Growth of exurban communities (the "exurbs") (bus, transportation)

[Humphrey_C_Earwicker]

I would dispute the OP's assertion that exurbs are mostly for or favored by affluent people. At least in the US. Mostly, people choose to live there for the lower cost of housing and endure the longer commute.

[Urban Peasant]

Originally Posted by Humphrey_C_Earwicker

I would dispute the OP's assertion that exurbs are mostly for or favored by affluent people. At least in the US. Mostly, people choose to live there for the lower cost of housing and endure the longer commute.

Until recently, the North American model was that rich people lived in the suburbs and exurbs and the poor people got stuck in the "inner city". The paradigm shift towards affluent living closer to urban downtowns only happened during the past two decades or so. The traditional European model practiced in such countries as France on the other hand fits your description more closely in that the affluent like to live in the city center and keep the poor out by housing them in nondescript housing often found in the suburbs.

[Humphrey_C_Earwicker]

^^^
I suspect we have different ideas of what an exurb is, and maybe rich and poor too.
In my book, an exurb is an area of medium density located beyond the inner ring of suburban counties surrounding a major metropolis. No defined distance from the urban core, but in my experience in the 40-60+ mile range. Could be an old town rapidly adding new development, or just straightforward new developments in the rural belt.
I think the French banlieue are more suburbs than exurbs.

[Llunge]

Originally Posted by fusion2

Of the cities you mention above, only NYC was founded earlier than Montreal. Most are also not that much older than Toronto.

Founding year is meaningless, a city's infrastructure dates to when most of that infrastructure and architecture started being built. Hence, why all of those cities being larger, and richer, than Montreal in 1890 is much more important for tangible, cultural age than founding date, which was only some 40 years different in most of those cities vs Montreal anyways. Sorry, the US has more tangible history than Canada because it went through more - its population was larger, and denser, much earlier, and it had more settlements earlier...

In some less than 50 years older. So I'm not really seeing much of an age spread between these cities. I will give you, that Most grew faster than Toronto and Montreal earlier on, but this does not really speak to the fact that Montreal and Toronto haven't really grown in quite the same sprawly way as U.S cities. As a matter of fact, since the older U.S cities did grow faster earlier on, you'd think they'd be collectively more dense in terms of urban agglomerations than Toronto and Montreal but the opposite is true.

Toronto is not particularly dense compared to the likes of San Francisco and NYC, and density is not remotely inherent to age, because most of the "density" you're describing has evolved in Toronto and Montreal recently - due to their tendency to construct high rises.

Toronto boomed in the post-1960 period, all of the American cities I mentioned had their booms in the 19th and early 20th centuries, so they are older than Toronto by an appreciable amount. And none of this has anything to do with the growth of exurban communities.

As I mentioned, the metropolitan urban regions of both Montreal and Toronto are among the most dense on the continent. If in the U.S, they would be among a handful of the most dense in the U.S/Canada. This means they would be disproportionately represented. They have had more than enough time to 'catch up' to U.S cities in terms of Sprawl but have not. Nor is it on their trajectory to catch up - they are intensifying their densification. As I mentioned there are reasons behind this just not what you or the other poster are citing as the primary cause.

You keep making this a "sprawl" vs "density" debate, which it isn't. The thread is about the growth of exurban communities. Canada's metropolitan areas are comparatively small and concentrated. Suburban Toronto can have 'dense' new development, and still be unwalkable and ugly compared to many just as or almost-as dense areas in American urban areas - hence my point about the earlier development of American cities.

You anti-America crusaders always rely on overly-simplistic and poorly interpreted facts and data to enhance your sense of anti-American self-righteousness - hence why you're stuck with claiming your countries are more diverse because of a simple % of foreign born, or your cities are older because they were founded earlier, even though it took them much, much longer to develop than American cities did, usually rendering them sterile and ugly with no functional connection to pre-war infrastructure, ie, railroad suburbs and carriage-ways. The US has a ton of this outside of it's post-war infrastructure, Canada does not, so the debate about density is a red herring - whether Montreal or Toronto are dense or not has nothing to do with the topic under debate, has zero to do with their age, walkability, functionality, and vibrancy, etc...the places contributing to the density of the select few large Canadian cities are typically unwalkable suburbia and high rise estates.

Fun fact - Houston was founded 50 years after Toronto and is considerably more 'sprawly' and less dense than Toronto, yet it is younger so the idea that age has the biggest connection with sprawly is not necessarily correct. There are other factors that influence it and its tied to urban planning and development as a reflection of culture of two different countries.

And what does this have to do with what was said? Houston is much younger than the average American city, developmentally - Houston boomed at much the same time as Canada's cities boomed, ergo, whether denser or not, Canadian suburban and exurban infrastructure and design - around Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, even a lot of the greater Montreal area - bears more similarity to Houston, Dallas, and environs, than it does to the kind of interconnected railroad town suburbia and urban overlap that defines somewhere like the northeastern USA...

A Montreal suburban area is more likely to look like this:







A "less dense Philadelphia suburban area" is more likely to look like this:

You are incorrect. Toronto and Montreal metro's are both more dense than NYC and S.F MSA/CSA's. We are not talking about city proper populations. I could parse out equivalent core density area of Old Toronto that shows it is more dense than the city of San Franciso but to what end. We are talking about metro areas and Toronto and Montreal are tops on the continent minus Mexico. Suburban and exurban sprawl in Toronto for example is more dense than in the U.S with Lot sizes being smaller and more compact.

But they're not denser. They're not. This is a delusional idea that you formulated by your city-data fanfic writing. Toronto has SFH's and strip-mall infrastructure right downtown. NYC and San Francisco do not. This is you being manipulative and deceptive. Typical "America bad" determinism - America has to suck at anything, including city density, compared to anywhere - even when it's downtown areas are dominated by rowhouses, old skyscrapers, high rises, and supertalls in a way that Toronto or Montreal are not. Just so delusional. No.

[fusion2]

Dear Llunge,

https://www.newgeography.com/content...stics%20Canada.

Toronto seems guaranteed to retain its position as the densest urban area in North America (Canada and the United States), based on 2021 Census data recently released by Statistics Canada. The Toronto population centre (urban area) has grown at a rate of 0.8% annually since the 2016 census, while increasing its urban density to 3,088 persons per square kilometer.

Urban Areas (Population Centres in Canada) and Metropolitan Areas

“Urban area” is the international term for continuously built-up urban development. Urban areas are called “population centres” in Canada, “built up urban areas” in the United Kingdom and have been called “urbanized areas” in the United States (though that term is proposed for discontinuation in the 2020 census, to be replaced by “urban areas.”).

You will also see that Canada has 6 cities anchoring the top 10 most dense urban areas in Canada and the U.S. Both Toronto and Montreal along with Vancouver, have more dense urban areas than every American city except L.A, which is second to Toronto. L.A is actually a denser urban area than S.F and NYC. So, so long for your theory here on age and timing of urban development, railroad suburb - carriage ways guaranteeing more density mumbo jumbo . It shattered into a 10 to the power of 100 pieces.

If you consider the above Anti-American than the spine needs to be hardened a tad. Btw the Author of the above article is from the good ole U.S.A

Finally, if you want to make apples to apples city comparisons which is actually where your love seems to be, then create a new thread discussing that topic. You'll also be on better footing with your comparisons, though you underestimate Canadian cities so i'd look forward to that discussion as well. This is after all City Data forums so talk about cities, talk about urban areas but don't conflate them.

Best Regards,
F2

[Llunge]

Originally Posted by fusion2

Dear Llunge,

https://www.newgeography.com/content...stics%20Canada.



You will also see that Canada has 6 cities anchoring the top 10 most dense urban areas in Canada and the U.S. Both Toronto and Montreal along with Vancouver, have more dense urban areas than every American city except L.A, which is second to Toronto. L.A is actually a denser urban area than S.F and NYC. So, so long for your theory here on age and timing of urban development, railroad suburb - carriage ways guaranteeing more density mumbo jumbo . It shattered into a 10 to the power of 100 pieces.

If you consider the above Anti-American than the spine needs to be hardened a tad. Btw the Author of the above article is from the good ole U.S.A

Finally, if you want to make apples to apples city comparisons which is actually where your love seems to be, then create a new thread discussing that topic. You'll also be on better footing with your comparisons, though you underestimate Canadian cities so i'd look forward to that discussion as well. This is after all City Data forums so talk about cities, talk about urban areas but don't conflate them.

Best Regards,
F2

Your smuggery goes nowhere, lmao.

I'm not sure someone from "newgeography.com" is an expert on city density, this is your pet obsession, and it's so obvious that you indulge in absurd internet forum feedback loops designed to reinforce what you want to believe. I find this also hard to believe because there's a particular kind of Canadaphile that gets particularly passionate about these nitpicky statistical competitions that involve the pet obsessions of internet leftists - and they often manufacture their own data that speaks to their own biases on subjects like this, rather than trying to find the truth, trying to be the most objective. It's hilarious to watch. They'll use whatever dumb methodology or point of classification that gives the advantage to Canada, no matter how nonsensical or arbitrary it might be.

The suggestion that LA is the densest American city is absurd on it's face, because it, like Toronto and other large Canadian cities, have some part of their downtown area and/or "urban neighborhoods" comprised of SFH's and auto-oriented commercial construction like strip malls. NYC and SF do not. Claiming cities are more dense by judging average lot size rather than people per square mile is moronic. LA is inherently sprawling, and less dense, than San Francisco, and New York City. So is Toronto.

I'm not sure why you're fixated on density, when no one was talking about it. You Canadians develop your pet obsessions with having small lot sizes, and having a certain amount of ****ty high rises and slightly-more-cramped, still-sunbelt-hellhole housing developments...I really can't understand it. It just makes your cities more gross and less appealing, and says little about how functional they are, because Toronto is absolutely less walkable and aesthetic a city than NYC, SF, and a handful of other American cities are.

[North 42]

What’s with these never ending “anti American” diatribes that infiltrate almost every thread nowadays? It is the same poster that constantly gets banned and then comes back with the same insecure attacks, it’s as comical as it is annoying!

[BruSan]

Originally Posted by North 42

What’s with these never ending “anti American” diatribes that infiltrate almost every thread nowadays? It is the same poster that constantly gets banned and then comes back with the same insecure attacks, it’s as comical as it is annoying!

Well, that's interesting but I would direct your attention back to post #7 which was the first post with an "us agin them" theme.

In my humble opinion; it's been just as much an American diatribe against Canada as has been otherwise.

But, as stated, that's just an opinion.

[fusion2]

Originally Posted by Llunge

Your smuggery goes nowhere, lmao.

I'm not sure someone from "newgeography.com" is an expert on city density, this is your pet obsession, and it's so obvious that you indulge in absurd internet forum feedback loops designed to reinforce what you want to believe. I find this also hard to believe because there's a particular kind of Canadaphile that gets particularly passionate about these nitpicky statistical competitions that involve the pet obsessions of internet leftists - and they often manufacture their own data that speaks to their own biases on subjects like this, rather than trying to find the truth, trying to be the most objective. It's hilarious to watch. They'll use whatever dumb methodology or point of classification that gives the advantage to Canada, no matter how nonsensical or arbitrary it might be.

The suggestion that LA is the densest American city is absurd on it's face, because it, like Toronto and other large Canadian cities, have some part of their downtown area and/or "urban neighborhoods" comprised of SFH's and auto-oriented commercial construction like strip malls. NYC and SF do not. Claiming cities are more dense by judging average lot size rather than people per square mile is moronic. LA is inherently sprawling, and less dense, than San Francisco, and New York City. So is Toronto.

I'm not sure why you're fixated on density, when no one was talking about it. You Canadians develop your pet obsessions with having small lot sizes, and having a certain amount of ****ty high rises and slightly-more-cramped, still-sunbelt-hellhole housing developments...I really can't understand it. It just makes your cities more gross and less appealing, and says little about how functional they are, because Toronto is absolutely less walkable and aesthetic a city than NYC, SF, and a handful of other American cities are.

It's pretty simply actually. You seem like a smart person, so I think you are simply being intentionally difficult. That said, i'll continue to indulge because I do enjoy the topic and atm, I have nothing better to do.

The density Mr. Cox uses is based on urban area and not city proper. You can't say NYC is an urban area and metro of 20 million people, unless you count the density and area of the entire urban area. Yes, NYC proper and the 8 million people in it is a very dense city. That said, you can't discount the 12 million in its urban area/metro population outside the core - they are part of NYC's expansive built up urban area.

NYC's suburban and exurban areas are less dense and cover a larger area than L.A's. This is really simple to figure out on your own but if you need help let me know. Compare the urban area and metro population of world cities in NYC's range like Shanghai, Delhi, Manila etc and you'll see that while the metro's are around 20 million, the density of NYC is very low compared to them. That said, when you drill down to the core cities, NYC compares pretty well. It all depends on what you compare but essentially, NYC is an outlier in that in order to be a metro of 20 million, it has to stretch out in area a lot further than other comparable cities. This means a large portion of it isn't that dense, even though its core is.

So no, Mr Cox's methodology is not irrational and makes perfect sense if you understand what he is talking about in terms of an entire built up urban area instead of just the core parts of it. This has nothing to do with providing an advantage to Canada. That is delusional. It does however mean that Canadian cities are typically more dense urban areas than American one's. Which the data supports using simple math and what i've been saying ad-nauseum that you have been conveniently sweeping under your rug.

Here is more information for you that corroborates what i'm saying and what Mr. Cox detailed in his article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...cities_by_area

So no, L.A is not the densest city in the U.S, but it is the densest urban area. Since this thread is on exurbs - its logical to include a discussion on urban area as being more relevant than city proper.

You say i'm fixated on density yet over and over again you keep harping on about density yourself. So, if you don't want to talk about density than don't talk about it. I'll discuss density because it is a big part of what goes on in a city and urban area. It impacts housing, commerical development and transportation so yes, density matters and not just in the arbitrary boundaries of cities, but in their entire built up urban areas.

Warm Regards
F2

[fusion2]

Originally Posted by North 42

What’s with these never ending “anti American” diatribes that infiltrate almost every thread nowadays? It is the same poster that constantly gets banned and then comes back with the same insecure attacks, it’s as comical as it is annoying!

I was away for a few years and tbh I find it has died down a lot. Probably more active moderation. I do think any new rep 10 people coming touting anti-Americanism in here, are definitely reincarnations over and over again. New but very familiar

Originally Posted by BruSan

Well, that's interesting but I would direct your attention back to post #7 which was the first post with an "us agin them" theme.

In my humble opinion; it's been just as much an American diatribe against Canada as has been otherwise.

But, as stated, that's just an opinion.

The post #7 guy just did a 'touch and go' lol.. Sorry just couldn't help it

Like Arnie though, he'll be back.