Why Do Canadian Skylines Overperform Relative To Their Metro Populations?

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I just did a quick calculation based on me and my teens.

When I was working for minimum wage in the late 80s it would have taken about 5 hours to fill my current car's tank, at the average price per litre back then. (Gas is more expensive here than in the U.S.)

At today's minimum wage and gas prices, my kids have to work 4.5 hours to fill the same tank.

As this thread has gotten pretty well off topic, I actually think this piece right here helps put it back on track. Gas in Canada is MUCH more expensive than it is in the US! I can tell you every time I have been to Canada I make sure to fill up right before crossing the border. In the US, gas is priced by the gallon while in Canada it's by the liter! (each liter is ~0.264 gallons) As it's much more cost prohibitive to drive in Canada (insurance also sounds way higher) it makes sense that they would not develop around the car as so much of the US has done.

[Acajack]

:

Originally Posted by Crawford

This was common in my (suburban, fairly wealthy, Midwest, public) high school in the late 1990's. The vast majority of kids had cars and a not-insubstantial number had luxury cars. The kids' cars were, on average, nicer than the teachers/administrators cars. This was Metro Detroit, so plenty of parents had access to "free" luxury cars (we had the children of multiple Big 3 CEOs and CFOs as well as the children of CEOs of major suppliers). And I remember friends with lots of nice but non-luxury cars. Pathfinders, 4-Runners, Grand Cherokees, Cabriolets, Supras.
.

Almost everyone I know who had car that was just "theirs" back then had a hand-me-down vehicle from their parents who had moved on to something newer.

So basically we'd be driving around in a Ford Tempo or Topaz, Chrysler K cars (Reliant or Aries) or a Chevrolet Chevelle.

You might have had some guys who saved up their money to buy a used (often handyman's special) Camaro or Trans-Am, but it was usually 10 years old or something like that.

For the rest of us when we drove it was in our parents' daily driver that they didn't need that evening, usually something like a Dodge Caravan or a Crown Victoria.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by DZH22

As this thread has gotten pretty well off topic, I actually think this piece right here helps put it back on track. Gas in Canada is MUCH more expensive than it is in the US! I can tell you every time I have been to Canada I make sure to fill up right before crossing the border. In the US, gas is priced by the gallon while in Canada it's by the liter! (each liter is ~0.264 gallons) As it's much more cost prohibitive to drive in Canada (insurance also sounds way higher) it makes sense that they would not develop around the car as so much of the US has done.

Right now where I live the (exceptionally depressed) price at the pump is 0.75 CAD per litre. That translates to about 2 USD per gallon.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Right now where I live the (exceptionally depressed) price at the pump is 0.75 CAD per litre. That translates to about 2 USD per gallon.

Yes, but these are unusual times and not the norm.

I guess we can all pretty much agree that certain Canadian cities punch well above their weight in the skyline department because of lots of high rise residential infill in their respective cores + the lack of flight from inner cities, a transit friendly culture, and from major development happening only after the war? What baffles me just a little though, is there is an awful lot of SFH surburbia and sprawl in Canadian cities as well. I guess it's all perspective..Philadelphia and Metro Detroit seemed to go on forever when I was in both cities. Their respective cores defied the true magnitude of both metros.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Razor

Yes, but these are unusual times and not the norm.

.

Yeah. Typically the price per U.S. gallon in my city would be somewhere between 3 and 4 USD.

When I did my calculation for how long it takes my teens to work in order to fill the tank, I used the higher (normal) price.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by DZH22

They actually changed this earlier than you think. I also got my license in MA pretty much as early as I could, which for me was August 1998. At the time it was considered a full license. However, around 4 months in (so likely January 1999) they suddenly said I wasn't allowed to drive my friends anymore until I was 17. I decided to ignore that law completely and "grandfather" myself in, so to speak. I had no incident between then and turning 17 so I can't say what the consequences would have been if I was pulled over!

I honestly forgot all about it, but I think my license was restricted for the first six months when I got it. I believe the year I got my license (1999) was the first year of Michigan's "graduated license" program. I don't think there were restrictions on the age of passengers, but we weren't allowed to drive between midnight and 5am unless we were coming from work. It didn't really affect me since, at 16, there weren't any places I needed to drive to after midnight.

As for whether I was should have been driving at 16... I did fine, and I think learning at that age made me a much better driver. Plus, like me, most of my friends had licenses and cars, and we all did just fine. But we were driving in an era before smartphones, so there was a huge difference in the opportunities for distraction.

During my senior year of high school I did have a classmate die in a car accident, but I don't think she was at fault in the accident. To this day she is the only person I know who died in a car accident.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

Montréal has a much larger highway network than Vancouver. Its skyline is also very centralized, compared to Vancouver. Other than the population density, you can't really compare the two, they are very different cities.

Back on the subject...I love Montreal but don't think it punches above its weight in skyline...its skyline does not look like a city of nearly 2 million...That may have been due to the economic troubles it went through due the language issue...I think many other Canadian cities punch above their weight because they have viable downtowns and also multimodal parts of the city/suburbs with high rises as well. Toronto and Vancouver are excellent examples. In the US, very few cities have multi-modal parts with high rises and strong downtowns. Sunbelt cities have clusters of high and midrises in a few places , but their downtowns are somewhat lacking in street activity, retail, housing, etc - just a bunch of mostly office towers with streets that are mostly empty and quite after 5 pm and the weekend. It seems like some American cities are starting to change - LA is developing a lively downtown to complement its few high rise districts like Century City, NYC is building up towers in Queens and Brooklyn, etc. Who would have thought that downtown Brooklyn would get highrises as tall as than those in Manhattan!

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Who would have thought that downtown Brooklyn would get highrises as tall as than those in Manhattan!

Downtown Brooklyn had one of the tallest skyscrapers in the U.S. in the 1920's, already.

The better rhetorical question is "Who would have thought it would have taken 80-90 years to get taller neighbors".

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Downtown Brooklyn had one of the tallest skyscrapers in the U.S. in the 1920's, already.

Yeah, at 512' tall, Brooklyn's Republic National Bank Tower was the 18th tallest skyscraper on the planet, outside of Manhattan, in the pre-war era.

and it was the 8th tallest skyscraper in the world at that time, if you exclude chicago as well.

only a handful of other cities in the world had taller skyscrapers than brooklyn back in the day:

pittsburgh: 2
cleveland: 1
detroit: 1
cincinnati: 1
columbus: 1
hartford: 1

source: CTBUH

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Back on the subject...I love Montreal but don't think it punches above its weight in skyline...its skyline does not look like a city of nearly 2 million...That may have been due to the economic troubles it went through due the language issue...I think many other Canadian cities punch above their weight because they have viable downtowns and also multimodal parts of the city/suburbs with high rises as well. Toronto and Vancouver are excellent examples. In the US, very few cities have multi-modal parts with high rises and strong downtowns. Sunbelt cities have clusters of high and midrises in a few places , but their downtowns are somewhat lacking in street activity, retail, housing, etc - just a bunch of mostly office towers with streets that are mostly empty and quite after 5 pm and the weekend. It seems like some American cities are starting to change - LA is developing a lively downtown to complement its few high rise districts like Century City, NYC is building up towers in Queens and Brooklyn, etc. Who would have thought that downtown Brooklyn would get highrises as tall as than those in Manhattan!

I think metro area is generally a better metric that city proper. So by that measure Montréal has over 4 million people.

Unless you think Boston is a city of less than 700,000 people and less important than Columbus or Jacksonville.

[Doug]

[QUOTE=Innsertnamehere;8894799]
It's really only a thing for Grade 12 where kids are regularly able to drive. Except in Alberta, where you get your learners permit at 14 and can drive by yourself at 16[\QUOTE]

Farm kids could get licenses at 12 until about the early 1970’s. My dad grew up on a northern Alberta farm and worked as a parking valet at the Banff Springs Hotel from ages 12 to 16, when he graduated high school. It was the perfect job for a farm kid as back then the hotel only opened late May to early Sep so they could help with seeding, work for three months and be back in time for harvest.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I went to high school in Ontario. I lived in an upper middle class suburban area and the high schools I went to were either in suburban locations or on the fringes of the inner city. They all had some degree of parking available for students but I don't recall there being parking passes or anything like that.

But coming to school by driving yourself certainly wasn't very common. That was something we saw in the movies - American of course. Kids coming to high school in luxury sports cars (as in the movies again) was non-existent.

Sure, some kids did but they were quite rare. I don't recall any of my friends doing that. At the most, it was more like a special treat, as in: "I've got the car today! Let's go to McDonald's for lunch!"

And at the time I went to high school (late 80s) Ontario actually had a 13th grade so we were in high school until we were about 18 and some were even 19. Still, most Grade 13 kids didn't drive to come to school. It seems like driving to your place of study didn't become a thing until you finished high school and went to community college or university. And even then that depended on the location of the institution.

That said, as soon as we were 16, cars driven by friends became very common for evening and weekend outings. There was usually someone available to give you a lift if you didn't have one yourself.

We still used transit on occasion to go out into my early 20s but that was mostly to avoid the drunk driving issue.

I got my learner’s the day I turned 14 and full license the day I turned 16, which was Dec 1987. I lived in SW Calgary. Practically every teenager had a license and most had cars, usually junkers. I had a 1986 Civic. In the era of latch key kids, parents were rarely home to drive kids. I had to drive siblings to various activities, do grocery shopping, shuttle parents to airport etc. School had no restrictions on driving or students driving other students other than the parking lot wasn’t that big. It is unfathomable by today’s standards, but school even allowed students to smoke in designated areas, teachers could smoke in their lounge or offices, students could drink at school dances if they were 18 (few were back in that day as the school year cut off was the end of Feb so most grade 12 students were 17), seat belt laws were brand new to Alberta. I feel old.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Doug

I got my learner’s the day I turned 14 and full license the day I turned 16, which was Dec 1987. I lived in SW Calgary. Practically every teenager had a license and most had cars, usually junkers. I had a 1986 Civic. In the era of latch key kids, parents were rarely home to drive kids. I had to drive siblings to various activities, do grocery shopping, shuttle parents to airport etc. School had no restrictions on driving or students driving other students other than the parking lot wasn’t that big. It is unfathomable by today’s standards, but school even allowed students to smoke in designated areas, teachers could smoke in their lounge or offices, students could drink at school dances if they were 18 (few were back in that day as the school year cut off was the end of Feb so most grade 12 students were 17), seat belt laws were brand new to Alberta. I feel old.

You got me thinking again. I got my licence in Ontario around the same time as you. They had a learner's permit colloquially referred to as a "365" but I am pretty sure you had to be 16 in order to get one. But the 365 learning period wasn't mandatory.

If you could pass the road test on the day of your 16th birthday, you got your full licence. One of my friends, whose dad had a trucking company and had been driving big rigs (illegally) since he was about 13, did just that.

I don't recall my full licence (once I got it) having any particular restrictions just because I was young. We were definitely allowed to drive around with the car full of kids at all hours of the night. And we certainly did that.

Perhaps the only thing was we had fewer demerit points. I think as a adult you had 15 but as a new teenaged driver you only had 9.

[niwell]

I got my full Alberta license at 17, which would have been in 2000. I was able to transfer it to a full Ontario license just a few years later and avoid their graduated licensing system! Despite this, I've never actually owned a car and have no real intention to in the near future. If kids enter the picture we will probably make that leap, or if we end up leaving Toronto at some point in the future.

I can see why many are reticent to go through the full process, especially if they grow up in the city, and I do in fact have many friends in their 30s without a license. One of them actually had a full license but let it lapse while living in Scotland and is finding it a huge pain in the ass to get it back. So I'm quite glad I got mine when I did and have made sure to keep it current, even if I mostly use it when travelling or visiting family (occasionally I'll borrow a friends car for an errand).

Like many stories above, I borrowed my mom's car when I was able, and she was pretty cool about letting me use it on weekend evenings to drive around with friends and whatnot. Even thought it was a regular econobox (Mazda Protege), it was a 5 spd manual which made it slightly cooler than the cars my friends were able to borrow - everyone else had an automatic. Still glad I learned on a stickshift as it's been quite useful over the years, particularly when travelling.

A few kids in my highschool had their own cars, who generally fell into 3 categories: second hand parent's cars, the few rich kids gifted a new car (my school was in a poor area but had a few upper middle class suburbs in its catchment area), and the shop kids from the area who had seemingly worked since 12 and rebuilt beaters. In my group nobody drove to school and I'd say we took the bus for outings half the time.

[Doady]

I'm not sure there is much difference in culture in Canada vs. US. I watch the movies with the teens driving and never really thought it was "foreign" or anything. I think Canada just makes more effort to get people to ride the bus, with higher service levels, and TOD measures in new subdivisions to reduce walking distances to bus stops. If policy-makers in US did the same, the transit ridership would be like Canada. If there is difference in culture, it is more the symptom, not the root cause.

I look at a place like Brampton, almost pure post-war, SFH, few high-rises, but Brampton Transit got 144,523 boardings per weekday in 2016. Compare that to 2001, the system got only 21,692 boardings per weekday, a 600% increase in just 15 years. It was a pathetic system, but now Brampton Transit has higher ridership than St. Louis Metrolink, Cleveland RTA, Charlotte CATS. It doesn't take a huge amount of effort or complete cultural shift to get people onto the bus. Nothing changed in Brampton except the service levels (service span, intervals between buses, distances between parallel routes) and the design of new subdivisions (density, distances between parallel arterials, pedestrian walkways to arterials).

TTC has 3 times the ridership per capita of CTA. MiWay and Brampton Transit have 10 times the ridership per capita of Pace. 3 times difference vs. 10 times difference. The biggest difference between Toronto and Chicago transit is in the suburbs.

If people of the USA make a bigger deal about the choosing to live in the city instead of living in the suburbs, that's because it is a bigger deal there. Canadian urban areas are not as polarized or divided. Canadian cities and their suburbs are more connected and unified, the suburbs are more extensions of the city, and that is reflected in their high transit ridership and multi-family housing. The lack of unity between cities and suburbs is the root cause, not the car culture or lack of high-rise culture. Teenagers driving and lack of high-rises are just symptoms.

[Crawford]

Brampton is relatively poor and practically all immigrants or second generation. They generally wouldn't be wading through the slush to a crowded bus if they had better options, and the idea that suburban America would adopt Brampton as a lifestyle ideal is a tad unrealistic. People barely walk to the mailbox, they aren't gonna trudge to a bus stop on a distant eight lane highway.

And it isn't just the U.S. I don't think those in Oakville or York Mills are striving to become Brampton either.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Brampton is relatively poor and practically all immigrants or second generation. They generally wouldn't be wading through the slush to a crowded bus if they had better options, and the idea that suburban America would adopt Brampton as a lifestyle ideal is a tad unrealistic. People barely walk to the mailbox, they aren't gonna trudge to a bus stop on a distant eight lane highway.

And it isn't just the U.S. I don't think those in Oakville or York Mills are striving to become Brampton either.

Transit ridership in Brampton is no different from Mississauga, Thornhill, Richmond Hill, Laval, Longueuil, Burnaby, Surrey. It is a typical suburban system. There is zero correlation between immigration and ridership in Canada. Halifax and Quebec City have similar ridership to Edmonton, Winnipeg, Hamilton. Your constant associating Canada's high transit ridership with poverty and immigrants as if Canada is a third-world country and USA has no poverty and immigrants is exactly why US transit is so bad. This constant need to divide and stereotype people is a good summary of US politics, including the rise of President Donald Trump.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by Doady

If people of the USA make a bigger deal about the choosing to live in the city instead of living in the suburbs, that's because it is a bigger deal there. Canadian urban areas are not as polarized or divided. Canadian cities and their suburbs are more connected and unified, the suburbs are more extensions of the city, and that is reflected in their high transit ridership and multi-family housing. The lack of unity between cities and suburbs is the root cause, not the car culture or lack of high-rise culture. Teenagers driving and lack of high-rises are just symptoms.

City vs suburbs are different concepts in the US and Canada due to amalgamation.

2/3 of Toronto is quite suburban,but with high rise clusters adding a lot of density. All of Calgary is basically suburban,with very few high rise clusters and low density. A Denverite moving to the suburbs of Lakewood or Aurora is just like a Calgarian moving from a single family house next to downtown to some outlying areas that still happens to be in Calgary city proper. Same for someone in Toronto moving to somewhere in the northwest corner of Toronto proper to Brampton

Montreal is the big exception in that the city proper has a vastly different built environment than the core suburbs. Similar to NYC, Boston, Baltimore, Philadelphia and other older cities, not surprisingly. Moving from Mont-Royal to Laval would be a big "deal" for someone in Montreal, in that it would entail a very different lifestyle, transit or no.

The difference in the built environment between Denver and its suburbs and Calgary is very small. the difference in their transit ridership is huge. It might come down to service, or somewhat more multinodal urban form, or cultural elements, but it's not because Denver is somehow polarized or exhibits Detroit-esque characteristics which you seem to assume all American cities do.

Conversely do you really think there is lack of unity between Boston and its inner suburbs (Charlestown/Cambridge/Brookline/Somerville etc)? They are completely seamless extensions of Bostons built environment. Yet transit ridership is lower in Boston with 2 MM people in a densely populated areas full of multifamily and tightly packed single family homes, than in Toronto. Again, its service frequency/car culture/multi-nodality and not detroit-esque urban issues driving the difference.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

City vs suburbs are different concepts in the US and Canada due to amalgamation.

.

And also, to some degree, metropolitan government.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Montreal is the big exception in that the city proper has a vastly different built environment than the core suburbs. Similar to NYC, Boston, Baltimore, Philadelphia and other older cities, not surprisingly. Moving from Mont-Royal to Laval would be a big "deal" for someone in Montreal, in that it would entail a very different lifestyle, transit or no.

No, the City of Montreal is a product of a series of amalgamations and large swaths of it are postwar suburbia.