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.
Just looking at Google maps, it seems like Canadian cities in general are more compact and well-planned. The suburbs are all very master-planned and compact, although the cookie-cutter tract housing and big box stores are still there. It also looks like Canadian cities have more integrated metro areas so Markham, York, Toronto, Mississauga, etc. all coordinate their urban planning very well.
Just looking at Markham, an affluent Toronto suburb with a large tech prescence, it seems far more compact than Naperville, a similarly wealthy Chicago suburb. Over in the suburbs of Chicago you've got more of a checkerboard pattern where there will be plenty of corn fields/farms scattered around suburbia, whereas in Toronto you have one monolithic block of development. Also, lots are far larger in Naperville than they are in Markham.
If I could name one US metro area with similar patterns of suburban sprawl as Canada, I would have to say Los Angeles. The Los Angeles urbanized area, as per the US Census, is the densest in the US, even denser than San Fran or New York's urbanized areas, thanks to the fact that the average LA suburb is denser than the average suburb of any other metro area in the US. Compare Irvine with Markham, for example. You can clearly see that, like Markham, Irvine really leaves no farms/brownfields scattered willy-nilly around its built-up area. You're either within the one monolithic block of development, or you're in the completely undeveloped nature reserves. Not to mention the lots in Irvine look even tinier than those in Markham!
You can clearly see that, like Markham, Irvine really leaves no farms/brownfields scattered willy-nilly around its built-up area. You're either within the one monolithic block of development, or you're in the completely undeveloped nature reserves.
There were lots of small farms in and around Irvine even a couple of decades ago, but in the choice to leave an avocado orchard or strawberry field, and build an apartment complex on the same spot, greed wins.
Here in the Vancouver area, it was the Skytrain lines that have spurred growth around suburban stations. You have suburbs with the standard single family home neighbourhoods, but each suburb will also have towers with shops etc around one or more station. Some of these condo towers in the burbs are nearly 60 stories high. Many are 30 or more.
Here is one of the latest. It a total redevelopment of an existing old shopping centre. Plus many more towers, most of which are almost finished. This is Brentwood Station in Burnaby. It's odd their ad says the " best of Vancouver " when it's actually not in Vancouver.
Even on brand new stations, like Burquitlam, whole new centres have been built.
The growth is managed, although not always perfect, because BC has a Agricultural Land Reserve, which is suppose to keep agriculture land from being developed. You can see the south coast map here.
Suburbs without Skytrain stations, like Maple Ridge, tend not to have these towers. In the 1980's, quite a few single family homes were built. Now, it tends to be four storey condo's. The area, although spread out, still has an old town centre, but it feels much more like suburbia, than the new centres around Skytrain Stations.
I've posted this article before, but it does show the difference in two cities ,that a lot of people compare to each other.
It shows how transit can influence growth.
Here in the Vancouver area, it was the Skytrain lines that have spurred growth around suburban stations. You have suburbs with the standard single family home neighbourhoods, but each suburb will also have towers with shops etc around one or more station. Some of these condo towers in the burbs are nearly 60 stories high. Many are 30 or more.
Here is one of the latest. It a total redevelopment of an existing old shopping centre. Plus many more towers, most of which are almost finished. This is Brentwood Station in Burnaby. It's odd their ad says the " best of Vancouver " when it's actually not in Vancouver.
Even on brand new stations, like Burquitlam, whole new centres have been built.
The growth is managed, although not always perfect, because BC has a Agricultural Land Reserve, which is suppose to keep agriculture land from being developed. You can see the south coast map here.
Suburbs without Skytrain stations, like Maple Ridge, tend not to have these towers. In the 1980's, quite a few single family homes were built. Now, it tends to be four storey condo's. The area, although spread out, still has an old town centre, but it feels much more like suburbia, than the new centres around Skytrain Stations.
I've posted this article before, but it does show the difference in two cities ,that a lot of people compare to each other.
It shows how transit can influence growth.
I have to say, though, that Vancouver's suburbs are abnormally transit-oriented, even in Canada. Markham has nowhere as many high-rise condos as Vancouver's suburbs do.
Also, wouldn't you say that places in the DC metro, like Tyson's Corner or Reston, Virginia, or Arlington are just as transit-oriented and dense as Vancouver's skytrain-oriented developments?
I have to say, though, that Vancouver's suburbs are abnormally transit-oriented, even in Canada. Markham has nowhere as many high-rise condos as Vancouver's suburbs do.
Also, wouldn't you say that places in the DC metro, like Tyson's Corner or Reston, Virginia, or Arlington are just as transit-oriented and dense as Vancouver's skytrain-oriented developments?
I'm not familiar with those areas, so I just looked up Tyson's Corner. They seem to be building, or have built an elevated line, which looks similar to Skytrain, but not automated and doesn't run as often, where their fastest time, six minutes between trains, is Skytrains longest time. Skytrain trains run much more frequently. I'm not sure if this is because of demand or type of system?
Also it's going to be difficult assessing the density since, Tyson's Corner comes up a a Census Designated Place, and we don't have that designation here. The only comparable might be looking at Ridings. Which are electoral districts, but they are probably useless, since they are much, much larger than the 11 square kilometres, of Tyson's Corner.
So totally unscientific, but looking at the list of buildings in Tyson's Corner, they aren't as tall as some in Burnaby, or they don't seem to have as many tall building over 30 stories. Wiki gives them one, at 34, one at 30 then it falls into the 20 something. Whereas Metrotown, has many more high-rises in a much smaller area than Tyson's Corner.
Also you have to keep in mind, that it's not just Metrotown that has clusters of condo high-rises, but most suburban stations, in Richmond, South Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam. Burquitlam, New Westminster and Surrey.
The style of buildings is also different. Tyson's besides being shorter, are squat, ours tend to be taller and thin. Which, again, unscientific, but leads me to believe that density would be higher in a place like Metrotown. Again, hard to say since I'm flying by the seat of my pants.
I'm not familiar with those areas, so I just looked up Tyson's Corner. They seem to be building, or have built an elevated line, which looks similar to Skytrain, but not automated and doesn't run as often, where their fastest time, six minutes between trains, is Skytrains longest time. Skytrain trains run much more frequently. I'm not sure if this is because of demand or type of system?
Also it's going to be difficult assessing the density since, Tyson's Corner comes up a a Census Designated Place, and we don't have that designation here. The only comparable might be looking at Ridings. Which are electoral districts, but they are probably useless, since they are much, much larger than the 11 square kilometres, of Tyson's Corner.
So totally unscientific, but looking at the list of buildings in Tyson's Corner, they aren't as tall as some in Burnaby, or they don't seem to have as many tall building over 30 stories. Wiki gives them one, at 34, one at 30 then it falls into the 20 something. Whereas Metrotown, has many more high-rises in a much smaller area than Tyson's Corner.
Also you have to keep in mind, that it's not just Metrotown that has clusters of condo high-rises, but most suburban stations, in Richmond, South Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam. Burquitlam, New Westminster and Surrey.
The style of buildings is also different. Tyson's besides being shorter, are squat, ours tend to be taller and thin. Which, again, unscientific, but leads me to believe that density would be higher in a place like Metrotown. Again, hard to say since I'm flying by the seat of my pants.
Tysons Corner is not the only DC metro station with dense development. Rosslyn station in Viriginia has perhaps the most transit-oriented development in the DC area. Look it up. I'm sure it could rival Richmond, Burnaby, etc.
Most people in the US prefer to live in houses, that's why not many high-rises outside of downtown.
That may be true of the US, but you have to admit that Seattle's got a larger suburban skyline (Bellevue) than Calgary. So it's also true of Canada, with Vancouver being an anomaly.
That may be true of the US, but you have to admit that Seattle's got a larger suburban skyline (Bellevue) than Calgary. So it's also true of Canada, with Vancouver being an anomaly.
I've only driven past Bellevue on the 405, but my impression, was that most of those towers weren't residential? Not sure how accurate that is, but just looking at a list of it's tallest buildings, it seems 4 out of the tallest 10 are residential.
I know the Seattle area has been doing some transit upgrades, is there a subway/metro now that goes to Bellevue?
I'm not sure Vancouver is such an anomaly. Toronto's burbs have quite a few high rises. Mississauga has taller, and more residential high rises, that the city of Bellevue. I'm not uber familiar though with Mississauga, I was there 10 years ago. There is a commuter train, and a new bus only lane system called Transitway, but alas, no subway.
Tysons Corner is not the only DC metro station with dense development. Rosslyn station in Viriginia has perhaps the most transit-oriented development in the DC area. Look it up. I'm sure it could rival Richmond, Burnaby, etc.
Rosslyn station looks nice. I like the interior of the station. Just judging by Google 3D maps, yes it would fit in nicely here.
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.
