Migration from central to surrounding municipalities in Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver

View the most recent version.

by Martin Turcotte and Mireille Vézina

Introduction
What you should know about this study
For every person who moved from a municipality outside Toronto to Toronto, 3.5 made the opposite move
New parents are among those most likely to leave the central municipality
Lone parents are more inclined to remain in the central municipality
Lowest-income and highest-income persons were less likely to have migrated to a surrounding municipality
Those who had completed college or had a bachelor's degree, more likely to leave a central municipality
Artists and the university professors more likely to remain in central municipalities
In the Montréal CMA, francophones are more likely to leave the city of Montréal than anglophones and allophones
In the Montréal and Vancouver CMAs, persons born in Canada are more likely to leave the central municipality
Childless couples are more likely to migrate to a central municipality
Profile of the population of central municipalities and surrounding municipalities in the Montréal, Toronto and Vancouver metropolitan areas
Summary

Introduction

After the Second World War, and over the next several decades, the demographic growth of North American residential suburbs occurred as a result of the relocation of individuals and families from city centres or other areas. In society today, many of those who were born in the suburbs may never leave their original area, or may relocate, but continue to reside in a suburb to raise their families.¹ At the same time there continues to be a migration of many young adults and families from central municipalities to surrounding municipalities, while few move in the opposite direction. These intrametropolitan migratory movements are one of the reasons for the discrepancy between the the cities and suburbs with respect to family representation. In fact, the 2006 Census data show that households consisting of a couple with children continued to be more strongly represented in outlying areas than in city centres in practically all of the country's urban areas.² This discrepancy in family composition is particularly noticeable between central and surrounding municipalities in the Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver metropolitan areas (for a definition of the concepts of central and surrounding municipalities, see ("What you should know about this study").

Various large metropolitan municipalities vie for residents by advertising the attractions and services their environments offer. Additionally, many central municipalities try to reverse the current migratory trend and encourage young adults and their families, particularly those with children, to settle there. For example, the city of Montréal has put a community family action plan in place to attract young families to locate there.³ The cities of Toronto and Vancouver have developed programs focused on child care services to attract new migrants.⁴

Currently, there is little detailed information available about the social and economic characteristics of young adults who move from central municipalities to surrounding municipalities. To fill this gap, this article looks at the intrametropolitan migration of persons aged 25 to 44 (in 2006) in the country's three largest metropolitan areas—Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver.⁵ This group is of particular interest because they are significantly more likely to move from downtown to a surrounding municipality, and they are at an age where they are establishing families and buying first homes. As a result, they are a particularly sought-after 'clientele' for all municipalities, both central and outlying. 

This article uses the 2006 Census of Population data (for more details on the data and concepts, see " What you should know about this study"). Geographic maps are included to clarify the distinction between central municipality and surrounding municipality for each of the three metropolitan areas studied.⁶

Top of Page

Top of Page

Map 1 Municipality of Toronto and outlying municipalities

Map 2 Municipality of Montréal and outlying municipalities

Map 3 Municipality of Vancouver and outlying municipalities

For every person who moved from a municipality outside Toronto to Toronto, 3.5 made the opposite move

Numerous demographic studies have shown that age is one of the factors most strongly associated with the probability of migrating. In fact, migration is most frequent in early adulthood when people are experiencing transitions such as pursuing postsecondary studies, entering the labour market and family formation.⁷ The tendency to migrate decreases considerably once these stages have been completed.

It is not surprising that age was observed to be strongly linked to the possibility of moving from the municipalities of Toronto, Montréal or Vancouver to a surrounding municipality. Examination of the adult population aged 20 and over showed that the propensity to move to a surrounding municipality increases up to age 34 and then decreases in the older age groups (Chart 1).

In all three regions, the population aged 25 to 44 was more likely than any other age group to move from a central municipality to a surrounding municipality. According to a recent survey, single homes located in low-density residential neighbourhoods continued to be the type of housing most sought after by persons aged 25 to 44.⁸ The supply of this type of housing is greater in surrounding municipalities than downtown (see, for example, Table A.4).

Chart 1 People aged 30 to 34 are the most likely to have moved from one of the three central municipalities to a surrounding municipality

Table A.4 Profile of population aged 25 to 44 in 2006, by place of residence, 2006

The three CMAs studied differ significantly from each other with respect to their geography, size of population aged 25 to 44 and distribution of that population between the central municipality and surrounding municipalities. In 2006, 1.6 million persons aged 25 to 44 were enumerated in the Toronto metropolitan area (51% resided in the central municipality), 1.1 million in the Montréal metropolitan area (48% resided in the central municipality) and 630,000 in the Vancouver metropolitan area (32% resided in the central municipality).

Despite these differences, the proportion of 25- to 44-year-olds who moved from the central municipality to a surrounding municipality was the same in all three regions (i.e., 14%) (Tables A.1, A.2 and A.3). The proportion of persons in this age group who moved in the opposite direction—that is, from a surrounding municipality to the central municipality—was about three times lower: 5% in Toronto and Montréal, and 4% in Vancouver.

A comparison of moves in the two directions found that the three central municipalities suffered a net loss of 25- to 44-year-olds to surrounding municipalities. For example, in the Toronto region, for each person who left any of the surrounding municipalities to settle in the central municipality, 3.5 persons made the opposite move (see exchange ratio, Table A.1).

Top of Page

New parents are among those most likely to leave the central municipality

Previous research has shown that family structure is a crucial factor in the decision to migrate.⁹ Among the various factors considered in this study, family status was among those that most strongly affected the probability of leaving a central municipality (Tables A.1, A.2 and A.3). The finding held even when the effects of age, income and other factors were taken into consideration.

Table A.1 Factors associated with the probability of moving from the municipality of Toronto to surrounding municipality in the metropolitan area between 2001 and 2006 for persons aged 25 to 44

In all three CMAs, individuals who became parents for the first time between 2001 and 2006 were among those most likely to have left a central municipality. For example, over this period in the Vancouver region, between 27% and 29% of new parents left the city of Vancouver to settle in a surrounding municipality.  In comparison, only 8% of persons living alone relocated to surrounding municipalities—about three times less. In the Montréal region, the difference was more pronounced: 34% of persons who became parents of two or more children between 2001 and 2006 left the central municipality compared to 7% of persons living alone (Table A.2).

Table A.2 Characteristics associated with the probability of moving from the municipality of Montréal to a surrounding municipality in the metropolitan area between 2001 and 2006 for persons aged 25 to 44

Several reasons might help explain why parents of young children were more likely to leave the central municipalities. For example, according to previous studies, it is often the desire for more space to accommodate a new family situation that persuades new parents to move to areas where larger houses are more readily available and cost less.¹⁰ In addition to a need for space, many new parents choose a residential neighbourhood farther from downtown because they want to live close to other families (who have needs similar to theirs)¹¹ and because they perceive these areas as being safer, better suited to raising children and, in some cases, less noisy.¹²

Top of Page

Lone parents are more inclined to remain in the central municipality

When children get older and the family is complete, the probability of moving, whether a short or long distance, decreases considerably. The results show that persons who were already parents in 2001, but did not have other children during that period, were less likely than new parents to move from a central municipality to a surrounding municipality (Tables A.1, A.2 and A.3).

One type of family stands out from the others: single-parent families. These families were less likely than average to move from a central municipality to a surrounding municipality. This lower propensity to migrate was not explained by lower incomes. In fact, even at similar income levels (taking other factors like education into account), single-parent families continued to be less likely to have left a central municipality (Tables A.1, A.2 and A.3).¹³ According to a study conducted in the Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver regions, lone parents were more interested in living in denser neighbourhoods than two-parent families.¹⁴ One possible explanation for this may be that single-parent families may have less time available for commuting, maintaining a house or garden.

According to one classic economic theory, persons and households vote with their feet—i.e., they choose to live in a municipality that offers them the type of environment they want, with the best price-quality ratio (the desired service levels and types at a cost deemed satisfactory, in municipal taxes).¹⁵.Different family situations can create different needs, thus leading to some of the differences between family types in the propensity to leave central municipalities.

Top of Page

Lowest-income and highest-income persons were less likely to have migrated to a surrounding municipality

Apart from age and family status, family income is a key factor affecting the decision to move: higher incomes allow households and families to choose the type of housing they prefer and where they want to live.¹⁶ Conversely, having too low an income makes it difficult to buy a vehicle, which is often essential to living in low-density suburbs.¹⁷ Whether in Toronto, Montréal or Vancouver, persons with the lowest incomes (less than $20,000 after taxes)¹⁸ were the least likely of all to have moved from the central municipality to a surrounding municipality (Chart 2). In Vancouver, for example, only 9% of persons in the lowest income category migrated from the downtown area. In comparison, the proportion was twice as high, 18%, for those with after-tax incomes between $80,000 and $99,999 (Table A.3).

Chart 2 People with a family income less than $40,000 are less likely to move from a central municipality to a surrounding municipality

Table A.3 Characteristics associated with the probability of moving from the municipality of Vancouver to a surrounding municipality in the metropolitan area between 2001 and 2006 for persons aged 25 to 44

In each of the three CMAs, the highest proportion of moves to surrounding municipalities occurred in families having after-tax incomes between $70,000 and $99,999. In Montréal, for example, persons in this income bracket were about five times more likely to have moved to a surrounding municipality than those who had after-tax incomes of $20,000 or less.

Despite the positive correlation between income and the probability of leaving the central municipality, this trend reversed at the top of the income scale.  That is, those with the highest incomes were less likely to move to a surrounding municipality. For example, in Toronto and Vancouver, those with the highest after-tax incomes were less likely to have migrated to a surrounding municipality than were, on average, all 25- to 44-year olds residing in the central municipality in 2001.

This reversal at the top end of the income scale may be because these individuals and families are more likely to be able to afford housing in more central areas where properties of equivalent size generally cost more.¹⁹  For most households, a compromise must be made between distance from downtown and desired residence size. For wealthier families, this compromise can be avoided since they can more easily purchase relatively spacious housing close to downtown.  Additionally, persons with incomes at the top of the scale may place a higher premium on the possibility of access to certain 'luxury' services and consumer goods (restaurants, clothing, etc.) that are often found in densely populated central areas.²⁰

If the analysis is restricted to only new parents (i.e., those who had a first child or more between 2001 and 2006), the impacts that 'family status' and income have on the probability of leaving a central municipality are evident. For example, in Montréal, among new parents who had their first two (or more) children between 2001 and 2006 and who had an after-tax income between $50,000 and $99,999 more than 40% moved from the municipality of Montréal to a surrounding municipality (Chart 3).

Chart 3 New parents with incomes over $50,000 are particularly likely to have moved from a central municipality to a surrounding municipality

Top of Page

Those who had completed college or had a bachelor's degree, more likely to leave a central municipality

In each of the three metropolitan areas, persons who completed their college or bachelor's studies (Tables A.1, A.2 and A.3) were more likely to leave the central municipality. The finding was the same when the effect of other factors—income, age and family status—was taken into account. The many benefits of postsecondary education are well known—higher income, greater job security, better working conditions and, in general, better health.²¹ The migration of those with diplomas or undergraduate degrees to surrounding municipalities is likely a result of them having more stable incomes, since much of the housing available in suburban municipalities requires a stable income.²²

On the other hand, whether in Toronto, Montréal or Vancouver, the most educated were slightly less likely to leave the central municipality. For example, in Montréal, when other factors were kept constant in the logistic regression, the odds of moving to a surrounding municipality were 49% lower for persons with a master's degree or doctorate than for those with a college diploma. This might be because those with the highest levels of education may place a premium on the amenities typically found in city centres such as museums, concert halls, and a wide variety of restaurants, and are more willing to pay more or live in lower-quality housing in order to be close to them.²³

Top of Page

Artists and the university professors more likely to remain in central municipalities

According to some urban affairs experts, large cities and metropolitan areas should do everything they can to train, attract and retain members of a certain 'creative class', i.e., scientists, engineers, artists and knowledge industry workers, because their presence would improve quality of life and possibly increase the variety and number of well-paid jobs.²⁴ Influenced by this idea, many large cities have developed marketing strategies aimed at attracting these workers by highlighting the cultural vitality and cosmopolitan nature of their cities.²⁵

As shown in Table A.5, artists who were living in a central municipality were likely to remain there. Whether in Toronto, Montréal or Vancouver, creative and performing (musicians, dancers, actors) arts professionals were among those least inclined to migrate to a surrounding municipality (6%). Interestingly, arts, culture, sports and recreation managers were also less likely to leave the central municipality (7% in Montréal, for example), which was not the case for senior managers in other industries (19% in the Montréal metropolitan area). It should be noted that in all three metropolitan areas, significantly more artists aged 25 to 44 resided in the central municipality than in a surrounding municipality. For example, in 2006, in the Toronto CMA, 76% of creative and performing arts professionals resided in the central municipality (results not shown).

Table A.5 Selected occupations and percentage of persons aged 25 to 44 who moved to or from a central municipality between 2001 and 2006

University professors also stood out from other professions. In fact, in all three CMAs, less than 7% moved between 2001 and 2006. In comparison, their colleagues at the college, secondary and elementary levels were almost three times more likely to move to the suburbs, possibly partly because of the location of the institutions where they worked (since many colleges and secondary schools are found in surrounding municipalities, while many universities are in the central municipality).

Top of Page

In the Montréal CMA, francophones are more likely to leave the city of Montréal than anglophones and allophones

Francophones—i.e., persons whose mother tongue is French—represented about two-thirds of the total population of Montréal's metropolitan area (65.7%) in 2006.²⁶ However, their relative weight was not the same everywhere. While they were a slight minority on Montréal Island, they were clearly in the majority on the northern and southern tips.

This situation is partly explained by the fact that francophone Montréalers aged 25 to 44 have a greater tendency than anglophones and allophones to leave the city of Montréal (17% for francophones compared to 11% for anglophones and allophones, Table A.2). Moreover, when they left the city of Montréal, francophones were more likely to move to municipalities off Montréal Island, such as Longueuil, Terrebonne or Repentigny. Thus, while only 3% of persons whose mother tongue was French who left the city of Montréal chose a municipality on Montréal Island, 26% of anglophones and 11% of allophones did so (data not shown).

When mother tongue is taken into account along with family status and income, the differences among the groups are more pronounced. Almost one-half of all new francophone parents with incomes between $50,000 and $99,999 left the city of Montréal for a surrounding municipality between 2001 and 2006 (45%). The corresponding proportions were 26% for allophones and 30% for anglophones.

Top of Page

In the Montréal and Vancouver CMAs, persons born in Canada are more likely to leave the central municipality

In general, the reasons why members of certain immigrant communities are attracted to suburban residential areas are very similar to those of non-immigrants: the possibility of becoming a home owner, lower housing prices and areas perceived to be safer for children.²⁷ Access to ownership is also considered by many as a mark of social integration and economic success in the host society.²⁸

Historically, non-immigrants were more closely associated with the exodus to the suburbs. That view still quite accurately describes the situation in Montréal, where non-immigrants were more likely to leave than immigrants, regardless of their place of birth. For example, in that CMA, 18% of non-immigrants aged 25 to 44 left the central municipality compared to only 6% of immigrants from South Asia.

On the other hand, in Toronto, immigrants, particularly those from South Asia (22%) and the Middle East (18%), had the greatest propensity to move from the city of Toronto to a surrounding municipality (only 11% of Torontonians born in Canada had become 'ex-Torontonians' in 2006).

Finally, in Vancouver, the propensity of non-immigrants to move approached that of immigrants born in certain specific regions (South America, Middle-East, South Asia), but exceeded that of immigrants of other origins.

In the Toronto and Vancouver regions, several municipalities outside the central municipality have large immigrant populations (both in number and proportion).²⁹ This has an effect on the propensity to move from the central municipality, since immigrants are more likely to choose municipalities where immigrant groups already constitute a large part the population.

Data on the municipalities chosen by persons who relocated from a central municipality gives a better understanding of this situation (Table A.6). For example, in the Toronto CMA, 21% of immigrants who moved from the municipality of Toronto to a surrounding municipality chose the municipality of Brampton (compared to only 9% of non-immigrants). Similarly, the municipality of Markham was chosen by 19% of immigrants who moved from the city of Toronto, compared to 7% non-immigrants who relocated from the city of Toronto.

Table A.6 Destination of persons aged 25 to 44 who moved from a central municipality to a surrounding municipality

In Vancouver, proportionally more immigrants chose the municipalities of Richmond and Burnaby, two municipalities with the highest immigrant populations in Canada.

Finally, in the Montréal region, the municipality of Laval was significantly more popular with immigrants who moved from the city of Montréal (41% chose Laval) than among non-immigrants who decided to leave the central municipality (16% chose Laval).

While new immigrants (those who arrived in Canada between 2001 and 2006) were not included in this study, it should be noted that about 7 out of 10 new immigrants choose to settle in the Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver CMAs.  Additionally, a majority of new immigrants settle in the central municipality of these three CMAs, despite the growing popularity of the surrounding municipalities.³⁰ Moreover, these newcomers contribute greatly to maintaining demographic growth in those central municipalities.

Top of Page

Childless couples are more likely to migrate to a central municipality

Up to this point, emphasis has been placed on the characteristics of persons who were more likely to move from a central municipality to a surrounding municipality. But it is equally interesting to examine those individuals who move in the opposite direction—that is from the surrounding areas to the central municipality.

In each of the three municipalities examined here, between 4% and 5% of persons living in a surrounding municipality in 2001 relocated to a central municipality in 2006 (Tables A.1, A.2 and A.3). Generally speaking, the people least inclined to move from their municipality to a central municipality were those aged 40 to 44, those who were already parents in 2001 (and thus had children aged 5 or over in 2006) and those who also worked in a non-central municipality.

New parents living in a surrounding municipality in 2001 were also less inclined than average to migrate to the central municipality. For that reason, in central municipalities, the departure of new parents far outweighed the arrival of parents from surrounding municipalities. The exchange ratios (last columns in Tables A.1, A.2 and A.3) illustrate this. In the Montréal area, for example, for every new parent of two or more children who left a surrounding municipality for downtown, 17 moved to the suburbs.

Non-family persons (mostly those living alone), younger people and childless couples were more likely to move from a surrounding municipality to a central municipality. After leaving their parents' home, but before becoming parents themselves, many people choose to live near downtown to finish their education or start a first job. For them, the city might represent a place of transition.³¹ Single people might prefer downtown life for all kinds of reasons, one of which is that this environment allows them to meet other people more easily.³² Also, people living alone might more easily find housing that suits their financial situation and lifestyle in a central municipality since more rental housing is available in the core than in most neighbouring municipalities (Table A.4).

In the three CMAs, those in the lowest income bracket, (under $20,000) were more likely than others to move from a surrounding municipality to a central municipality. In Montréal and Vancouver, the number of persons with incomes under $20,000 who migrated from a surrounding municipality to a central municipality was slightly higher than the number of those moving in the opposite direction (exchange ratio less than 1).

More generally, there are many other reasons why residents of surrounding municipalities move to a central municipality such as shorter commuting distances or a desire to change lifestyles. In fact, many people like urban living and its cultural offerings, as well as the street culture found in certain neighbourhoods with their public spaces, cafes and greatly diversified populations.³³ These factors help attract new residents and also may encourage people already living in the central areas to remain.

Top of Page

Top of Page

Summary

The migration of individuals and families from central municipalities to the suburbs is an important issue for urban planers. From the central municipalities' point of view, it is important to clearly understand the characteristics of people moving to surrounding municipalities in order to better target action aimed at countering such movements. From the surrounding municipalities' point of view, it is useful to understand the characteristics of the residents in order to better plan for the appropriate infrastructure and services that may be required.

In Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver, this study has shown that among people living in a central municipality in 2001, those aged 25 to 44 were particularly likely to move to a surrounding municipality. In all three metropolitan areas, almost 1 person in 6 in this age group left downtown and moved to a surrounding municipality. There was significantly lower likelihood of moving from a surrounding municipality to a central municipality, with no more than 5% of people doing so in the three metropolitan areas studied.

The propensity to move to a surrounding municipality varied considerably depending on people's social and economic characteristics. Those most likely to move were new parents, people with a college or vocational school diploma, and those with after-tax incomes between $70,000 and $99,999. In Montréal, non-immigrants were more likely than immigrants to leave the central municipality, while the opposite was true in Toronto. In Montréal, more francophones than anglophones or allophones left the central municipality for the one of the surrounding municipalities.

Those who relocated to the centre were more likely to be younger, living alone or with room-mates or have with low income.

Mireille Vézina and Martin Turcotte are analysts in Statistics Canada's Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division.

Notes

1. Fortin, A., Després, C. and Vachon, G. (2002). La banlieue revisitée. Québec: Éditions Nota Bene.
2. Statistics Canada. (2008). Family Portrait: Continuity and Change in Canadian Families and Households in 2006, 2006 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 97-553. Ottawa: Minister of Industry.
3. City of Montréal. (2007). 2008-2009 Family Action Plan. Strategies adopted to retain and attract families include tax benefits that might be granted to young couples when they become first-time homeowners, free public transit for children or measures aimed at promoting an increased feeling of safety among residents, particularly young parents.
4. For the city of Vancouver, see http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/socialplanning/initiatives/childcare/ccgrants1.htm. For the city of Toronto, see http://www.toronto.ca/children/subsidy.htm.
5. In the country's other large metropolitan areas such as Ottawa-Gatineau, Calgary or Edmonton, surrounding municipalities are much less numerous and densely populated than in the three largest CMAs. Consequently, the question of moves from the central municipality to surrounding municipalities is a bit less relevant there.
6. It should be noted that this article does not deal directly with urban sprawl. In fact, the boundaries between central and surrounding municipalities do not allow the various elements to be taken into account in studies on urban sprawl (population densities, usage mixing, etc.) to be adequately measured.
7. Dion, P. and Coulombe, S. (2008). Portrait of the Mobility of Canadians in 2006: Trajectories and Characteristics of Migrants. Catalogue no. 91-209. Ottawa: Minister of Industry.
8. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2009). Renovation and Home Purchase Report.
   Myers, D. and Gearin, E. (2001). "Current preferences and future demand for denser residential environments." Housing Policy Debate. 12(4), 633-659.
9. Michielin, F. and Mulder, C. H. (2008). "Family events and the residential mobility of couples." Environment and Planning A40(11), 2770-2790.
10. Freitjen, P. and Mulder, C. H. (2002). The timing of household events and housing events in the Netherlands: A longitudinal perspective, Housing Studies, 76(5), 773-792.
11. Karsten, L. (2007). "Housing as a way of life: towards an understanding of middle-class families' preference for an urban residential location." Housing Studies. 22(1), 83-98.
    Mazanti, B. (2007). "Choosing residence, community and neighbours – Theorizing families' motives for moving." Geographiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography. 89(1), 53-68.
12. Wagner, F. W., Joder, T. E., Mumphrey, A. J., Akundi, K. M. and Artibise, A. F. J. (2005). Revitalizing the City: Strategies to Contain Sprawl and Revive the Core. Armonk: ME Sharpe.
    Thorkild, A. (2006). "Residential choice from a lifestyle perspective." Housing, Theory and Society. 23(2), 109-130.
13. For example, if only parents with incomes of $50,000 or more are examined, the proportion of lone parents or heads of single-parent families who left the central municipality in the Montréal area was only 12%. The corresponding proportion for new parents of a single child was 36%. There were similar discrepancies  in the Toronto and Vancouver areas.
14. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (1996). Housing the New Family: Reinventing Housing for Families. Research Highlights. Socio-Economic Series, 23.
15. Thiebout, C. (1956). "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures." Journal of Political Economy.64, 416-424.
16. Wagner et al. (2005).
17. Downs, A. 1997. The Challenge of our Declining Big Cities. Housing Policy Debate. 8(2), 359-408.
18. Family income can vary considerably from one year to another. Therefore care must be taken in interpreting data since 2005 income is used to characterize greater or lesser propensity to have migrated between 2001 and 2006. That being said, one can be confident of the validity of the results since the relationships observed in Tables 1.a, 1.b and 1.c follow trends identical to those obtained when we focus solely on central municipality/surrounding municipality migrations between 2005 and 2006 (results not shown).
19. For example, according to the 2006 Census, the average value of a single house in the city of Toronto was a little over one-half million dollars ($506,000). In the city of Brampton, a municipality located west of Toronto that is experiencing strong demographic growth (+33% between 2001 and 2006), the average cost of housing of this type was about $375,000. There are some non-central municipalities where average single house costs are even higher than in the central municipality, for example, Richmond Hill, in the Toronto area, Westmount, in the Montréal area and West Vancouver, in the Vancouver area. In general, however, prices are significantly lower in the outskirts than downtown.
20. Glaeser, E, L., Kolko, J., and Saiz, A. (2001). "Consumer City." Journal of Economic Geography. 1, 27-50.
21. Shaienks, D., Gluszynski, T., and Bayard, J. (2008). Postsecondary Education – Participation and Dropping Out: Differences Across University, College and Other Types of Postsecondary Institutions. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 81-595-M. Ottawa: Minister of Industry.
22. Dielman, F. M., and Evaraers, P. C. J. (1994). "From renting to owning: Life course and housing market circumstances." Housing Studies. 27(3), 11-25.
23. Glaeser, E. L., and Gottlieb, J. D. (2006). "Urban resurgence and the consumer city." Urban Studies. 43(8).
24. Florida, R. (2005). Cities and the Creative Class. New York: Routledge.
25. Storper, M., and Manville, M. (2006). "Behaviour, preferences and cities: Urban theory and urban resurgence." Urban Studies. 43(8), 1247-1274.
26. For more details, see Statistics Canada. (2007). The Evolving Linguistic Portrait, 2006 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 97-555. Ottawa: Minister of Industry. Multiple responses are distributed equally among the languages reported.
27. Teixeira, C. (2007). "Residential experiences and the culture of suburbanization: A case study of Portuguese homebuyers in Mississauga." Housing Studies. 22(4), 495-521.
28. Haan, M. (2005). Are immigrants Buying to Get in? The Role of Ethnic Clustering on the Homeownership Propensities of 12 Toronto Immigrant Groups, 1996-2001. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 11F0019MIE. Ottawa: Minister of Industry.
29. Statistics Canada. (2008). Immigration in Canada: A Portrait of the Foreign-born Population, 2006 Census, No. 97-557-XIF in the catalog. Ottawa:  Minister of Industry.
30. Statistics Canada. (2008).
31. Fréchette, L., Desmarais, D., Assogba, Y., and Paré, J.-L.(2004). "L'intégration des jeunes à la ville : une dynamique de repérage spatial et social." La migration des jeunes. Aux frontières de l'espace et du temps. Chapter. 2. p. 81-105. Published under the direction ofP. Leblanc and M. Molgat.
32. Glaeser et al. (2001).
33. Zukin, S. (1998). "Urban lifestyles: Diversity and standardisation in spaces of consumption." Urban Studies. 35(5). 825-839.
    Glaeser et al. (2001). Karsten, L. (2007).