Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you will find in the next few years and into the future, T.O will have more absolute growth and an increasing gap in density favouring it v Chicago...You are good at crunching numbers so crunch those Any idea when the next census is for T.O?.. 2011 data is getting pretty stale.
Should be 2016. It's not like all of Toronto's growth is infill though, the city is getting around 35,000 new residents a year out of those 90-100,000. The suburbs are getting some infill yes, but not that much, I'd guess maybe equivalent to 10,000 residents per year. There's still a fair bit of greenfield development in Milton, Brampton and Vaughan. To a lesser degree Markham, Caledon, Oakville, Ajax too.
Still, most cities are building greenfield too. And in Toronto's case, much of it is >10,000 ppsm.
Chicago was actually the American city that added the most population in its downtown from 2000-2010, about 40,000 people. I think DT TO added around 50,000 in that time. However, things have picked up in Toronto compared to the early 00s while in Chicago (unlike most American cities) infill looks like it might have slowed somewhat. Chicagoland overall is growing rather slowly nowadays. And I think parts of Chicago's South and West sides are still struggling with population loss.
But there are many American cities that are building a lot. It tends to get underestimated because infill there is not as highrise dominated as in Toronto. There doesn't seem to be any city building as much infill as Toronto (except maybe New York, but that's in total numbers, NYC is much bigger). Compared to Montreal, Calgary, maybe even Vancouver though, many American cities are building about as much. I'm thinking D.C., Seattle, Houston, Atlanta, Miami, Austin, Denver, Los Angeles, Bay Area... Miami, LA and the Bay Area seem to be basically out of room to sprawl. When you take into account that they're slow growing metros, Boston and Philadelphia seem to be doing pretty well too.
I feel like New York might actually be getting less of their infill as highrises. Pretty much the whole city is undeniably urban, with loads of apartment dominated neighbourhoods and everything else is rowhouses with little to not front yard. It's not like Toronto where many neighbourhoods are SFH dominated and don't want to transition to a more multi-family character. I wonder if for NIMBYs, going from 2-4 storey apartments to 5-6 storey apartments seems less of a big deal than going from SFH to 2-4 storey apartments. Or maybe Bloomberg just pushed pro-development zoning harder. But basically large swaths of New York allow infill vs just a few limited nodes and corridors in Toronto.
Maybe 50s was still a bit denser than 60s. When did all those really low density areas in places like Westchester County get built?
For the Bay Area, I think it was pretty much ringed by development by 1970, the only gap seems to be maybe Milpitas.
Westchester County has, for U.S. suburban standards, very high weighted density. The majority of Westchester residents live in older, walkable communities, and a high proportion of housing is multifamily.
It has low overall density, though, because around 70% of Westchester is under NY watershed regulations or other extreme low density zoning.
But Westchester is basically the least possibly representative sample of U.S. suburbia. It doesn't really resemble suburbia for a variety of reasons. It has relatively few malls/chain stores, few subdivision-style developments, and not really typical growth patterns. Housing tends to be either 1. In older railroad villages/towns than merged into the NYC metro area, or 2. Basically country housing on wooded multi-acre lots.
It also has higher transit share than most inner cities in the U.S., with transit orientation in places like Yonkers and New Rochelle among the highest in the U.S.
If you want "typical U.S. spawl" type development in the NYC area (so tract homes, big box centers, clusters of separated uses, McMansions, etc.), Central NJ is your best bet (and perhaps South Shore of Long Island, to a lesser extent)
I think the Places that grow act really was the catalyst for the sharp increase in weighted average densities in the GTA. It seems soon after this was enacted things went gangbusters and that looks to continue as the modus operandi for growth. The GTA has been growing consistently for a few decades but this seems to be focussing that in a more concentrated mannner
Maybe. Although Calgary saw a significant increase in weighted density too and it doesn't seem to have as many government based limits. Higher densities in Calgary is probably related to a combination of trying to avoid long commutes and the general North American trend of moving back to cities.
I honestly would be curious to see what things would have been like without places to grow. The growth is actually more centrally located than what places to grow called for, which was around 24% of growth in the City of Toronto, but right now it's more like 35-40%. Halton and Durham were supposed to get around 15% and 18% respectively, but it's more like 10-11% currently.
Westchester County has, for U.S. suburban standards, very high weighted density. The majority of Westchester residents live in older, walkable communities, and a high proportion of housing is multifamily.
It has low overall density, though, because around 70% of Westchester is under NY watershed regulations or other extreme low density zoning.
But Westchester is basically the least possibly representative sample of U.S. suburbia. It doesn't really resemble suburbia for a variety of reasons. It has relatively few malls/chain stores, few subdivision-style developments, and not really typical growth patterns. Housing tends to be either 1. In older railroad villages/towns than merged into the NYC metro area, or 2. Basically country housing on wooded multi-acre lots.
It also has higher transit share than most inner cities in the U.S., with transit orientation in places like Yonkers and New Rochelle among the highest in the U.S.
If you want "typical U.S. spawl" type development in the NYC area (so tract homes, big box centers, clusters of separated uses, McMansions, etc.), Central NJ is your best bet (and perhaps South Shore of Long Island, to a lesser extent)
Well my post was in response to the idea that 50s/60s development in the NE was denser than what came later. Much of the suburban northeast is suburbia surrounding railroad towns and such, so Westchester might not be such a poor example of NE suburbs (even though it's different from suburbia in the US as a whole). And I think the low density stuff in Westchester is 50s/60s? I guess 50s/60s suburbia in Long Island and Northern NJ was denser. But the Boston area suburbs, CT, Putnam, Rockland... seem similar to Westchester.
FYI, weighted density
Westchester: 9,954 ppsm
Monmouth: 3,178 ppsm
So Westchester has a higher weighted density than post-WWII American suburbia is most places except maybe parts of LA and the Bay Area (and some Canadian suburbs).
I'm guessing Monmouth would be pretty representative of Central NJ suburbia?
I corrected myself though. That topic should have been over with a few pages back Why don't you think 4,000 more highrises is many more? Even 100 more highrises would be many more buildings imo.
I do think 4000 more highrises is many more. I never said otherwise.
According to a few forumers, if Toronto tripled the number of highrises, that would not be "many more" highrises than what currently exists. An odd notion to be sure.
Lying again. Of course it would be many more. No one said anything to the contrary, and you're lying by suggesting someone did say to the contrary. Just as you've lied repeatedly through this thread.
It would be many more. It would NOT BE MANY TIMES MORE. I understand your language skills are terrible. But I think even you can understand this.
The notion that transit ridership per capita is not related to how urban a place is has got to be one of the most stupid statements I've heard in my life. Of course they are related. The more urban places have high transit ridership per capita numbers. The more suburban places, people drive instead of using transit.
Chicago's CTA does about 1.7 million daily boardings
Toronto TTC does about 2.6 million daily boardings
Well my post was in response to the fact that 50s/60s development in the NE was denser than what came later. Much of the suburban northeast is suburbia surrounding railroad towns and such, so Westchester might not be such a poor example of NE suburbs (even though it's different from suburbia in the US as a whole). And I think the low density stuff in Westchester is 50s/60s. I guess 50s/60s suburbia in Long Island and Northern NJ was denser. But the Boston area suburbs, CT, Putnam, Rockland... seem similar to Westchester.
Westchester is kind of an outlier compared to even other counties in the Northeast. It doesn't really resemble any of the suburban Boston counties, and is even different from adjacent suburban counties in the NY area (so adjacent Fairfield, Rockland, and Putnam Counties).
And Westchester didn't really have huge growth in the 50's and 60's. It had some growth, but much more modest than other areas in the Northeast, like NJ or Long Island. It doesn't really have a high proportion of people living in "typical" suburban housing, and doesn't have the topography or politics to allow typical sprawl.
If you want to see 1950's-60's housing in the NY area, your best bet would be NJ or Long Island, both of which have huge areas dedicated to that era of sprawl. Places like Syosset, Massapequa, Paramus, and the like. There's no such thing as a Paramus, really, in Westchester.
The notion that transit ridership per capita is not related to how urban a place is has got to be one of the most stupid statements I've heard in my life.
Well then I guess you think that a small town in Canada is more urban than some place like LA, because, using your logic, transit ridership per capita will be higher, so the village has to be more urban.
And then I guess you think some village in the developing world is more urban than some place like Tokyo, because you will get higher transit ridership in the developing world.
In the real world, there is a weak relationship between transit ridership and relative urbanity, especially if you're comparing across national boundaries, with different economies and cultures around riding transit. It's pretty ridiculous to think otherwise.
Lying again. Of course it would be many more. No one said anything to the contrary, and you're lying by suggesting someone did say to the contrary. Just as you've lied repeatedly through this thread.
I've never lied once in this thread, but you have continually covered up your ignorance re. Toronto by claiming everyone else is lying.
Just as you were wrong about the densest parts of Toronto, just as you were wrong re. Toronto's population, just as you were wrong re. the dates for WW2 (!), just as you were wrong in your claim that Canada had auto-oriented development prior to the auto, you are wrong in your understanding of basic math concepts like multiples.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Any idea when the next census is for T.O?.. 2011 data is getting pretty stale.
Why don't you think 4,000 more highrises is many more? Even 100 more highrises would be many more buildings imo.