The Tales Of Urbanizing Canada Are Overblown (Commentary)

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by mhays

One more: Canadian central cities have never had much open space to develop or redevelop. It's hard to densify without that. (Compare that to even healthy US cities like Miami, Seattle, and Denver which have been densifying in part by mowing down parking lots.)

That's not stopping Canada's urban neighbourhoods from growing at a very fast pace though. Greater Downtown Toronto (defined as the area shown below) grew by 52.5% from 2006-2016 as you can see from my infographic. And this is an area that averaged over 26,000 ppsm in 2006.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Auto-oriented suburban sprawl isn't inherenly"better" if you build apartments on farm fields or pack McMansions two inches apart. If anything, it's worse, because you have the worst of both worlds, and the zoning isn't limiting the crap.

It is not as auto-oriented. Suburbs in Canada have vastly higher transit ridership than US suburbs. Brampton Transit by itself has the same ridership of the entire PACE system (~35 million unlinked trips annually). Calgary has a higher percentage of people commuting to work by transit than any US metropolitan area other than NYC. How many US inner cities can match the transit ridership of Mississauga or Longueuil (~50 million unlinked trips annually)? The Réseau de transport de Longueuil has higher ridership per capita than the Chicago Transit Authority.

You say it is "worst of both worlds". But you can just as easily say "best of both worlds". But that's only if you assume urban and suburban are separate worlds. You can't spell "suburban" without "urban" after all. Suburban by definition is a form of urban, but a lesser form of urban. Suburbs are extensions of the city. What happens in Mississauga and Brampton affects Toronto as well. You can't live a true urban lifestyle in Toronto if you needed a car to cross the border for any reason. Ultimately they are all one city.

And keep in mind the City of Toronto itself is mostly post-war suburbia as well. Suburbia is not just an extension of the city, it IS the city.

You are from the US, think more about the idea of different "worlds", what that really means for your country. Poor people, black people live in the city. Rich people, white people live in the suburbs. The poor need to buy a car or become isolated and even more poor. To promote lower densities in the suburbs is to promote the segregation of African-Americans in US inner cities. Connecting city and suburb together, blurring whatever lines between them, is not just a matter of sustainability but also of social equity. And that is ultimately why Canadian suburbs are the "worst of both worlds".

Originally Posted by Crawford

Canada has much more authoritative regional planning and restrictions on "regular" suburban sprawl but it isn't clear how that contradicts the article's claims. Wouldn't that pretty much support the contention that growth is concentrated on the periphery? If you had super-NIMBY, scattershot-type development, there would be much less growth on the periphery.

If there is significant population growth, how could it not be concentrated on the periphiry? That might be possible in Detroit, but not in Toronto.

The idea is not to stop cities from growing outward, but to stop urban areas from declining in density. That is what defines urban sprawl: urban land area growing faster than population, resulting in poorer services, especially transit services. If growth in the suburbs increases density and transit, then why is that a problem?

Are Mississauga and Longueuil exactly as suburban as Arlington, Texas? I think lumping all of suburbia together only ignores what are the problems of urban sprawl. People lose sight of why urban sprawl should be stopped in the first place.

As I said, a black and white view of suburbia doesn't make sense. Suburbs by definition are a mix of urban and rural characteristics. Suburbia is many different points on a continuum. You can build suburbs to be more urban, one step at a time. The cultural shift doesn't need to be immediate and drastic, and maybe immediate and drastic is impossible to begin with. I think that is what the article is ignoring. The writer is against the growth of the suburbs just for the sake stopping the growth of the suburbs, not for the sake of stopping sprawl.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Doady

It is not as auto-oriented. Suburbs in Canada have vastly higher transit ridership than US suburbs.

Yes, but it's still crap transit ridership. What does it matter if one suburb has 5% bus riders and another has 1%?

It's basically because Canada has lower incomes, higher home prices, and a bunch of immigrants stuck out in apartments in places like Brampton. It isn't like it's some uber-enlightened planning framework; it's more an accident of transnational economics and cultural peculiarities.

Yes, an argument can be made that Brampton is "better" if you're judging sprawl based on typical urban characteristics but to me this makes about as much sense as judging urbanity on typical sprawl characteristics. "Downtown Toronto sure is vibrant but how about the free parking availability? And are there plenty of Walmarts? Is housing cheap, spacious, readily available and soccer mom friendly?"

Originally Posted by Doady

You say it is "worst of both worlds". But you can just as easily say "best of both worlds".

I don't know Brampton at all, but I know Mississauga, which has all the problems of sprawl (generic, treeless, everything is cheap looking junk, nothing pedestrian oriented) and urbanity (pretty dense, congested, lots of transient apartments, little open space or natural features, limited view corridors). From a consumer perspective, it seems like moving to sprawl without leaving the negative parts of the city.

Originally Posted by Doady

And keep in mind the City of Toronto itself is mostly post-war suburbia as well. Suburbia is not just an extension of the city, it IS the city.

To me, excepting some small geographies, really only the Old City of Toronto is solidly urban. The rest of Toronto proper isn't that different from Mississauga.

Originally Posted by Doady

You are from the US, think more about the idea of different "worlds", what that really means for your country.

Canadian cities are likely more egalitarian, this is probably true. From a macro perspective that could be a major positive. Canada, overall, is more egalitarian than the U.S. and I'd agree this is a significant plus.

But I don't think the typical person seeking suburbia is looking for an "egalitarian" experience. Suburbia is inherently exclusionary; the pursuit of exclusion is almost the entire point.

Maybe we could agree that Canadian suburbia is better from a public policy perspective. I don't think it's necessarily better from a consumer preference perspective. I also think it got hit with the ugly stick one too many times (which is probably just a context of when Canadian suburbia was developed).

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yes, but it's still crap transit ridership. What does it matter if one suburb has 5% bus riders and another has 1%?

It's basically because Canada has lower incomes, higher home prices, and a bunch of immigrants stuck out in apartments in places like Brampton. It isn't like it's some uber-enlightened planning framework; it's more an accident of transnational economics and cultural peculiarities.

Yes, an argument can be made that Brampton is "better" if you're judging sprawl based on typical urban characteristics but to me this makes about as much sense as judging urbanity on typical sprawl characteristics. "Downtown Toronto sure is vibrant but how about the free parking availability? And are there plenty of Walmarts? Is housing cheap, spacious, readily available and soccer mom friendly?"


I don't know Brampton at all, but I know Mississauga, which has all the problems of sprawl (generic, treeless, everything is cheap looking junk, nothing pedestrian oriented) and urbanity (pretty dense, congested, lots of transient apartments, little open space or natural features, limited view corridors). From a consumer perspective, it seems like moving to sprawl without leaving the negative parts of the city.

To me, excepting some small geographies, really only the Old City of Toronto is solidly urban. The rest of Toronto proper isn't that different from Mississauga.

Canadian cities are likely more egalitarian, this is probably true. From a macro perspective that could be a major positive. Canada, overall, is more egalitarian than the U.S. and I'd agree this is a significant plus.

But I don't think the typical person seeking suburbia is looking for an "egalitarian" experience. Suburbia is inherently exclusionary; the pursuit of exclusion is almost the entire point.

Maybe we could agree that Canadian suburbia is better from a public policy perspective. I don't think it's necessarily better from a consumer preference perspective. I also think it got hit with the ugly stick one too many times (which is probably just a context of when Canadian suburbia was developed).

You say you know Mississauga, then you say it's treeless. I lived in Mississauga for many years (my mother still lives there). Saying it's "treeless" proves you know nothing about Mississauga. Thus nothing else of what you say about it provides any insight to anybody.

It's also false that Mississauga has "little open space". Mississauga has around 400 parks, and the percentage of the city that it parkland is large (over 10%). On top of that, nearly all residents live within 1/4 mile of at least one park.

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by Doady

Calgary has a higher percentage of people commuting to work by transit than any US metropolitan area other than NYC.

Correct. The Calgary metro area had a 15.9% transit commute share as of the last available numbers. That's higher than the metro areas of San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington DC. And Calgary does this with a very high rate of car ownership - higher than Los Angeles.

[memph]

The main reason Brampton is denser than Frisco is smaller lot sizes. I took the lot sizes of the dozen most recent listings for Brampton and Frisco - median of 0.07 acres for Brampton and 0.18 acres for Frisco. The impact can be seen if you compare densities of Frisco census tracts to not only those of Brampton but of less heavily South Asian suburban areas of Toronto too.

It doesn't mean Toronto greenfield development is an urban paradise, although I would say it's not insignificantly different. Head out there on a nice summer afternoon, and the local parks - which btw every house has within walking distance - will be pretty packed. It's also possible to have a good chunk of the population within walking distance of schools, retail and transit and have bus service with 30min frequencies and not have dismal farebox recovery.

Toronto does still get a fair bit of greenfield development though. I think the only city that's really curbed that to the point where the majority of development is infill is Vancouver, although Toronto is pretty close to 50/50. Like Brampton is over 100% greenfield growth, a couple new infill projects in downtown Brampton haven't been enough to offset decreasing household sizes in the older neighbourhoods of the city.

And I wouldn't say Brampton is similar to North York back in the day. York Region is a better comparison, since York Region is actually building a fair bit of infill and has more rail projects and tighter connectivity to Toronto. North York has been building a substantial amount of high density housing from early on, while Brampton has been building a fairly small and arguably decreasing proportion of apartment buildings and highrises, the density increase is mainly due to denser single-family subdivisions.

[memph]

Just did an estimate - about 225,000 of Toronto's 345,000 population growth was greenfield, meaning 120,000 was infill, basically all in Toronto proper since infill in the outer suburbs was barely enough to negate decreasing household sizes in the built up portions. So about 30-35% infill for a fairly high growth region. That's better than US cities from 2000-2010 although I suspect a couple US cities will be comparable to Toronto for 2010-2020 (like Seattle).

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yes, but it's still crap transit ridership. What does it matter if one suburb has 5% bus riders and another has 1%?

% of commuters using transit, Canadian suburbs and US central cities, 2010/11

New York City, NY - 55.7%
Philadelphia, PA - 39.2
San Francisco, CA - 34.0
Scarborough, ON - 33.1
Boston, MA - 32.8
Brossard, QC - 30.1
Burnaby, BC - 28.1
Etobicoke, ON - 27.9
Saint-Lambert, QC - 27.1
Washington, DC - 26.6
Chicago, IL - 26.5
Longueuil, QC - 22.2
Hartford, CT - 21.2
Seattle, WA - 18.2
Pittsburgh, PA - 18.0
Richmond, BC - 18.0
Baltimore, MD - 17.6
Laval, QC - 16.1
Mississauga, ON - 15.9
Markham, ON - 15.9
Minneapolis, MN - 15.2
Boucherville, QC - 15.1
Richmond Hill, ON - 14.3
Buffalo, NY - 13.7
New Haven, CT - 13.0
Surrey, BC - 12.8
Portland, OR - 12.1
Brampton, ON - 11.8
Atlanta, GA - 11.4
Vaughan, ON - 11.3
Los Angeles, CA - 11.2
St. Louis, MO - 11.0
Honolulu, HI - 10.3
Cleveland, OH - 9.8
St. Paul, MN - 8.7
Cincinatti, OH - 8.3
Milwaukee, WI - 7.9
New Orleans, LA - 7.3
Rochester, NY - 6.8

It's basically because Canada has lower incomes, higher home prices, and a bunch of immigrants stuck out in apartments in places like Brampton. It isn't like it's some uber-enlightened planning framework; it's more an accident of transnational economics and cultural peculiarities.

New residents in Brampton are mostly South Asian. So multiple generations in one big house. Few apartments or even townhouses.

Yes, an argument can be made that Brampton is "better" if you're judging sprawl based on typical urban characteristics but to me this makes about as much sense as judging urbanity on typical sprawl characteristics. "Downtown Toronto sure is vibrant but how about the free parking availability? And are there plenty of Walmarts? Is housing cheap, spacious, readily available and soccer mom friendly?"

Brampton is part of the Toronto urban area. It has urban characteristics by definition.

Affordability and families are important to Toronto too. Shouldn't a city be diverse?

If you want everyone in Brampton to drive, that means more and more parking lots in Toronto too. You have to fill that demand somehow. Suburbanization of Brampton would mean suburbanization of Toronto as well. They are not isolated, hence metropolitan area or urban area.

I don't know Brampton at all, but I know Mississauga, which has all the problems of sprawl (generic, treeless, everything is cheap looking junk, nothing pedestrian oriented) and urbanity (pretty dense, congested, lots of transient apartments, little open space or natural features, limited view corridors). From a consumer perspective, it seems like moving to sprawl without leaving the negative parts of the city.

I don't see what is wrong with the trees or open spaces in Mississauga. And I'm not sure how lower densities fits into the idea of preserving open spaces.

Is Absolute World generic, cheap looking junk? I don't know about that.

Canadian cities are likely more egalitarian, this is probably true. From a macro perspective that could be a major positive. Canada, overall, is more egalitarian than the U.S. and I'd agree this is a significant plus.

But I don't think the typical person seeking suburbia is looking for an "egalitarian" experience. Suburbia is inherently exclusionary; the pursuit of exclusion is almost the entire point.

Urban growth, even outward urban growth, is inherently inclusionary, making room for new residents, for new immigrants. It's the politics of the US that is inherently exclusionary and divisive.

Maybe we could agree that Canadian suburbia is better from a public policy perspective. I don't think it's necessarily better from a consumer preference perspective. I also think it got hit with the ugly stick one too many times (which is probably just a context of when Canadian suburbia was developed).

Suburbanites here clamour for better transit. It's consumer preference.

People in Scarborough demand a subway line, and maybe they have good reason to, judging from the numbers above.

I want everyone to look closely at those numbers, think about how important increasing public transit and reducing parking demand is to urbanization, then you can decide whether the tales of urbanizing Canada really are "overblown".

[dc_denizen]

transit share is not synonymous with the degree of 'urbanity'. it could just be an indicator of public policy priorities (eg increased frequency of buses/LRT), the centralization of employment, and auto ownership costs.

[dc_denizen]

case in point (two jurisdictions with similar transit share):

Laval, QC

Baltimore, MD

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Doady

% of commuters using transit, Canadian suburbs and US central cities, 2010/11

New York City, NY - 55.7%
Philadelphia, PA - 45.9
San Francisco, CA - 34.0
Scarborough, ON - 33.1
Boston, MA - 32.8
Brossard, QC - 30.1
Burnaby, BC - 28.1
Etobicoke, ON - 27.9
Saint-Lambert, QC - 27.1
Washington, DC - 26.6
Chicago, IL - 26.5
Longueuil, QC - 22.2
Hartford, CT - 21.2
Seattle, WA - 18.2
Pittsburgh, PA - 18.0
Richmond, BC - 18.0
Baltimore, MD - 17.6
Laval, QC - 16.1
Mississauga, ON - 15.9
Markham, ON - 15.9
Minneapolis, MN - 15.2
Boucherville, QC - 15.1
Richmond Hill, ON - 14.3
Buffalo, NY - 13.7
New Haven, CT - 13.0
Surrey, BC - 12.8
Portland, OR - 12.1
Brampton, ON - 11.8
Atlanta, GA - 11.4
Vaughan, ON - 11.3
Los Angeles, CA - 11.2
St. Louis, MO - 11.0
Honolulu, HI - 10.3
Cleveland, OH - 9.8
St. Paul, MN - 8.7
Cincinatti, OH - 8.3
Milwaukee, WI - 7.9
New Orleans, LA - 7.3
Rochester, NY - 6.8

Wow, 11.8? 16.1? 18.0? A far cry from 5% and not exactly "crap". Perhaps mediocre.

But what people seem to be forgetting is that when comparing suburban density and transit usage, the reasons for the difference don't matter. The "why" is irrelevant.

The fact is that Canadian suburbs, generally speaking, are somewhat more functionally urban in terms of density and transportation characteristics, regardless of their physical appearance. Downplaying the differences due to their underlying causes is like comparing the fitness levels of two men, one who is hopelessly out of shape and easily winded and the other who has great cardio capacity saying they're basically the same since the fit one is only in such good shape because he has a job that requires physical exertion and the other has a job sitting all day, but that the fit one isn't some smoothie-drinking, gym-obsessed health nut. It's irrelevant to the fact that one is in much better shape than the other, whether or not he looks it.

[softee]

Originally Posted by Doady

% of commuters using transit, Canadian suburbs and US central cities, 2010/11

New York City, NY - 55.7%
Philadelphia, PA - 45.9
San Francisco, CA - 34.0
Scarborough, ON - 33.1
Boston, MA - 32.8
Brossard, QC - 30.1
Burnaby, BC - 28.1
Etobicoke, ON - 27.9
Saint-Lambert, QC - 27.1
Washington, DC - 26.6
Chicago, IL - 26.5
Longueuil, QC - 22.2
Hartford, CT - 21.2
Seattle, WA - 18.2
Pittsburgh, PA - 18.0
Richmond, BC - 18.0
Baltimore, MD - 17.6
Laval, QC - 16.1
Mississauga, ON - 15.9
Markham, ON - 15.9
Minneapolis, MN - 15.2
Boucherville, QC - 15.1
Richmond Hill, ON - 14.3
Buffalo, NY - 13.7
New Haven, CT - 13.0
Surrey, BC - 12.8
Portland, OR - 12.1
Brampton, ON - 11.8
Atlanta, GA - 11.4
Vaughan, ON - 11.3
Los Angeles, CA - 11.2
St. Louis, MO - 11.0
Honolulu, HI - 10.3
Cleveland, OH - 9.8
St. Paul, MN - 8.7
Cincinatti, OH - 8.3
Milwaukee, WI - 7.9
New Orleans, LA - 7.3
Rochester, NY - 6.8

Great stats, although Scarborough and Etobicoke aren't suburbs as they are part of Toronto's city proper.

[Doady]

I put Scarborough and Etobicoke just for comparison, to show how high ridership is in Toronto's post-war suburbia, a fact which gets kind of overlooked.

High suburban ridership doesn't only indicate something about the suburb, but also about its central city too, as they are connected. And there are other important measures of urbanity such % walking or % biking, which Canadian suburbs don't do so well at. Distances in Canadian suburbs are small enough for transit, but not yet small enough for walking or biking.

So I don't want to say Laval is as urban as Baltimore. But Laval doesn't have "crap transit ridership" either.

All I'm saying things aren't so black and white, maybe we can look deeper when analyzing urbanization in Canada instead of superficially. I don't think a small scale satellite images from Google Maps tell the whole story.

Btw, I put the wrong number for Philadelphia so I just fixed that.

[memph]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

transit share is not synonymous with the degree of 'urbanity'. it could just be an indicator of public policy priorities (eg increased frequency of buses/LRT), the centralization of employment, and auto ownership costs.

Well regarding higher frequencies, I think that is one place where higher densities of Canadian suburbia definitely play a role, rather than greater public subsidies, since there is a very strong pattern of higher farebox recovery in Canada compared to the US. Capital expenditures on rail expansion projects aren't that much either, when you consider Canadian cities have relatively small rail transit systems relative to ridership compared to US cities.

I think centralization of employment is somewhat of a factor, though not the only one. Vancouver isn't super centralized and still has pretty high ridership. Canadian cities are centralized compared to Houston, LA, Atlanta, etc... but still similar to Chicago and the big NE cities.

[lio45]

These stats are pretty meaningless. Laval is auto-oriented to the extreme, but since a good chunk of the people who live there have to commute to downtown Montreal for their jobs, it's a no brainer to use transit for that trip. Doesn't mean they don't have to drive everywhere from their house, and take the car every single time they need to get out.

A much better metric would be the % of households who are car-less.

[lio45]

BTW, I know three separate people who live in Brossard - #6 on your list and apparently the highest-ranking Canadian municipality - and they all own two cars each (their gfs have cars too).

However, two of the three work in downtown Montreal (the other one works on the south shore and uses his car) so they obviously take the bus navette over the Champlain bridge on business days. You'd have to be NUTS to do it any other way, with the traffic and parking issues.

It's total nonsense that people like them count as "transit riders". They have cars and drive everywhere. They actually even drive in the mornings to the huge parking of the station where they take the downtown-Montreal-bound shuttle! If you have to drive your car every single day, and these stats STILL count you as a "transit rider", then there's a huge flaw in the stats.

[memph]

Are there any stats for cars per adult (rather than per household or % car free households) in US cities? I have some stats for Toronto's suburban wards.



For those that aren't too familiar with Toronto's geography, the black areas are mostly rural exurbs. The red areas are outer suburbs, with a few wards in yellow and a couple white (in Brampton and Sauga). Green and blue are all in Toronto proper although some of them are post-WWII suburbia.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Wow, 11.8? 16.1? 18.0? A far cry from 5% and not exactly "crap". Perhaps mediocre.

OK, mediocre ridership, whatever, but it's still car oriented junk. Where are you getting your numbers, BTW? They don't appear to be accurate for the U.S. cities. To take an example, Philly has significantly lower transit share than DC.

Transit share is highly correlated with many things valued here at SSP but isn't enough. Baltimore isn't similar to suburban Vancouver even if they have the same % of commuters taking the bus to work.

These places are only built for cars, as in the U.S. junk sprawl, but there's much higher bus ridership for the many reasons previously listed. Incomes are lower, cars and gas cost more, housing is outrageous, highways are limited, and riders are immigrants. It isn't because of density or urban planning; if that were the case then LA and Portland suburbia would have robust bus ridership.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But what people seem to be forgetting is that when comparing suburban density and transit usage, the reasons for the difference don't matter. The "why" is irrelevant.

Data is data, but the "why" is relevant depending on what you value. If you only care about ridership in a vacuum, then, yes, Brantford or wherever is quite successful. Every immigrant riding the bus 20 km instead of taking the Grand Cherokee as in suburban Dallas is indeed contributing to transit orientation (and, arguably, marginally greener, more efficient living).

If you care about transit as part of an urban, transit-oriented, walkable community, then Brantford is a failure. Brantford is basically a colder, poorer, denser Plano.

[mhays]

Also bus service tends to be substantially better in Canadian cities than most US cities.

[dc_denizen]

This study has information on New York City outer borough transit share to work.

http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/...travel_02e.pdf

30% of workers commute by car in Brooklyn, and 43% in Queens, despite these areas possessing extreme densities and urban characteristics.