afransen
Senior Member
I'd like to see more cycling friendly, but it's good.
It's also not just about leafy streets, but having amenities, jobs and regional transit within walking/cycling distance
|
|
|
It's also not just about leafy streets, but having amenities, jobs and regional transit within walking/cycling distance
innsertnamehere
Superstar
The latest suburban developments like north Oakville probably aren't all that different density wise than older Toronto neighbourhoods. Slightly different configurations (wider lots but not nearly as deep and no rear lanes), but the overall densities are probably comparable.
Even the newer subdivisions in Brampton are quite dense, full of townhouse and semi blocks, albeit with wider streets and a severe auto orientation.
The problem is modern parkland dedication, natural heritage preservation, and stormwater management practices make the gross density very challenging to match that of historic residential neighbourhoods today without significant amounts of apartment housing. Just too much land is eaten up by it. But the net densities are similar. Back in the 19th century developers just plowed over woodlands, didn't really build parks, and threw streams into pipes. Stormwater management be damned.
Places like central Hamilton prior to development were full of small streams and was some of the most fertile farmland in the province - developers just plowed it all over and shoved the streams into sewers and threw up houses. Parks exist only from generous donors who donated land to the city or from lots that were retrofitted for that purpose at a later date.
Makes for a very dense, walkable environment, but would never fly today in an era where every tree needs to be carefully preserved, parkland is dedicated at about 1 acre for every 300 people, and stormwater management is carefully controlled and managed with above grade stormwater systems.
Just looking at a random concession block in Brampton, bounded by Sandalwood, Creditview, Wanless, and Chinguacousy, you get a net area of 118 hectares out of 162 hecatres for actual residential development, or 28% being dedicated to public uses. And that block is actually pretty efficient compared to most modern suburban blocks. Compare to the block bounded by Bathurst, Dundas, Ossington, and Harbord. 130 hectares - of which 120.6 is dedicated to actual development. A public dedication of just 7%.
That sounds better at first, but the reality is that oversized school sites, excessive natural heritage preservation, and massive stormwater management facilities bring down the gross density and make destinations that much further away, with reduced densities struggling to support local amenities.
Even the newer subdivisions in Brampton are quite dense, full of townhouse and semi blocks, albeit with wider streets and a severe auto orientation.
The problem is modern parkland dedication, natural heritage preservation, and stormwater management practices make the gross density very challenging to match that of historic residential neighbourhoods today without significant amounts of apartment housing. Just too much land is eaten up by it. But the net densities are similar. Back in the 19th century developers just plowed over woodlands, didn't really build parks, and threw streams into pipes. Stormwater management be damned.
Places like central Hamilton prior to development were full of small streams and was some of the most fertile farmland in the province - developers just plowed it all over and shoved the streams into sewers and threw up houses. Parks exist only from generous donors who donated land to the city or from lots that were retrofitted for that purpose at a later date.
Makes for a very dense, walkable environment, but would never fly today in an era where every tree needs to be carefully preserved, parkland is dedicated at about 1 acre for every 300 people, and stormwater management is carefully controlled and managed with above grade stormwater systems.
Just looking at a random concession block in Brampton, bounded by Sandalwood, Creditview, Wanless, and Chinguacousy, you get a net area of 118 hectares out of 162 hecatres for actual residential development, or 28% being dedicated to public uses. And that block is actually pretty efficient compared to most modern suburban blocks. Compare to the block bounded by Bathurst, Dundas, Ossington, and Harbord. 130 hectares - of which 120.6 is dedicated to actual development. A public dedication of just 7%.
That sounds better at first, but the reality is that oversized school sites, excessive natural heritage preservation, and massive stormwater management facilities bring down the gross density and make destinations that much further away, with reduced densities struggling to support local amenities.
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Perhaps we should be a bit less stringent around parkland, and put greater emphasis on ensuring walkable access to retail and other amenities (which I’d argue is more important than parkland from a quality of life point of view).
innsertnamehere
Superstar
excessive natural heritage policies are also a major issue if you ask me (though I'm sure Northern Light would disagree).
Many newer areas like Seaton are approaching almost 50% of the land area dedicated to natural heritage preservation. It creates instead of a cohesive, walkable residential area, a series of islands connected by arterial roads.
I'm not saying eliminate natural heritage preservation obviously, I don't really know the answer to what's an appropriate level either, it just seems too much as it is now. Reduced buffers from features and a lower standard of what constitutes a feature is likely required.
Each resident has good access to parks, schools, and perhaps some local service retail (barber, convenience store, dentist, etc.) within walking distance, but employment and commercial is still far away for most and requires a vehicle to access reasonably.
Many newer areas like Seaton are approaching almost 50% of the land area dedicated to natural heritage preservation. It creates instead of a cohesive, walkable residential area, a series of islands connected by arterial roads.
I'm not saying eliminate natural heritage preservation obviously, I don't really know the answer to what's an appropriate level either, it just seems too much as it is now. Reduced buffers from features and a lower standard of what constitutes a feature is likely required.
Each resident has good access to parks, schools, and perhaps some local service retail (barber, convenience store, dentist, etc.) within walking distance, but employment and commercial is still far away for most and requires a vehicle to access reasonably.
afransen
Senior Member
I think we need to move away from the concession model (plowing the grid roads through ravines/river valleys like they aren't there) and build a road network and communities that work with the natural landscape. That would ameliorate the walkability impact of natural landscapes if we are leaving them as boundaries between communities. And the idea that all the density goes on the arterial is kind of a crazy model we have developed in North America. Arterials are roads designed to optimize for flow, and they serve a role in the urban fabric. A road designed for flow cannot also be a street designed for place-making/community. So, let arterials optimize for flow, and don't put dense housing/uses along it. And have streets and paths for place-making and active transportation, with retail, housing, and commercial uses away from roaring traffic. Our cities are built so completely ass-backward it boggles my mind. Nodes of density should be in the centre of blocks of arterials, focused on major transit stations, and not focused on the intersections of arterials, which are highly unlivable.
Rainforest
Senior Member
Indeed. The habit of placing highrises at the very edge of arterial roads seems to be a product of unhappy compromise. The social change advocates want density and walkability; the locals in SHF don't want to be disturbed; at the end, the former get highrises near transit and the latter get to keep the rest of their block intact.
Big picture, it would be better to have highrises shifted inside the block. Those extra 50 m or 100 m of walking to the street won't make the neighborhood less walkable or less transit-friendly, but will make the inhabitants happier: less noise and more comfort. And the street itself should be lined with a 1-2 m wide green strip on both sides, and then maybe low-rise retail.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
This criticism stems from the idea that concession roads should prioritize traffic flow. The fact is that we don't need to designate EVERY concession road as a higher order road/proto highway.
Furthermore, what would be the alternative to density along major corridors? Density further away from from the major corridor???
It's also a question of development. Developers do not want to build intermediate roads into their developments and so it's back on the city to demand certain road hierarchies.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
As another note - if this highway doesn't get built, get ready for some mega sized arterials to accommodate the traffic instead. Expect 6-8 lane arterials every which way to handle the much higher vehicle volumes.
afransen
Senior Member
There are different ways to approach it. One is that used in Houten, a suburb of Utrecht in the Netherlands.
Yes, It's Possible for Bikes, Cars, and Suburbs to Get Along
It’s not just possible, it’s happening in Houten.
www.bloomberg.com
It basically consists of two TOD cells, with an arterial ring road surrounding each cell, a transit station (regional rail) at the centre of each cell, with public space, major commercial/retail and higher density surrounding the station, then lower density toward the outside nearer the ring road. There's no through traffic for cars across the cell, you need to use the ring road. The streets inside are just distributor/access streets. And there are very few uses that are accessed directly off the arterial/ring road. The community is largely SFH, there is lots of car ownership, but there is high transit and active modeshare owing to the design and the pleasant environment for active uses and making cars slightly less convenient. The lower convenience of cars helps to reduce traffic and congestion.
In contrast, when we try to do something similar here in Canada, even in very supposedly progressive places like Innisfil and their 'Orbit' TOD community around their GO station, the plan is to put the station right at a roaring arterial which is a main through-fare for people coming from the existing community headed for the 400. So we'll likely end up with 6 lanes of 60 kph (actually driving 70) traffic going right through the middle of a TOD community. Forget about letting kids ride their bike to school. Then, of course comes the obligatory gigantic parking lot and high speed access road to the station. I would shift the station off the concession and move it mid-block, myself.
Last edited:
afransen
Senior Member
For visuals, here is the dream of what Innisfil Orbit would look like.
Compare this to making the station an urban centre, instead of a windswept open space bisected by traffic racing to the highway. Houten from Google Earth, a central square/car-free area next to the station:
Compare this to making the station an urban centre, instead of a windswept open space bisected by traffic racing to the highway. Houten from Google Earth, a central square/car-free area next to the station:
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Per above, thanks for posting those Innisfil renderings. I love them every time I see them. They're kind of crazy, obviously, but you have to admire the ambition!
Also, this National Post article (supporting the highway, obviously) is pretty terrible and I'm not going to waste time disassembling its logic, line by line, but the mere fact it doesn't even mention the Greenbelt shows you much understanding McParland actually has of the issues at hand. If anyone wants to
on it, here you go!
nationalpost.com
Also, this National Post article (supporting the highway, obviously) is pretty terrible and I'm not going to waste time disassembling its logic, line by line, but the mere fact it doesn't even mention the Greenbelt shows you much understanding McParland actually has of the issues at hand. If anyone wants to
on it, here you go!
Kelly McParland: Sprawl or no, you can't end a housing shortage without building homes
The blame for out-of-control housing prices has been largely placed on the shortage of supply. The answer is to build more homes. But they’ve got to go…
nationalpost.com
Student99
Active Member
As a surprise to probably no one, I liked this article and thought it made more good points in favour of this highway.Per above, thanks for posting those Innisfil renderings. I love them every time I see them. They're kind of crazy, obviously, but you have to admire the ambition!
Also, this National Post article (supporting the highway, obviously) is pretty terrible and I'm not going to waste time disassembling its logic, line by line, but the mere fact it doesn't even mention the Greenbelt shows you much understanding McParland actually has of the issues at hand. If anyone wants to
Kelly McParland: Sprawl or no, you can't end a housing shortage without building homes
The blame for out-of-control housing prices has been largely placed on the shortage of supply. The answer is to build more homes. But they’ve got to go…
And hey, the author effectually gave a shout out to some of you lol
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Is Mississauga actually unable to house more people, as he claims?
Is this really about people in the city telling people they can't live in the suburbs?
Does it really make sense because we built "sprawl" in the past that obviously we should build more in the future?
Like I said, I don't think it's worth analyzing piece by piece. There are probably ec-dev arguments you could make for the highway but he really doesn't make them and he avoids all the significant issues (eg the enviro impacts, the Greenbelt) etc. Just a lot of superficial rhetoric that doesn't really stand up if you understand the actual policy etc.
afransen
Senior Member
I was pointing it out as an example of wrong-headed, if ambitious, transit oriented development. Particularly the desire to have an arterial road run over the train station at the centre of the community. Just why?Per above, thanks for posting those Innisfil renderings. I love them every time I see them. They're kind of crazy, obviously, but you have to admire the ambition!
Also, this National Post article (supporting the highway, obviously) is pretty terrible and I'm not going to waste time disassembling its logic, line by line, but the mere fact it doesn't even mention the Greenbelt shows you much understanding McParland actually has of the issues at hand. If anyone wants to
Kelly McParland: Sprawl or no, you can't end a housing shortage without building homes
The blame for out-of-control housing prices has been largely placed on the shortage of supply. The answer is to build more homes. But they’ve got to go…
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
It's just a concept - I'd be kinda surprised if what gets built ends up looking anything even remotely like that, with giant road-straddling future-pods and green-roofed pyramids. I take your point, if it actually ends up being that. I mean, let's not forget - this is INNISFIL. Do they even have buildings taller than 6-8 storeys now? I see what's out there now as "blue sky" brainstorming, not anything remotely resembling an actual site plan.
That said - if they do build those pyramids, I might be down for a penthouse if it's got lake views.