The conundrum in urban governance is simply that the social and territorial entities we purport to govern change much more rapidly than do the institutions of governance. Political norms, systems and boundaries, once established, tend to become inelastic. They are changed, if at all, only with great difficulty, and then often in an illogical and overzealous fashion. The recent and frequently heated debates in Canada in reaction to municipal amalgamations and mergers is a case in point. In Canada we are still trying to adapt structures, functions, boundaries and legal frameworks for local governments inherited from the 19[Symbol Not Transcribed] century to contemporary urban conditions, geographies and life styles.

Here I want to focus on the mismatch between the outcomes of the urbanization process - the patterns and dynamics of urban development - and the structures of local municipal government. I do not focus on the nuts and bolts of running municipalities, such as fiscal accounting, or the politics of city halls. Instead, I intend to illustrate the increasing discordance between the emerging geography of urban growth and decline in Canada and an outmoded local political system. I also want to engage in a debate with those who favour retaining small local governments, particularly in large metropolitan areas, and to pose questions for those who push for more resources and autonomy for cities. To set the stage I begin with a brief overview of recent trends in urban Canada.

Uneven Development: The Contrast of Growth and Decline

There is now general agreement, even among politicians in senior levels of government, that Canada is overwhelmingly an urban nation. To be historically accurate, Canada became a predominantly urban nation, in the sense that more than 50 percent of the population lived in urban areas, in 1921; and it became a predominantly metropolitan...