Follow

• 

  Figure 1.1 Population and housing growth, North America, 1860-2000.pdf

  Zack Taylor

  Note: A dramatic increase in the number of new urbanites and the amount of new urban housing occurred after the Second World War in both Canada and the United States. By virtue of the latter’s much greater size, American urban population and housing growth has outstripped Canadian in absolute terms, decade over decade. However, the proportion of each country’s population living in urban settlements has been about the same over the past 150 years. The statistical definition of “urban” population has changed over time in both countries but generally refers to the population in settlements of over a thousand people. Canada did not distinguish urban from rural dwellings before 1920.

• 

  Figure 1.2 Central Cities and suburbs as a proportion of national population, 1930-2010.pdf

  Zack Taylor

  Note: American metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) tend to be territorially larger than Canadian census metropolitan areas (CMAs), meaning that the American suburban share of the national population is correspondingly larger than it would be if MSAs were defined according to Statistics Canada’s criteria.

• 

  Figure 1.3 Local government complexity, 2010.pdf

  Zack Taylor

  Note: The proportion of the metropolitan area’s population accounted for by the central city (plotted on the x-axis) indicates its relative weight within the region. The number of general-purpose governments (GPGs), not including counties, per 100,000 residents (y-axis) is another measure of government complexity. Less governmentally complex metropolitan areas are therefore found at the bottom left of the graph, while more complex cities are found at the upper right. Nationwide, the average population of metropolitan GPGs is considerably smaller in the United States, while the number of GPGs per 100,000 people is considerably higher. Excluding central cities from these measures reveals a similar relationship. For readability, only cities with more than 300,000 residents are graphed; however, the data in the graph pertain to all U.S. metropolitan statistical areas and Canadian census metropolitan areas and census agglomerations.

• 

  Figure 1.4 Density Balance Index scores by city size group, 1970-2010.pdf

  Zack Taylor

  Note: Higher Density Balance Index (DBI) scores indicate more sprawling urban form; lower scores indicate more compact urban form. This box plot shows the distribution of metropolitan DBI scores for each year within each country, separating small and large metros. The top and bottom of the solid bar indicate the metropolitan areas that are at the 25th and 75th percentile. (Half of the metros’ area lies within each bar.) The white line within each bar indicates the median metro. The “whiskers” indicate the tails of the distribution. The box plots indicate that Canadian cities are generally denser than American cities, and have remained so over time, while American cities have become more sprawling over time. It also shows that large cities sprawl less than small ones.

• 

  Figure 4.1 Toronto population by zone, 1850-2010.pdf

  Zack Taylor

  Note: Most growth in the Toronto region occurred within the City of Toronto itself until the 1920s. The creation in 1954 of Metropolitan Toronto and its planning board (the MTPB), which exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction over an area twice the size of Metro itself, contained most growth into the 1970s. From the MTPB’s dissolution in 1974 to the province’s enactment of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe in 2006, virtually all population growth occurred outside Metro Toronto (after 1997, the amalgamated City of Toronto) in the rest of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, and also in the surrounding outer ring of counties and regional municipalities that make up the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

• 

  Figure 4.2 Administrative boundaries, urbanization, and policy areas in Toronto.pdf

  Zack Taylor

• 

  Figure 4.3, 4.4 Urbanization and boundary change in southern York County, 1834-41.pdf

  Zack Taylor

• 

  Figure 4.5 The Toronto region, 1954.pdf

  Zack Taylor

  Note: Only selected lower-tier municipalities are represented and labelled. The planning area of the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board encompassed an area approximately double that of Metro Toronto itself, in Peel, York, and Ontario Counties. With the exception of the western half of Toronto Township in York County, the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA, established in 1957) included all of this area and also the headwaters of the Humber, Don, and Rouge Rivers to the north.

• 

  Figure 4.6 The Toronto Centred Region development concept, 1970.pdf

  Zack Taylor

  Note: The Toronto-Centred Region scheme divided the Toronto region into three numbered zones: (1) the “lakeshore urbanized area,” including Metro; (2) the “commutershed,” to be preserved for recreational and agricultural uses; and (3) the “peripheral zone,” to which economic activity would be directed. The Parkway Belt crosscuts Zone 1.

• 

  Figure 5.1 Twin Cities population by zone, 1860-2010.pdf

  Zack Taylor

  Note: A long-term chart of population growth in concentric zones of the region – the central cities, the remainder of Hennepin and Ramsey Counties, the outer five counties of the seven-county region, and the twelve contiguous “collar counties” in Minnesota and Wisconsin – shows that the central cities captures the vast majority of population growth through the 1930s. Their population declined from the 1950s through the 1980s, marginally increasing in the early 2000s. The 1940s were a point of inflection – thereafter, all population growth occurred outside the central cities in the extremities of Hennepin and Ramsey, and also in Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Scott, and Washington Counties. After the 1970s, population growth has accelerated in the Minnesota and Wisconsin collar counties as well.

• 

  Figure 5.2 Administrative boundaries and residential urbanization in the Twin Cities.pdf

  Zack Taylor

  Note: Historical land use data for the seven-county Twin Cities region are consistently available only for residential land. While radiating out from the centre, the pattern of fringe urban development has been discontiguous.

• 

  Figure 5.3 Municipal organization and urbanization in the Twin Cities, 1870.pdf

  Zack Taylor

  Note: Only large lakes are shown. The northern portion of Dakota County was annexed to St. Paul in 1874, becoming part of Ramsey County in the process.

• 

  Figure 5.4 Municipal organization and urbanization in the Twin Cities, 1900.pdf

  Zack Taylor

  Note: Only large lakes are shown.

• 

  Figure 5.5 New municipal incorporations by type, 1870-1970.pdf

  Zack Taylor

• 

  Figure 5.6 New municipal incorporations in the Twin Cities, 1950–59.pdf

  Zack Taylor

  Note: Forty-one municipalities were incorporated between 1950 and 1959, spurring the creation of the Minnesota Municipal Commission.

• 

  Figure 6.1 Vancouver population by zone, 1890-2010.pdf

  Zack Taylor

  Note: Until the 1940s, virtually all growth in the Lower Mainland occurred in the City of Vancouver, after which growth dramatically accelerated in surrounding communities. While most has occurred in the western end of the Lower Mainland – on Burrard Peninsula and elsewhere within the jurisdiction of the Greater Vancouver Regional District – better transportation accessibility has facilitated growth to the east.

• 

  Figure 6.2 Administrative boundaries, urbanization, and policy areas in Vancouver.pdf

  Zack Taylor

  Note: Since 1995 the Lower Mainland has been divided into two regional districts. The Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), established in 1973, prohibits urban development in much of the region. Urban development has been largely contiguous and compact, forming discrete settlements in the ALR’s “holes.”

• 

  Figure 6.3 Lower Mainland municipal boundaries, 1929.pdf

  Zack Taylor

  Note: Municipal boundaries shown are those immediately prior to the amalgamation of Vancouver, South Vancouver, and Point Grey and the incorporation of Hope in 1929.

• 

  Figure 6.4 Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board evolving land-use concept, 1963-66.pdf

  Zack Taylor

  Note: The schematic “cities in a sea of green” land-use concept in the 1963 Chance and Challenge report (top) was the basis of the zoning in the 1966 Official Regional Plan (bottom).

• 

  Figure 6.5 Regional districts in the Lower Mainland, 1967.pdf

  Zack Taylor

  Note: The provincial government divided the Lower Mainland into four regional districts in 1967. They assumed joint authority over the Official Regional Plan when the Regional Planning Board was dissolved in 1969.

• 

  Figure 7.1 Portland population by zone, 1860-2010.pdf

  Zack Taylor

  The City of Portland captured most growth in the tri-county area, and in the Willamette Valley as a whole, through the 1920s. Portland’s population levelled off after the 1940s, as most growth flowed to other parts of Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington Counties, and in other communities to the south.

• 

  Figure 7.2 Administrative boundaries and urbanization in Portland and the Willamette Valley.pdf

  Zack Taylor

• 

  Figure 7.3 Municipal organization and urban growth in Portland, 1940-60.pdf

  Zack Taylor

  Note: While before 1940 most physical urban development had occurred within the corporate boundaries of Portland, Milwaukie, and Oregon City, extensive residential subdivision occurred in unincorporated portions of Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington Counties between 1940 and 1960. Boundaries of incorporated municipalities circa 1961 are overlaid. Municipal boundaries are approximate – comparison of contemporaneous maps suggests that the smaller municipalities undertook a number of annexations in the early 1960s.

• 

  Figure 7.4 Cumulative number of special districts in the tri-county area, by type, 1917-56.pdf

  Zack Taylor

  Note: Years in parentheses indicate when legislative authorization of each type of district occurred. The general pattern is one of rapid adoption of special districts following their authorization.

• 

  Figure 7.5 Incorporated area population and special districts, tri-county area, 1860-2000.pdf

  Zack Taylor

  Note: Until the 1920s, the proportion of the tri-county population living in incorporated areas generally increased as municipalities annexed suburbanizing areas. As annexation waned and more growth occurred in unincorporated areas, especially in Multnomah County, special districts proliferated. The proportion of the population living in municipalities has increased and reliance on special districts has decreased with new municipal incorporations and annexations since the 1970s.