The Tales Of Urbanizing Canada Are Overblown (Commentary)

[M II A II R II K]

The real housing boom: The suburbs are where we want to be


May 29, 2017

By KONRAD YAKABUSKI



Read More: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ticle35139769/

.....

While condo cranes dotting city skylines get all the attention, the real story in most Canadian cities remains the unabated growth of the suburbs. The ’burbs continue to draw tens of thousands of new residents every year compared to the few thousand or so who move downtown.

- Smart-growth gurus, most of whom seem to live downtown, don’t like to talk much about suburbia’s enduring lure because it sounds like we’re stuck in the 1950s. The irony is that the suburbs are thriving, in part, because of the smart-growth policies that have made a house in the city out of reach for most. Most people, though, still move to the ’burbs by choice. Unless you pass a law or something, you cannot stop Canadians from aspiring to own a house, preferably a detached one, with a yard, a deck and a two-car driveway.

- No group of Canadians consider this a rite of citizenship more than those who come here from countries where such a lifestyle is reserved only for the rich. For most immigrants, the Canadian Dream inevitably involves all of the above, with publicly funded education and health care as an added bonus. With immigration accounting for two-thirds (and rising) of Canada’s population growth, it’s no coincidence the suburbs are booming.

- New immigrants may initially settle downtown or in the inner suburbs, such as North York in Toronto or Montreal’s Cartierville. But they will scrimp and save, and soon move to the outer suburbs to places such as Milton, Ont., or Laval, Que. There, they can still own a little piece of paradise to raise kids, send them to good schools, let them wander on their bikes and have the relatives over for a backyard barbecue. It may or may not mean a longer commute – many already work in the ’burbs. But if so, it’s worth it.

- Between 2011 and 2016, according to an Environics Analytics analysis of census data, the population of Toronto’s suburbs grew by 7.7 per cent while the city proper grew by 4.5 per cent. In Vancouver, suburban growth outpaced the increase in the city 7.1 per cent to 4.6 per cent. In Montreal, the suburbs grew 5.3 per cent; the city, 2.9 per cent. The gap between suburban and city growth was even wider in all three metropolitan areas during the previous 2006-2011 census period. Toronto’s suburbs grew by 12.7 per cent during that period, or at 2.8 times the rate of the city itself.

- More than two-thirds of Canadians already live in some form of suburb, according to research by Queen’s University’s David Gordon, who divides Canada’s urban population between those who live in the “active core” of cities, in “transit suburbs” with ready access to public transport, and in the “auto suburbs” where the car rules. Between 2006 and 2011, the active cores added 89,000 souls; the transit suburbs grew by 70,000. The auto suburbs added 1.3 million people, with 380,000 more in suburban Toronto alone.

- Luckily, Canada has not seen the kind of “sorting” of its population that has made the political divide between U.S. suburbs (largely white, middle-class and Republican) and inner cities (ethnically and socio-economically diverse and overwhelmingly Democratic) so unbridgeable. In Canada, it’s in the suburbs where elections are the most competitive. The reason, Prof. Gordon notes, is that our suburbs are far more diverse.

- Though we have “ethnic enclaves” such as Brampton, Ont., and Surrey, B.C., they are neither exclusive nor cut off from the surrounding community or society. This helps explains why suburban politics is so fluid here. “There’s hope in Canada; we’re not as dug in as the Americans on the blue-red thing,” Prof. Gordon says. “It’s possible for any centrist politician to craft a platform to win in the suburbs.”

- We still need to make suburbs more environmentally sustainable – Prof. Gordon favours toll roads and an end to free parking. But smart-growth policy-makers who think they can nudge people back to the city will be disappointed. Never try to get between a family and its barbecue.

.....

[mhays]

Multiple things are wrong with that snippet, but I'll focus on one.

Functionally, the physical boundaries of "inner city" vs. "suburban" have moved outward. This is specifically because some of those suburban areas have densified whether broadly or in nodes. If you count these areas, the urban cores have grown far more significantly.

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.)

[dc_denizen]

This article also mischaracterizes US suburbs as republican leaning. Most suburbs are and have been democratic for a long time.

[MonkeyRonin]

Whether more growth is occurring in central or outer municipalities is irrelevant. The important part is that most growth in either case is happening in the form of infill, urban-format development and not greenfield sprawl.

[Yuri]

Maybe I'm overlooking something, but to me it's simple: if the urban footprint is growing faster than the population, then you have a suburbanization. If it's the other way around, urbanization.

I can't tell for sure, but it seems to me Canadian urban areas are becoming denser.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by mhays

Multiple things are wrong with that snippet . . .

Have to be. It suggests Canadians have the same faults (from the perspective of most of us) as Americans. We know that isn't true.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Whether more growth is occurring in central or outer municipalities is irrelevant. The important part is that most growth in either case is happening in the form of infill, urban-format development and not greenfield sprawl.

So "infill" is what you call this?


https://www.planetizen.com/node/9300...oward-suburban

[Crawford]

Immigrants to North America, generally speaking, love McMansions and sprawlburbias. You're gonna have a hard time convincing successful Indian or Chinese immigrants to prefer a cramped walk-up to a brand new suburban house.

I think this is as true in LA as it is in Toronto. Canada's growth is mostly due to immigration, so no surprise much of the growth is on the periphery. Toronto's ethnic enclaves tend to be in sprawl. Of course there are exceptions, due to zoning, housing availability, etc.

Toronto's core, in contrast, seems very white and native-born. I'm guessing most of the prime, oldest, most urban neighborhoods off Yonge have relatively low % of immigrants.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

So "infill" is what you call this?


https://www.planetizen.com/node/9300...oward-suburban

No, I would not describe a generic stock photo of some 1990s subdivision as "infill" - but it is what I'd call the majority of development occurring in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and at least a few other cities, which is mostly coming in the form on non-greenfield multi-family dwellings.

I can't be bothered to look up the stats on types of housing permits or sales, but just for perspective here's the population and built-up land area of the Toronto urban area in 2011: 5,144,412 inhabitants, 1,751 sqkm. And in 2016: 5,429,524, 1,792 sqkm.

So in 5 years a gain of 285,112 people with an increase in developed land of only 41 sqkm. Pretty obviously most of that growth therefore came in the form of infill development within the existing built-up area.

[mhays]

Extreme examples don't make the point. They rarely do.

[Doady]

Milton had an urban density of 2,520.3 residents per sq km in 2016, an increase from 2,356.7 residents per sq km in 2011. Semi-detached houses and small lots everywhere. Not exactly a suburban paradise.

Brampton Transit's ridership per capita has almost doubled since 2003 and the system now gets over 23 million riders annually in terms of linked trips (over 35 million unlinked trips). Laval also has over 20 million, and that's the bus system only, not including the metro line. Yes, Laval has 3 metro stations. Not really paradise either.

Density of both the inner city and suburbs are increasing in Canada. Car dependence of both the inner city and suburbs are decreasing in Canada. That is literally the definition of urbanization.

Will Milton, Brampton, and Laval ever have the transit ridership of North York? They definitely won't if you don't allow them to grow. North York wouldn't be what it is today if all suburban growth was stopped on principle. To say it is okay for North York to grow but not Laval doesn't make any sense.

[Rico Rommheim]

Anything written by KONRAD YAKABUSKI should be taken with a grain of salt. a YUGE grain of salt.

[NorthernDancer]

Most of the newer suburban development in Canada's major metros is very dense, often taking the form of highrises. Much of it is even transit-oriented. Suburban Toronto and Vancouver in particular are getting 600+ foot buildings on very high-frequency transit routes.

Simply looking at whether growth is in a "central city" or in a "suburb" and making conclusions about it's form is ignorant. This new growth is not single-family houses on massive 1/4 acre lots.

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

So "infill" is what you call this?


https://www.planetizen.com/node/9300...oward-suburban

That's not the kind of stuff that's being built anymore (to any large degree).

[niwell]

^That looks like suburban Calgary, and it absolutely is still being built. But even still there are way more multi-family developments in the suburbs than before.

Suburban Toronto greenfield growth is slightly denser and has a bunch of highrises thrown in the mix.

[240glt]

Originally Posted by NorthernDancer

That's not the kind of stuff that's being built anymore (to any large degree).

Depends on where you look

As noted, in cities like Calgary and Edmonton those types of developments are not only still being built, they are by far the preferred housing choice for most in those cities.

The deep southwest of Edmonton is the fastest growing area of the city by a wide margin. The only real difference is that there are multi-family buildings being built alongside the single family houses

[Doady]

Toronto CMA
Dwelling structure         2006 2016
Single-detached house      41.7 39.6
Semi-detached house        7.7  7.4
Row house                  8.3  9.1
Apartment, duplex 	   4.3  4.2
Apartment, building 
w/ fewer than five storeys 11.2 10.0
Apartment, building 
w/ five or more storeys    26.5 29.4
Other dwelling             0.1  0.2

Calgary CMA
Dwelling structure         2006 2016
Single-detached house      59.6 58.3
Semi-detached house        5.8  6.3
Row house                  8.7  9.4
Apartment, duplex 	   3.9  4.2
Apartment, building 
w/ fewer than five storeys 15.0 14.7
Apartment, building 
w/ five or more storeys    6.3  6.3
Other dwelling             0.6  0.5

[mintzilla]

I don't know about other cities but edmontons growth is mostly single family homes as pictured with some garbage 4 story wood frame condos used to block highway/ road noise.
Surprisingly dense still though but still garbagely designed. Everything is still 100% designed for driving. Even the transit stations lol.

[Doady]

Something that is "surprisingly dense" is by default not 100% designed for driving. Higher density, shorter distances is one of the main features of transit-oriented development.

You can see other features of TOD in Edmonton's suburbs, such a plethora of pedestrian walkways to increase the permeability of the street network and allow people to walk in as straight a line as possible, again to reduce distances, especially to the nearest bus stop.

[dc_denizen]

is this even true, relative to the US or in the absolute sense?

- Though we have “ethnic enclaves” such as Brampton, Ont., and Surrey, B.C., they are neither exclusive nor cut off from the surrounding community or society. This helps explains why suburban politics is so fluid here. “There’s hope in Canada; we’re not as dug in as the Americans on the blue-red thing,” Prof. Gordon says. “It’s possible for any centrist politician to craft a platform to win in the suburbs.”

Also, the latter point I think it has more to do with immigrants to Canada being mostly middle class, and often from commonwealth countries with ties to the UK.