Port Union Village (Scarborough)

[jswag]

Just thought I'd share with you some photos of the more recent developments in my corner of the city, specifically Port Union Village (Port Union Rd. and Lawrence Ave. E.). (Map here.)

Looking north on Port Union Rd. towards Lawrence Ave.

Streetscaping was just about finished.

Garages in the back, in case you are wondering.

Immediately behind me in the first two pictures, at the foot of Port Union is the "Port Union Village Common"-- a fairly recent addition to the community. I hope they move that hydro pole eventually.

Houses along the park edge.

The small shelter in the linear park along the waterfront (south of the railway tracks)

The manmade lookout.

This is a portion of the Waterfront Trail. In its current form it starts in the east from Rouge Hill GO station and terminates west of Highland Creek (second photo below). You can see the Scarborough Bluffs in the background.

Back north of the tracks and into the neighbourhood:

In the foreground, a new section of the adjacent park on Lawrence at Bridgeport. Behind this is TDSB land for a possible future school.

Lastly: I'm so glad they saved this tree.

 

[junctionist]

Photos of sprawl are so rarely seen on UT, as few here get excited about sprawl. At least the houses in the beginning don't have garages in the front facade, because it makes the quasi-historicism seem slightly less trite. The water feature in the park with the stream looks nice, but the bare concrete fountain is incredibly stark.

I suppose the streets aren't arranged in a grid and there are few or no businesses within a reasonable walking distance. Anyway, thanks for sharing.

 

[Hipster Duck]

If you look at this bird's eye map, you can see that there are two large GO train parking lots that could be easily redeveloped into a TOD commercial centre in the near future. The area is sprawly, but it looks like it could be integrated into a walkable neighbourhood relatively easily.

 

[Tewder]

It is interesting what a difference there is in these types of neighbourhoods when the garages are in the back. It does feel more urban. The park is a nice addition too, and with some sort of a small commercial core the whole thing would feel even more urban.

As for the historicist feel to the design, why is it developers cannot come up with a new vernacular for these developments?

 

[taal]

Having the garages in the back is really nice!

Yep this is "Toronto" Sprawl

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Putting garages in back alleys makes these New Urbanist-ish neighbourhoods fascinatingly desolate in addition to not urban...

 

[taal]

People elaborate on your conclusion ...

Yes it does reduce car traffic hence reducing pedestrian traffic to a certain extent but one can agrue most of that is simply walking from the car / garage to the house. Are you implying the lack of cars is not urban?

It's not that the garage is at the back that doesn't make the biggest different it's that the houses are closer the the street ... touching either without any space.

It's still very suburban but how is it worse then if it were a regular detached housing with car garages up front?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

People elaborate on your conclusion ...

Yes it does reduce car traffic hence reducing pedestrian traffic to a certain extent but one can agrue most of that is simply walking from the car / garage to the house. Are you implying the lack of cars is not urban?

It's not that the garage is at the back that doesn't make the biggest different it's that the houses are closer the the street ... touching either without any space.

It's still very suburban but how is it worse then if it were a regular detached housing with car garages up front?

This neighbourhood is not more urban because it lacks on-street garages and banishing cars to the back alley just makes it desolate. The houses are not close to the street at all (edit - not significantly closer than they would be if they had driveways, at least). In addition to reducing movement on the street, the back alleys are probably lowering the density. In the case of these houses on Port Union, it also deprives them of decent yards.

 

[junctionist]

It's a bit of an illusion that they make things urban. But from an aesthetic standpoint, the garage in front is isn't attractive, since it becomes the focal point of the house. A middle class house of the era these houses reference wouldn't have had such a big focal point. I think people might have thought that it was more urban simply because it is more reminiscent of the actual historical neighbourhoods in Toronto which have ample pedestrian activity.

Nonetheless, I reject the claim that the format makes things less urban. By cutting the front and backyards slightly, the difference in density can be minimal. This isn't even true New Urbanism, which goes a lot further towards emphasizing the pedestrian experience. It's just an aesthetic choice.

Tribute, on the other hand built a subdivision in northern part of the Junction called St. Clair West Village. There's almost no front yard, a small backyard to allow for more density, a decent grid, laneways, narrow streets, on a comparatively small bit of land close to commercial and retail. There's a lot of pedestrian activity and I think it works. And though it's also quasi-historical, it actually references predominant styles in the Junction.

 

[jswag]

I should give a bit more local perspective on this...

The development you see is about as dense as it gets out this way. The city councillor for this ward (44, Ron Moeser) is anti- anything over two stories (I'm serious). He uses the argument of protecting the neighbourhood's "character" to preserve the current heights. All of the houses around Port Union built pre-1998ish are sprawling messes. It is only post-amalgamation that we have begun to see a proliferation of townhouses, which are an increase in density compared to single-family homes which predominate here.

As for the design, yes it does echo New Urbanism. I myself can't really argue for NU as I feel it is an only an aesthetic movement in practice. However, I will say that this area really does have a neighbourhood feel. The park at the foot of Port Union Rd. and its connection to the Waterfront Trail have been a big draw since they were built. I also think that houses built in this fashion (street-oriented) have greater potential to be converted to other (retail/commercial) uses in the future.

The councillor and other like-minded individuals in this car-centric part of the city are crying for more parking for the park, despite the large GO parking lot nearby. Unfortunately that's the mindset of most out here and it's not going to change quickly if at all.

To conclude, if you look at the aerial image of this area, you'll see large blocks of townhomes close to the lake and surrounding the GO station; in my view this is at least a small step forward for this area. As Hipster Duck said, there is great potential still for TOD in the future and it is my hope that it can happen.

 

[Tewder]

This neighbourhood is not more urban because it lacks on-street garages and banishing cars to the back alley just makes it desolate. The houses are not close to the street at all (edit - not significantly closer than they would be if they had driveways, at least). In addition to reducing movement on the street, the back alleys are probably lowering the density. In the case of these houses on Port Union, it also deprives them of decent yards.

The houses are indeed closer to the street, please refer to the first few pictures. The 'desolate' nature may perhaps be due to the newness of the area and/or the time of day the photo was taken (even urban streets in residential areas of Toronto can be fairly empty at certain times of the day), and not due to the banashing of garages.

Putting the emphasis back on front porches where people in the community can congregate, rather than on garages which would occupy most of the street-side frontage in houses of this size is an interesting idea that is a nod in the direction of more traditional neighbourhoods. Why is that bad?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Nonetheless, I reject the claim that the format makes things less urban. By cutting the front and backyards slightly, the difference in density can be minimal. This isn't even true New Urbanism, which goes a lot further towards emphasizing the pedestrian experience. It's just an aesthetic choice.

You can reject whatever you want, just note that no one made that claim. No one said it was true New Urbanism, either. New Urbanism embodies only a fraction of what makes a neighbourhood successful and this development uses a fraction of that fraction.

Banishing garages to the back alleys (or, in some cases, to the backs of houses, where houses on the either side of the street are forced to front onto them) and having houses two feet closer to the street is an empty gesture when the road is wider than normal and so long as garages are the focal point of suburban street life. The main reason this development is not urban is because it's on the edge of Scarborough, but, as Hipster Duck notes, the area can be improved.

 

[junctionist]

You noted that the format can make the neighbourhood desolate and will lower the density. Based off characteristics of urban areas such as liveliness and density, it's fair to assume an implication in your statement was that the format does make it less urban because it is also implied in this discussion that a comparison to the regular format. To say that no one made that claim is frankly ludicrous.

I thank you for the token reminder of my liberty in rejecting whatever I want. I could have forgotten.

 

[urbandreamer]

Is this public housing? Looks very craptacular.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

You noted that the format can make the neighbourhood desolate and will lower the density. Based off characteristics of urban areas such as liveliness and density, it's fair to assume an implication in your statement was that the format does make it less urban because it is also implied in this discussion that a comparison to the regular format. To say that no one made that claim is frankly ludicrous.

I thank you for the token reminder of my liberty in rejecting whatever I want. I could have forgotten.

What I find ludicrous is that anyone would see this development as anything other than suburban. I clearly said this area is not urban. These types of developments, that pretend to be quainter and better than stuff built in the 50s-80s, are standard issue nowadays. They are less urban than they pretend to be...and end up being just as suburban as anything else.