Detroit vs. Toronto

[iheartthed]

A native Metro Detroiter now living in Toronto, Isidoros Kyrlangitses, wrote an essay about the policies that allow Toronto to flourish while Metro Detroit has stagnated. He theorizes that Ontario's policy of allowing cities to only collect taxes through property taxes provides impetus for municipalities to focus on making land valuable. He contrasts this to Michigan's "home rule" policies that allow municipalities to tax according to their own preference, decisions which are usually implemented according to the immediate preferences of current interest groups versus long term vitality of the community.

One of the attractions the region had over Downriver Michigan was its growth. At the time I assumed the stereotypical Canadian reasons for growth; tighter gun control makes safe appealing cities and liberal immigration policies keep filling them with people.I later decided that these reasons disguise the fundamental differences in municipal governance between Ontario and Michigan. Ontario cities emphasize land value while Michigan cities emphasize services. The result is growing populations in Ontario cities, while cities in Michigan pursue revenue growth through services that do not necessarily translate into population growth.

From a first glance of the above table, Michigan cities appear to be strong, in control, and have the tools to create innovative city government.
So why have Ontario cities faired better in terms of population growth?
Ontario cities like Toronto only have the right to tax through property taxes, whereas Michigan cities like Detroit can charge any form of tax [[e.g. income or business tax).
This leads to Ontario cities having to boost property values to increase the tax base, while Michigan cities try to offload the tax burden from residents to businesses and services. The different approaches lead to vastly different outcomes in land use.
Cities in Ontario become much more flexible with their zoning laws since they want to increase density to increase property values. The idea is that a 40-story condominium with 300 units is worth more and generates more property tax revenue than a $5 million mansion on the same acreage.
The flexible zoning laws do not apply just to developers, but to homeowners as well. With a little work to meet fire codes, a basement apartment can be added to a residence, greatly enhancing the property value. The intensification encourages population growth, and therefore market growth for local business.
Michigan's older cities are developed to their boundaries and have a difficult time intensifying land use. City councils find it easier to create a new tax on non-residents than to convince existing voters that intensification is good, not simply a force for more congestion and traffic.

His proof that Ontario's strategy is better than Michigan's?

Fifty years ago Toronto was half the size of Detroit. Today Toronto is almost three times the size of Detroit.

Granted, that's not entire accurate: the Toronto is a little less than twice the size of Metro Detroit. But the fact remains that the Toronto area has grown by several magnitudes over the past half century while Metro Detroit's population completely stagnated during the same time, all despite Ontario and Michigan having very intertwined economies.

Full essay here: http://globalurbanist.com/2010/01/26...etroit-shrinks

[Novine]

Most Michigan cities don't use income or business taxes to supplement their property tax collections. As it applies to Detroit, the following point seems totally off-base.

"Michigan's older cities are developed to their boundaries and have a difficult time intensifying land use. City councils find it easier to create a new tax on non-residents than to convince existing voters that intensification is good, not simply a force for more congestion and traffic."

Does anyone believe that this is really an issue in Detroit with all the vacant land available in the city? It's NIMBYs in Detroit that are preventing more density?

[Islandman]

Another item of note is the amalgamations that Toronto has gone through over the years, the latest in 1998. Regionalization is definitely a factor in keeping Toronto positively evolving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalgamation_of_Toronto

[DetroitPlanner]

He is making a lot of generalizations. First of all, municipalities in Michigan only have 2 taxing sources: the property tax and the income tax. Not many municipalities have an income tax and most rely soley on property taxes. No municipalities in Michigan can enact a sales tax.

Chicago is a city that has all sort of taxes including sales taxes and it is doing very well.

Toronto is the primate city of Canada. The United States does not have such an animal, though it could be argued that NYC is the closest thing we have to one, because it is the biggest thing amonst giant cities along the eastern seaboard. Because Toronto is the primate city, it gets fed from the rest of Canada's economy. This produces a lot of jobs. Detroit has been running in the reverse as it was once the Country's undisputed manufacturing center and has lost quite a bit of its manufacturing jobs to other regions in the States and to places like Mexico, Asia, and even yes the GTA.

[iheartthed]

He is making a lot of generalizations. First of all, municipalities in Michigan only have 2 taxing sources: the property tax and the income tax. Not many municipalities have an income tax and most rely soley on property taxes. No municipalities in Michigan can enact a sales tax.

Chicago is a city that has all sort of taxes including sales taxes and it is doing very well.

Toronto is the primate city of Canada. The United States does not have such an animal, though it could be argued that NYC is the closest thing we have to one, because it is the biggest thing amonst giant cities along the eastern seaboard. Because Toronto is the primate city, it gets fed from the rest of Canada's economy. This produces a lot of jobs. Detroit has been running in the reverse as it was once the Country's undisputed manufacturing center and has lost quite a bit of its manufacturing jobs to other regions in the States and to places like Mexico, Asia, and even yes the GTA.

Actually, Montreal was "Canada's New York" about 50 years ago.

[Gistok]

If metro Detroit is slightly less than half the size of Toronto... that would mean that Toronto has over 8 million people... last I checked Detroit had something like 4-5 million [[depending on how big you define metro-Detroit), while Toronto has 5.1-6.1 million [[again, depending on your definition).

[iheartthed]

If metro Detroit is slightly less than half the size of Toronto... that would mean that Toronto has over 8 million people... last I checked Detroit had something like 4-5 million [[depending on how big you define metro-Detroit), while Toronto has 5.1-6.1 million [[again, depending on your definition).

I've seen some estimates of 8 million but I can't verify that right now so I'll go with the 5 - 6 million figure. Still, I don't believe GTA was anywhere near that large 50 years ago.

[Mind field]

Speaking strictly of city population, which the author probably was talking about, then Toronto is roughly 3x the size of Detroit.

It's pretty incredible the divergent paths Detroit and Toronto took over the course of the 20th century. And seeing what Toronto has become just due to a few different policies and laws, also being the financial capital of a prosperous nation has helped, but it has roughly the same metro population as Detroit give or take a million. But Toronto feels so much larger, or maybe that is how the central city of a region of 5-6 million should really be if the focus is on the central city.

The contrast between the two cities today couldn't be more stark. Toronto has a dense bustling core, like New York City bustling, with loads of retail. While Detroit just doesn't have any kind of cohesive core.....yet. To me Detroit has the ingredients to have an amazing central city. There just have to be substantial and critical changes on so many levels.

[Dexlin]

Let's be clear, Toronto has either been Canada's primate or second city throughout much of its modern history. It has been the NYC of its nation for more than a few decades, now. Detrot's not even the largest metropolitan area in its region.

Why anyone would be comparing Canada's economic capital to a second or third tier metro is beyond me. Toronto is successful because it practically has to be, end of story. America made the calculation long ago that it could afford to lose Detroit because it has so many other large population centers. Canada can't lose Toronto, even while they don't necessarily like the place.

[Hamtragedy]

Don't forget either, that if you don't feel like hopping on the streetcar approaching the intersection where you're currently standing, you can hop on the one that is five blocks behind that. Or the next car which is four blocks behind the second one.

I can't imagine waiting for the Greenfield, or Schoolcraft bus, and actually seeing a second bus a half mile away.

[rooms222]

Also, the migration of jobs, people, and corporate headquarters from Montreal to Toronto in the the late 60's and beyond calls to mind the quick abandonment of Detroit to the suburbs during the same time period. This growth boosted Toronto.

In Canada, like Detroit, the abandonment was also motivated primarily by fear in combination with economic factors- the Quebec separatist movement being the primary cause....

This PBS story from 1996 talks about the dozens of corporate headquarters that left Montreal during that time period....

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/canad...alers_5-2.html

[davewindsor]

Toronto has just so many positive influences that all work together that make it so much better than Detroit. Not only was there amalgamation of metro Toronto [[which plays a big role in controlling costs), flight of the financial sector and corporate offices from Montreal because of Quebec seperatism and no city income taxes [[which kept a lot of the old money in the city) as stated by the posters above, but it's also the capital of the province, which means a lot of spending on infrastructure in the city because that's where the Queen's Park representatives and bureaucrats spend most of their time. The CN Tower was completely funded with federal tax dollars under Trudeau to win over local support and improve local tourism. A lot of government money is floating around to improve the city.

You also have the the third largest film industry in North America in Toronto because of the ongoing generous tax credits offered by Queen's Park. The film industry promotes the city to tourists around the globe. You have easy access to capital because of the bank HQs and the Toronto Stock Exchange [[the Detroit Stock Exchange was bought out by NYSE and left Detroit in the 70s). And lastly, it's a lot easier to get a work visa and immigrate to Canada than the US. And where do most immigrants flock to? The largest cities that see on tv like Toronto. Toronto is a Marshall plan that builds the city onto itself. I wish they did that to other cities in Ontario like WIndsor, but that's where most of the tax dollars are focused.

[Neilr]

Also, the migration of jobs, people, and corporate headquarters from Montreal to Toronto in the the late 60's and beyond calls to mind the quick abandonment of Detroit to the suburbs during the same time period. This growth boosted Toronto.

In Canada, like Detroit, the abandonment was also motivated primarily by fear in combination with economic factors- the Quebec separatist movement being the primary cause....

This PBS story from 1996 talks about the dozens of corporate headquarters that left Montreal during that time period....

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/canad...alers_5-2.html

Absolutely spot on! Montreal had been the economic and business hub of Canada while Toronto was just a step up from being a second tier mid-sized city. Then 50 years or so ago the French Separatist movement gained force in Quebec. Business leaders in Montreal, for the most part English speaking, became very nervous and looked around for safer ground. They found it in Toronto. Massive amounts of corporate money and educated workers left Montreal and moved to Toronto. Thus began the tremendous building boom and growth of Toronto.

[iheartthed]

Let's be clear, Toronto has either been Canada's primate or second city throughout much of its modern history. It has been the NYC of its nation for more than a few decades, now. Detrot's not even the largest metropolitan area in its region.

Why anyone would be comparing Canada's economic capital to a second or third tier metro is beyond me. Toronto is successful because it practically has to be, end of story. America made the calculation long ago that it could afford to lose Detroit because it has so many other large population centers. Canada can't lose Toronto, even while they don't necessarily like the place.

What's wrong with the comparison? Detroit is not hardly a third tier metropolis. It may act like one, but the numbers don't agree. And when Detroit first started it's slide it was in the realm of top tier U.S. cities.

Another thing, since Canada doesn't have such a bloated financial system like the U.S. does, being the financial capital of Canada isn't really that "sexy". And even Windsor doesn't look like Detroit.

But all that aside, you don't have to make an apple to apple comparison between two cities situations to examine the effects of those cities policies on their urban environments.

[davewindsor]

Also, the migration of jobs, people, and corporate headquarters from Montreal to Toronto in the the late 60's and beyond calls to mind the quick abandonment of Detroit to the suburbs during the same time period.

I had to double check this. That article was written in 1996. What happened in Montreal is not even close to Detroit's abandonment. It's not a city in steep decline like that article states. Even though a lot of corporate offices did move to Toronto because of the separatist movement, Montreal also saw a population increase quite unlike Detroit during this period The city recovered and Montreal is still the second largest city in Canada behind Toronto, but ahead of Vancouver and Calgary.

Montreal City Island Metro
1951 1,036,542 1,320,2321,539,308
2006 1,620,693 1,854,442 3,635,571
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal


In 2010, Montreal's GDP grew by 2.3%. The office vacancy rate is 8.2%. The overall multi-residential vacancy rate for 2011 is 2.3%. [[all from http://www.cbre.ca/NR/rdonlyres/7C55...nce2011MTL.pdf )

It's nothing like Detroit.

[313WX]

I had to double check this. That article was written in 1996. What happened in Montreal is not even close to Detroit's abandonment. It's not a city in steep decline like that article states. Even though a lot of corporate offices did move to Toronto because of the separatist movement, Montreal also saw a population increase quite unlike Detroit during this period The city recovered and Montreal is still the second largest city in Canada behind Toronto, but ahead of Vancouver and Calgary.

Montreal City Island Metro
1951 1,036,542 1,320,2321,539,308
2006 1,620,693 1,854,442 3,635,571
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal


In 2010, Montreal's GDP grew by 2.3%. The office vacancy rate is 8.2%. The overall multi-residential vacancy rate for 2011 is 2.3%. [[all from http://www.cbre.ca/NR/rdonlyres/7C55...nce2011MTL.pdf )

It's nothing like Detroit.

If Montreal is similar to any city in the US, it's Chicago.

Detroit is in a league of its own.

[canuck]

Toronto has just so many positive influences that all work together that make it so much better than Detroit. Not only was there amalgamation of metro Toronto [[which plays a big role in controlling costs), flight of the financial sector and corporate offices from Montreal because of Quebec seperatism and no city income taxes [[which kept a lot of the old money in the city) as stated by the posters above, but it's also the capital of the province, which means a lot of spending on infrastructure in the city because that's where the Queen's Park representatives and bureaucrats spend most of their time. The CN Tower was completely funded with federal tax dollars under Trudeau to win over local support and improve local tourism. A lot of government money is floating around to improve the city.

You also have the the third largest film industry in North America in Toronto because of the ongoing generous tax credits offered by Queen's Park. The film industry promotes the city to tourists around the globe. You have easy access to capital because of the bank HQs and the Toronto Stock Exchange [[the Detroit Stock Exchange was bought out by NYSE and left Detroit in the 70s). And lastly, it's a lot easier to get a work visa and immigrate to Canada than the US. And where do most immigrants flock to? The largest cities that see on tv like Toronto. Toronto is a Marshall plan that builds the city onto itself. I wish they did that to other cities in Ontario like WIndsor, but that's where most of the tax dollars are focused.

neilr / Absolutely spot on! Montreal had been the economic and business hub of Canada while Toronto was just a step up from being a second tier mid-sized city. Then 50 years or so ago the French Separatist movement gained force in Quebec. Business leaders in Montreal, for the most part English speaking, became very nervous and looked around for safer ground. They found it in Toronto. Massive amounts of corporate money and educated workers left Montreal and moved to Toronto. Thus began the tremendous building boom and growth of Toronto.

Couldnt have put it better davewindsor. But in spite of Montreal's grit and potholes, the foundation is good to start fighting back on Toronto's homefront. There is a building boom in Montreal that puts it behind Houston [[1) and Toronto [[2) in the number of building permits issued in North America. 2 major hospitals; CUSM and CHUM are under construction for a total of 4 billion dollars. Two major hotels, A new Marriott [[40 stories) and a Waldorf Astoria 2x 35 stories. Cadillac Fairview wants to build a 62 story condo tower next to the Bell Center, and there are a lot of condo highrises slated for downtown and Griffintown. A number of companies are looking for new HQ's to move into and the city is looking to revise its building height limitations to allow for towers that would go higher than Mount Royal; the mountain in the middle of town. The political tensions have died down, and there is a new spirit in the city that is more oecumenical than the old fractious one. On the one hand, french business leaders have gained the status they lacked 50 years ago vis à vis their anglo counterparts, on the other, the anglos dont feel threatened as much.

[rooms222]

The decline from the 60's to the 90's is very analogous to Detroit. The difference is that Quebec is allowed to give extra visas to attract about 45,000 immigrants per year to Quebec, mainly from the Francophone world, through special immigration quotas given to Quebec. About 3/4 of these immigrants settle in Montreal.

http://www.micc.gouv.qc.ca/publicati...syn_an2010.pdf

This program is not ideal [[many immigrants are from tertiary areas of francophony and about 20% leave for other parts of Canada as soon as they can), but it has helped stanch the deep population drop of Detroit and the stagnation of Metro Detroit as a whole.

[canuck]

After a while studying the history of modern Detroit, I also noticed similarities between relative decline in Montreal and Detroit. Both cities had a cultural divide that needed to be bridged. The ability of metro Detroiters to coalesce and bring forth a unifying project will determine future success. Likewise for Montreal, if the same old tired nationalism finds a crack to grow in, then the perceived wrongs on both the french and english sides will provoke further decline. Detroit has a history of rising to the industrial innovation demands of the world but now it has to take better care of itself, and nurture a culture of proximity, higher education, and mobility for all. That same ability to innovate and shelter a fast growing population in the 20th century needs to refocus on human problems instead of mechanical ones.

Montreal and Detroit need leaders that are not ambivalent on the question of corruption. Both cities have complex infrastructure issues that need addressing. Montreal needs better quality roads and bridges and tighter checks and rules in contracting. Detroit needs to restore a once enviable transit structure that will enable the core and the sum of its parts to reinvigorate residential and commercial life in the city. Both cities need to address runaway development in the burbs and reign in the forces that dilute the vital aspects of the central city.

[Occurrence]

I like Toronto because I can go anywhere I want in the city at ease without a car. What a concept.

[dtowncitylover]

1) I love Toronto. One of my favorite cities in the world. 2) Why do we have to stop at Toronto? Canadian cities have grown within the past 20-30 years, in part to due to immigration laws of Canada, and in the case of Calgary and Edmonton, the growth of the oil and gas sector.

Toronto suburbs are also large. Detroit has let's say over 70 suburbs surrounding it, while Toronto suburbs you can count on your hands. Mississauga has a population over 600,000!

[oladub]

Toronto established sprawl limits. The Detroit metropolitan area did not. This created a vibrant intensity in Toronto. It also caused real estate prices to skyrocket within the build-able portion of Toronto. People were largely priced out of single family homes. I have relatives in a northern Ontario city with shut down mines. It has attracted retirees from Toronto who cannot afford the housing prices there. Toronto isn't crime free but relatively so compared with Detroit. No development takes place in high crime neighborhoods.

[dtowncitylover]

Toronto established sprawl limits.

Yup. Developers can't build out anymore, they have to build up.

[professorscott]

I disagree with the sprawl argument, to some extent. Metro Toronto has spread out vastly over the past, say, 30 years. Of course, one difference between the spreading out of Metro Toronto and the sprawl of Metro Detroit is that Toronto's growth in land use was a result of a simultaneous growth in population, whereas the urbanization of farmland in southeast Michigan came with no population growth whatever.

I think the bigger picture is this: try to name one basic urban service that the Toronto area does an awful job of. Not just mediocre, awful. Go ahead, try. I've been there dozens of times and can't think of anything.

Now try the same thing for Detroit, and if you can't come up with something, you're in a coma and should really see a doctor.

[Hypestyles]

...toronto also has canada's health care system.. but people don't want that here.. ah well..