The end of "edge city" development?

[Docere]

Mississauga, perhaps North America's premier example of an "edge city", actually declined by 0.5% in the 2021 census.

Fastest growth is in exurbs like East Gwillimbury and New Tecumseth. It seems to be infill development where they retain their small town and ruralish character. I don't see new "cities from scratch" like Mississauga or Vaughan developing.

[Innsertnamehere]

Take a look at Milton or Brampton or Seaton in Pickering - still lots of that going on.

The greenbelt and places to grow is restricting suburban growth in areas close to the GTA so people are being pushed out further with more permissive zoning for low rise housing forms.. It's worsening the sprawl, not making it better.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Take a look at Milton or Brampton or Seaton in Pickering - still lots of that going on.

The greenbelt and places to grow is restricting suburban growth in areas close to the GTA so people are being pushed out further with more permissive zoning for low rise housing forms.. It's worsening the sprawl, not making it better.

Same thing in Montréal. Laval is not growing as fast as before mainly because SFHs are expensive and the growth comes from condos and multiplex. Laval is becoming an employment hub and a destination for people living on the North Shore. Laval is the new hotspot with plenty of land available for industrial and commercial construction as well as a large number of land under redevelopment for industrial conversion. Laval could be considered an Edge city, but I don't think the city will lose population like Mississauga did.

[niwell]

It's been a long while since I studied the concept in any formal capacity, but wasn't the concept of an "Edge City" largely defined by employment? As in the massive office parks and employment nodes (generally in the FIRE sector) that in some cases overtook the traditional role of a CBD, and overshadowed the residential component of the municipality. While Mississauga does have significant employment in this manner, not sure it really met the definition. I'd hazard a guess that type of employment may have actually decreased, while land intensive uses (distribution, warehousing, light manufacturing) and particularly those related to the airport remain important.

I think there's a limit to how much residential infill can realistically happen in these areas, particularly if it's in a form tied closer to speculative investment rather than, you know, places to live.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Take a look at Milton or Brampton or Seaton in Pickering - still lots of that going on.

The greenbelt and places to grow is restricting suburban growth in areas close to the GTA so people are being pushed out further with more permissive zoning for low rise housing forms.. It's worsening the sprawl, not making it better.

Though it is worth remembering that people are only willing to commute so far. The Toronto greenbelt seems to generally be thick enough to dissuade a lot of people. Most of really significant outer growth that hopped the greenbelt is ending up near Go lines, so will probably be more walkable and transit friendly.

Plus a lot of the Toronto greenbelt isn’t about stopping sprawl, it’s about protecting specific aspects of the water table.

The part over by Hamilton, though… that’s thin enough it’s already been hopped. Like the Ottawa greenbelt.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Take a look at Milton or Brampton or Seaton in Pickering - still lots of that going on.

The greenbelt and places to grow is restricting suburban growth in areas close to the GTA so people are being pushed out further with more permissive zoning for low rise housing forms.. It's worsening the sprawl, not making it better.

It seems that in the GTA, the growth has been in Downtown Toronto and the outer exurbs. The inner suburbs, including Mississauga, the north part of Scarborough, and parts of Markham and Vaughan have been shrinking.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

Same thing in Montréal. Laval is not growing as fast as before mainly because SFHs are expensive and the growth comes from condos and multiplex. Laval is becoming an employment hub and a destination for people living on the North Shore. Laval is the new hotspot with plenty of land available for industrial and commercial construction as well as a large number of land under redevelopment for industrial conversion. Laval could be considered an Edge city, but I don't think the city will lose population like Mississauga did.

You also have this going on in Brossard:

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4425...7i16384!8i8192

[Doady]

"Edge city" would probably be Abbotsford or Guelph, rather than places like Mississauga or Vaughan, right on boundary of City of Toronto. In US, an example would be San Jose.

Mississauga declined by 0.5% because it is built out so there is no more land for greenfield development. Laissez-faire free market bullshit like the idea that the population and density of Mississauga would have increased in 2021 if the greenbelt was abolished and more low-rise development everywhere was permitted everywhere is just laughable. If Mississauga hadn't preserved land for high-rise development which is still ongoing then the population would have declined even more and the density would be even lower.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Plus a lot of the Toronto greenbelt isn’t about stopping sprawl, it’s about protecting specific aspects of the water table.

This is important to remember. I just added a similar point to the discussion in the stats thread.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Doady

Mississauga declined by 0.5% because it is built out so there is no more land for greenfield development. Laissez-faire free market bullshit like the idea that the population and density of Mississauga would have increased in 2021 if the greenbelt was abolished and more low-rise development everywhere was permitted everywhere is just laughable. If Mississauga hadn't preserved land for high-rise development which is still ongoing then the population would have declined even more and the density would be even lower.

Agreed.

[WhipperSnapper]

Yeah, Mississauga's explosive population growth came to a streaking halt once it build out. It's been a couple thousand people per year for many years. The Green Belt is not relevant

On a somewhat related tone to the subject, I don't think there has been as many towers built on the fringes of the GTA's urban area in many decades. North Oshawa, North Oakville, etc.

[goodgrowth]

The idea that you can funnel almost all housing demand into compact tower districts is short sighted.

New edge communities with the emphasis on medium density mixed development should be allowed.

[Innsertnamehere]

yes - not enough energy and focus is on providing appropriate ground related housing and is instead directed to preventing it entirely. Some new suburban areas in the GTA are doing a much better job at it, but far from all of them.

[urbandreamer]

There's dozens of condo towers under construction in MCC/PC today. The next census will reflect that. What's happening in Mississauga is similar to many residential neighbourhoods in Toronto: small denser homes (often rooming houses or small duplexes) are being redeveloped into giant homes for the wealthy, often as third or fourth homes.

The real growth in suburban family homes has spread west along Dundas Street towards north Oakville, Waterdown/Burlington and Milton.

The Mount Pleasant area of NW Brampton may be our best look at the future of "missing middle" housing: dense monotonous tracts of stacked TH and huge homes fitting dozens of members of one family under one roof.

Mississauga isn't an edge city: it's a central older suburb. Scarborough and Mississauga are essentially equals: post 1960s suburbs of Toronto.

When I think of edge cities, I think of Maple, Innisfil, Essa/Barrie, Courtice/Bowmanville, Cambridge, New Hamburg/Baden/Ayr/Paris/Fergus.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

When I think of edge cities, I think of Maple, Innisfil, Essa/Barrie, Courtice/Bowmanville, Cambridge, New Hamburg/Baden/Ayr/Paris/Fergus.

These are exurbs or in the case of Barrie or Cambridge satellite cities.

[Docere]

I'm old enough to remember when Canada's Wonderland really felt like it was the sticks and the signs on Highway 400 welcomed you to the Town of Vaughan, population 29,000.

Today Vaughan has over 300,000, a city from scratch, a boomburb, an "edge city" so to speak. Very little rural character left except around Kleinburg. Today's city is completely unrecognizable from 40 years ago. Almost nobody who lives there are "townies" whose families were there before 1980.

Now the trend seems to be infill development. I don't expect East Gwillimbury to become "another Vaughan" so to speak.

[urbandreamer]

Cambridge isn't really a city of course: much like Mississauga it's a collection of smaller villages, towns and one city (Galt) that have sprawled into each other. But it functions like an edge city: many commute to Mississauga for work. You could argue Guelph, Stratford and Woodstock are edge cities of Waterloo Region.

I'm old enough to remember being in the cab of a farm tractor within a stone's throw of Canada's Wonderland.

[Djeffery]

I remember my first trip to Canada's Wonderland as a pre-teen, going up on the "mountain" and watching airplanes at the airport across the road.

[Docere]

Edge city:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_city

Boomburb:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomburb

Satellite city:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_city

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Docere

Mississauga, perhaps North America's premier example of an "edge city", actually declined by 0.5% in the 2021 census.

Fastest growth is in exurbs like East Gwillimbury and New Tecumseth. It seems to be infill development where they retain their small town and ruralish character. I don't see new "cities from scratch" like Mississauga or Vaughan developing.

There must be a reason for the decline, perhaps just an aging demographic with fewer children, but it may be reversed in the future. Another reason for decline would be running out of new land to develop and failure to densify in an effective manner.

I think of Vancouver's edge cities as most of what make up the metro area; Surrey, Delta, Langley, Coquitlam, Richmond, perhaps even Burnaby which is in the middle; although none of them presumably originated with the plan to be as suburban as they are today. They were rural villages to begin with. None of these are declining in population afaik.