News   Apr 26, 2024
Sustainability Month: ReHousing — A Multiplex How-To Guide Explores What’s Possible in the Yellowbelt
 1.6K     4 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Mattamy's Soleil and Mile & Creek Condos in Milton’s Flourishing Landscape
 352     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Galleria on the Park Soon to Welcome First Residents of Masterplanned Community
 914     1 

Planned Sprawl in the GTA

Looking at the CMHC stats on housing starts by municipality, ex
https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/corp/nero/nere/2015/2015-12-08-0816b.cfm

Looks like the fastest growing communities in the Toronto CMA are all in the exurbs. I'd estimate these communities to all experience 30-40% growth between 2011 and 2016
-New Tecumseth
-Bradford-West Gwilimbury
-Mono
-King
-East Gwilimbury
^These communities were all growing at much more moderate rates from 2006-2011.

My estimates for annual pop growth for 06-11 vs 11-16
Stouffville: decrease from 2600 to 1200
Ajax: decrease from 3800 to 1800
Milton: decrease from 6100 to 3800
Mississauga: decrease from 9000 to 3800
Vaughan: decrease from 9900 to 6000
Markham: decrease from 8000 to 7000
Brampton: decrease from 18000 to 15600
Toronto: increase from 22400 to 30800
Richmond Hill: increase from 4600 to 5100
Oakville: increase from 3400 to 4600
Aurora: increase from 1100 to 3000
Pickering: increase from 200 to 1100

So far, things are still pointing towards Toronto and the northern exurbs (Mono, Orangeville, New Tecumseth, Bradford) exceeding Places to Grow growth projections, with Durham falling short by a lot, and Halton falling short by a more moderate amount.
 
I think the low rate of growth for blue collar jobs, with most of the job growth being white collar (or service sector) is a factor here. Durham, Milton, Brampton and Vaughan still have rather few white collar jobs and are more blue collar employment centres/bedroom communities. About 80% of office space absorption for 2011-2015 has been in the City of Toronto, compared to about 50% of office space being downtown and 75% in Toronto with just 25% in the 905. The leapfrogging of growth north of the Greenbelt is probably a combination of the result of southern York Region running low on room and the opening of the 404 extension.

If you think of office and manufacturing jobs as "globally oriented", producing goods and services that can be sold more or less anywhere, and service sector, some of the public sector employment (with exceptions like universities), construction/renovation and maybe warehousing and transportation as being more consumption and locally oriented, then it's possible a significant majority of the "globally oriented" employment growth in the GTA has been in downtown. And the main reason other areas would be experiencing growth is people moving to the suburbs while working downtown, leading to the creating of suburban jobs in shopping centres, schools, construction...

In theory though, up to 80% of GTA's population growth might "want to be" in Toronto, and the only reason it's going elsewhere is elsewhere has more space.

Implications - the GTA needs either:
-substantial improvements in transit between the suburbs and downtown
-much more housing in central Toronto (and in that case much more transit capacity in central Toronto)
-->including more options for families and seniors in central Toronto, with more intimate housing (than 500 unit condo towers on busy streets), and better public spaces
-help support new office employment nodes outside downtown closer to where suburban population growth is happening
-make it more practical for wealth to circulate around the suburban economy... multi-national chain stores are not the best for that

And at this rate, you have to wonder if Downtown will run out of space for new offices and Toronto needs to think about secondary nodes a little outside downtown that are still accessible to most of the GTA, whether that's the Unilever Lands, Midtown or Bloor-Dundas.
 
Last edited:
A moderate increase in population in Central Toronto could warrant a significant increase in rapid transit.

Lets say that the road network and transit network are both near capacity, and the potential to increase capacity for the road and surface transit network is relatively limited and potential for capacity increases is mostly just in the form of rapid transit (subway, RER, maybe LRT in some cases), as well as active transportation.

Lets say right now you have 2 million trips made in central Toronto. 50% of trips are driving, 15% bus/streetcar, 25% subway/GO, 10% walk/bike.
Driving: 1,000,000
Bus/Streetcar: 300,000
Subway/GO: 500,000
Walk/bike: 200,000

Then, that increases to 3 million trips made, it might have to look something like this
Driving: 1,000,000
Bus/Streetcar: 350,000
Subway/GO: 1,300,000
Walk/bike: 350,000

50% increase in trips made means you have to expand rapid transit by 160%? So better get going on the DRL and RER projects because maybe in 1-2 decades Toronto will need a 2nd DRL, extensions of all the subway lines and LRT lines on half the suburban arterials.:p
 
WislaHD said:
Interest groups in this province are moving in directions and it seems like the direction this time is to rip up the Greenbelt Act under Premier Patrick Brown.
Click to expand...
Yeah....huge sigh...and the awful aspect of this is that it might be advisable *to some extent* but not in the hands of Patricide. Wynne really hasn't helped the cause by bungling on top of fumbling.

A campaign to overturn the Places to Grow Act is unmistakable, and well financed. Ironically, Keesmaat's musing on Toronto taking Wynne et al before the OMB to hold QP to it carries a lot more weight than just road tolls. This might end-up being John Tory vs. Patrick Brown. See the John Tory string for more details.
 
steveintoronto said:
A campaign to overturn the Places to Grow Act is unmistakable, and well financed. Ironically, Keesmaat's musing on Toronto taking Wynne et al before the OMB to hold QP to it carries a lot more weight than just road tolls. This might end-up being John Tory vs. Patrick Brown. See the John Tory string for more details.
Click to expand...

Really hope the Liberals can put in some restrictions to safeguard the Greenbelt.

TVO paints a rosy picture- though the real clincher is Queens Park:

http://tvo.org/article/current-affa...e-old-can-everyone-calm-down-about-it-already

It reassures us that the Tories 'won't do it because it's unpopular', but then again the Tories did cancel some transit lines in the 90s which were already under construction.

How would the greenbelt be removed though? Just a vote in the Provincial Legislature?
 
jje1000 said:
How would the greenbelt be removed though? Just a vote in the Provincial Legislature?
Click to expand...
Depending on the wording of the Act, it might just take an order in council...virtually the Min of Muni and Housing dictating it. The point being that it is precarious. Beyond that, it appears, contrary to Min's own wording, and all sense of rule of law, the province can pretty much do as it wants, legislation be damned.

I'll see if I can delve the legalities later and post.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps another way to counter the developers' anti-Greenbelt campaign is to approach the Greenbelt primarily not from an ecological viewpoint (most conservatives would roll their eyes at that since qualitative elements are hard to prove with solid numbers), but rather from a economic/food security viewpoint- what billions does the Greenbelt contribute to the economy?

Developers are trying to link high housing prices with the Greenbelt- articles that explain that it's actually a shortage of serviced land vs actual developable land are great- but we need more.
 
Canada's suburbs must rethink development to prepare for aging population

From link.

With Canada’s population aging rapidly, municipalities must refocus their community planning efforts to deal with the impact of decades-old car-dependent suburban sprawl that leaves less-mobile seniors isolated, says a new publication from the Institute for Research on Public Policy.

Today seniors prefer to “age at home,” but most older residents who do wish to stay in their own neighbourhoods have limited housing options, says author Glenn Miller (a senior associate with the Canadian Urban Institute in Toronto). “It is fair to say that our current suburbs are no place to grow old.”

Miller notes that although more than 500 Canadian municipalities have declared their intention to become “age friendly,” this movement has led only to minor physical improvements, such as more park benches, better lighting or clearer signage. No municipalities have yet taken the basic step of amending their land-use plans to reflect that commitment.

According to the author, amending provincial planning policies to make age-friendly planning a municipal priority would complement other provincial policies favouring compact, walkable development and promoting aging at home. It would also nudge municipalities to take concrete steps to integrate the age-friendly-communities concept in their planning and development- review processes.

Departments of public health are becoming increasingly vocal about the connection between healthy aging and the built environment, he says. “A key goal of age-friendly development is to provide housing options that work for people at all stages of their lives – attractive neighbourhoods that encourage walking and easy access to essential amenities.”

Miller concludes that as the number of elderly seniors continues to grow, collaboration across provincial and municipal initiatives will be the key to successfully adapting suburbs and transportation networks to meet the needs of Canada’s aging population.

No Place to Grow Old: How Canadian Suburbs Can Become Age Friendly, by Glenn Miller, can be downloaded from the Institute’s website (irpp.org).
Click to expand...

infographic-no-place-to-grow-old-outline.png
 
narduch said:
I'm sure this will end up being one of the most important issues in the next provincial election.
Click to expand...
It's certainly manifest in many ways just below the surface now. Whether it "erupts" or not remains to be seen, I'm not too sure any party wants to stake a position on this without having it fully researched. Brown can barely tie his laces, and Wynne wears them on the other foot.

Imagine if they both could only walk? Meantime the developers manipulate both sock-puppets to say what their donations tell them to.

Edit to Add: Make no mistake, I'm a Centrist, a pox on Horwath's union paid house too. Three's a party when it comes to trashing Nature.

That being said. Bonnie Crombie seems to be making a lot of sense, even if by default at this point.
 
Last edited:
I doubt it will be a leading issue like hydro- though Ontarians generally like the Greenbelt.

However, if the Liberals are smart, they'll use it as one of their prongs of attack against the Conservatives (Patrick Brown wants to pave over the Oak Ridges Moraine!)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top