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.
Canadian core cities may be of comparable density to their U.S. peers (Toronto and Chicago are virtually the same population and same density, and Boston and Vancouver are also fairly similar, density-wise), BUT when it comes to the suburbs, for instance, Toronto suburbs are much denser than Chicago suburbs, and ditto for Vancouver suburbs over Boston suburbs.
Honestly, Toronto suburbs are still overwhelmingly low-rise, albeit with more high rise condos, like in Mississauga, than Chicago suburbs. But even the new, single family home developments of Markham, Ontario, for instance, looks much denser than the single family home developments of Naperville, Illinois. Of course there are inner city suburbs of Chicago like Skokie that might be at least as dense as Markham, BUT when comparing apples to apples, Markham's Chicago equivalent should be Naperville, as both are relatively farther out on the fringer, relatively new, and affluent.
Apples to apples, when comparing a U.S. suburb with a Canadian suburb of comparable affluence and age, the Canadian suburb always seems to be denser.
The only U.S. suburb of comparable age and affluence to Markham, Ontario that also has a comparable density I can think of is Irvine, California. California (especially Los Angeles) also have suburbs that are denser than the U.S. in general, so much so that LA's urbanized area is denser than NYC's urbanized area.
Canadian core cities may be of comparable density to their U.S. peers (Toronto and Chicago are virtually the same population and same density, and Boston and Vancouver are also fairly similar, density-wise), BUT when it comes to the suburbs, for instance, Toronto suburbs are much denser than Chicago suburbs, and ditto for Vancouver suburbs over Boston suburbs.
Honestly, Toronto suburbs are still overwhelmingly low-rise, albeit with more high rise condos, like in Mississauga, than Chicago suburbs. But even the new, single family home developments of Markham, Ontario, for instance, looks much denser than the single family home developments of Naperville, Illinois. Of course there are inner city suburbs of Chicago like Skokie that might be at least as dense as Markham, BUT when comparing apples to apples, Markham's Chicago equivalent should be Naperville, as both are relatively farther out on the fringer, relatively new, and affluent.
Apples to apples, when comparing a U.S. suburb with a Canadian suburb of comparable affluence and age, the Canadian suburb always seems to be denser.
The only U.S. suburb of comparable age and affluence to Markham, Ontario that also has a comparable density I can think of is Irvine, California. California (especially Los Angeles) also have suburbs that are denser than the U.S. in general, so much so that LA's urbanized area is denser than NYC's urbanized area.
Bad government policies?
Cost of housing?
Canadians are content with paying higher prices for less?
Canadians are content with less house/lot?
Taxing regime?
I find Canadian suburbs to look very strange. The homes are too close together. They should either be fully connected and fireproof or farther apart.
I believe the reason American suburbs have larger lots and greater setbacks from property lines stems from the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. One of the reasons that fire did so much damage was that it was able to jump from building to building since they were so close. Out of that came stricter standards for American urban buildings as well as set backs. Jay
I find Canadian suburbs to look very strange. The homes are too close together. They should either be fully connected and fireproof or farther apart.
I believe the reason American suburbs have larger lots and greater setbacks from property lines stems from the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. One of the reasons that fire did so much damage was that it was able to jump from building to building since they were so close. Out of that came stricter standards for American urban buildings as well as set backs. Jay
There's one big exception: Coastal California suburbs.
Look at Irvine, California. The houses are just as, if not even closer together, than in Markham, Ontario.
California, once again, is the exception to everything the U.S. is known for.
In the case of Toronto - it is the most sprawled out Canadian city with the most suburbia in the country yet compared to U.S metro's of similar size - it is in a far more compact and dense area. A big part of why development favours densification has been largely due to a Provincial policy called the Places to grow act.
The GGH contains many of Ontario's most significant ecological and hydrologic natural environments and scenic landscapes, including the Oak Ridges Moraine, the Niagara Escarpment and the other natural areas in the Greenbelt Area and beyond. These natural areas support biodiversity, provide drinking water for the region's inhabitants, sustain its many resource-based industries, support recreational activities that benefit public health and overall quality of life, and help moderate the impacts of climate change.
The region also has some of Canada's most important and productive farmland. Its fertile soil, moderate climate, abundant water resources, and proximity to markets support agricultural production that cannot be duplicated elsewhere in the country.
This is why the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area with a population about the same as Greater Houston fits its 7 million into an area of 3134 sq miles vs Greater Houston's 10000 sq miles. Toronto is essentially forbidden to sprawl to U.S sized limits due to the government policy I addressed above. This is a big reason why Toronto is having sustained highrise and condo growth and even why SFH and Townhouse development is more compact and dense vs U.S cities.
The only U.S. suburb of comparable age and affluence to Markham, Ontario that also has a comparable density I can think of is Irvine, California. California (especially Los Angeles) also have suburbs that are denser than the U.S. in general, so much so that LA's urbanized area is denser than NYC's urbanized area.
There are plenty of affluent suburbs that have density at or above the level or Irvine, which really isn't that dense.
Most of the DC suburbs have pockets of considerable density and most are very wealthy. Cambridge, MA and Bellevue, WA also come to mind.
There are plenty of affluent suburbs that have density at or above the level or Irvine, which really isn't that dense.
Most of the DC suburbs have pockets of considerable density and most are very wealthy. Cambridge, MA and Bellevue, WA also come to mind.
Also most of the newer developments in the Seattle suburbs are spacing houses closer and closer, and at this point they might as well start building townhouses.
Also most of the newer developments in the Seattle suburbs are spacing houses closer and closer, and at this point they might as well start building townhouses.
Grega, thank you for the links. System wouldn't allow me to rep you.
1. 186th St - while I'm not a big fan of modern construction materials, I really like the street layout. I've always been a fan of parkway strips between the sidewalk and the street. This is definitely someplace I would like to live other than the actual buildings. The actual look and design of the buildings is not to my taste. Many older, smaller northeastern US cities were built with this layout, but with great looking construction from the 1890s - 1920s.
2. SE277th St - Nothing but a street facade of garage doors. The epitome of where I would never want to live, ever.
3. Woodside Dr - A repeat of 186th St only with a wider street. The housing architecture is more interesting, though it's still not as good as the original incarnation of the craftsman houses built in the 1910s. The street layout would suit me fine.
4. Surprise Creek Ln - This one is a modern interpretation of the Alley House in street width, but they treated the road as an actual road. Designed with this in mind from the beginning, it's an excellent way to get more density while still building individual houses. I would live here.
There are plenty of affluent suburbs that have density at or above the level or Irvine, which really isn't that dense.
Most of the DC suburbs have pockets of considerable density and most are very wealthy. Cambridge, MA and Bellevue, WA also come to mind.
Sure, BUT what I mean is that is there ANY Postwar US suburb, with population 200,000 or above, and with a sharp urban growth boundary (resulting in 1/3 to 40 percent of the city's area being parks and wilderness) that has a build out density of 5000+ per square mile?
Arlington, VA: May have many newer developments, but in essence a prewar suburb. Disqualified.
Tysons Corner and other pockets of NoVA: These are just scattered pockets of transit oriented development. Impressive? Yes. Concentrated in one massive city of 200,000+? Nope. Density drops off sharply into sprawling McMansions only a mile away from Tysons Corner. Not a whole lot of preserved open space in these pockets, either. Disqualified.
Cambridge: Older, prewar suburb. Disqualified.
Bellevue: Just 150,000 people, plus it's land area is basically entirely built out, with far less open space than a city like Irvine or Markham. I get that they will build more highrise condos to boost the population, but once again, its downtown is just a pocket of density. Rest of Bellevue is filled with big McMansions. Disqualified.
So, while Irvine may not seem on the surface to be that dense, it actually is much denser than you'd think. Here's why:
1. Irvine may have a density of only 4,000 per square mile, but it still has loads upon loads of land to develop; it will have 330,000 in 66 square miles at build out, making for 5,000 per square mile.
2. BUT a whopping 33% of these 66 square miles is permanently preserved wilderness, with another 7% or so being park space. If we exclude the wilderness area but include the park space, the built-out area is now two thirds of 66, or 44, square miles. The built-out density will be 330 k in 44 square miles, or 7500/square mile.
3. And even within those 44 square miles, about a quarter of that land is entirely office space, nearly 100 million square feet of office space (not retail space!), to be exact. So the actual residential area is about 33 square miles (including neighborhood parks and strip malls).
4. Thus, if Irvine were just another typical bedroom suburb, its density would be 10,000 people across 330,000 residents, which is pretty darn high for any postwar US suburb.
Also most of the newer developments in the Seattle suburbs are spacing houses closer and closer, and at this point they might as well start building townhouses.
Take your pick: Zero lot line SFH's in groups of six sharing a glorified driveway on one side of the street, or townhomes in bundles of eight. Let's not even talk about how many apartment complexes they're building.
Clearly there's a reason why Orange County real estate is more expensive than suburban King County real estate, and that's because the average OC neighborhood is very dense for suburban America.
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.
