Ugly Suburban Sprawl Capital of Canada

[Cambridgite]

Okay, for unamenable suburbs and metro areas that are spread out for their populations, I'd have to go with Saint John and Halifax. I know of no other cities in Canada where most of the suburban fabric is houses that are 50+ metres apart, run on well water, the streets have no sidewalks, and literally support no transit at all (at least in the Saint John case).

Sudbury's urban boundary is far more distinct than it is in these other places, even if their CMA contains a lot of empty land.

For having banal, cookie cutter monstrosities taking up most of the urban fabric, I'm going to list 4 cities:

- Calgary
- Edmonton
- Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge
- Barrie

Yes, Calgary and Edmonton have lots of sprawl. But they still managed to build an impressive CBD (especially Calgary) in those decades of sprawling.

KWC is probably the worst for this, all things taken into consideration. Not only is it very cookie cutter, but it lacks a CBD, and originated from 5 completely separate towns. While suburbanization trend is starting to change with more tech comparies investing in the cores, the lion's share of all business is done in suburbia...sort of like a mini Los Angeles. This applies to retail, office space, and of course industry (and it's a pretty industrial metro). We even have 8 lane freeways that jam up at rush hours.

Barrie is also very cookie cutter, but at least you can point to a distinct downtown as their CBD, even if it's small (their population is smaller as well). There isn't much office space to speak of, since that's what Toronto is for lol.

[Wharn]

Originally Posted by Doady

practically non-existent public transit and pedestrian networks

I don't think so, Tim. Mississauga has better transit than London (a "real" city), and if they actually plough their sidewalks rather than allow them to be trampled into ice then they'd have better pedestrian networks as well. It's just that you can't walk anywhere, unless you have a good 3 hours to spare.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Doady

It's the worst sprawl in the Americas, no doubt.

lol, keep trollin' there mate.

And for the record, Mississauga's transit moves 155,000/day (plus more people using GO or nearby TTC routes), compared to 110,000/day in Winnipeg and 62,000/day in Quebec City.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

lol, keep trollin' there mate.

And for the record, Mississauga's transit moves 155,000/day (plus more people using GO or nearby TTC routes), compared to 110,000/day in Winnipeg and 62,000/day in Quebec City.

Mississauga moves 110,000 per weekday by Canadian measures of ridership (linked trips). I don't know the weekday numbers for Quebec and Winnipeg (and I'm sure your numbers are incorrect) but the annually they see 42 million riders.

In comparison, Mississauga only gets 31 million annually, despite having a higher population. Per capita ridership in Quebec and Winnipeg is 50% higher than in Mississauga. Of course, if you compare to other systems like Calgary or Vancouver, it's even worse.

So, obviously, Mississauga is extremely car-dependent. And it's not even the most car-dependent suburb in the GTA.

[matt602]

Toronto wins again I think, closely followed by Calgary. It should probably be noted though that for the most part, Toronto's main suburbs of Mississauga, Oshawa, York Region, etc. are starting to build up instead of out. Mississauga especially has just about hit the urban limits as far as growth is concerned and intensification projects have been under way for the past decade now.

Hamilton's suburbs on the other hand continue to be stuck in the 1950's and are continuously clear cutting throughout the escarpment to make way for hundreds of additional, generic townhouses each year. Pretty sad.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Doady

Mississauga moves 110,000 per weekday by Canadian measures of ridership (linked trips). I don't know the weekday numbers for Quebec and Winnipeg (and I'm sure your numbers are incorrect) but the annually they see 42 million riders.

In comparison, Mississauga only gets 31 million annually, despite having a higher population. Per capita ridership in Quebec and Winnipeg is 50% higher than in Mississauga. Of course, if you compare to other systems like Calgary or Vancouver, it's even worse.

So, obviously, Mississauga is extremely car-dependent. And it's not even the most car-dependent suburb in the GTA.

Where are your numbers from? Granted, I got mine from Wikipedia, but still didn't see anything stating 42 million/year for Winnipeg and Quebec City.

Regardless, I'd expect them to have higher transit use, being actual cities and all...Mississauga is a suburb, obviously. Though I doubt Surrey or Laval could boast better transit ridership. As far as Canadian suburbs go, doesn't get much better than Mississauga, as sad as that might be.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by matt602

Toronto wins again I think, closely followed by Calgary.

Toronto and then Calgary? That doesn't make sense by any measure. Are you talking about total suburban population? Because then Montreal and Vancouver would be ahead of Calgary. Are you talking proportion of suburban population? Because then Calgary would be above Toronto (plus a whole bunch of others). Car-dependance/low-density of suburban development? Because then both of 'em would be near the bottom...

[PoscStudent]

St. John's is sprawling out of control. The city itself has seen very little growth over the years yet two of the bordering towns increased by 30%+ and 14% between 2001 and 2006. The city is now trying to compete with these towns by approving large subdivisons, one recent approval is in the area of a former municipality which is probably 25 minutes or more from the core of the city, when there is lots of oppertunity in the centre of the city.

[goodthings]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Where are your numbers from? Granted, I got mine from Wikipedia, but still didn't see anything stating 42 million/year for Winnipeg and Quebec City.

Regardless, I'd expect them to have higher transit use, being actual cities and all...Mississauga is a suburb, obviously. Though I doubt Surrey or Laval could boast better transit ridership. As far as Canadian suburbs go, doesn't get much better than Mississauga, as sad as that might be.

Longueuil (RTL) has 31,000,000 riders per year, which is the same as Mississauga, but only has 250,000 people in. But, they are beside Downtown Montreal. So that's basically unfair comparison. It would become a fair comparison only if Mississauga moved to where Toronto Island is now.

[Doug]

Depends how one defines sprawl:

1) Density
2) Tract Housing
3) Car dependence
4) Start-stop development
5) % of metro that is detached housing

Calgary is easily #1 for tract housing and % of metro that is detached housing. It is probably one of the best for least start-stop development.

[Wooster]

Calgary certainly has a high proportion of its population and urban footprint in post-war suburban development. So that makes it a king of sprawl of sorts. However, I'd argue that Calgary's suburban development is better managed on a regional scale than most. Calgary has a long tradition of very comprehensive and large scale master planning of new communities. Although subdivisions have followed fairly typical auto-oriented Don-mills style development for decades, they are still planned with the transit system in mind, networks of open space, community amenities, schools and so forth. By virtue of Calgary's unicity governance model, it has been able to control virtually all the region's development under one jurisdiction - and uniform standards. This has a few advantages. It prevents a race to the bottom in terms of planning regulation between competing municipalities trying to attract tax base and development. It also prevents leap-frog development and pockets of development that aren't nearly big enough to plan in any sort of comprehensive manner.

These are all problems that have plagued development in large cities in Canada, particularly the GTA. You go to the suburban municipalities there are you see a lot of little isolated subdivisions, with few or no amenities, connections to transit or a sense of how it fits in with the greater region. To me, that's the worst kind of sprawl there is. There's no logical urban structure, or thoughtful sequencing of development. Farmer wants to subdivide his land? ok, go for it!

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Calgary certainly has a high proportion of its population and urban footprint in post-war suburban development. So that makes it a king of sprawl of sorts. However, I'd argue that Calgary's suburban development is better managed on a regional scale than most. Calgary has a long tradition of very comprehensive and large scale master planning of new communities. Although subdivisions have followed fairly typical auto-oriented Don-mills style development for decades, they are still planned with the transit system in mind, networks of open space, community amenities, schools and so forth. By virtue of Calgary's unicity governance model, it has been able to control virtually all the region's development under one jurisdiction - and uniform standards. This has a few advantages. It prevents a race to the bottom in terms of planning regulation between competing municipalities trying to attract tax base and development. It also prevents leap-frog development and pockets of development that aren't nearly big enough to plan in any sort of comprehensive manner.

These are all problems that have plagued development in large cities in Canada, particularly the GTA. You go to the suburban municipalities there are you see a lot of little isolated subdivisions, with few or no amenities, connections to transit or a sense of how it fits in with the greater region. To me, that's the worst kind of sprawl there is. There's no logical urban structure, or thoughtful sequencing of development. Farmer wants to subdivide his land? ok, go for it!

Very good post

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Wooster

These are all problems that have plagued development in large cities in Canada, particularly the GTA. You go to the suburban municipalities there are you see a lot of little isolated subdivisions, with few or no amenities, connections to transit or a sense of how it fits in with the greater region. To me, that's the worst kind of sprawl there is. There's no logical urban structure, or thoughtful sequencing of development. Farmer wants to subdivide his land? ok, go for it!

And this kind of sprawl is 10x worse in most large US cities. I agree that it's the worst kind of sprawl possible. You're also right in that it's the one thing Calgary does right - there's virtually no "bedroom community" type development here. A couple of small towns and that's it. Otherwise the suburbs are at least contiguous with, and generally well integrated into, the existing city.

At least the GTA manages semi-decent transit to its far-flung corners. Try doing an equivalent commute in an otherwise progressive city like Seattle - it's a total car-fest.

[vid]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Sudbury.

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/5825/urbanareas.jpg


/thread.

To be fair to Greater Sudbury, its skewed number is because the sprawl there isn't just a bunch of subdivisions on big lots, it's a bunch of villages all over the valley and Statcan's method of determining the boundaries of urban area include a lot of bush. Thunder Bay is the same, our "urban area" includes a part of the city that is 75% forested and will never be developed. It fucks up the numbers significantly, as it increases the Urban Area's size by about half.

And as Someone123 said, Thunder Bay's worst sprawl area (where all the houses are on one acre lots) isn't anywhere near our urban area, so that isn't included. But a shit tonne of never-to-become-suburban forests are.

In this map, the red line is city limits, the yellow line is the urban area limits according to StatCan, the pink area within the yellow line is the city's development zone, the pink area south of the river is a bunch of estate lots and subdivisions not included in the urban area, the green areas are major parks and conservation areas (plus a couple wetlands that can't be developed) and the orange is the airport.



Our suburban areas aren't any less dense than, say, Kingston or Winnipeg's. Our urban area as defined by Statcan simply happens to include a shit load of forested areas and rural housing that will never come part of the city. It would be like including all of Caledon, King, and other suburban towns in Toronto's urban area, and then using that boundary to say "Toronto isn't dense."

Even the most ambitious plans developed in the history of the Lakehead, which included subdivisions and lots on many parts that are within the urban area but will never be developed, did not cover as much land as Thunder Bay's Statcan defined urban area does.

[SpikePhanta]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Regardless, I'd expect them to have higher transit use, being actual cities and all...Mississauga is a suburb, obviously. Though I doubt Surrey or Laval could boast better transit ridership. As far as Canadian suburbs go, doesn't get much better than Mississauga, as sad as that might be.

Surrey's street system is a mess, its similar to Calgary's.

here is a quote by Drew Snider of Translink

comparing Metro Vancouver to those centres is difficult because our urban sprawl is different and those other cities have older, more developed transit systems.

One thing Mississauga and surrey is similar in that I would never ride the bus at night in both cities.

[Dmajackson]

For proportionality to its population I voted for Moncton. It's a third the size of Halifax yet it has as many major road projects going on (if not more) to serve its never-ending suburban sprawl. For comparision reasons the three communities that make up Greater Moncton all have low density numbers; 300 in Dieppe, 525 in Riverview and 450 in Moncton. I have rfespect for the city so I will avoid posting the horrible CMA density the entire area has.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Sudbury.




/thread.

The thread is for "ugly" Suburban Sprawl. The sparsest suburbs are usually older and more easy on the eye. Most east coast sprawl in the US are quite attractive actually.

High-density subdivisions, and suburbs made up entirely of such subdivisions, look ridiculous. Slab towers in a suburban fabric are simply vertical sprawl. I remember reading an article somewhere that showed Torontonians had way above-average walking-induced stress, because while most of the city's area is highly hostile to pedestrian use, the development is nonetheless so dense that good transit coverage is feasible, (and relatively cheap for suburbanites since it's all one zone). So while in most other cities people give up and drive, Torontonians will walk insane routes through the suburbs, along overpasses, sidewalk-less arterials, etc, to get to those bus stops, lol.

So high density and transit use doesn't necessarily mean pleasant...

[jlousa]

There isn't a contest that Toronto can't win.

[Jets4Life]

Winnipeg Sprawl:

• East St.Paul
• Waverley West
• Sage Creek
• Canterberry Park
• Headingley being built up
• South St.Vital
• Whyte Ridge
• Charleswood South

It's not completely bad for the Peg City. I love the Exchange District, and they really should transform more buildings into lofts. Waterfront Drive was a great idea. It will also be really nice to see the old rail yards in Fort Rouge be transformed into residential quarters.

IMO, Edmonton has the worst sprawl. At least in Western Canada

[Cambridgite]

For the ugliest suburbs, I think the southwestern Ontario cities are pretty bad. Same with the prarie cities.

GTA subdivisions use a lot of brick, which I think is a nice contrast to the vinyl siding you see down the road in places like Kitchener, Guelph, or London.

St. John's has pretty ugly sprawl too, but it's not as vast and at least the topography is interesting.