Under the Radar: Darkhorse small cities that could one day be very big

[SignalHillHiker]

OH! That makes perfect sense. I get it. Just to make sure I do... so Newmarket is a lower-tier municipality within York?

[wave46]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

OH! That makes perfect sense. I get it. Just to make sure I do... so Newmarket is a lower-tier municipality within York?

Exactly.

[christmas]

Can we also include Squamish, BC on the list?

[LeftCoaster]

Squamish will be one of the fastest growing cities for the next few decades, of that I have little doubt, but it is so geographically constrained I just don't see it ever being 'very big'.

Also it should really be included in the Vancouver CMA. The commuting patterns must be getting very close and it's only about 45 mins from downtown. A lot of people I grew up with in the city are moving there to start families.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I still say that Clarington ON has the most potential for population growth. And it was over 92,000 in the 2016 census which really surprised me. I have some friends from Timmins who live there are they tell me that proposed and already under construction infrastructure and transportation projects will lead to attracting many people.

Some of the reasons:

-the 401 goes through the Southern part (that alone is a huge deal)

-hwy 407 extention is being built to the community (Northern portion) It will allow fast access to the entire GTA from there.

-Hwy 418 being built to connect the 401 with 407 (Western portion)

-already has Hwy 115 to Peterborough which is pretty much a freeway (Eastern portion)

-Soon to be surrounded by freeways!!!

-it is getting a new GO Transit station

-land is still pretty cheap

-lots of available land for developments and is large in area

It's kind of amazing how, for such a large city, Toronto really doesn't have a lot of freeways. Like, yeah, a lot more than you'd get in Vancouver or Edmonton, but a lot less than American cities of similar size to Toronto, particularly in the city and inner suburbs like Scarborough. I think the Island of Montreal has more, even, or at least feels like it. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but if people aren't getting on congested freeways, they need to be getting by on other means, and for that, I turn to Toronto's woefully skeletal subway and commuter rail system.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by ue

It's kind of amazing how, for such a large city, Toronto really doesn't have a lot of freeways. Like, yeah, a lot more than you'd get in Vancouver or Edmonton, but a lot less than American cities of similar size to Toronto, particularly in the city and inner suburbs like Scarborough. I think the Island of Montreal has more, even, or at least feels like it. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but if people aren't getting on congested freeways, they need to be getting by on other means, and for that, I turn to Toronto's woefully skeletal subway and commuter rail system.

The US had federal funding for the Interstate Highway System, which covered 90% of the costs. That made a huge difference for expensive to build in-city freeways. There was no such federal funding in Canada.

Toronto bloomed relatively late too - the heyday for in-city freeway construction was the '50s and '60s. Montreal was really still the premier city of Canada back then and its infrastructure shows the thinking of the time. By the 1970s, public opinion had turned against freeways, especially those that would have required extensive demolition of neighborhoods.

As for the subway/commuter rail, Toronto is most certainly ahead of cities in its population bracket in North America, with the exception of Montreal. Sure, it's not New York, but it has nowhere near that population. The closest US city might be either Chicago or Washington, both which have more miles of track, but far lower usage. It demolishes cities like Houston, Dallas, Phoenix or Los Angeles.

[Nicko999]

Although it is part of the Greater Montreal area, Mirabel has the potential to become one of the largest 10 cities in the province. It grew 21.2% between the censuses of 2006 and 2011 and a further 20.4% between 2011 and 2016.

It is also the aerospace center of not only the Montreal region but the country as a whole.

The city hit the 50,000 milestone in 2016 and has plenty of space to expand (485 km2). As a comparison, the whole island of Montreal is 499 km2.

The potential is unlimited.

[Laceoflight]

Originally Posted by Nicko999

Although it is part of the Greater Montreal area, Mirabel has the potential to become one of the largest 10 cities in the province. [...]
The potential is unlimited.

Mirabel will meet its Waterloo like every other town in southern St. Lawrence valley : la Loi sur la Protection du Territoire et des Activités agricoles (LPTAAQ). Mirabel has a huge green zone, and the urbanization is limited to unzoned (white) clusters around the old village cores. Within 15 years, it will likely arrive to the point of saturation of its urban perimeter, the same way Repentigny and Boisbriand did and Blainville is going to.

Maybe they will have the reflex to densify their developments, but the town is still far from Montreal's core, and I fear that the market wouldn't be one dominated with a demand for towers.



This image is from Mirabel's latest "Plan de développement de la zone agricole (PDZA)", p. 28.

Everything that's green is the protected agricultural land. The grey zones are what remain for both industrial and residential development. The former airport, in the middle, is obviously Mirabel's highest hope for development. It is zoned as industrial, though, and what remains of St-Janvier's urbanization perimeter too. So, for now the most important reserve of constructible land is located in the Domaine-Vert area, the grey patch at the bottom right of the map.

[ue]

Originally Posted by wave46

The US had federal funding for the Interstate Highway System, which covered 90% of the costs. That made a huge difference for expensive to build in-city freeways. There was no such federal funding in Canada.

Toronto bloomed relatively late too - the heyday for in-city freeway construction was the '50s and '60s. Montreal was really still the premier city of Canada back then and its infrastructure shows the thinking of the time. By the 1970s, public opinion had turned against freeways, especially those that would have required extensive demolition of neighborhoods.

As for the subway/commuter rail, Toronto is most certainly ahead of cities in its population bracket in North America, with the exception of Montreal. Sure, it's not New York, but it has nowhere near that population. The closest US city might be either Chicago or Washington, both which have more miles of track, but far lower usage. It demolishes cities like Houston, Dallas, Phoenix or Los Angeles.

I'm aware of the history.

As for rail, for a city with much higher transit usage than Houston or Atlanta, it really needs a far more comprehensive rail network. Sure, that's changing, but the GTA is essentially playing catch-up for infrastructure that should've been in place 30 years ago. It's amazing the DRL is only now kicking off. A Queen Subway should've been around decades ago. Same with Eglinton. Maybe even St Clair and down Hurontario in Mississauga if Sheppard Ave was declared ok for a stubway. GO Rail needs to be more than just a commuter service, too.

Toronto is getting there, but it's just so far behind... Vancouver's Skytrain offers a more comprehensive rail network, and it's only been around 30 years.

[someone123]

If American cities invested so heavily in freeway construction, wouldn't that have come at the expense of transit, given a fixed level of infrastructure spending? Why compare Toronto's transit infrastructure to American cities after already establishing that its freeways are much more limited?

At the end of the day my impression is that Toronto has somewhat more limited overall transportation infrastructure compared to world cities of a similar size and level of wealth. It has neither a good road network (like US cities) nor a good transit system (like European cities). I'm not sure it's split 50/50 either. It's more like 25/25; one quarter of the freeways, one quarter of the subways, and half as much total heavy transportation infrastructure.

This isn't a criticism of Toronto specifically. I don't think that Canada invests enough in infrastructure, period. The fastest growing cities are the worst off because they have the fastest growing demand for infrastructure but the supply is going up slowly everywhere.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by ue

I'm aware of the history.

As for rail, for a city with much higher transit usage than Houston or Atlanta, it really needs a far more comprehensive rail network. Sure, that's changing, but the GTA is essentially playing catch-up for infrastructure that should've been in place 30 years ago. It's amazing the DRL is only now kicking off. A Queen Subway should've been around decades ago. Same with Eglinton. Maybe even St Clair and down Hurontario in Mississauga if Sheppard Ave was declared ok for a stubway. GO Rail needs to be more than just a commuter service, too.

Toronto is getting there, but it's just so far behind... Vancouver's Skytrain offers a more comprehensive rail network, and it's only been around 30 years.

The 1990s government cutbacks (both federal and provincial) really hurt transit. The Eglinton subway was initially started in the 1990s, but cutbacks forced the hole to be filled in. The downtown line was a victim of those cuts too.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by someone123

If American cities invested so heavily in freeway construction, wouldn't that have come at the expense of transit, given a fixed level of infrastructure spending? Why compare Toronto's transit infrastructure to American cities after already establishing that its freeways are much more limited?

At the end of the day my impression is that Toronto has somewhat more limited overall transportation infrastructure compared to world cities of a similar size and level of wealth. It has neither a good road network (like US cities) nor a good transit system (like European cities). I'm not sure it's split 50/50 either. It's more like 25/25; one quarter of the freeways, one quarter of the subways, and half as much total heavy transportation infrastructure.

This isn't a criticism of Toronto specifically. I don't think that Canada invests enough in infrastructure, period. The fastest growing cities are the worst off because they have the fastest growing demand for infrastructure but the supply is going up slowly everywhere.

Why did I compare Toronto to US cities? The model of development (especially post WWII) in Toronto is more similar to American cities than to European cities.

As for comparison to world metros, it's hard to classify Toronto. Considering Toronto has a metropolitan population of ~5.5m, it's not among the huge cities of the world - comparing it to metro systems in New York, London, Tokyo or Beijing is pretty unfair to Toronto.

Comparing it to the plethora of transit systems in China is unfair too. That sort of growth is what you'd expect from a centrally-planned government that doesn't have to deal with inconveniences like soliciting public input or citizen debate.

So, in comparison to European cities like Barcelona, Berlin and Oslo, Toronto fares rather poorly. However, those cities are more dense than the Greater Toronto Area though - building expensive transit lines to low-density suburbs is a recipe for disaster - look at Los Angeles. Then again, Los Angeles shows the limits of freeways as a primary mode of transport too.

In comparison to North American cities, Toronto does well. Other than the aforementioned Montreal Metro, Washington Metro and Chicago 'L', I can't really think of a city close to Toronto's population that has a more comprehensive transit system.

So, it's a classic Canadian story - not full-blown American-style 'freeways at all costs' mentality or European-style 'screw the cars, we'll build transit' view. I think the city gets a lot right. In the mythical world of infinite money, sure, we could spend more on infrastructure, but I think the value equation would break down if huge amounts of money was spent on either mode of transportation. The costs and destruction associated with the proposed freeway system in Toronto would have been monumental, but more subways like the Sheppard line wouldn't have fixed anything either.

[SaskOttaLoo]

If I understand the OP correctly, the idea is to vote on the cities that are most likely to join the +200,000 population club. Of course, some of the cities are practically there (Kelowna), while others like Red Deer are much farther away. Are we really asking if Kelowna will add the additional couple of thousand people to hit 200k after Red Deer will? Or am I misunderstanding? Clarity welcome!

[MolsonExport]

the intended topic was supposed to be smallish cities that could one day be big. thread poll limits 25 options, which narrowed down to about 200K current population.

I am interested in people's thoughts about the next lurking Calgary or K-W.

[lio45]

I could see Windsor, Moncton, and Halifax all getting quite a bit bigger than what they are. They're good locations for cities and don't seem to have hit their full potential.

However, the likeliest to happen by far is that all the big cities won't trade spots and no new big city will emerge. Had SSP existed a couple centuries ago and you'd asked in the Quebec section "which new city in this province do you think will emerge to challenge the big two?" the correct answer would have been "none will".

Canada doesn't have any new land that hasn't already fulfilled its basic potential.

It's interesting to see the difference between places that didn't have any new land (the settled parts of Quebec, NS, Newfoundland) versus places that did (Canada, U.S.) because as I pointed out, in Quebec, the cities that were already big did not get dethroned, same thing with Halifax and St. John's keeping their positions for centuries and likely continuing forever. However, if you have a relatively empty West or Sunbelt, then yeah, it's very possible that new big cities will emerge there, and maybe pass existing ones.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by lio45

I could see Windsor, Moncton, and Halifax all getting quite a bit bigger than what they are. They're good locations for cities and don't seem to have hit their full potential.

However, the likeliest to happen by far is that all the big cities won't trade spots and no new big city will emerge. Had SSP existed a couple centuries ago and you'd asked in the Quebec section "which new city in this province do you think will emerge to challenge the big two?" the correct answer would have been "none will".

Canada doesn't have any new land that hasn't already fulfilled its basic potential.

It's interesting to see the difference between places that didn't have any new land (the settled parts of Quebec, NS, Newfoundland) versus places that did (Canada, U.S.) because as I pointed out, in Quebec, the cities that were already big did not get dethroned, same thing with Halifax and St. John's keeping their positions for centuries and likely continuing forever. However, if you have a relatively empty West or Sunbelt, then yeah, it's very possible that new big cities will emerge there, and maybe pass existing ones.

Canada is fairly urbanized already too, so there's no mass of population just waiting to move to a city, unlike in China or India.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by wave46

So, it's a classic Canadian story - not full-blown American-style 'freeways at all costs' mentality or European-style 'screw the cars, we'll build transit' view.

I don't think that's an accurate portrayal of either society.

You can't say that Americans haven't spent money on mass transit - it's just that nobody's riding them because they have terrible frequencies and don't solve the "last mile" problem with supporting bus services. Also, transit planning and land use planning are usually disconnected in the United States, which means a rail line often ends in the middle of nowhere while municipalities plan major office parks on the other side of town. Americans have, however, invested billions on light rail and heavy rail systems - many of which are longer, if not more used - than Toronto's subway.

And you can't say the Europeans don't invest in freeway infrastructure either. Spain has the third largest motorway network in the world, and pretty much all of it was built in the last 30 years. Take a look at the street map of Greater Madrid or the Ruhr. These places pretty much have a freeway density comparable to Los Angeles. The difference is that European cities don't build suburban arterial roads - this is kind of similar to how the Americans don't have decent connecting bus service to train stations - so highways in European cities are meant to serve long-distance travel and act as bypasses, rather than intra-city travel.

No, Canada has the worst of both worlds from a transportation standpoint. There are a lot of jobs and services that are, for all intensive purposes, out of reach for captive transit users in the suburbs. At the same time, driving is much more of a burden - both economically and in terms of time - than it is in US cities designed around the car like those in the sunbelt. Nobody has an easy commute in the large cities of Canada.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by wave46

In comparison to North American cities, Toronto does well. Other than the aforementioned Montreal Metro, Washington Metro and Chicago 'L', I can't really think of a city close to Toronto's population that has a more comprehensive transit system.

In terms of effectively serving its population (rather than raw size) Vancouver is somewhat better than Toronto, IMO. Boston and San Francisco both blow the TTC to pieces, and I'd make a case for Seattle, Portland, and Philly.

And there are lots of smaller cities that do at least as well as the TTC with rapid bus service and maybe some light rail.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I don't think that's an accurate portrayal of either society.

You can't say that Americans haven't spent money on mass transit - it's just that nobody's riding them because they have terrible frequencies and don't solve the "last mile" problem with supporting bus services. Also, transit planning and land use planning are usually disconnected in the United States, which means a rail line often ends in the middle of nowhere while municipalities plan major office parks on the other side of town. Americans have, however, invested billions on light rail and heavy rail systems - many of which are longer, if not more used - than Toronto's subway.

And you can't say the Europeans don't invest in freeway infrastructure either. Spain has the third largest motorway network in the world, and pretty much all of it was built in the last 30 years. Take a look at the street map of Greater Madrid or the Ruhr. These places pretty much have a freeway density comparable to Los Angeles. The difference is that European cities don't build suburban arterial roads - this is kind of similar to how the Americans don't have decent connecting bus service to train stations - so highways in European cities are meant to serve long-distance travel and act as bypasses, rather than intra-city travel.

No, Canada has the worst of both worlds from a transportation standpoint. There are a lot of jobs and services that are, for all intensive purposes, out of reach for captive transit users in the suburbs. At the same time, driving is much more of a burden - both economically and in terms of time - than it is in US cities designed around the car like those in the sunbelt. Nobody has an easy commute in the large cities of Canada.

So is Calgary an anomaly then because I believe they have transit service within 500 meters of pretty much every business or residence in the city with the exception of acreages on the far edges, brand spanking new suburbs or a few industrial anomalies that are way off the beaten path?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

In terms of effectively serving its population (rather than raw size) Vancouver is somewhat better than Toronto, IMO. Boston and San Francisco both blow the TTC to pieces, and I'd make a case for Seattle, Portland, and Philly.

Vancouver has managed to build more transit than most Canadian cities but it's still a pretty sad state of affairs. The SkyTrain feels like it's gotten much worse while I've lived here due to overcrowding, and the routing of the trains is bizarre. I can't take a train from where I live directly downtown without a transfer. A lot of my friends have to change trains while commuting along the main Expo/Millennium loop (going from, say, New West to Brentwood). The Millennium Line now mostly has 2 car trains that at packed to the gills are rush hour; my understanding is that TransLink simply doesn't have enough cars right now, and they won't have more until 2018 or 2019. There's still no train along Broadway, and I assume the 99 is still the busiest bus route in Canada and the US (i.e. the busiest bus route not to be replaced by something better).

Meanwhile I've had to cancel a bunch of things lately because of bad traffic on the main roads here. It feels like it's about 50/50 whether or not there will be some kind of catastrophic traffic jam on Highway 1 or the bridge. When that happens travel times to places like Squamish or Abbotsford get up into the 2-3+ hour range because there are few alternative routes and they can't handle the extra traffic.

This is the city that Canadians like to say is great and has managed to build more infrastructure than usual.