What is Canada's most "urban" suburban municipality?

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by someone123

The New York comparison is a bit strange because New York is a much larger city and Manhattan is much smaller than the island of Montreal. Hoboken is 2 km from midtown Manhattan.

It's hard to find good representative maps but the pattern of Toronto's development in the first half of the 20th century looks very similar to cities like Cleveland. Even Cleveland was 50% larger as late as 1940 though. Chicago was a much larger metropolitan area. Toronto's metro area was in the same ballpark as Milwaukee.

Milwaukee is surrounded by decent-sized towns that have a great deal of urbanity, such as Waukesha or Racine. Toronto doesn't really have cities of this historical/urban calibre within 60 km, except for Hamilton and Oshawa.

My point is that American cities developed very differently than Canadian cities. Canadian cities had interurban railroads and little settlements strung along them, but they didn't build satellite towns with defined centres that became quite large in their own right. Some of them, like Tempe in the Phoenix area, or Royal Oak, in Detroit, are arguably more urban and bohemian than the central cities themselves.

Canadian cities were always more centralized, with cities on the Prairies being perhaps the most centralized examples of city development that I can think of. The polycentric*, nodal development of Canadian cities has only been a phenomenon of the past 40 years, and therefore not urban in the traditional sense.

*There are a few polycentric mini-megalopoli like the Cape Breton island cities, Niagara Region, Okanagan, the Saguenay or Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge. But nobody would say that downtown Galt (Cambridge) is a suburb of Kitchener, or Jonquiere a suburb of Chicoutimi.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Yeah... it's called Ottawa being over 400km away from Toronto.

You know what's 400km away from Brussels? . . . Not Paris. It's closer than that. Yet the relationship between Paris and Brussels clearly isn't a minimum difference to not be a suburb.

Hamilton is simply close to Toronto. Brussels and Antwerp probably have plenty of people running day trips to the other city, a fair number of commuters, etc, being so close together. (Hamilton is less balanced than Antwerp probably thanks to Toronto being bigger, but they're still fully distinct cities.)

A 1 hour trip and a 5 hour trip simply cause a different relationship in people's minds.

But that's my point. Regardless of how independent a city is, if it's that close to another city, in my mind they essentially form a single city. I'm not picking on Hamilton here. I think Abbotsford/Chilliwack are basically Vancouver, I think San Jose is basically San Francisco, etc. Even if they don't have traditional suburban commuter relationships with their central cities, I consider them suburbs just as a reflection of their secondary positioning to the main centre. I'll note that I know I'm alone in this and I don't expect anyone else to agree with me haha, just how my mind categorizes these things.

That's why I said, maybe we just don't have the language to accurately describe this relationship. Hamilton is obviously more independent of Toronto than Vaughan is, but less independent than Ottawa is. So while we may not be able to call it a suburb, I wouldn't call it a City or metro area or whatever either.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Well yeah it kinda has to be the end of downtown because of how it was built. If it was done right, it could've been the centre of downtown, with Columbia Square Plaza being developed next, and then the car dealerships/collision repair places to the west of that. That would feel like a true urban neighbourhood, with lots of overpasses (preferably a covered tunnel) to the nice riverfront area.

yea. the railway tracks really don't help the area either.

What new west really does have though is a downtown by the river and an uptown up the hill. Uptown has quite a different feel all together. Its almost like downtown is the sketchy rough area vs uptown which is the family friendly downtown. But in the past decade downtown new west has really improved. I really like front street.

I havent seen the changes yet but it looks a lot brighter although it lost the gritty city feeling when prt of the parkade came down and it doesn't seem as interesting as it was in the 90's when it was home to antiques row.

front street


Uptown

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

But that's my point. Regardless of how independent a city is, if it's that close to another city, in my mind they essentially form a single city. I'm not picking on Hamilton here. I think Abbotsford/Chilliwack are basically Vancouver, I think San Jose is basically San Francisco, etc. Even if they don't have traditional suburban commuter relationships with their central cities, I consider them suburbs just as a reflection of their secondary positioning to the main centre. I'll note that I know I'm alone in this and I don't expect anyone else to agree with me haha, just how my mind categorizes these things.

That's why I said, maybe we just don't have the language to accurately describe this relationship. Hamilton is obviously more independent of Toronto than Vaughan is, but less independent than Ottawa is. So while we may not be able to call it a suburb, I wouldn't call it a City or metro area or whatever either.

I understand where you're coming from; Hamilton and Toronto form a continuous urban area, legally they're separate municipalities with other municipalities in between, but those are a creation of the provincial government. In theory, the province could decide tomorrow to amalgamate Toronto, Hamilton, Peel Region and Halton Region, and presto, one city.

That said, in terms of a sense of place, Hamilton is still very distinct from Toronto.

[WhipperSnapper]

There's a few neighbourhoods in Toronto that, from my outside perspective, have mirrored Hamilton from its past to it's rapid evolution. Riverside/Leslieville is one.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

But that's my point. Regardless of how independent a city is, if it's that close to another city, in my mind they essentially form a single city.

So... Windsor is essentially the same city as Detroit?

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

So... Windsor is essentially the same city as Detroit?

Yes, because when I talk about municipal borders between different suburbs/municipalities in a metro/whatever you wanna call it being arbitrary and meaningless, I'm of course also talking about international borders that actually present a real barrier and boundary between two places.

International borders have actual on the ground infrastructure and procedures which make it a pain in the ass to cross and live your life in both places. Municipal borders are just lines on a map that have no real meaning to people that work in one, go to school in another, live in a third, socialize in a fourth, etc. If you're on the QEW from Toronto, though Mississauga, Burlington, Oakville then Hamilton, can you even tell you're going through different "cities?" Not really. That's why I think it's so weird how strongly some people cling to these entities. Cities are bigger than people allow them to be.

I don't know why I always fall for these types of comments (in real life too!), but I do.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

In theory, the province could decide tomorrow to amalgamate Toronto, Hamilton, Peel Region and Halton Region, and presto, one city.

The province could decide to amalgamate Toronto and Thunder Bay into one city tomorrow too; or decide that Hamilton is illegal and demand it be dismantled.

I do agree that artificial boundaries for easy administration have no real place in discussions of urban form (outside politics). Those boundaries almost never align with the urbanized area for very long, if ever.

[Capsicum]

What about "do the locals perceive their city as their own city versus a suburb of the nearest bigger city" as a criteria?

Would this overestimate or underestimate the rank and status of suburban cities and towns?

For example, if a Mississauga resident is more likely to think of themselves as being "from Mississauga" or "from a suburb of Toronto".

Though it's probably contextual -- they might say "I'm from Mississauga" to a local, but "from Toronto" or "from a suburb of Toronto" to a non-local or outsider.

But those from Hamilton would say "I'm from Hamilton" to a local, and "I'm from a town near Toronto, or just outside Toronto" to a non-local or outsider, to give a reference point, but rarely if at all say "from a suburb of Toronto" to an outsider.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

So... Windsor is essentially the same city as Detroit?

isn't it south detroit? lol

I remember watching a video and they were dissecting the journey song, don't stop believing and they said South Detroit doesn't even exist unless they meant windsor

[Doady]

I can't think of another municipality in Canada that is as blatantly pro-car and pro-sprawl as Hamilton. Thanks to things like Red Hill Creek Expressway, starving Hamilton Street Railway of funding, the transit ridership has fallen behind London, Mississauga, Waterloo, etc. Consider that Hamilton has the largest inner city in Ontario outside of Toronto, it can be argued the city has suburbanized the most. Think about it: in 1951, with a population of 208,000, Hamilton was the fifth largest city on Canada. Unfortunately the city is still stuck in a 50s mindset.

RIDERSHIP PER CAPITA 2003-2013
Municipality   2003    2013    +/-
Waterloo R.    29.30   50.49   +21.19
Brampton       22.00   35.43   +13.43
London         49.80   63.07   +13.27
Peterborough   30.90   43.43   +12.53
St. Catharines 23.20   35.32   +12.12
Mississauga    38.30   47.47   +9.17
Hamilton       46.90   44.80   -2.10

If you go to Hamilton it definitely feels like distinct city, but it is a shadow of its former self as well, and the reason is not Toronto.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

What about "do the locals perceive their city as their own city versus a suburb of the nearest bigger city" as a criteria?

Would this overestimate or underestimate the rank and status of suburban cities and towns?

For example, if a Mississauga resident is more likely to think of themselves as being "from Mississauga" or "from a suburb of Toronto".

Though it's probably contextual -- they might say "I'm from Mississauga" to a local, but "from Toronto" or "from a suburb of Toronto" to a non-local or outsider.

But those from Hamilton would say "I'm from Hamilton" to a local, and "I'm from a town near Toronto, or just outside Toronto" to a non-local or outsider, to give a reference point, but rarely if at all say "from a suburb of Toronto" to an outsider.

There may be some exceptions (ie people recently moved over from Ottawa - and who may eventually go back) but by and large people from Gatineau never say they're from Ottawa. Or even that they're from a suburb of Ottawa.

If they reference Ottawa in saying where they're from, they'll say it's across the river from Ottawa, or next to Ottawa.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

What about "do the locals perceive their city as their own city versus a suburb of the nearest bigger city" as a criteria?

Nah that's completely arbitrary. Like almost everyone in CNV or Metrotown considers themselves a suburb of Vancouver but Surreyites seem to view themselves as the centre of the region despite being much less urban and on the outskirts.

It's more about insecurity than anything.