Sprawl in Canada and the United States

• The Inevitability Hypothesis: sprawl is inevitable in free society so we might as well accommodate it.

Logic underlying the Inevitability Hypothesis

• Assumption: The US has sprawl.• Assumption 2: Other countries, like Canada,

have sprawl despite policies that are anti-sprawl.

• Conclusion: Because even antisprawl countries like Canada have sprawl, sprawl is inevitable.

Is Assumption 2 right?

• Based on 2 assumptions:• A) Canada sprawls as much as the US• B) Canadian policy is anti-sprawl.

•MY PAPER QUESTIONS BOTH ASSUMPTIONS.

Do Canadian cities sprawl as much as American cities?

Two ways to measure sprawl: where we grow, how we grow

• WHERE WE GROW • Compared ten cities that were biggest in 1950

in each country.• In US, eight of ten lost population since 1950,

usually by over 20 percent. • Canada hard to compare because of shifting

census tract boundaries, until 1970.

Canadian cities within 1970 boundaries

• USA: eight of ten still lost population; six lost over 20 percent between 1970 and 2000; median loss 24 percent.

• Canada: only four lost population; biggest population loss (Montreal) 18 percent.

In other words....

• Canada’s WORST CASE SCENARIO (Montreal, 18 percent loss 1970-2000) is better than the USA MEDIAN (24 percent).

• CONCLUSION: Canada sprawls less than USA.

How we grow

• Canadian transit market share 14 percent• USA transit share 6 percent• Again, Canada’s worst case scenario among big

cities (Calgary/Edmonton, 20-25 non auto market share) better than most American cities (e.g. Phoenix has only 11 percent non auto share, Jacksonville 8 percent, you get the idea)

• SO CANADIAN CITIES LESS AUTO ORIENTED THAN USA.

Part 2: government regulation and sprawl

• Canadian cities subsidize and regulate for sprawl just like USA.

Prosprawl regulation, example 1

• Highway spending- Canadian govt. Spends $20 b a year on highways only 4b on transit.

• Highways subsidize suburbanization by making long commutes easier.

Prosprawl regulation, part 1

• Anti-density regulation: Canadian cities and suburbs mandate minimum lot sizes, height limits just like US cities.

• Low density means fewer people can live within walking distance of public transit, shops etc.

But....

• Canadian cities may be less prosprawl than USA.Sample study: one inner and outer suburb of Toronto (Mississauga, Burlington), one inner and outer suburb of Atlanta (Sandy Springs and Alpharetta).

Comparison

• Least compact single family zones: • Mississauga, Burlington ½ acre to 1 acre• Sandy Springs, Alpharetta 2-3 acres• Least compact multifamily zones• Mississauga/Burlington 18-25 stories• Sandy Springs 4 stories• Alpharetta only 10 units per care!

Prosprawl regulation part 2

• Minimum parking requirements- if you want to build apartments/business you must have a parking lot.

• Degrades pedestrian environment because pedestrians have to walk across parking lots, makes parking easier and subsidizes driving, reduces density

Prosprawl regulation part 3

• Six to ten lane streets mean crossing street a life endangering adventure

• True in Canadian cities like American- just look outside!

For more detail....

• Rough draft of my paper is at

• http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/65/