News   Jan 09, 2025
 127     0 
News   Jan 09, 2025
 280     0 
News   Jan 08, 2025
 1.1K     0 

Explosive Growth in Milton Leaves Downtown Behind

U

unimaginative2

Guest
Milton's boom a bust for some

JIM WILKES / TORONTO STAR
Betty and Richard Copley say their boom town’s historic downtown now has little to offer them because stores with basic services have been pushed to the outskirts.


Explosive growth on outskirts hurts core, resident says, `I don't know this place any more'
Mar 14, 2007 04:30 AM
Jim Wilkes
Staff Reporter


Betty and Richard Copley barely recognize the town they've called home for 52 years.

They live just a stone's throw from the four corners of downtown Milton but face a mighty excursion to get daily staples.

Groceries and the like used to be available nearby on the historic downtown strip, but increasing development and an exploding population have pushed much of what they need to the outskirts.

The big-box stores and grocery mega-outlets have made it hard for Milton's smaller shopkeepers to compete.

The push is extraordinarily strong in Milton, where the 2006 census released yesterday shows the town has grown 71.4 per cent in the past five years. Its population jumped to nearly 54,000 from about 31,500 in 2001, making it the fastest-growing community in Canada.

The growth has also sparked a whirlwind of commercial development, most of it well beyond the so-called "small town" core.

The Copleys, who ran a fabric shop just a dozen metres from the four corners for 25 years, wonder if the downtown decline can be stopped.

"I don't know this place any more," said Richard, 87. "The whole atmosphere has changed. It's a different Milton."

Betty, 77, agreed.

"We no longer have a grocery store downtown," she said. "So seniors like us, or people who don't drive, have to take taxis or spend hours on the bus or take the shuttle once a week to the A&P."

She said she's tired of seeing good stores close only to be replaced by another restaurant, coffee shop or offices for lawyers, accountants and insurance agents.

"Most of these storekeepers were independent people, but bit by bit they're closing up, because they just can't make a living," she said. "People seem so disconnected from the old part of Milton."

If their pantry runs empty, the Copleys can get canned goods and cereal at the nearby dollar store or milk and eggs at a Shoppers Drug Mart at the four corners.

"But it's so expensive," Betty said.

Brad Clements is a landlord who owns five buildings in the heart of downtown; some of them have been in his family for more than a century.

"The history of Milton has always been feast or famine," he said. "Sometimes it booms, sometimes it slows down."

Peter Haight is just emerging from the worst month in his art gallery's two decades on Main St.

He calls the downtown "the spiritual centre of our town" and isn't ready to declare it dead or dying.

"But we're on the cusp," he said. "The downtown core has been left bereft of any attention by our town, by our councillors, by our planners. Now they're playing ring-around-the-downtown with big-box stores."

If that sounds like a speech, it may be because Haight, 67, is running in an upcoming by-election to fill a vacant council seat, on a platform of resurrecting the downtown.

He said he doesn't try to compete with Wal-Mart or other big-box stores. "But if they steal all my traffic off the street, people just don't think about me or come here any more.

"That's the big problem, but I'll go down fighting."

Mayor Gordon Krantz, a former small business owner, sees the downtown decline as a simple by-product of capitalism.

"Businesses locating on the outskirts could locate right downtown if they wanted – but they don't," he said. "That's called free enterprise.

"So businesses have to adapt. You have to continuously reinvent yourself. You can't survive on sentiment and emotions, that's for sure. It might sound hard-hearted, but that's the hard reality of it."

For young folks like Kelly Walter, 18, there's little to induce her to shop.

"I've always seen myself as a city girl living in a small town," said Walter, who has two jobs – in a spa at one end of downtown and in a café at the other.

"I'm on Main St. almost every day, but I don't shop here," she said. "I go to Toronto or Mississauga for that."
 
Mayor Gordon Krantz, a former small business owner, sees the downtown decline as a simple by-product of capitalism.

"Businesses locating on the outskirts could locate right downtown if they wanted – but they don't," he said. "That's called free enterprise.

"So businesses have to adapt. You have to continuously reinvent yourself. You can't survive on sentiment and emotions, that's for sure. It might sound hard-hearted, but that's the hard reality of it."

here's the thing... a city makes the decisions where roads should go, what capacity they should have, where water/sewers should go, what the zoning is, whether a site plan should be approved, what the policies are for commercial development, and what general areas are designated for shopping/mixed use/future growth... a big box situation isn't "free enterprise," it's bad planning and a result of the choices that politicians and planners make in forming their policies.
 
Wow, Milton's blowing its top
milton.jpg
 
This article brings about many negative aspects of explosive population growth and suburban-type sprawl development. I recommended everyone read the book "It's a Sprawl World After All" by Douglas E. Morris. Suburban expansion, the building of big box stores and the degradation of the small town main street is not inevitable but is planned by cities and by both residential and commercial developers. All parties involved (except for residents and small business owners) make more money this way. They are not thinking about the social and physical health of the residents.

There should be only two options for humans to live: country life or walkable town and city life. Suburban living does not provide the benefits of either.
 
There should be only two options for humans to live: country life or walkable town and city life.

that's how it used to be.
 
^^I think every option should exist - if you want to live on an acre ranch in King City you can - but that the cost of choosing one lifestyle over another is in no way subsidized over another.

Right now, the North American economy is geared toward subsidizing sprawl: we build public highways and roads that you don't have to spend a dime to drive on, install water and sewer trunk lines to support low density development and offer subsidies to big box retailers to locate in prime land under the premise that the 100 or so McJob positions that they staff will stimulate the economy. We also build far flung schools in subdivisions and then provide free school bus service while suburban public transit systems run 3/4 empty.

We build sprawl because the current system is rigged to support the development of these communities in numerous ways. If we operated under an ideal free market system without subsidies or kickbacks I am fairly confident that sprawl would quickly become a pariah form of development. It might exist here and there to those who could afford it, but most of us would probably live in something more closely resembling a dense urban environment.
 
^While this is conventional wisdom Alchemist I'm increasingly questioning how much influence government and planning intervention really have on settlement patterns. The assumption of bad policy and government managing such as "subsidized sprawl" is attractive because it implies that good (from the perspective of curbing sprawl) management policy or planning makes a substantial difference. I don't think the evidence reflects this. I think the way human settlement develops is closer to the assumption that government and planning doesn't lead it follows and hence approaches irrelevance.
 
milton

Historically, walkable urban centers and rural farms were the only possible forms human settlement could take (at least in European-like climates). Now is the brief moment in history that the common man can afford personal transportation, land, and a comfortable house. He also has the telephone and television, and doesn't need to build defensive walls or a moat to protect against raiders.

Suburbs could just be the fulfillment of what most people have always wanted but could never achieve.

I personally can't stand the crammed-in subdivisions that offer none of the privacy of rural living, and none of the walkable benefits of city living... but maybe I'm the exception?
 
Re: milton

There should be only two options for humans to live: country life or walkable town and city life. Suburban living does not provide the benefits of either.

Actually, (and as the introductory post/article indicates) I think the truer tragedy has less to do with (sub)urban form per se, than with *how* people choose to enact their suburban living, i.e. in a historyless, contextless vacuum. They move to suburban Milton, yet haven't the slightest curiosity about their community, its history, its politics, its ins and outs and whatever. They live there, yet they don't "know" the place, and have minimal-to-no motivation to do so.

It's not *where* they live; it's *how* they live there. They're (perhaps innocently) compounding the mythic so-called worst sins of the suburbs...
 
Re: milton

In addition to the cost that Alchemist mentioned, there is also the hidden and/or unaccounted cost of environmental damage
- not just at the site, but the various activities (e.g. resource extraction) that enable and sustain such a way of living.

Tdot:

Governments (and policy making) is susceptible to forces from various interest groups, including businesses. It isn't like policies to manage growth are failures - but the fact that we never had any comprehensive plans and the will to see them through in the first place. It's ultimately speaking a political failure.

AoD
 
Re: milton

We build sprawl because the current system is rigged to support the development of these communities in numerous ways.

Alchemist,

I agree with what you are saying, but I would take issue only with the above sentence. The system is not rigged; it is, to be more blunt, negligent. Present attitudes towards land use management seem to be constructed on a belief that the land supply is endless.
 
"It's ultimately speaking a political failure."

Alvin, This is actually the point I was suggesting should be questioned. How relevant is politicals or government decision making at all?

Another issue is the assumption that people are rational actors, they will for instance choose to move to the suburbs because they will be maximizing their housing cost per square foot or getting more for their money or are finding a "safer" environment for their children (or to the city centre for different reasons). I think people do have the intent of thinking this way but their decisions are based on incomplete or inaccurate information and hence the outcome cannot be assumed to be logical to an informed observer. I would say precedent has a much greater impact on settlement patterns and forms, people do what other people are doing and rationalize the outcome regardless of its logic. So the way you live, how big or what shape your dwelling or where it is has as much to do with what other people are doing or have done than any other factor.
 
While this is conventional wisdom Alchemist I'm increasingly questioning how much influence government and planning intervention really have on settlement patterns. The assumption of bad policy and government managing... "subsidized sprawl" is attractive because it implies that good (from the perspective of curbing sprawl) management policy or planning makes a substantial difference. I don't think the evidence reflects this. I think the way human settlement develops is closer to the assumption that government and planning doesn't lead it

I think that one way to answer whether governments are tacitly responsible for urban development patterns is to take the case of a development pattern that is as far removed from government interference as possible and study the development patterns within. In the 21st century, the closest we have to free, totally libertarian urban developments are the informal squatter settlements that ring developing world cities.

In the slums of Mumbai or Rio or Lagos, nothing comes into the equation except poverty and the pressing need to build settlements that maximize the scant resources available to the inhabitants. Unless it's a bulldozer authorized by the city to rip the settlement down, or armed policemen carrying out a raid, the long arm of government doesn't extend into these neighbourhoods.

What we find inside these communities is not low density sprawl, or a design that is at odds with human scale, but rather very tightly packed neighbourhoods built organically to accommodate flexible growth on an individualistic level, such as building a floor on top of an existing shack when a family expands. These communities often approach densities of 100,000 people per square kilometer, and yet few have houses that tower more than 3 stories in height. Their dense warrens support large amounts of commerce and are entirely pedestrianized. In fact, its slang among Rio faveladors to refer to the middle class lowlands as "the pavement". Although derided and notorious for crime, poverty and misery, these 3rd world neighbourhoods are probably the most healthy and trend toward upward mobility if left alone, forming the nascent beginnings of a middle class. This was one of the morals of Jane Jacobs' DLGC. This is what plays out in the scenario of an urban form that is free of government interference.

Sprawl, on the other hand, is anathema to this. It tends toward entropy, with old subdivisions eventually deteriorating into lower and lower social brackets. It uses resources slovenly with little regard for anything. Even if it pandered to the "bottom line", it would not make any sense - why would we want to invest more money and devote more resources to a form of development that will deteriorate in 40 years?

American settlement patterns until the early 1950s were relatively free market, with little interference by government. America already had a high rate of personal automobile ownership by the 1930s, but most city neighbourhoods reflected a mix of transit and auto-centric development and the hearts of downtowns still beat very strongly. What changed settlement patterns to the one we are familiar with today is Eisenhower's signing of the Interstate Highway Act. Unlike railroad, streetcar and interurban lines that had been built by powerful railway companies, the interstate highway system was ploughed through cities using public funds. It's not like General Motors and Exxon devoted their profits to constructing freeways, bridges, tunnels and cul de sacs. To add to this, the governments of the time leveled many inner city neighbourhoods to build tower-in-the park housing project developments completely at odds with the poor, car-less citizens they would cage within. At least at the onset, then, government funding and policy had a very heavy hand on influencing the shape of North American development. It continues to do so today, although it has been entrenched for 50 years so we no longer notice it.
 
Re: adma

Actually, (and as the introductory post/article indicates) I think the truer tragedy has less to do with (sub)urban form per se, than with *how* people choose to enact their suburban living, i.e. in a historyless, contextless vacuum. They move to suburban Milton, yet haven't the slightest curiosity about their community, its history, its politics, its ins and outs and whatever. They live there, yet they don't "know" the place, and have minimal-to-no motivation to do so.

It's not *where* they live; it's *how* they live there.

People that live in sprawling suburbs have to put in a lot more effort and a lot more work to live a community-friendly life. It is key to always remember that most people are generally lazy and will always pick the easier route.

For example, in a subdivision development it is very boring and a lot more work to walk 20 minutes on winding streets of identical houses hiding behind huge garages where the trees haven't grown in yet, to reach a few big box stores where you have to cross a gigantic parking lot to pick up some milk and bread.

And upon returning home they drive straight into their garage using their automatic garage opener (no need to get out of the car), continue into the garage and take the convenient door from the garage into the home, never having to awkwardly say 'hello' to any neighbours and to avoid the ever-dreaded small-talk.
 
Alchemist,

Couldn't sprawl be seen in the same light as your slum scenerio, the only difference being the step up in affluence and accompanying organizational sophistication?

Also, North American cities might not turn out to be the planning special cases we assume. What I mean is that the form of cities around the world, local geographic constraints aside, may for the most part be converging regardless of planning. The differences now may be temporary in nature resulting from the relative size and affluence of a city at the time when revolutionary technological changes occur.
 

Back
Top