In yesterday's post about bottom-up urban development, I mentioned (in parentheses) that the focus on regenerating local economies is arguably even more important in the context of Japan, where a shrinking population is creating urban decline in many communities. And the reason I said this is because it is widely known that Japan has a demographic problem.
Since 2009, the country has seen its population decline every single year. Currently, it is hovering at just over 120 million people, but by 2050, it is expected to fall to roughly 100 million (or lower), with people aged 65+ accounting for nearly 40% of the population.
When this is your backdrop, you're usually more concerned about urban decline than you are about building enough new housing. As Fred Wilson mentioned in this recent post, "pressing issues like the unaffordability of housing, for example, can quickly change if we are living in a shrinking world, not a growing world."
Of course, it's not just Japan. The global fertility rate (as of 2024) stands at around 2.25 live births per woman. This is not that much higher than the replacement level of 2.1, and it's being largely propped up by only one region: Sub-Saharan Africa (>4 births per woman). Remove this region, and the world is now already shrinking in population.
This will have dramatic consequences not just on our cities and real estate markets, but on the global economy as a whole, which is why some people, like venture capitalists, are already betting that the world will need to move from labor-bound to energy-bound. What this means is that we're going to need a lot more energy-consuming tech to compensate for the fact that we have less of the other stuff.
You know, humans.
In the second quarter of this year, Canada saw its population grow by about 0.1% compared to the first quarter. This is not zero, but it's close to it — the slowest second-quarter growth since 1946 (excluding the pandemic in 2020).
Since World War II, Canada has generally been pro-immigration. It started as being explicitly Eurocentric, but later we adopted a point system which granted admission based on skills, education, and language ability rather than race or nationality. In other words, it became a meritocracy, and multiculturalism became policy.
This approach served the country well, fueling economic prosperity and creating Canada's only truly global city: Toronto. Immigrants are good for the economy, and Toronto is majority foreign born. They are more likely to start a business, more likely to obtain a patent, and their children tend to outperform native-born children academically.
It is also not lost on me that I wouldn't have been born in Toronto, and I wouldn't have the life that I have today if it weren't for these immigration policies.
Of course, in recent years, public opinion on immigration shifted dramatically. There was, and is, a real sense that it was too much of a good thing. Canada wasn't keeping up when it came to housing, healthcare, and overall public infrastructure. So the federal government responded, and now the expectation is that population growth in Canada should stay at or near zero until around 2028.
Because remember, Canada has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world. In 2024, it dropped to 1.25 children per woman, placing us firmly in the "ultra-low fertility" category, alongside Switzerland, Italy, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, and others. Without immigration, we shrink. And we all know what that has meant for countries like Japan, which has had periods of prolonged economic stagnation.
So sooner or later, Canada will need to get back into the business of competing for talent and welcoming the smartest and most ambitious people from around the world to our cities. This is where we want the world to be starting their new businesses. In the meantime, it also wouldn't hurt if we started having more sex and making more babies.
Looking ahead, if 2028 does end up being the year when immigration ramps back up, it will actually align with what I am predicting to be the start of a severe housing shortage — at least in cities like Toronto and Vancouver. That means we need to act now to start delivering more affordable urban housing at scale.
All through history, the success of global cities has hinged on their ability to take in a large number of immigrants and make them economically productive. It's what made cities like Toronto and New York what they are today. But in order for this to happen, people need a place to live.
Cover photo by Ankush Nath Sehgal on Unsplash
My recent post titled "Canada must become a global superpower" has quickly become one of my most-read posts in the almost 12 years that I have been writing this daily blog. Within a few days, it quickly got to 11x the number of daily views that I typically get.
One of the points that I made was about Canada's population, and specifically the target set by the Century Initiative of 100 million Canadians by 2100. Today I'd like to expand on this point, because I'm seeing more people talk about it on the socials.
At the time of writing this post, Canada's official population clock from Statistics Canada was sitting at 41,591,151 people. So to reach 100 million in the next 75 years, it would mean we would need to grow our population by 58,408,861 people. At first glance, this seems like a big number. And to some, it has proven to be an unsettling proposition. But 75 years is a long time for compounding to work its magic.
For us to reach 100 million Canadians by 2100 it would mean that we would need to grow our population by a compounded annual growth rate of just 1.18% per year. On our current population base, that would mean about 490,000 new people next year. To put this into perspective, since Confederation in 1867, Canada's population growth rate has averaged around 1.2% per year.
So by arguing that we want to reach 100 million Canadians by 2100, we are, in a way, just saying "we should continue what we've been doing since 1867 and not change a whole lot." The status quo should inevitably lead us to 100 million people during this time period.
Of course, history isn't exactly the same. Canada's fertility rate was much higher in previous years. At the beginning of the 20th century it was nearly five children per woman. And in 1960, it was 3.81 births per woman, which placed us ahead of the US.
Today, we are 1.26 births per woman (2023), compared to 1.66 in the US (2022). We are now among the countries classified as having "lowest-low fertility." Meaning, we're sub 1.3. What this means is that we are now more dependent on immigration to maintain the same growth rate as before.
At the same time, it's not like we're unaccustomed to high immigration. Between 1901 and 1921, Canada's population increased by almost 3% a year on average. This was in large part because of immigrants from Europe, specifically the British Isles. And between 1901 and 1911, alone, Canada welcomed 1.2 million people. This is at a time when we had just over 5 million people in the entire country.
So in the end, 100 million Canadians by 2100 is probably not all that ambitious. A compound annual growth rate of 1.5% would, for example, have us grow to over 127 million people. That would be more of a stretch. There's also the important question of how quickly are we growing relative to other countries.
Whatever the exact target, I stand by what I said before. We should be aiming to lower the cost of living for Canadians, and in particular housing costs. We should make it easier for families to have more babies, should they choose to. And we should continue to attract the smartest and most ambitious people from around the world.