Should cities start blocking urban sprawl?

[Ladies Mile]

Uh, re "goes on for miles":

it's only that stuff at the upper right corner. Geographic illiteracy ain't good.

Oh, I agree.

Pity you suffer from it.

According to Google Maps, the Grosse Point district, including Grosse Point Park and Grosse Point Farms extends for approximately 5 square miles.

 

[Danielinthecity]

Sure but those are still towers.. be it 9-11 story towers rather than the 50 floors that usually pop into our minds when we hear "tower." My point really is that not everyone wants to live in multi-unit buildings. Most people (Yes, I know, it's hard to believe to the Urban Toronto crowd, but really, most people) prefer to have a single house with a yard. The reason most DON'T live in single houses (in Europe or Asia) is because they're not affordable. They have no choice but to live in multi-unit buildings but believe me they'd run at the chance to have a yard.

Of course most young people(say 18-30) prefer dense, downtown living, and arrogantly and naivly presume that this preference is universal. But oh well that's UT for you

The issue of sprawl has to do with managing land in an efficient manner to ensure that our decisions and activities (i.e. preferential lifestyles) do NOT have detrimental affects on society, whether that be economic impacts (i.e. congestion), environmental or otherwise.

As for your comment about 'having to' built up all the time, there are many dense neighborhoods in Toronto full of houses, not buildings small or large, and yes they even have private yards (not that there's anything wrong with 'sharing' a yard with others (i.e. a park!), and yet they are much more dense than suburbia (and they are 'designed' in a way that encourages walking). These designs are very different than the typical car-oriented suburbs.

The problem with your so-called preferences of the so-called majority is that it's harmful to society.

Every minute a truck idles in traffic increases the cost of it's payload (economic cost of congestion) and produces more pollution (environmental cost of burning oil), and it's lost production. Every minute a person in their private automobile sits in traffic it's the same thing, except the impacts are a bit different.

Framing the arguement around 'choice' or 'preference' like most right-winged suburbanites typically do fails to consider the impact of their choices, and that kind of self-centred 'me' attitude shouldn't be tolerated. And if we are going to tolerate it (in the interest of just allowing everyone to live according to their own 'choices' or 'preferences' as you say), then let's ensure they are prepared to PAY the FULL cost of their behaviour. So if they are going to pollute the air I breath, and make each bag of milk I buy more expensive, then they should pay for that privelage.

 

[Danielinthecity]

Not sure how much of this stuff the typical condo owner actually needs. Lawn mower and snow shovel obviously are not needed in a condo because management does that sort of maintenance, BBQs are banned in condos because they are a fire hazard. Tools are probably less needed in a condo because again, a lot of the maintenance is done by management. Bicycles and camping equipment seem to be the only thing on that list that condo owners really need. Obviously condo owners do need storage space (either in storage lockers or in off-site self-storage places), but I think that the typical condo owner has less stuff than the typical single-family home owner because they don't need as much of it.

And having less stuff is sooooo liberating! In the last year and a half I have been on a material purging campaign and it feels great! As for the barbeque, we actually have 2 in our 'shared' backyard of our condo, or we can walk down the street and pick from the literally hundreds of great inexpensive restaurants...

 

[Danielinthecity]

And having less stuff is sooooo liberating! In the last year and a half I have been on a material purging campaign and it feels great! As for the barbeque, we actually have 2 in our 'shared' backyard of our condo, or we can walk down the street and pick from the literally hundreds of great inexpensive restaurants...

...and speaking of 'stuff'...

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

 

[cfloryan]

The problem with your so-called preferences of the so-called majority is that it's harmful to society.

Every minute a truck idles in traffic increases the cost of it's payload (economic cost of congestion) and produces more pollution (environmental cost of burning oil), and it's lost production. Every minute a person in their private automobile sits in traffic it's the same thing, except the impacts are a bit different.

Framing the arguement around 'choice' or 'preference' like most right-winged suburbanites typically do fails to consider the impact of their choices, and that kind of self-centred 'me' attitude shouldn't be tolerated. And if we are going to tolerate it (in the interest of just allowing everyone to live according to their own 'choices' or 'preferences' as you say), then let's ensure they are prepared to PAY the FULL cost of their behaviour. So if they are going to pollute the air I breath, and make each bag of milk I buy more expensive, then they should pay for that privelage.

You misunderstand: It's not about choice or preference, it's about increasing quality of life. Supposedly "suburbanites" decrease your quality of life. But wouldn't forcing others to live in a more cramped neighbourhoods be decreasing their quality of life?

And new suburbs are already being built at very high densities... about as high as you can get for single family homes. Streetview of northern Markham: http://maps.google.com/maps?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hl=en&tab=wl

Also, moot point, but for the sake of accuracy, it's cheaper to deliver goods (say milk) to suburban grocery stores than to those in high density neighbourhood. I could explain why but it'll take more sentences than I'm willing to write right now. Please refer to a geography textbook if you're interested.

 

[Second_in_pie]

You misunderstand: It's not about choice or preference, it's about increasing quality of life. Supposedly "suburbanites" decrease your quality of life. But wouldn't forcing others to live in a more cramped neighbourhoods be decreasing their quality of life?

And new suburbs are already being built at very high densities... about as high as you can get for single family homes. Streetview of northern Markham: http://maps.google.com/maps?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hl=en&tab=wl

Also, moot point, but for the sake of accuracy, it's cheaper to deliver goods (say milk) to suburban grocery stores than to those in high density neighbourhood. I could explain why but it'll take more sentences than I'm willing to write right now. Please refer to a geography textbook if you're interested.

Who's definition of a good quality of life? Having a massive house with way too much stuff, garage for you 2 cars and a big front lawn? Yeah, that sounds great.

I know so many "suburbanites" who really aren't sold on this whole "suburban living" thing and would gladly move into higher density housing, if they actually had the chance to do so economically. Currently, they can't, so they're shoehorned into subdivisions. It's not everyone's choice. It may be the choice for a few, and it's not like we're going to totally eradicate single houses. But you need to give people more opportunity, with which I'm sure plenty would choose now, let alone in a society more focused on urban living rather than a dysfunctional idealism with the wrong principles in the first place.

Also, the new homes being built in Markham are great. If the entire suburbs were made of that, then it'd be great: we'd just need a mid-density avenue every once in a while and we'd be in business for a better city already. But they're not, and this higher density sprawl is still sprawl, and surrounds a large pocket of very low density housing.

 

[lafard]

Quality of life is highly subjective.

I don't view suburbs as a high quality of life. I hated mowing the lawn as a teenage (is there anything more futile than having to push a noisy, loud, heavy machine back and forth repeatedly, and then having to do it again four days later?) and I hated being stuck unless someone drove me there. I grew up on Vancouver Island so I never grew to hate shovelling, but I bet I would.

I'd say the quality of life where I live now is pretty high. The density of my census tract is 12,000/km.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Hey, Second in Pie, when are you going to move downtown? You'd be great at it. It doesn't have to be that expensive.

As much as the whole 'new urbanism' thing has its faults, if the suburbs started building medium density mixed-used developments using GO stations as the focal point, we'd instantly take several steps towards a more sustainable model. Of course, GO has to step up and provide more service before that can happen in a lot of places.

 

[Danielinthecity]

No, YOU need to read a geography textbook!

You misunderstand: It's not about choice or preference, it's about increasing quality of life. Supposedly "suburbanites" decrease your quality of life. But wouldn't forcing others to live in a more cramped neighbourhoods be decreasing their quality of life?

And new suburbs are already being built at very high densities... about as high as you can get for single family homes. Streetview of northern Markham: http://maps.google.com/maps?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hl=en&tab=wl

Also, moot point, but for the sake of accuracy, it's cheaper to deliver goods (say milk) to suburban grocery stores than to those in high density neighbourhood. I could explain why but it'll take more sentences than I'm willing to write right now. Please refer to a geography textbook if you're interested.

No, YOU misunderstand, and YOU should read a geography textbook. I have read 'many' geography textbooks in my time. And I can tell that YOU have no idea what you are talking about.

As for your comment about milk being cheaper to deliver in the suburbs, it costs much more to pickup and deliver milk when the drivers are stuck in traffic, as labour happens to be almost 50% of the cost of moving raw milk from the farm to the processing facilities, many located in the GTA.

Similarly, it costs more to move milk in areas where the farms are spread out far from each other (and far from the plants) just like dispersed houses in traditional/typical suburbs. The rate per hectolitre for moving milk in northern Ontario is about 3 times the rate/hl for moving it in southern ontario, mainly due to the fact that the farms are so isolated and the average distance between farms is much greater (i.e. extreme rural sprawl) than in southern ontario. There was a report witten a number of years ago...forgot the name, but I think it was from a professor named Foster, where he compared milk transportation costs between Ontario and Quebec...look it up! In it he SPECIFICALLY references urban sprawl as a leading factor in Ontario have higher costs.

As for moving most other forms of freight, there's a saying in the freight transportation industry, "If you bought it, a truck brought it". And when those wheels are NOT moving (because they're stuck in traffic), costs are going up and productivity is going down!

Maybe YOU should really know what you're talking about before insulting others with suggestions of reading geography texts.

 

[adma]

Oh, I agree.

Pity you suffer from it.

According to Google Maps, the Grosse Point district, including Grosse Point Park and Grosse Point Farms extends for approximately 5 square miles.

That's not exactly "going on for miles" as per your statement. And as per (duh) Wikipedia on Wayne County...

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the county has a total area of 672 square miles (1,741 km²)—614 square miles (1,591 km²) of it is land and 58 square miles (150 km²) of it (8.64%) is water (including parts of the Detroit River and Lake St. Clair).

So, that 5 square miles is less than 1% the total square mileage of Wayne County. It's only a pinprick within the bigger scheme of things.

And, on top of that, it's Grosse Pointe, not Grosse Point.

So, re your "Pity you suffer from [geographic illiteracy]", talk about blatant pot, kettle, black there...

 

[Action Jackson]

Sure but those are still towers.. be it 9-11 story towers rather than the 50 floors that usually pop into our minds when we hear "tower." My point really is that not everyone wants to live in multi-unit buildings. Most people (Yes, I know, it's hard to believe to the Urban Toronto crowd, but really, most people) prefer to have a single house with a yard. The reason most DON'T live in single houses (in Europe or Asia) is because they're not affordable. They have no choice but to live in multi-unit buildings but believe me they'd run at the chance to have a yard.

Of course most young people(say 18-30) prefer dense, downtown living, and arrogantly and naivly presume that this preference is universal. But oh well that's UT for you

If you tore down a large house and put up two smaller ones, you have just doubled the density, assuming the same number of people live in a house. Paris isn't all 9-11 story buildings. And Toronto could easily have greater density while still allowing people to have yards. I'd bet Toronto could easily put another million people in its borders while not turning it all into skyscrapers.

 

[Action Jackson]

Ironic, because SUVs are actually considerably more dangerous than regular cars.

Yeah. I'm no environmentalist when it comes to cars (my car is a substantially-modified 1988 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme that I wouldn't drive downtown for fear of setting off car alarms, not to mention its gas mileage is abysmal), but I absolutely loathe SUVs. There are people who need them. But 80% of SUVs I see are driven by some jackass with small-man syndrome or mothers who are paranoid about their kids' safety and drive a huge vehicle thinking its safer. It drives me nuts. Bigger, yeah. But also much easier to roll over, crappy brakes, blind spots.....

 

[Action Jackson]

You misunderstand: It's not about choice or preference, it's about increasing quality of life. Supposedly "suburbanites" decrease your quality of life. But wouldn't forcing others to live in a more cramped neighbourhoods be decreasing their quality of life?

Not neccessarily. You may lose the quietness and large houses and large yards. You gain in having better access to transit options, in most cases you gain in having more choices for stores and restaurants and schools and other amenities. You don't need to drive a car everywhere, which is good for people who don't drive or don't like doing so. There are ups and downs, and if neighborhoods were that undesirable, there wouldn't be people there. These neighborhoods usually don't have that much smaller houses, and such neighborhoods are closer to amenities, as well as closer to other neighbors and friends.

 

[Danielinthecity]

If you tore down a large house and put up two smaller ones, you have just doubled the density, assuming the same number of people live in a house. Paris isn't all 9-11 story buildings. And Toronto could easily have greater density while still allowing people to have yards. I'd bet Toronto could easily put another million people in its borders while not turning it all into skyscrapers.

Exactly! Even just restricting new development along major roads (although not necessary in my opinion) like adding just 2 more floors onto the 2 story buildings lining streets like Danforth, Bloor, Yonge, Queen East & West, and on and on...even just doing this would increase the density by a lot plus would have the added benefit of providing a market for the TTC expansion. And in the inner suburbs, there is SO MUCH potential for increasing density, not only as Action Jackson suggested, but also by building up the main avenues.

 

[Danielinthecity]

You misunderstand: It's not about choice or preference, it's about increasing quality of life. Supposedly "suburbanites" decrease your quality of life. But wouldn't forcing others to live in a more cramped neighbourhoods be decreasing their quality of life?

Whenever I hear a suburbanite talk about 'cramped' neighborhoods and their 'need' for more living space, I can't help but think about the pre-war German policy, Lebensraum, (German for "habitat" or literally "living space) and how it was used to justify expansion...maybe a stretch I know, but just like the idea itself led to disasterous results I think how current attitudes about the 'need' for living space and keeping us seperated are also unhealthy for societies, not only in the ways most people - including myself - have already alluded to (i.e. economic and environmental), but also in terms of societal costs where people who are different rarely ever interact and how this inevitably leads to ignorance, which is the fuel used to give momentum to right winged groups like were seeing now here in Toronto (Rob Ford) and in the U.S. (tea party).

Last night on tvo there was a really interesting discussion on The Agenda about a new book entitled, "The Death of the Liberal Class"...(http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/)

...while not directly related to our discussion, it's still interesting if you think about how these ideas play out in terms of their impact on urban design, b/c I know ford's views on how a city should be built on built on his conservative views.