[PPT] - City Magnets II: Benchmarking the Attractiveness of 50 Canadian PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

www.conferenceboard.ca

City Magnets II: Benchmarking the Attractiveness of 50 Canadian Cities

ISRN 12TH Annual National Conference RENAISSANCE TORONTO HOTEL DOWNTOWN May 5-7, 2010 Mario Lefebvre Director, Centre for Municipal Studies

SLIDE 2

www.conferenceboard.ca

What’s New

Analysis conducted at the city level rather than at

the CMA level, making it easier for city officials to use the results in their policy choices.

Analysis broken down by level of education. This

is a very important breakthrough. The study investigates whether certain attributes appeal more to university-educated migrants while other appeal more to non-university-educated migrants.

SLIDE 3

www.conferenceboard.ca

The Premise

According to the 2006 Census, 2/3 of Canada’s

population growth between 2001 and 2006 was attributable to net immigration.

Statistics Canada predicts that by 2030, net

immigration will account for ALL of Canada’s population growth.

Therefore, if a city is unable to attract people, it

will be faced with weak population growth down the road, which does not bode well for its economic potential.

SLIDE 4

www.conferenceboard.ca

The Premise

The “people go where the jobs are” paradigm is slowly

changing and we believe that it will keep on changing.

Given the aging of the population and the impact that this

will have on the labour force, more and more businesses will choose to locate in cities with a relatively big pool of skilled labour, allowing them to grow over the short, medium and long term.

As a result, a city that struggles to attract people will also

struggle to attract businesses—yet another blow to the future prosperity of that city.

SLIDE 5

www.conferenceboard.ca

Methodology

41 indicators are used to measure a

city’s attractiveness to people

Indicators are split between seven

domains: Economy, Education, Environment, Health, Housing, Innovation and Society

SLIDE 6

www.conferenceboard.ca

Methodology

For each indicator, a grade of A, B, C
r D is distributed to each city, using

the following formula: (Highest Score – Lowest Score) / 4

Top quartile gets an A, second quartile

a B, etc.

SLIDE 7

www.conferenceboard.ca

Methodology

Scores for each indicator are then normalized,

allowing for the calculation of overall scores by

domain. This is done using the following

formula: (Score – Lowest Score) / (Highest Score – Lowest Score)

That way, the highest score gets a 1 and the

lowest score gets a 0. The domain score is the average score of all the indicators of that domain.

SLIDE 8

www.conferenceboard.ca

Society

14 indicators, covering:
Accessibility: mode of travel, population density,

access to culture

Diversity: foreign-born population, age of

population, multilingualism

Social cohesion: immigrant success, crime,

gender equality, poverty

Creativity: cultural employment

SLIDE 9

www.conferenceboard.ca

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 T

r
n

t

M
n

t r e a l B r a n t f

r

d S a g u e n a y S a i n t J

h

n T r

i

s

R

i v i e r e s S a s k a t

n

K e l

w

n a

Source: The Conference Board of Canada.

Society

A D

SLIDE 10

www.conferenceboard.ca

Health

4 indicators
Hospital beds per 100,000 population
General practitioners per 100,000
Specialist physicians per 100,000
Proportion of population employed in health-

care services

SLIDE 11

www.conferenceboard.ca

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 K i n g s t

n

S t . J

h

n ' s R i c h m

n

d H i l l L

n

g u e u i l B u r n a b y C

q

u i t l a m G a t i n e a u A b b

t

s f

r

d L a v a l M a r k h a m B a r r i e M i s s i s s a u g a S u r r e y R i c h m

n

d C a m b r i d g e O s h a w a K i t c h e n e r V a u g h a n B r a m p t

n

Source: The Conference Board of Canada.

Health

A D

SLIDE 12

www.conferenceboard.ca

Economy

7 indicators, including:
GDP level
GDP growth
Employment growth
Unemployment rate
Disposable income per capita

SLIDE 13

www.conferenceboard.ca

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 C a l g a r y V a u g h a n E d m

n

t

n

P e t e r b

r
u

g h H a m i l t

n

G r e a t e r S u d b u r y M

n

c t

n

C

q

u i t l a m S h e r b r

k

e B r a n t f

r

d L a v a l T h u n d e r B a y S t . C a t h a r i n e s M

n

t r é a l T r

i

s

R

i v i è r e s W i n d s

r

S a i n t J

h

n O s h a w a L

n

g u e u i l S a g u e n a y

Economy

Source: The Conference Board of Canada.

A D

SLIDE 14

www.conferenceboard.ca

Environment

4 indicators
Average monthly maximum temperature
Domestic water usage
Air quality advisory days
Median driving distance to work for solo

commuters

SLIDE 15

www.conferenceboard.ca

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 A b b

t

s f

r

d V i c t

r

i a K e l

w

n a S t . J

h

n ' s C

q

u i t l a m R e g i n a V a n c

u

v e r S u r r e y S h e r b r

k

e R i c h m

n

d S a i n t J

h

n L

n

g u e u i l M i s s i s s a u g a B u r l i n g t

n

V a u g h a n O a k v i l l e M

n

t r é a l

Source: The Conference Board of Canada.

Environment

A D

SLIDE 16

www.conferenceboard.ca

Education

4 indicators
Proportion of the population with a bachelor’s

degree

Proportion of the population with an advanced

degree (master’s, doctorate, law, medicine)

Number of teachers (elementary and secondary

per school age population

Number of professors and college instructors per

1,000 adult population

SLIDE 17

www.conferenceboard.ca

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 W a t e r l

K

i n g s t

n

S a g u e n a y A b b

t

s f

r

d B a r r i e L a v a l L

n

g u e u i l B r a m p t

n

B r a n t f

r

d O s h a w a S a i n t J

h

n S u r r e y K e l

w

n a C a m b r i d g e

Education

Source: The Conference Board of Canada.

A D

SLIDE 18

www.conferenceboard.ca

Innovation

5 indicators
Productivity level and growth
Proportion of workers employed in natural and

applied sciences

Proportion of workers employed in computer

and high-technology occupations

Number of university graduates with a major in

engineering, mathematics, or computer, applied, and physical science

SLIDE 19

www.conferenceboard.ca

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 C a l g a r y R i c h m

n

d H i l l O t t a w a S u r r e y C a m b r i d g e L

n

g u e u i l L a v a l M

n

c t

n

P e t e r b

r
u

g h H a m i l t

n

B a r r i e G r e a t e r S u d b u r y A b b

t

s f

r

d S t . C a t h a r i n e s O s h a w a K e l

w

n a T h u n d e r B a y S a g u e n a y S h e r b r

k

e B r a n t f

r

d T r

i

s

R

i v i è r e s

Innovation

Source: The Conference Board of Canada.

A D

SLIDE 20

www.conferenceboard.ca

Housing

3 indicators
Percentage of household income spent on

mortgages

Percentage of household income spent on rent
Percentage of homes in need of major repair

SLIDE 21

www.conferenceboard.ca

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 L é v i s C a l g a r y S a g u e n a y O a k v i l l e S h e r b r

k

e V a n c

u

v e r O s h a w a C

q

u i t l a m B a r r i e R i c h m

n

d B u r n a b y V i c t

r

i a P e t e r b

r
u

g h

Housing

Source: The Conference Board of Canada.

A D

SLIDE 22

www.conferenceboard.ca

Weights of Each Category in University- Educated’s Decision to Move

Health 8% Housing 7% Innovation 19% Economy 13% Education 21% Environment 12% Society 20%

SLIDE 23

www.conferenceboard.ca

Weights of Each Category in Non- University-Educated’s Decision to Move

Health 8% Housing 6% Innovation 8% Economy 32% Education 10% Environment 16% Society 20%

SLIDE 24

www.conferenceboard.ca

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 C a l g a r y W a t e r l

O

t t a w a R i c h m

n

d H i l l V a n c

u

v e r S t . J

h

n ' s E d m

n

t

n

V i c t

r

i a M a r k h a m V a u g h a n K i n g s t

n

O a k v i l l e

Final Ranking: Who Is Attractive and Who Is Not

Source: The Conference Board of Canada. A B

SLIDE 25

www.conferenceboard.ca

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 G u e l p h T

r
n

t

L
n

d

n

H a l i f a x L é v i s R e g i n a Q u é b e c B u r l i n g t

n

S h e r b r

k

e W i n n i p e g G a t i n e a u M i s s i s s a u g a R i c h m

n

d

Final Ranking: Who Is Attractive and Who Is Not

Source: The Conference Board of Canada.

B C

SLIDE 26

www.conferenceboard.ca

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 K i t c h e n e r B u r n a b y C

q

u i t l a m B a r r i e S a s k a t

n

M

n

c t

n

A b b

t

s f

r

d B r a m p t

n

K e l

w

n a M

n

t r é a l T h u n d e r B a y P e t e r b

r
u

g h

Final Ranking: Who Is Attractive and Who Is Not

Source: The Conference Board of Canada.

C

SLIDE 27

www.conferenceboard.ca

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 S u r r e y S t . C a t h a r i n e s G r e a t e r S u d b u r y H a m i l t

n

C a m b r i d g e L a v a l T r

i

s

R

i v i è r e s W i n d s

r

B r a n t f

r

d S a g u e n a y L

n

g u e u i l S a i n t J

h

n O s h a w a

Final Ranking: Who Is Attractive and Who Is Not

Source: The Conference Board of Canada.

C D

SLIDE 28

www.conferenceboard.ca

Conclusion

The study does bring empirical evidence forward

that migrants value different criteria in their choices about where to live depending on their level of education.

University-educated people prefer cities with

higher Education and Society outcomes.

Non-university-educated place more value on the

Economy category.

Notwithstanding these important distinctions, an

attractive city is attractive to everyone.

SLIDE 29

www.conferenceboard.ca

Conclusion

The top six cities – Calgary, Waterloo, Ottawa,

Vancouver, St. John’s and Richmond Hill come

ut on top in all rankings.
Unlike other work, this study does not argue that

attracting university-educated migrants first will necessarily generate an influx of all types of

newcomer. The dynamics of domestic and

international migration are too complex to leap to such conclusion. Thus, policy makers have to be careful in crafting policies solely aimed at attracting university graduates.

SLIDE 30

www.conferenceboard.ca

Final Thought

Immigrants will be a critical part of Canada’s

future and they will continue to flock to our urban

centres. Building a strong, competitive and caring

Canadian society will require the contributions of immigrants with all kinds of skills and education

backgrounds. We have to continue to learn about

what makes cities attractive to people in order to find the right policies and guidelines to create dozens of “A” cities, not just a handful.

SLIDE 31