How Toronto’s suburbs are trying to switch from subdivisions to density

[vid]

Originally Posted by J. Will

No. Milton's UA includes plenty of non-residential land, contrary to what other have claimed in this thread. They are wrong.

Here, I'll waste a bunch of my time and plot the boundaries of Milton's UA on a satellite image:



It actually cuts out a power centre on the southern edge of the city! So it does include some undeveloped areas. Those areas will be more developed now, with the 2012 numbers. That satellite image is three years old! (From August 31, 2009.)

And, haha, yeah guys, this is what he is comparing to LA, Toronto and Vancouver!

Originally Posted by J. Will

And no vid, that is not my source. My numbers are 2012. Your numbers are the 2011 census numbers.

What does it matter? Why don't you share your source with us so that we can see for ourselves?

I didn't even know they updated the populations for urban areas on a yearly basis. I'd love to know what the numbers are for my hometown! Link me.

Originally Posted by J. Will

No it is not. My argument is that the GTA's suburbs are developed much denser than most suburbs elsewhere in Canada/USA. My "argument" as you call it, has NOTHING TO DO with Milton specifically. Milton was just used as an example of how densely developed the GTA's suburbs are. I was not arguing anything about Milton alone.

Then you're comparing a city that was built almost entirely in the past 20 years to cities that have each been developing for over a century; one has been developing for almost two centuries now.

Cut out 32 square kilometres of suburban Vancouver or LA and make the argument again!

[Ayreonaut]

Originally Posted by vid

Milton's UA doesn't include any industrial parks or large recreational areas. It is simply the residential portion of the community. This is because Milton is completely separated into two halves: a "living" half and a "working" half, with little mixing south of the 401. Canada's UAs only include census tracts with a certain population threshold, and the population of the census tract containing Milton's industrial park failed to reach that threshold and was not included.

Originally Posted by J. Will

No. Milton's UA includes plenty of non-residential land, contrary to what other have claimed in this thread. They are wrong.

And no vid, that is not my source. My numbers are 2012. Your numbers are the 2011 census numbers.

What is your source then? You can't just repeat your argument over and over again and not provide the source for your numbers. You can't say that vid's statement about industrial land is false without providing evidence to back that up. Did you not have to write essays or participate in debates in high school? It's the same principle.

Furthermore, if your source is saying San Francisco and San Jose share an urban area (they don't), should we not assume that it is you that is incorrect? (Hint: the correct answer here is not simply "no").

[Ayreonaut]

Originally Posted by vid

And, haha, yeah guys, this is what he is comparing to LA, Toronto and Vancouver!

Jesus Christ, what a waste of time!

[vid]

I actually proved myself wrong for him and posted that map showing that my claim wasn't entirely accurate.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by vid

Here, I'll waste a bunch of my time and plot the boundaries of Milton's UA on a satellite image:



It actually cuts out a power centre on the southern edge of the city! So it does include some undeveloped areas. Those areas will be more developed now, with the 2012 numbers. That satellite image is three years old! (From August 31, 2009.)

And, haha, yeah guys, this is what he is comparing to LA, Toronto and Vancouver!

No. I was pointing out that Milton is the 2nd most dense UA. I never made the comparison to LA, Toronto, or Vancouver. That's a lie. I simply listed the 10 densest UAs. I never said they were similar. This is you with all this retarded analysis.

Then you're comparing a city that was built almost entirely in the past 20 years to cities that have each been developing for over a century; one has been developing for almost two centuries now.

No, no, and no. YOU are making these comparisons. What I made was a statement of fact. I was not saying it is similar to anywhere else. Christ almighty.

Cut out 32 square kilometres of suburban Vancouver or LA and make the argument again!

LOL. No. If suburan Vancouver/LA do have any separate UAs (and they probably do), they are nowhere near as dense as Milton UA. You can see that simply by the fact that the top 10 list has UAs much less dense.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by Ayreonaut

You can't say that vid's statement about industrial land is false without providing evidence to back that up.

Where did I say that his statement about industrial land is false?

[eemy]

J. Will isn't exactly wrong. The newer subdivisions that are being built in the GTA are remarkably high density, though I think the effect is far more pronounced in other parts of the GTA. Milton's population density, however, is significantly inflated by its large household size. If you look at the density of dwellings instead (which is really more relevant anyway when discussing built form), it has essentially the same density of dwellings as Vancouver and a lower density than Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa. The high household size is not surprising considering Milton had around 50% growth over the past 5 years. In another twenty years, I think the picture will be very different.

[MolsonExport]

I have no doubt that the densest 32km^2 of Montreal, Toronto, NYC, LA, etc. etc. are far far denser than the densest 32km^2 of Milton.

Incredulous claims require incredible evidence. Which I and others are still waiting for. And please, JWill, try to spare us the extremely snotty, lecturing tone.

[glowrock]

This thread is incredible stupid, thanks to J Will's consistent comparison of a tiny UA with enormous UA's like a Toronto, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, etc... How in the hell can you actually do a valid comparison of a UA with such gigantic size differences?

Nobody's saying Toronto's suburbs aren't very dense. Of course they are. But to compare Milton with Toronto itself, Los Angeles, etc., is just simply ridiculous Period.

And lastly, J Will, just cut the crap, will you? I'll just say right now that there are have been more than enough complaints about your behavior that you're treading on very, very thin ice. Stop being such a holier than thou douchebag, please. And since I now you're just going to accuse me of hating you and say I'm a liar, I dare you to contact a number of other moderators, nearly all of whom agree with the general comments I just gave you here.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Doady]

Originally Posted by glowrock

This thread is incredible stupid, thanks to J Will's consistent comparison of a tiny UA with enormous UA's like a Toronto, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, etc... How in the hell can you actually do a valid comparison of a UA with such gigantic size differences?

Well, a more populus urban area should have higher density than a smaller one. More demand, competition for land, higher costs, more density. Larger urban areas actually have the advantage in terms of density. Size is not the issue.

The issue that Milton is not independent, it is linked to a larger urban area. Same with Kanata, which has higher population density than Ottawa. A lot of the jobs in Milton and Kanata are in another urban area, so less land needed for non-residential uses and a higher overall population density.

J. Will's point is that the suburbs of Toronto relatively high density compared to other suburbs, and that's true. If you add Milton to the Toronto UA, the overall population density of the combined Toronto-Milton urban area would only be slightly lower. The definition of sprawl is a decline in the overall density on an urban area, and that isn't really happening with Milton.

[Ayreonaut]

Originally Posted by Doady

The definition of sprawl is a decline in the overall density on an urban area, and that isn't really happening with Milton.

Except it is. As you said, most of the jobs and services that the people of Milton need are located elsewhere, so I'm sure the majority of the populace has to travel for work, fun, shopping, etc.

[MonkeyRonin]

Anyway, in an attempt to bring this thread back to its original intent, here's some stuff on the plan for Mississauga Centre:











Full PDF: http://www6.mississauga.ca/onlinemap...-04-08_web.pdf

[MonkeyRonin]

Vaughn City Centre:




Richmond Hill:

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

Provincial regulations oblige cities to put 40 per cent of new development inside their current borders. Underpinning all of this is a desire among suburban municipalities to build better, more distinctive neighbourhoods, places with more verve and character than the sprawl around them. “You have these communities here, and where do people go to entertain themselves? Where do people go for culture?” asks John MacKenzie, commissioner of planning in Vaughan. “How do we create places that are more fun, exciting, attractive and mixed-use?”

I have no doubt that Milton's residential density would rival Toronto and LA's. However, the title is misleading considering many of Toronto's outermost suburbs like King, Nobleton, outskirts of Aurora, Cedar Mills ,Purpleville, Vandorf, Cedar Valley, Whitchurch etc continue to build very spread out acre lot (+) totally car dependent developments. I'm confused because this seems to contradict the new legislation that requires municipalities to build 40% within city limits (as stated in the article above). Could this be a loophole for developers as these areas are already so freakin sprawly they don't have substantial population to be considered urban areas?

[Crawford]

I think this is an interesting article, and wish the U.S. would be closer to Canada in this respect, though I think they're conflating density and urbanity, and density and transit-friendliness.

It's true that density can be a favorable condition for urbanity and transit-friendliness, but it's also true that you can build really dense suburbia that doesn't have the appropriate conditions. It's not like a highrise in a cornfield is better than single family homes, necessarily.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by glowrock

This thread is incredible stupid, thanks to J Will's consistent comparison of a tiny UA with enormous UA's like a Toronto, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, etc... How in the hell can you actually do a valid comparison of a UA with such gigantic size differences?

No. I made no such comparisons. What I made was a statement of fact. Milton, ON is the second densest UA in Canada/USA. If someone doesn't think that's a "fair comparison", fine. But it is indeed a statement of fact.

Being a tiny UA does NOT benefit its density. If you look at the densest UAs they are almost ALL large UAs. If being small was an "unfair" comparison, the list of densest UAs would be dominated by small ones of under 500,000 people, not by large UAs of multimillions. Four of the five largest UAs are over 3 million people.

Read the thread from the beginning. What I said was that suburban Toronto is much denser than the suburbs of most of Canada/USA. I pointed to Milton's density as an EXAMPLE of that. My argument itself had nothing whatsoever to do with Milton specifically. Milton wasn't even part of the discussion. All of the "stupid comparisons" followed that. I made no such comparisons. I stated a documented fact and gave numbers backing that fact.

Nobody's saying Toronto's suburbs aren't very dense. Of course they are. But to compare Milton with Toronto itself, Los Angeles, etc., is just simply ridiculous Period.

Great, but I'm not the one making the comparison.

Originally Posted by Doady

Well, a more populus urban area should have higher density than a smaller one.

Exactly. Four of the five largest UAs in USA/Canada are over 3 million people. The only two under 500,000 people in the top 10 are both in Ontario. Smaller UAs generally have MUCH lower densities, not higher densities. Milton is surrounded by farmland that it could sprawl to on all sides-there are no geographic limits to its growth, yet it still maintains a high density of 6300 ppsm.

And lastly, J Will, just cut the crap, will you? I'll just say right now that there are have been more than enough complaints about your behavior that you're treading on very, very thin ice. Stop being such a holier than thou douchebag, please.

I treat people how they treat me. You have no problem with people making stupid laughing faces at me, but if I respond in kind, I am a "douchebag". You also have no problem with insulting me and calling my comments "stupid", even though I don't do that to others. The fact that you don't agree with my statements does not mean I'm a "douchebag". I assure you that you know nothing about me or my character.

[giallo]

^ I think it's the fact that almost every post you make is to debate, disagree and argue with other forumers. That, and (at least from what I've seen) you never concede defeat. You will argue the most minute stat or figure to the point of absurdity. It seems you only do this if it's about Toronto, Ontario or maybe Canada. You come off as a big time homer and a smug know-it-all. Not the most attractive traits to be known for.

I think that's what glowrock was getting at.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by giallo

^ I think it's the fact that almost every post you make is to debate, disagree and argue with other forumers.

I debate on a discussion forum? You don't say.

And I suppose all of my posts that are the first posts in the threads of started (City Discussions, various Project/Construction forums, Transportation forum) are to argue? There is no truth to the statement that the majority of my posts are to argue. It's maybe 5-10% of my posts, if that.

That, and (at least from what I've seen) you never concede defeat.

Nonsense. If someone shows me stats from a reputable source that proves my stats are wrong, I am more than willing to concede defeat. While we're on the subject though, how often does ANYONE every concede defeat on SSP? I've seen it maybe 2 or 3 times total in my 7 years here, and none of those times was it from you. If you've ever conceded defeat on SSP, I'd like to see a link to it.

You will argue the most minute stat or figure to the point of absurdity.

It takes 2+ to argue. If I'm arguing than it's with somebody else (or multiple people). Which means they are guilty of the exact same thing you're accusing me of. If they weren't also "arguing to the point of absurdity", than there would be no argument at all. Evidently everyone else here likes to do the exact same thing.

It seems you only do this if it's about Toronto, Ontario or maybe Canada. You come off as a big time homer and a smug know-it-all.

Because that's what I have the most familiarity with. It would be pretty stupid and ignorant to discuss some country I've never even lived in, like some do.

[min-chi-cbus]

I'm going to go ahead and give my PERSONAL OPINION about Toronto/Canadian development and real estate:

I do NOT understand why people would cram themselves in to live in a SUBURB of Toronto for a ridiculously high price tag!! A shack in Canada costs half a million dollars, and when I ever get the chance to watch Property Bros. on TV most "average folks" are choosing to leverage housing for upwards of 3/4 to 1 million dollars, which buys you jack shit in Canada! WHY?! Why would anyone prefer to live in the 10th floor of some random high-rise in some random suburb with no view, few amenities, and a boatload of bucks just to live in the vacinity of [name that Canadian city]?

To me (and this is very likely JUST ME), this a an obvious "bubble". The 101 of economics are completely out of whack right now in Canada and none of this makes much sense, especially given there are similar and arguably better options in the USA for a FRACTION of the price, and sometimes with more amenities, more space, better quality, etc. Something is amiss here!

Sorry for the rant, but I just don't understand the real estate squeeze in Canada or Toronto for that matter....but I'm sure I'll find out why I'm wrong fairly shortly....

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by min-chi-cbus

I'm going to go ahead and give my PERSONAL OPINION about Toronto/Canadian development and real estate:

I do NOT understand why people would cram themselves in to live in a SUBURB of Toronto for a ridiculously high price tag!! A shack in Canada costs half a million dollars, and when I ever get the chance to watch Property Bros. on TV most "average folks" are choosing to leverage housing for upwards of 3/4 to 1 million dollars, which buys you jack shit in Canada! WHY?! Why would anyone prefer to live in the 10th floor of some random high-rise in some random suburb with no view, few amenities, and a boatload of bucks just to live in the vacinity of [name that Canadian city]?

To me (and this is very likely JUST ME), this a an obvious "bubble". The 101 of economics are completely out of whack right now in Canada and none of this makes much sense, especially given there are similar and arguably better options in the USA for a FRACTION of the price, and sometimes with more amenities, more space, better quality, etc. Something is amiss here!

Sorry for the rant, but I just don't understand the real estate squeeze in Canada or Toronto for that matter....but I'm sure I'll find out why I'm wrong fairly shortly....

Real estate costs what it costs. What would you suggest people do instead of paying the prevailing prices?

A shack in Canada costs half a million dollars, and when I ever get the chance to watch Property Bros. on TV most "average folks" are choosing to leverage housing for upwards of 3/4 to 1 million dollars, which buys you jack shit in Canada!

$500,000 is more than the average house price in every city but Vancouver.


Canadian Cities
Average House Prices
January 2012

City
Average House Price
12 Month Change



Vancouver, BC
$752,000
- 1.3 %


Toronto, Ont
$464,000
+ 8.5 %


Calgary, Alb
$382,000
- 3.1 %


Ottawa, Ont
$350,000
+ 6.0 %


Montreal, Que
$311,000
+ 5.6 %


Regina, Sask
$285,000
+ 9.5 %


Halifax, NS
$259,000
+ 2.9 %


Fredericton, NB
$159,000
+ 10.7 %