The Toronto region’s greenfield development and intensification (2001-2011)

growingcities_map7_final.jpg

[Note: The 2001 urban area is shown in magenta. Population and dwelling numbers reported for intensification are measured within this area.]

The geographic area in which we measure intensification is much larger than the area in which we measure greenfield development. Our method for calculating intensification yields the net changes in population and dwellings for the area highlighted in Figure 10. Unlike the urban expansion area where greenfield development takes place, there was a substantial population and dwelling stock pre-existing in the built-up urban area prior to 2001. Our method allows us to show how that stock has changed and how many people have been added or lost overall, but it does not allow us to specify how many people went specifically into new or pre-existing dwellings. People may move into an area and occupy new or pre-existing dwellings; others may move out. We can only measure the overall net change of a specific geographic area at the end of the decade (2001-2011).

However, calculating the net gain and loss of population and dwellings is informative. Our analysis indicates that the net new population absorbed in the existing urban area in the region, an area of more than 157,000 hectares, was a mere 14% of the total population added to the region. This is a small fraction of new residents to the GTHA, even though almost half of all new dwellings were created in this same area. Again, we see a big gap between the addition of dwellings and population in the existing urban area. Our analysis shows that this gap is partially due to population losses in established urban neighbourhoods that offset population gains through intensification.

The decline in average household size, while an observed trend across Canada, is especially visible in existing urban areas of the GTHA. Household size in this area declined from 2.74 to 2.52 in a 10-year period. Declining household size in existing urban areas undoubtedly reflects demographic changes in established urban areas--an aging population, a lower birth rate, delayed child-bearing, and generally an increase in the number of single-headed and single-person households. Our analysis provides only a snapshot in time, but declining household size and the gap between the net gain in population and dwellings have large impacts on planning in the region. Below we discuss where population loss is happening within the established urban areas in the region.

Hamilton, Halton, and Durham experienced a net loss of population in their existing urban areas between 2001 and 2011.

Population gain and loss in the existing urban area

Not surprisingly, the City of Toronto gained the most net new residents through intensification, more than 100,000 people over 10 years. York gained just of 13% of its net new residents through intensification while Peel gained only 4%. However, what is surprising is that three of the five suburban municipalities experienced net losses. Hamilton, Halton, and Durham all experienced a net loss in population in their existing urban areas between 2001 and 2011, even though there was a net gain in dwellings (see Table 5).

Table 5: Population and dwelling change, GTHA intensification area, 2001-2011

NOTE: The proportion of population growth through intensification for the GTHA does not include the loss in population in the 2001 existing urban area.

Although the City of Toronto and the Regions of Peel and York experienced a net gain in both population and dwellings through intensification, there was a net loss in certain established urban areas across these municipalities (see Figure 11). This is an important finding that we refer to as "running hard to stand still." Existing urban areas contain (hard and soft) services that are already in place. But in many areas, population has declined, while an ever-increasing number of new residents are accommodated in greenfield developments. These new areas require investment in new services and infrastructure while existing infrastructure in the already built-up areas is serving fewer people.

A striking example can be found in the suburb of Brampton. While Brampton gained more than 200,000 new residents through greenfield development, it experienced a net loss of population in its existing urban area (see Appendix B for results for lower-tier municipalities). The loss signals changing demographics that need to be considered. As the suburban municipalities in the GTHA mature, there is a need to understand the internal dynamics of each municipality as it plans for future growth.

Figure 11 illustrates where the net loss is occurring within the region. In addition to Brampton, large parts of the Cities of Toronto, Mississauga, Oshawa, Whitby, and Hamilton are experiencing a net loss of population in certain established areas.

Figure 11: Population gain and loss in established urban areas, GTHA, 2001-2011

growingcities3_map8_final_02-01_may27.jpg

NOTE: The dots on the map represent approximate locations. The map uses a dot density technique to illustrate clusters of population loss or gain. The dots have been placed randomly within census tracts, although the boundaries of census tracts are not shown in order to illustrate other data layers more clearly.

The same large, fast-growing municipalities that contributed the most to greenfield development also contributed the most to intensification: Mississauga, Markham, and Vaughan.

Dwelling gain in the existing urban area

Figure 12 shows the spatial distribution of new dwellings added through intensification. There was an overall net gain of dwellings in the existing urban area. It comes as no surprise that the City of Toronto accounted for the lion's share (64%) of the GTHA's new dwellings added through intensification (see Table 5). Peel and York each accounted for about 13% of the GTHA's dwellings gained through intensification, while Hamilton, Halton, and Durham contributed a minimal amount.

Figure 12: Dwelling added through intensification, GTHA, 2001-2011.

growingcities3_map9_final_02-01.jpg

NOTE: The dots on the map represent approximate locations. The map uses a dot density technique to illustrate clusters of dwellings. The dots have been placed randomly within census tracts, although the boundaries of census tracts are not shown in order to illustrate other data layers more clearly.

At the lower-tier level, the same large, fast-growing municipalities in the 905 area that contributed the most to greenfield development also contributed the most to intensification--Mississauga, Markham, and Vaughan. Mississauga on its own contributed 10% of the region's overall dwelling intensification rate (see Appendix B for results for lower-tier municipalities).

A net gain in dwellings brought about changes to the composition of the housing stock in the existing urban area. The region lost about 43,000 single-detached houses through demolition, conversion, or redevelopment. Most of the newly added units were in the form of apartments (see Figure 13), with the remaining 22% being attached, ground-related units. The size of the units gained through intensification of the existing urban area contributed to a change in household size. As the average household size in the existing urban area continued to shrink over the 10-year period from 2.74 to 2.52, it appears that the new units did not accommodate larger households and that households in the existing housing stock continued to shrink.

Figure 13: Dwelling types added through intensification, GTHA, 2001 - 2011

neptis_piecharts_fig13_may26.jpg

Population and Dwelling Change in Urban Growth Centres and Frequent Transit Service Areas

The Growth Plan identifies 25 Urban Growth Centres, of which 17 are in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. Figure 12 illustrates the spatial distribution of the net new dwellings in the existing urban area across the region and indicates the approximate location of the Urban Growth Centres. The map also shows corridors with frequent transit service (see Appendix A for the process used to identify FTNs and Appendix C for the Dissemination Areas included in the analysis).

Of the GTHA's growth through intensification, the Urban Growth Centres absorbed 95% of the net new residents and 44% of the net new dwellings. This is superficially a good-news story from the perspective of policy-making. People use infrastructure and services, which means that population growth through intensification is best placed in the region's urban growth centres, which typically have better access to transit and existing services.

However, if we look at the GTHA's overall growth, including growth through greenfield development, the Urban Growth Centres absorbed only 13% of the net new residents and 20% of the net new dwellings due to the extraordinary amount of growth that went to the greenfield areas.

Figure 12 shows that within the City of Toronto, most of the new dwellings are clustered in the City's core and the area immediately to its west, including the Liberty Village redevelopment area. There is also a substantial cluster of net new dwellings near the North York Centre at the intersection of the Yonge and Sheppard subway lines. In the 905 area, the most apparent cluster is near Mississauga City Centre.

Table 6 breaks down the net new residents and dwellings across the 17 Urban Growth Centres. The table confirms what is depicted in the maps: that 75% of the population and dwelling growth in centres went to only three centres--Downtown Toronto, North York Centre, and Mississauga City Centre. Downtown Toronto gained the largest amount of dwellings and population (44,000 units and 53,000 people between 2001 and 2011). Many of the Urban Growth Centres had little or no intensification.

Table 6: Population and dwelling change in intensification area, GTHA, 2001-2011

	Population 2001	Dwellings 2001	Population 2011	Dwellings 2011	Population change 2001-11	Dwelling change 2001-11	% population change	% dwellings change	Proportion of population growth in centres (%)	Proportion of dwellings growth centres (%)	Proportion of GTHA population growth (%)	Proportion of GTHA dwelling growth (%)
Toronto: Downtown	157,310	87,480	209,770	131,260	52,460	43,780	33	50	41	49	5	10
Mississauga City Centre	60,380	23,600	79,780	34,850	19,400	11,250	32	48	15	13	2	2
Toronto: North York	36,570	16,840	63,830	32,060	27,260	15,200	75	90	21	17	3	3
Toronto: Yonge-Eglinton Centre	15,550	10,260	19,870	13,220	4,320	2,960	28	29	3	3	<1	1
Downtown Brampton	14,910	6,170	16,340	8,020	1,430	1,850	10	30	1	2	<1	<1
Toronto: Etobicoke Centre	13,980	6,300	18,950	9,310	4,970	3,010	36	48	4	3	<1	1
Downtown Burlington	12,190	6,530	13,420	7,320	1,230	790	10	12	1	1	<1	<1
Richmond Hill/Langstaff	10,450	3,480	16,900	6,240	6,450	2,760	62	79	5	3	1	1
Toronto: Scarborough Centre	9,800	4,090	19,970	9,280	10,170	5,190	104	127	8	6	1	1
Downtown Pickering	9,140	3,520	8,960	3,760	-180	240	-2	7	0	<1	0	<1
Downtown Hamilton	8,640	5,180	9,440	5,700	800	520	9	10	1	1	<1	<1
Downtown Oshawa	8,060	4,030	7,860	4,180	-200	150	-2	4	<1	<1	<1	<1
Downtown Milton	4,620	1,850	4,890	2,190	270	340	6	18	0	<1	0	<1
Markham Centre	3,550	1,050	9,490	4,300	5,940	3,250	167	310	5	4	1	1
Newmarket Centre	2,290	750	2,230	830	-60	80	-3	11	0	<1	0	<1
Vaughan Metropolitan Centre	2,060	620	2,130	640	70	20	3	3	<1	<1	<1	<1
Midtown Oakville	1,100	390	1,320	600	220	210	20	54	<1	<1	<1	<1
TOTALS	370,586	182,132	505,148	273,749	134,562	91,617	36	50	-	-	13	20

The centres experiencing the greatest percentage change between 2001 and 2011 were the suburban Scarborough Town Centre and Markham Centre. Although these two UGCs contributed about 10% of the intensification in all UGCs, they experienced the greatest transformation relative to their state in 2001. Markham Centre's population grew by 167% and its dwellings by 310%, and Scarborough City Centre's population grew by 104% and its dwellings by 127%.

In addition to the UGCs, we examined population and dwelling change in frequent transit corridors and near GO Train stations. Since the geography of these areas overlaps the 2001 existing urban area and the 2011 urban expansion area, we measured how much of the GTHA's net new population and dwellings coincided with the station areas. Although GO Train service is currently focused on the a.m./p.m. peak commute, the service is slowly being transformed to more frequent service and is expected to offer 15-minute, all-day service by 2025. Currently many GO stations are surrounded by parking lots.

Table 7: Population and dwellings added near frequent transit network (FTN) and GO Stations, GTHA, 2001-2011

	Added near FTN	% of total change	Added near GO stations	% of total change
Population	181,390	18	104,600	10
Dwellings	171,820	37	48,500	11

Between 2001 and 2011, 18% of the region's net new population and 37% of the net new dwellings were accommodated in frequent transit areas (see Table 7). As can be seen in Figure 12, the majority of the frequent transit lines are located in the City of Toronto, where service is provided by the TTC. The large gap between net new population and dwellings is likely because the frequent transit corridors are in the established urban areas in the City that have experienced net population loss. The gap matters, because it is people who ride transit, not dwellings.

Given that the Ontario Government's transit priority of the next 10 years is to invest in the transformation of the GO train service, it is important to understand the development potential of the areas around GO stations. Some are embedded within the existing urban area and others are surrounded by parking lots and in low-density industrial areas. When we measure growth around GO station areas, we find that 10% of the GTHA's net new population and 11% of the region's dwellings were accommodated within one kilometre of a GO Station. This percentage could be increased in future years, given the development potential in converting parking surfaces and large lots near many of the GO stations to more intensified urban uses.

Urban Growth Centres in the GTHA absorbed only 13% of the net new residents and 20% of the net new dwellings between 2001 and 2011.