Changing Patterns of Residential Centrality : Population and Household Shift in Large Canadian CMAs, 1971-1996.

Abstract

Cet article se penche sur l'évolution, entre 1971 et 1996, des régions métropolitaines canadiennes dont la population atteint ou excède 500 000 personnes. Il se sert de gradients mesurant la densité résidentielle ainsi que des changements de population dans différentes zones d'urbanisation afin d'illustrer les tendances ayant trait à la centralité résidentielle au cours des vingt-cinq dernières années. Cette recherche indique que toutes les régions métropolitaines analysées ont connu, avec divers degrés d'intensité, une tendance à la décentralisation. Lorsque les changements de population dans le centre-ville et les quartiers centraux sont considérés de pair avec un nivellement des gradients de densité, seule Vancouver montre des signes incontestables de recentralisation. Trois autres régions, Toronto, Victoria et Calgary, jouissent aussi d'une hausse de population dans leurs quartiers centraux. Bien que souffrant d'une forte baisse de population, la densité de ces secteurs demeure élevée à Montréal et Québec. Leur centralité est cependant résiduelle, legs des fortes densités du passé. La prise en compte des ménages plutôt que des résidents montre que toutes les régions métropolitaines examinées dans cette recherche ont fait l'objet de nouvelles constructions dans leurs secteurs centraux. Selon les données employées, nous observons une décentralisation ou une certaine centralisation des régions métropolitaines. La principale conclusion de cet article est que la recentralisation des régions métropolitaines est fortement associée à leur prospérité et à leur taux de croissance.The research focuses on Canadian CMAs with populations of 500 000 or greater over the period 1971-1996. It uses population density gradients and enumeration of population and household shift to assess changing patterns of residential centrality over the twenty-five year period. Results indicate that all of the CMAs examined have experienced continued outward dispersion, some more so than others. When population change in core and inner-city zones is examined in conjunction with reduced density gradients, only one Canadian metropolitan area, Vancouver, shows indisputable signs of strong recentralization. Three other CMAs, Toronto, Victoria and Calgary, also experience some re-population of their central parts, while Montréal and Québec City are shown to maintain what we call "residual" centrality. However, when recentralization is gauged using household enumeration instead of population counts, all of the places studied show evidence of new housing production in the central city. The answer to the central question regarding residential centrality is thus a mixed one, yes and no. Overall, we conclude that there is a direct link between evolutionary patterns within the national urban System and changes observed in residential centrality. Whatever the measure used, highest rates of recentralization accompany strong metropolitan-wide growth over the 25-year period

The Inside and Outside Game of Growth Management: Tracking Sprawl of Canada’s Largest Metropolitan Areas

“…Similarly, Paulsen (2014) used the population density gradient model to compare urbanization patterns of New York City and Los Angeles. Within the Canadian context, Bunting et al (2000) evaluated the density gradient of the fifteen largest CMAs from 1971 to 1996.…”

Intensification in the city centre: Barriers to implementation in Regina, Saskatchewan

“…Over the past six decades, many mid-size cities have experienced a succession of planning strategies attempting to revitalize their downtowns (Bunting, Filion, Frenette, et al, 2000;Curry & Llewellyn, 1999;Jamal, 2018;Sands, 2007). These strategies mirrored planning fashions prevailing at different times over this period: adaptation of downtowns to the car, replication of suburban shopping formulas, improved design, creation of a pedestrian-conducive environment, and attraction of certain land uses to fill activity gaps and trigger synergistic effects (Bunting, Filion, & Priston, 2000;Burayidi, 2001;Filion, 1993;Filion & Hammond, 2008;Lauder, 2010;Robertson, 1997;Rubino, 2016;Sands et al, 2022). While there have been success stories resulting in obvious improvements of downtowns, these have happened in only a minority of revitalization strategies.…”

The Role of Transportation Networks in enforcing the City Centrality; A case study of Budapest City

“…The idea of centrality deals with the effect of the geographical location of a specific area in the city [12], due to the spatial concentration in the central parts of urban areas [13]. In simple words, a place is more central if it is geographically closer to other parts of the city than other places [14].…”

“…However, dealing with transpor-10 tation networks as a tool to solve centrality problems and achieve more balance between 11 different urban areas could help in improving the city and avoiding possible problems in 12 the future development plans. 13 To achieve this improvement and enhance the proposed scenarios of the city devel-14 opment, more detailed centrality measurements will be conducted. Centrality measure-15 ments will also include betweenness and straightness centrality.…”