Greater Toronto's Sprawl

[doady]

There may be some exaggeration to make the point but I'd have to agree completely with the observation 'W. K. Lis' is making here.

So you agree with the observation that historic villages akin to those pictured of France have been destroyed here due to road widening? Anyone else?

As for me, I have yet to see any example of a village (and an actual village, not a hamlet) that was destroyed due to road widening and policies prohibiting mixed uses in the post-war era. If any of you know of any such village that has been destroyed by these practices please inform us so that we can mourn and express our outrage.

You have a problem. There is a difference in development here and in Europe. My son had a friend who came here for 2 years while his father got transferred here for a job. When they left the mother said they want to live in the city (Bacalonia) which means she said they need to live in an apartment. Unlike the North America notion that to live in the city you can only reasonably do it as a family if it is a house. I asked her do they not have tall apartments there and she said people do not want them. There are some 12 storey located further out.

Look at Yorkvillle which use to have all those Victorian houses converted to shops and then torned down for a boutique hotel. Plus there is a condo there now and a garden centre, Where is the character of why people went to Yorkville? Its no longer there. Those condos are sold based on the character of the street but people don't realize once the condos are built they are the reason why the character changes. Same thing will happen to King St and restaurant row. The same thing with St Clair and the list goes on. I could understand building condos 6 storey high and then ground level store fronts with retail/business etc, But usually ground level = grand lobbies

Most new apartment high-rise buildings don't have storefronts? Really?

Perserving the historic low-rise neighbourhoods and limiting all development to 6 storey or lower is something I agree with... in principle. In practice it seems unrealistic. Those houses got converted to shops for a reason. I think if such a strict height limit were instituted it would result in he descruction of even more Victorian houses. Plus, Toronto to become a polarized city like Paris. And even the houses in central Paris got replaced once upon a time.

How many houses are still left in central Barcelona?

 

[Palma]

So you agree with the observation that historic villages akin to those pictured of France have been destroyed here due to road widening? Anyone else?

As for me, I have yet to see any example of a village (and an actual village, not a hamlet) that was destroyed due to road widening and policies prohibiting mixed uses in the post-war era. If any of you know of any such village that has been destroyed by these practices please inform us so that we can mourn and express our outrage.



Most new apartment high-rise buildings don't have storefronts? Really?

Perserving the historic low-rise neighbourhoods and limiting all development to 6 storey or lower is something I agree with... in principle. In practice it seems unrealistic. Those houses got converted to shops for a reason. I think if such a strict height limit were instituted it would result in he descruction of even more Victorian houses. Plus, Toronto to become a polarized city like Paris. And even the houses in central Paris got replaced once upon a time.

How many houses are still left in central Barcelona?

Probably none. And thats what will be happening here to. When an airplane is full and no seats left, no one can get on. How is it nay different than cities? There are plenty of cities in Ontario that can see growth.

How many condos have storefronts vs large lobbies?

 

[MisterF]

Here's a link that shows some of the progress that's been made in the sprawl department over the last decade. Basically, the number of detached houses being built in the GTA has dropped in half, while condos have picked up the slack - apartment unit starts have doubled.

http://www.peelregion.ca/planning/pdc/data/economic-activity/housing-summary-2001-2011.htm

Probably none. And thats what will be happening here to. When an airplane is full and no seats left, no one can get on. How is it nay different than cities? There are plenty of cities in Ontario that can see growth.

How many condos have storefronts vs large lobbies?

Are you seriously suggesting that Toronto is full?? And plenty of condos have street level retail. Some of it isn't designed as well as it could be, but that's another issue.

 

[Hipster Duck]

I think that Toronto is actually pretty compact, not just by North American standards, but by Northern European standards too.

One of the things we forget is just how many people live in the GTA: 6.5 million - which is bigger than any Western European city other than London, Paris and the Ruhr, so it's unfair to compare Toronto's built up footprint with almost any city in Europe except the very biggest. Secondly, similarly-wealthy European cities are actually quite low density. Hamburg has 1.8 million people in 755km2; Berlin has 3.5 million people on 900km2. The City of Toronto has 2.6 million people on 630 km2, making it denser than the two largest German cities. Somehow, we achieve this despite having an extensive ravine parks system and no continuous midrise neighbourhoods (Berlin alone probably has 2 million people living in urban, midrise neighbourhoods of 5-6 storeys where the buildings come right up to the sidewalk).

Of course, compactness isn't what matters. It's how auto-dependent or auto-centric a city is or, looked at the other way, how transit-friendly or transit-supportive the built environment is. Toronto might be denser than Berlin or Hamburg, but much of the high density is still very auto-oriented. For example, Flemingdon Park is a lot denser than Neukolln, but I'm pretty sure that Neukolln is a lot more walkable, transit-friendly and has a much better selection of stores and services within walking distance (and walking design) than what the people of Flemingdon Park are used to.

 

[doady]

Here's a link that shows some of the progress that's been made in the sprawl department over the last decade. Basically, the number of detached houses being built in the GTA has dropped in half, while condos have picked up the slack - apartment unit starts have doubled.

http://www.peelregion.ca/planning/pdc/data/economic-activity/housing-summary-2001-2011.htm


Are you seriously suggesting that Toronto is full?? And plenty of condos have street level retail. Some of it isn't designed as well as it could be, but that's another issue.

It is a novel solution to sprawl in the GTA (the subject of this thread). Just freeze all development and growth, because "there are plenty of cities in Ontario than can see growth."

I think that Toronto is actually pretty compact, not just by North American standards, but by Northern European standards too.

One of the things we forget is just how many people live in the GTA: 6.5 million - which is bigger than any Western European city other than London, Paris and the Ruhr, so it's unfair to compare Toronto's built up footprint with almost any city in Europe except the very biggest. Secondly, similarly-wealthy European cities are actually quite low density. Hamburg has 1.8 million people in 755km2; Berlin has 3.5 million people on 900km2. The City of Toronto has 2.6 million people on 630 km2, making it denser than the two largest German cities. Somehow, we achieve this despite having an extensive ravine parks system and no continuous midrise neighbourhoods (Berlin alone probably has 2 million people living in urban, midrise neighbourhoods of 5-6 storeys where the buildings come right up to the sidewalk).

Of course, compactness isn't what matters. It's how auto-dependent or auto-centric a city is or, looked at the other way, how transit-friendly or transit-supportive the built environment is. Toronto might be denser than Berlin or Hamburg, but much of the high density is still very auto-oriented. For example, Flemingdon Park is a lot denser than Neukolln, but I'm pretty sure that Neukolln is a lot more walkable, transit-friendly and has a much better selection of stores and services within walking distance (and walking design) than what the people of Flemingdon Park are used to.

Mixed-use is a way of increasing compactness. And compactness means reduced walking distance to stores and other services, i.e. a higher density of services.

Despite it's small size, Flemingdon Park has 5 schools (including it's own high school), it's own library, post office, 2 community centres, swimming pool, stores, and extensive public transit services. This level of service wouldn't be possible if it were a low density neighbourhood.

Consider the 5 minute local bus services in Toronto's post-war suburbia: Finch, Sheppard, Don Mills, Hurontario, etc. This is unheard of in other post-war suburbs in North America. I think density is the major difference.

 

[MisterF]

It is a novel solution to sprawl in the GTA (the subject of this thread). Just freeze all development and growth, because "there are plenty of cities in Ontario than can see growth."

Huh? There's nothing to suggest that growth and development has been frozen or that that's the intent of the government. Where do you get these ideas?

 

[doady]

Huh? There's nothing to suggest that growth and development has been frozen or that that's the intent of the government. Where do you get these ideas?

The idea came from Palma, whom both of us quoted, who suggested that people should be forced to live elsewhere in Ontario as an alternative to allowing new developments in Toronto. Seriously, dude, you really gotta pay better attention.

 

[JohnQCitizen]

Maybe suggest to (force) companies who want to open branches in Ontario they move to areas that have shrinking populations so more immigrants will be inclined to settle there.

 

[neubilder]

I think that Toronto is actually pretty compact, not just by North American standards, but by Northern European standards too.

One of the things we forget is just how many people live in the GTA: 6.5 million - which is bigger than any Western European city other than London, Paris and the Ruhr, so it's unfair to compare Toronto's built up footprint with almost any city in Europe except the very biggest. Secondly, similarly-wealthy European cities are actually quite low density. Hamburg has 1.8 million people in 755km2; Berlin has 3.5 million people on 900km2. The City of Toronto has 2.6 million people on 630 km2, making it denser than the two largest German cities. Somehow, we achieve this despite having an extensive ravine parks system and no continuous midrise neighbourhoods (Berlin alone probably has 2 million people living in urban, midrise neighbourhoods of 5-6 storeys where the buildings come right up to the sidewalk).

Berlin covers 900km2 but a significant portion of that is forest, lakes, and protected farmland- a much greater proportion than is represented by Toronto's ravine networks including High Park. It's populated areas are much denser on average than the GTA and also much more coherent. If you were to isolate just the populated areas - excluding forest lakes etc, the density would be several times that of Toronto. Each borough is well connected via rapid transit in addition to being walkable and self-contained in its own right. Only the Old city of Toronto can really compare to a city like Berlin (assuming the suburbs never happened). Toronto's outlying suburbs are a planning disaster that rivals unplanned cities the world over and is off the charts compared to Berlin.

 

[RC8]

Berlin covers 900km2 but a significant portion of that is forest, lakes, and protected farmland- a much greater proportion than is represented by Toronto's ravine networks including High Park. It's populated areas are much denser on average than the GTA and also much more coherent. If you were to isolate just the populated areas - excluding forest lakes etc, the density would be several times that of Toronto. Each borough is well connected via rapid transit in addition to being walkable and self-contained in its own right. Only the Old city of Toronto can really compare to a city like Berlin (assuming the suburbs never happened). Toronto's outlying suburbs are a planning disaster that rivals unplanned cities the world over and is off the charts compared to Berlin.

Toronto's outer suburbs may be a planning disaster but so are Chicago's, Vancouver's, Detroit's, Miami's, Los Angeles', etc. When compared with most of those, I would argue that many of Toronto's suburbs are easier to 'save' and 'correct' than most of the others.

I lived in Mississauga without a car for years. I hated it, but I got by! As relatively awful as Mississauga Transit was compared to the dense cities of this world, it still got me pretty much anywhere. Many students in the GTA who attend suburban universities use transit. This is unheard of in the majority of North American cities.

What we went through in North America was so ridiculously destructive in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. I'm relatively grateful about how that era treated the GTA (we kept our streetcars, Spadina expressway was stopped, and downtown residential neighbourhoods survived).

(I do not disagree with your post re:berlin)

 

[W. K. Lis]

Toronto's outer suburbs may be a planning disaster but so are Chicago's, Vancouver's, Detroit's, Miami's, Los Angeles', etc. When compared with most of those, I would argue that many of Toronto's suburbs are easier to 'save' and 'correct' than most of the others.

I lived in Mississauga without a car for years. I hated it, but I got by! As relatively awful as Mississauga Transit was compared to the dense cities of this world, it still got me pretty much anywhere. Many students in the GTA who attend suburban universities use transit. This is unheard of in the majority of North American cities.

What we went through in North America was so ridiculously destructive in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. I'm relatively grateful about how that era treated the GTA (we kept our streetcars, Spadina expressway was stopped, and downtown residential neighbourhoods survived).

(I do not disagree with your post re:berlin)

Then there were and are the movies, especially the high school themed ones. The movies show the leads coming to high school in their cars and parking them in lots. When I went to high school, I walked or took the TTC.

Unfortunately, movies continue to show that using the car is a requirement of passage. (There are exceptions, such as the movie Speed, which was written by a Canadian, though the girl had to take the bus because of a license problem.)

 

[Johnny Au]

There is Zits, an American coming-of-age comic strip based on central Ohio suburbia. The main character, Jeremy Duncan, no doubt drives a van to school.

Me, I go to university (I attended U of T and will attend Ryerson) primarily by transit.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that American pop culture (that focuses on teens) generally show teens driving to school by themselves!

 

[W. K. Lis]

There is Zits, an American coming-of-age comic strip based on central Ohio suburbia. The main character, Jeremy Duncan, no doubt drives a van to school.

Me, I go to university (I attended U of T and will attend Ryerson) primarily by transit.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that American pop culture (that focuses on teens) generally show teens driving to school by themselves!

Or movies and TV shows that show drivers always getting a free parking spot at their destination, leaving the doors unlocked, and later driving off without putting their seatbelts on.

 

[doady]

Toronto's outer suburbs may be a planning disaster but so are Chicago's, Vancouver's, Detroit's, Miami's, Los Angeles', etc. When compared with most of those, I would argue that many of Toronto's suburbs are easier to 'save' and 'correct' than most of the others.

I lived in Mississauga without a car for years. I hated it, but I got by! As relatively awful as Mississauga Transit was compared to the dense cities of this world, it still got me pretty much anywhere. Many students in the GTA who attend suburban universities use transit. This is unheard of in the majority of North American cities.

What we went through in North America was so ridiculously destructive in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. I'm relatively grateful about how that era treated the GTA (we kept our streetcars, Spadina expressway was stopped, and downtown residential neighbourhoods survived).

Yeah, compare transit in Mississauga, Scarborough, North York to other post-war suburbs in North America, especially those in the US - it's not even close. Suburban transit service and ridership here is even superior to many inner cities in the US.

For example, Mississauga Transit has a higher transit ridership than the entire Pace bus system serving all of suburban Chicago. A system serving a population of 700,000 has a 30% higher total ridership than one serving a population of 7 million. That's 13 times higher per capita ridership. For Scarborough or North York it's probably 40 or 50 times higher higher per capita ridership.

Boardings, 2011

Mississauga Transit: 48.9 million

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority: 43.2 million
Connecticut Transit: 26.6 million
Broward County Transit: 39.7 million
Pace: 37.2 million
Metro (St. Louis): 44.6 million
Charlotte Area Transit System: 25.7 million
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (Buffalo-Niagara Falls): 30.5 million
Bee Line Bus (Westchester County, NY): 31.6 million
Greater Cleveland Regional Transportation Authority: 46.2 million
Central Ohio Transportation Authority (Columbus): 19.0 million
Capital Metro (Austin): 33.9 million
VIA Metropolitan Transit (San Antonio): 45.8 million
Utah Transit Authority (Salt Lake City): 41.6 million
Milwaukee County Transit System: 45.7 million​

Need I say more?

 

[jaycola]

Saving the suburbs?

Where are the locations/intersections where urban focused growth could be encouraged where the greatest impact could be seen?
Dundas and Royal York, Bathurst and Finch, O'connor and Eglinton all seem like good candidates.