"Urban" vs. "suburban"

[Disparishun]

I agree completely, kettal. My point is not to paint all "suburbs" with one brush.

Humewood-Cedarvale > Oakville by the lake > Thornhill-Markham > Thornhill-Vaughan

Is this a scale from densest to sparsest? Hippest to derisivist? Favouritist to yuckiest? (I had to ask!)

 

[King of Kensington]

Ultimately, it's about my personal preferences.

 

[T.O.Fanatic]

Oh I'm sorry, yes it was included. Goes to show that I should look closer.......I'd like to add in the stretch of Kingston Rd between Midland and Danforth Rd. It has a few walkable streetfront shopping areas. But regardless, the parts of Scarborough that can be considered urban are few and far between.

 

[King of Kensington]

Eug - re: Yonge and Eglinton. No that intersection can't really be called suburban anymore, but the area just north of Eglinton is a very sharp contrast from just south of there. The lifestyle and aspirations also seem suburban there. Far more than anywhere else in the Old City of Toronto.

For instance, David Dunkelman writes (yes, he's a realtor, but his guide to Toronto's neighborhoods is excellent):

"Lytton Park is one of Toronto's most exclusive neighbourhoods. It is home to doctors, lawyers, stockbrokers and corporate executives who value Lytton Park's quiet charm, and its convenient access to transportation corridors leading in and out of the city.

Lytton Park's other assets include beautiful homes on large lots, outstanding recreational facilities, and a close proximity to excellent public and private schools."

Sounds more like Chevy Chase than Georgetown, more Wilmette than Gold Coast, more Scarsdale than Upper East Side, more Chestnut Hill than Society Hill. I anywhere can be described as a suburb in the (old) city it's (greater) Lawrence Park.

http://www.torontoneighbourhoodguide.com/regions/toronto_north/50_overview.html

And the Toronto Life real estate guide says (quite accurately IMO):

"It's the perfect neighbourhood for people (increasingly young families, according to the latest census) who like the quietude and big-lawned openness of suburban life, with all the amenities and excitement of the big city within a five-minute drive."

http://www.torontolife.com/guide/real-estate/central/lawrence-park-south/

And certainly if I weren't from Toronto and I saw these pics I'd definitely think it looks like a suburban area:

http://www.torontoneighbourhoodguide.com/regions/toronto_north/50_homes.html

http://www.torontoneighbourhoodguide.com/regions/toronto_north/09_homes.html

Bloor West Village and the Beaches are a bit trickier. The Beaches almost seems to be like a quirky (and upscale) town than anything else. Bloor West Village seems to very streetcar suburb-ish, while the East Danforth seems to be a transition zone (kind of like dare I say, Archie Bunker's neighborhood in Queens).

 

[King of Kensington]

I see where the dark red zone as being "the core" - even though it includes early postwar suburbs - are coming from. These can be said to include the "close-in suburbs" I suppose or basically the area developed by the 1950s.

 

[adma]

I guess we're basically talking about an in-town Oakville, if you're thinking of Scarsdalean equivalents across the GTA...

 

[Archivist]

For myself, a key aspect of my internal definition of urban vs. suburban is whether or not there is sidewalk-facing retail on commercial streets. For instance, the Annex, though a leafy neighbourhood of large houses, to me is urban because of Bloor (and to a lesser extent, Dupont). I find the former village of New Toronto, Mimico and Long Branch urban in places. But Wilson is almost entirely a write off.

I doubt it's a very precise definition though and leaves places like Square One in Mississauga, with a lot of density, hanging.

 

[T.O.Fanatic]

Thats a good criteria. A lot of the 'suburban' parts of Toronto (Scarborough, North York) used to have a lot a streefron retail, at least at main intersections, until the 60's on average. These remnants of the villiage centres were ripped down to build the godawful suburbia of today.

 

[doady]

There is sidewalk-facing retail around Square One.

Sidewalk-facing retail requires high density, again highlighting my point that having high density is the primary aspect of being urban. Square One may seem like high density, but it actually is not. The density of MCC still pales in comparison to the Annex, and therefore it cannot have as much street-level retail... bottom line is the density.

 

[Eug]

Oh I'm sorry, yes it was included. Goes to show that I should look closer.......I'd like to add in the stretch of Kingston Rd between Midland and Danforth Rd. It has a few walkable streetfront shopping areas. But regardless, the parts of Scarborough that can be considered urban are few and far between.

It's interesting you mention this part of Kingston Road. Some of it is currently 1-2 storey strip-malls-with-way-too-much-front-parking-lot-space type wasteland... but the good news is that it has just been rezoned (Dec. 2009), with specific requirements for residential support (increased density via condos), sidewalk facing retail, and overall improved walkability. There are also early TTC Bus Rapid Transit plans for it too.

I'd be surprised if it actually became "urban" within the next 20 years, but I do think it has a strong shot at becoming a very pleasant semi-urban area (whatever that means), which would be a vast improvement over the current low density strip malls.

 

[The Ice]

Well, so far, Cityplace seems almost like an industrial wasteland to me.

I used to live right beside there (close to Front and Bathurst), and found going to Yonge and Eglinton far more interesting than going to Cityplace.

ie. In a sense Cityplace is the bedroom community and other places, including Yonge and Eglinton, are destination neighbourhoods.

That's exactly how I feel. Bremner / Fort York Blvd area feels as "suburban" as North York City centre. I get more of a sense of urbanity while walking around Yonge/Eglinton. Other than perhaps population density, I don't see many signs of what makes south of Front St "urban".

Additionally, the map used to define Lawrence Park here is odd:http://www.torontolife.com/guide/real-estate/central/lawrence-park-south. I don't think it's fair to include the smaller 1200 ft homes towards Ave Rd/Eglinton in the mix of those found at Mt Pleasant/Lawrence. These homes near the "Eglinton Way" are far more urban than those on the curvy-linear streets near Mt Pleasant. These streets are usually considered part of the North Toronto neighbourhood or perhaps upper Forest Hill.

 

[gristle]

Much of Cityplace feels windswept. The major attraction on the west side of Spadina is the Sobey's.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

There is sidewalk-facing retail around Square One.

Sidewalk-facing retail requires high density, again highlighting my point that having high density is the primary aspect of being urban. Square One may seem like high density, but it actually is not. The density of MCC still pales in comparison to the Annex, and therefore it cannot have as much street-level retail... bottom line is the density.

Is it? McCowan & Steeles is as dense as the Beaches - almost as dense as the Annex, even - but that does nothing for its urbanity. Bathurst & Steeles, Warden & Finch, Jane & Finch...all denser than the Rosedale/Summerhill areas, but unquestionably less urban.

Square One's main problem is simply that it's not finished. When there's no more greenfields and no more block-sized parking lots, it will feel far more urban, regardless of how dense it actually is.

The NY Towers area near Sheppard & Bayview is an example of a place that is increasingly dense on paper but feels a bit sparse in person due to the placement of the towers, the setbacks, etc., and not just due to its incompleteness. Houses in the Annex aren't really much denser than houses near McCowan & Steeles if you're just looking at house/area ratios, but they're closer to the road so they feel cozier. You can't see their largish backyards from the street...at McCowan & Steeles you see the largish front yards but you can't see that the backyards are tiny.

Much of Cityplace feels windswept. The major attraction on the west side of Spadina is the Sobey's.

One big problem with CityPlace is that its main intersection, Spadina & Bremner, is rather concrete-heavy and sits at the top of a hill where 'windswept' was perhaps unavoidable. It'll be a bit better when Signature fills in that last corner, but not much better.

 

[doady]

Is it? McCowan & Steeles is as dense as the Beaches - almost as dense as the Annex, even - but that does nothing for its urbanity. Bathurst & Steeles, Warden & Finch, Jane & Finch...all denser than the Rosedale/Summerhill areas, but unquestionably less urban.

I was thinking about CDL.TO's density maps. Places like Jane and Finch may seem dense compared to the surrounding suburbia, but they are still low density compared to the inner city neighbourhoods. I'm not saying it is all about density, but I don't see how people can dismiss the importance of density so easily.

Square One's main problem is simply that it's not finished. When there's no more greenfields and no more block-sized parking lots, it will feel far more urban, regardless of how dense it actually is.

The real question is why parking lots and greenfields have such a detrimental effect on MCC. After all, don't the parking lots and greenfields have a huge negative effect on the density of MCC?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I was thinking about CDL.TO's density maps. Places like Jane and Finch may seem dense compared to the surrounding suburbia, but they are still low density compared to the inner city neighbourhoods. I'm not saying it is all about density, but I don't see how people can dismiss the importance of density so easily.

The real question is why parking lots and greenfields have such a detrimental effect on MCC. After all, don't the parking lots and greenfields have a huge negative effect on the density of MCC?

That's what you're not getting...places can be "dense" in terms of people/area ratios but still feel sparse and suburban. Jane & Finch is denser than the Beaches or Yonge & Lawrence but all you see is grass and towers. It doesn't feel urban at all. It doesn't have compact, walkable streets or the structure of streetwalls. Looking and feeling dense and urban is far more important than the actual population density.

McCowan & Steeles is a rather large swath of 6000, 8000, even 10000 people/sq.km census tracts. The houses are very close together and the backyards are tiny. On paper its density compares well with most inner city areas (not those that are covered in towers, though, but McCowan & Steeles is virtually nothing but detached houses, remember). In reality, its urbanity does not compare with Yonge & Lawrence or the Beaches.

It doesn't matter what Square One's grass and parking lots are replaced with, it is their sheer removal that will do the most to urbanize the area, not meeting density targets, not building heights. Four-storey buildings might work better than two-storey buildings topped by 30-storey towers, even though it's not as dense. It just depends on what looks more urban, what feels more urban, and what people are more comfortable living around. I'm not saying mid-rise is better, I'm just saying that denser is not automatically better.