Urban Sprawl: Which Canadian City has the Most Urban Sprawl 2016-2021?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 жов 2024
- Hi Everyone, in this video we will discuss Urban Sprawl. Including, what it is, its potential drawbacks and how we usually measure it,
We will also discuss the top 5 most sprawling cities in Canada.
Hope you all enjoy the video!
Cheers,
Link to the study referenced in the video:
locallogic.co/...
Follow me for more Geography Content!
Follow my second UA-cam channel:
/ @urbanatlastours
Instagram:
/ urban_atlas_quest
Tiktok:
/ terra_metropolis
Disclaimer:
None of the images used in this video belong to me. All images are the property of their respective owners. I do not claim ownership of any of the images used in this video. If you are the rightful owner of any image and wish for it to be removed or properly credited, please contact me and I will promptly take appropriate action. All images are Creative Commons Licensed
Attribution:
All Maps and Satellite Imagery Sourced from Google Earth Pro 2024.
Stock Video Provided by Envato Elements
Urban Sprawl -- Los Angeles, ATIS547, creativecommon...
Toronto Public Libraries and Population Density (2015), Jamaps, creativecommon...
Wikivoyage-style map of North Vancouver showing roads and points of interest. Map is equirectangular projection, N/S stretching 154%., Shaundd, creativecommon...
The City of TorontoFollow, Toronto: City Hall Council Chamber, creativecommon...
I live in Winnipeg. I had a feeling it would be number one. We love our stroads here. Hell, I live on one. Winnipeg's sprawliness is evident when you try traveling around.
I need to make a visit to Winnipeg for research purposes.
Being from Winnipeg, I was not surprised at all that it was number one. If you understand the growth patterns in the city, especially on the south side over the last few years, you know exactly why Winnipeg finished first.
I guessed the top 3. I am from the prairies and I have watched the farmland being swallowed up by the city over the past couple of decades. Places like Saskatoon have sprawl too but it likely is mitigated by infilling with duplexes and 4-plexes in older neighbourhoods and permitting secondary backyard suites. There are a couple of new ones just down the street from me.
Been in Toronto since 2016.. from Winnipeg. Sprawl isnt a problem in Winnipeg. Everything is a problem in Toronto.
Lets face it. Winnipeg is a difficult place to live without a car because of Winter.
Yea that is def a factor in transit usage, but I still think the city could benefit from more controlled sprawl.
I live in Winnipeg and actually use my car less in the Winter. I don't have snow tires, and most of the time I don't feel like digging the car out from under the snow or dealing with the iced-up windows. I live downtown so I can get away with walking or taking the bus to the university, but crime is making me consider moving to the suburbs for a more car-centric existence. Kinda sad but that's how it is. Live where you can walk but deal with the increasing crime and drug addiction, or isolate yourself in your car like most people.
@PeterLindstrom-x4w I been riding bicycles like it's the best thing ever since leaving that winter Hell... car insurance in MB isn't the scheme.. it's the license.. it's $80 here for 5 years... they don't talk about that shit.. I can't afford to drive here still but for other reasons than insurance costs
@@PeterLindstrom-x4w Crime is also moving to the suburbs. And even the cars get hit by the criminals.
Living in Winnipeg without a car, even in the winter, is easy if you live in a central neighbourhood. However living in the suburbs without a car, at any time of year, is not.
It’s slowly happening in Winnipeg and been noticing it.
I think Edmonton is deceiving as most of the streets it added on were industrial, whilst it had added more sprawl sure, it has added some of the most densification of any Canadian city
Yes, this analysis isn’t perfect, it doesn’t take into account land use on the roads built. I have seen the recent zoning implementations regarding density in Edmonton, which is a great step by the Albertan city!
Taxpayers still have to pay for the infrastructure. And Edmonton was already so car-dependent/sprawling to begin with that we just can't afford any more streets. (A fair amount of what's in industrial areas doesn't need to be in industrial areas, but as long as most people have cars they find it cheaper to be there. I mean, I've visited yarn stores, fabric stores, and restaurants in industrial areas where the bus service can be pretty awful.)
Gut says Calgary but the thumbnail makes me think Winnipeg.
Haha I immediately thought Edmonton, but I'm with you on the thumbnail.
Our population in the last 3 years has had an even more mass influx. Bringing in more people than we can handle
Was there an annexation or something in that time? I find it hard to believe we built 1000km of road during this window
Check out the study, link is in the description, it shows the geographical location of all the new roads built during this time period!
@@Urban_Atlas I see that they counted a bunch of roads that only got re-paved, not even widened. I don't see the same issue with the other cities compared here so I don't think this is a real apples to apples comparison
@@GregOughton ahh I see, I wonder how many Kms were repaved vs. How many Kms were newly built, that would give us a more definitive answer, I appreciate you doing the further research!
Living in the Transcona area, it sure feels like they added that amount 😂
The neighborhood pop went from 36k in 2016 to 43k in 2021. Won't be surprised if it's 50k soon with all the new development.
Only thing stopping it going above that is the floodway to the east.
The Greater Vancouver area, is hemmed in by Mountains, Borders and water.... we have to go up or down....because eventually there will be no other option without removing Farmland and other greenspace.
"20 to 40 story towers"....... Vancouver "Hold my beer" . I have 6 50 story towers being planned or built in my neighbourhood alone.
Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg..... not surprised at all!
Lol 😂 yea I know what you mean. Seeing similar types of builds occurring here in Toronto, Mississauga, Vaughan, Waterloo, Hamilton etc.
@@Urban_Atlas they just approved an 80 down the road from me.
@@NeilABliss jeeezzz. I thought they didn’t want to obstruct mountain views in Vancouver? Or is this outside the city and not impacting the mountain views.
@@Urban_Atlas Ontario is such a strange place, why are yall doing this to yourself. You have so much land there.
I live in Calgary. Since 2021 the province finally completed the ring road which began some 15 years ago. Recently the city changed all R-1 zoning (single family to R-2. You can still object to your neighbour adding a laneway house or basement suite but you have to prove your point which is not easy anymore. As well, Alberta change the maximum height for wood framed structures to 6 storeys instead of 4. Calgary has been on a densification drive for the last 15 years or so. One of the issues Calgary can’t control is the growth of outlying communities which have grown by more people than the city has. Calgary has more people/sq.km. than the other prairie cities. You also expect prairie cities to be more spread out than others due to lower land values. I’m glad to see the city and province being very proactive these days.
Yea London and Ottawa/Gatineau also have no geographical barriers, which also makes them more prone to sprawl. The change in zoning to great to hear. It’s nice to see that Calgary is on board with the gentle intensification and increase density. Love the change to R2 zoning. Yea of course the outlying communities are a different story but it’s nice to her about the changes happening in the city, well done city council 👍
Support densification but not high rise or concrete or wood construction. And not building trains is going to prove to be a poorly thought through and expensive decision/mistake. People should also be incentivized to live in smaller communities. There is also a price to density.
What do you propose building with, if not concrete or wood? Those are the most common building materials in N. America. You need density, and mixed use, if you are to avoid car dependency.
I at first guessed Toronto. But I don't feel alone for believing that Winnipeg is the most sprawling city in Canada. I feel like Urban sprawl there is so much of an issue that I feel like we have a hard time maintaining our existing infrastructure
Did the study include CMA or just city proper? The reason I ask is because I would think the GTA probably grew the most, and that some areas are not very dense, but wouldn't be considered Toronto proper.
The other thing to note is that the study also may take into consideration the ability for existing areas to absorb more population upwards in 2016 and immediately after. For instance if the area around False Creek in Vancouver is already set up for more population to grow upwards then it's at an advantage.
Finally, cities with extensive train lines, and just as importantly, zoning laws that allow for higher density along these lines, will be at an advantage.
In this respect it makes sense why the top 3 in this video are not the top 3 biggest metro areas in the country.. all of which had high growth during the same period.
It doesn't negate the study entirely, but confirms how the cities listed in this study can move toward growth responsibly.
As a resident of Winnipeg I can confirm it's true. Winnipeg has literally zero urbanization. It used to be not that bad, but now living in Winnipeg is a nightmare.
Winnipeg may be on a sprawling trajectory based on these numbers from 2016-2021, but in terms of overall sprawliness it's actually number 2 in Canada behind Edmonton in pure terms of people per square kilometre.
Winnipeg has essentially the same population as Quebec City, and together they are the only two "big" Canadian cities without any form of rapid transit. But I think the core of Quebec City is more compact and they're also planning a tramway. Which leaves Winnipeg on its own as the large Canadian city with the fewest viable alternatives to driving and probably the least amount of money to be recklessly spending on roads and sprawl. In a Strong Towns video from a year or so ago they mentioned a study suggesting that Winnipeg would have to double its property taxes in the medium term just to maintain the massive amount of roadway it has relative to its population. Like it was so bad that in a general video mostly about the states they took a moment to specifically call out Winnipeg 😅
Amusingly, in 1959 Winnipeg hired Norman Wilson of the Toronto Subway to design the Winnipeg Subway. You can still find the plan online but in the end civic leaders changed their mind and decided to go all-in on car dependency, as was the style at the time 🫠
You should have used a different measuring stick. The most sprawling city is the one with the lowest population density or the lowest number of people per square kilometer. I suspect Edmonton would be near the top of the list along with Calgary.
Yea I could have used a different study, but to me a huge part of sprawl is how car dependent a city has become, a huge part of that is an increase in the road network/population increase hence why I chose this study, but as all studies do this one isn’t perfect.
One would’ve thought Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver would be among the top-five most sprawling cities in Canada but apparently not. That said, would it be nice if there were more lowrise buildings. For a bit over 12 months, I lived in a seven-story apartment building before moving to 1 that was quite a bit taller.
They sprawl too but keep in mind their population has also increased quite a bit so their “metres of new road per person” will be lower because the population gain is on higher end if that makes sense.
Im from Gatineau and not surprised, the city is huge!
I was surprised how much it’s grown during the last census!
Metro Vancouver is not one city but the sprawl has increased in the last 25 years. Car ridership has not changed where about 75% of all trips are made by cars.
"MeTrO vAnCoUvEr Is NoT oNe CiTy"
Actually the perception of densification = high rises is more of a Canadian perception than a general North American perception. In the US, they are following the more European style model of low rise development. In Canada we seem to be more drawn to the Asian model of high rises (as are Australia and New Zealand).
It’s actually interesting that you mention this, I have noticed the European model in many of east coast cities but when I travelled to the Midwest and southern cities I noticed the opposite, downtown core was dense and then just endless sprawl. I guess it depends on which part of the US. Thank you 🙏
This is so true, and tbh a bad for Canada. Most of the density advocates are pointing to Mid density buildings like Europe (which is good), yet we get high rises, people hate high rises and only tolerate them because of our housing crisis.
If we ever lower immigration and hope to have affordable housing these condo towers would be underwater, we can see the glimpse of this in Toronto already.
I live in Winnipeg and I don't want to hear my neighbor breathe, I already can smell him smoking weed. Suburbanisation is not an evil thing, people have choices, don't need the government mandating how we live.
And that’s not a problem, people who want to live in a detached property, with a larger lot should have the option to, most planners advocate for more choice, a nice mix of condos, towns, duplex, triplex, row homes, high rise, mid rise, low rise, etc. and not just one type or housing dominating the city.
That's rough for #1. The city on the list that can least afford it, too. Not surprised that it's mostly prairie cities though, since there aren't many geographical limitations like you see in Victoria or something.
Yea thts def a factor in the sprawl but having no barriers doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be some gentle increase in density.
@@Urban_Atlas There should be a HUGE push for density in Winnipeg where the infrastructure already exists. The city is decades behind on infrastructure maintenance, and absolutely cannot afford the suburban pyramid scheme anymore. It seems to be worse every time I pass through there. Zoning changes like Edmonton has implemented could go a long way to making the most of existing roads/transit, and simultaneously increasing the tax base from which they can pay for much-needed maintenance/improvements.
Inner city Winnipeg is pretty dense but Winnipeg in particular has struggled a lot with inner-city blight, it's up there with cities like St. Louis or Detroit in that regard.
One of the problems I see with Winnipeg (I live here) is the loss of agricultural land due to the sprawl.
@@nancyrafnson4780 and that’s a huge factor, this has been heavily documented in the Toronto and Vancouver metro areas, we have poured concrete over the the best and most productive farmland in Canada in the name of urban sprawl.
is thiS new roads or also rebuilt roads as winnipeg has been rebuilding many streets that are 100yr old? just trying to understand that data
New roads only.
@@Urban_Atlas didnt think wpg grew that much damn
It is an amazing add in my knowledge. Due to very swear temp in winter I would not consider Winnipeg.
Yes it gets quite cold!
There is no shortage of land on the Canadian prairies. That includes Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton and Calgary. Plenty of room for everyone.
It's not a question of land shortage, of which there is none in 99% of Canada. Even if you ignore the environmental and health issues caused by car-dependency, it's simply an economically inefficient way to organize a city. The more stuff is spread out, the more you have to spend per person on expensive infrastructure. It's easy to build lots of roads, but it's expensive to maintain them all.
A study came out a couple of years ago suggesting Winnipeg will be unable to afford to maintain all of its roads and other sprawling infrastructure without doubling property taxes in the medium term. A perfect storm of being one of the most sprawling cities in Canada (it's actually number 2 behind Edmonton if you look at population density per square kilometre), while also being the big Canadian city with the least money and fewest viable alternatives to driving.
This is really interesting
Thanks man!
Western Canada for the win! I get why... Wide open prairie to turn from grass and parklands into housing and industrial estates... Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg? Of course!
Yea no surprises there 😅! Btw least sprawling from all the cities measured was Montreal!
Winnipeg has the worst of both worlds. No rail public transit but no freeways either.
😳😳😳
Thats true but the downtown is dead and commuter traffic is low, the city has job centres further out and linked to the highways. Winnipeg for a city of its size has low traffic because of it.
@@4mulatorza858 The beltway highway having stoplights is pretty pathetic though. It's the Trans Canada Highway, so it should be held to a higher standard.
@@AbstractEntityJ the trans Canada portion(southern half) only has one light and they are working on removing it. I would prefer a freeway, but its not a big deal since traffic is light.
@@4mulatorza858 Not when I was on it. There was plenty of traffic.
What is the least sprawling city?
From all the cities that were measured in this study Montreal was the least sprawling.
@@Urban_Atlas I'm a bit surprised given that the metro area has a population of 4.2 million and that is because of immigrants settling into the region rather than any increase of birthrate which one of the lowest in the world. Keep in mind Montreal has a large amount of its population living in rented spaces rather than single family houses compared to other cities. There is also neighbourhoods like Griffintown which was once where low income working class families lived and worked. Since the 1990s Griffintown is hardly recoginizable anymore with all the new high rise condos being built over areas where factories once occuppied so increasing population density is not always good thing as old neighbourhoods get gentrified.
Urban sprawl only matters if you have a lot of commuting happening by residents. Remote work for office jobs drastically reduces the impact of this. Then people only need to drive or travel for leisure or to purchase food/stuff they need. The people who do need to travel to work other than that are going to mostly be in the medical field, service field, or trades. Most of these fields live fairly close to their place of work, since they are needed everywhere, not just in urban centres.
(Please don't become one of those channels entirely focused on trashing car-centric design)
I understand the benefits of more human centric design and the potential benefits of car centric design. My stance is that commuting shouldn’t be limited to ONLY cars, there should be a nice mix of commuting options available.
I have a car and I love driving myself, but I also like that I can bike to places. I’m in no way an extremist in terms of one of the other. I won’t become one of those channels that constantly bashes car (although that is what they teach in urban planning school).
It adds cost to public services that move through the community like police, fire, garbage pick ups
This is true in Winnipeg, I don't commute to downtown but a commercial area close to the edge of the city, so I can live in a small town 30 minutes outside of Winnipeg, yet I would be included in the metro area.
Check out the film ‘Radiant City’ mockumentary about urban sprawl on Calgary, oldish but good
Bro don’t show us dead birds.
My bad bro. 🙏
Thunder bay
I would guess a city in Alberta
Very close!
What a horrible conclusion.
1. The delta, or change, says nothing when you don't know the starting condition. Maybe one city had too few roads and terrible congestion.
2. The "limiting urban sprawl" is what gave us the enormously over inflated house prices in the first place. Achieving one goal gas a cost of other goals.
Finally, people aren't widgets to be warehoused in tiny, tightly packed boxes for the convenience of .. exactly what again?
People need space to live their varied and interesting lives. Children especially need place to run and play.
People forget that the highest order of need is quality of life, not maximum density.
Too many people, without lives, trying to say how others should all live. Other people are out living. To live well, having a car really help.
You can criticize the study, like every study it’s not perfect, it has flaws.
But saying limiting Urban Sprawl gave us expensive housing prices is wrong, that’s caused by foreign investors, low housing supply (a better mix of housing options will fix that), mass immigration etc.
No one is asking you to live anywhere, people should be able to live wherever they want, condos work really well for young single, people, or people who don’t like the upkeep associated with a larger detached property.
The point is that people should have a better mix of housing option.
Urban sprawl is expensive to maintain, bad for your health, causes more traffic, waste your precious time, worse for the environment, there are numerous reasons why it’s problematic.
You are assuming everyone with kids just wants to live in suburbia, that’s not really the case. Some may want that, while others don’t, and if you plan your cities correctly cars wouldn’t be a necessity. There are litterally hundred of studies of the impact of urban design on your mental and physical health, I advise you read them to learn more.
You sound angry, man: "Too many people, without lives, trying to say how others should all live." Maybe you should be out living more and spend less time on UA-cam.
Higher population densities make providing public services and utilities more viable, as the costs are spread out among more people. And mixed use allows commercial, work, educational, and recreational options within a walking distance of residences. Cars are expensive, bad for the environment, and dangerous. Driving is a privilege, which is not possible for everyone. For those who can't drive, living in the suburbs is like being imprisoned in your own home. No one is proposing banning driving, just making life easier for those who can't or choose not to drive.