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.
