Canada's Densest Neighbourhoods (2011 data)

[greenleaf]

Thanks for sharing all this s&m!

 

[TrickyRicky]

Sorry doady, I didn't mean to point out your quote to single you out for anything you did wrong. I just find the idea of density is good a common assumption on this forum and it was evident in how you said what you did. I think a simple test for is density good? Is how do the residents feel about their area. Are they saying "I love this place, this is the place I choose to live" or are they saying "get me the heck out of here, if I could move I would". I think dense areas are all over the map on this continuum. I still have a slight "density is good" bias but not as much as when I was younger. I experienced hyper density for myself on several trips to asia and I can say that walking down a noisy, polluted, traffic and pedestrian clogged street when it is 38 degrees out does wonders to temper your enthusiasm for density

 

[doady]

Sorry doady, I didn't mean to point out your quote to single you out for anything you did wrong. I just find the idea of density is good a common assumption on this forum and it was evident in how you said what you did. I think a simple test for is density good? Is how do the residents feel about their area. Are they saying "I love this place, this is the place I choose to live" or are they saying "get me the heck out of here, if I could move I would". I think dense areas are all over the map on this continuum. I still have a slight "density is good" bias but not as much as when I was younger. I experienced hyper density for myself on several trips to asia and I can say that walking down a noisy, polluted, traffic and pedestrian clogged street when it is 38 degrees out does wonders to temper your enthusiasm for density

Well I do think density is good, but I wasn't trying to make it a competition or something... I was just trying to say population density is not an accurate measure of density comparing between neighbourhoods. Population density is good for comparing between urban areas.

If we talk about merits of density, of course there are drawbacks too, I can understand there is a limit. I actually prefer mid-rise neighbourhoods myself. Like Montreal, they build more mid-rise apartments instead of high-rise. The "plexes" there have no elevators too, it's all just walk-up. That's more sustainable, less electricity consumption, and the streets look nicer. I would actually like to see the GTA build less high-rises. Mid-rise apartments are best. (I guess it's not even really a matter of density because Montreal's density is similar to Toronto's, if not higher).

But I think when people call for high density, they actually mean places like Mississauga, Brampton, etc. not Toronto. I don't think anyone thinks Toronto's density is not enough.

 

[ehlow]

I read a book called Happy City which concluded that a certain level of density is optimal for many people, and that level of density is roughly what you'd find in Montreal's Plateau neighbourhood or "streetcar suburbs", places developed along streetcar lines in the early 1900's, like the Annex or the Danforth in Toronto.

Of course everyone's different and there are people who love the hyper-density of Hong Kong or the very low density of sprawling suburbs.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Very cool indeed. I can't believe the level of detail in the census tract information, although some of the smaller numbers appear to be rounded to the nearest 5 (unless there are exactly 5 single male parent households with 2 kids in my census tract).

Apparently my East Danforth neighbourhood (Danforth/Milverton/Coxwell/Woodbine) has 2,792 residents, 1,078 occupied private dwellings, zero apartments over 5 stories, yet a population density of 7,589 p/sq2. That doesn't even include the two apartment buildings on Woodbine, technically a different census tract. I'd say that's pretty dense considering almost all buildings are freehold with 2-3 stories.

 

[ehlow]

Very cool indeed. I can't believe the level of detail in the census tract information, although some of the smaller numbers appear to be rounded to the nearest 5 (unless there are exactly 5 single male parent households with 2 kids in my census tract).

Apparently my East Danforth neighbourhood (Danforth/Milverton/Coxwell/Woodbine) has 2,792 residents, 1,078 occupied private dwellings, zero apartments over 5 stories, yet a population density of 7,589 p/sq2. That doesn't even include the two apartment buildings on Woodbine, technically a different census tract. I'd say that's pretty dense considering almost all buildings are freehold with 2-3 stories.

Yeah people forget that houses that are smaller and packed together closer can be much denser than post-war suburbs. 3-5 story early 1900's apartment buildings can be dense too. It's not just about height, much of Toronto is low or mid-rise but still fairly dense, and the Danforth is a good example.

 

[Memph]

Yeah people forget that houses that are smaller and packed together closer can be much denser than post-war suburbs. 3-5 story early 1900's apartment buildings can be dense too. It's not just about height, much of Toronto is low or mid-rise but still fairly dense, and the Danforth is a good example.

Parts of Miliken, Mississauga, and Brampton get to those kinds of densities (7000+ p/km2) in some lowrise census tracts too though. They're mostly small lot post-war suburbia.

Brampton
Red River-Barleyfield-Steeplebush-Torbram-Bovaird-Sunny Meadow: 8,163 p/km2
Charolais-McLaughin-Steeles-Chingacousy: 7,891 p/km2
Mavis-407-McLaughlin-Hydro corridor: 7,821 p/km2 (densest city block is 150 p/ha)
Fletcher's Creek-Williams Pkwy-Chingacousy-Bovaird: 7,547 p/km2
Sandalwood-Bramalea-Bovaird-Sunny Meadow: 7,243 p/km2

Mississauga
Pickwick-Creditview-Britannia-Terry Fox Way: 7,733 p/km2
Winston Churchill-Tenth Line-Britannia-Thomas: 7,500 p/km2
Mavis-Bristol-McLaughlin-Eglinton: 7,312 p/km2

Markham
Elson-Middlefield-Steeles-McCowan: 8,762 p/km2
Elson-Middlefield-Denison-McCowan: 8,088 p/km2
Hillcroft-Steeles-Brimley-Denison: 7,717 p/km2

Scarborough
Withycombe-Midland-Steeles-Brimley: 7,534 p/km2
Morningside-Sewells-McLevin: 7,380 p/km2

 

[ehlow]

I'm not familiar with all those areas, but I personally see that a lot of post-war suburbia has tall 60's-70's style apartments, which I'm assuming increases their density.

Another possibility is that some of those houses in the suburbs have many people living in them, more than one family multi-generational families for example.

 

[Memph]

I'm not familiar with all those areas, but I personally see that a lot of post-war suburbia has tall 60's-70's style apartments, which I'm assuming increases their density.

Another possibility is that some of those houses in the suburbs have many people living in them, more than one family multi-generational families for example.

These are pretty much all classic 90s/00s housing, maybe a bit earlier (70s/80s) for Scarborough and Markham.

As for your second point, I'm a little tempted to say "so what?"...

After all, if you look at the older neighbourhoods of Toronto, there's plenty of row houses with multiple units stacked vertically, including plenty of basement apartments. In terms of built sf/person, I don't think the examples I listed have less than older neighbourhoods of Toronto, more like the average suburban neighbourhood has more sf/person.

I would say the main difference is more driveway space in the recent suburbs (i.e. bigger front setback), but this comes at the cost of less backyard space (they also lack back alleys/back garages).

The older post-war suburbs typically have large lots and smaller houses than the newer ones, so they're less dense. The suburbs you're likely to see in Toronto are more of the older post-WWII variety, as opposed to what you'd see in Vaughan, Brampton or Milton.

 

[ehlow]

These are pretty much all classic 90s/00s housing, maybe a bit earlier (70s/80s) for Scarborough and Markham.

As for your second point, I'm a little tempted to say "so what?"...

After all, if you look at the older neighbourhoods of Toronto, there's plenty of row houses with multiple units stacked vertically, including plenty of basement apartments. In terms of built sf/person, I don't think the examples I listed have less than older neighbourhoods of Toronto, more like the average suburban neighbourhood has more sf/person.

I would say the main difference is more driveway space in the recent suburbs (i.e. bigger front setback), but this comes at the cost of less backyard space (they also lack back alleys/back garages).

The older post-war suburbs typically have large lots and smaller houses than the newer ones, so they're less dense. The suburbs you're likely to see in Toronto are more of the older post-WWII variety, as opposed to what you'd see in Vaughan, Brampton or Milton.

Um, I have no real response to "so what?", I wasn't really trying to make any point, it was just a guess as to explain the density there.

My original point was just that houses that are smaller and closer together in smaller lots with smaller driveways, no garages and narrower roads seem like they would be more dense. To me, it seems like pre-war suburbia (streetcar suburbs like East York) would have those characteristics and post-war suburbia would be on bigger lots with garages with wider roads and big back yards & front yards.

I guess my assumptions are incorrect?

 

[Memph]

Um, I have no real response to "so what?", I wasn't really trying to make any point, it was just a guess as to explain the density there.

My original point was just that houses that are smaller and closer together in smaller lots with smaller driveways, no garages and narrower roads seem like they would be more dense. To me, it seems like pre-war suburbia (streetcar suburbs like East York) would have those characteristics and post-war suburbia would be on bigger lots with garages with wider roads and big back yards & front yards.

I guess my assumptions are incorrect?

Not quite correct at least.

In terms of size of lots, I'd say on average, it's something like

Inner Core: 1600-2000 sf
Streetcar suburbs: 3000 sf
WWII transition: 4000 sf
50s suburbs: 5000 sf
60s suburbs: 5500 sf
70s/80s suburbs: 4500 sf
90s/00s suburbs: 3500 sf

Inner Core is neighbourhoods like Cabbagetown, Little Portugal, Leslieville... mostly built in the 19th century. Streetcar suburbs would have been built mainly in the early 20th century, up to 1930 or so. WWII transition suburbs including neighbourhoods built during the 30s/40s like the Kingsway and Leaside, as well as neighbourhoods that started getting laid out in the 20s/30s/40s but weren't built out until the late 40s/early 50s like Willowdale, Clairlea and Alderwood.

1950s suburbs include some wealthy ones with very large lots like York Mills, and some more blue collar ones like Downsview with more mid sized lots. 1960s suburbs are neighbourhoods like Woburn, Rexdale and The Peanut (single family portions) that have relatively large lots regardless of wealth level.

And then I think what was going on is that 1970s/1980s suburbs were built in a time when congestion was starting to pick up, and development had essentially caught up to all the new land that was made available by the automobile. In the late 40s/early 50s, you were getting to the point where a car was affordable to the masses. That meant that land that was viable to develop wasn't just limitted to the area that could be reached by streetcars within a reasonable time (say 30min) but the area that could be reached by automobiles, which is much larger as these are faster. You didn't even really need highways, just a paved arterial road would do (first highways were more in the 60s). Toronto was basically swamped with a huge supply of greenfield land that was suddenly viable to develop, which meant cheap land and increasing lot sizes. By the 70s/80s though, Toronto had sprawled out to the point where most greenfield land was >30min drive from downtown, so greenfield land was more dependent on more expensive high speed highways (or GO trains), and on suburban employment centres to be viable to develop. Since there was still a lot of population growth, land values started to go up, and lot sizes started to go down. It's also around the 60s/70s that highrises started to be built en-masse, and in the 70s/80s that suburban townhouses were getting more common.

From this time on, land would get more expensive, and lot sizes would decrease. There's a fair bit of variation in terms of lot size for neighbourhoods from all of these time periods, but even though the earlier streetcar suburbs often had a bit smaller lots than 90s/00s development (some later ones like Long Branch did not, nor did Willowdale or SW Scarborough which were built along the radials and arguably also streetcar suburbs of sorts), the houses in the new developments are larger. This means the streetcar suburbs are more likely to appeal to smaller households, while the newer ones are more likely to appeal to families with several children, or with extended families living in the same house. Overall, I'd say the difference in household size is not as big as the difference in house size in the typical newly built suburban development, so somtimes the population density is a bit lower, even though I'd say the built density is similar if not higher. Several of the neighbourhoods I gave as examples mostly had occupants/house that were above the suburban average, either through basement apartments or bigger households, mainly those in Miliken and Brampton.

The ones in Mississauga, Miliken and Malvern have either a lot of townhouses or small lot houses, or less land dedicated to non-residential uses than the average for new suburbia. And new suburbia actually has more land dedicated to parks than streetcar suburbs imo, and definitely more than 19th century Toronto, although they're generally more underutilized. However, they also have more land dedicated to density commercial and light industrial uses, which are more low density than in streetcar suburb/19th century Toronto due to more space dedicated to cars, and industrial and retail uses being in single storey buildings.

 

[Memph]

By the way, I took a bunch of samples of Dissemination Areas (usually 1-3 city blocks, 300-1000 people) throughout the GTA to show how certain built forms translate in terms of density. This allows to remove the effect of parks, retail, etc, since the DAs I picked were largely (or entirely) residential.

Densest "classic" suburban DA vs densest "classic" 19th century Toronto DA I could find. The suburban one, in Brampton (near 407/McLaughlin) has an average of about 7 people per house (not hyperbole, I actually calculated the number), which appears to be achieved through a combination of basement apartments and large household sizes. The 19th century one is an unusually narrow city block next to Trinity Bellwoods Park.

I lost the Bellwoods image file, although you can see it here (too big to upload):
http://api.ning.com/files/J*jFKCPdo...X7w5ohpXSf5L7ZGawCN5XJgJlU/TorBellwoodsDA.png

These two, again, urban and suburban attached housing, and similar density. However, the suburban townhouses are placed further back on the lot, resulting in more driveway space and less backyard space (or no space for alley/alley garages). Townhouses are in Brampton (near Bovaird/McLaughlin) and the urban example is from Harbord Village.

Next is single family homes from near Bovaird/Chigacousy in Brampton, and then Vellore in Vaughan, which has more average suburban household sizes as opposed to Brampton. The first urban example of a similar density is from Riverdale, the second from East York.

Going lower density still, the suburban example is from Markham (near Ninth Line/16th Ave), and the urban (although older suburban might be more appropriate) example is from Leaside.

Then you have an example from next to Toogood Pond in Markham, and from Forest Hill. The suburban example is pretty typical of the lower end of typical 1960s development densities.

Forest Hill is the least dense of the pre-WWII neighbourhoods of Toronto. So next are some very low density suburban examples. First one's from Southeast Oakville, mainly 1960s vintage with several new re-builds. Even among 1960s vintage neighbourhoods though, such low densities are fairly uncommon in the GTA. And then you've got some basically exurban style development from Markham, again very rare within the GTA.

Edit: Didn't realize urbantoronto's max image size would be an issue...

Values are in people per square mile, since I originally created this for an American blog, so divide by 2.59 to get the /km2 value (or 259 for /ha). I have more examples, including some from Montreal, and highrises from Toronto here:
http://www.strongtowns.net/forum/topics/visualizing-density?id=6428311:Topic:16760&page=1#comments

I was surprised at the difference between St Michel and St Leonard given the similar housing type. Although aside from likely household size differences, St Leonard also has more gaps between the plexes, wider streets, and possibly greater front setbacks. I was also surprised at how dense some of the denser lowrise blocks of Montreal were compared to Toronto towers in the park, although Toronto's denser highrise forms are still a fair bit denser.

 

[diminutive]

I would say the main difference is more driveway space in the recent suburbs (i.e. bigger front setback), but this comes at the cost of less backyard space (they also lack back alleys/back garages).

Why would developers choose to dedicate more space to front setbacks and driveways? This space seems functionally useless. Larger backyards, larger houses or smaller lots (and, overall, more density) seem like better uses of space.

 

[Silence&Motion]

Thanks for posting those illustrations, Memph. It's a great look at the various ways in which density is achieved.

It also points to one of the weaknesses of using really small geographic measures like DAs or CTs. The suburbs have these islands of density in a sea of non-density, whereas in urban neighbourhoods the density is better spread out.

It really illustrates how poorly planned the suburbs are. They're packing in downtown-levels of density into these subdivisions that only have a single, car-dependent exit. No wonder it's a nightmare to get around the suburbs.

 

[ehlow]

That was very interesting, thanks Memph.

I'm very surprised that a neighbourhood like Trinity Bellwoods is similar in density to a Brampton suburban neighbourhood. I guess the big driveways & garages tend to give that impression vs the older neighbourhoods being closer to the street.

This may be off-topic, but in all the comparisons you made of pre-war vs post-war neighbourhoods, it's striking how much better the pre-war neighbourhoods look aesthetically, to me at least.