Decentralization or Recentralization? A Question of Household versus Population Enumeration, Canadian Metropolitan Areas 1971–1996

Abstract

Examination of household as well as population datasets is the distinctive feature of the research presented in this paper, in which I consider trends in distance-decay gradients and zonal rates of growth and decline in Canadian metropolitan areas (CMAs) over the 25-year period 1971^96. My primary interest is with trends witnessed across the entire system of cities, rather than with interurban differences per se, though wherever possible factors associated with more salient between-place differences are identified. In the main body of the paper I report on empirical findings, beginning with population change assessed by density gradients and enumeration of geographic subzones defined as core, inner city, and suburban. A subsequent set of findings relies on household, instead of population, statistics. In the final discussion I attempt to reconcile considerably different population and household trends and relate them to previous findings. Recommendations are also made about new avenues for research suggested by changes identified but not fully accounted for in this research. Background literatureAlthough work by Mercer (Goldberg and Mercer, 1986;Mercer, 1999;Mercer and England, 2000) identifies features such as more compact metropolitan form and higher densities as distinctly`Canadian', there is considerable evidence that trends towards decentralization, widely documented in the USA (see, for example,

Seeking density and mix in the suburbs: challenges for mid-sized cities

“…Between 1970 and 1996, Dartmouth expanded into rural areas at a higher rate than seen in other parts of HRM (Cuthbert & Anderson, 2002). During the same period, residential and household densities plummeted throughout the region, mirroring national trends (Bunting, 2004;Bunting et al, 2002). Segregated land use patterns became the norm.…”

“…Research on suburban development in mid-sized cities remains limited (Bunting, 2004;Cuthbert & Anderson, 2002;Millward, 2002). Because their economic dynamics and political character differ from those of fast-growing metropolises, smaller cities may prove less receptive to changes in policy and development practice (Bunting, Filion, Hoernig, Seasons, & Lederer, 2007).…”

Re-Examining Suburban Dispersal: Evidence from Suburban Toronto

“…In the continental context, Canadian urban regions are considered like and unlike their counterparts in the United States. In earlier studies (Bourne, 1989; Edmonston, Goldberg, & Mercer, 1985; Goldberg & Mercer, 1986), differences predominated, but more recently mixed empirical results point to a more complex situation (Bunting, 2004; Bunting, Filion, & Priston, 2002; Filion, Bunting, McSpurren, & Tse, 2004; Shearmur & Coffey, 2002a; Zolnik, 2004). Findings of these later studies suggest that beyond broad generalizations, a more refined analysis is beneficial for understanding regional and local variations.…”

Housing, the Compact City and Sustainable Development: Some Insights From Recent Urban Trends in Switzerland

“…In order to understand the population evolution of core cities, it is necessary to consider the mechanisms of the second demographic transition, which are mainly characterised by an ageing population and the destabilisation of the nuclear family (two married heterosexual adults with children). The declining fertility rate, the postponement of marriage, the instability of couples and the longer life expectancy imply on the one hand a decrease in the average household size, and on the other hand a disparity between the pace of population growth and the (high) rate of increase in the number of households (Ogden & Hall, 2000Bunting, 2004). Yet this has been so little studied within the field of urban studies that it has come to be considered 'the silent dimension of urban change' (Buzar et al, 2005).…”