Boomtown in the Backyard: Suburban Growth in Ontario
Anyone who has driven along highway 401, in or out of any city centre in southern Ontario is all
too familiar with the sight of suburbia. Fields of houses sprout up every year and it can appear as
though the only growth outside of the metropolises of Toronto and Ottawa is happening on the
fringe. In fact, the first releases of the 2011 National Census indicate that Milton (northeast of
Oakville, along the 401) has twice been named the fastest growing community in the country,1
yet a simple drive-by confirms that Milton is growing out, not up. In this Insight, the MPI is
exploring how much truth lies behind the idea that Ontario is all about sprawl.
In order to do so, we examined six Ontario Census Metropolitan Areas2 (Hamilton, Kingston,
Kitchener-Waterloo, London, Oshawa, Windsor) at the Census Tract level3 using 2006 community
profile data. Each Census Tract was then assigned to one of four categories according to a number
of criteria: downtown; inner suburb; outer suburb; and undefined. The Census Tracts roughly
work out to a neighbourhood-sized parcel of land, each with unique census community profile
data. This data was then compiled for each category to determine where growth is taking place,
and to analyze other attributes which will be explored in future Insights.
The downtown, inner suburb, and outer suburb categories were chosen because they describe
different stages of growth consistent in most Canadian cities. Neighbourhoods were assigned to
categories by crosschecking Statistics Canada Census Tract areas with a Google Maps Streetview
analysis — a process which involved judging street layouts, housing design, and zoning uses.
Downtowns were defined by: mixed use zoning and mixed use buildings; multiple storefronts;
ability for residents to walk to daily needs; grid pattern streets; and on-street or carriage-house
parking. Inner suburbs are those that: sit adjacent to downtown areas; have relatively uniform
housing; have driveways and sometimes garages; require driving to access retail and groceries;
are dominated by single-detached dwellings; and often still have grid pattern streets. The inner
suburbs were the first postwar envelop of sprawl around the city and are more centrally located.
There is a trend of serious decline in inner suburbs across North America, manifest in poverty,
reduced public services, deteriorating housing, and failing infrastructure. 4 The outer suburbs
represent a later phase of growth, and are the outer envelope around cities, defined by: curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs; automobile dependence; a distinct separation of residential areas
from retail, office, etc.; predominantly single-detached dwellings or townhomes; driveways and
garages; and newer housing stock. Undefined Census Tracts were those that exhibited a 2006
population density of less than 250 people per square kilometer. These Tracts were excluded from
analysis because it was unclear whether data should be attributed to the newest (and often most
1 http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1128392--census-2011-milton-fastest-growing-community-growthoutpaces-some-infrastructure-like-hospitalsand-schools
2 Area consisting of one or more adjacent municipalities situated around a major urban core. To form a census metropolitan area, the urban core must
have a population of at least 100,000. http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/reference/dict/geo009.htm
3 Census tracts are small, relatively stable geographic areas that usually have a population of 2,500 to 8,000. A breakdown of statcan geographic units
can be found here: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/92-195-x/2011001/other-autre/hierarch/h-eng.htm
4 Hanlon, B. (2008a) Fixing inner-ring suburbs: a policy retrospective. International Journal of Neighbourhood Renewal 1.3, 1–30.
Lucy, W. and D. Phillips (2000). Suburban decline: The next urban crisis. Issues in Science and Technology 17.1 [WWW document].
URL http://www.issues.org/ 17.1/lucy.htm (accessed 21 October 2008).
Martin Prosperity Institute
1
Density maps: Hamilton and Kingston
Exhibit 1a
HAMILTON
KINGSTON
Martin Prosperity Institute
2
Density maps: Kitchener and London
Exhibit 1b
KITCHENER
LONDON
Martin Prosperity Institute
3
Density maps: Oshawa and Windsor
Exhibit 1c
OSHAWA
WINDSOR
Martin Prosperity Institute
4
expensive) outer suburban developments or existing rural properties. For this reason, you will
find that the percentage population distributions below do not amount to 100% — the undefined
regions are not included.
Before summarizing the results, it is important to know why this group of municipalities were
selected to study, as opposed to the Greater Toronto Area so closely associated with suburban
sprawl. The logic behind this is that while the GTA is largely considered suburban, each community can exist independently. For example, Markham, Vaughan, and Richmond Hill are all
separate cities that have now become inseparable from Toronto. Neighbourhoods of these places
may be defined as sprawl, but they are sprawling from both downtown Markham (for example),
the GO Station, and Toronto. Therefore, it’s hard to examine these GTA communities as a unit or
understand the relationships between core and periphery areas. Contrary, the cities examined
here may still house a large number of Toronto commuters, yet their suburbs are exclusively
extensions of their core areas. Furthermore, to crosscheck each of the 1000+ Census Tracts associated with the Greater Toronto Area would not be nearly as straightforward as crosschecking
those of smaller municipalities.
Statistical analysis shows very clearly that Milton is not the only city growing out, as opposed to
up. Exhibit 2 illustrates that from 2001–2006 (this is the most recent data available for community profiles) most of the population growth taking place in these municipalities occurred in outer
suburbs. Kingston, while apparently shrinking in all areas, actually has a Census Metropolitan
Area (CMA) rate of growth of 3.8% — a figure that encompasses the tremendous rates of growth
experienced in undefined areas excluded from the statistical analysis due to very low population
density. Not a single CMA studied featured downtowns or inner suburbs that met the provincial
Percentage of population change, 2001–2006
Exhibit 2
20%
10
0
-10
Martin Prosperity Institute
5
Distribution of population
Exhibit 3
100%
80
60
40
20
0
or national growth rates — population decline was more prevalent. On the other hand, four out of
six outer suburbs examined grew over 10% (nearly 20% in Oshawa) over the period in question.
Exhibit 2 reveals that outer suburbs account for most metropolitan growth in these regions,
and Exhibit 3 shows they also account for most of the population. In all but two regions (which
we must remember do not include the outermost low density Census Tracts which are the likely
site of new housing development), the outer suburbs hold more than 50% of the population. This
is most pronounced in Kitchener-Waterloo (83% outer suburbs) and Oshawa (72% outer suburbs).
Canada is often characterized as a country of urban-dwellers,5 however perhaps that idea
deserves an asterisk. If this sample of cities — all among the 30 largest population centres in
the country — is any indication of the nation as a whole, Canada is more accurately a nation
of suburban-dwellers, growing at the fringe.
This discovery runs counter to the provincial policy put in place to stem sprawl in the past decade,
and indicates that something is awry with Ontario Smart Growth policy implementation. In 2003,
a Conservative provincial government in Ontario responded to environmental and congestion
concerns over sprawl by implementing a Smart Growth development plan. Interestingly, this was
politically driven from an outer-suburban electoral base which was counter intuitively opposed to
the sprawl in which they resided. When a Liberal government took over in later years, the Green
Belt was formed and infill and transit-oriented development requirements were put in place.
Since, there has been noticeably more high density development of condos.
However, when analyzing the effectiveness of Smart Growth policy, University of Waterloo professor, Pierre Filion (2010) found that much of the middle class still has a preference for dispersed
5 http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/02/covering-canadian-urbanism/1280/
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1127854
Martin Prosperity Institute
6
development, which is mirrored by developers who adamantly advocate sprawling subdivisions.
Yet, Filion notes historical periods in Toronto prove that commitment from administration can
have a considerable impact on development patterns.
The cards are not stacked in favour of Smart Growth though. Everything from the priority of
highway construction and patched dispersion of high density developments makes a wholesale
transition to Smart Growth difficult. Partial commitment to Smart Growth is unlikely to affect
the lifestyle and environmental advantages which motivated the policy. Crisis, economic or otherwise, could potentially be the shock required to shift the agenda for urban form, so long as public
and private finance is available.6
Stay tuned for future Insights to get a deeper dig on the differences between downtowns, inner
suburbs, and outer suburbs.
This Insight is based on a report written by a former MPI intern Gracen Johnson. For more
information please contact Gracen at [email protected].
The Martin Prosperity Institute at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management is the world’s
leading think-tank on the role of sub-national factors—location, place and city-regions—in global economic
prosperity. We take an integrated view of prosperity, looking beyond economic measures to include the
importance of quality of place and the development of people’s creative potential.
6 Filion, P. (2010). Reorienting urban development? Structural obstruction to new urban forms. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research
34, 1, 1–19.
Martin Prosperity Institute
7