Urbanity in the suburbs

[King of Kensington]

The outer 416 has pretty high density and several "urban" characteristics (lots of apartments, higher density etc.); not surprising given that it developed as part of Metropolitan Toronto.

Some areas are much better in terms of "suburban urbanism" than others. For instance many of these suburban areas are the worst of both worlds and hardly models to emulate (i.e. say Eglinton East and Markham Rd. or something): apartments along arterial roads, but there's really nothing to do there and they hardly seem like interesting areas to walk around. Transit usage is higher and you see more people walking around, but it seems people are there because they can't afford to live elsewhere, not because it's appealing.

In contrast, areas like say Bathurst-Lawrence and the Etobicoke lakeshore seem to be much better for "best of both worlds": it's more spaced out than the city and the side streets are pretty suburban, but it also has a lot of mom and pop shops and pretty good transit access.

 

[stanko]

Ah, you haven't yet discovered the amazingness of Mount Pleasant in Brampton?

https://goo.gl/maps/7KKDjCDqwJH2

 

[W. K. Lis]

In the beginning of the 20th century, there was little or almost no zoning to speak about. You had stockyards next to houses, where the workers could walk to (St. Clair & Keele). Wanted to set up a store, just put in on the front yard (Kensington Market). You had a bus garage in an residential area (Parkdale Garage).

By the end of the 20th century, everything has to be zoned for such-and-such. Commercial couldn't be next to or at the bottom of residential. Industrial had to be separate from everyone else. Of course, this created more jobs, for bureaucrats and lawyers. And building anything took much, much longer.

There is some improvements, there is mixed commercial and residential. However, the builders have to do so on bended knee before the bureaucrats and politicians.

 

[wild goose chase]

Isn't mixed-use becoming trendy again?

 

[wild goose chase]

Transit usage is higher and you see more people walking around, but it seems people are there because they can't afford to live elsewhere, not because it's appealing.

Do you think a trend towards urban-style living in the suburbs is driven by people choosing it as the "next best thing" or settling for something rather than first-choice preference? I know that sometimes it's from people who want to live in "the city" but for whom downtown is too expensive so they have to settle for something farther afield and have demand for city amenities to "come to them". Alternatively though, I can imagine that some people pick these options not because they want a city life or even desire city-level density in and of itself but because they want a suburb where you don't have to have a long drive to go shopping or get to other desired places.

 

[James]

Do you think a trend towards urban-style living in the suburbs is driven by people choosing it as the "next best thing" or settling for something rather than first-choice preference? I know that sometimes it's from people who want to live in "the city" but for whom downtown is too expensive so they have to settle for something farther afield and have demand for city amenities to "come to them". Alternatively though, I can imagine that some people pick these options not because they want a city life or even desire city-level density in and of itself but because they want a suburb where you don't have to have a long drive to go shopping or get to other desired places.

I think you're spot on with both scenarios. I do know people who "choose" to live in certain areas but it is most definitely driven by economic reasons. I also know people who actually do choose and are financially capable of living in certain areas (like midtown or north central Toronto) due to proximity to downtown, accessibility of transit and availability of amenities but at the same time, have what we call a "traditional" suburban lifestyle with a house, backyard, lawn and parks/green space around the neighborhood, etc.

 

[King of Kensington]

I think you're spot on with both scenarios. I do know people who "choose" to live in certain areas but it is most definitely driven by economic reasons. I also know people who actually do choose and are financially capable of living in certain areas (like midtown or north central Toronto) due to proximity to downtown, accessibility of transit and availability of amenities but at the same time, have what we call a "traditional" suburban lifestyle with a house, backyard, lawn and parks/green space around the neighborhood, etc.

Of course. That's why North Toronto is so desirable.

 

[W. K. Lis]

As well as the old villages or towns, such as Streetsville, Port Credit, and others. If they weren't bulldozed and redeveloped for new sub-divisions, like Cooksville.

 

[doady]

Cooksville was never an established town like Streetsville and Port Credit. There wasn't much to bulldoze.

Regardless, does Cooksville it just look like typical suburbia to you? That surprises me.

I don't think urban and suburban are separate. Everything is in between, especially in the GTA. I think if you want to feel urbanity in the suburbs, go visit places like Atlanta or Detroit, and then come back to Mississauga and then maybe Mississauga will feel like an urban paradise.

 

[junctionist]

Metro Detroit has some great suburban downtowns. Royal Oak, for instance, has a traditional downtown with shops, bars and restaurants. There are theatres that host bands, and it has the night life of a downtown neighbourhood.

 

[King of Kensington]

As well as the old villages or towns, such as Streetsville, Port Credit, and others. If they weren't bulldozed and redeveloped for new sub-divisions, like Cooksville.

They're quite different from North Toronto though. They may feel more "quaint" but they're suburban through and through.

 

[wild goose chase]

There is some improvements, there is mixed commercial and residential. However, the builders have to do so on bended knee before the bureaucrats and politicians.

So essentially, though the mixed-use trend is spreading, legal constraints still mean that you can't be as mixed-used as before the zoning started, only more mixed-used than the time when the zoning was at its strongest. Have there ever been any cities, towns or at least parts of cities or towns that started off mixed-use, changed to heavily zoned and returned to mixed use again in the sense that it was almost a return to its original zoning freedom. Is that even legally possible?

 

[interchange42]

Mixed-use pockets of higher density is the trend now, and it's built into the zoning typically. Toronto has its Avenues plan which encourages residential above commercial on main streets, and there's "The Kings", referring to the loosening of zoning restrictions in the King-Spadina and King-Parliament areas from back when Barbara Hall was Mayor ushered in those shoulder areas to Downtown, starting the flood of new residents around the core. There are also suburban places like Mount Pleasant in Brampton (mentioned above) which are an attempt to give residents fewer reasons to drive and more to walk, although they are rare enough to still feel experimental. It's all still related to zoning, it's just that zoning isn't quite so exclusionary as it once was.

42

 

[W. K. Lis]

Noticed that many new developments, both in the old and new city or cities, continue to include parking spaces.

From this link:

Social Engineering! Cities That Build More Parking Get More Traffic

Cities like Hartford that added a lot of parking over the last few decades saw driving rates increase more than in cities where parking volumes stayed flatter. Graph: McCahill/TRB

Build parking spaces and they will come — in cars. New research presented this week at the annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board finds a direct, causal relationship between the amount of parking in cities and car commuting rates.

University of Wisconsin researcher Chris McCahill and his team examined nine “medium-sized” cities — with relatively stable populations between 100,000 and 300,000. They compared historical parking data with car commuting rates beginning in 1960, finding “a clear, consistent association” between parking levels and car commuting that has “grown stronger” over time.

Using an epidemiological research method, McCahill’s team determined that the relationship was causal. For example, data indicated that increases in parking tended to precede growth in car commuting.

The study brings home the point that by inflating the parking supply via minimum parking mandates and other policies, cities are leading more people to drive and making conditions worse for transit, biking, and walking. It’s what you might call “social engineering.”

Researchers compared five cities with low car commuting rates (Arlington, Virginia; Berkeley, California; Silver Spring, Maryland; and Somerville and Cambridge, Massachusetts) to four cities with relatively high car commuting rates (Albany, New York; Lowell, Massachusetts; and New Haven and Hartford, Connecticut).

McCahill and his team found that for every 10 percentage point increase in parking spaces per capita, the share of workers commuting by car would be expected to increase by 7.7 percentage points. So if a city increased its per capita parking from 0.1 spaces to 0.5 spaces, car commute mode share would rise about 30 percentage points.

In Hartford, for instance, the number of parking spaces in the city increased from about 15,000 in 1960 to about 47,000 by 2000. The city’s solo car commuting rate over that time rose more than 20 percentage points.

University of Connecticut Professor Norman Garrick, who co-authored the study, said the findings indicate it’s not in the interest of cities to continue to add parking.

“Adding parking in more traditional urban settings indeed has not worked out for cities,” he said. “The cities added parking out of fear that they would be losing all their trade to the suburbs. Almost all cities did some of that between 1960 and 1985. Some cities did it less. By 1985, cities like Cambridge had realized there was no benefit to doing this and they basically capped parking. Those cities have soared in terms of economic outcomes, in almost all measures of quality of life.”​

 

[M.R.Victor]

I find Mimico to be an interesting mix between traditional North American small-town urban fabric, slab apartments and Miami-esque gated community condos, with a slate of contemporary developments going up presently.