[Redroom Studios]

pretty good discussion here. I live in a 1970's suburb of Niagara Falls. I like it here because there is a large assortment of housing styles and its a good mix of economic and ethnic groups. The neighbourhood is filled with mature trees. But even though I am a suburbanite I am not dogmatic about where I live as others have been. I would prefer to live in a more urban environment and leave my car at home more often. The bottomline in all this is that we cant go on endlessly eating up productive farmland so that each family can have their own detached home and yard. Anyone who argues against that fact is very selfish and short sighted. It reminds me of the environment vs economy arguments. At some point following the same course blows up in your face.

thanks for that video about Atlanta... I came across something similar on PBS just now about Phoenix called "The Gridlocked American Dream". You can watch it here:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/video/video-the-gridlocked-american-dream/4476/

 

[W. K. Lis]

pretty good discussion here. I live in a 1970's suburb of Niagara Falls. I like it here because there is a large assortment of housing styles and its a good mix of economic and ethnic groups. The neighbourhood is filled with mature trees. But even though I am a suburbanite I am not dogmatic about where I live as others have been. I would prefer to live in a more urban environment and leave my car at home more often. The bottomline in all this is that we cant go on endlessly eating up productive farmland so that each family can have their own detached home and yard. Anyone who argues against that fact is very selfish and short sighted. It reminds me of the environment vs economy arguments. At some point following the same course blows up in your face.

thanks for that video about Atlanta... I came across something similar on PBS just now about Phoenix called "The Gridlocked American Dream". You can watch it here:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/video/video-the-gridlocked-american-dream/4476/

Too bad the anti-transit people, like Rob Ford, can't or won't even look at transit as a viable option for everyone. He seems to think that the car is still an inexpensive requirement and not an expensive option, which it is.

 

[Towered]

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.

Couldn't agree more. As someone who lives in Etobicoke, it frustrates me to no end that most of the main arterial streets like Kipling and Islington consist of single detached houses. It reflects an appalling lack of planning and foresight, and it has to change. I can't wait for the city to re-zone such streets for high density mixed use, with retail at grade, for their entire lengths.

 

[Danielinthecity]

Couldn't agree more. As someone who lives in Etobicoke, it frustrates me to no end that most of the main arterial streets like Kipling and Islington consist of single detached houses. It reflects an appalling lack of planning and foresight, and it has to change. I can't wait for the city to re-zone such streets for high density mixed use, with retail at grade, for their entire lengths.

Thanks, Towered...I've been in so many of these neighborhoods and think to myself how it could be so much better - even for the residents - if only they had a nearby 'main street' they could 'all' walk to with retail at grade as you suggest. And even better if this little main street (or village) would have a subway stop connected to the larger network connecting ALL little neighborhoods similarly.

But alas it's not like that, so like yourself I'm frustrated too and don't understand how planners (or politicians cause some planners I've talked to said they can only 'recommend') could have not forseen the impact. But then again I remember how naive I am and realize that these 'forms' of development were specifically planned like this deliberately b/c they were not interested in what I (and you and others) care about...instead they were specifically planned with the automobile as the primary consideration...they were deliberately planned as 'arterial' roads not for the purpose of being destinations in and of themselves (i.e. the main street), but instead being a means to get somewhere else.

I can forgive the lack of foresight (somewhat) when considered within the time these developments were planned, but it's much harder to overlook those that - despite the overwhelming evidence that the suburban model just does NOT work - continue to advance it as a viable and sustainable form of development today!

 

[W. K. Lis]

Thanks, Towered...I've been in so many of these neighborhoods and think to myself how it could be so much better - even for the residents - if only they had a nearby 'main street' they could 'all' walk to with retail at grade as you suggest. And even better if this little main street (or village) would have a subway stop connected to the larger network connecting ALL little neighborhoods similarly.

But alas it's not like that, so like yourself I'm frustrated too and don't understand how planners (or politicians cause some planners I've talked to said they can only 'recommend') could have not forseen the impact. But then again I remember how naive I am and realize that these 'forms' of development were specifically planned like this deliberately b/c they were not interested in what I (and you and others) care about...instead they were specifically planned with the automobile as the primary consideration...they were deliberately planned as 'arterial' roads not for the purpose of being destinations in and of themselves (i.e. the main street), but instead being a means to get somewhere else.

I can forgive the lack of foresight (somewhat) when considered within the time these developments were planned, but it's much harder to overlook those that - despite the overwhelming evidence that the suburban model just does NOT work - continue to advance it as a viable and sustainable form of development today!

There have been books (IE. Jane Jacob's The Death and Life of Great American Cities, and others). However, most politicians and planners have been taught by programs or presentations that were subsidized by companies that revolved around the automobile (IE. GM, Firestone, Standard Oil, etc.).

During most of the 20th century, oil was cheap and the governments in North America subsided the building of highways. People got used to the car as being the preferred method of travel, since that was what the car companies and others told us.

Even today, on television and elsewhere, there are commercials saying that you need this or that car. There are very little commercials about GO Transit or the TTC, unless news reports count.

When was the last time you were at a public transit trade show (IE. InnoTrans or APTA Expo)? More likely you were at a car trade show .

 

[spider]

I can forgive the lack of foresight (somewhat) when considered within the time these developments were planned, but it's much harder to overlook those that - despite the overwhelming evidence that the suburban model just does NOT work - continue to advance it as a viable and sustainable form of development today!

If you really feel this way so strongly why are you a self identified resident of a suburb? let me guess, you are a 20 year old student living with mom & dad and taking advantage of their incredible stupidity to be living in such a place.

I can't wait for the city to re-zone such streets for high density mixed use, with retail at grade, for their entire lengths.

Where do you suppose the retailers would come from, they are already established in the local strip malls and I wouldn't be surprised if many of them were already struggling..

The arterial roads for which you express such contempt provide access to these neighbourhoods, both present and in your utopian model, for your beloved Transit. You can't have both.

 

[adma]

Couldn't agree more. As someone who lives in Etobicoke, it frustrates me to no end that most of the main arterial streets like Kipling and Islington consist of single detached houses. It reflects an appalling lack of planning and foresight, and it has to change. I can't wait for the city to re-zone such streets for high density mixed use, with retail at grade, for their entire lengths.

Though I'd use caution in how one addresses said "appalling lack of planning and foresight"--which, unfortunately, may mean we'd have to "grandfather in" certain preexisting conditions for a foreseeable future. Otherwise, there's something a little heavy-handed about imposing "high density mixed use" upon Kipling and Burnhamthorpe, or Kipling and Rathburn...

 

[Danielinthecity]

If you really feel this way so strongly why are you a self identified resident of a suburb? let me guess, you are a 20 year old student living with mom & dad and taking advantage of their incredible stupidity to be living in such a place.

Who said I'm a self-identified resident of a suburb?! Maybe you should get your facts straight before you make unsubstantiated - and by the way 'wrong' - assertions. Furthermore, do you really feel the need to sprinkle hostile insults in your posts/replies? I'm neither 20 years old...far from it, nor a suburbanite. If you have nothing of intelligent substance to add, why don't you keep your insulting negativity to yourself and spare the rest of us...please.

As for your response to the comment below, it wasn't me who made the original comment, but I do agree with it nonetheless. This is an issue of design, of 'sustainable' uses of land, of social equity, of the environment, of economics and even of aesthetics. You comment about arterial roads providing access to these strip malls completely misses the point entirely!

You can't seem to see the issue beyond the typical suburban view of 'how will I 'drive' there'! Cities should not be designed with the limited objective of making the passage of cars the only consideration in planning, especially when that form of development has obvious negative consequences as I've already mentioned, namely environmental, economic, social.

I don't understand why people like you who defend suburbia (or show such hostile contempt towards those - like myself - who argue against it using 'intelligent' well reasoned discourse by the way) have such a hard time understanding the simple idea that 'how' we live has an impact. That's all we are trying to say!

Instead of designing our spaces around the prime organizing principle of 'how do we accomodate the car', we should be designing our living spaces around pedestrians and transit, forms that do NOT have negative impacts as I've described above. Having retailers located along a main street that is both walkable AND connected to high order transit mitigates the negative impacts on all of us, including YOU. Not sure how old you are, but don't you want to breath clean air, don't you want to want to have more things accessible to you, don't you want to put time stuck in traffic behind you, don't you want to leave a better world to our children?!

THAT is what this is all about and why people like me argue against dispersed forms of development such as those found in typical suburbs.

Where do you suppose the retailers would come from, they are already established in the local strip malls and I wouldn't be surprised if many of them were already struggling..

The arterial roads for which you express such contempt provide access to these neighbourhoods, both present and in your utopian model, for your beloved Transit. You can't have both.

........................................

 

[Danielinthecity]

........................................

Woops...I screwed up my post...my post starts at..."Who said I'm a self-identified resident..."

...and ends at..."THAT is what this is all about and why people like me argue against dispersed forms of development such as those found in typical suburbs"

 

[Danielinthecity]

Wrong!

If you really feel this way so strongly why are you a self identified resident of a suburb? let me guess, you are a 20 year old student living with mom & dad and taking advantage of their incredible stupidity to be living in such a place.

Where do you suppose the retailers would come from, they are already established in the local strip malls and I wouldn't be surprised if many of them were already struggling..

The arterial roads for which you express such contempt provide access to these neighbourhoods, both present and in your utopian model, for your beloved Transit. You can't have both.

My response is supposed to look like this...sorry fellow urbantorontoers.



Who said I'm a self-identified resident of a suburb?! Maybe you should get your facts straight before you make unsubstantiated - and by the way 'wrong' - assertions. Furthermore, do you really feel the need to sprinkle hostile insults in your posts/replies? I'm neither 20 years old...far from it, nor a suburbanite. If you have nothing of intelligent substance to add, why don't you keep your insulting negativity to yourself and spare the rest of us...please.

As for your response to the comment below, it wasn't me who made the original comment, but I do agree with it nonetheless. This is an issue of design, of 'sustainable' uses of land, of social equity, of the environment, of economics and even of aesthetics. You comment about arterial roads providing access to these strip malls completely misses the point entirely!

You can't seem to see the issue beyond the typical suburban view of 'how will I 'drive' there'! Cities should not be designed with the limited objective of making the passage of cars the only consideration in planning, especially when that form of development has obvious negative consequences as I've already mentioned, namely environmental, economic, social.

I don't understand why people like you who defend suburbia (or show such hostile contempt towards those - like myself - who argue against it using 'intelligent' well reasoned discourse by the way) have such a hard time understanding the simple idea that 'how' we live has an impact. That's all we are trying to say!

Instead of designing our spaces around the prime organizing principle of 'how do we accomodate the car', we should be designing our living spaces around pedestrians and transit, forms that do NOT have negative impacts as I've described above. Having retailers located along a main street that is both walkable AND connected to high order transit mitigates the negative impacts on all of us, including YOU. Not sure how old you are, but don't you want to breath clean air, don't you want to want to have more things accessible to you, don't you want to put time stuck in traffic behind you, don't you want to leave a better world to our children?!

THAT is what this is all about and why people like me argue against dispersed forms of development such as those found in typical suburbs.

 

[spider]

Daniel,
See message #123 from Towered for the post to which I replied.

 

[Danielinthecity]

Daniel,
See message #123 from Towered for the post to which I replied.

I see post 123, but you also commented on post 124, which was my post wherein I said, "I can forgive the lack of foresight (somewhat) when considered within the time these developments were planned, but it's much harder to overlook those that - despite the overwhelming evidence that the suburban model just does NOT work - continue to advance it as a viable and sustainable form of development today!"

If you look at your post (126), you'll see you commented on 'my' post (above).

 

[spider]

Your model of a community couldn't possibly have served my family better than the status quo that you seem to despise so much because I own and drive a car.
My children walked 2 minutes to public school, 5 minutes to Junior High and 10 minutes to High School (with a pool).
A park with a splash pad, lighted ball diamond, tennis courts and an arena are within a 5 minute walk. A small shopping mall with a National Brand supermarket, Shoppers Drug Mart and a Library on a major arterial road with TTC service to the subway are less than 10 minutes away on foot.

Your densification plan seems to promote 6000' of shopping Malls on one side of Islington from Rathburn to Eglinton for example. These properties would not offer parking because the point is to discourage driving. The structure would tend to be 3 storeys of residential and Mom & Pop stores on the ground floor. If the stores averaged 25' frontage there would be about 200-250 of them.

Let's suppose that one of your socially responsible tenants needed a product or service, would he or she be happy to walk a couple of thousand feet to find it? Remember not having a car was a prerequisite of locating here. I doubt if you could find 600-750 families to rent the apartments or 200-250 business people willing to start up or move in considering the restraints.

Now multiply the example above by the number of locations available to replicate it, in Etobicoke alone this is maybe 10 or 20.

I don't think enough people want to live in an environment that will quickly look like Dundas West, Harbord, Keele, Weston Road etc. and you will definitely never find a Developer to build it.

Good luck.

 

[Danielinthecity]

You're like a child...

Your model of a community couldn't possibly have served my family better than the status quo that you seem to despise so much because I own and drive a car.
My children walked 2 minutes to public school, 5 minutes to Junior High and 10 minutes to High School (with a pool).
A park with a splash pad, lighted ball diamond, tennis courts and an arena are within a 5 minute walk. A small shopping mall with a National Brand supermarket, Shoppers Drug Mart and a Library on a major arterial road with TTC service to the subway are less than 10 minutes away on foot.

Your densification plan seems to promote 6000' of shopping Malls on one side of Islington from Rathburn to Eglinton for example. These properties would not offer parking because the point is to discourage driving. The structure would tend to be 3 storeys of residential and Mom & Pop stores on the ground floor. If the stores averaged 25' frontage there would be about 200-250 of them.

Let's suppose that one of your socially responsible tenants needed a product or service, would he or she be happy to walk a couple of thousand feet to find it? Remember not having a car was a prerequisite of locating here. I doubt if you could find 600-750 families to rent the apartments or 200-250 business people willing to start up or move in considering the restraints.

Now multiply the example above by the number of locations available to replicate it, in Etobicoke alone this is maybe 10 or 20.

I don't think enough people want to live in an environment that will quickly look like Dundas West, Harbord, Keele, Weston Road etc. and you will definitely never find a Developer to build it.

Good luck.

With each post, you're showing more and more your lack of understanding!

Rather than debate intelligently (and actually 'respond' to the points I've made), you pontificate nonsense. You continue to make unsubstantiated assumptions such as, "...densification plan seems to promote 6000' of shopping Malls...", which only further shows your insecurity and inability to actually put forth an intelligent rebuttal. Is that what I proposed? Who said anything about shopping malls?! You're attempt to RE-frame the arguement according to your own ill-advised assumptions is truly pathetic. Why not just debate the points on their merit instead of making shit up! Once again...pathetic!

You continue to hide insults by sarcastically using words such as 'socially responsible' similar to a right-winged hack calling me a tree-hugger or latte sipper, as if being socially responsible is somehow bad.

You basically ignored every single point I made and instead pontificated on a bunch of nonsense that no one on this thread ever even suggested. But I'm not surprised...most anti-urban folks rarely ever consider the impact of their behaviour and choices, and instead respond by saying outlandish things like you said in one of your earlier posts when you said not everyone wants to live in towers...no one on here SAID THAT! Yet you just made it up...

...in short when you have no basis for your arguement, you just make shit up!

So, I"m not going to argue with you about something I never said...I will defend what I 'actually' said. I'm not going to waste anymore time on you. I have a victory party to attend...one in which I truly hope your suburban mesiah ford goes down in flames!

 

[spider]

I have a victory party to attend...one in which I truly hope your suburban mesiah ford goes down in flames!

-sorry 'bought that.