Busiest Downtowns in Canada

[Pavlov]

Do people include PATH, the underground city, and the plus 15 system when assessing busyness?

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by someone123

I noticed this too. Downtown Edmonton feels more spread out and has larger blocks. I expected downtown Calgary blocks to be much larger than downtown Halifax blocks when looking at Google Maps. It's true for the original downtown Halifax blocks, but areas like Spring Garden Road are closer to on par with Calgary. For its age, Calgary was laid out in a somewhat compact way.

Incidentally, Frank Palermo (prominent Architecture/Planning prof in Halifax) helped design Calgary's downtown plan several decades ago. He's originally from Sicily but grew up in Little Italy in Toronto. He tends to focus heavily on the public realm (reminds me of Jane Jacobs/Jan Gehl in a lot of ways) and it's interesting seeing how that's reflected in the way that Calgary has developed, especially compared to Edmonton.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Downtown Windsor was somewhat busier than downtown Detroit, and kind of reminded me of Moncton but bigger and a bit less linear.

I have seen a bit of Windsor but I am not very familiar with it. I've heard people say that it's a decentralized metro area made up of a bunch of towns that grew up around factories in the 19th and 20th centuries, Walkerville being a prime example.

I am not sure how true that really is. Some people say a similar thing about Halifax and how Bedford, Sackville, and Fall River are all special distinct towns when they are just typical Canadian suburbs and exurbs and don't represent special settlement patterns in any way. Dartmouth is a bit of an exception there. Bedford was a village in 1930 but today it's 95% sprawl.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by someone123

Another random observation: Gottingen-Agricola-Robie almost form one corridor in Halifax. When you are heading north and the commercial part of one ends, it picks up along another street farther west.

Windsor and Isleville are part of this as well, and increasingly Bayers/Young/Oxford.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Incidentally, Frank Palermo (prominent Architecture/Planning prof in Halifax) helped design Calgary's downtown plan several decades ago. He's originally from Sicily but grew up in Little Italy in Toronto. He tends to focus heavily on the public realm (reminds me of Jane Jacobs/Jan Gehl in a lot of ways) and it's interesting seeing how that's reflected in the way that Calgary has developed, especially compared to Edmonton.

Aside from the original block pattern in Calgary you can tell there was some restraint in how large projects were built and blocks were combined (or not).

For a Bow-scaled project it would have been possible to build some kind of sprawling downtown campus on a huge footprint instead. Although more generally I'm sure sky-high land prices discouraged that too.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Windsor and Isleville are part of this as well, and increasingly Bayers/Young/Oxford.

I think what's going on is that the commercial areas are roughly centered with respect to the nearby neighbourhoods and workplaces. The Commons push them west a bit, and maybe the military base pulls a bit.

In the future when the current construction boom plays out I think there will be a clearer lattice-style pattern of commercial streets. Both Gottingen and Agricola in parts, Cunard, Robie, etc. It will look a bit like the Plateau in Montreal in terms of how businesses are arranged, and population densities will be similar (with more rowhouses/boxy smaller houses instead of triplexes but also more apartment buildings). The area like this will cover roughly a rectangle of 2x1 km, and will be a really interesting spot to live. The is also the Plateau's geographical twin.

[Martin Mtl]

Yes, this:

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

But you're absolutely right that development has been wandering and diffuse. I think what's happening now is that the gaps caused by urban renewal and decades of economic stagnation are finally being filled in. The huge towers being built around Victoria Square, along with new HEC campus on Beaver Hall Hill, are really going to refocus energy around there. But at the same time, there's a lot of new development west of Concordia. All the new towers around Place des Arts is giving that part of town more heft than it has ever had. The area around the Bell Centre feels like a mini-Toronto. And then you have all the new projects just east of Old Montreal which have suddenly transformed that area into a real downtown neighbourhood when it was a wasteland just a few years ago.

Then there's Griffintown which definitely feels like a downtown neighbourhood. It's still a bit disconnected from everything around it but that will change with a few key projects along St-Jacques and St-Antoine. The REM station will probably help too.

What's happening now in Montreal is similar to what has happened in Toronto over the past 10-15 years. In the early 2000s I would have said downtown Toronto felt smaller than downtown Montreal because you didn't have to stray far from Queen or King to find a lot of parking lots and empty spaces. Those have all been developed. I'd say the "downtown feeling" goes as far west as Bathurst now which is pretty remarkable.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Do people include PATH, the underground city, and the plus 15 system when assessing busyness?

That was briefly mentioned last night in relation to Montreal's winter busy-ness. I then contrasted that comment with how frequently Calgary's +15 network is derided on here for limiting street traffic. This derision seems to neglect the fact that the form and function of the +15 are identical to the underground city and PATH, only with natural light and visibility to and from the street without need of excessive signage. The only thing holding the +15 back is that different sections have different opening and closing times. However, because it is considered a piece of public infrastructure, the city is finally undertaking a study for the standardization of the network and reviewing the possibility of tax credits for the expansion of the network. So that should help at least with that part. Combined with the explosion of residential development in the CBD and the rest of downtown, I don't think it will have much of an impact on street liveliness, especially after office hours.

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Just thought I would chime in to thank everyone for an interesting discussion so far. Threads like this one inherently risk devolving into mindless city v city squabbling, but so far I think nearly every post has been respectful and thoughtful.

Yeah, I am shocked at how successful this discussion has been so far. It's remarkable.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by someone123

I have seen a bit of Windsor but I am not very familiar with it. I've heard people say that it's a decentralized metro area made up of a bunch of towns that grew up around factories in the 19th and 20th centuries, Walkerville being a prime example.

I am not sure how true that really is. Some people say a similar thing about Halifax and how Bedford, Sackville, and Fall River are all special distinct towns when they are just typical Canadian suburbs and exurbs and don't represent special settlement patterns in any way. Dartmouth is a bit of an exception there. Bedford was a village in 1930 but today it's 95% sprawl.

I think a big difference is that Bedford, Sackville, and Fall River don't really have much employment beyond neighbourhood retail. Detroit metro on the other hand is very decentralized - many if not most of the big employers, infrastructure, students etc. are concentrated in various pockets outside of Detroit proper. I'd guess the Windsor area is a bit like this but not nearly as pronounced (for one thing amalgamations are much more common and frequent in Canada than in the US).

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

That was briefly mentioned last night in relation to Montreal's winter busy-ness. I then contrasted that comment with how frequently Calgary's +15 network is derided on here for limiting street traffic. This derision seems to neglect the fact that the form and function of the +15 are identical to the underground city and PATH, only with natural light and visibility to and from the street without need of excessive signage. The only thing holding the +15 back is that different sections have different opening and closing times. However, because it is considered a piece of public infrastructure, the city is finally undertaking a study for the standardization of the network and reviewing the possibility of tax credits for the expansion of the network. So that should help at least with that part. Combined with the explosion of residential development in the CBD and the rest of downtown, I don't think it will have much of an impact on street liveliness, especially after office hours.




Yeah, I am shocked at how successful this discussion has been so far. It's remarkable.

Well, PATH and the underground city are both much better connected to metros and those metros are much larger and busier. So they feel much busier and big city.

But I agree that in principle they all serve the same purpose and I actually think they contribute to a feeling of busyness and big-city-ness.

[Kilgore Trout]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

This derision seems to neglect the fact that the form and function of the +15 are identical to the underground city and PATH, only with natural light and visibility to and from the street without need of excessive signage.

I don't think the Plus-15 system hinders street life in downtown Calgary. What hinders it is the awful streetscapes along nearly all the avenues and most of the cross-streets. 9th Avenue, 6th Avenue, 5th Avenue, 4th Avenue – they're traffic sewers without much street retail, a lot of parking garages and big office building lobbies. They aren't pleasant to walk along so nobody does unless they have do. The streets that have a lot of activity are the ones with small-scale retail and nice public spaces – 8th Avenue, 3rd Street, 1st Street, even parts of 7th Avenue now that the C-Train stations have been rebuilt.

If you compare Montreal to Calgary, you have way more downtown streets with a pleasant walking environment and a mix of small businesses. Even with the Underground City, there are plenty of people walking along Peel, Stanley, etc. because they're nice streets to walk along. There used to be more streets that were dead but new development and streetscape improvements brought them back to life. De Maisonneuve was terrible until less than 15 years ago, but now it has sidewalk cafés, more retail and a lively feeling thanks to wider sidewalks, a few key developments, new street trees and a cycle track that has become very well-used. The streets that still suck, like most of René-Lévesque and anything around Place Bonaventure, suffer from the same problem as the big avenues in Calgary.

Fix the streetscape and you'll get more people walking around at street level, even with a PATH or Plus-15 or Underground City type thing.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

I don't think the Plus-15 system hinders street life in downtown Calgary. What hinders it is the awful streetscapes along nearly all the avenues and most of the cross-streets. 9th Avenue, 6th Avenue, 5th Avenue, 4th Avenue – they're traffic sewers without much street retail, a lot of parking garages and big office building lobbies. They aren't pleasant to walk along so nobody does unless they have do. The streets that have a lot of activity are the ones with small-scale retail and nice public spaces – 8th Avenue, 3rd Street, 1st Street, even parts of 7th Avenue now that the C-Train stations have been rebuilt.

If you compare Montreal to Calgary, you have way more downtown streets with a pleasant walking environment and a mix of small businesses. Even with the Underground City, there are plenty of people walking along Peel, Stanley, etc. because they're nice streets to walk along. There used to be more streets that were dead but new development and streetscape improvements brought them back to life. De Maisonneuve was terrible until less than 15 years ago, but now it has sidewalk cafés, more retail and a lively feeling thanks to wider sidewalks, a few key developments, new street trees and a cycle track that has become very well-used. The streets that still suck, like most of René-Lévesque and anything around Place Bonaventure, suffer from the same problem as the big avenues in Calgary.

Fix the streetscape and you'll get more people walking around at street level, even with a PATH or Plus-15 or Underground City type thing.

Agreed.

[Chadillaccc]

There is no comparison between a 400+ year old city of 4.5 million people and a 130 year old city of 1.5 million people, so I just won't respond there.

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Well, PATH and the underground city are both much better connected to metros and those metros are much larger and busier. So they feel much busier and big city.

But I agree that in principle they all serve the same purpose and I actually think they contribute to a feeling of busyness and big-city-ness.

I wouldn't agree with that at all. I mean, Calgary only has the CTrain, not a metro, but the +15 has direct connections to all but one downtown stations, and even the one without a direct connection is part of the Telus Convention Centre.

[lio45]

Founding date of the city doesn't really matter. City population right after WWII is the best metric of "urban bones".

Originally Posted by wave46

A lot of what makes a downtown vibrant (IMO) is the mixed-use medium density buildings. So, any city that had a large core prior to 1950 probably has a better shot at that 'vibrant' thing, simply because automobile transport hadn't taken off yet. One had to live close to use transit to get to work. People are naturally clustered together and automobile use is less convenient.

Any city that bloomed from 1950 though 1990 had more compartmentalized development. The core was the office district, industry was confined to industrial parks and people lived in the suburbs. The same mentality applied to suburban-style universities and cultural venues. Why bother to build cultural venues in high-density areas when you can plop it in a field in the suburbs and have everyone drive there? Toronto's suburbs are littered with pockets of super high-density towers, but I'd hardly call them vibrant, despite being super dense in areas.

Calgary and Edmonton were cities of <250,000 people in the 1950s and more represent that model of growth. To use an example to the south, compare New York City to Phoenix.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

There is no comparison between a 400+ year old city of 4.5 million people and a 130 year old city of 1.5 million people, so I just won't respond there.

But Kilgore's post for example is about changeable factors that had a big impact on street life in Montreal in just the past few years. Presumably the same stuff could be done in Calgary, or is already happening.

A lot of Canadian cities have expanded the nicer pedestrian areas since 2000 or so, which roughly speaking was a low point in many cities in retrospect.

Vancouver got going in this area a little sooner, and had some pedestrian-friendly developments in the 90's.

[lio45]

A 130-year-old city of 1.5M people could be super urban and super walkable (and totally an urbanist's darling), if it boomed in 1900 and had already 1.5M people then (and didn't really grow since, nor lose too many of these original heritage buildings).

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by someone123

But Kilgore's post for example is about changeable factors that had a big impact on street life in Montreal in just the past few years. Presumably the same stuff could be done in Calgary, or is already happening.

A lot of Canadian cities have expanded the nicer pedestrian areas since 2000 or so, which roughly speaking was a low point in many cities in retrospect.

Vancouver got going in this area a little sooner, and had some pedestrian-friendly developments in the 90's.

Ah I see. It is happening in Calgary, for about the past 10 years, but there have been setbacks on a few key streets, including 8th Street SW and 3rd Street SW.

Or should I say, it was happening until now. Calgary might never recover from what's happened/ing.

[Kilgore Trout]

Originally Posted by logan5

That way the smaller cities are on equal footing as bigger cities. Quebec City May be super busy in a smaller area than Calgary, but overall Calgary is much busier.

I really think people are underestimating Quebec City here. The population of Calgary did not surpass that of Quebec City until 1976. That's a lot of old-school urban fabric that naturally lends itself to high levels of street level activity. Yes, Quebec City doesn't have nearly as many downtown office workers as Calgary, and it has none of the rush hour crowds you see in Calgary at the end of the work day. But it has a lot of activity at all hours thanks to a large downtown population, tourism and small streets that naturally feel bustling.

Looking at Google Maps, Calgary's greater downtown area spans about 4 sq. km. That includes the downtown core, downtown west end, Eau Claire, East Village and the Beltline up to 17th Avenue, but not Prince's Island, the riverfront parks or the Stampede grounds.

The equivalent area in Quebec City spans 3 sq. km, including Vieux-Québec, St-Roch, St-Jean-Baptiste, Quartier Montcalm up to av. des Érables, and the area flanking the Plains of Abraham, not including the Plains or the riverfront parks.

And that's why so many people here are saying that downtown Quebec City feels roughly as busy as downtown Calgary, even though Calgary now has twice the population as Quebec. Being a bigger city doesn't necessarily mean the core is more intense.

[Pavlov]

Anyone know the downtown population of Quebec City?

[Kilgore Trout]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

There is no comparison between a 400+ year old city of 4.5 million people and a 130 year old city of 1.5 million people, so I just won't respond there.

It really has nothing to do with age or even population. Vancouver is only a couple decades older than Calgary and it also had a lot of dead streets in its downtown area. Things turned around a lot with some smart urban planning.

It would take decades to retrofit a street like 5th Avenue but it's possible. Widen the sidewalks, plant more street trees, convert some underused office towers into apartments, encourage property owners to renovate their façades. Some of those office building plazas could host Portland-style food cart clusters and beer gardens too.