[Johnny Au]

See here: http://stevemunro.ca/?p=9047

Why would the Globe and Mail be so pro-sprawl? Steve Munro accused the Globe and Mail of being too close to the Toronto Sun (right down to being neighbours in King East). Coca-Cola relocated its Canadian head offices to the same building as the Toronto Sun even.

What is next? Bangkok, given its infamous traffic congestion, being seen as a model for urban transportation?

What do you think?

 

[innsertnamehere]

its not the globe, its an op-ed, from someone who doesn't work at the globe.

 

[ehlow]

There are so many big arguments against sprawl and post-war suburban-ism that it's hard to know where to begin.
The author focuses on commute times, but really there is more to life than how fast you can drive to a given destination.

Do we want our city to be an endless sea of parking and highways? Don't we want to live in places that are worth caring about and that we enjoy being in?
When I see the downtown skyline or the CN tower, I feel pride in the city I care about. When I walk through Kensington Market on and see various bands/rappers performing on the street, tons of people around, great food, it's a place worth being in.
When you're in a giant parking lot next to a highway with big-box power-centre stores around, there is no sense of place. It's just like every other power-centre with the same restaurants & stores (Kelsey's, Chapters). Driving on a wide highway is soulless & boring.

Next, there is the issue of the cost of energy. Last century there was oil literally spouting out all over America in Texas, California. Now we have to buy from the Mid East, do off-shore drilling or try to use tar-sands or the arctic. Easily accessible fossil fuels are being used up, and wait until the developing world keeps buying even more cars. Long term, the price of gas is going to keep increasing continuously. Even if we all switch to fully electric cars, much of the world's electricity is generated by using fossil fuels. I believe that Toronto will be thankful in the future that we have Niagara Falls to generate a huge amount of electricity and a transit system that runs on electricity. How attractive will post-war suburban sprawl be when the price of gas gets higher and higher?

Lastly, obesity is a huge problem in our society. Much research has shown that walking at least 20-30 minutes a day has huge health benefits, and that those who walk and take transit are less obese than those who drive for everything. If you spend all your time driving for chores & commuting, you have less time to exercise. If you walk to the transit station, walk or bike to work or for groceries, then you are guaranteed a certain amount of exercise built in to your day.

[video=youtube;Q1ZeXnmDZMQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1ZeXnmDZMQ[/video]

 

[innsertnamehere]

that video, while supporting an honest cause, comes off as a bit crazy. "suburbs make america not worth defending and therefor makes soldiers die pointlessly"? wtf?

 

[TFC]

I stopped reading when Phoenix and Houston were lauded as model cities...

 

[ehlow]

that video, while supporting an honest cause, comes off as a bit crazy. "suburbs make america not worth defending and therefor makes soldiers die pointlessly"? wtf?

ha ha. He can be a bit over the top, and I don't agree with everything he says. However I liked the point he made about expecting more from our built environment. I just thought it would be interesting to throw that in there.

edit: oh yeah I should mention that that guy wrote "The Geography of Nowhere", which gives a great overview of American history and the birth & development of the suburbs.

 

[howl]

If the world had a stable population of less than 2 billion people then sprawl might be a logical urban solution. The problems of air pollution and social cohesion can be solved with various technological advances.

But, since the world has 8 billion people and growing it's simply not economically sustainable for any mid-sized or large city to keep sprawling. The impacts on the environment and agriculture are simply make it impossible at a global scale. The authors of these pro-sprawl articles only ever look at local-scale issues without ever looking at the bigger picture. At a local scale it makes sense to burn coal in your fire place for heat - but we don't because of the global impacts.

 

[ehlow]

If the world had a stable population of less than 2 billion people then sprawl might be a logical urban solution. The problems of air pollution and social cohesion can be solved with various technological advances.

But, since the world has 8 billion people and growing it's simply not economically sustainable for any mid-sized or large city to keep sprawling. The impacts on the environment and agriculture are simply make it impossible at a global scale. The authors of these pro-sprawl articles only ever look at local-scale issues without ever looking at the bigger picture. At a local scale it makes sense to burn coal in your fire place for heat - but we don't because of the global impacts.

That's a great point, we have great fertile farm land in Southern Ontario (and good wine-producing regions), another thing we will be happy about when transportation costs increase, not to mention the benefits of eating fresher food. Do we really want to pave that productive & beautiful farmland over with McDonald's and Walmart parking lots? Besides the waste & food production aspect, biking & driving through the rolling hills of Ontario farmland is a great scenic experience.

 

[Alexander]

There are so many big arguments against sprawl and post-war suburban-ism that it's hard to know where to begin.
The author focuses on commute times, but really there is more to life than how fast you can drive to a given destination.

Do we want our city to be an endless sea of parking and highways? Don't we want to live in places that are worth caring about and that we enjoy being in?
When I see the downtown skyline or the CN tower, I feel pride in the city I care about. When I walk through Kensington Market on and see various bands/rappers performing on the street, tons of people around, great food, it's a place worth being in.
When you're in a giant parking lot next to a highway with big-box power-centre stores around, there is no sense of place. It's just like every other power-centre with the same restaurants & stores (Kelsey's, Chapters). Driving on a wide highway is soulless & boring.

Next, there is the issue of the cost of energy. Last century there was oil literally spouting out all over America in Texas, California. Now we have to buy from the Mid East, do off-shore drilling or try to use tar-sands or the arctic. Easily accessible fossil fuels are being used up, and wait until the developing world keeps buying even more cars. Long term, the price of gas is going to keep increasing continuously. Even if we all switch to fully electric cars, much of the world's electricity is generated by using fossil fuels. I believe that Toronto will be thankful in the future that we have Niagara Falls to generate a huge amount of electricity and a transit system that runs on electricity. How attractive will post-war suburban sprawl be when the price of gas gets higher and higher?

Lastly, obesity is a huge problem in our society. Much research has shown that walking at least 20-30 minutes a day has huge health benefits, and that those who walk and take transit are less obese than those who drive for everything. If you spend all your time driving for chores & commuting, you have less time to exercise. If you walk to the transit station, walk or bike to work or for groceries, then you are guaranteed a certain amount of exercise built in to your day.

Real clean city:

 

[W. K. Lis]

Real clean city: View attachment 21390

Looks better than Beijing:

Now, a video, which the Ford brothers would not bother looking at.
[video=vimeo;83173191]http://vimeo.com/83173191[/video]

 

[Alexander]

Looks better than Beijing:

Now, a video, which the Ford brothers would not bother looking at.

The picture was in regards to the "that walking at least 20-30 minutes a day has huge health benefits, and that those who walk and take transit are less obese than those who drive for everything" statement. If you are unfortunate enough to have to breath that stench everyday it will lead you on a fast track to cancer.

And in regards to that video, you cannot simply getting rid of/banning cars out of downtown toronto without providing fast viable transport solutions to people of all incomes. Whether you like it or not going down the gardiner at the right time at 90km/h is hell of a lot faster then sitting in the subway chugging at an avarage of 30km/h, and in this society time is worth the extra cost of owning and using a vehicle.

 

[innsertnamehere]

key word being the right time, the time that isn't suitable for the vast majority of people on a daily basis.

and if you honestly believe that Toronto is regularly like that picture even remotely you are sorely incorrect.

 

[diminutive]

I'd be curious to what extent dense-city advocates will evolve their arguments in the next 2-3 decades if EVs (+intelligent vehicles) continue to gain market traction/become significant sources of passenger-miles. By far the most significant criticism of sprawl is and has been its link to vehicle emissions. There are other criticisms of sprawl, obviously, but many are subjective (buildings are ugly, most of Kunstler) and few invoke public-good arguments. If you get rid of tailpipe emissions though, which seems plausible, the marginal enviro benefits of denser living may not be huge.

"Density" vs. "Sprawl" are also ineffective descriptors. Dense cities can themselves become very sprawling, for instance (e.g. NYC, London, Tokyo). If the core employment area becomes highly expensive, people may be forced to very far flung communities (+long commutes) due to affordability issues. In a low cost city like Phoenix it may be much easier to afford a home close to your work than if your job was in Midtown Manhattan.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Emissions is but one small factor in suburbs, I feel the main argument has become more about quality of life than that emissions.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The picture was in regards to the "that walking at least 20-30 minutes a day has huge health benefits, and that those who walk and take transit are less obese than those who drive for everything" statement. If you are unfortunate enough to have to breath that stench everyday it will lead you on a fast track to cancer.

And in regards to that video, you cannot simply getting rid of/banning cars out of downtown toronto without providing fast viable transport solutions to people of all incomes. Whether you like it or not going down the gardiner at the right time at 90km/h is hell of a lot faster then sitting in the subway chugging at an avarage of 30km/h, and in this society time is worth the extra cost of owning and using a vehicle.

Real clean city: View attachment 21390

1. You must not be from Toronto if you think these conditions are a regular occurrence.
2.Do you seriously believe that driving hours every day (an activity that itself generates more pollution = unhelthy) to go to places where you'll probably continue to be inactive is healthier than having to walk, even if that means going through smog a few days of the year?