House Prices in Thunder Bay and Sudbury Continue to Rise

  

The latest report on Canadian house prices by Teranet is out and though the focus is on the 11 largest CMAs, there is also data on smaller centres.  On an annual basis (December 2024 to December 2025), home prices in Canada using the Teranet composite Index declined by 3.5 percent. Cities in the GTA and southern Ontario in general saw some large annual declines but some other cities, including Thunder Bay and Sudbury climbed substantially.  As the report notes:

“The Teranet-National Bank Composite Home Price Index™ fell by 3.5% between December 2024 and December 2025, a steeper decline than the 2.8% drop seen the previous month. However, increases were recorded in seven of the 11 cities that make up the composite index in December. Quebec City led the way with a 12.6% year-over-year price increase, followed by Edmonton (+5.1%) and Winnipeg (+5.0%). Conversely, the largest declines were observed in Toronto (-7.8%), Hamilton (-7.8%), and Vancouver (-5.9%). Of the 18 other CMAs not included in the composite index, 12 posted annual declines. Among the declining markets, the sharpest decreases were recorded in Oshawa (-8.2%), Guelph (-8.2%) and Kitchener (-8.0%). Conversely, the largest increases were observed in Lethbridge (+10.1%), Thunder Bay (+9.0%) and Sudbury (+8.8%).”

The accompanying figure plots the ranked year over year price increases (December 2024 to December 2025) for the cities in the Teranet data.  Topping the rankings are Quebec City and Lethbridge with year over year house price increases of 12.6 and 10.1 percent.  Thunder Bay and Sudbury are at the top of these rankings also in 3^rd and 4^th place respectively with increases of 9.0 and 8.8 percent.  Of the ten largest decreases, eight out of the ten largest decreases were cities in Ontario with the other two being in British Columbia.  

 

Overall, the Thunder Bay market is apparently still quite robust.  According to the Thunder Bay Real Estate Board, sales of single detached homes in Thunder Bay in December totaled 61 units and overall there were 1,023 home sales in 2025 for an increase of 9.1 percent over 2024. The year-to-date median price for a home in Thunder Bay according to the TBREB was $395,000.  As for Sudbury, the Sudbury Real Estate Board saw 110 homes sales in December 2025 and year over year saw sales of 2,618 units for a gain of 2.7 percent from 2024.  The average price of a home in Sudbury in 2025 was $505,884 and represented an increase of 5.8 percent from 2024.

If anything, these numbers may give an indication of what cities have been hit the hardest hit by the current economic uncertainty and change.  There are 29 cities ranked in the accompanying figure and of those 13 saw an increase in house prices and the remainder a decrease. Of the 16 Canadian cities in this ranking that saw a year over year decline, four of them were in British Columbia and all the rest were in Ontario.

Is Thunder Bay Housing History About to Repeat Itself?

 

In the early 20^th 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 13^th 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 20^th 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 20^th 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.

 

 

How Thunder Bay Wastes Both Taxpayer Money and Urban Core Development Opportunities

 

The City of Thunder Bay is engaged in budget season and striving to keep its total tax levy increase to 2.6 percent.  As part of its new two-part budgeting approach, the capital budget two-year plan is now underway with initiatives including $34 million in road improvements in 2026 with another $26 million in 2027 as well as initiatives in waste diversion and transit. The proposed capital budget for 2026 amounts to $160 million while 2027 is going to be lower at $148 million. January will see the operating budget and with the 2025 total levy at $241.7 million, a 2.6 percent increase could bring the levy up to $248 million.

The proposed 2026 tax levy increase is indeed modest by recent historical standards as the accompanying figure shows as  the 2025 increase was 5.2 percent and 2025 was 4.5.  However, the proposed 2.6 increase is also below the average increase over the 2015 to 2025 period which comes in at 3.4 percent.  Of course, increases need to be balanced against what the needs are and keeping rates low for their own sake is not necessarily the ultimate policy objective.  Rather, the aim should be to provide the best public services desired at the lowest costs possible which implies efficient and not wasteful spending, which brings me to the main event.

 

 

Whether the City of Thunder Bay will come in with a tax levy increase of 2.6 percent or not remains to be seen.  However, what is more important is what often seems to be a lack of strategic direction with how Thunder Bay seems to allocate its spending and projects by doing them in a manner that often works at cross purposes.  A case in point is the recent moves to build density housing in the City of Thunder Bay to address the housing shortage and provide affordable housing. 

The City of Thunder Bay is preparing to sell municipally owned land to developers to build density housing.  The pieces of land are:  300 Tokio Street, 144 Fanshaw Street, 791 Arundel Street, and the land between 211-223 Tupper Street and 224 Camelot Street.  Despite the oft stated claim to want to provide affordable housing, the City has apparently rejected a developer’s affordable housing bid for the land that included transitional housing because it was not dense enough. The City of Thunder Bay wishes for: 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.

Now, Thunder Bay municipal politicians are very good at using the right words and as one councillor was quoted:

<<"There is no question that we are in a housing crisis, not only in the city of Thunder Bay, across the province and across the nation," Foulds said. "We're also in a climate crisis."

"In order to deal with those two huge issues, we do need to have a focus on intensification and increasing the density of our cities, building on existing infrastructure. With that said, we do need to make sure that the infrastructure can handle it. We also must make sure that the developments are appropriate and safe.">>

The problem here is that Thunder Bay’s idea of increasing density in a climate crisis apparently includes cutting down swaths of green space to build density development in areas often removed from where density either already exists or should be promoted.  Moreover, the constant dispersion of new development results in the new residents of these “density developments” having to rely mainly on automobile transport rather than public transit which is not convenient or timely given the dispersed nature of the city.

As noted in an earlier post:

<<Of these four proposed locations, three are essentially going to be plonked on available space – often green space – in the midst or immediately adjacent to existing residential areas.  Only one – the Camelot Street location is going to be placed near a downtown core area.  And that is the point.  To date, the large builds on Junot and Fulton have been built in or adjacent to existing lower density residential areas and often at the expense of nearby green space.  Except for Camelot – which is a good location if one is planning to build up core area density – these are all scattered willy-nilly in places where the only option is to drive somewhere to get anything done.>>

As noted in the same post, the logical place to target density developments in Thunder Bay should be the two former downtown cores areas of Port Arthur and Fort William and the corridor connecting them that runs along and immediately adjacent to Water/Fort William Road/Simpson Streets and Algoma/Memorial/May Streets.

So, how does this come back to my point about wasteful spending? Thunder Bay is constantly trying to revitalize its core areas – the former cores of Port Arthur and Fort William - with initiatives that cost millions of taxpayer dollars.  For example, the recently completed north core/Port Arthur streetscape project clocked in at about $13 million.  Currently underway is the south core/Fort William Victoria Avenue revitalization project which is going to kick in at $18.4 million.  Then there is the Simpson Street redevelopment cost from the end of Victoria Avenue to the Ogden/Dease Street area which is approaching the $8-$9-million-dollar cost. 

In total, this is almost $40 million dollars in capital spending and rather than being additionally leveraged into a denser set of core urban areas with the tens of millions of dollars in federal housing infrastructure money, it is going to be left to mainly its own devices to attract residents.  And beyond these four proposed projects, there is the proposed Central Avenue Development Lands project which while ostensibly in the “center” of the city will build over 40 acres of largely wooded area eliminating much of the green corridor that runs from Lakehead University through to the College and ultimately Chapples Park. 

Thunder Bay’s development motto is essentially “density if necessary but not necessarily urban density.”  Thunder Bay equates urban density as simply the act of putting multi-residential units on anywhere the city has surplus land rather than working with owners in existing brownfield areas to consolidate derelict and underused properties. Infill is not always the same as creating urban density.  Thunder Bay wastes taxpayer money by providing business owners in the former core areas with beautification baubles but then does not follow up with real strategic investment in those areas.  It is the type of short-term thinking that has led to the creation of a dispersed and costly to service city with an over-reliance on automobiles.  Enjoy the short-term construction benefits from all the new housing projects as the future costs to both the taxpayer in servicing costs and the environment will be substantial.

Thunder Bay Is Missing Its Chance for Strategic Urban Density

 

After decades of low growth, Thunder Bay has been experiencing a period of growth that affords it an opportunity to reshape its urban landscape.  Historically, Thunder Bay has allowed its urban footprint to expand in a low-density highly dispersed web that is more costly to service and provide efficient infrastructure such as water and sewer as well as public transit.  The recent spate of population growth as well as the availability of provincial and federal money for housing means that Thunder Bay could be making some major strides building density in its core urban areas.  This of course would complement the rather large dollar amounts that have recently been expended for urban redevelopment projects in the downtown cores such as the North Core Streetscape Project and the Victoria Avenue Revitalization.

Alas, in its haste to meet federal and provincial housing targets and obtain government money, Thunder Bay is on the verge of yet again squandering the opportunities that have presented themselves by engaging in short term decision making that will build scattered density developments that will sprout like toadstools after a summer’s rain. City officials have noted that they are only 32 percent of the way in meeting their housing targets and must build an additional 1200 units by February 2027 to meet the target of 1,755 housing units. The proposed locations for density development are at 300 Tokio Street, 144 Fanshaw Street, 791 Arundel Street, 211-223 Tupper Street and 224 Camelot Street. 

Of these four proposed locations, three are essentially going to be plonked on available space – often green space – in the midst or immediately adjacent to existing residential areas.  Only one – the Camelot Street location is going to be placed near a downtown core area.  And that is the point.  To date, the large builds on Junot and Fulton have been built in or adjacent to existing lower density residential areas and often at the expense of nearby green space.  Except for Camelot – which is a good location if one is planning to build up core area density – these are all scattered willy-nilly in places where the only option is to drive somewhere to get anything done.

Thunder Bay needs to use this opportunity for growth to be more strategic in how it does its housing if it wants to truly build density.  The density housing projects in this city should be designed to concentrate population near services and amenities, not encourage more time-consuming commuting in the long run, to meet short term funding targets. The density build locations in Thunder Bay should be the two former downtown cores areas of Port Arthur and Fort William and the corridor connecting them that runs along and immediately adjacent to Water/Fort William Road/Simpson Streets and Algoma/Memorial/May Streets.  It is up to the mayor and council to provide this type of directive to its administration because simply asking them to come up with sites for density build will generate the quickest solution rather than a methodical plan for infill.

 

What might such a density corridor look like?  A good example is rooted in the urban renewal studies of the past.  Plate 20 of the 1968 Proctor and Redfern Downtown Fort William Urban Renewal envisioned a Simpson Street with density rental housing as the accompanying figure illustrates. Many of those apartments or condos would likely have sweeping views of the lake and provide for a mix of both premium and affordable units with room for shops, stores and offices on the street level.  Indeed, the recent redevelopment of Simpson Street's road and sewer infrastructure should have presented an opportunity for the consolidation of derelict and underused properties to build the multi-unit buildings the city seems to so desperate to ram through existing residential neighbourhoods and green space.

This opportunity is going to be short-lived and if we simply build things in an erratic short term pattern, we will have to live with the costs for decades to come.  Our municipal politicians need to actually step up and lead for a change by providing direction rather than hide behind bureaucratic processes.  This window of opportunity will not last long.

Housing the Homeless: Thunder Bay Edition

 

Thunder Bay’s ongoing decision-making process regarding the location of a tiny homes village to house the homeless took yet another turn this week with the final site selected – again – but not the 114 Miles Street East site.  It is now  the Hillyard site off Central Avenue in the intercity area adjacent to the off leash dog park.  Council has spoken but this has become a process of musical sites.  The site selection process has moved across several other tries at establishing a tiny homes village first on Miles Street (which is separate from another project by Alpha Court), then in Intercity, and then on Cumberland Street, then the Kam River Heritage site, then back to Miles Street and now the Hillyard site.  

In a 7-6 decision, this is the “final” choice “and will not need to come back to council. Unless staff discover barriers in the process of developing the site, which Collin said could include significant unanticipated objections from the public, the shelter village will be built at that location.” Needless to say, this is probably not over yet as one suspects that a treed area that contains a walking trail and off leash dog park using by local dwellers off Beverly Street and that is remote from the services the homeless are supposed to be able to access will be costly to develop. The area does not appear to have immediately accessible water, electricity or transit.  This will take time and given the other tiny homes project in the south core is being delayed, encampments will be around for quite some time. 

A couple of things come to mind about this process.  First, it is obvious that while everyone maintains that they wants to solve homelessness in Thunder Bay, no one wants a highly visible tiny homes shelter complex next to them.  When tucking it away on the Kam River Park did not work out, hiding it in the industrial/commercial urban wasteland that is intercity seems acceptable to many – for now. Whether or not it can actually work is a challenge for future decision making. We obviously do not want a future without challenges for our local councillors.

Second, when opposing these types of projects, it helps to have a strong neighborhood association or BIA (Business Improvement Area) to advocate for you.  While the traditional urban core areas such as Fort William, Port Arthur or Westfort, have BIAs, the intercity industrial/commercial nexus does not.  After all, they have never needed organized lobbying given that they were the central and natural economic hub in the wake of amalgamation.  I expect they will be organizing very soon. The business owners in the area were likely not consulted and one suspects that the assorted business interests in the area are not going to be amused by the additional security measures they will need to take to secure their grounds from assorted urban foragers in an area already prone to break-ins and trespassing.

In the end, even if these tiny homes are built – given their location away from services - one suspects take-up will be limited and encampments in their current locations will persist and even grow given the state of the expensive rental housing market in Thunder Bay.  There is actually not a shortage of housing in Thunder Bay given the numerous projects that have been springing up but a shortage of affordable housing.  Rents from one-bedroom apartments in these new builds which have no doubt received numerous incentive payments from government to build are in the $2000 a month range.

The ultimate solution here is not tiny homes but a program of social housing accompanied with more direct take up measures.  After all, once social housing is built and people have a place to go, it will be difficult to remain at large camping in public areas.  As outlined in a previous blog post: “Given the private sector does not appear to be either capable or willing to provide new build affordable housing and given the amount of money that is being spent simply for tiny homes, there can be a public sector role in longer term housing solutions.  There needs to be more social housing – administered by the District of Thunder Bay Social Services Administration Board (DSSAB) and funded by the City of Thunder Bay, the Provincial and the Federal governments with local groups (such as Alpha Court as well as Indigenous organizations) in partnership.  The partnership approach is key and has been noted by others.  Small apartment style buildings providing social housing and geared to income units need to be built in multiple locations throughout the city with city owned and other public land in the downtown cores and city being possible locations.” 

You are looking at 3-4 storey buildings with small apartment style units and the ground floor housing social support services and security. Such housing spread out across assorted urban core areas close to services will also blend in better with surroundings. Tiny homes are not a solution that appears palatable to people in Thunder Bay.  Social housing is the way to go even if probably more expensive.  In the absence of social housing, the only other approach would be for the city to use the funds it was planning for tiny homes to simply rent apartments for the homeless in existing buildings. Good luck with that.

 

Making Major Decisions at Thunder Bay City Council-Part II

 

As noted in the previous post, the last few weeks at Thunder Bay City Council have been busy with three major decisions of particular note: not approving changes to council composition, approving the Kam River Heritage Park site as the location for a temporary village of tiny homes to address homelessness and finally, not shutting down the County Park location and adding Intercity Mall as the location for a new more centralized library.  These were particularly thorny issues to deal with on several fronts and my take is that the correct decision was made in two out of the three cases.  In the last post, I provided my thoughts on the two decisions I think City council got right: sticking with the status quo on council composition and not putting a large new central library in the Intercity Mall.  However, on the third decision – going ahead with the Kam River site for the tiny homes project- I beg to differ.  However, there may yet be a silver lining to the decision made if it is truly a transitional decision and time it buys used to bring about long term social and geared to income housing.

After several other tries at establishing a tiny homes village first on Miles Street (which is separate from another project by Alpha Court), then in Intercity, and then on Cumberland Street, the nod has now been given to the Kam River Heritage site – for now.  This has been somewhat of a merry go round in terms of location selection. There is still another meeting for final ratification, however, and this location decision has been made and reversed before. However, my feeling is given the cycling across locations, City Council will stick with this final choice if only to avoid further eroding their credibility. 

This has been a charged and emotional issue given the need to address the homeless problem and the presence of tent encampments under third world conditions.   There are also the many concerns as what the impacts of such a village will be on adjacent residences and businesses.  And to be fair, this is not just Thunder Bay’s problem, but the provincial and federal government’s problem given there are homeless encampments across the province and the country.

In the end, several reasons were advanced as to why the Kam River site should be selected including proximity to essential services, the fact the area already houses an encampment, and that it is in keeping with the City’s strategic plan.  After numerous delays, there is also a sense of urgency to put the project in place to not jeopardize provincial funding though making decisions to just get the money is never sound public policy.

However, a key concern raised has been safety of the residents given the proximity to water and rail tracks with the prospect of drownings up front and center.   The City Manager commented that “You can drown in six inches of water like you can drown in 12 feet of water. The depth is not really the consequential issue. It's clearly delineating it, making people understand the risks, and putting in some prevention measures."  This somewhat less than sensitive response in the wake of recent history along our waterways also omits the reality that a drowning is a drowning whether in six inches or 12 feet of water and if it is a municipally run village on city land there will inevitably be additional liability issues.  Safety is a big issue with this site.

As well, even with these tiny homes, encampments will still not be eliminated as the tiny home village is part of a city homelessness plan that includes three approved encampment sites. Also not addressed as a concern is the reality that this plan  - unlike the other sites considered - puts the tiny village essentially out of sight and out of mind by locating it where it will not be easily seen.  This will be a problem given that the project is supposed to run for only five years as “permanent” solutions are brought into play.  However, if the problem disappears from public view, it will be difficult down the road to generate the attention and the resources for permanent solutions.  The risk of hiding the problem is that long term solutions will go onto the back burner.

Then there is the cost.  According to the media reports, Thunder Bay will spend $5.5 million to construct an 80-unit "tiny home" village, with the province contributing $2.8 million of that, and has targeted operating costs for the first year at $1.5 million. So, over the five-year span of the project, the total cost for 80 units based on these numbers will be close to 13 million dollars.  Given the history of public sector capital projects at the public sector level in Thunder Bay, one can certainly expect cost overruns in the building and operation of these tiny homes.  Hamilton (always my favourite example) has also erected a “temporary” village to house its growing homeless population with the cost for 40 units (80 beds) originally forecast at $2.8 million but that has ballooned to $7.9 million or about $100,000 per bed.  Operating costs annually are apparently going to be $40,000 per bed. 

Is this a problem?  Well, in the case of Thunder Bay, think about it this way. Spending $13 million for 80 tiny units over five years works out to $162,500 per unit – or $32,500 annually. Thunder Bay is currently undergoing an apartment building spree financed by federal and provincial housing money which is increasing the supply of rental units but not necessarily increasing the stock of affordable housing because two-bedroom units in these new build apartments are going for as much as $2500 per month. At $2,500 per month, the annual rent is $30,000 per year.  Essentially, for the same amount of money, the City of Thunder Bay could simply house up to 160 homeless people in new existing two bedroom apartments for the next five years in very nice lodgings.  If older buildings at somewhat lower rents were put into the mix, then you could house even more homeless people.

Of course, this modest proposal of a solution is not going to happen. One suspects that current rental accommodation landlords in Thunder Bay are not terribly interested in helping solve the city’s homeless population problem in a manner that might affect the value of their investments or the building environment of their current mix of tenants.  This does however lead to what I think the longer-term solution could be. 

Given the private sector does not appear to be either capable or willing to provide new build affordable housing and given the amount of money that is being spent simply for tiny homes, there can be a public sector role in longer term housing solutions.  There needs to be more social housing – administered by the district of Thunder Bay Social Services Administration Board (DSSAB) and funded by the City of Thunder Bay, the Provincial and the Federal governments with local groups (such as Alpha Court as well as Indigenous organizations) in partnership.  The partnership approach is key and has been noted by others.  Small apartment style buildings providing social housing and geared to income units need to be built in multiple locations throughout the city with city owned and other public land in the downtown cores and city being possible locations.

Again, as outlined in a much earlier blog post, a good model here is Finland which has through the building of social housing complexes that provide places to live and a fixed address for those requiring access to government services dramatically rescued its homeless population. As I have noted, “People who are homeless need to be housed and housed without questions being asked.  Creating a complex or dispersed network of complexes of transitional emergency housing with very small personal units combined with social support such as a community kitchen, social workers and even a nurse practitioner and mental health workers and basic security on site would be one way of dealing with the homelessness crisis.”   And once lives are stabilized in these homes, the next step is placing them in geared to income units.  As far as I am concerned, tiny homes on a riverbank are at best an expensive band-aid solution.  If you are going to be spending tens of millions of dollars, you need to be leveraging that money into permanent solutions, not stop gaps.  True, the social housing approach is seen as more expensive, but it is more likely to solve the problem rather than dilute or obscure it.  Moreover, the tiny homes approach is not exactly cheap either.

Still, these are all complicated questions, and one certainly does not envy the people who must wrestle with them. I suppose getting two out of three decisions right is not a bad score but as my old high school motto would say - Agimus Meliora – let us strive for better things. And doing better in the case of homeless encampments given that the Kam River site is likely a done deal, is to gain redemption by using the next five years to fully implement long term solutions and not hide problems along a riverbank.

 

Making Major Decisions at Thunder Bay City Council-Part I

 

It has been a busy few weeks at Thunder Bay City Council with three major decisions of particular note: not approving changes to council composition, approving the Kam River Heritage Park site as the location for a temporary village of tiny homes to address homelessness and finally, not approving Intercity Mall as the location for a new more centralized library and shutting down the County Park location.  These were particularly thorny issues to deal with on several fronts and my take is that the correct decision was made in two out of the three cases.

First, let us start with council composition.  I have already opined on the shape of councils to come and the long and short is that City Council made the right decision in sticking with the status quo. My reasoning is not that City council might not benefit from a different model but replacing a seven ward and five at large plus mayor model with the proposed four wards with two ward councillors each plus two at large and one mayor did not represent a major improvement to either representation or decision making on municipal issues.  Cost savings from moving to fewer councillors was always a red herring because the few thousand dollars in savings from going to 11 members from 13 was minor and cosmetic given a  combined total capital and operating budget well over half a billion dollars.

The representation issue is more serious in that the proposed model would have essentially subsumed rural interests in Neebing and McIntyre wards and local neighborhood issues would have been lost in the new wards each with a mish mash of rural, urban, industrial and commercial interests.  Having two ward councillors in each of these wards seemed to be an attempt to have council composition resemble a more at-large system without having a fully at large system.  A “Larson” compromise it was not because the rejected model created more problems than it solved.

A fully at large system would in many respects be the least favourable outcome given the reduction in accountability to ratepayers who would no longer have a dedicated ward councillor.  That is a major problem with any fully at large system given that residential ratepayers foot 70 percent of the operating budget tax bill.  The partial at-large system being proposed created a more complicated set of representation problems for ward councillors while at the same time confusing who was responsible for the ward by providing two councillors who each could behave as an at-large ward councillor if they wished to avoid more pedestrian local issues.  And in terms of the desire for change and “cost savings”, informal surveys suggested an eight member council plus Mayor  was desired by the public rather than what was advanced even though again the cost savings here would be relatively minor.

As noted in my previous post, the public desire rightly or wrongly favored a smaller council of eight plus a mayor and “Going down to eight councillors plus a mayor would likely save several hundred thousand dollars – again a small sum compared to a budget in the hundreds of millions – but enough to increase resources available to perhaps attract better candidates. This does not necessarily mean raising salaries for councillors but could even involve providing funds so that they can hire some independent research support so they can better inform themselves on issues.”  This option but as an eight-ward and not all at large model plus a mayor would have been my preferred option.  However, this model was never on the table and after the time spent of this process, council composition is off the table for many years to come.

Second, the nixing of the Intercity library location.  The current CEO of the Thunder Bay Public Library is rather energetic and persistent as  this was the second attempt to foster change and bring about a central library at Intercity Mall.  However, as can be the case with leaders who believe they see things that others do not, you cannot take people where they do not want to go.  Moreover, closing a neighborhood library (County Park which is indeed in a neighborhood shopping mall) to provide a more centralized location in the Intercity shopping area where no one really lives – is not necessarily a service enhancement.  While it may on the surface appear to be a more accessible and convenient location, for families with kids, heading to the library becomes more of a destination event rather than part of a routine.  Moreover, the focus on having a large, centralized facility is at odds with the dispersed nature of Thunder Bay.  It might work but it is an expensive experiment and the cost of the project – even with contributions from the mall owners – were substantial and not likely to be fully recouped on the operating side from closing the County Park branch.

But there is more.  The informal sentiment in Thunder Bay – and not mine - is that books are very 20^th century and that indeed you might want to look at having fewer libraries rather than more.  I see that sentiment as a more North American affectation given that if you go to Europe, bookstores and libraries with hard copy books still proliferate (try visiting Dublin).  It is possible that in years to come, books will indeed enjoy a renaissance as the inevitable reaction against e-books and technology and a desire for retro sets in.  If future libraries with books and electronic media that function as information and communication centers (rather than community hubs) eventually have a renaissance, the case can oddly enough be made that Thunder Bay is “under libraried”.  That is, Thunder Bay could probably use a system with more small and dispersed libraries but not necessarily a system that concentrates resources at a few locations.

For example, the Hamilton, Ontario CMA with a population of about 785,000 people in 2021, has a City of Hamilton library system consisting of one central library in its downtown, 22 branch libraries of varying sizes, and a book mobile.  However, the CMA also includes Grimsby (one library) and Burlington (seven libraries) Put another way, 32 library locations for a population of nearly 800,000 people.  The Thunder Bay CMA with a population in 2021 of 123,000 has four libraries.  Based on the population and total number of municipal public libraries in the Hamilton CMA of 785,000 to 32, Thunder Bay’s 123,000 CMA population should have 5 municipal public libraries rather than 4.

At first glance this seems to support the case for a library at the Intercity area given that there are already four branches in existence.  However, I would argue that there is a better case for six smaller libraries - none of which would be in Intercity.  Thunder Bay’s current library system is rooted in a population distribution that comes from its history as two cities.  So, there are two large central libraries and two smaller neighborhood libraries.  The downtown Brodie and Waverly locations in a sense are too large given that over 75 years population has moved away from the core areas.

What might work better is six libraries each about the size of a County Park or Mary JL Black.  So, what this might suggest is a downsizing and refurbishment of the two downtown branches – Brodie and Waverly – in terms of their collections with each having a collection about the size of a MJLB/County Park.  Furthermore, one would house the archives/reference section and the other library admin and storage (which is not far from current reality).  Two new smaller branches would be put in place – one somewhere in the Northwood area or perhaps Parkdale and the other in the Current River area.  Essentially a system with smaller branch libraries providing more neighborhood access.  Can this work? Maybe? Will it happen? Not likely.  Capital costs are capital costs whether for small, dispersed facilities or larger centralized ones.  One cannot discern any appetite for major new capital library projects in Thunder Bay given the focus is on recreation facilities. 

Next post - Conclusion.

 

 

 

Housing Starts: Sudbury and Thunder Bay

Housing availability and affordability remain amongst the most pressing issues in current public policy and the north's major urban centers are no exception given the rise in the average price of housing as well as rents.  In response to provincial and federal incentives, both Greater Sudbury and Thunder Bay have seen a ramping up of housing activity.  By late  2024, Thunder Bay had issued 310 building permits and 241 shovel ready housing starts were in progress and as a result had exceeded the housing targets set for 2024.  Greater Sudbury has also seen an increase in housing activity with 2023 the strongest year in a five year period and by late 2024 had seen 610 housing starts of which nearly two thirds were rental units.

For both communities, 2024 marks a departure from recent performance given that Statistics Canada data suggests that for 2023, total housing starts were 263 in Greater Sudbury and 193 in Thunder Bay.  However, as impressive as the current ramping up may be, a glance at historical performance suggests that there is still a ways to go if current construction efforts are able to match those of yesteryear.  Figure 1 plots annual total housing starts from Statistics Canada (Series v42127460 andv42127445)  for Greater Sudbury and Thunder Bay from 1972 to 2023 and for both communities recent housing start total are nowhere near the peaks achieved in either the 1970s or 1980s.  Over the 1972 to 2023 period, Thunder Bay's peak was 1,620 housing starts in 1977 while Sudbury's best year was 1991 when it saw 1,758 housing starts.  

 

 

The period since 2000 is particularly flat for Thunder Bay with the best year being 2012 which saw 380 housing starts while Greater Sudbury peaked in 2011 at 595 starts.  And while the 1980s and 1990s were marked by stagnant population growth rates, the period since 2000 has seen some population growth (See Figure 2, Data source: Statistics Canada).  Between 2001 and 2023, Greater Sudbury grew  from 165,532 people to 185,230 - an increase of nearly 12 percent.  Thunder Bay has not done as well on the population growth front but nevertheless still grew by 3 percent of the last period.  A larger population but lower housing starts relative to the past means that population adjusted housing starts remain lackluster relative to even the recent past since 2000.  In 2012, for example, Thunder Bay managed 300 starts per 100,000 population while in 2011, Greater Sudbury was at just over 350 starts per 100,000.  By comparison, 2023 saw both communities at just under 150 starts per 100,000 population.  While 2024 was better even on a population adjusted basis, it remains that neither community appears able to construct at rates approaching those of the 1970s and 1980s.  

 

 

 

This is of course not just a northern Ontario affliction.  In Canada as a whole but Ontario in particular, the last 50 years have seen an increase in assorted regulations and requirements that make rapid project approvals and construction harder to do.  And, new homes built today - with the exception of apartment and condo units - at least anecdotally, often seem to be larger than they were in the past which all things given could also take more time.  Combined with higher land prices, it is understandable that construction today is likely not to approach the rates of the 1970s.   Then there is the fact that populations were much younger in the 1970s and 1980s meaning that labour was more abundant compared to shortages today especially in areas like skilled trades.   The result is a definite slowdown in our ability to meet both demand and need.