boost the number of housing units via a combination of infill in existing
neighbourhoods as well as move on disposing of its surplus green space. The infill in existing neighbourhoods with
higher density apartment units and more basement units have naturally disturbed
the former pace and character of some neighbourhoods as additional residents and
their vehicles have cluttered the streets. Simply accusing existing residents of NIMBYISM
does not address their concerns given that the City of Thunder Bay seems to do little
to enforce either parking or noise bylaws.
However, the latest chapter in this saga is the declaration
of surplus and sale of four major pieces of municipally owned land to build
density housing: 300 Tokio Street, 144 Fanshaw Street, 791 Arundel Street, and
the land between 211-223 Tupper Street and 224 Camelot Street. The City of Thunder Bay wants 400 units
on Tokio Street, 200 on Fanshaw Street, 600 on Arundel Street, and 185 on
Tupper/Camelot streets for a total of about 1,385 units. A key issue here is
that of these pieces of land, only one is in a downtown area and can be
considered as part of a deliberate plan to boost density in the downtown cores
which have been the focus of substantial redevelopment dollars to revitalize
them but still lack higher population and traffic.
The others are all on green space adjacent to existing residential areas which in the case of the Arundel lands are also already marked by some high density apartments.
So, there has been push-back from residents and the Tuesday
January 13th City Council meeting is expected to see a final
decision on whether the city will dispose of this land. Of course, city councillors and administrators have already generated a narrative to convince themselves and city
residents – a large portion who concur – that Thunder Bay needs more housing
and that this is the right thing to do. The
city maintains that with rising population, Thunder Bay is facing a shortage
of 1,000 units of housing and they need to build large quantities of
housing quickly to increase supply and make housing more affordable. Thunder Bay is also pursuing an active growth
agenda and plan, and this construction activity is seen as growing the tax base
which is a priority of the new growth plan.
To assuage push-back, the claim has been made that the proposals are all
conceptual and subject to change hinting but not stating that they will be down-scaled. And, at
least one councillor has argued that << “If you build some of these
types of units, you will allow people to still stay in your neighbourhood and
you will open up a house that has three bedrooms that could potentially occupy
[more] people,” … “Change is hard to
kind of wrap your head around ‘til you see it,” he continued. “Sometimes change
is good, and then sometimes … the proposal might not be that change, it might
be something different.”>>
In deciding on this matter, Thunder Bay City council needs
to consider the following points made with reference to some of the arguments that have been advanced:
1.
Thunder Bay needs more housing and that this
is the right thing to do. The city maintains
that with rising population Thunder Bay is facing a shortage
of 1,000 units of housing and they need to build large quantities of
housing quickly to increase supply and make housing more affordable.
Thunder Bay does need more
housing and particularly affordable housing and social or geared to income
housing. To date, most of the new builds
have been units at market rent and they have increased supply but that new supply
comes at monthly rents between $2,000 to $2,500 a month. These are GTA level rents in a city that
despite its recent surge in growth does not even begin to offer the
opportunities of a much larger city but seems to be developing all its
drawbacks including crime and generally more inconsiderate behaviour on both
the roads and in neighbourhoods. Indeed,
Thunder Bay rents are pretty
much at the Ontario average. As for rising population, that growth may be
about to end. With recent changes
to federal immigration including the caps on international student enrolment,
Thunder Bay’s population may once again be levelling off. In some respects, this may be a small-scale
replay of the early 20th century where the boom petered out, and
Thunder Bay was left with large quantities of zoned land with no demand. In this case, it will be a lot of units that
may not find renters. On the bright
side, a classic overbuilding boom may be just what we need to bring local rents down
in the longer run. I am sure City Councillors are not too concerned if developers are left holding the bag as that would be someone else's problem.
2.
Thunder Bay is also pursuing an active
growth agenda and plan, and this construction activity is seen as growing the
tax base which is a priority of the new growth plan.
Thunder Bay’s growth
agenda is a municipal revenue enhancement plan masquerading as an economic
growth plan. The key targets are not
employment growth targets or business formation targets or per capita GDP
growth targets, but measures directly correlated with municipal revenue. The key targets are to grow the property tax
base of 3% annually and grow population by 1 percent annually. Building multi-residential
units that generate more tax revenue on a per square foot basis than single
family dwellings meet these goals rather nicely – if growth in employment and
population continue. As already noted, continued
population growth is not assured. If one looks at Statistics Canada’s labour
force characteristics for Thunder Bay, in 2025, the population aged 15 years
old and over has stopped growing. From
spring of 2016 to the end of 2024, Thunder Bay’s plus 15 years old CMA population grew
from 104,300 to 111,900 – an increase of 7.3 percent. However, by December 2025, the 15 years plus
population was 111,400 – a decline of 500.
A blip? Perhaps? But nevertheless, making decisions based on previous
growth rates continuing is always risky.
On the other hand, the developers will be taking the risks and once they
have acquired the land, they may simply sit on it for years if economic
conditions shift. At least that is what
happened when the city sold
off the Municipal Golf Course for housing way back in 2016. We are still waiting there.
3.
To assuage push-back, the claim has been
made that the proposals are all conceptual and subject to change hinting but not stating that
they will be down-scaled.
This is classic bureaucratic issue
management. Make the affected
public feel better by giving them the hope that the development will be
smaller than the concept drawings illustrate.
That may or may not happen. Once
the land is sold to developers, they will be calling the shots on what is eventually
built. The projects may be scaled down,
or they may be scaled up. People in the
Junot /John/Red River area still remember what happened with the Transitional Housing
Project for youth that was supposed to be under 30 beds. If you look at the footprint of the almost
completed structure now, it looks like it is well
over 50 if not more. In general, in Thunder Bay when there is a development plan, what you see is not always what you get. Indeed, many of the drawings presented give me a vibe out of Fritz Lang's Metropolis with a 1960s Soviet era flair.
4.
“If you build some of these types of units,
you will allow people to still stay in your neighbourhood and you will open up
a house that has three bedrooms that could potentially occupy [more] people.”
This is an intriguing argument. I
am not sure what type of housing market demand this statement is directed
at. I suppose there are some people in
Thunder Bay that would like to downsize to an easier to maintain lifestyle once
the kids are gone. Indeed, the thought has often crossed my mind that it would be nice to sell the house and move into a
condo or apartment. The problem with
condos in Thunder Bay is that Thunder Bay’s condo market is very limited in
terms of what is available. Most of it
is really glorified apartments with few amenities and outside parking – not terribly
attractive. Moreover, based on average
house and condo prices in Thunder Bay, unlike southern Ontario or the GTA where
you sell your house, buy a three-bedroom condo in a building with a pool, gym
and underground parking and have several hundred thousand dollars left over, the
Thunder Bay reality is different. You
sell your house, buy a condo in a building with no pool or gym and outside parking and must sink another $100,000 or so on the purchase price. If that is
not enough to change your mind, how about I base the rebuttal here on a
simple personal anecdote. I currently
live in a four-bedroom house with yard and deck. The expenses of maintaining my home (taxes,
water, insurance, basic maintenance, etc.…) even with the occasional emergency
repair such as an appliance going, do not amount to more than $15,000 annually. Why
would I downsize to a two-bedroom apartment at $2,000 a month - $24,000
annually - plus a monthly fee for outside parking that would add another $1,000 annually? True, if I were in my late 70s
or early 80s and finding home maintenance challenging, it might be more attractive but at that stage one is looking
more at a retirement home or assisted living arrangements.
5.
“Change is hard to kind of wrap your head
around ‘til you see it,” he continued. “Sometimes change is good, and then
sometimes … the proposal might not be that change, it might be something
different.”
Well, we should save the best for
last. To start, coming right out and saying a proposal is going to change and might be something different means in the end neither we nor City Council for that matter know what City council is deciding to do. That is not terribly reassuring. Moreover, it is one thing for an
administrator or bureaucrat to engage in the assuaging platitudes of issue management;
it is another for a ward representative to do so in response to obviously upset
people. I am really not sure what to make of this statement by the councillor in question aside from that he is an obvious fan of the Alex Rider series on Prime Video and has decided to channel
Dr. Grief. As aficionados of the series
may recall from Season 1 of Alex Rider, Dr. Grief is an evil villain seeking to
change the world by placing his clones in key positions around the world. A key scene is when Dr. Grief in response to a classroom question by teen spy Alex about who gets to choose the one percent in a world starting
over, intones: <<Change
is never easy. Change hurts, but it can be for the better.>> Not sure
if people who are concerned about the erosion of neighbourhood green space and residential quality of life really appreciate this type of lecture from their elected representative but maybe it will work. People in Thunder Bay complain a lot, but then usually just go back to sleep and let things happen.
So, what more can one say. Thunder Bay probably does need more housing,
but a lot already has been or is under construction and it is not obvious
that the demand will continue to grow at the same rate. In some respects,
Thunder Bay may be about to embark on a small-scale repetition of the early 20th
century when there was a massive push to accommodate housing demand that eventually
fell short. Density housing is an obvious solution to future housing needs, but
more effort needs to be made to design well placed units with amenities rather
than simply throwing up apartment blocks reminiscent of 1960s quick
builds. Most importantly, the City of
Thunder Bay is taking the quick and easy way out with greenfield development
rather than a more focused approach to building urban density in its core areas
especially given the amount of money that is continually being spent to “improve”
those areas but without the follow through of increasing the population in
those areas. This has been said
before and will be
said again.
