The population changes you see in Montreal aren't hollowing out or dehumanization. They are simply smaller families living in the same dwellings. In some cases converting duplexes into single-family dwellings. It's not like you have the vacant properties you see in many US cities. You see similar trends in some Toronto neighbourhoods as well - but not as pronounced, as I don't think families here were ever quite as large or the density as high. You also see more infill densification in Toronto - and in that way Toronto may well be doing better - but it's not Montreal hollowing out. You also don't have as much urban sprawal in Montreal as you do in Toronto; you certainly have it in Montreal, but not as bad as Toronto ... and no where near like US cities. In both Toronto and Montreal it's primarily driven by population growth - not deurbanization.
Shrinking families is part of the reason for the de-population of the core, but a 50% drop in some neighbourhoods is huge. I agree that Toronto has more sprawl, but would say that if Montreal had the same population and population growth as we do then it would sprawl more than us. There definitely is a trend of suburbanization, as seen by
this griping, and Montreal doesn't have the massive growth in the core to balance it out. I agree that sprawl in Canadian cities is because of growth more than displacement from the core, unlike the situation in many American cities.
The GTA has a lot of things that auger well for a less sprawl-y future than Montreal. The greenbelt, the Big Move, and Places to Grow don't have Quebec equivalents (please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not aware of any). Quebec is still building highways, like the autoroute 19 extension. Quebec city has the most highway kilometers per capita in the country, and outside of postcard-perfect Old-Quebec, the city is mostly sprawl.
True ... and we've had a lot more post-war planning controls in the areas surrounding Toronto and Montreal, which don't exist in many US cities. Many of US cities that have done the best, are geographically-constrained (rather than planning-constrained).
Which sort of planning controls? I'm curious, because it seems like until recently the policy in Ontario was to maximize sprawl. I think we mostly have just had fewer highways built than in the US.
I thought it was a bit weak too, more of a reverse-causation thing. But I do notice a cultural difference. I have american friends who own multiple cars, who think it's crazy to try to go places on foot, cab rather than take the subway etc. Meanwhile, many of my Canadian friends don't even have drivers licenses and they're in their mid-to-late 20s. This attitude is probably a result of the built form, not the cause of it. Really I just think that the US was wealthier, so people people adopted cars earlier and had the concomitant changes in built form and the death of mass transit that comes with widespread personal vehicle ownership. Canada was just slow to jump on the bandwagon.
Look at the transit modal share of major Canadian cities compared to American cities of similar size. The Canadians have significantly higher share. 2 of the top 5 most used rapid transit systems in North America are in Canada, even though canada represents only 7% of the continent's population.
It's actually impressive how different
transit mode shares are in Canada compared to other new-world anglosphere countries.
Very true. Even in the US, the cities held up as champions of urban vitality (e.g. Seattle, Portland, San Fran, Minneapolis) never had the African American population and resulting issues around white-flight.
Toronto's downtown also benefited from some seemingly random, or at least unplanned, developments.
1.) Downtown has several post secondary institutions (UofT, Ryerson, OCAD, GBC). These bring tons of people into downtown every day. In most US states, much more of this happens in college towns. Those towns, not surprisingly, happen to have lots of the livability that Toronto prides itself on.
+1
2.) Big government presence. Most American states don't have their capital in their largest city. The net result is to put lots of high-paying, white collar jobs in smaller state capitals. Toronto's also a bit unique in that QP is actually a very large government by North American standards. Amongst sub-national governments, Ontario's probably just behind California, New York and Texas in terms of total spending and well ahead of similarly sized states like Ohio or Illinois.
Have you ever tried naming US state capitals? They pick the strangest cities. Sometimes when I'm in the US I ask people what their state capital is and they can't tell me.
3.) The country's capital markets happen to be here, and for some reason that's one of the few industries where firms are willing to pay premium rents for central office space (transactional efficiencies from being close?). Not every city can have one and most of the activity in the US has been consolidated in Manhattan and Chicago.
And yet Chicago has all the sprawl and hollowing out. Companies have their offices in the core, but people drive from their Chicagoland suburbs to downtown in the morning and leave in the evening.
All agreed.
I think Waterfront Toronto know this and will either lobby the city hard for transit improvements or set development standards contingent to the relative level of transit access in the Don Lands.
Building our city's waterfront is a long-term plan. No need to rush things, that is how we got the Humber Bay mess in the first place.
I really wish Waterfront TO was given the mandate to deal with the Western part of the waterfront. That means deciding the future of Ontario place, the waterfront west LRT, Humber Bay. Would be great if they could give it the same kind of thoughtful design and treatment as they've been doing to the central waterfront.
I think we also need to talk about the elephant in the room. If they tear down the Gardiner from Jarvis to the DVP it opens the door to tearing it down from Strachan to Jarvis in the future, whether its replaced by a tunnel or boulevard. If they don't tear down the Gardiner from Jarvis to the DVP the city is committed to keeping the entire raised Gardiner for a long, long time. This upcoming decision will affect the whole core of the City for the next 50 years, not just the eastern bayfront.
I thought that the city already elected to do (and has been performing) long-term maintenance on the western gardiner, so we're stuck with that for the next couple decades.
