Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What do you think are the main differences between the Canadian style of urbanism and the American version? Is there a distinct difference?
I'm not talking about things like cleanliness, crime, and weather. But the actual cities themselves, are there fundamental differences in structure, function, and layout? If I were transported to say, downtown Toronto, would I be able to tell that I was in Canada? Or could it be mistaken for Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, etc. And I mean differences beyond currency, street signs, etc.
If you answered "yes" to the question in the poll, then do you think the difference between Canadian and U.S. urban cities (IE north/south divide) is greater than the east/west divide (transnational west coast east coast divide)? Simply put, does an urban Canadian city like Vancouver have more in common with other Canadian cities (Toronto, Montreal) or with urban western U.S. cities (namely San Francisco)?
Urban cities I am thinking about specifically: Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, New York, Boston, Washington, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Chicago, other urban cities as applicable.
EDIT: The end of the poll should read "American counterparts". It cut me off!
Canada's suburbs tend to be closer to the city than their American counterparts (and thus less sprawly and a smaller metro land area). I am very interested in Calgary and there are virtually no suburbs (and a missing freeway system).
Keep in mind Canada's total population is relatively equal to the State of California and many of their "major" cities would be considered "very small" cities in the United States. Canada doesn't have any megacities (Toronto would have to double to be the first) while the U.S. already has 3 and two candidates (S.F. and D.C./Baltimore).
I think one of the biggest differences appearance wise is that many historic city centers in Canada, dating from the colonial era, are built primarily of stone - Whereas the historic American city is primarily brick.
A few comments from a Canadian who has travelled extensively in the U.S. and abroad:
Most (but not all) of the older parts of Canadian cities tend to be quite similar to the older parts of American cities in neighbouring states.
However, in areas of the U.S. close to the border where there is significant urban blight or abandonment, generally the level of blight and abandonment across the border in Canada is nowhere near what you see in the States. Many Canadian cities have little or no blight or abandonment, although they do have poorer areas - but they are still inhabited by lots of people.
For example, Toronto and Detroit would be a lot more similar than most people realize if the Detroit urban catastrophe had not occurred. But the difference between the two cities is so stark no one dares compare them today.
Suburban areas built since the 80s in most of Canada tend to be denser than in the U.S., and there seems to have been an attempt at retaining at least some city-esque features in them. For example, although residential suburban streets in Canada often don't have sidewalks, most of the arterial roads do, in addition to bike lanes, bus service, etc. I find that many recent suburbs in the U.S. have no sidewalks or even curbs on their arterial roads. There is just the pavement, a narrow strip of grass and then the ditch. Most recent Canadian suburbs have a school in the middle of the neighbourhood, which is walkable for at least some of the students. In many U.S. suburbs the local school is on a highway-type arterial road with no sidewalks. Many recent Canadian suburbs also have some businesses right in the neighbourhood, although often it is just a convenience store.
On the whole, Canadian suburbs aren't that much more walkable or sustainable than American ones, but they do tend to have a few more "pretend" city-like characteristics.
The whole one-acre estate lot exurbia does exist outside every Canadian city, but it is generally a bit further out and makes up a much smaller proportion of a metropolitan area's housing stock than it does in most parts of the States.
Another point is that suburban municipalities in Canada tend to be a lot bigger in size and population. There are fewer municipalities in a Canadian metro than in a typical US metro. Also, many central cities in Canada actually encompass most of their suburbs and even vast developing suburban areas. All of this has an effect on the way these places are planned. As opposed to in the U.S. where municipalities can be quite small and very numerous in a metro area, which leads to many different urban planning standards, policies and philosophies.
A few comments from a Canadian who has travelled extensively in the U.S. and abroad:
Most (but not all) of the older parts of Canadian cities tend to be quite similar to the older parts of American cities in neighbouring states.
However, in areas of the U.S. close to the border where there is significant urban blight or abandonment, generally the level of blight and abandonment across the border in Canada is nowhere near what you see in the States. Many Canadian cities have little or no blight or abandonment, although they do have poorer areas - but they are still inhabited by lots of people.
Good post. Maybe the best example is Niagra Falls, NY compared to Niagra Falls, ON. One is run-down the other is not. Though, it could be because the canadian one gets more tourists but I don't think it is run down in the non-touristy areas either.
Detriot was always a bit of an industrial city while Toronto is more of a regional center. Perhaps Chicago is a bit better of a comparison (center for the Midwest USA). But even parts of Chicago have decay and lots of crime while I don't think Chicago does. Toronto's subway has about 1.5 times as many riders even though its system is half the length.
Perhaps one of the reasons US cities are decayed is from white flight, while Canada had little white flight? And perhaps the US govt subsidized suburbs more than Canada did.
Compared to the rest of the world, Canada and the US suburbia resemble each other quite closely. Perhaps only Australia and New Zealand might be similar. I think that only the former colonies settled by the British (US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) are the only places in the world where low-density auto-dependent suburbs are the norm. Any thoughts?
Perhaps one of the reasons US cities are decayed is from white flight, while Canada had little white flight? And perhaps the US govt subsidized suburbs more than Canada did.
These reasons. Also the fact that Rust Belt cities in the States were severely affected not just by flight to the suburbs, but also out-of-state flight to the south and southwest.
The larger Canadian cities are for the most part in the southern part of the country, and almost all tend to be places people move TO rather than FROM. Southern Ontario, for example, is often referred to as the "banana belt" by people in northern parts of the province.
If you are Canadian and remaining in the country (the easiest proposition when relocating), you can't move further south than southern Ontario.
Acajack covered a lot of the main differences I think. But regarding having little urban decay, I don't think it's just Toronto as a result of being a regional centre or Southern Ontario for its climate (not really a factor - people who care so much about that move to BC). The only Canadian cities I've visited that had abandonnement and decay were Sudbury and Sault Ste Marie. Mostly Sudbury though, The Soo wasn't that bad. Let me know if cities in Saskatchewan/Manitoba or small towns in Quebec and the Maritimes are different though.
And yeah, new suburbs are quite dense, there's a lot of duplexes and townhouses being built in them too, as well as a lot of houses with porches and garages in the back with back alleys. And I don't know what US cities are like in this regard, but Toronto's inner city neighbourhoods have very narrow lots (14-20ft) but which are fairly deep (100-175ft). The typical density of the built areas of the more sprawled out suburbs (Ajax, Milton is still 4000-5000ppl/sq mile, with the density of less sprawled suburbs (Mississauga, Burnaby) being around 5000-7000 and that of the inner suburbs being 7000-10000 (North York, Scarborough, North Vancouver).
I think the large municipalities can lead to a greater potential for one single centralized downtown. There aren't really any suburbs in the United States that compare to Mississauga and it's downtown for example, and Mississauga might have just had several smaller downtowns if the amalgamation of 11 smaller communities. Some of them still have centres, but they're not nearly as big as Mississauga's. Vaughan (Toronto suburb) and Surrey (Vancouver suburb) are in a similar situation, and both have plans to build huge Mississauga style downtowns. While most suburbs aren't behemoths like Mississauga, most of them still have high density areas, often more than one. This is mostly the case for cities that have a ring of suburbs though, not for those that have incorporated most/all the suburban areas into the city proper.
It's not just the distribution of high density within the suburbs that's different though, but also that there's more of it, especially in Vancouver and Toronto. I think the former city of Toronto has around 800 high rises, most of them in downtown, but also with significant amounts in midtown and inner city neighbourhoods. So far nothing too different from American cities. However, Toronto's inner suburbs (part of the city proper but suburbs until 1998 and well beyond downtown) have 1100 high rises. The outer suburbs have another ~600 high rises, and the satelite cities have yet another 300. To put things into perspective, Toronto's inner and outer suburbs have more high rises than any US state other than New York. Vancouver's suburbs also have a very large number of high rises relative to the city. Montreal and other Canadian cities aren't really like that, their high rises are mostly in the core.
Another thing about high rises though, is that in Canada, especially in the suburbs, the high rises are residential as opposed to offices. If you think about places like Sandy Springs, Uptown Houston, Bellevue, Clayton that are suburban and have skylines, it's mostly offices. In Canadian cities it's only downtowns that have mostly office towers, and actually Vancouver's skyline is mostly condos and Toronto's downtown is heading in that direction too.
I suspect having high density areas outside of downtown is a factor in why Canadian cities have higher public transit usage. On a somewhat related note, I think Canadian cities have fewer highways.
@KerrTown: They're not all that small. Toronto's CMA might only be 5.5 million, but the Greater Golden Horseshoe, which is kind of like a CSA is close to 8.5 million people, similar to Washington-Baltimore and San Francisco-San Jose. Montreal is comparable Minneapolis or Seattle in population and Vancouver to Denver, but I agree the other Canadian cities aren't particularly huge.
@3divina: In what sense is Montreal more European? The historical Old Port does look quite European, but it's only a very small part of the city. The downtown is really quite similar to a typical American downtown with modern skyscrapers, highways and with the street grid. The inner city areas are dense, but the same goes with other American inner cities of similar age like Boston or Philadelphia.
@CodyW: depends... Quebec City, Montreal and Guelph's old towns are mostly stone, true. However Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa, Brantford, Trois Rivieres and New Brunswick's cities are brick save for some institutional or financial buildings. Kingston is about half-half. Halifax and St. John's, along with many Nova Scotia and Newfoundland towns are actually mostly really colourful wood.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
