News   Jul 24, 2024
 323     0 
News   Jul 24, 2024
 838     1 
News   Jul 24, 2024
 577     0 

What would Toronto be like today if the 1998 amalgamation never happened?

Maybe Mississauga would have or will annex Brampton. Maybe Peel Region will be amalgamated. Ditto for York Region. Ditto, again, for Durham Region. Would "Metropolitan Toronto" have annexed Peel, York, and Durham Regions into one metropolitan region?
 
I think city-wide elections may have intensified the core-periphery divide in Toronto, with 1998 and 2010 being particularly sharp. Though Miller showed a center-left candidate could be competitive in the suburbs (even though he received fewer voters than Tory there in 2003, he was able to win by being competitive there and dominating the core). Tory in 2014 was very successful in appealing to both the core and the suburbs.

The Metro Executive was basically a quasi-mayor and that figure should indeed be elected directly.

At this point, I wouldn't go back to the old system - remember that 1953 (creation of Metro) was arguably our "New York 1898 or London 1965" moment, not the 1998 amalgamation, as Metro had most of the key responsibilities like housing, transit etc. I would however reform what we have by creatin 4 boroughs: Toronto, North York, Etobicoke and Scarborough - and give them certain powers and a budget.

It was stupid to leave York and East York in place IMO. The Goldenberg report of the 60s called for 4 municipalities - but they ultimatey went with six. A separate municipality for York (the poorest Metro municipality) made little sense.
 
Maybe Mississauga would have or will annex Brampton. Maybe Peel Region will be amalgamated. Ditto for York Region. Ditto, again, for Durham Region. Would "Metropolitan Toronto" have annexed Peel, York, and Durham Regions into one metropolitan region?

I recall that the province planned Scarborough would annex Pickering in the 70's, but nothing came about that.
 
From a selfish perspective, I wish I still lived in Etobicoke vs. Toronto.. Here's why:

In the late 80s/early 90s as the old city of Etobicoke planned the Humber Bay Shores area, they had the right idea. Transit first, thoughtful, high quality public spaces, and strict caps on development. That beginning period produced some great buildings such as Marina del Rey and Grand Harbour - both with high quality public spaces by the lake. In tandem, Etobicoke had earmarked funding for the Legion Rd S extension to be completed by 1998 (here we are still waiting...)

Not only that, the idea was to make the area an entertainment/shopping district, with pleasure piers and this and that. With the loss of leadership from Etobicoke, all these initiatives went into the backburner in an amalgamated Toronto and lost priority. The city decided quick development was a bigger cash cow and here we are - we are the #1 clusterfunk of Toronto. Rampant overdevelopment's posterboy.

I don't see any advantages of living in 'Toronto', and would fully support de-amalgamation if proposed.
 
Cities state side depend how and where their powers are defined. If they have power over their boundaries in the state constitution, then there isn't much the state government can do, unless they can pass an amendment. In Canada, and specifically in Ontario. Cities and Towns are basically just legislated objects of the province, and can be easily created, changed or removed with a simple majority vote by the sitting government.

But on the other hand, this wiki article seems to also imply that similar kinds of municipal annexation happen in the US too, and the cities' choice of boundaries there are likewise limited by the powers of the state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_annexation_in_the_United_States

I don't know much about whether or not Toronto's megacity woes have similar analogues stateside, but I'd imagine there could be similar situations. When New York city annexed the boroughs like Queens, Brooklyn etc. (actually exactly one century before, in 1898, interestingly enough, as ours was in 1998), I think that there was also some strong opposition by the locals too.
 
I don't see any advantages of living in 'Toronto', and would fully support de-amalgamation if proposed.

Does anyone know if there have been many examples of major de-amalgamations done (successfully or otherwise) in cities' history?
 
Last edited:
Montreal.
Oh, that's interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002–06_municipal_reorganization_of_Montreal

Though here on the Wikipedia page it says that...

"The recreated cities did not regain all of their previous powers, however. A new urban agglomeration of Montreal was created, which resulted in the recreated cities still sharing certain municipal services with Montreal."


I wonder if any cities de-amalgamated before and then gained all their powers back completely.
 
From a selfish perspective, I wish I still lived in Etobicoke vs. Toronto.. Here's why:

In the late 80s/early 90s as the old city of Etobicoke planned the Humber Bay Shores area, they had the right idea. Transit first, thoughtful, high quality public spaces, and strict caps on development. That beginning period produced some great buildings such as Marina del Rey and Grand Harbour - both with high quality public spaces by the lake. In tandem, Etobicoke had earmarked funding for the Legion Rd S extension to be completed by 1998 (here we are still waiting...)

Not only that, the idea was to make the area an entertainment/shopping district, with pleasure piers and this and that. With the loss of leadership from Etobicoke, all these initiatives went into the backburner in an amalgamated Toronto and lost priority. The city decided quick development was a bigger cash cow and here we are - we are the #1 clusterfunk of Toronto. Rampant overdevelopment's posterboy.

I don't see any advantages of living in 'Toronto', and would fully support de-amalgamation if proposed.

Makes sense. One could make the case that Etobicoke has much more in common with Mississauga than Toronto, and that those of us in the old City haven't exactly benefited from municipal leadership from Etobicoke politicians. The current mega city is like a miserable marriage without any hope of divorce.
 
Makes sense. One could make the case that Etobicoke has much more in common with Mississauga than Toronto, and that those of us in the old City haven't exactly benefited from municipal leadership from Etobicoke politicians. The current mega city is like a miserable marriage without any hope of divorce.

What does Etobicoke having something in common with Mississauga have to do with the discussion at hand? Any suburban 416 area has more in common with Mississauga it's just common sense.

The old city is the outlier not the rule.
 
What does Etobicoke having something in common with Mississauga have to do with the discussion at hand? Any suburban 416 area has more in common with Mississauga it's just common sense.

The old city is the outlier not the rule.

I certainly agree that the old city is completely different from the rest of the GTA, which is why I'd like to see deamalgamation. I also agree that at least the three big former Metro boroughs have a great deal in common with Mississauga. However, only Etobicoke directly abuts Mississauga, making the two natural candidates for amalgamation. Admittedly Mississauga doesn't have a streak of insanity in its local politics, so they might balk at combining with Etobicoke. On the other hand, what did Toronto ever do to deserve amalgamation with them?
 

Back
Top