Abstract
As we saw in earlier chapters, the United States and Canada share many similarities, including their patterns of urbanization over time, their federal form of government, their prosperity, cultural expression, and advanced economies. We also saw, however, that Canadian cities are more compact; have a greater mix of daily destinations within walking distance; and have more stable and healthier central cities, better transit systems, fewer highways, fewer roads, and more sophisticated cycling infrastructure than US cities. So why, if the two countries are so similar in so many ways, are their urban forms so different?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
Michael A. Goldberg and John Mercer, The Myth of the North American City: Continentalism Challenged (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1986).
- 2.
Donald Rothblatt, “North American Metropolitan Planning: Canadian and US Perspectives,” American Planning Association Journal 60, no. 4 (1994): 501–20.
- 3.
Paul Peterson, City Limits (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981).
- 4.
R. A. Rosenfeld and L. A. Reese, “Local Government Amalgamation from the Top Down,” in City-County Consolidation and Its Alternatives: Reshaping the Local Government Landscape, eds. J. B. Carr and R. C. Feiock (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2004), 219–46.
- 5.
S. Leland and K. Thurmaier, “City-County Consolidation: Do Governments Actually Deliver on Their Promises?,” paper presented at the Urban Affairs Association Conference, Chicago, March 6–8, 2009.
- 6.
Ruth DeHoog, D. Lowery, and W. Lyon, “Metropolitan Fragmentation and Suburban Ghettos: Some Empirical Observations on Institutional Racism,” Journal of Urban Affairs 13, no. 4 (1991): 479–93.
- 7.
Peter Dreier, John Mollenkopf, and Todd Swanstrom, Place Matters: Metropolitics for the Twenty-First Century, 3rd ed. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2014).
- 8.
Anthony Perl and John Pucher, “Transit in Trouble? The Policy Challenge Posed by Canada’s Changing Urban Mobility,” Canadian Urban Transit Association Forum, June 5, 1995, 22–24.
- 9.
For example, San Mateo and Marin counties have resisted the extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit system into these populous parts of the San Francisco Bay area for decades. Interlocal haggling over routes and funding has prevented extension of the system to other parts of the region. As a result, the region does not have an integrated transit system. In Georgia, voters in suburban Cobb County blocked the extension of the Metropolitan Atlanta Regional Transit Agency rail service. In contrast, the extension of the subway and commuter rail systems into the suburbs around Toronto was welcomed by suburbanites.
- 10.
Lawrence Katz and Kenneth Rosen, “The Interjurisdictional Effects of Growth Controls on Housing Prices,” Journal of Law and Economics 30, no. 1 (1987): 149–60.
- 11.
Anthony Downs, New Visions for Metropolitan America (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution / Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1994).
- 12.
William Fulton, Rolf Pendall, Mai Nguyen, and Alicia Harrison, Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Differ Across the US (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 2001).
- 13.
Edward L. Glaeser, Matthew Kahn, and Chenghuan Chu, Job Sprawl: Employment Location in U.S. Metropolitan Areas (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy 2001).
- 14.
John I. Carruthers and Gudmundur F. Ulfarsson, “Fragmentation and Sprawl: Evidence from Interregional Analysis,” Growth and Change 33, no. 3 (2002): 312–40.
- 15.
John I. Carruthers, “Growth at the Fringe: The Influence of Political Fragmentation in United States Metropolitan Areas,” Papers in Regional Science 82 (2003): 475–99.
- 16.
Clinton v. Cedar Rapids and the Missouri River Railroad (24 Iowa 455; 1868).
- 17.
Frances Frisken, The Public Metropolis: The Political Dynamics of Urban Expansion in the Toronto Region, 1924–2003 (Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2007), 32.
- 18.
The amalgamation of Metro Toronto with its lower-tier municipalities in 1998 was contested hotly by grassroot groups. A legal challenge failed on the grounds that a province has the authority to amalgamate cities in Canada, regardless of local sentiment. An appeal of the ruling was turned down by the Supreme Court of Canada, indicating that the lower court finding was justified.
- 19.
Kenneth T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 149.
- 20.
David Rusk has argued that these “elastic cities” are less likely to be socially and economically segregated than inelastic cities that maintained their original boundaries despite suburban growth beyond their borders. David Rusk, Cities without Suburbs (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 1993).
- 21.
John Cipman, A Law unto Itself: How the Ontario Municipal Board Has Developed and Applied Land Use Planning Policy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002).
- 22.
Michael J. Skelly, The Role of Canadian Municipalities in Economic Development (Toronto: ICURR Press, 1995).
- 23.
Laura Reese and Amy Malmer, “The Effects of State Enabling Legislation on Local Economic Development Policies,” Urban Affairs Quarterly 30, no. 1 (1994): 114–35.
- 24.
John M. Stevens and Robert P. McGowan, “Patterns and Predictors of Economic Development Power in Local Government: A Policy Perspective on Issues in One State,” Policy Studies Review 6 (February 1987): 554–68.
- 25.
Judith A. Garber and David L. Imbroscio, “ ‘The Myth of the North American City’ Reconsidered: Local Constitutional Regimes in Canada and the United States,” Urban Affairs Review 31, no. 5 (1996): 595–624.
- 26.
Zachary Taylor and Neil Bradford, “The New Localism: Canadian Urban Governance in the Twenty-First Century,” in Canadian Cities in Transition: Perspectives for an Urban Age, eds. P. Filion, M. Moos, T. Vinodrai, and R. Walker (Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 2015), 194–208.
- 27.
Ray Tomalty, Innovative Infrastructure Financing Mechanisms for Smart Growth (Vancouver: Smart Growth BC, 2007).
- 28.
V. Ostrom, C. Tiebout, and R. Warren, “The Organization of Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry,” American Political Science Review 55 (1961): 831–42.
- 29.
Myron Orfield, Metropolitics: A Regional Agenda for Community and Stability (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1998).
- 30.
William Fulton, The Reluctant Metropolis (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001), 162–67.
- 31.
Kurt Paulsen, “Geography, Policy or Market? New Evidence on the Measurement and Causes of Sprawl (and Infill) in U.S. Metropolitan Regions,” Urban Studies 51, no. 12 (2014): 2629–45.
- 32.
Ray Tomalty and Murtaza Haider, Housing Affordability and Smart Growth in Calgary (Calgary, AB: City of Calgary, 2008).
- 33.
Andrew Sancton, “The Governance of Metropolitan Areas in Canada,” Public Administration and Development 25, no. 4 (2005): 317–27.
- 34.
M. Dann, The Costs and/or Savings of Amalgamation (Halifax, NS: HRM Amalgamation Project, 2004).
- 35.
Sancton, “The Governance of Metropolitan Areas in Canada.”
- 36.
Caroline Andrew, “Evaluating Municipal Reform in Ottawa-Gatineau: Building for the Future,” in Metropolitan Governing: Canadian Cases, Comparative Lessons, eds. Eran Razin and Patrick J. Smith (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2006), 75–94.
- 37.
Cynthia Jacques, Evaluating Smart Growth Efforts in Ottawa: A Report Card for the Ottawa 20/20 Official Plan (supervised research project, master of urban planning degree, School of Urban Planning, McGill University, 2012.
- 38.
Paul Tennant and David Zirnhelt, “Metropolitan Government in Vancouver: The Politics of Gentle Imposition,” Canadian Public Administration 16 (Spring 1973): 128.
- 39.
A. Artibise, K. Cameron, and J. H. Seelig, “Metropolitan Organization in Greater Vancouver: ‘Do It Yourself’ Regional Government,” in Metropolitan Governance without Metropolitan Government?, ed. D. Phares (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, 2004), 195–211.
- 40.
The GGH incorporates a number CMAs, including Toronto, Oshawa, Hamilton, Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo, Barrie, Saint Catharines–Niagara, Guelph, and Peterborough.
- 41.
Maureen Carter-Whitney. Ontario’s Greenbelt in an International Context, Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation Occasional Paper Series, No. 11 (Toronto: Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy, 2010).
- 42.
Henry Aubin, “A Failure on Almost All Counts: The Municipal Mergers Mean More Spending and More Bureaucrats, but Diminished Services,” Montreal Gazette, March 3, 2006, A21.
- 43.
Frances Frisken and Donald Rothblatt, 1994. “Summary and Conclusions,” in Metropolitan Governance, eds. D. Rothblatt and A. Sancton (Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies Press, University of California), 433–66.
- 44.
John Stuart Hall, “Who Will Govern American Metropolitan Regions, and How?,” in Governing Metropolitan Regions in the 21st Century, ed. Don Phares (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2009), 62–87.
- 45.
D. Wright, Understanding Intergovernmental Relations (Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1988).
- 46.
Ray Tomalty and Don Alexander, Smart Growth in Canada: Implementation of a Planning Concept (Ottawa: Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2005).
- 47.
Bernard Ross and Myron A. Levine, Urban Politics: Cities and Suburbs in a Global Age (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2012), 261.
- 48.
David K. Hamilton, Measuring the Effectiveness of Regional Governing Systems: A Comparative Study of City Regions in North America (New York: Springer, 2014), 176.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Ray Tomalty and Alan Mallach
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tomalty, R., Mallach, A. (2015). Organizing Government: Powers, Boundaries, and Governance Systems. In: America’s Urban Future. Island Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-597-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-597-7_6
Publisher Name: Island Press, Washington, DC
Print ISBN: 978-1-59726-255-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-61091-597-7
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)