DOCSLIB.ORG

Golden Horseshoe Economic Profile

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Golden Horseshoe Economic Profile SECTION 3 DEMOGRAPHIC GROWTH Project Coordinated By: This Section Prepared by: SECTION 3 - Demographic Growth 3.1 Introduction The objective of this section is to present a demographic profile for the Golden Horseshoe (GH) using the most recent (2011) census data.1 This section incorporates data from earlier census periods where available and allows for the identification of key demographic profiles and trends regarding population, immigration, social and cultural impacts and their marketing implications. The data shows profiles and trends for each of the participating municipalities and thus differences in key markets and locations are profiled. Except where indicated, data in this section is from the Statistics Canada censuses of 2006 and 2011. Starting in 2011, information previously collected by the mandatory long-form census questionnaire was collected as part of the voluntary National Household Survey (NHS). Caution should therefore be exercised in comparing 2011 data very closely with data from previous censuses.2 3.2 Population Growth The population of the GH and its municipalities has increased from 6.5 million in 2006 to 7 million in 2011, and now accounts for 55% of Ontario’s population. This represents a growth rate of 8% for the entire GH region over the five year period. The highest rates of growth have been experienced by Halton (14%), York (15%) and Peel (11%) which immediately surround Toronto. As further evidence of growth pressures being experienced in the GH, it is worth noting that Milton, Canada’s fastest growing municipality, grew by 57% over the period.3 Figure 3.1a below shows the growth rate for each upper tier municipality. Figure 3.1a – Population Growth (000s) in the Golden Horseshoe by Region, 2006 - 2011 Growth 2006 2011 Geographic Location 2006 - 2011 Durham Region 584 631 8.0% Halton Region 458 520 13.5% Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd., Greater Golden Horse- Hamilton 524 540 3.1% shoe Forecasts to 2041, Technical Report (November Niagara Region 442 446 0.9% 2012) Addendum, June 2013, Appendix B, Section 1, Table 1 Reference Projection. This report was produced for the Peel Region 1,213 1,350 11.3% most recent Places to Grow forecast projections. Net Toronto 2,611 2,725 4.4% under-coverage rates are added to census population to York Region 932 1,072 15.0% produce total population data. An explanation of how this is determined is included on page 26 of the report. Total 6,764 7,284 8.0% 1 Some of the data produced in this section incorporates earlier census data from the Profile of Agricultural Attributes in the GTA published for the Greater Toronto Area Agricultural Action Committee and the Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance by Planscape Inc. March 2010. 2 Global non-response rates for each municipality for the 2011 National Household Survey were Durham (28.4%); Halton (22.3%); Hamilton (29.0%); Niagara (28.6%); Peel (25.4%); Toronto (26.5%); and York (22.5%) as well as 27.1% for all Ontario. The indicator combines complete non-response (household) and partial non-response (question) into a single rate. 3 http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-310-x/2011001/tbl/tbl6-eng.cfm October 2014 3.1 SECTION 3 - Demographic Growth Figure 3.2a shows the GH growth for the period 2001 to 2011 and compares this rate with the projected rate for 2011 to 2031 using the Places to Grow most recent projections.4 A compound annual growth rate is used in each case for comparative purposes. The Places to Grow projections are shown in Figure 3.2a. Based on the Places to Grow Act, the GH will continue to grow at a robust rate (1.4% compounded annually) until 2031 at which time the total GH population will be almost 9.6 million. However, as noted in Figure 3.2a, the future population will be distributed somewhat differently with the Regions of Halton, Durham and York projected to grow at high compound annual growth rates; 2.3%, 2.2% and 2.0% respectively over the period, compared to lower rates for the other municipalities. Figure 3.2b shows the growth rates for the GH municipalities graphically. Figure 3.2a – Population Growth (000s) in the Golden Horseshoe by Region, 2001– 2011 and Projected to 2031 Census Years Percentage Change 2001-2011 Cpd. Ann. 2011-2031 Cpd. Ann. Geographic Location 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 Growth Rate Growth Rate Durham Region 528 584 631 691 770 861 970 1.8% 2.2% Halton Region 391 458 520 575 645 726 815 2.9% 2.3% Hamilton 510 524 540 568 601 640 683 0.6% 1.2% Niagara Region 427 442 446 463 483 511 543 0.4% 1.0% Peel Region 1,032 1,213 1,350 1,455 1,559 1,660 1,766 2.7% 1.4% Toronto 2,584 2,611 2,725 2,865 2,975 3,081 3,193 0.5% 0.8% York Region 763 932 1,072 1,199 1,330 1,459 1,858 3.5% 2.0% Total 6,235 6,764 7,284 7,816 8,363 8,938 9,555 1.6% 1.4% Note: Growth rates are compound annual growth rates. Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd., Greater Golden Horseshoe Forecasts to 2041, Technical Report (November 2012) Addendum, June 2013, Appendix B, Section 1, Table 1 Reference Projection. This report was produced for the most recent Places to Grow forecast projections. 4 Ontario Ministry of Infrastructure, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006, Office Consolidation June 2013, Schedule 3, Updated Forecasts. October 2014 3.2 SECTION 3 - Demographic Growth Figure 3.2b – Population Growth (000s) in the Golden Horseshoe by Region, 2001 – 2011 and Projected to 2031 3,500 (000s) 3,000 2,500 Durham Region Halton Region 2,000 Hamilton Niagara Region 1,500 Peel Region Toronto 1,000 York Region 500 0 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 Sources: Hemson Consulting Ltd., Greater Golden Horseshoe Forecasts to 2041, Technical Report (November 2012) Addendum, June 2013, Appendix B, Section 1, Table 1 Reference Projection. This report was produced for the most recent Places to Grow forecast projections. The growth rates for the entire GH region present increasing market opportunities for agricultural products, however, accommodating this population growth will have implications for municipalities. While Places to Grow and the Provincial Policy Statement identify the need to intensify growth in existing settlement areas, this strategy cannot accommodate all of the growth required and can only come at a large expense of taking agricultural land out of production. Further, if municipalities are unable to achieve their target densities, the demand for development lands will keep increasing, at the expense of productive agricultural land.5 5 The Growth Plan requires that for 2015 and for every year thereafter, a minimum of 40% of all residential development occurring annually within each upper and single tier municipality will be within its built up area. For the years 2007 to 2010, the average intensification rate (ie, percentage of new residential units in built up areas) for each municipality was Durham 46%; Halton 33%; Hamilton, 48%, Niagara 64%, Peel 50%, Toronto 100%, and York 46%. Source: Technical Report on Preliminary Performance Indicators for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2006. October 2014 3.3 SECTION 3 - Demographic Growth Figure 3.2c shows a comparison of the growth rate over the 10 year period 2001 to 2011 compared with the expected growth rate according to Places to Grow legislation from 2011 to 2031. Clearly, continued high rates of growth are expected to continue throughout the GH region for the next two decades. Figure 3.2c – Population Annual Growth Rates in the Golden Horseshoe by Region, 2001 – 2011 and Projected Rate 2011 to 2031 4.0% 2001-2011 Growth rate 2011-2031 Growth rate 3.5% 3.5% 3.0% 2.9% 2.7% 2.5% 2.3% 2.0% 2.2% 2.0% 1.8% 1.5% 1.6% 1.4% 1.4% 1.2% 1.0% 1.0% 0.8% 0.5% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.0% Durham Halton Hamilton Niagara Peel Region Toronto York Region Total Region Region Region Sources: Hemson Consulting Ltd., Greater Golden Horseshoe Forecasts to 2041, Technical Report (November 2012) Addendum, June 2013, Appendix B, Section 1, Table 1 Reference Projection. This report was produced for the most recent Places to Grow forecast projections. October 2014 3.4 SECTION 3 - Demographic Growth 3.3 Population Density Figure 3.3 below shows the population density (persons per sq km) for each of the regions in the GH for 2011 as well as projected density under Places to Grow for 2031 and 2041. Toronto has by far the highest population density (4,324) persons per square km, followed by Peel (1,083), York (608) and Halton (539), regions in closer proximity to Toronto. Durham and Niagara currently have relatively lower densities and will continue to be the least dense, or most rural, of the regions for the year 2031. Population densities are projected to continue to increase over the next two decades in each of the municipalities in the GH. As noted, this population pressure will have the dual effect of providing increased markets for agricultural produce, while also placing continued pressure on agricultural land. Figure 3.3 – Population Growth (Persons per Square Kilometer) in the Golden Horseshoe by Region, 2011 to 2031 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Durham Halton Hamilton Niagara Peel Toronto York Total 2011 250 539 483 241 1,083 4,324 608 721 2031 384 845 611 293 1,416 5,067 899 946 Sources: Statistics Canada.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Even More Land Available for Homes and Jobs in the Greater Golden Horseshoe
    March 9, 2017 An update on the total land supply: Even more land available for homes and jobs in the Greater Golden Horseshoe For more information, contact: Marcy Burchfield Executive Director [email protected] 416-972-9199 ext. 1 Neptis | 1 An update on the total land supply: Even more land available for homes and jobs in the Greater Golden Horseshoe This is the third in a series of Briefs on the land supply for future urban development designated by municipalities across the Greater Golden Horseshoe to accommodate growth to 2031. This Brief sums up the supply of land in (a) the Designated Greenfield Area (DGA), (b) unbuilt areas within Undelineated Built-up Areas (UBUAs), (c) land added through boundary changes to Barrie and Brantford and (d) Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan. Altogether, the supply of unbuilt land for housing and employment planned until 2031 and beyond is 125,600 hectares. How much land is available for development in the Greater Golden Horseshoe? Determining how much land has been set aside to accommodate future housing and employment across the Greater Golden Horseshoe is a fluid process, because land supply data are not fixed once and for all. Ontario Municipal Board decisions, amendments to local official plans, and boundary adjustments constantly alter the numbers. In the first phase of analysis in 2013, Neptis researchers focused on estimating the extent of the “Designated Greenfield Area” (DGA).1 This was land set aside by municipalities in land budgeting exercises to accommodate the population and employment targets allocated by the Province for the period 2006–2031 in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
    [Show full text]
  • Food Asset Mapping in Toronto and Greater Golden Horseshoe Region1 Lauren Baker
    LAUREN BAKER FOOD ASSET MAPPING IN TORONTO AND GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE REGION1 LAUREN BAKER 216 ISOCARP FOOD ASSET MAPPING IN TORONTO AND GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE REGION » The purpose of the mapping project was to provide a baseline for planners and policy mak- ers to: 1. understand, promote and strengthen the regional food system, 2. provide information to enable analysis to inform decision making; and, 3. plan for resilience in the face of climate variability and socio, economic, and political vulnerability. « Figure 1: The bounty of the Greenbelt harvest season. Photo credit: Joan Brady REVIEW 12 217 LAUREN BAKER The City of Toronto is the largest City in Canada the third largest food processing and manufac- with a population of 2.6 million people (2011). turing cluster in North America, and the clus- The City is known as one of the most multicul- ter uses over 60% of the agricultural products tural cities in the world, with over 140 languages grown in Ontario3. Agriculture and the broader spoken. Immigrants account for 46% of Toron- food system contribute $11 billion and 38,000 to’s population, and one third of newcomers to jobs to the provincial economy, generating $1.7 Canada settle in the city2. Needless to say, diets billion in tax revenue. are extremely diverse. This represents an oppor- In 2005 a Greenbelt was created to contain tunity for the food and agriculture sector in On- urban growth and protect the natural and cul- tario, one that many organizations are seizing. tural heritage of the region. The Greenbelt pro- The region surrounding the City of Toronto, tects 7% of Ontario’s farmland, approximately known as the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH), 856,424 acres and 5501 farms4, mostly outside is made up of 21 upper and single tier munici- of urban communities clustered in the Golden palities.
    [Show full text]
  • Golden Horseshoe Food and Farming Action Plan
    Photo : SF Photo GOLDEN HORSESHOE FOOD AND FARMING ACTION PLAN THE GOLDEN HORSESHOE FOOD AND FARM- ING PLAN INVOLVES THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE BODY TO PRO- MOTE COLLABORATION BETWEEN SEVERAL LO- CAL GOVERNMENTS WITHIN A CITY REGION, AS WELL AS A RANGE OF OTHER ORGA- NIZATIONS WITH AN INTEREST IN THE Durham FOOD AND FARMING ECONOMY — IN- York CANADA CLUDING LARGE-SCALE FARMERS. IT Peel Toronto UNDERLINES THE VALUE OF ESTABLISH- ING CLEAR TERMS OF REFERENCE AND Halton MEDIATION TOOLS, AND FORG- ING INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES TO MANAGE THE Hamilton COMPLEXITIES OF FOOD SYS- Niagara Golden Horseshoe TEM PLANNING AT THE UR- BAN-RURAL INTERFACE. 52 CASE STUDIES 01 WHAT MAKES URBAN FOOD POLICY HAPPEN? GOLDEN HORSESHOE The Golden Horseshoe geographical region In 2011/12 seven municipalities of the Gold- stretches around the Western shores of Can- en Horseshoe — the cities of Hamilton and ada’s Lake Ontario, including the Greater To- Toronto, and the top-tier54 Municipal Regions ronto Area and neighbouring cities, towns of Durham, Halton, Niagara, Peel, and York — and rural communities52. It is one of the most adopted a common plan to help the food and densely populated parts of North America, and farming sector remain viable in the face of land an infux of educated, afuent professionals use pressures at the urban-rural interface, as has led to rapid development and expansion well as other challenges such as infrastructure of the cities. gaps, rising energy costs, and disjoined policy implementation. Yet historically the Golden Horseshoe has been an important agricultural region; more The Golden Horseshoe Food and Farming Plan than a million acres of productive farmland 2021 (GHFFP) (Walton, 2012a) is a ten-year plan remain in the Greenbelt and in the shrink- with fve objectives: ing peri-urban and rural spaces between • to grow the food and farming cluster; the urban hubs.
    [Show full text]
  • Whereas It Has Been the Desire of the Town of Markham for Decades to See the Langstaff Planning Area Redevelop from a Mixed
    Mr. Chair and Members of Council, it is with mixed emotion that I must make changes to my notice of motion put forward at our last meeting, I am sure that you can understand Mr. Chair how difficult it is for me to embrace a plan put forward by a Liberal Premier, but the Premiers announcement on June 15 to extend the Yonge Subway to Highway #7 was not only common sense, but it is what the Communities of Richmond Hill, Vaughan, Markham and indeed all residents of York Region need to implement “Places to Grow” and is what I have been working so hard to achieve, so thank you Mr. Premier and I did wear a red tie today I would like to state that the motion is seconded by Mayor Emmerson who is known to have Liberal leanings. Yonge Subway Motion Moved by: Regional Councillor Jim Jones Seconded by: Mayor Wayne Emmerson Whereas it has been the desire of the Town of Markham for decades to see the Langstaff planning area redevelop to a High End Urban Centre; and Whereas the Province of Ontario has in the past five years through the Central Ontario Smart Growth Plan report “Shape the Future” and the current Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe designated the Langstaff planning area and the Richmond Hill Centre as the Richmond Hill/Langstaff Gateway and one of the four Urban Growth Centres in York Region; and Whereas Urban Growth Centres are – “to accommodate and support major transit infrastructure” and “to serve as high density major employment centres that will attract provincially, nationally or international significant employment uses”
    [Show full text]
  • City of Brantford Comments on the Proposed Amendment to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe [Financial Impact - None]
    Alternative formats and communication supports available upon request. Please contact [email protected] or 519-759-4150 for assistance. Date February 5, 2019 Report No. 2019-85 To Chair and Members Committee of the Whole – Community Development From Paul Moore General Manager, Community Development 1.0 Type of Report Consent Item [ ] Item For Consideration [x] 2.0 Topic City of Brantford Comments on the Proposed Amendment to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe [Financial Impact - none] 3.0 Recommendation A. THAT Report 2019-85, City of Brantford Comments on the Proposed Amendment to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, BE RECEIVED; and B. THAT a copy of Report 2019-85 BE APPENDED to the City’s official comments submitted to the Ontario Growth Secretariat at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing; and C. THAT a copy of the City’s official comments submitted to the Ontario Growth Secretariat at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, including a copy of Report 2019-85, BE FORWARDED to Will Bouma, MPP, Brantford-Brant. 4.0 Purpose and Overview The purpose of this Report is to advise Council about the proposed amendment to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. On January 15, 2019 the Report No. 2019-85 Page 2 February 5, 2019 Province issued the proposed amendment (Amendment 1) to the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO #013-4504) with a deadline to receive comments by February 28, 2019. This Report provides an overview and Planning Staff’s comments regarding the proposed amendment and three related proposals.
    [Show full text]
  • Golden Horseshoe Economic Profile
    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Prepared For GTA AAC Agriculture Action Committee T: 1.519.925.5975 W: www.foodandfarming.ca/ Project Coordinated By: Margaret Walton 104 Kimberley Avenue Bracebridge, ON P1L 1Z8 T: 1.705.645.1556 • F: 1.705.645.4500 In Collaboration With Executive Summary The Golden Horseshoe is a rich farming area producing a vast array of agricultural products, numbers of which cannot be grown elsewhere in Ontario. Even today, as the region with the largest concentration of urban development in Canada, the Golden Horseshoe (GH) continues to contain in excess of 6,000 farms with almost a million acres of farmland producing over 200 commodities for local and international markets and generating an estimated annual economic impact on the provincial economy of $6.3 billion. The GH is home to a rich, irreplaceable agricultural resource with a long history of prosperous, productive farms. It helps sustain one of the largest food processing clusters in North America and provides fresh local produce to support the burgeoning food service sector that enhances the quality of life for all Ontario residents. However, the nature of agricultural community in the GH continues to change. As pressure for urban growth continues, agricultural lands are under pressure. We need to understand this pressure and the impacts it is having on agriculture in the GH, in order to protect this resource. In the Golden Horseshoe Agriculture and Agri-Food Strategy Food and Farming: An Action Plan 2021 (The Action Plan), support for the GH food and farming cluster was identified as a fundament element in achieving the vision of sustaining the Golden Horseshoe as a “(…) globally renowned (…) vibrant food and farming cluster characterized by profitable farming operations, a thriving hub of food processing, food retail and food service businesses, extensive research capacity innovative technology, and a wide range of healthy and safe products”.
    [Show full text]
  • Escribe Agenda Package
    Authority Meeting Revised Agenda #10/17 January 5, 2018 9:30 A.M. HEAD OFFICE, 101 EXCHANGE AVENUE, VAUGHAN Pages 1. MINUTES OF MEETING #9/17, HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 2017 Link to Minutes 2. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES 3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF 4. DELEGATIONS 4.1 A delegation by Laura Alderson, in regard to item 10.1.1 - Request for Disposal of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Land. 4.2 - ADDED ITEM 4.2 A delegation by David Rembacz, in regard to item 10.1.2 - Request for Disposal of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Land. 5. PRESENTATIONS 6. CORRESPONDENCE 7. SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION 7.1 GREENBELT GOLDEN HORSESHOE CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES 5 COLLABORATIVE Expanding the Membership and Realigning the Geography and Mission of the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition 7.2 GOODWOOD RESOURCE MANAGEMENT TRACT TRAIL PLAN PROJECT 21 Initiation of Plan and Public Process 7.3 OAK RIDGES CORRIDOR CONSERVATION RESERVE TRAIL PLANNING 26 PROJECTS Initiation of Plan and Public Process 7.4 HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM 32 Request to Undertake Request for Proposal Process 8. SECTION III - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD 9. MATERIAL FROM BUDGET/AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING No meeting held this month 10. MATERIAL FROM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING #10/17, HELD ON DECEBMER 15, 2017 Link to Minutes 10.1 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION 10.1.1 REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY LAND 14 Pickering/Scarborough Townline, City of Toronto, Rouge River Watershed CFN 33517 Page 552 10.1.2 REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY LAND 4156 Dundas Street West, Etobicoke, City of Toronto, Humber River Watershed CFN 45819 Page 558 10.1.3 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed Build Toronto Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Density in the Greater Golden Horseshoe
    Centre for Urban and UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO Community Studies Urban Density in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Paul Hess, André Sorensen, and Kate Parizeau Research Paper 209 Centre for Urban and Community Studies University of Toronto May 2007 ISSN 0316-0068; ISBN-13 978-0-7727-1455-8 Urban Density in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Paul Hess, André Sorensen, and Kate Parizeau Research Paper 209 May 2007, vi, 69 pp. ISSN 0316-0068 ISBN-13 978-0-7727-1455-8 Centre for Urban and Community Studies University of Toronto 455 Spadina Avenue, 4th floor Toronto M5S 2G8 Canada Telephone: 416-978-2072 Fax 416-978-7162 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca The opinions expressed in this or any paper published by the Centre for Urban and Community Studies do not necessarily reflect the views of the Centre, or those of the University of Toronto. Centre for Urban and Community Studies • University of Toronto • www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca Urban Density in the Greater Golden Horseshoe iii Executive Summary The Ontario government has recently taken a proactive approach to growth planning in the To- ronto region, now known as the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH). To carry out and monitor its policies, the Province needs reliable ways of measuring density and monitoring how it changes over time. However, definitions of density vary and there are many approaches to its measure- ment. This paper reviews common definitions and discusses methodological and data problems asso- ciated with density measurements in the GGH. The authors examine existing density distribu- tions in the GGH using 2001 census data at the scale of municipal areas, census tracts, and census dissemination areas, and analyse 10 sample census tracts in Urban Growth Centres to compare gross and net densities for different types of development areas in the GGH.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulations in Planning Understanding the Relationship of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and Housing Affordability
    REGULATIONS IN PLANNING UNDERSTANDING THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE AND HOUSING AFFORDABILITY by Benjamin Pister B.Sc. (Honours), McMaster University, 2015 A Major Research Paper presented to Ryerson University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Planning in Urban Development Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2017 © Benjamin Pister, 2017 I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this MRP. This is a true copy of the MRP, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I authorize Ryerson University to lend this MRP to other institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research I further authorize Ryerson University to reproduce this MRP by photocopying or by other means, in total or in part, at the request of other institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research. I understand that my MRP may be made electronically available to the public. ii REGULATIONS IN PLANNING UNDERSTANDING THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE AND HOUSING AFFORDABILITY © Benjamin Pister, 2017 Master of Planning in Urban Development Ryerson University ABSTRACT This research paper explores what impacts regional regulation, and the resulting planning process, has on ground-related housing. The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan) is a significant regulation requiring evaluation. It has been suggested that density targets mandated by the Growth Plan have continuously decreased the supply of ground-related housing in the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH). The combination of regional regulations and the time of processing development applications play an important role in understanding changes in housing supply.
    [Show full text]
  • Binational and Corridor Planning Buffalo – Niagara Region
    BiNational and Corridor Planning Buffalo-Niagara Region Eastern Border Transportation Coalition Tuesday, September 13, 2011 Hal Morse, GBNRTC Executive Director 20.4 Million • New York-New Jersey-Long Island 16.2 Million • Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County • Toronto-Hamilton- Niagara Falls- 9.0 Million Buffalo-Rochester-Syracuse 8.9 Million • Chicago-Gary-Kenosha 7.4 Million • Washington-Baltimore Language Goals Currency Commonalities in the BiNational Region Culture/ Governance Customs History Four (4) International Commuter Rail – GO Train Motor Vehicle Bridges QEW and Interstate I-90 Inter-City Bus Services (Major Connectors) Two (2) Railway Bridges Four (4) Major Airports Four (4) Major Railways Welland Canal (St. Lawrence Seaway), Several Ports Rail Passenger Service VIA and AMTRAK Sports Education Some Viniculture Complementary BiNational Economic Sectors Tourism Auto • The trade relationship between the US and Canada is the largest in the world • Volumes crossing the U.S. and Canada border encompasses more the US $1.4B a day and over 200M people a year • The portion of that trade which flows between NYS and Ontario is a major part of that total trade relationship • NYS-Ontario annual trade typically at least $20B • 16 percent of all Canada-US trade crosses at the Niagara Frontier • The region is clearly a key to economic gateway between the nations Historically Good Neighbors Regional Approaches are Active Trade and Inclusive; Tourism Groups GBNRTC, Regional Niagara, NITTEC Early BiNational Cross Border Bridge Operators Planning Efforts Transportation Working Planning Relationship Coordination Subcommittee BiNational Numerous Regional Travel Studies and Data Model at Collection GBNRTC • Recognizing the close economic ties, the Province of Ontario and the State of New York organized a summit conference in June 2001 involving the Premier of Ontario and the Governor of New York.
    [Show full text]
  • GHSCIA 2018 Winter Local.Pages
    Golden Horseshoe Soil and Crop Improvement Association Winter 2017/18 goldenhorseshoe Inside This Issue: Leosta Farms Around the ‘Horseshoe Restored 1930s combine Rockton World’s Fair CROP TALK & OSCIA News A Word from the Editor GHSCIA EXECUTIVE ! President: Gary Mountain It seems the weather is what all the talk has been Past President: Steve Sickle about as this harvest season is wrapping up across 1st Vice President: Brad Nimijohn our area. It has been another challenging growing 2nd Vice President: Ed Kisielewski season but I’m hearing that there are some good Secretary/Treasurer: Ingrid Sikkens surprises on the yield monitors. I hope this is the ! case for all of you. GHSCIA Board of Directors As we finish in the fields, we start to turn our Gordon Alblas, Rosemarie Haegens, John Hussack, attention to meeting season. Annual meeting Paul Kerr, Greg Kitching, Holly Loucas, John Nurse, Adam Parker, Arpad Pasztor, Andrew Pattemore, Scott details are coming together for many of our Ruppert, Ed Russell, Gerry Veldhuizen, Cathy Vitucci. counties, with some great speakers being lined up. Watch for more details in your mailbox, ! inbox, on the website and Twitter, and try to get PROVINCIAL DIRECTOR out to learn, network and participate with your Steve Sickle local soil and crop organization. It’s also ! membership renewal time for all of our counties, EDITOR so don’t forget to renew your membership. Janice Janiec Elections for local Boards of Directors happen at ! these annual meetings, so consider putting your OMAFRA REPRESENTATIVES name forward and helping out at the local level. Christine Brown and Jake Munroe And, it’s also the time to put forward any ! resolutions for the provincial Annual Meeting and goldenhorseshoe is published four times a year by the Conference, happening February 13 & 14 in Golden Horseshoe Soil and Crop Improvement London once again.
    [Show full text]
  • The Golden Horseshoe
    Sec02_LC_Hammett_II_791030 3/29/01 9:06 AM Page 219 The Golden Horseshoe haven’t anything very exciting to offer you this time,” I Vance Richmond said as we shook hands. “I want you to find a man for me—a man who is not a criminal.” There was an apology in his voice. The last couple of jobs this lean, grey-faced attorney had thrown my way had run to gun-play and other forms of rioting, and I suppose he thought anything less than that would put me to sleep. Was a time when he might have been right—when I was a young sprout of twenty or so, newly attached to the Continental Detective Agency. But the fifteen years that had slid by since then had dulled my appetite for rough stuff. I don’t mean that I shuddered whenever I considered the possibility of some bird taking a poke at me; but I didn’t call that day a total loss in which nobody tried to puncture my short, fat carcass. “The man I want found,” the lawyer went on, as we sat down, “is an English architect named Norman Ashcraft. He is a man of about thirty-seven, five feet ten inches tall, well built, and fair-skinned, with light hair and blue eyes. Four years ago he was a typical specimen of the clean-cut blond Britisher. He may not be like that now—those four years have been rather hard ones for him, I imagine. “I want to find him for Mrs. Ashcraft, his wife.
    [Show full text]