HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2012, 12:11 AM
manny_santos's Avatar
manny_santos manny_santos is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ontario
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by miketoronto View Post
Most of Canada's suburban development is sprawly, but also not sprawly at the same time.
Our suburbs are approaching the density of most inner city neighbourhoods. If you look at the new suburbs going up in Toronto, those subdivisions have housing that would fit right in, down in the Beaches area of Toronto, or other areas. In fact I think the inner city may have more grass and backyard space than lot of these new subdivisions.

Where the sprawl comes into play, is the way these new areas are designed, and the almost 100% auto dependency, etc.
In Toronto, you're right - the housing I've seen in Milton, the newer parts of Mississauga, etc. is very dense. That's not the case in London; although newer housing is more dense than it was in the 1950s, lot sizes in newer parts of London are still quite large compared with Toronto's suburbs. And in the communities near the city such as Ilderton, the lots are even larger.
__________________
I enjoy chicken of the cave
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2012, 12:46 AM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
It is... (in comparison)
Except in no way is it possible that the 705 sq km # could be close to accurate regarding the city's actual built area. Calgary, which comprises about 90% of the population of the CMA is right around 500 sq km built area.

The development pattern of the 905 is really sporadic compared to Calgary's subdivisions, which by and large are planned in large chunks, with a more complete set of services and amenities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2012, 1:03 AM
eternallyme eternallyme is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,105
I think they have misused the term, since "sprawl" can be any new greenfield development looking at the big picture. Sprawl is forced, unless growth is zero or negative, since it is not desirable to freeze boundaries as not everyone wants to live in condos or townhomes, otherwise people will go to other outlying municipalities.

The real story is the declines in the vast majority of the inner suburbs and older urban areas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2012, 1:06 AM
yaletown_fella's Avatar
yaletown_fella yaletown_fella is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by manny_santos View Post
In Toronto, you're right - the housing I've seen in Milton, the newer parts of Mississauga, etc. is very dense. That's not the case in London; although newer housing is more dense than it was in the 1950s, lot sizes in newer parts of London are still quite large compared with Toronto's suburbs. And in the communities near the city such as Ilderton, the lots are even larger.
Mississauga is truly a city of extremes. In the northwest the subdivisions marketed as singles are more or less glorified townhomes. As we all know the city center is beginning to rival North York in its condo boom while Meadowvale is the epitomy of the office park. South of the 401 you'll find many communities such as Birchwood, Mineola and Lorne Park where forested 1-2 acre lots are the norm.
__________________
These pretzels are making me thirsty
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2012, 3:20 AM
catkat catkat is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by dleung View Post
Where'd you hear that? Between 2006-20011, Vancouver proper increased by 25,000. Greater Vancouver grew by 200,000, albeit mostly in brownfield development. Toronto proper grew by 100,000; Greater Toronto grew by half a million.

Vaughan


Brampton


Markham


Richmond Hill
Can I please get links to these exact places for google maps?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2012, 4:10 AM
earl69's Avatar
earl69 earl69 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 433
The Calgary posters are incoming with lattes and pitchforks in hand.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2012, 4:19 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 14,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wooster View Post
Except in no way is it possible that the 705 sq km # could be close to accurate regarding the city's actual built area. Calgary, which comprises about 90% of the population of the CMA is right around 500 sq km built area.
The density figures are inconsistent between cities and not very useful for comparison. If you look at the census tract maps you will find that some include large undeveloped areas and others do not. Similarly, some cities with broken up geography include large amounts of undeveloped or commercial land while others do not.

Another factor that is not mentioned very often is that only residences are included in the population counts. You don't often see much about parkland, industrial, or commercial land use.

What the census tracts are useful for is looking at changes over time within a fixed area.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2012, 4:51 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 1,744
The problem with these figure is they compare city and suburban but city is not just downtown but the whole city.
Downtown/inner city areas of major Canadian cities are doing quite well and are experiencing high growth rates but other parts of the city itself maybe losing population due to demographic changes.
All those suburab houses of the 1990/70s that were still in the city proper has M&D and 4 kids but now M&D are the only ones left.
I will use my family as an example..................when we were growing up there were 6 in the family all in one house.
My sister was the only one of the 4 of us kids that had a kid of her own. Now there are 7 of us but we occupy 5 different residences.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2012, 5:19 AM
Wentworth Wentworth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
Modest gains? The downtowns of Toronto and Vancouver (not sure about the other cities) are growing considerably faster than their suburbs are.
Vancouver grew by 4.4 per cent — to 603,502 people.

Surrey grew by 18.6 per cent — to 468,251.

• Burnaby grew by 10.1 per cent — to 223,218.

• Richmond grew by 9.2 per cent — to 190,473.

• Abbotsford grew by 7.4 per cent — to 133,497


Read more:

If the above trend continues, Surrey will pass Vancouver as the largest city in the Vancouver CMA in the 2021 census... will they will rename it to the Surrey CMA?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2012, 6:08 AM
Andrewjm3D's Avatar
Andrewjm3D Andrewjm3D is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,703
It's funny, the same day that article was printed so was this one.

Toronto Star

Toronto office rents soar 17.5 per cent as companies bypass suburbs to settle in the city

Companies appear willing to pay the price to open or expand offices in Toronto’s booming downtown, despite rents that jumped 17.5 per cent last year.

Unexpectedly strong demand for space in the core helped push office vacancy rates down to just 4.7 per cent in 2011. That’s placed Toronto No. 4 among the world’s Top 10 cities seeing significant increases in office rental rates, according commercial brokerage Cushman & Wakefield.

“Toronto has come through an extremely robust period of demand and it has tightened the market to the point where it’s challenging to find the quality locations for companies that are in the market right now,” says Stuart Barron, national director of research for Cushman.

The hefty rent increases not only point to Toronto’s international appeal as a safe place to do business, but a shift in thinking among companies that previously would have been inclined to set up shop in the suburbs, says Barron.


Read on here -http://www.thestar.com/business/arti...-the-city?bn=1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2012, 8:10 AM
goodthings's Avatar
goodthings goodthings is offline
Human Geography student!
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lisgar, Mississauga, ON
Posts: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wentworth View Post

If the above trend continues, Surrey will pass Vancouver as the largest city in the Vancouver CMA in the 2021 census... will they will rename it to the Surrey CMA?
Impossible.

If then, then Victoria CMA should've changed to Saanich CMA, right?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2012, 9:34 AM
armorand93's Avatar
armorand93 armorand93 is offline
Winnipeg Transit Nerd
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by earl69 View Post
The Calgary posters are incoming with lattes and pitchforks in hand.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2012, 5:48 PM
Mister F Mister F is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: GTA
Posts: 1,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldrsx View Post
TORONTO — Nearly all of Canada's population growth over the past five years occurred in the suburbs, according to a new analysis of the 2011 Census data by an urbanist who says government policies are driving people out of the city — and that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Calling Wendell Cox an urbanist is a bit like calling Chad Kroeger a songwriter.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2012, 6:02 PM
Andrewjm3D's Avatar
Andrewjm3D Andrewjm3D is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister F View Post
Calling Wendell Cox an urbanist is a bit like calling Chad Kroeger a songwriter.
Very true.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2012, 9:31 PM
Marty_Mcfly's Avatar
Marty_Mcfly Marty_Mcfly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoscStudent View Post
Not surprised to see no growth in the downtown area. I wish this map was more clearly labelled, but I think Kenmount Terrace and Bristolwood are either in the block labelled St. John's or the one below and to the left. Really the only real place in St. John's that's growing, and even still it's sprawl. Not like any huge developments are bringing people back to living downtown, LeMarchant, Mundy Pond, etc.
__________________
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
-Christopher Hitchens
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2012, 9:38 PM
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
See:

Quote:
According to my calculations (assuming I didn't leave out or double count any census tracts), the following roughly 4.5 square miles of downtown Toronto increased from 132,434 in 2006 to 175,064 in 2011. That is a whopping 32.2% increase over 5 years.

http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/.../dttoronto.jpg


Downtown Vancouver had 99,233 people in 2011:

[compared to 87,975 in 2006, or a 12.8% increase]

http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/...population.jpg

In comparison, Toronto's suburbs grew by 13.7% and Vancouver's 11% (total CMA growth was 9.2% and 9.3% respectively).
That means everything between downtown and the outer suburbs are growing much slower, despite its better access to transit compared to the latter.

I also think you also put too much stock in density numbers. Sunbelt cities have some of the densest subdivisions anywhere, and their urbanism is abysmal. Cramming families into tacky boxes with more asphalt than greenery only delays the real solutions to the sprawl mentality, while creating some of the ugliest landscapes imaginable. In some ways, ultra-low density east-coast sprawl is more of a greenbelt, being spared from the greybelt that encompasses the inner city.

Quote:
Originally Posted by catkat View Post
Can I please get links to these exact places for google maps?
They're not hard to spot on google earth... these areas are measured in square miles rather than acres or hectares.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2012, 12:13 AM
Hali87's Avatar
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by dleung View Post
In some ways, ultra-low density east-coast sprawl is more of a greenbelt, being spared from the greybelt that encompasses the inner city.
The East Coast does seem to have a different conception of what constitutes sprawl.. Halifax, for example, has an inner ring "905-style" suburbs - Cole Harbour, Bedford, Sackville, and most of Mainland (West) Halifax. Beyond this "greybelt" are the exurbs or "rural commutershed" - very low-density areas that are almost exclusively residential. This is part of Hammonds Plains, perhaps one of the best examples of this type of sub-suburb:

http://g.co/maps/vsp88 There are some advantages to this type of development - considerably more privacy, access to nature, and general preservation of the area's natural integrity. However, there are major downsides as well - they are very expensive to service, and effective public transportation is a non-starter.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2012, 1:02 AM
Symz's Avatar
Symz Symz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Windsor, On.
Posts: 1,619
I can't stand sprawl, it's worse for the environment and it feels like it kills the idea of community.

Here in the Windsor area sprawl is bad enough imo and I feel it has hurt the area, or mainly the city than helped it, mainly because the sprawl is happening in the nearby towns that literally rub shoulders with Windsor.

The downtown is struggling, but the regional mall has always done well, and if I see another strip mall go up in a former farmers field I'll scream.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2012, 2:10 AM
RyeJay RyeJay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by manny_santos View Post
Suburban growth is not a bad thing IF it is properly planned. In most cases in Canada, suburban growth is very poorly planned and you end up with massive expanses of low-density residential with what urban planners call "shopping nodes". That is a growth model that does not create a sense of community, does not create a sense of place, and encourages people to drive everywhere.

Where I used to live in suburban London, within a 15-minute walk, the only things other than houses were a couple of elementary schools, a couple parks, and a ski club. The nearest variety store was a little more than 15 minutes away. Everything else, you had to drive to. The nearest place selling hardware-related items was a 14-minute drive away. The nearest place selling clothes was about the same distance. And everything is corporate - there's virtually no local businesses owned and operated by your neighbours. The street I lived on for over 25 years was dead - lots of people living in the houses, but never seen outside except when shovelling snow or cutting grass. Some of my neighbours I only ever saw after snowstorms, and I never knew most of the people on my street. Nobody except next-door neighbours ever talked to each other. There were almost never kids playing outside. A very dull place I could never go back to.

I now live in the northern suburbs of Mexico City, but it is not a suburb in the Canadian sense. Within a 10-minute walk there's a laundromat, supermarket (with a real bakery, not what passes for a bakery at Metro), several variety stores, several restaurants, elementary school, park, police detachment, car repair shops, soccer fields, tortilla shops, hair salons, hardware store, dental clinic, medical clinic, and extensive public transit. On Mondays there's a farmers' market on one of the nearby streets. You can easily buy local. Most of these establishments are operated by your own neighbours, and you don't have to live in the area very long to become a regular customer and get to know them. You don't have to drive 15 minutes to the corporate Home Depot to buy a light bulb, you can buy it in your own community from your own neighbours. There are no backyards here; if you want to go outside you go to the front of your house, and you get together with your neighbours. In this suburb there is a strong sense of place and a sense of community like I've never seen in a Canadian suburb. If you want anything even remotely resembling this in a city like London, you have to live in the older central part of the city. At least Downtown Toronto has everything.

There is no reason why new Canadian suburbs have to continue being cold places where you have to drive everywhere and never see your own neighbours. But, as long as new developments continue to be built by corporate interests whose "market research" shows that "today's families" want to drive long distances to buy the basics and only buy from major corporate retailers, drive long distances to get to the hockey rink, use drive-thrus exclusively to avoid having to deal with real humans at Tim Hortons, avoid human contact with others on their street, and hide in their backyards where they can't be bothered by those pesky other humans. I will never live in a North American suburb ever again.
I do wish there was overlap between urban planning and climate science. Your understanding of the former subject is very articulate and I agree with you for much of it. Your understanding, however, rests upon the assumption that resources are limitless.

Sprawl is never good for the environment; therefore, sprawl is devastating to long-term economics. As more fertile lands are cleared for suburban developments and farm lands, the less able those lands are at filtering the pollution we create.

At some point in the near future sprawled development must be halted. There will be no amount of rhetoric that will convince our economies of this reality; it will be physical proof that finally moves societies to implode to city centres -- to densify. Ever more frequent and severe natural disasters, escalating prices for everything (gas, food, building supplies, social services, etc.), and a global digital awareness of how dramatically widespread and deep our problem is what will finally move us to a stronger linkage between our economic activities and climate science.

It's disheartening to see our lack of compromisation and our ample efforts in how we distract ourselves with politics, when there is a much bigger opponent looming over our heads.

With a growing population and a diminishing capacity to support it -- just how expensive shall our futures become? Completely unaffordable? It seems as though we're all waiting for environmental bankruptcy, for which, there is no bailout.

Last edited by RyeJay; Feb 20, 2012 at 2:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2012, 5:27 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 14,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hali87 View Post
The East Coast does seem to have a different conception of what constitutes sprawl.. Halifax, for example, has an inner ring "905-style" suburbs - Cole Harbour, Bedford, Sackville ... This is part of Hammonds Plains, perhaps one of the best examples of this type of sub-suburb ... There are some advantages to this type of development - considerably more privacy, access to nature, and general preservation of the area's natural integrity. However, there are major downsides as well - they are very expensive to service, and effective public transportation is a non-starter.
It is interesting to compare sprawl in the Maritimes with sprawl in Ontario or points farther west. The exurban lots tend to look much more attractive but are unsustainable and are not being developed as quickly now. I think exurbia works when it is subsidized by 95% of the city but does not work when it is 50% of the city.

There are planning differences between different regions but the local geography also plays a big role. The Halifax metro area has a large harbour, hundreds of lakes, watershed areas, steep areas, rock that requires expensive blasting, etc. At the other end are some Prairie cities that are pretty much just a giant flat area that can be cheaply and easily paved over.

Exurbia aside, it is unfortunate that Halifax has many new developments that are medium density but car-oriented. In these areas people don't have the advantage of being able to walk around and they don't have the advantage of extra space. It would be so much better if these areas had mixed use developments and if walking were encouraged:


source - Urban_Halifax on flickr


I don't necessarily think the walkable neighbourhoods would be much more expensive, and people do want them. Sadly many of our problems appear to be caused by a legacy of misguided planning decisions and poor planning regulations aimed at separating uses, adding in setbacks and green space, etc. Even today in Halifax when people try to plan better neighbourhoods they always seem to think they want more green space. Green space can be good but the current problems are not caused by a lack of green space.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:47 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.