Frances Bula header image 2
← →

How Vancouver is different from Toronto: denser, less development on rural edges, less population loss in centre

June 2nd, 2015 · 25 Comments

I’ve been intrigued with the Neptis Foundation, a privately funded group in Toronto, ever since one of their reports wound its way onto a Metro Vancouver agenda about five years ago.

This group has looked carefully at how cities add new residents, using aerial surveys and other tools to examine exactly how much land is used to accommodate each new 1,000 in population.

I’ve used their report when I teach housing policy courses to show students how planning really does matter, in a big way.

Their latest report came out recently, this time comparing only Toronto and Vancouver.

Once again, it showed that Vancouver has absorbed population largely by adding people into existing urban areas, whereas almost 90 per cent of new development in Toronto happens in greenfields on the edges of the metropolitan boundary.

When people here talk about the un-greenness of tearing down houses and replacing them with concrete, I think they sometimes forget that every house here that is replaced with something even a little bit denser — a duplex, a set of rowhouses, a small apartment building — makes a difference somewhere out in the valley.

(That doesn’t, of course, have anything to do with the appalling practice happening from here to Coquitlam, of tearing down smaller houses to build gigantic single-family palaces)

What makes the difference here? According to the report, three things

1. Partly our strong policy on saving agricultural land

2. Partly our regional plan that doesn’t just say densify, but that targets densification to defined urban centres near transit

3. A regional government that can exert some pressure to keep all 21 municipalities sticking to the plan. No, it doesn’t have a lot of powers, but just the power of having everyone in the same room and agreeing to agree seems to exert some influence, say the Neptis people.

 

 

 

 

Categories: Uncategorized

  • boohoo

    I’d like to think that every redevelopment in Vancouver means less sprawl in the valley, but it’s full steam ahead with greenfield development in the burbs. I laugh when people in Vancouver freak out about a couple of trees being cut down for a single family house to be replaced with a townhouse (or whatever the scenario) when 100’s of trees are mowed down weekly in the suburbs for crappy sprawl.

    Maybe, when all non ALR land is developed in Metro Vancouver, maybe then we’ll have a real discussion about where we’re going. But until then, it’s full steam ahead.

  • Mark Notfler

    You left out shittier public transit, particularly as distance increases: one of the reasons people leave downtown Toronto is because you CAN move out to Mississauga or Scarborough and take a GO Train from very early in the morning to very late at night in or out of downtown.

    The West Coast express not only doesn’t run nearly enough, it doesn’t even go to the major population centre–which is Surrey.

    There is a sprawl problem. Without the constraint of geography Toronto appears to grow by bolting the next farmer’s field onto the city and turning it into a suburb. It kind of sucks on some levels, but people keep moving there so…

  • Richard Campbell

    It is really sad to see all the forest and wildlife habitat being destroyed on the side of Burke Mountain. Anyone protesting more homes in Vancouver should take a trip
    out their to see the impact of their actions.

  • peakie

    And the West Coast Express is “one-way”, that is, 5 trains into town in morning, out of town in evening, and only as far as Mission.

  • peakie

    Ah, the Neptis Foundation, now run by Tony Coombes’ (1937-1993) former wife Martha J. Shuttleworth on a 9 million dollar legacy.
    “Founding executive director of Neptis Tony Coombes, was appointed, at the age of 31, Chief Planner for the Central Area District of the City of Toronto. In the late 1960s and through 1970s, he championed the landmark Central Area Plan which promoted mixed-use development in a city core then dominated by office buildings and parking lots, work that helped protect many inner-city neighbourhoods under threat from high-rise redevelopment.
    Later, as Senior Vice-President of Development at Olympia and York, Coombes (Between 1981-1993) journeyed to New York and London, England to coordinate the design and development of two globally renowned waterfront renewal projects, the World Financial Center and the massive transformation of the London Docklands initiated by Canary Wharf….” http://www.neptis.org/tony-coombes

    March 2015 was their Growing Pains report, but their usual main focus is Toronto, Golden Horseshoe of Ontario etc.

    Growing Pains: Understanding the New Reality of Population and Dwelling Patterns in the Toronto and Vancouver Regions. by Marcy Burchfield and Anna Kramer with assistance from Vishan Guyadeen.
    http://www.neptis.org/sites/default/files/growing_pains/growingpains_neptisreport_final.pdf (PDF 100 pages 17.7 Mbytes.

    Executive Summary — Introduction — Planning policy mechanisms — Framework for measuring urban form & growth patterns — Regional findings (1991–2011) — The Toronto region ’s greenfield development and intensification — Metro Vancouver’s greenfield development and intensification — Summary of Findings — Conclusion — Works Cited — Appendix A: Methods — Appendix B: Change by lower-tier municipalities, GTHA — Appendix C: Dissemination Area selection for growth near frequent transit network.

    notes:
    (Executive Summary pages 8-17 about 2000 words)
    Page 60-72 Metro Vancouver’s Greenfield Development and Intensification
    Intensification growth in Metro Vancouver
    Population gain and loss in the existing urban area
    Dwelling gain in the existing urban area
    Population and dwelling change in urban centres and frequent transit service areas
    Page 74 Summary of Findings: The Toronto City-region. Vancouver City-region
    Page 77 Conclusion.

  • MGordon

    Thanks for posting this report and again here is the link.

    http://www.neptis.org/sites/default/files/growing_pains/growingpains_neptisreport_final.pdf

    What I found particuarly interesting is the table on page 66 because it identifies what municipalities are targeting most of their growth to greenfield areas and they are:
    West Vancouver, Pitt Meadows, Coquitlam and Maple Ridge. I noticed that in Surrey only 36% of its growth is in greenfield spaces.

    The majority of the lower mainland is identified in the Metro Vancouver plan as a green or rural zone and not identified for urban development.

    Last year I attended the World Urban Forum in Medellin. I was invited by Quebec government and Brazil government reps to share our regional plan with the conference on their panels. I worked with Metro Vancouver staff to prepare the presentation and the folks from Quebec and Brazil were very intrigued and viewed our regional plan as a best practice in regional planning.

    The point of the report is actually we have done some things in regional planning better than that happening in the GTA…from the perspective of redirecting growth away from greenfields.

  • boohoo

    Where do you get that 36% from?

  • Kirk

    Agreed. Also, I used to snidely scoff at “American suburbia” down in the States because our local planners keep patting ourselves on the backs. But, if you ever go out past the Port Mann, it’s just strip mall after strip mall after strip mall. Big box everywhere. Vancouver itself maybe trying to do its part, but the rate of growth out in the burbs is really transforming the lower mainland. Sometimes it feels like we’ve got our heads in the sand about what’s going on in the overall region.

  • Mark Notfler

    I wouldn’t say only going as far as MIssion is a problem: where else, on that side of the river, would you expect it to go? Civilization sort of ends in MIssion, doesn’t it?

    Yes, the in-in-the-morning-out-at-night is part of what I was referring to in saying it “doesn’t run nearly enough.” I didn’t feel the need to go into too many specifics.

  • Mark Notfler

    That patting on the back comes from groups of people who seem think that Boundary Road is the end of “the city” and where the suburbs start. There are jobs in the “suburbs.” I’ve an I.T. professional friend who lives and works in Langley. I used to live in the city and work in Burnaby.

    This whole “don’t have a million” campaign fits that category. When did it become an entitlement to live in the heart of downtown even if you chose a job in a low paying field?

    Someone recently started ranting at me on Twitter about not wanting to move to the suburbs and said they “didn’t want to know” people who lived in the suburbs. Holy cow, what an arrogant snobby attitude. I couldn’t believe it.

    I’m not saying affordability isn’t in an issue, I’m saying:
    1) I do not want goverment to regulate housing prices and see no way in which such regulation could be applied without fairly
    2) Any such implementation risks, at the very least, destroying the equity of people who have purchased homes under the current regime and any government that does that will face the wrath of homeowners
    3) Some people seriously need to get their heads out of their asses

  • spartikus

    The chart on pg. 66 says Surrey’s share of Metro Van’s greenfield dwelling growth is 43%

  • boohoo

    Hmmm very misleading. It is saying as of 2001 basically all of Grandview Heights is as ‘urban’ already which it most certainly was not. Go look at an aerial from 2001, it’s all rural west of the freeway.

    Where did it get that 2001 ‘urban area’ from?

    Ok, in the overview it says it did it from aerial photos. I have no idea how that makes any sense.

  • spartikus

    Seems a bit slapdash.

  • Big J

    “2. Partly our regional plan that doesn’t just say densify, but that targets densification to defined urban centres near transit”

    But please, Vancouver Greens and assorted local NIMBYs, keep telling me how horrible TOD is.

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    On some maps they’ve also placed an unnamed municipality on the west of south Surrey as well as two municipal centres close to White Rock. That urban area also is extended to parts that are farmland in Delta and Surrey.

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    At the construction or professional level real estate is priced by the square foot. Average and median prices really don’t mean much. There are many condos for sale and selling in Richmond for a little over $200 sq’.

    2 bedroom condos in Richmond can be purchased, in good condition, for less that $250,000.

    Richmond is around 5 – 7km from downtown Vancouver.

  • MGordon

    Agreed, Spartikus…that is the right figure….36% represents the % of growth that within Surrey is the amount of urban development being targetted to lands in greenfield areas and I think that is a good achievement for Vancouver’s largest suburban local government.

    Surrey is the largest local government in terms of area in Metro Vancouver so one can understand why Surrey greenfield development makes up 46% of metro vancouver greenfield growth.

    I appreciate you read through the document as it is a revealing one full of factual information about our region.

  • MGordon

    Boohoo….if it is decided to release more of the green zone and rural lands to urban development, but I would not support that…there is lots to accommodate suburban sprawl…but that would still leave our agricultural lands left for agriculture…and developing those lands would really not be a good thing because it is amongst the best ag lands in Canada…rich soil for crops and a great climate….I trust we’d agree it should be protected from sfd sprawl

  • boohoo

    Of course I agree we should keep the ALR agricultural. I know in Surrey/Langley there’s great agricultural land outside the ALR and steep slope/crappy land in the ALR. If we wanted to be efficient we’d redraw the ALR line to include all the best lands and take out the lands that really aren’t agricultural. But that would lead to a shitstorm so probably not going to happen…

    Regardless, there’s plenty of land outside the ALR that’s ‘greenfield’ and ripe for development over the next 20 years. It’s funny listening to planners and councils go on and on about smart growth and compact communities etc but when push comes to shove, it’s just sprawl sprawl sprawl. Only when there’s no more room will we have a grown up conversation about what to do.

  • Mark Notfler

    I’m not sure what this had to do with my comment, whcih made no comment on the cost per square foot of units.

    Regardless what you suggest is only true in the abstract. I’m going to argue that at the construction level real estate is costed at the square foot. Typically this would be sold at a markup much as other physical goods are, which would lead to your statement being true.

    In Vancouver new construction seems to trade for not much less and often MORE than traditional valuations,which suggests to me that builders are making a decision to stop letting condo flippers keep all the profits and instead take them themselves.

    As long as there are lines out the door and overnight for new buildings, why would they do anything else?

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    Quite right. My point was in agreement with your comments about perfectly viable homes being accessible close to downtown Vancouver, although perhaps in a neighbouring municipality. Rather than use the sensational sounding statistics about average or median prices, I used the industry-standard method of pricing, which is by the square foot. This is the standard pricing system at all levels, from land, construction, finishing costs, and buying and selling costs, for all financial institutions and insurance agencies. It’s far more accurate. It’s also how the city of Vancouver bases it’s charges for community amenities, etc., by the foot.

    On the Vancouver Courier is an article by Frank O’Brien from BIV regarding a new Marpole development. Building costs are $182 sq’, city amenity costs are $24.25 sq’, plus land costs and marketing and mark up and you’re at $600 selling.

    As you say, as long as they’re buying…

    http://www.vancourier.com/news/gentle-density-reshaping-marpole-1.1959312

  • Dory Sheldan

    I heard a proposal in 2001 (I think) that proposed twin east-west commuter rail lines north and south of the Fraser. One would basically be the West Coast Express, though with proper right of way for two way operation, and one would service South Surrey to Abbotsford/Chilliwack. There could also be north/south connectors, for instance running from White Rock to Guildford, and perhaps across the Fraser. One strong argument for crossing the Fraser by rail is that there are not enough rail crossings of the Fraser. If a barge took out one of the crossings, the economic consequences would be dire.

  • TessaGarnet

    If you read the report, you’ll find it doesn’t support this thesis: On page 10 it mentions that only 10 per cent of new population growth in the GTA occurs near Go stations. In all, a much higher proportion of Vancouver’s growth is happening in areas served by frequent transit.

  • Mark Notfler

    The Go network is well established and has been in place for some time. I would expect to see less new population growth there: the population there has already hit its density.

    The population churns constantly: not everybody who moves out there is moving into new construction. People leave, people die, new people move in.

    GO trains are also commuter trains, and many people use them even if they don’t live *near* them by urban planner definitions. They drive to the train (as I did for some time, when the station was approximately 12km from my house.)

  • cyclewrite

    Considering the reality that the West Coast Express still doesn’t run on weekends nor often enough, is sad. ‘
    I lived in Toronto in both the core area for over 5 years and then out in Scarborough, the suburbs for 14 yrs. before living downtown Vancouver for 8 years. I used TTC subway and buses a lot if I wasn’t cycling.
    Toronto has had transit-oriented development near its subway stations for past few decades. It was ahead of Vancouver. Give credit to where Canada’s biggest city truly deserves it as a leader.
    The shock of sheer volume of work commuters using GO commuter train and buses from as far north as Barrie and east even now from Peterborough and west from Kitchener (or further), is immense…..you are talking about over 1 million workers pouring into Union Station area every morning. It is NOTHING like train commuter traffic to and from downtown Vancouver.
    Remember the GO train does provides bike trains on weekends for Niagara wine region in summer. We took it. It’s wonderful…get off and bike less than 20 km. to wineries.
    Also the suburban bus systems, Vaughan, Mississauga, Richmond HIll etc. now have key buses that drop off at key Go stations/stops at the subway stations at the far northern edge, west and east.
    True there were pick your own apple farms, strawberry farms on edge of Toronto where we biked out to..now most are gone.
    Metro Toronto’s TTC, plus GO, then suburban bus systems has grown more complex in the last 15 years…to serve a lot more people. There’s nothing approaching this complexity in Metro Vancouver. So West Coast Express is abit shameful that suburbanites can’t go to big weekend events downtown by this commuter train.