As yet another Canadian city buckles to pressure from residents and rejects the densification of its single-family neighbourhoods, we would do well to consider the valid reasons why so many Canadians remain attached to suburbia.
The original move to rezone the city for more density had drawn fire from critics over concerns around parking, infrastructure strain, and loss of community character.
These concerns have been at play in battles over densification in communities across the country. In B.C., provincial density legislation is encountering fierce resistance from mayors, while in Toronto, the city government scrapped a plan last year that would have allowed for sixplexes across the city.
The fundamental issue complicating this country’s density debate is that most of the Canadian public has simply not been persuaded out of their attachment to low-density life.
These preferences run up against the ideology informing much of Canada’s pro-density activism and legislation: YIMBYism, which stands for “Yes In My Backyard.” This movement seeks to end what it calls “exclusionary zoning”—neighbourhoods intentionally kept low-density through tight zoning rules.
But, as it turns out, the large chunk of Canadians who remain attached to suburbia are onto something. A significant body of research attests to the benefits of low-density living.
Using data from the annual American Time Use Survey, the paper dispels the common critique that suburbs are dull places with few activities. In fact, the data reveals that “demographically similar city residents and suburbanites engage in a very similar amount and composition of out-of-home activities.”
The paper further argues against the notion that suburban life is significantly less convenient than city life, finding that the “ratio of travel time to activity time is similar for demographically similar city residents and suburbanites.”
Notably, the paper finds a “modestly but measurably higher” degree of “subjective well-being” in the suburbs versus urban areas when comparing demographically similar people. This is measured by happiness, sense of meaning, and overall life satisfaction.
This same finding has been replicated outside North America.
In particular, the authors find “the lowest average family and friendship satisfactions, as well as the highest loneliness, near city centres.” While urbanites “have the highest incomes,” the data indicates “no parallel psychological advantages.”
Thus the large share of the Canadian population with warm feelings towards low-density, suburban life are expressing a feeling well documented in research—a lot of people derive psychological benefits from that kind of environment.
Conversely, some people love city life. This is an equally legitimate subjective preference.
The ongoing pushback across Canada against efforts to densify suburbs is simply an opposition to the preferences of city dwellers being imposed on suburbanites. Many people who put down roots well away from a city centre resent zoning changes which effectively move high-density city living right into their neighbourhood by greenlighting multiplexes or apartment buildings.
The value in the three categories of urban, suburban, and rural Canada is in their distinctness from one another. Contrary to the worldview of some pro-density activists, erecting zoning barriers between these categories is not “exclusionary.” Rather, these barriers preserve a healthy mix of different kinds of neighbourhoods.
Suburbanites commute to the city for work and visit it to shop, while city dwellers visit suburbs to trick or treat—and often, move there permanently if they need to buy a single-family home for a growing family. Everyone visits rural Canada for fishing, hunting, corn mazes, and pumpkin patches—and many move there permanently to escape the rat race.
Using zoning to keep these three zones distinct is not “exclusionary”—it is common sense.
