W. K. Lis
Superstar
Tearing down the Gardiner is one step towards the flying car.
|
|
|
Toronto Urban Sprawl Compared to Other Cities
- Thread starter middeljohn
- Start date
Tearing down the Gardiner is one step towards the flying car.
King of Kensington
Senior Member
I was just in New York where I stayed with a friend who lives in Forest Hills, Queens. Has somewhat of a similar feel to the Bathurst corridor.
ehlow
Senior Member
I haven't been to Queens, but based on my impression from seeing photos and from movies & TV shows, it seems the borough most similar to most parts of Toronto in terms of built form. My impression is that it has lots of detached houses like Toronto, but also many 50's to 70's apartment buildings like Toronto as well.
By the way, it's quite interesting to me that there are lots of surprising pockets of pretty high density throughout Toronto's suburbs. You could be driving down a random street in the suburbs and stumble upon a forest of tall apartment towers, or clusters of low-rise apartment towers. They are often set back pretty far from the street and have trees around them as if to try and hide them. They mostly seem to be built in the 50's-70's and surrounded by surface parking.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
One problem is that the park-like setting surrounding the apartment building cannot be used as a park. Not even a dog park.
King of Kensington
Senior Member
Yes. Queens does remind me of Toronto in a lot of ways.
middeljohn
New Member
Looking west of Toronto on the greenbelt map, the only municipalities with any greenspace left to develop are Oakville and Milton. 2011 census figures for the two were 182k and 89k respectively. Milton issued a statement after the results came out in 2012 that they had already passed 100k since the census was taken. 2031 projections put both municipalities above 250k.
Oakville began developing north of Dundas less than two years ago and already have a few thousand people living there now. Between Sixth Line and Neyagawa it's built up to about halfway between Dundas and Burnhamthorpe. Milton is completely built up to Louis Ste Laurent now. So that means there is now only about 7km of greenspace left between the two. Two years ago I measured it to be 9km. That's a lot of development in two years!
I give it 20 years for the two to become one. What's interesting is the thin greenspace strip they left between the two. Could that be in case they want to widen the 407?
Oakville began developing north of Dundas less than two years ago and already have a few thousand people living there now. Between Sixth Line and Neyagawa it's built up to about halfway between Dundas and Burnhamthorpe. Milton is completely built up to Louis Ste Laurent now. So that means there is now only about 7km of greenspace left between the two. Two years ago I measured it to be 9km. That's a lot of development in two years!
I give it 20 years for the two to become one. What's interesting is the thin greenspace strip they left between the two. Could that be in case they want to widen the 407?
Memph
Active Member
Looking west of Toronto on the greenbelt map, the only municipalities with any greenspace left to develop are Oakville and Milton. 2011 census figures for the two were 182k and 89k respectively. Milton issued a statement after the results came out in 2012 that they had already passed 100k since the census was taken. 2031 projections put both municipalities above 250k.
Oakville began developing north of Dundas less than two years ago and already have a few thousand people living there now. Between Sixth Line and Neyagawa it's built up to about halfway between Dundas and Burnhamthorpe. Milton is completely built up to Louis Ste Laurent now. So that means there is now only about 7km of greenspace left between the two. Two years ago I measured it to be 9km. That's a lot of development in two years!
I give it 20 years for the two to become one. What's interesting is the thin greenspace strip they left between the two. Could that be in case they want to widen the 407?
There's several municipalities that still have greenspace left to develop, although part of the urban expansion lands have been built up since 2004, Brampton, Vaughan, Caledon, Ajax, Whitby, Oshawa, Clarington and Halton Hills still have space in the urban expansion lands. Nonetheless, Brampton, Vaughan and Markham, which have really been leading the pack in terms of greenfield growth in the last decade will probably run out of land in 10-15 years, combined with Richmond Hill, Mississauga, Aurora, Newmarket, Burlington and Pickering having run out more or less right now, it will be interesting to see what the effect will be.
If I remember right, the plan for the next 20 years was for Milton to develop up to the mid point between Britannia and Lower Base Line while Oakville would develop up to the 407. I wonder what Milton congestion will be like, will they use the 407 or just cram onto the 401? I guess it'll be similar to Brampton.
By the way, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Toronto have very similar urban areas in terms of density.
I compared LA and SF on my blog.
http://swontariourbanist.blogspot.ca/2014/03/san-francisco-and-los-angeles-density.html
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Pickering is nowhere near running out. The huge Seaton development (designed for 70,000 people) is just getting started. Pickering can easily add another 100,000 people as well as thousands of jobs before it runs out of space. Up until a year or two ago the sprawl was restricted to south of the Hydro corridor, its just starting to sprout up above it now. Its allowed to go all the way up to the 407 as well.
MTO is also planning a widening of the 401 to Kitchener eventually to 10 lanes I believe. Huge upgrades in Durham as well, 8 lanes to highway 35, 10 lanes to the edge of Oshawa and a 12 lane express-collectors system to the edge of Ajax. Otherwise, Milton is going to be a mess in the city itself.
MTO is also planning a widening of the 401 to Kitchener eventually to 10 lanes I believe. Huge upgrades in Durham as well, 8 lanes to highway 35, 10 lanes to the edge of Oshawa and a 12 lane express-collectors system to the edge of Ajax. Otherwise, Milton is going to be a mess in the city itself.
Last edited:
ehlow
Senior Member
You've got some really interesting posts on your blog. I'd love to see more analysis of Ontario cities. I'm going to subscribe to your blog.
Memph
Active Member
I've compared Toronto and Chicago in my latest blog post.
In 1950 Chicago was a much bigger city. The average density was not hugely different, though it was higher in Chicago and Chicago had quite a bit more very high density (>20,000 p/km2 or so) while Toronto basically had none.
Going forward to 2010, Chicago builds suburbia that is less dense than Toronto's and loses population within the core. Toronto's most common densities (probably largely suburban) at around 4000/km2 are comparable to lower density urban neighbourhoods in Chicago.
More here: http://swontariourbanist.blogspot.ca/2014/03/toronto-and-chicago-density-comparison.html
I also have an earlier blog post mapping how Chicago, Philadelphia, Montreal, Baltimore, Cincinnati and New Orleans' population changed from 1950 to 2010 within city limits.
http://swontariourbanist.blogspot.ca/2014/03/more-1950-to-2010-comparisons.html
I'm thinking of mapping post-WWII population change for Ontario cities as one my next posts. Windsor, London, Ottawa and Toronto have 1951 data. Kitchener-Waterloo only have census tract data from 1956 onwards. Hamilton should have 1951 data but I've only been able to find 1956 data so far, so maybe I'll compare 1956 to 2011 instead of 1951 to 2011.
In 1950 Chicago was a much bigger city. The average density was not hugely different, though it was higher in Chicago and Chicago had quite a bit more very high density (>20,000 p/km2 or so) while Toronto basically had none.
Going forward to 2010, Chicago builds suburbia that is less dense than Toronto's and loses population within the core. Toronto's most common densities (probably largely suburban) at around 4000/km2 are comparable to lower density urban neighbourhoods in Chicago.
More here: http://swontariourbanist.blogspot.ca/2014/03/toronto-and-chicago-density-comparison.html
I also have an earlier blog post mapping how Chicago, Philadelphia, Montreal, Baltimore, Cincinnati and New Orleans' population changed from 1950 to 2010 within city limits.
http://swontariourbanist.blogspot.ca/2014/03/more-1950-to-2010-comparisons.html
I'm thinking of mapping post-WWII population change for Ontario cities as one my next posts. Windsor, London, Ottawa and Toronto have 1951 data. Kitchener-Waterloo only have census tract data from 1956 onwards. Hamilton should have 1951 data but I've only been able to find 1956 data so far, so maybe I'll compare 1956 to 2011 instead of 1951 to 2011.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
If we're going by Places to Grow and talking about York Region, only Markham, Vaughan and East Gwillimbury have "whitebelt" lands that are neither in the greenbelt nor the built boundary. Markham opened up close to 1/2 of theirs (maybe less?) but still have something like 1,000 acres not open to development - that's out to 2031. Vaughan opened up more, but still have some,so they won't be built on in 2031 either (at least not as currently planned). Aurora, Newmarket and Richmond Hill are effectively there already, in terms of planning, if not in terms of actual construction yet. So, it kind of depends how you define "will run out of land in 10-15 years" but Markham and Vaughan still have plenty left and intend to have some left 20 years from now.
(Oh, and Chinatown and Who Framed Roger Rabbit? are both fundamentally about the creation of urban sprawl and should be on that list of urbanist movies.)
Memph
Active Member
I thought Vaughan and Markham would be built out 10-15 years from now if they were to use up land at a similar pace to the past. It sounds like they might be using up land more slowly than in the past according to what you're saying? In that case my point still stands, it will be interesting to see what the effect of reduced land for greenfield development will be.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Fewer teens getting or applying for drivers licenses. See link.
That'll mean more people using bicycles or using public transit. As well, they will want to live in areas where a car is not needed.
Getting a drivers license seems to be more discouraging as well. It used to be that the Drivers Handbook was free at the MTO offices. Now you have to pay for that hardcopy. About the only reason to get a drivers license maybe for identification purposes (a BYID card can serve this purpose up to age 35), autosharing, or for transporation in areas that have poor or no public transit.
That'll mean more people using bicycles or using public transit. As well, they will want to live in areas where a car is not needed.
Getting a drivers license seems to be more discouraging as well. It used to be that the Drivers Handbook was free at the MTO offices. Now you have to pay for that hardcopy. About the only reason to get a drivers license maybe for identification purposes (a BYID card can serve this purpose up to age 35), autosharing, or for transporation in areas that have poor or no public transit.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
You don't really need the drivers hand book to pass the test anymore, just look stuff up online.
It also has to do with car affordability, people today actually look at all costs of a car and realize how expensive it is and simply decide not to buy one. After insurance, gas, etc. it is simply too expensive to operate a car on a or low income budget, which is typical of people in their early 20's. Owning a car is often roughly equivalent of doubling your rent. Because of this they tend to gravitate to more transit accessible locations, reducing the need for a vehicle in the first place.
It also has to do with car affordability, people today actually look at all costs of a car and realize how expensive it is and simply decide not to buy one. After insurance, gas, etc. it is simply too expensive to operate a car on a or low income budget, which is typical of people in their early 20's. Owning a car is often roughly equivalent of doubling your rent. Because of this they tend to gravitate to more transit accessible locations, reducing the need for a vehicle in the first place.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Meanwhile, in Miami, at this link:
Dead End: Suburban Sprawl and the Rebirth of American Urbanism
By Felipe Azenha On March 30, 2014 ·
Related posts:
