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.
Exurban communities, the exurbs, are essentially defined as secondary communities beyond the suburbs... they're small towns beyond typical commuting distance, but still within the "orbit" of a major metro area.
They've had skyrocketing popularity, and growth, in many parts of the U.S. and Canada over the past couple of decades.
They're mainly popular with affluent people, but some regular middle class folks are spreading out into the exurbs too, in order to get houses in new developments that they can just about afford.
So if you're in a major metro area, you know the types of towns I'm talking about.
I looked up some stats: about 6.5% of people in the U.S. could be described as exurbanites. I wasn't able to find a stat for Canada's exurbs specifically. I suspect the proportion might be even higher in Ontario... not sure though.
Canada's cities are relatively safe, clean, modern... what is it about the Schitt's Creek lifestyle that makes the exurbs such a hot draw? Will this be to the detriment of cities?
Exurban communities, the exurbs, are essentially defined as secondary communities beyond the suburbs... they're small towns beyond typical commuting distance, but still within the "orbit" of a major metro area.
They've had skyrocketing popularity, and growth, in many parts of the U.S. and Canada over the past couple of decades.
They're mainly popular with affluent people, but some regular middle class folks are spreading out into the exurbs too, in order to get houses in new developments that they can just about afford.
So if you're in a major metro area, you know the types of towns I'm talking about.
I looked up some stats: about 6.5% of people in the U.S. could be described as exurbanites. I wasn't able to find a stat for Canada's exurbs specifically. I suspect the proportion might be even higher in Ontario... not sure though.
Canada's cities are relatively safe, clean, modern... what is it about the Schitt's Creek lifestyle that makes the exurbs such a hot draw? Will this be to the detriment of cities?
Let's not get too carried away. Every major Canadian city I have been to has a dirty, blighted part or two and at least 1-2 do not look modern. It's not just crime or dirtiness that drives people to move to exurbs however. The paradigm right now is that more people, especially young families, want more return on investment in housing and that means purchasing homes with bigger lot sizes. Sure there are still individuals, myself included, that prefer smaller lots and urban walkability but many more prefer self imposed privacy and seclusion from anyone else. I still think there will always be individuals who fill in the cities but they probably won't be the same types as 1985. Exurbs however do cause negative externalities to cities. Just look at the GTA and how much the Peel Region, Durham Region, and especially the York Region have exponentially grown in the past two decades. They're very diverse economically but there's one common agreement for those who moved out to the far reaches of those respective regions and that is they don't want to pack in dense urban or streetcar suburban communities like East York, Scarborough, or Etobicoke anymore.
One must also consider any number of other "usual" or common aspects of city dwellings and their value on the market today.
Take for instance the city of Toronto, Canada but also characteristic of many major Canadian cities, the relative commonality of the double red brick two story home built from the early 1900's onward into the late 60's.
Those homes, whether they are occupied by older couples or younger small families have gained so much in value that it is now common for those occupants to cash in that gold plated equity and buy a house further out that realized them a net profit.
One of the drivers of that market has been immigrant influx to the major cities with them desiring to live among enclaves of their own ethnic and cultural background.
They may do this for a variety of reasons but in the more rural areas around Toronto, ranch bungalows and side splits are king, until recently, bidding wars going on in the driveways of open showings between prospective buyers often resulting in thousands more than listed price being realized by the seller. The widow across the street from us listed her three bdm two bth side split on a 150X110 lot in 2019 for $520K. She got $579K. The new owners, a young couple out of Toronto, could have flipped that home just a few months ago for close to 1 million. Instead they've installed an in-ground pool, bought a big trampoline, got a dog, and hung a swing off the apple tree for their two little girls. Being near a lake, he bought a 16' boat with an outboard motor he asked me to repair and make reliable. We have watched as one after the other of our long term neighbours, all retirees, sell out and move into new condos or semi-detached homes being built to fuel the booming housing demand.
Retirees from cities desire the relative quieter surroundings, fewer stairs to climb, a newer building with less maintenance, some lot or greenspace with an attached garage and slightly greater neighbour separation rather than the postage stamp front lawn, six feet between buildings with entry ways no more than 30' apart and parking only available in a common laneway out back.
Even younger couples are willing to add the extra cost of a commute to moving out of the city to avail themselves of a healthier lifestyle environment within which to bring up their kids. Quite often the additional/higher equity value of a home in the city can be leveraged to arrive at a lessor mortgage payment in the burbs thereby offsetting that additional commuting cost.
We need more of these satellite towns to grow to offset the traffic congestion and create affordable housing for younger Southern Ontarians. I hope these new voters won’t turn into NIMBYs blocking development. I’m not a fan of Ford but the Highway 413 is necessary. I’m scared we’ll end up in a situation where the worst roadblocks are not created by the locals but by people who left Toronto trying to project their idea of what the town they moved to should be like.
We need more of these satellite towns to grow to offset the traffic congestion and create affordable housing for younger Southern Ontarians. I hope these new voters won’t turn into NIMBYs blocking development. I’m not a fan of Ford but the Highway 413 is necessary. I’m scared we’ll end up in a situation where the worst roadblocks are not created by the locals but by people who left Toronto trying to project their idea of what the town they moved to should be like.
Growth in these exurban communities may actually be VERY helpful to the housing crisis. These would be good options for remote workers for example. Maybe even some tiny home communities. All options should be on the table.
I’m a transplant to Ontario, from the Maritimes. The Maritimes is still something like 30% “rural†due to the number of hamlets, and the cities are relatively small. Maybe that will be more of a norm in the future across Canada? Who knows?
Ontario is fascinating to me, because I haven’t yet figured out how many of the tiny towns between Toronto and Ottawa even came to exist. Saw mills? Railway stations? And how did they survive so long, in such isolated areas, before the exurbs became a thing.
Population dynamics are different between the US and Canada.
When tracking global immigration, for example, various organizations tend to view the likes of Canada and Australia as categorically separate to the US, which is grouped with the UK, Germany, France, etc…
That’s largely because of demographic history - the US had 100 million by the 1910s, more people than the UK by the mid-19th century…
So it has had suburbs and exurbs etc for longer than Canada. It’s cities tend to be older. In the East, particularly the northeast, there’s a density of human development that interconnects a lot of cities and towns, and much of the architecture and infrastructure is old - sometimes very old. The US has more in the way of carriage towns and railroad towns (which exist in Canada to a much more limited extent, mainly in southern Ontario and parts of Quebec), extending throughout the Northeast, then into the Midwest and South Atlantic, with some on the west coast - this was back in the days that the US was a lot more populous, wealthier, and industrialized than Canada, and towns, typically growing out of cities, grew up around railroads, which developed to capture old main streets, etc…
This development hasn’t happened as much in Canada. It’s population is mainly concentrated more centrally in its smaller handful of large cities, and suburbanization only occurred on any significant scale when Canada had the population to see significant waves of internal movement - basically, from about 1975 on. A lot of its suburbs and exurbs are of the new, “sun-belt†variety - housing developments plotted on former farmer’s fields - kind of like the ones you see more commonly in the mountain west and south central regions of the US.
So it has had suburbs and exurbs etc for longer than Canada. It’s cities tend to be older. In the East, particularly the northeast, there’s a density of human development that interconnects a lot of cities and towns, and much of the architecture and infrastructure is old - sometimes very old. The US has more in the way of carriage towns and railroad towns (which exist in Canada to a much more limited extent, mainly in southern Ontario and parts of Quebec), extending throughout the Northeast, then into the Midwest and South Atlantic, with some on the west coast - this was back in the days that the US was a lot more populous, wealthier, and industrialized than Canada, and towns, typically growing out of cities, grew up around railroads, which developed to capture old main streets, etc…
This development hasn’t happened as much in Canada. It’s population is mainly concentrated more centrally in its smaller handful of large cities, and suburbanization only occurred on any significant scale when Canada had the population to see significant waves of internal movement - basically, from about 1975 on. A lot of its suburbs and exurbs are of the new, “sun-belt†variety - housing developments plotted on former farmer’s fields - kind of like the ones you see more commonly in the mountain west and south central regions of the US.
While Canada obviously doesn't have nearly as many large cities as the U.S - of the one's it does have namely Toronto and Montreal, both these cities have been around for awhile. Montreal in particular for a N.A city is actually pretty old and mature being founded in 1642. It was a strapping city when Boston and Philly were strapping. Toronto while younger, is still not exactly 'young' for N.A standards founded in 1793. It was starting to be a strapping city in the 1800's so this is more than enough time for both these cities to become mature sprawly cities sans U.S.
Toronto now, is more sprawly and simply a significantly larger metro than Montreal, but by U.S standards, isn't exactly sprawly.. Montreal is a large metro but also not very sprawly by U.S standards. Both Toronto and Montreal on a metro level are up there as the most dense on our continent.
What is my point? Well these cities had the opportunity to develop like U.S cities but did not. It goes beyond population 'dynamics' and there are a host of reasons but mostly not what you depicted above.
While Canada obviously doesn't have nearly as many large cities as the U.S - of the one's it does have namely Toronto and Montreal, both these cities have been around for awhile. Montreal in particular for a N.A city is actually pretty old and mature being founded in 1642. It was a strapping city when Boston and Philly were strapping. Toronto while younger, is still not exactly 'young' for N.A standards founded in 1793. It was starting to be a strapping city in the 1800's so this is more than enough time for both these cities to become mature sprawly cities sans U.S.
No, both cities are young compared to a number of large and medium sized US cities, particularly those in the east. Since population development and movement matters way more than founding year, especially. Montreal was smaller than Baltimore, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, St. Louis, and Washington, D.C. in the 1890s. Toronto is newer than a majority of major American cities, considering the population of its city proper was below 200,000 in the 1890s - this when the US already had cities constituting millions of people, and entire urban agglomerations forming.
Your point of "sprawl" speaks to your next point-
Quote:
Toronto now, is more sprawly and simply a significantly larger metro than Montreal, but by U.S standards, isn't exactly sprawly.. Montreal is a large metro but also not very sprawly by U.S standards. Both Toronto and Montreal on a metro level are up there as the most dense on our continent.
What is my point? Well these cities had the opportunity to develop like U.S cities but did not. It goes beyond population 'dynamics' and there are a host of reasons but mostly not what you depicted above.
Canada's largest cities are not as dense as NYC and San Francisco, and most cities outside of these 3 largest in Canada have incredible sprawl - but density doesn't have anything to do with what I'm talking about...London, Berlin, Birmingham, Barcelona, Mexico City, Tokyo, etc, are "sprawling cities"...
This thread is about the growth of exurbs and the nature of Canadian urbanism, small town environments, and suburbs. Canada's city environments never saw significant wealth - they never expanded to develop historic suburban main streets and small towns and exurbs at the same rate because they didn't have the population to do so - the US had its own architectural firms by the mid 19th century - Canada's didn't start cropping up until the mid-20th.
Canada's suburban and metropolitan development occurred in a horrible time for urban development - the city of Toronto, for example, is an ugly place full of brutalist architecture, strip-mall style development in the city center, shabby SFH and semi-detached housing breaking up spaces between modern commercial strips and towering glass apartments that give Canadian cities all the "density" you love so much on paper - while not being particularly aesthetic, historic, or functional environments to live, shop, and experience culture, which is typically non-existent, because Canadian cities are so expensive - way too expensive for what they offer. This is not an appealing kind of development - its tacky modernism of the worst kind, and it's not something many American cities actually have, aside from some exceptions in the sunbelt, a region that boomed when Canada did.
Even Canada's few historic cities of note suffer from this very gross and unappealing development outside of their downtown areas in a way American cities don't because the US has a better public realm in general, and it developed more at a time when carriage routes and railways were a thing. This isn't up for debate, it's a fact. American cities saw greater wealth and population much earlier, on average, than Canadian cities, and so they typically have more stately architecture, a greater diversity of land use, architectural styles, and housing types, in-tact and economically vibrant main streets outside of some 6 - 8 or so big city centers...even when some cities went through decay, or saw urban regeneration (that more significantly razed and reshaped Canadian cities, because they were small and sunbelt-like before the 60s), you usually had a metropolitan area that focused its economic activity in suburbs and satellite cities and towns that maintained a walkable, historic character (the Baltimore-DC area and Detroit-Ann Arbor are prominent examples of this). Canada doesn't have this kind of urban and suburban developmental history. It hasn't seen the internal migration and movement, partially because it doesn't have the population, and therefore the economy, to support it.
No, both cities are young compared to a number of large and medium sized US cities, particularly those in the east. Since population development and movement matters way more than founding year, especially. Montreal was smaller than Baltimore, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, St. Louis, and Washington, D.C. in the 1890s. Toronto is newer than a majority of major American cities, considering the population of its city proper was below 200,000 in the 1890s - this when the US already had cities constituting millions of people, and entire urban agglomerations forming.
Of the cities you mention above, only NYC was founded earlier than Montreal. Most are also not that much older than Toronto. 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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llunge
Your point of "sprawl" speaks to your next point-
Canada's largest cities are not as dense as NYC and San Francisco, and most cities outside of these 3 largest in Canada have incredible sprawl - but density doesn't have anything to do with what I'm talking about...London, Berlin, Birmingham, Barcelona, Mexico City, Tokyo, etc, are "sprawling cities"...
.
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.
The rest of your post was just on history, money and aesthetics. Something that I don't think has any bearing on what was being discussed which is that Toronto and Montreal are not as sprawly as American cities, even though they have had more than enough time to develop that way. That being said, i'd suggest you create a thread on that topic if it tickles your fancy, and you feel you have enough fodder to humiliate Montreal and Toronto and other Canadian cities in terms of economics, history and architecture by all means.
Last edited by fusion2; 10-18-2022 at 08:40 AM..
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.
