Exurban growth in Montreal region is worst in country

[MTLskyline]

Exurban growth in Montreal region is worst in country
By Aaron Derfel, THE GAZETTE September 6, 2013 8:00 PM

VARENNES — Since he acquired his 170-acre farm on the banks of the St. Lawrence River 30 years ago, Paul Thomas has witnessed how vast tracts of surrounding farmland have given way every few years to new suburban subdivisions.

Today, Thomas’s farm — on which he grows corn, soybeans and grapes — lies right next to a residential development consisting of rows upon rows of nearly identical houses. Strong winds are always blowing from the St. Lawrence, and Thomas must be careful not to spray too much herbicide on his crops for fear of the chemicals wafting over to his neighbours.

“Put yourself in my shoes,” the 61-year-old farmer said this week. “I’m in a delicate situation. I understand that people want to move to the suburbs, but farming is my way of life.”

Varennes, just across the river from the eastern tip of Montreal with a population of nearly 21,000, is one of the city’s fastest-growing suburbs. The development next to Thomas’s farm is technically an exurb — a suburb in a rural area where at least 50 per cent of the residents commute by car to the city.

And a new national study based on the latest census figures has revealed that exurban growth in the Montreal metropolitan region far outpaces that of Toronto, Vancouver and every other major Canadian city. What’s more, the study suggests that Montreal’s urban sprawl in Montreal is the worst in the country — with new subdivisions cutting into farmland while residential growth in the city is almost negligible.

“This is not something to be proud of,” said David Gordon, author of the study and director of the School of Urban and Regional Planning at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont.

“This is the least sustainable form of urban growth. There are all kinds of implications. The kids in these auto suburbs are not walking to school anymore. We’ve got a childhood obesity epidemic. Children are being driven everywhere.”

Auto suburbs are suburbs in which the primary way of getting to work is by car. Exurbs are located on the periphery of the furthest auto suburbs.

Consider these statistics:

From 2006 to 2011, the exurban population in the Montreal metropolitan region jumped by 14 per cent, or about 18,500 people, to 149,661.

By comparison, the exurban population of Toronto grew by seven per cent, or 10,000 people. In Vancouver, it increased by four per cent, or 6,000 people.

But that doesn’t tell the whole story. Over those five years, urban sprawl was kept in check in Toronto somewhat, with 52,000 people moving into the city core where condo towers now abound, and another 25,000 people moving to “transit-oriented” suburbs — communities where residents can take the train into the city rather than drive by car.

In Vancouver, a total of 48,000 people moved to the city’s “active core” — where they could bike or walk to work, if they wanted — as well as to the transit-oriented suburbs.

In contrast, the population of Montreal’s active core and the transit suburbs increased by only 6,800 in total.

Most of metropolitan Montreal’s population growth — 181,000 — occurred in the “auto suburbs” of the West Island, Laval and the South Shore, and in exurbs.

[...]

aderfel@montrealgazette.com

Twitter: Aaron_Derfel
© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette

http://www.montrealgazette.com/busin...348/story.html

[franktko]

At least the Quebec government is helping out by extending Highway 19

[Rico Rommheim]

The suburbs of Montreal are a national disgrace. Ugly and unsustainable.

Just what the hell is wrong with this city? Why are we always lagging behind other cities like Vancouver, Toronto and now even Calgary?

Where are the people with a true urban vision? When I was living in Vancouver, I was astonished to see far flung suburbs like Port Coquitlam and surrey building vast tracts of transit-oriented density in areas that were very much exurb.

So yeah, we suck. We know that. But why? Is it a question of money? Corruption? Immibilism?

Clearly, something's wrong.

[Acajack]

Not sure how to phrase this properly, but there is a bit of a "prosperity lag" in the francophone population. Sort of like - the generations which are affluent are fairly recent, and so people have this attitude that "hey, we can afford this, so let's do it - simply because we can''. So there is still more of a novelty associated with the big suburban house with the pool, etc. Whereas for English Canadians this novelty has started to wear off - more generations have lived in this way and now a larger segment of the anglo population is looking beyond it and sees its limitations and faults.

Now, there is a ''retour à la ville'' movement back towards central cities taking place in Quebec as well, but it seems a bit more timid than in Montreal and Toronto. And the suburban boom has perhaps not tailed off as much in Quebec as it has elsewhere.

In any event, these are all variations in percentages. The same trends are still observable in Montreal as elsewhere - Montreal is seeing gentrification of older areas, and francophones are taking part. And there is still a lot of suburban growth in Toronto and Vancouver.

[Beedok]

I'm not certain if they have Hamilton beat. I think Hamilton's expected to only add like 1000 people to the core in the next 8 years or something like that. Maybe Montreal does worse on the Exurb front though (the difference between Suburb and Exurb seems a little soft to me).

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not sure how to phrase this properly, but there is a bit of a "prosperity lag" in the francophone population. Sort of like - the generations which are affluent are fairly recent, and so people have this attitude that "hey, we can afford this, so let's do it - simply because we can''. So there is still more of a novelty associated with the big suburban house with the pool, etc. Whereas for English Canadians this novelty has started to wear off - more generations have lived in this way and now a larger segment of the anglo population is looking beyond it and sees its limitations and faults.

Now, there is a ''retour à la ville'' movement back towards central cities taking place in Quebec as well, but it seems a bit more timid than in Montreal and Toronto. And the suburban boom has perhaps not tailed off as much in Quebec as it has elsewhere.

In any event, these are all variations in percentages. The same trends are still observable in Montreal as elsewhere - Montreal is seeing gentrification of older areas, and francophones are taking part. And there is still a lot of suburban growth in Toronto and Vancouver.

The suburbs seem more dense in Toronto and Vancouver than in Montreal though, especially off the island. Also housing costs may be an issue - housing is cheaper in Montreal so they can afford to make the lots larger as smaller off-island municipalities would love the tax base.

[matthew6]

How do they manage to get the architecture in these places to look so ugly? It's almost like they are doing it on purpose.

[SkahHigh]

Varennes, one of Montreal's fastest-growing suburbs?? It had a 0,2% population increase between 2006 and 2011 lol...

[digitboy]

Would it be weird to consider voting for a new law prohibiting excessive urban sprawl ? Is it even thinkable

[Cataclaw]

No need to be pessimistic guys.

Change takes time, and the momentum has swung towards sustainable development. Believe me, we're seeing the last throes of major suburban development. In the coming two decades, growth of the suburbs/(exurbs) will slow significantly, almost to a complete halt in some places.

Why?

1. The PMAD is coming into full effect. Land is being reserved for agricultural use and an urban perimeter is being put in place. The remaining land available for sprawl will quickly dry up in the coming years.

2. Gas prices are rising and won't be coming down within our lifetimes. The era of cheap crude is over. Long gone are the days of the Texan farmer striking an oil gusher in his backyard. All of the new oil finds today are coming from shale and other unconventional sources. To be economically viable, these products require oil to be at $100/bbl. Furthermore, Saudia Arabia needs oil at $100/bbl to balance its budget, and will manipulate output to keep the supply/demand balance on a razor's edge. Any minor disruption in the smallest of oil producing countries (Libya for example, with less than 1% of global output) is enough to send ripples across the market. This is a sign of the times.

Oil may be plentiful and will remain plentiful for decades to come, but that isn't the issue. The issue is the increasing difficulty and cost associated with getting that new oil. We don't have to worry about "running out" of oil (as some people incorrectly fear) but we do need to think about rising costs and production issues.

Gas is now at $1.40-1.50/L in Montreal. And with periodic gas tax increases and the rising price of crude, don't be surprised to see $1.80-$2.30/L before the decade is over.

3. The OD surveys are showing an increase in transit ridership, an increase in active transportation (walking, cycling) and a deceleration in the growth of car use.

We're getting there folks. Baby steps, but we're getting there.
I do wish things would move along faster... unfortunately we're still making the wrong choices. (e.g. Turcot Interchange exact as-in rebuild for $3 billion dollars... or 20 new metro stations for the same amount?)

[franktko]

Originally Posted by Cataclaw

unfortunately we're still making the wrong choices. (e.g. Turcot Interchange exact as-in rebuild for $3 billion dollars... or 20 new metro stations for the same amount?)

I agree with you that we are still making bad decisions but not the same as you. For the Turcot interchange, we have no choice; this structure is crumbling and need to be replace. It's important to maintain the existing network and this replacement will create 0% sprawl.

The problem, imo, is extending the current network. Adding capacity to the Champlain bridge (just by separating transit from vehicles will add capacity), finishing the 30, the 25 bridge and now extending the 19, all these projects will assure that we have good sprawl going on in the next 20 years, especially the north shore....

[MolsonExport]

From my travels to the big cities, Montreal's suburbs, anecdotally speaking, are relatively bereft of large-scale condominium blocks/towers that are extremely commonplace in Toronto and Vancouver. The West-Island, for example, has but a smattering of buildings over 12 stories, mostly in Pointe Claire (e.g., Southwest One). With the metro expansion, Laval is starting to densify, but still at a modest scale compared to comparable suburbs in Vancouver (e.g., Surrey, Coquitlam, Burnaby) or Toronto (just about every suburb). Perhaps this is a good thing, if the extremely fugly Laval Clock Tower is the outcome. Montreal's inner city and inner suburb densities are outstanding, but outside of these areas, the sprawl is among the worst in the country (e.g., Vaudreuil, St. Hubert, Terrebonne, Boisbriand).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by franktko

I agree with you that we are still making bad decisions but not the same as you. For the Turcot interchange, we have no choice; this structure is crumbling and need to be replace. It's important to maintain the existing network and this replacement will create 0% sprawl.

The problem, imo, is extending the current network. Adding capacity to the Champlain bridge (just by separating transit from vehicles will add capacity), finishing the 30, the 25 bridge and now extending the 19, all these projects will assure that we have good sprawl going on in the next 20 years, especially the north shore....

I agree about the A-25 and the A-19, but the A-30 (even if it will favour sprawl I agree), was absolutely essential. It may actually also have the effect of making the central part of the island a better place to live by taking away much heavy truck traffic from the A-40/Métropolitaine.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by franktko

I agree with you that we are still making bad decisions but not the same as you. For the Turcot interchange, we have no choice; this structure is crumbling and need to be replace. It's important to maintain the existing network and this replacement will create 0% sprawl.

The problem, imo, is extending the current network. Adding capacity to the Champlain bridge (just by separating transit from vehicles will add capacity), finishing the 30, the 25 bridge and now extending the 19, all these projects will assure that we have good sprawl going on in the next 20 years, especially the north shore....

The central part of the 40 needs replacement as well, probably a complete reconstruction.

Is there a cheaper way to rebuild the Turcot interchange without compromising safety or operations?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by matthew6

How do they manage to get the architecture in these places to look so ugly? It's almost like they are doing it on purpose.

When it comes to contemporary new single-family residential, I actually find that aesthetically speaking most of the cities in Quebec actually do it slightly better than most parts of Canada (I am thinking GTA and Ottawa). I mean, I realize that it's all unsustainable and generally entails ugliness in non-residential areas nearby, but if you're going to be living in new single-family residential, I think I will take suburban Montreal, Quebec City or Gatineau over Ottawa or Toronto.

As for contemporary non-residential (commercial strips, industrial areas), well these tend to be ugly everywhere on this continent, but Quebec does this ugliness particularly well it is true.

[MTLskyline]

Somewhat related...

Combien faut-il payer pour un condo près du métro?

Publié le 08 septembre 2013 à 07h00 | Mis à jour le 08 septembre 2013 à 07h00

André Dubuc
La Presse

[...]

Les stations de métro en chiffres

Les moins chères

1. Montmorency 207 000 $
2. Frontenac 222 025 $
3. Viau 231 829 $
4. Joliette 234 501 $
5. Parc 235 000 $
6. De la Concorde 235 515 $
7. Papineau 239 455 $
8. Sauvé 244 900 $
9. Place Saint-Henri 244 950 $
10. Préfontaine 245 000 $

Les plus chères

1. Peel 717 500 $
2. Villa-Maria 451 650 $
3. Outremont 403 000 $
4. McGill 375 000 $
5. Sherbrooke 369 500 $
6. Place-des-Arts 344 000 $
7. Lucien-L'Allier 341 500 $
8. Mont-Royal 336 000 $
9. Square-Victoria 330 000 $
10. Beaubien 321 000 $

Les plus populaires

1. Guy-Concordia 353 transactions
2. Atwater 311 transactions
3. Angrignon 292 transactions
4. Place-d'Armes 225 transactions
5. Lionel-Groulx 216 transactions
6. Champ-de-Mars 206 transactions
7. Place Saint-Henri 204 transactions
8. Laurier 203 transactions
9. Crémazie 186 transactions
10. Namur 144 transactions

Ayant connu la plus forte hausse de prix depuis 2008

1. McGill + 77 %
2. Place-des-Arts + 53 %
3. Beaubien + 46 %
4. Préfontaine + 42 %
5. Pie-IX + 40 %
6. Jean-Talon + 40 %
7. Verdun + 39 %
8. Square-Victoria + 38 %
9. Laurier + 38 %
10. Crémazie +37 %

Source : JLR Recherche immobilière

[...]

http://affaires.lapresse.ca/economie...s-du-metro.php

[Cataclaw]

Originally Posted by franktko

I agree with you that we are still making bad decisions but not the same as you. For the Turcot interchange, we have no choice; this structure is crumbling and need to be replace. It's important to maintain the existing network and this replacement will create 0% sprawl.

The problem, imo, is extending the current network. Adding capacity to the Champlain bridge (just by separating transit from vehicles will add capacity), finishing the 30, the 25 bridge and now extending the 19, all these projects will assure that we have good sprawl going on in the next 20 years, especially the north shore....

I agree entirely. The new highway projects will all induce sprawl (and indeed, they've already started.)

Turcot needs to be replaced. It's crumbling, it's dangerous, it's putting people's lives at risk. However, I'm not sure that rebuilding a stack interchange exactly as it was for a full $3 billion is the wisest use of that money. For instance, there was a proposal that would have created a much more modest interchange with slightly less capacity for half the price. Even the roundabout proposal would have been more sense. Sure, it would have reduced capacity and performance, but if the money we would have saved would have gone to adding another 10-15 metro stations as an alternative, it would have worked beautifully. Induced demand works in reverse, and suppressing capacity causes modal changes and different land use patterns.

Anyway.. i'm off on a tangent, but yeah. I agree with you 100%.

[MolsonExport]

^agree 100%.