dashingdan: I am by no means overestimating the suburban desire to go downtown. I understand full and well that many suburbanites will live much of their lives only setting foot downtown when necessary. And it really shouldn't come as much of a surprise that this is the case. Sure some parts of Scarborough or Mississauga, and one day, Vaughan, have or will have decent transit access to the downtown core, most places are probably at best an hour from downtown outside of commuting time and probably even longer. And who can really blame people for not wanting to spend an hour plus trying to get downtown. Of course you can take your car, but then you have to deal with parking, which costs, etc, etc, same long winded story that ends with people going to malls.
And sure there are some who want their suburban places to become more 'urban' but in what form? Do they want physical spaces to be changed so that there are streetwalls, better integrated civic spaces, and more historical charm? Does form have little to do with it all and it is more about how they function in the space by increasing mobility by bike, foot, and transit? Are they willing to sacrifice some aspects of their lifestyle or is all the talk of more urban spaces just that, talk?
I am sure I could come up with more questions along those lines but the point I am attempting to make is that the whole idea of making suburban spaces more urban has really not been explored that much. I have seen very little research and writing that clearly talks about what kind of changes would be accepted by suburban populations, what they desire, what they despise. This is partially why I think the trend to create classic urban Canadian spaces in largely post WW2 suburban areas is likely not to succeed as well as some think. It might seem ideal to go back to when those kinds of urban designs worked, but without also spending a great deal of time trying to also make these places work within the realities of modern cities, they seem almost as tacky and thoughtless as most of their cul-de-sac, fence lined boulevard counterparts.
scarberian: My point about Regent Park is not how the people in it live, but that part of its failing is that its physical pressence did not work in the urban setting of downtown Toronto.
I agree that everyone lives differently and location, while playing a role in how one lives, is not the only determining factor. But there is a big difference between what happens when you set foot outside of a Bay Street condo and what happens when you set foot outside of a Scarborough condo. A person who lives in a Bay Street condo still expects that outside their home is a large urban playground that will be filled with people, activity and the other pleasures of urban living.
So if someone living in suburbia steps out of their home, why should they not expect that the kind of environment that suburbia is about? I am sure, as you have said, that some people live in suburban places because there is little other choice, but suburbia has become so overwhelming because by and large people like the suburban ideal. People like green spaces, places to raise families, all of that. Many people here probably find it to be incredibley boring but thats how it is. So instead of assuming that the problem with suburbia is that it lacks 'urban' spaces, why not view it from the perspective that it lacks functional, walkable suburban spaces? I am not suggesting that it is big box stores and strip malls for all. But I also don't think that simply lifting urban spaces and putting them in suburbia is going to work in many cases.
simply Dan: I agree. Train stations are great and suburbia would be greatly improved by more rail transit access (and they are great places for meeting cute girls who like guys who take trains).
