[ShonTron]

And Prince Edward County is now a single-tier municipality (a county in name only), as well as Haldimand and Norfolk, after the combined RM was dissolved and single-tier municipalities with the original county boundaries established.

I explained on another thread the county/city thing.

The County system in Ontario has (and had for a long time) cities separate from the county for most intents and purposes. Guelph is in Wellington County (hence it counted in the Wellington Census Division and the is the seat of the Wellington judicial district), but not part of its administrative responsibility. There are no county roads in Guelph itself, for example.

Other non-county cities include Peterborough, Owen Sound, Sarnia, London, Windsor, Belleville, St. Thomas, Stratford, Cornwall, Brockville, Kingston, etc. All of these cities are the county seat, and have the courthouse. Most also have the headquarters of the counties they are within, but not administered by, such as Guelph and London. Barrie is one exception where the county offices moved out of the city, Essex County the other, though each courthouse are in the old county seats (Barrie and Windsor).

Districts, such as Nipissing or Algoma, have no jurisdictional purpose, except that they are judicial districts and administrative boundaries for the province.

 

[adma]

On the contrary...I grew up in a small town in Oxford County, so I was very aware of County and Township roles...as most things were named after one of them.

But I'm partially with you on this...while the term Oxford County is still officially used, it's actually a Regional Municipality (since 2001), so it technically makes no sense to keep the name county in its title. But the word county is so entrenched in its identity, it remains. It's called a county...but it isn't one.

Speaking of "old school", it would be interesting to get the Old Order Mennonite's take on this...they still live there, as if it were still 1850 when the County was incorporated, which is considerably older than your great aunties & uncles take on it.

Though thinking of this further: the problem with your perspective might actually be the inverse of present-day casual ignorance. That is, it's too "old school"; i.e. too astringently ingrained within a fundamentally c19-scaled rural-Ontario hyperlocal worm's-eye purism--something which may be technically "truer" to the actual origins of the county/township/municipality system; but it's still overly tethered--scaled for the limited hinterlands of horse-and-buggy days. (And it's a hyperlocalism that carries, faults and all, an odd parallel to "Jane Jacobs" hyperurbanism.)

Which leads me to consider that this notion of "common geography" is actually a product of the modern era--that is, of the motor age. An era when the limited hinterlands broke down, when all of Ontario came to be at one's combustion-engined fingertips--and of course, note my favoured reference point for "common geography" coordinates, misleading-or-not county concepts and all: the highway map.

So, in a way, you really have to be into, or at least empathetic towards, the wide-eyed sensuality and shimmering exhilaration of classic c20-style happy-motoring auto-culture to comprehend "common geography"--something which those Jonny5 great-aunts and uncles are evidently absolutely steeped in. (But judging from some of your other posts elsewhere, you're a bit of a car-o-phobe--so, no wonder, etc etc.)

 

[freshcutgrass]

Though thinking of this further: the problem with your perspective might actually be the inverse of present-day casual ignorance. That is, it's too "old school"; i.e. too astringently ingrained within a fundamentally c19-scaled rural-Ontario hyperlocal worm's-eye purism--something which may be technically "truer" to the actual origins of the county/township/municipality system; but it's still overly tethered--scaled for the limited hinterlands of horse-and-buggy days.

It's funny though...up until about the time I left the small town in Oxford County (1980), that "horse & buggy" dynamic still worked, so it wasn't the car that changed everything. County/Township dynamics still worked because Town infrastructure was fairly basic, and farm kids went to school in town and shopped in town, etc, etc. The disparity between rural-town needs was not great, so caused no major issues politically or practically. Some of the stores in the little "downtown" in my village still had hitches to accommodate the Mennonite's horse & buggies.

Places like Oxford County were not affected by large city suburbanization. It wasn't until the advent of malls & big box stores that finally came to the area and the loss of jobs from local factories that the small rural town died. Farming also changed enough that it was no longer a major part of the local economy...especially the tobacco industry, which was the cash cow of the region (when I was a kid, you made shitloads of money working a summer job in tobacco). The small town I grew up in (less than 1000 population) was self-sufficient and a small, but vibrant little "downtown". It's all gone now.

(But judging from some of your other posts elsewhere, you're a bit of a car-o-phobe--so, no wonder, etc etc.)

I can see where you might get that idea...but it's not really accurate. I'm not against cars at all...I'm just against the subsidization of car driving in our urban context. If I had the means, I would be chauffeured around in a Mercedes 600 Pullman (with privacy curtains, naturally) ala some third world dictator. I would just be willing to PAY for it.

 

[adma]

It's funny though...up until about the time I left the small town in Oxford County (1980), that "horse & buggy" dynamic still worked, so it wasn't the car that changed everything. County/Township dynamics still worked because Town infrastructure was fairly basic, and farm kids went to school in town and shopped in town, etc, etc. The disparity between rural-town needs was not great, so caused no major issues politically or practically. Some of the stores in the little "downtown" in my village still had hitches to accommodate the Mennonite's horse & buggies.

Places like Oxford County were not affected by large city suburbanization. It wasn't until the advent of malls & big box stores that finally came to the area and the loss of jobs from local factories that the small rural town died. Farming also changed enough that it was no longer a major part of the local economy...especially the tobacco industry, which was the cash cow of the region (when I was a kid, you made shitloads of money working a summer job in tobacco). The small town I grew up in (less than 1000 population) was self-sufficient and a small, but vibrant little "downtown". It's all gone now.

Actually, the way you're speaking of it now *does* affirm how the car changed everything. It's just that your own existence there was (by your own admission) still vestigially bonded to and even primarily defined by hyperlocal c19 ruralism, and a car was but a de facto horse-with-a-combustion-engine convenience. It was a culture where Oxfordians were Oxfordians, rather than part of an shimmering archipelago ot Oxfords and Middlesexes and Brants and Norfolks--and it's not unlike inner-city Torontonians for whom what's beyond Steeles (or, for that matter, beyond the Smitherman/Ford electoral divide) is a seemingly hostile terra incognita.

Maybe it was, in practice, a form of geographic dilletantism (i.e. counties treated as blocks of land to pass through with all the administrative/legislative gobbledygook out of sight, out of mind); but it was the motor age which enabled the "shimmering archipelago". Before that, long-distance travel was either gruelling, or in the hands of the train engineer; and because train travel was a hands-off process which wasn't marked by obvious county-boundary or town-boundary signposts, it didn't "engage" the passenger the way a map-equipped motorist would have been "engaged". (And I suppose that GPS, or at least the way it's all too often used, is the modern version of the "train engineer", i.e. disconnect, and let the GPS do the guiding.)

I can see where you might get that idea...but it's not really accurate. I'm not against cars at all...I'm just against the subsidization of car driving in our urban context. If I had the means, I would be chauffeured around in a Mercedes 600 Pullman (with privacy curtains, naturally) ala some third world dictator. I would just be willing to PAY for it.

Ah, but such chauffeuring doesn't allow you to engage, the way that hands-on-the-wheel-and-a-map-by-your-side can;-).

(IOW your "car-phobia" might be less about hating cars than about not identifying with them, or at least an automotive-based scale of geography--and it isn't really about advocating highways and malls and all of that, either. In fact, imagine myself and a "pro-car" dude like Rob Ford travelling from Chicago to St Louis, and I'd insist upon Old Route 66 all the way in lieu of the Interstate, and he'd blow his top at my like I was John Barber or something...you get the picture.)

 

[freshcutgrass]

It was a culture where Oxfordians were Oxfordians, rather than part of an shimmering archipelago ot Oxfords and Middlesexes and Brants and Norfolks--and it's not unlike inner-city Torontonians for whom what's beyond Steeles (or, for that matter, beyond the Smitherman/Ford electoral divide) is a seemingly hostile terra incognita.

No. Unless you have been exposed to true rural living, as opposed to suburban living, you wouldn't understand this. And that's what I think was that shift...rural people started behaving like suburban people. And that happened in the 1980's. Car culture had been around long before that, and hadn't changed the lifestyle.

Ah, but such chauffeuring doesn't allow you to engage, the way that hands-on-the-wheel-and-a-map-by-your-side can;-).

Inner-city Toronto driving isn't quite that romantic I'm afraid. The romance in travelling within the city either involves the streetcar...or being chauffeured for me.

 

[adma]

No. Unless you have been exposed to true rural living, as opposed to suburban living, you wouldn't understand this. And that's what I think was that shift...rural people started behaving like suburban people. And that happened in the 1980's. Car culture had been around long before that, and hadn't changed the lifestyle.

But maybe as per my point, the "lifestyle" is the problem. And in fact, there's arguably a "suburban living" equivalent to the kind of tetheredness I'm attributing to your rural background and to Jane-Jacobite inner-cityers alike: just look at the Fords.

Whereas for the motor-age "common geographic" universe, there's a certain virtuous ambidexterity inherent--one is not overly bound to rural, or urban, or even suburban...

Inner-city Toronto driving isn't quite that romantic I'm afraid. The romance in travelling within the city either involves the streetcar...or being chauffeured for me.

Ah, but you're framing things too much in terms of inner-city driving. You're placing yourself in Rob Ford's aggravated shoes--and, little or no argument there.

In fact, my argument pertains more to, let's say, inter-city driving. As in, going from Toronto to Windsor or Montreal along old Highway 2 rather than the 401 or QEW: that kind of stuff. And, *without* bypassing cities or suburban sprawl; but rather, incorporating them as part of the kinesis. (Not unlike my "Old Route 66" tableau.) So there's big boxes and sprawl en route: big deal. That's reality. We can handle it; doesn't mean we're tethered to it...

If you find the inner cities and sprawl an "unromantic" deterrent, then you've a myopia.

 

[adma]

Though if we get slightly back on topic re census issues--though in a way that some of the discussion lately may plug into...

Does anyone know of any other method of getting census tract info other than the Geosearch map at Statcan....WHICH IS COMPLETELY USELESS!!!

It reminds me of computer programming of the 80's. Plus it just doesn't work most of the time.

Maybe we have a nub of the problem here: when it comes to user-friendliness and meaningfulness of data, Statcan still has itself configured to pre-Y2K patterns of census data consumption, harking back to the days of the big blue binders in the census section of your local library where one can find out that Wackyland had a 1971 census count of 5,271 nuts and a squirrel, up 7.7% from the the 1966 census. It worked back when common geographical "census divisions and subdivisions" definitions still held meaning to a broad enough populace, it worked back in the days of conventional cities/towns/villages/townships/counties et al. But in a time when so many census subdivisions of yore have amalgamated into megamunicipalities and quasi-megas, to use that as the be-all and end-all no longer makes sense--you know, one entry for Chatham-Kent where there used to be a plethora for Kent County, etc.

At most, the census-subdivision emphasis serves hack press releases on Milton being fastest-growing-in-the-country; but other than that, Statcan's better off these days reconfiguring its readily-available data networks away from the census-division-and-subdivision emphasis and t/w more of a census-tract emphasis. Acknowledge how serious, knowing census users *really* tend or prefer to consume their data these days. (NB: back in the blue-binder era, census tract info was hard to come by other than through metropolitan-area supplements. We've come a long way.)

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Is there anyway to plough all this data into some sort of system (spreadsheet at it's simplest) and plot were the employees are, where the jobs are, etc.

I've thought, as an amateur project, that it would be interesting to do this and very simplistically calculate just how many workers are say going from census tract 3 to jobs in census tract 9. For example using simple ratios if 5 000 workers out of 800 000 lived in tract 3, and 10 000 jobs out of 1 000 000 were in tract 9 than we could estimate that approximately 50 workers from tract 3 would be working in tract 9, 1% of 5000, and then seeing what sort of routes form in the city. Yes I know this would be extremely simplistic and would ignore the significant number of workers who come in from outside Toronto or leave Toronto. However it would be interesting to see how this model would compare the the traffic we see today and how these routes compare to our existing, and planned transit system

 

[Glen]

Is there anyway to plough all this data into some sort of system (spreadsheet at it's simplest) and plot were the employees are, where the jobs are, etc.

I've thought, as an amateur project, that it would be interesting to do this and very simplistically calculate just how many workers are say going from census tract 3 to jobs in census tract 9. For example using simple ratios if 5 000 workers out of 800 000 lived in tract 3, and 10 000 jobs out of 1 000 000 were in tract 9 than we could estimate that approximately 50 workers from tract 3 would be working in tract 9, 1% of 5000, and then seeing what sort of routes form in the city. Yes I know this would be extremely simplistic and would ignore the significant number of workers who come in from outside Toronto or leave Toronto. However it would be interesting to see how this model would compare the the traffic we see today and how these routes compare to our existing, and planned transit system

AFAIK such data does not exists. StatsCan's questions ask if you work at home, in your CT or in your city. It does not ask in which ward.

 

[nfitz]

What changed? Other than the previously-discussed Guelph issue, I don't see any differences from today's boundaries.

The removal of Guelph from the county. I'm not aware of any other mistakes.

The County system in Ontario has (and had for a long time) cities separate from the county for most intents and purposes.

As far as I know, this is relatively recent, only going back 20 years or so. Well, a bit longer for Toronto, as it used to be part of (and the seat) of York County (now York Region).

Guelph is in Wellington County

Uh ... no it isn't. Go check Wellington County's website - it's quite clear that Guelph isn't in Wellington County.

(hence it counted in the Wellington Census Division and the is the seat of the Wellington judicial district)

Federal census divisions and provincial court divisions are nothing to do with municipal boundaries. The York County court house is on University Avenue in Toronto. Does that make Toronto part of York?

 

[CDL.TO]

Is there anyway to plough all this data into some sort of system (spreadsheet at it's simplest) and plot were the employees are, where the jobs are, etc.

I've thought, as an amateur project, that it would be interesting to do this and very simplistically calculate just how many workers are say going from census tract 3 to jobs in census tract 9. For example using simple ratios if 5 000 workers out of 800 000 lived in tract 3, and 10 000 jobs out of 1 000 000 were in tract 9 than we could estimate that approximately 50 workers from tract 3 would be working in tract 9, 1% of 5000, and then seeing what sort of routes form in the city. Yes I know this would be extremely simplistic and would ignore the significant number of workers who come in from outside Toronto or leave Toronto. However it would be interesting to see how this model would compare the the traffic we see today and how these routes compare to our existing, and planned transit system

Transit planners use models like what you describe as part of their work. However, they are much more complicated and are analyzed to ensure that they conform to the real observations on the ground. Check out the Transportation Tomorrow Survey results for O/D results at the municipal level. If you get access to their data it goes down to a level just below census tracts.

AFAIK such data does not exists. StatsCan's questions ask if you work at home, in your CT or in your city. It does not ask in which ward.

The 2006 long form census and the 2011 National Household Survey ask for the exact address of where the respondent "usually works most of the time".

 

[ShonTron]

The removal of Guelph from the county. I'm not aware of any other mistakes.

As far as I know, this is relatively recent, only going back 20 years or so. Well, a bit longer for Toronto, as it used to be part of (and the seat) of York County (now York Region).

Uh ... no it isn't. Go check Wellington County's website - it's quite clear that Guelph isn't in Wellington County.

Federal census divisions and provincial court divisions are nothing to do with municipal boundaries. The York County court house is on University Avenue in Toronto. Does that make Toronto part of York?

Ugh. Arguing semantics again with nfitz. What I said above is absolutely correct. Guelph is in Wellington County, but for most intents and purposes is not part of it, and the county government has no control over it. Maps do not show thick County/RM/District boundaries around London, Guelph, etc;The MTO does not erect county border signs when leaving a separated city like London with COUNTY MIDDLESEX signs on the 401 like it does at county/RM borders. Judicial districts are absolutely based on county/district lines, and so are Census Divisions.

Toronto/York County is a more complicated case. Until 1954, Toronto was in York County, though it was a separated city. In 1954, Metropolitan Toronto was created and York County was severed at Steeles, though Toronto remained the seat for the York judicial district. But when York RM was created, it got its own judicial district, headquarted in Newmarket, and became its own Census Division. Today, York County is little more than a historical note.

 

[nfitz]

Toronto/York County is a more complicated case. Until 1954, Toronto was in York County, though it was a separated city. In 1954, Metropolitan Toronto was created and York County was severed at Steeles, though Toronto remained the seat for the York judicial district. But when York RM was created, it got its own judicial district, headquarted in Newmarket, and became its own Census Division. Today, York County is little more than a historical note.

The only thing that separates Toronto/York to the more recent splits is almost a half-century of history. I'm sure by 2050 the various counties will have gotten around to putting up road signs, and we'll be forgetting that Frontenac County once included Kingston - etc. The same way we've long forgotten that Peel and Halton were also once part of York.

Or perhaps by then Premier Ford will have amalgamated them all into something bigger ...

 

[RichA]

2050? Yes, "symbol" signs for those who can't read English

The only thing that separates Toronto/York to the more recent splits is almost a half-century of history. I'm sure by 2050 the various counties will have gotten around to putting up road signs, and we'll be forgetting that Frontenac County once included Kingston - etc. The same way we've long forgotten that Peel and Halton were also once part of York.

Or perhaps by then Premier Ford will have amalgamated them all into something bigger ...

Premier Ford - YES!

 

[adma]

The only thing that separates Toronto/York to the more recent splits is almost a half-century of history. I'm sure by 2050 the various counties will have gotten around to putting up road signs, and we'll be forgetting that Frontenac County once included Kingston - etc. The same way we've long forgotten that Peel and Halton were also once part of York.

Or perhaps by then Premier Ford will have amalgamated them all into something bigger ...

Re my previous eclipse-of-common-geography points, we might as well forget that counties exist(ed)--period.

That is, unless we have an inverse situation where we our only remaining municipalities are Chatham-Kent or Kawartha Lakes-style amalgamated megamunicipalities...