Which Canadian Cities have Suburbs?

[Architype]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

New Westminster, British Columbia, has suburbs which include Burnaby, Surrey, Coquitlam, and Vancouver.

I think a proper definition of a suburb is that it exists in it's present form only because the central city existed first, but I don't think this applies to New Westminster; Vancouver does not exist in it's present form because of New West.

[Rico Rommheim]

Hard to believe that one day Surrey will be bigger than Vancouver. That's like if Laval became bigger than Montreal. I wouldn't be able to handle that.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Architype

I think a proper definition of a suburb is that it exists in it's present form only because the central city existed first, but I don't think this applies to New Westminster; Vancouver does not exist in it's present form because of New West.

Yeah, keyword being "present form".

Otherwise, Ottawa is a suburb of Hull/Gatineau (first example that came to mind).

It's entirely possible that some random town on the west side of the Hudson River (present day NJ) was founded by the Dutch first and continuously occupied to this day; this wouldn't make NYC a suburb of this municipality as of right now in 2020.

Longueuil could very well have been founded before Montreal. Lévis could very well have been founded before Quebec City. etc.

Age doesn't have anything to do with which place is nowadays the central city / anchor of the metro area.

Even population - though that metric would have a better claim - doesn't automatically win the day, IMO. In other words, Vancouver has the best claim to being the anchor city of that conurbation, followed by Surrey, then followed by New Westminster.

[big T]

A more challenging question would be: which Canadian suburbs have cities?

[GlassCity]

I have a weirdly obsessive relationship with the term "suburb" that I'm not gonna get into, and of course definitions vary widely, but I'll disagree with the point that every city has suburbs, depending on definition. If the question is what locals say, I think the big Prairie cities don't really refer to separate municipalities as suburbs much. For example in Winnipeg, Headingley and the St. Pauls would fit the technical definition of reliant municipalities in the CMA, but if a Winnipegger talks about the suburbs they'll generally be referring to the outer ring of sprawl in the city proper.

I personally prefer a much looser term that includes any secondary city with a geographic tie to the primary one. I know calling Chilliwack a suburb of Vancouver might be a stretch but I still think it's a different status of relationship than a legitimately separate city like Kelowna or Halifax.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

..

I personally prefer a much looser term that includes any secondary city with a geographic tie to the primary one. I know calling Chilliwack a suburb of Vancouver might be a stretch but I still think it's a different status of relationship than a legitimately separate city like Kelowna or Halifax.

I think it must be part of the same CMA to be a suburb. Chilliwack is a separate CMA, with limited commuting, and the economic centre of the Fraser Valley, plus Abbotsford. Surrey and Langley are suburbs.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Architype

I think it must be part of the same CMA to be a suburb. Chilliwack is a separate CMA, with limited commuting, and the economic centre of the Fraser Valley, plus Abbotsford. Surrey and Langley are suburbs.

The StatCan rule that CMAs can't be combined makes that a hard definition for me to accept, personally. Abbotsford and Chilliwack do have surprisingly limited commuting into the Vancouver CMA, but they still have a connection to it, and vice versa. There's already an express bus between them, commuter rail constantly gets brought up, and the region will only further integrate into the future. As that happens I, again, have a hard time calling either Abbotsford or Chilliwack as separate to Vancouver as Yellowknife is.

Of course people generally live their daily lives in only a small part of the CMA, but there are still ties between all the municipalities that make part of it and I am just more generous with how far I count these ties.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by milomilo

If you use the technical definition, Calgary doesn't have much in the way of suburbs (Airdrie, Cochrane, Okotoks and Chestermere are small and separated). But Calgary's built form is very suburban. It's a confused term.

There is still a separation between Calgary and the four towns/cities you listed and it's very much rural in nature.

Edmonton/Sherwood Park/St. Albert - just a freeway separates them but it looks no different than some of Edmonton's own neighbourhoods that lie outside of the same ring road.

Vancouver/Burnaby/New Westminster - a pedestrian can just cross the street from one municipality into the other. Victoria/Saanich - same thing.

[SignalHillHiker]

People here don't commonly use the term 'suburb' - they'd just say the name of the neighborhood or municipality.

There are lots of neighborhoods in St. John's built as suburbs, including several now near-universally considered part of the core (i.e. Georgestown and Rabbittown). There are lots of newer suburbs, like Kenmount Terrace, and others that used to be separate towns but are now part of St. John's (like Wedgewood Park).

I think outside of SSP I'd only use "suburbs" to describe separate municipalities in the CMA that are all bungalows and cul-de-sacs (Mount Pearl, Paradise, Conception Bay South). It's harder for me to think that way of the centuries-old towns with nice older buildings, like Torbay and Petty Harbor. They're completely reliant on St. John's but they have a sense of self that the post-WWII sprawl doesn't.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

The StatCan rule that CMAs can't be combined makes that a hard definition for me to accept, personally. Abbotsford and Chilliwack do have surprisingly limited commuting into the Vancouver CMA, but they still have a connection to it, and vice versa. There's already an express bus between them, commuter rail constantly gets brought up, and the region will only further integrate into the future. As that happens I, again, have a hard time calling either Abbotsford or Chilliwack as separate to Vancouver as Yellowknife is.

Statistics Canada has economic regions too. This is on the level of the Lower Mainland rather than metro Vancouver. I wouldn't call Chilliwack a suburb of Vancouver though; to be a classic suburb of a city a significant percentage of the daytime population or commuters in an area need to go to that other city.

Admittedly this has all gotten a lot murkier with suburban jobs and remote work.

[someone123]

In Halifax there is the Old South Suburb conservation district. This area appeared on maps as the "south suburb" starting around the late 1700's. The areas outside the original town walls were called suburbs; there was one to the north (around the naval dockyard) and one to the south while the Common was to the west. Today the south suburb is around Hollis and Morris and is either the southern end of downtown or the first inner neighbourhood depending on how you look at it.

When the house to the far left was built (1828) it was considered to be in a suburb. Those other houses came later and were probably just empty grounds or garden space for decades.


1835 map. You can also see the smaller subdivided lots for a suburb to the upper left, Schmidtville:

https://www.shapeyourcityhalifax.ca/old-south-suburb

Government House (1800) was a quasi-country estate just outside of town:

Source

[Acajack]

Here in Gatineau people don't generally refer to anywhere in the area as "the suburbs" (la banlieue). People just refer to the areas specifically by name: Aylmer, Buckingham, Masson-Angers, Cheval-Blanc, Plateau. These are all within Gatineau proper city limits.

The outer municipalities are generally referred to by name (Chelsea, Cantley, Val-des-Monts, L'Ange-Gardien) or by the name of their cross-municipal county structure: MRC des Collines. They're all more exurban or rurban than suburban anyway, and if a generic term is used it would be "la périphérie" (the outskirts).

I believe the Quebec City region is largely the same. Someone in Lévis wouldn't say they live in the suburbs (en banlieue), they'd say they live in Lévis.

On the north side of the river where the core city is, once you get outside the expanded limits of the merged Quebec City, like Gatineau it's more exurban or rurban than anything, and my guess is if you're talking about these areas as a whole you'd say "la périphérie" (the outskirts).

Montreal is a bit different as there is a clear geographic demarcation between on the island and off the island. It's common for people to say they live in the suburbs (en banlieue) and when you hear that it almost always means off-island. Even though some off-island places like Longueuil and St-Lambert are denser and a lot closer to being urban in feel than certain parts of the island, which are almost exurban in feel - especially in the far west of it in places like Baie-d'Urfé and Senneville.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by someone123

Statistics Canada has economic regions too. This is on the level of the Lower Mainland rather than metro Vancouver. I wouldn't call Chilliwack a suburb of Vancouver though; to be a classic suburb of a city a significant percentage of the daytime population or commuters in an area need to go to that other city.

Admittedly this has all gotten a lot murkier with suburban jobs and remote work.

I'm not very familiar with how economic regions work, but if it's closer to the Lower Mainland than that sounds more like how I perceive "metro areas."

I agree that calling Chilliwack a suburb of Vancouver sounds awkward because yes, its population isn't dependent on Vancouver at all for their employment needs or regular commercial/entertainment needs. But to me it sounds just as awkward to call Chilliwack a standalone city when it so clearly has stronger ties to (Metro) Vancouver than Kamloops does.

The point about suburban jobs is an important one, and one I think about a lot with this topic too. Sure less than a percent of Chilliwack residents commute to Vancouver, but ~6% were to Abbotsford (another separate CMA) and ~5% were to Metro Vancouver. And jobs aside, regular trips to each others' shopping malls, restaurants, etc. as well further make it hard for me to see them as entirely separate metros.

[megadude]

Originally Posted by Taeolas

For Freddy, Oromocto is NOT a suburb; it is its own distinct town that services CFB Gagetown mainly and has surprisingly (and/or annoyingly) little to do with Freddy itself.

Freddy's suburbs would be places like Lincoln, New Maryland, Marysville (part of the city but semi-distinct), Silverwood and Hanwell. Some are part of the city, others are not; but they are all closely tied to the city.

Saint John certainly has suburbs, and effectively has a suburb problem. Most of its suburbs are communities outside of the city limits, but they still heavily commute into the city and use city resources, which is the source of much of SJ's tax base problems. SJ has to effectively service a city of 100k on a taxbase of 75k (numbers somewhat made up but that's their main problem). Every time SJ tries to get its outer communities to fairly pay for their services (like rink/ice time, or a portion of Harbour Station or whatnot), the uproar gets the local politicians to back off before they can implement it.


Moncton also has suburbs of course, but they tend to be more tightly integrated into the tri-city for the most part. Salisbury is at the edge of the Moncton sphere, but I wouldn't quite call it a suburb of the city. But going out to Sackville or Shediac, you can see suburban development along those routes.

So of NB's Big 3, they all certainly have suburbs. SJ is in the worst situation by far in trying to wrangle its suburbs, and it's paying the price for it.

Freddy for the most part has its suburbs under control, though it does have some outliers that may grow into problems if it doesn't pay attention. (The Kingswood Entertainment Centre being in Hanwell and not in the city might be one thorn for example, and the city has had issues trying to get its outer communities to fairly pay for city services in the past).

Moncton seems to be in a similar boat as Fredericton; I can't say much beyond that because I haven't heard much one way or another.

Speaking of CFBs, Angus serves CFB Borden and is the same distance to Barrie as Oromocto is to Freddy. Was also reminded of Oromocto today at work as I am updating a report on a portfolio of five apt. buildings we have the mortgage on there.

I had always heard of Angus, but never been there. When I drive places I like to pass through towns and have to go up their main street to see what it's like. Last year on the way to the cottage I passed through and Angus is the only town I've heard of and drove through that didn't have a main street with some boutique shops or general store or cafe, etc. It only has a commercial strip. There's no zero character and charm.

Maybe Angus grew only to serve Borden and not as a town/village for itself.

[manny_santos]

Suburbs, to me, are areas surrounding cities that developed after World War II, regardless of whether today they are part of the same municipality as the central city or not. In some cases, they can also be satellite towns near a city that have been absorbed by the city as it has grown during the same time period.

In London, for example, areas like White Oaks, Westmount, Lambeth, Byron, Oakridge, or Masonville all were located outside the city at the end of WWII, and virtually all of the development there has occurred since 1945. These areas became part of London in phases between 1961 and 1993. Lambeth is a bit of an exception as it was its own unincorporated community outside London for many years, but as London has grown much new growth has taken place immediately adjacent to Lambeth, so I consider it to be a suburb of London today (though I would not have 30 years ago). Komoka today is still located outside London city limits, but it is rapidly turning into a suburb of London as well.

I would not consider St. Thomas or Strathroy to be suburbs of London, as they are still very distinct, long-existing communities separated from London both politically and physically, though they have commuting relationships with London. St. Thomas itself has its own suburbs, particularly on the east side of the city. I would say the same about Milton in relationship with Toronto.

In Toronto, most of the growth in Etobicoke, North York, and Scarborough has taken place since WW II, so even though they've been part of the City of Toronto since 1998, I still consider them to be suburbs, every bit as much as Mississauga or Vaughan. Brampton, like Lambeth, was its own separate community but it is functionally today a suburban part of Toronto. The same can be said for New Westminster or Port Moody in relation to Vancouver.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I'm not very familiar with how economic regions work, but if it's closer to the Lower Mainland than that sounds more like how I perceive "metro areas."

I agree that calling Chilliwack a suburb of Vancouver sounds awkward because yes, its population isn't dependent on Vancouver at all for their employment needs or regular commercial/entertainment needs. But to me it sounds just as awkward to call Chilliwack a standalone city when it so clearly has stronger ties to (Metro) Vancouver than Kamloops does.

There's a continuum between a regional centre, bedroom communities, satellites, and then towns that are so remote that they have little in the way of meaningful day-to-day connections to anywhere else.

The Statistics Canada economic region boundaries are arbitrarily set by the provinces. They're mostly kind of weird. You can click on the names here to see the map: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...&S=3#map-popup

The Lower Mainland region includes a bunch of mountainous terrain and goes up to places like Pemberton. The Toronto one goes out past Oshawa to a relatively undeveloped area but stops at Oakville (it's not a "Golden Horseshoe" definition). The NS ones are based on combining old county lines and really make no sense at all.

It's too bad that Statistics Canada doesn't create any geographical statistical regions based directly on real factors like fine-grained measures of commuting patterns. Instead it's all to some degree based on arbitrary political boundaries. Even the CMA definitions are not as useful as people think. There are rules for when to expand CMAs but they depend a lot on how the boundaries are drawn and how adjacent areas are classified.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

If the question is what locals say, I think the big Prairie cities don't really refer to separate municipalities as suburbs much. For example in Winnipeg, Headingley and the St. Pauls would fit the technical definition of reliant municipalities in the CMA, but if a Winnipegger talks about the suburbs they'll generally be referring to the outer ring of sprawl in the city proper.

All urban areas and most suburban areas surrounding Winnipeg are part of the City of Winnipeg itself, and they have been since the unicity merger of 1972. Prior to that there were 12 municipalities (including the City of Winnipeg) under a separate level of metropolitan government which was dissolved on amalgamation.

So really, pretty well all of suburbia is situation in the City of Winnipeg itself. The surrounding municipalities are almost all rural, semi-rural, or at most exurban (East St. Paul, for example). We are probably a bit of an outlier in this regard, although maybe less so since so many other cities went through the same process in the last 20-odd years or so.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Architype

I think a proper definition of a suburb is that it exists in it's present form only because the central city existed first, but I don't think this applies to New Westminster; Vancouver does not exist in it's present form because of New West.

If we look at Vancouver and New Westminster separately, Burnaby is basically a suburb of both. If you look at aerial photos of Burnaby from 60-70 years ago, most development was either along Hastings Street or Kingsway immediately east of Boundary Road, or immediately north/west of New West city limits (today the area known as Edmonds). Interestingly the numbered street grid of New West continues north and west into Burnaby.

A similar argument could be made of Coquitlam being a suburb of Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, and New West.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by esquire

We are probably a bit of an outlier in this regard, although maybe less so since so many other cities went through the same process in the last 20-odd years or so.

Nova Scotia did mergers for Halifax and Sydney but as far as the geographical area goes there is only maybe a 40% overlap between the HRM boundaries and the actual metro area. A lot of what's in the municipality isn't in the commutershed and then some parts that are in the commutershed aren't in the municipality. Then there are lots of murky areas that were rural at one point but where more and more people commute to urban jobs.

In the Maritimes there's no clear-cut rule you can use to draw a boundary in most cases because it's small town after small town with houses along the rural roads.

The western boundary of HRM (and the Halifax economic region according to Statistics Canada) looks like this:



Northern looks roughly like this:



(from Google Earth)

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by someone123

There's a continuum between a regional centre, bedroom communities, satellites, and then towns that are so remote that they have little in the way of meaningful day-to-day connections to anywhere else.

The Statistics Canada economic region boundaries are arbitrarily set by the provinces. They're mostly kind of weird. You can click on the names here to see the map: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...&S=3#map-popup

The Lower Mainland region includes a bunch of mountainous terrain and goes up to places like Pemberton. The Toronto one goes out past Oshawa to a relatively undeveloped area but stops at Oakville (it's not a "Golden Horseshoe" definition). The NS ones are based on combining old county lines and really make no sense at all.

It's too bad that Statistics Canada doesn't create any geographical statistical regions based directly on real factors like fine-grained measures of commuting patterns. Instead it's all to some degree based on arbitrary political boundaries. Even the CMA definitions are not as useful as people think. There are rules for when to expand CMAs but they depend a lot on how the boundaries are drawn and how adjacent areas are classified.

They even have an economic region that lumps Barrie in with Kitchener-Waterloo.