News   Nov 05, 2024
 334     1 
News   Nov 05, 2024
 1.3K     2 
News   Nov 05, 2024
 555     0 

Should cities start blocking urban sprawl?

The Atlanta project is a good example of what some people defend as 'good sprawl'. Based on what I've seen in Toronto of this Duany stuff (Cornell in Markham) we just seem to end up with slightly different looking suburbs where everybody still drives to work and home depot.
 
The Atlanta project is a good example of what some people defend as 'good sprawl'. Based on what I've seen in Toronto of this Duany stuff (Cornell in Markham) we just seem to end up with slightly different looking suburbs where everybody still drives to work and home depot.

Well toronto is still beter off than many American cities. I lived in three places in Cleveland over 7 years, and i guarantee you you will not survive without driving everywhere, even to a park, and downtown meanwhile is empty. The thing I like about Toronto is that you still have a choice of a non-vehicle lifestyle. I think the best bet for Toronto is to continue building condos and dense townhouses, as well as improve public transportation. With current trends(at least in parts closer to downtown) it's becoming more and more like an European city rather than an American one.
 
Yes, but you point out that this is mainly in parts closer to downtown. The European experience needs to be extended to everyone in the GTA, not just the core.
 
The trouble with high density is that not everyone is for it. In the 1960's, the Bloor-Danforth was under construction, and developers were acquiring and demolishing home along the subway line opposite High Park. Gothic Avenue development was halted by the controversy. (The current Mayor of Toronto, David Miller, now lives on Gothic Avenue.) Even today, the area was in the news, with a stubborn tenant who refused other better accommodation, was eventually evicted, due to her over the top "allergies".

That is one reason to go with medium density along light rapid transit lines.
 
Last edited:
When you say medium density, do you mean European-style everything? Because I hate to break it to you, but not everyone likes that either.
And while buildings actually facing onto the park would be better off 6-8 stories, I don't see anything wrong with the High Park neighborhood. If you've ever walked around those apartment buildings, it's not like they're ugly or anything. It's actually a great atmosphere. All it needs is some (more) retail in the gut of the neighborhood, and maybe some refacing and landscaping in some areas.

But, high density is needed outside downtown. We need those places to grow to mainly be high density mixed use residential and commercial as well. Scarborough Town Centre, North York, Langstaff, Etobicoke, and Downtown Mississauga should all be blessed with the same thriving high density that downtown has. Outside of that, those mid rise, mixed use avenues could do well. And just off the subway lines, medium density residential (4 and 5 storey condos, apartments, etc.) for a couple hundred meters is needed too. But people also like to, believe it or not, in a suburban setting. Definitely not everyone that lives in the suburbs now really need to, but there's a representative share of people that like the suburbs for what they are.
 
Las Vegas: Building Is Booming in a City of Empty Houses

I found this article to be a rather depressing statement on how much many people love sprawl, at all costs. This all sounds like a disaster in the making.

Building Is Booming in a City of Empty Houses
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/business/16builder.html?ref=general&src=me&pagewanted=all
May 15, 2010 By DAVID STREITFELD

LAS VEGAS — In a plastic tent under a glorious desert sky, Richard Lee preached the gospel of the second chance.

The chance to make money on the next housing boom “is like it’s never been,†Mr. Lee, a real estate promoter, assured a crowd of agents, investors and bankers. “We’re going to come back like you’ve never seen us before.â€

Home prices in Las Vegas are down by 60 percent from 2006 in one of the steepest descents in modern times. There are 9,517 spanking new houses sitting empty. An additional 5,600 homes were repossessed by lenders in the first three months of this year and could soon be for sale.

Yet builders here are putting up 1,100 homes, and they are frantically buying lots for even more.

Las Vegas is trying to recover by building what it does not need. It is an unlikely pattern being repeated in many of the areas where the housing crash was most severe.

“There’s a surprising rebound in the hardest-hit markets,†said Brad Hunter, chief economist with the consultant Metrostudy. “People are buying again.†From the recession’s lows, construction has nearly doubled in Las Vegas, Phoenix and Tucson. It is up 74 percent in inland Southern California and soaring in Florida.

Some of the demand is coming from families that are getting shut out of the bidding for foreclosures by syndicates that pay in cash, and some is from investors who are back on the prowl.

Land and labor costs have fallen significantly, so the newest homes are competitively priced. Some of the boom-era homes, meanwhile, are in developments that feel like ghost towns. And many Americans will always believe the latest model of something is their only option, an attitude builders are doing their utmost to reinforce.

In Phoenix, a billboard for Fulton Homes summed up the builders’ marketing approach. “Does your foreclosure have tenants?†it asks, next to a picture of a mammoth cockroach.

Brent Anderson, a marketing executive with another Southwest builder, Meritage Homes, said it bought 713 lots in stricken Arizona last year, and was on the verge of starting construction in a new Phoenix community called Lyon’s Gate.

“We’re building them because we’re selling them,†Mr. Anderson said. “Our customers wouldn’t care if there were 50 homes in an established neighborhood of 1980 or 1990 vintage, all foreclosed, empty and for sale at $10,000 less. They want new. And what are we going to do, let someone else build it?â€

All of this goes contrary to the conventional wisdom, which suggests an improved market for builders is years away. Nationwide, new home sales at the beginning of this year plunged to a level below any recorded since 1963, when the figures were first officially tabulated.

Simply put, the country already has too many houses, the legacy of wide-scale overbuilding during the boom. The Census Bureau says there are two million vacant homes for sale, about double the historical level. Fewer new households, moreover, are being formed as families double up for economic reasons, putting a further brake on demand.

Even some builders agree with the pessimists when it comes to Las Vegas. Meritage Homes, for example, has largely withdrawn from the city. “We don’t think it will come back for a long time,†Mr. Anderson said.

American West is betting the opposite is true. The developer, which is privately held and is based here, builds nowhere else.

The evening under the tent with Mr. Lee was the official start of American West’s new community, called Reserve at Coronado Ranch. Before it opened, buyers began putting down money for the houses, which sell for under $300,000. “For the first time in three or four years, we have pent-up demand,†said American West’s vice president for sales, Jeff Canarelli. Disregard what you may have heard about how hard times may usher in an era of restraint. “With our buyers, they always want bigger,†Mr. Canarelli said. An American West home introduced during the recession comes equipped with an elevator.

One of the initial buyers at Reserve is Josh Snider, a surgical technologist who decided a year ago he wanted to buy his first home. He sought out a foreclosure, deals that were supposedly plentiful and cheap. “What a nightmare that was,†recalled Mr. Snider, 38. “I put in five or six offers and was always outbid.â€

He didn’t see any homes that were being sold by buyers in the traditional way. The price declines in Las Vegas have been so brutal that most homeowners with a mortgage owe more than their home is worth. If they must sell, their only option is a so-called short sale done with the approval of the lender, which can be a lengthy and frustrating process for all concerned.

Worried the market was going to turn around before he bought, Mr. Snider started checking out the new developments. He liked the floor plan, size and price of Reserve, which ultimately will have 310 houses.

A final incentive sealed the deal, this one courtesy of the United States government: he got a loan insured by the Federal Housing Administration, which meant his down payment was much smaller than a private lender would require.

The house, to be done in September, cost $273,500. “It’s not a bargain for everyone,†Mr. Snider said, “but it’s a bargain for me.â€

He plans to live in the house with his girlfriend, Cindy Rojas, and his 12-year-old daughter.

Another early buyer is Irving Hallman, an investor from Hawaii. “I understand Vegas has its ups and downs, but we did the numbers and this house will hold its value,†Mr. Hallman said.

There is a benefit to the seeming madness in places like Las Vegas. Building homes is the traditional fuel of a recovery.

“Housing is construction. It’s tables. It’s paint. It’s couches. It’s toilets,†said Sally Taylor, a specialist in liquor and gambling establishments who attended the American West festivities. “If we build more houses, we’re creating more jobs.â€

Across the street from Reserve’s three model homes is a new strip mall. Only one building is occupied, a gambling parlor. Others will start to be filled when more buyers join Mr. Snider and Mr. Hallman finds a renter.

Analysts have calculated that it could take as long as a decade for inventories to return to their precrash levels and for demand to once again exceed supply. That is a grim prospect for any owner who hopes to accrue equity through rising prices.

A few experts, however, are starting to think the path to a better market will be much shorter. Stephen F. Auth, chief investment officer at the financial services company Federated Investors, is a housing bull. He says he does not believe that many extended families will end up all living in one place, like the Waltons in the 1930s.

“That’s an unsustainable environment — Grandma coming home, Johnny moving back in with his new wife,†Mr. Auth said. “They’re going to move back out. The great housing depression is nearly over.â€

New-home sales in March rose 27 percent. But most analysts attributed the jump to the pending expiration of yet another government incentive, a tax credit for buyers, and said sales would quickly slump again.

Even in Las Vegas, a community built on the willingness to be lucky, belief in a housing turnaround — and Mr. Lee’s portrait of a resilient city on its way to being a global “meetspace†— is provisional. Agents at the party said they had their hopes but were chastened by the horrors of the last three years.

Afterward, packing up his video equipment, Mr. Lee said the party itself heralded a recovery. “We used to do this every two weeks, starting in the 1990s,†he said. “But this is the first time in 18 months. Believe me, it’s been famine around here.â€
 
The trouble with high density is that not everyone is for it. In the 1960's, the Bloor-Danforth was under construction, and developers were acquiring and demolishing home along the subway line opposite High Park. Gothic Avenue development was halted by the controversy. (The current Mayor of Toronto, David Miller, now lives on Gothic Avenue.) Even today, the area was in the news, with a stubborn tenant who refused other better accommodation, was eventually evicted, due to her over the top "allergies".

That is one reason to go with medium density along light rapid transit lines.

The funny thing about the Gothic controversy is that it got embroiled in municipal politics, through a conflict-of-interest thing involving, I believe, the wife of alderman Ben Grys--so it wasn't completely a raw matter of good vs bad urban form that ushered in the Crombie era, it was also the cloud of dubious political ethics looming over the old regime...
 
Interesting article in Planetizen:

Turning Downtown into Suburbia – The Case of Hartford, Connecticut

17 May 2010 - 9:47am
Author: * Chris McCahill * Norman Garrick

When we think of sprawl, we usually picture suburban life. But inner cities also took on the character of sprawl when freeways came in and were buildings torn down, say Christopher T. McCahill and Norman Garrick.

Sprawl is a term most often associated with the far reaches of suburbia and primarily those areas that have been built up over the last 60 years. However, many older American city centers have also been affected by sprawl, progressively reshaped and transformed in an effort to make them more competitive with their burgeoning suburbs. Norman Garrick and myself are part of a research team at the University of Connecticut looking at what happens when automobile-oriented suburban policies and standards are applied on a consistent basis to once dense mixed-use downtowns.

DSCF3174.jpg

Businesses in Hartford are served by more than 21,000 parking spaces in garages.

In the case of Hartford, Connecticut, what we found was a fundamental change not just in the look and configuration of the city, but also in how it functions from a transportation point of view. The term sprawl does not really describe the end result of the gradual process of reconfiguration that was observed in Hartford, but the city we ended up with is far from the mixed-use urban place that it was 60 years ago. In fact, our analysis suggests that what has been created in places like downtown Hartford is a hybrid urban form that functions more like suburban sprawl than a traditional urban place. To understand this transformation from traditional urban downtown to an urban-sprawl hybrid, we compiled historical data from Hartford going back to 1960, looking at municipal records, maps of land use, and travel data. The results reveal a city in which policy-makers struggled to develop a clear vision of the city’s role within an increasingly suburban region and they illustrate the consequences of the policy path chosen.

For much of its existence until the 1950s, downtown Hartford consisted of a dense network of medium-rise, mixed-use buildings, which supported a vibrant economy built on insurance and precision manufacturing. Beginning in the mid-1950s, flush with federal grants, the city and state razed a large portion of the downtown, replacing the lost streets and buildings with high-rise modernist buildings in superblocks. Concurrently, two major interstate highways were constructed through the heart of downtown. These highways required the razing of even more city blocks and the destruction of notable architectural landmarks including the Victorian masterpiece that was Hartford High School – a loss that the city has never quite forgotten. The highways not only replaced buildings, they also created a divide that is still as harmful today as it was when it was built. As dramatic as these upheavals were, however, they were only the beginning in terms of the change to the urban fabric of the city that was to come. Our analysis of the city maps showed that in 1960 the fabric of the downtown core was still largely intact, with only 15,000 parking spaces; by 2000 that number had grown to 46,000, resulting in a downtown that is now a hollow shell of what it once was.

DSCF3165.jpg

Surface parking lots in Downtown Hartford create a harsh pedestrian environment.

As the construction of parking and the widening of roads continued, policymakers came to mixed conclusions on how they impacted the city. As early as 1962, the City Plan Commission in Hartford acknowledged that, given the city's limited land, "careful, intensive study of the impact of highway takings and parking facilities was needed if these takings are not to result in strangulation of the City." From the vantage point of hindsight, this language now seems remarkable prescient in understanding the danger to the urban form that lay in allocating more and more land to the movement and storage of automobiles. Over the following decades, similar concerns continued to resurface. However, the municipal record shows that the perceived need for parking won out, and buildings were removed for surface parking, and multistory garages were built throughout the downtown.

As a fundamental component of our study, we used historical aerial photographs to map these changes in parking provision over the fifty-year study period. The roughly 46,000 parking spaces in the city today include 21,000 spaces in surface parking lots and another 21,000 in parking garages – in total, 22 percent of the land area downtown is devoted to parking. It is also worth emphasizing that during the period that the amount of parking was increased threefold, the city lost 25 percent of its residents, employment plummeted and the retail trade downtown was all but wiped out.

hartfordcomparison.gif

Downtown in 1957 (left) and 1965 (right). The dense urban fabric of Downtown Hartford was severely damaged during urban renewal in the 1960s.

The numbers indicate the extent to which automobiles have become the keystone of the city’s transportation system. In fact, the share of commuters living in Hartford who traveled by automobile increased from 53 percent in 1960 to 74 percent in 2000. The parking numbers also show a transformation of the city’s built environment from one that had a dense mix of uses to one with more sparsely arranged high-rise buildings complemented and surrounded by parking facilities. This new urban form – one that has strong overtones of the automobile-oriented office parks found throughout the suburbs – seems to have discouraged walking or an active public life on the streets of the city. This is illustrated by the fact that between 1960 and 2000, the share of commuters in Hartford who walk or use a bicycle dropped precipitously from 16 to 6 percent.

In our research, we also looked at Cambridge, Massachusetts, where parking was heavily regulated and the dense, mixed-use urban form in that city had largely survived over the last six decades. In Cambridge, the number of commuters walking or bicycling to work actually increased since the 1960s and is now at more than 25 percent. As we have presented these results around the country, a number of observers have, not surprisingly, questioned the appropriateness of comparing these two cities. One of the objections that they point to is that these cities are so vastly different in terms of economic vitality. But what is often forgotten is that in 1960 the difference between these cities was not so evident. At that time, both cities were relatively prosperous but declining New England cities. The really interesting thing in comparing Cambridge and Hartford is in discovering the extent to which their economic paths have diverged. More work is needed to fully understand the role that policy choices played in the contrasting economic fate of these cities, but it is undeniable that Cambridge chose a path that largely protected its urban fabric and facilitated non-motorized modes of travel.

The lesson that is emerging from this study suggests that when suburban policies are adopted in an urban environment, the resulting urban-sprawl hybrid may fail to reap the benefits of either city or suburb. By trying to accommodate as many automobiles in Hartford as there were residents, commuters, and visitors, the city has been left with a disconnected urban space where land for non-transportation use continues to shrink, as more land must be used each year for storing vehicles.

This is not to say, however, that the city of Hartford has damaged its urban character to a point that is beyond repair. Many of the city’s historical buildings and most of its original street network are still intact. There is also evidence that the city’s transportation system has remained more diverse and adaptable than in the suburbs. An example of this adaptability is that employers in Hartford that charge for parking have witnessed a significant number of employees shifting to non-automobile travel, though such a shift may not be realistic in more automobile-oriented areas. At the Travelers Companies, Inc. – an insurance company in the downtown where employees are charged between 70 and 125 dollars per month for parking – only 71 percent of employees choose to drive alone to work. In contrast, at enterprises where employee parking is free and ample (including the both the city and the state government offices in Downtown), between 83 and 95 percent drive alone to work.

If the city were to emulate even the modest transportation demand management strategies of the Travelers Company on a citywide basis, our research suggests that they could start to reverse the cycle of decay that has so damaged the urban fabric of the city and its ability to function as a vital urban center. Some of the changes that could help include a rethinking of regulations governing parking accommodations in the city. However, what is first needed is a clear recognition and understanding by policy-makers that a city's greatest advantage lies in embracing rather that negating its urbanity.

Christopher T. McCahill is currently a PhD student in transportation and urban engineering at the University of Connecticut. His research focuses on multi-modal urban transportation systems and the interactions between transportation and land use.

Norman Garrick, PhD
is an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Connecticut. He is also a board member of the Congress for the New Urbanism.

Results from this study will be published in an upcoming Transportation Research Record report and in a Congress for the New Urbanism paper that will be presented at CNU 18 in Atlanta in May. The study is currently being expanded to cover eight other cities around the United States.
 
turning downtown into suburbia: the same thing may happen to Detroit, where they are trying to reclaim urban land for agriculture. Detroit is a fascinating to go and think about urban issues.

The term "sprawl" is problematic because it is always carries a negative connotation, and taints the discussion before we even explore the many related reasons why it is problematic from a sustainability and social perspective. A more balanced discussion would talk about low density residential development and refer to entrenched planning ideology that separates residential, commercial, industrial such that mobility requires a car. An entire paradigm of planning, consumerism, and economic development is predicated on a car-based low-density development. People who drive every day shop more, watch more television, and purchase more goods and services from big branded chains than independently owned and operated businesses. Low density living better feeds the multinational advertising, branding, and distribution model of living.

I think the correct model, and Toronto is doing okay in this regard, is multi-cluster density. I hope that the greenbelt holds, and that the rising property values closer to built up areas incentivises higher density development (and redevelopment of exising high-rise stock). This is already happening to some extent. Having said this, Toronto's recent suburbs tend to be much higher density than what you see in the likes of Atlanta. Development of the portlands and lower don can do a lot to relieve housing demand in the suburbs, provide the jobs and quality of life pulls remain closer to downtown. Also there are many parcels in existing areas that can be redeveloped into high-rise residential/commercial.
 
Last edited:
How's rest of Wayne County (IIRC, Detroit is a seat) comparable to Peel, York and Durham? Any things that resemble between them?
 
Toronto's Avenue plan is to rezone and build low-rise, mixed use, buildings along avenues running rapid transit routes and frequent headway routes. However, Toronto is different from American cities in that it, generally, did not raze buildings just to replace them with parking lots. Usually in Toronto, the parking lots are short term before being replaced by new buildings. Not so in the States, they were just empty spaces.

In also creates a problem. Toronto can't rebuild low-rise buildings if there are buildings already being used. That means cities like Detroit could build new buildings faster, if they have the incentive to do so.
 
How's rest of Wayne County (IIRC, Detroit is a seat) comparable to Peel, York and Durham? Any things that resemble between them?


Perhaps think more of Cheektowaga, Tonawanda, Amherst, i.e. Cold War Rustbelturbia, aimless, entropic, and all too often Eminem-ish or worse. And by "worse", think analogous to Harvey, Illinois (home of the long-abandoned Dixie Square Mall, star of the Blues Brothers movie).

So that's what the negative American suburban stereotype's come to over the past half century. From Jerry Mathers' TV family to Marshall Mathers' real-life family...
 
Last edited:
How's rest of Wayne County (IIRC, Detroit is a seat) comparable to Peel, York and Durham? Any things that resemble between them?

Grosse Pointes.
 
How Would You Define Transit-Oriented Development?

From streetsblog.network:

It’s a welcome sign of progress that developers are beginning to shift towards building more walkable, mixed-use projects.

Of course, now that more builders recognize the value of transit-oriented development, the term is vulnerable to exploitation. Tools like Walk Score and Abogo can help consumers find walkable places to live with good transit options, but how can we be sure that a building is as transit-oriented as a developer may claim? Maybe it’s time for a rating system, like “certified organic,†that could apply to a single development.

The bloggers at Livable Bay and Straight Outta Suburbia have spent some time thinking about this issue, and they’re putting together a rating system to test claims of transit orientation. Their system would rate projects based on proximity to transit, compactness, mix of uses and walkability/bikeability:

First, a property must be within 1/3 mile (0.536448 km) of transit. This is obvious–if there’s no transit–not even a bus line–then it’s sprawl. Property that creates congestion doesn’t deserve to be measured by this metric.

Similarly, if the density of the development is not above 1.25 FAR, it is not dense enough to be smart growth. (FAR is a rough formula for density. It stands for “Floor Area Ratio,†and it equals the surface area on all floors divided by the size of the property.) Imagine, for example, if a developer put single family homes next to transit, or even an apartment building with a large surface parking lot. It might be near transit, but that doesn’t mean it’s transit oriented, and it certainly isn’t smart growth. Single family homes and surface parking lots are congestion oriented, not transit oriented, and such properties are inappropriate for this test.

The closer you are to transit, and the better the transit, the more points the development earns. If the property is across the street from transit, it should be rewarded for that. In addition, the more frequent the transit service, the more points. Properties that include commercial space, office space, or both are rewarded. Many people overlook the importance of office space in smart growth. It ensures people can live near their work.

What do you think? Could a system like this hold developers accountable for their marketing? Is this ground already covered by the existing standards in LEED ND (a green building rating system for neighborhood-scale development)? Livable Bay is asking for feedback on the rating system. What’s your advice?

Elsewhere on the Network today: Portland Transit uses Transit Score to evaluate the availability of public transportation across various city demographics and geographies. Greater Greater Washington asks why Virginia DOT failed to install a crosswalk and stoplight as planned at an intersection where a pedestrian was killed this weekend. And The MinusCar Project wonders whether mandatory helmet laws are incompatible with public bike-sharing systems.

There are more links within the actual article at this link.
 

Back
Top