Ugly Suburban Sprawl Capital of Canada

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't have the official numbers but I am pretty sure Quebec City has the lowest transit modal share of all Canadian cities with metro populations above 700,000.

Here are some stats on transit use:

http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/labr88b-eng.htm

Calgary and Ottawa are fairly close and both have close to double the transit use of Edmonton.

Of the cities in the 700s, Winnipeg is first, Quebec City is second and Hamilton is last in taking transit to work.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Funny how Kanata's renown is Canada-wide...

Well, to be fair, I did live in Ottawa for over 10 years (and been travelling there almost monthly for the past 10 years). Not too sure many people outside the Valley would know that in the 90's you could have been fined for painting your garage door the wrong colour in Kanata! That said, I believe ever since amalgamation those bylaws/convenents have all been repealed.

[MolsonExport]

Kanata has nothing on Laval. Just look at a map of that Island above Montreal. Imagine the Sprawl wrought by the combination of freeways, long and straight urban boulevards, former farmland and pro-development city government, and relative proximity to (the wonderfully unkempt city of) Montreal. The quebecois versions of "smartcentres". Cul de sacs. Quebec's answer to Mississausage. Reno-Depot-land.


cire.uqar.ca

There is even worse; referred to as the North Shore (i.e., above Laval) and South Shore (i.e., below Montreal Island) in English. Laval might improve with the addition of 3 metro stations.

[vid]

All of that on Île Jésus, no less.

[flar]

Originally Posted by shreddog

Not too sure many people outside the Valley would know that in the 90's you could have been fined for painting your garage door the wrong colour in Kanata! That said, I believe ever since amalgamation those bylaws/convenents have all been repealed.

Don't quote me bylaws! I co-chaired the committee that reviewed the recommendation to revise the color of the book that bylaw was in. We kept it grey.

(that's how things work in the NCR!)

[shreddog]

^^ Too funny. Were the choices, grey, beige or tan?

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Sprawl? All of them. Really. Outside of the core, they mainly look the same. Perhaps less so for Victoria, Lower Mainland (with the exception of Abbot's-fart, which is in thrall with sprawl), St. John's (NF), and maybe Halifax. Toronto sprawls (905), Montreal sprawls (Laval: epitomized by the clock tower and Reno Depot; and the never ending south/north shores, Vaudreuil, Repentigny, etc.). Ottawa sprawls. KW IS 99.99% sprawl. London is 99% sprawl. Quebec City is 90% Sprawl. The prairie cities sprawl. Sudbury sprawls. Thunder Bay? You betcha!

This.

Originally Posted by Highinthesky

The urban area of London is 200 and something square km the chart says but the actual city is about twice that at 420 square km.

Thats because London's municipality covers a lot of farm land/rural...i.e. not part of the urban area.

[caltrane74]

Yeah, I guess the sprawl around Toronto is pretty bad. We basically have 4 million people living in subdivisions here which is more people than any city in Canada outside of Toronto itself.

If you include the inner suburbs it's probably around 5 million living in subdivisons if you go on the assumption half of the city of Toronto lives in High Rise dwellings.

We totally deserve to win this poll.

[kirjtc2]

Originally Posted by 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).

Indeed.

It's not a CMA, but Fredericton is like that as well.

[Highinthesky]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

This.




Thats because London's municipality covers a lot of farm land/rural...i.e. not part of the urban area.

Yes I know what the city covers but just because a large part of the city is rural doesn't mean you get to exclude some of it so you can artificially inflate your density numbers. It is not CMA it is actually part of London proper.

[O-tacular]

Being from Calgary I voted Calgary for most sprawly. But that is in no way an informed opinion as I have never visited Toronto and its suburbs (unless you count an 8 hr layover at Pearson where I took a bus DT to go up the CN tower). Having family in Montreal, I can attest to the awfulness of Longueuil. My family actually is from Boucherville which is East of the mullet capital of Montreal. It's a nice town.

Reason I voted Calgary: the home builders associations have the city as their bitch, subsidizing all roads and sewers for new subdivions. Funny story: My office is located next to a large home builder (Morrison Homes) and every day the fat son of a bitch president flies his own private helicopter to work (There's a landing pad in the back). He even goes home for lunch. Apparently he lives a short way out of town, but oh the irony: he can't even stand the overlong commute through the sprawl he's helped create.

[flar]

Originally Posted by Highinthesky

Yes I know what the city covers but just because a large part of the city is rural doesn't mean you get to exclude some of it so you can artificially inflate your density numbers. It is not CMA it is actually part of London proper.

Urban area doesn't artificially inflate density numbers; including farmland and forests just because they happen to be within the city limits artificially reduces density numbers. The good thing about urban areas as opposed to city or CMA boundaries is that the same criteria are applied to every city, thereby making city-city comparisons more valid and providing better indicators for the actual built up area of cities.

[Highinthesky]

Are the same criteria applied to every city? For example that chart says Edmonton has an area of 854 square km but Wikipedia says 684.

[dsim249]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Reason I voted Calgary: the home builders associations have the city as their bitch, subsidizing all roads and sewers for new subdivions. Funny story: My office is located next to a large home builder (Morrison Homes) and every day the fat son of a bitch president flies his own private helicopter to work (There's a landing pad in the back). He even goes home for lunch. Apparently he lives a short way out of town, but oh the irony: he can't even stand the overlong commute through the sprawl he's helped create.

I almost didn't believe you, so I checked for myself! Sure enough!

[flar]

Originally Posted by Highinthesky

Are the same criteria applied to every city? For example that chart says Edmonton has an area of 854 square km but Wikipedia says 684.

The same criteria are applied to every city.

Wikipedia is probably quoting the City of Edmonton's area. Urban areas don't care about municipal boundaries, just contiguous areas over a certain density (400 persons/square km).

[matthew6]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Kanata has nothing on Laval. Just look at a map of that Island above Montreal. Imagine the Sprawl wrought by the combination of freeways, long and straight urban boulevards, former farmland and pro-development city government, and relative proximity to (the wonderfully unkempt city of) Montreal. The quebecois versions of "smartcentres". Cul de sacs. Quebec's answer to Mississausage. Reno-Depot-land.


cire.uqar.ca

There is even worse; referred to as the North Shore (i.e., above Laval) and South Shore (i.e., below Montreal Island) in English. Laval might improve with the addition of 3 metro stations.

Actually quite a bit of eastern Laval is protected farm land.... the rest of it of course is so soul crushingly ugly that it would make Kunstler cry...

autoroute 15 going through Laval is horrid... literally the whole route.....

http://maps.google.ca/maps?client=fi...338.25,,0,2.37

[Just Build It]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

See the commieblock thread.

Also, which 2 idiots voted for Toronto, when it has the least low-density sprawl in the country?

I voted for Toronto, but was thinking of the whole GTA not just the city.

In my mind, Toronto, Edmonton, Ottawa, Vancouver and Calgary stand out as the cities with the sprawl, and it shouldn't be surprising. those are the cities where all the growth has been.
Vancouver, if not for the setting of the mountains and the lush green, it would have as ugly a sprawl as anywhere.

[Doug]

Based on all criteria, I think the metros with the worst sprawl are Quebec, Montreal, Winnipeg, Kelowna and Vancouver. I'm going to distill sprawl to a single factor: what does the city look like from an airplane at night. If it is a giant continuous blob of light, except for open water and large natural areas of course, the sprawl is contained. If it is a checkerboard, it is not. All of these cities suffer from extensive ex-urban / start-stop development. Sure all but Winnipeg have strong cores, but that hasn't stopped growth of surrounding towns. All but Vancouver and Kelowna have low growth rates, but still expanding footprints. All but Winnipeg are highly fractured municipalities with multiple employment hubs. Doesn't Quebec have the most freeway lane miles per capita in the country?

[MolsonExport]

Doesn't Quebec have the most freeway lane miles per capita in the country?

Yes, QC has that dubious distinction. The core is absolutely lovely, the rest, not at all.


What about Taschereau Boulevard in Brossard?

[matthew6]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Yes, QC has that dubious distinction. The core is absolutely lovely, the rest, not at all.


What about Taschereau Boulevard in Brossard?

about as bad as pie 9

http://maps.google.ca/maps?client=fi...52.71,,0,11.06