The challenge of an aging city and our future growth
If you are following Steve Buist’s comprehensive investigation entitled All About Us — A Portrait of Hamilton, you have already been confronted with some stark realities, some encouraging, some discouraging, many worrisome.
That’s why The Spectator does this sort of work. The idea is to put into context data and information, some of which we are already aware of in a general sense, in a way that promotes discussion among decision-makers and citizens in general.
Day 1 included an in-depth look at the extent to which we’ve become a city of seniors. That’s hardly unique — we’re talking about a society-wide demographic trend. But the situation here is more acute than is typical.
Ninety-three thousand Hamiltonians are 65 or older. That’s 17.3 per cent of the total population, considerably higher than the provincial average of 16.7 per cent.
This is neither good news or bad. It is what it is. Baby boomers (born 1945-1964) are aging. Modern medicine means we’re living and remaining independent longer.
That’s a good thing. There are great opportunities to be realized by the collective wisdom and experience of aging boomers. There are also challenges, especially in the area of health, socialization and inclusion.
No one is sitting idly by while this transformation happens. City hall, the local health integration network, hospitals and senior governments as well as community agencies and individuals are working hard to make Hamilton “the best place to raise a child and age successfully”, as the city’s motto states. Is all the work being done enough?
Probably not. In particular, we worry about the state of long-term care. In spite of ongoing investment, we don’t have enough capacity and that shortage is causing a host of problems, including in acute care.
As well, we should worry about the challenges of older citizens remaining independent, which we know promotes more healthy and active living.
Day 2 of the series was all about where we live. One reveal was that even with the extensive attention poured into downtown Hamilton, its population is shrinking, while growth on the Mountain and in former suburban communities is robust.
If growth patterns remain constant, there will be population parity between the old city and the five former suburban communities in 35 to 40 years.
These growth patterns raise a host of interesting questions: Are we (including The Spectator) overly focused on the lower city at the expense of the Mountain and suburban communities? The standard answer is no.
Our downtown was sick, and it is now recovering nicely. You can’t have a healthy community when the centre is unhealthy.
It’s likely that when Hamilton is built out to urban boundaries, more population intensification will occur in the lower city.
But considering that development at Elfrida (think Centennial and Rymal Road) alone could lead to 80,000 additional people over the next 25 years, it’s fair to ask if city hall and other policy-makers are too downtown-centric.
Our city is changing in so many ways it’s hard to keep track. But keep track we must, which is why projects like All About Us are important work.
Are we (including The Spectator) overly focused on the lower city at the expense of the Mountain and suburban communities?