[TOareaFan]

At the time it was built, few Old City of Toronto residents would have had much use for it, and its capacity. Same goes for the DVP.

Given the massive amount of reverse commuting going on now, they should be thankful then that the road was built for them long before they needed it Kidding aside, the biggest trend I have seen in my almost 30 years of commuting into the city is the rapid growth in the number of people commuting in the opposite direction daily.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

It isn't a case of just wanting to change....changing the zoning is easy. But most of the infrastructure and built form isn't compatible with a higher density, mixed-use, mass transit environment. It isn't like the old part of Toronto, that is on a street grid that allows changes to happen gradually on a property-by-property basis. Most of the 905 is not on a grid, and would literally need to be bulldozed and started from scratch. This is something that needs to be done on a large scale, which makes it highly improbable and impracticable.

Check out this TED Talk about the topic of retrofitting the suburbs. The densification of the suburbs will likely begin with the demolishment of big box stores and their parking lots into relatively dense residential and mixed used communities.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Cue the USS Yankee. What country am I living in here? Seriously; twice on the same page?

If you can find similar stats for Canada please do share. But right now this is the best we have.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Yeah, all those commie-blocks and multi-storey strip malls in Mississauga are totally different from Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough. That's sprawl vs. non-sprawl right there.

Ok...first of all there is a difference between "sprawl" and just poor urban planning. Not all of the 905 is "sprawl", but it was subject to poor urban planning. And suburbia consists of more than just Mississauga, which is a city of 3/4 million people.

And there's more to it than similar buildings. What services are offered and what kind of municipal infrastructure is in place? The guy living in the Etobicoke commie block has a much better public transit service available to him outside his door than does his counterpart in a 905 commie block.

To be honest, there are parts of the 416 I wouldn't want to live in any more than I would parts of the 905 regardless of better city services. There's a reason I like the old part of the city. Ford Nation has simple needs...that's why Etobicoke suits them.

You brought up the the loaf of bread thing, not me.

Yes...I am aware of that. The whole bit went straight over your head...so don't even worry about it.

Kidding aside, the biggest trend I have seen in my almost 30 years of commuting into the city is the rapid growth in the number of people commuting in the opposite direction daily.

And your point is?

 

[innsertnamehere]

sprawl truthfully doesn't truly occur in the GTA. car based development, on the other hand, dominates. People often struggle to delineate the two I find.

This is sprawl:

This isn't.

They are both car based and car dominated, but there is a very key difference. One is planned. Planned around cars sure, but it is high density and planned with thoughts given to shopping proximity (in terms of car travel), schools, community centres, etc. Both are taken at the same zoom level BTW.

Notice how one leaves large sections of forest untouched, how absolutely 0 of the streets connect. there is no public parkland, only a few baseball diamonds as those cannot realistically be privately owned due to their team based nature.

Notice the lack of a grid in the first photo, the complete lack of retail facilities. The lower densities, just entire randomness of it.

That is sprawl. The stuff in Vaughan that is in the second image is simply car based development.

That is one major gripe I have with the places to grow act. It kills Sprawl, but not car oriented development. all it does is mandate certain density levels, not that new development should be oriented to the pedestrian instead of the car.

 

[Memph]

Check out this TED Talk about the topic of retrofitting the suburbs. The densification of the suburbs will likely begin with the demolishment of big box stores and their parking lots into relatively dense residential and mixed used communities.

Depends on what is driving densification. In Houston, I think much of the densification is driven by the desire to live a short drive from jobs and the amenities of the city. Note I said drive, so that means parking is still considered valuable, and the intensification is largely in the form of tearing down bungalows to put up townhouses and apartment buildings, while many of the strip malls are still there. It's similar to what's driving the intensification is Toronto's core, except Houston hasn't reached the critical mass where density/transit is high enough that a car is not really needed. The same was true for L.A. although that's probably starting to change now.

If intensification in the GTA becomes driven by a lack of land for greenfield development, you could see something similar happen, especially in the "bungalow belt" neighbourhoods (Applewood, Downsview, Hillcrest Village, Bathurst Manor, Eringate, etc), at least assuming zoning allows it. If it's driven by rising gas prices, combined with a population that's still growing, then you might see suburban retail getting redeveloped instead.

Although... I'm not completely convinced. A significant increase in energy prices would likely lead to reduced prosperity (i.e. less $$ for new construction) and attempts to cut back on A/C and heating, both of which might lead to a reduction in living space per capita, so that added population will just fit into existing housing. In such a case, a lot of big suburban homes might become subdivided into duplexes (even triplexes) before suburban retail gets redeveloped.

However, if the first scenario is combined with zoning that makes it easier to redevelop suburban retail than bungalows, than yes, suburban retail could become redeveloped first. Or maybe if it's more of a moderate increase in energy prices, combined with investment in transit for the suburbs, and connecting disconnected streets to make them more walkable. Or if the big box stores become abandoned more due to oversupply of retail space than gas prices.

 

[innsertnamehere]

you need to get really high energy prices before you start to see major changes in behaviour. Many in europe still enjoy suburban lifestyles despite $2.50 a litre gas. I don't really see car ownership becoming unaffordable unless you start to approach $5.00 a litre or more, as the car market will largely shift with the prices at first. If gas were to start to go up in price smaller cars would become more popular. This can be seen in Europe or even between Canada and the US. Best selling Toyota in the US is the Camry but in Canada it is the Corolla. Best selling Honda in the US is the Accord, but in Canada it is the Civic. If gas were to jump to $2.50 a litre it would likely become the Yaris and Fit instead.. you will see a heightened demand to live without a car as they will be significantly more expensive, but old suburbs won't feel too much pressure to convert and many would still be fine with buying into a new car oriented subdivision.

 

[middeljohn]

Freshcutgrass has some good points, although he over-dramatizes it. I've lived in suburbs almost my entire life. Most things are within walking distance from me, but not a short 5 min walk, more often a 20 min walk. Just too long for me to find it comfortable to do repeatedly. So I drive most often.

That said, I'd love it if things were slightly closer. 5-10 min walks I don't mind. The problem isn't a lack of density in the GTA suburbs. The problem is zoning, and not breaking the zones up into smaller chunks. Most definitely the GTA has high enough density to support this, it actually puzzles me why they don't.

 

[TOareaFan]

And your point is?

I was replying to a post suggesting the Gardiner and DVP were not built for, or are of any use to, the people of Toronto and only for people outside the city......it may have been true when built (I was not around then) but they are finding a lot of use for it now.

 

[Johnny Au]

sprawl truthfully doesn't truly occur in the GTA. car based development, on the other hand, dominates. People often struggle to delineate the two I find.

This is sprawl:

This isn't.

They are both car based and car dominated, but there is a very key difference. One is planned. Planned around cars sure, but it is high density and planned with thoughts given to shopping proximity (in terms of car travel), schools, community centres, etc. Both are taken at the same zoom level BTW.

Notice how one leaves large sections of forest untouched, how absolutely 0 of the streets connect. there is no public parkland, only a few baseball diamonds as those cannot realistically be privately owned due to their team based nature.

Notice the lack of a grid in the first photo, the complete lack of retail facilities. The lower densities, just entire randomness of it.

That is sprawl. The stuff in Vaughan that is in the second image is simply car based development.

That is one major gripe I have with the places to grow act. It kills Sprawl, but not car oriented development. all it does is mandate certain density levels, not that new development should be oriented to the pedestrian instead of the car.

Where is the first image taken?

 

[W. K. Lis]

sprawl truthfully doesn't truly occur in the GTA. car based development, on the other hand, dominates. People often struggle to delineate the two I find.

This is sprawl:

This isn't.

They are both car based and car dominated, but there is a very key difference. One is planned. Planned around cars sure, but it is high density and planned with thoughts given to shopping proximity (in terms of car travel), schools, community centres, etc. Both are taken at the same zoom level BTW.

Notice how one leaves large sections of forest untouched, how absolutely 0 of the streets connect. there is no public parkland, only a few baseball diamonds as those cannot realistically be privately owned due to their team based nature.

Notice the lack of a grid in the first photo, the complete lack of retail facilities. The lower densities, just entire randomness of it.

That is sprawl. The stuff in Vaughan that is in the second image is simply car based development.

That is one major gripe I have with the places to grow act. It kills Sprawl, but not car oriented development. all it does is mandate certain density levels, not that new development should be oriented to the pedestrian instead of the car.

"Tommy, we're out of bread. Go to the store and get me a loaf."

In which "neighourhood" would one send little 11-year old Tommy to get a loaf of bread. Only in the second one would little Tommy hop on a bicycle to go to and from a store. In the second, it would have to be the parent, and usually in a car (unless, they were a block from the store). In Toronto (especially in the inner city), little Tommy would be able to walk, skateboard, or bike.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Notice the lack of a grid in the first photo, the complete lack of retail facilities. The lower densities, just entire randomness of it.

That is sprawl.

It depends on the context. Sprawl needs to do what it's name implies....cover very large areas, as well as be the subject of those attributes you mentioned.

That could just as easily be Rosedale, Bridle Path, Baby Point or some other confined "enclave", but still a constituent of a well urban planned environment.

The densification of the suburbs will likely begin with the demolishment of big box stores and their parking lots into relatively dense residential and mixed used communities.

I think the GTA will continue to do what it does well...probably better than anywhere else.....high density nodal developments. Create new ones...intensify old ones. It's not the ideal urban utopia, but makes public transit at least somewhat viable.

Freshcutgrass has some good points, although he over-dramatizes it.

That's another reason I don't like the suburbs...not enough drama!!

I was replying to a post suggesting the Gardiner and DVP were not built for, or are of any use to, the people of Toronto and only for people outside the city......it may have been true when built (I was not around then) but they are finding a lot of use for it now.

Yea I know what you were referring to...I just don't see how it translates into a relevant point. It's there...why not use it????

 

[innsertnamehere]

Where is the first image taken?

just south of Bridgeport, CT. "Munroe" is the closest place name that Google Earth shows. All I really did was zoom into a random area north east of NYC, the area is absolutely filled with areas like that.

Bridle Path, yes, but that is suburban and the definition of sprawl. Rosedale, no, rosedale is much, much denser than that and is still close to amenities. If I zoomed out of that image a bit more it would be nothing more than that exact same built form, the closest group of stores are over 5km from the school building in the satellite imagery. Draw a 5km circle around Rosedale and you have the entirety of Downtown Toronto. The area in Vaughan however has 4 distinct retail plazas along Weston road between Rutherford and Major Mack. One on the northern corner (Not shown), two in the middle, and one on the southern corner. There is another being built in the most recent satellite imagery on the northern end of the Neighbourhood along Major Mack as well, and this community isn't fully built out yet so there are likely more to come.

And what is the definition of "covers large areas"? you could have a superdense city of 30,000,000 people covering hundreds of square kilometers, but would it be "Sprawl" simply because it is large? No. Sprawl is a development form that doesn't confine itself to existing urban boundaries, expands rapidly with little planning and low densities, and generally creates negative communities as there are no common gathering places and every time you want to leave your home you need to go on a 10 minute drive just to get to the convenience store. The stuff built in the GTA isn't this. They have walk to schools, sidewalks (!! incredibly, this is a rare thing in many, many parts of the US), community centres, local retail facilities a short drive (Or as W.K. Lis pointed out, a short bike for the kids) away, public parks to interact with neighbours (even if it is only used by dog owners), etc. These suburban neighbourhoods have communication with neighbours, human contact is still necessary in these areas. In the sprawl I am showing, you could fairly easily live your life without ever having any "unwanted" human contact.

The general built form of Toronto's suburbs isn't exactly super urban, but it isn't sprawl either.. High density, walkable local amenities, but car based commuting patterns and retail access. Upon full buildout (usually 20 or 30 years after the first subdivisions start popping up) high frequency bus routes are viable, etc.


AS for peppering retail spaces through the centre of the subdivisions instead of simply along the main arterials, take a look at Cornell. They have included small retail spaces inside of the communities that are walk to, but they are only small format spaces, and rather subpar at that. (short ceilings, no grocers due to their size) Its mostly become populated by Dental offices, Convenience stores, small business offices, etc. stuff that only needs a very small customer base or has few walk in customers and doesn't need high visibility. Most of these suburbs are nowhere near dense enough to support something like one grocer every square kilometre that is required for a more walkable environment.

 

[freshcutgrass]

And what is the definition of "covers large areas"? you could have a superdense city of 30,000,000 people covering hundreds of square kilometers, but would it be "Sprawl" simply because it is large? No.

You need to read more carefully....I said the google map you posted would have to cover a much larger area to qualify as "sprawl" (and it no doubt does). Bridle Path isn't sprawl, although it may resemble it when looked at out of context of the larger city it is part of. It's perfectly ok, if not preferable for a well planned city to contain such enclaves....an exception...not the rule.

 

[Memph]

You need to read more carefully....I said the google map you posted would have to cover a much larger area to qualify as "sprawl" (and it no doubt does). Bridle Path isn't sprawl, although it may resemble it when looked at out of context of the larger city it is part of. It's perfectly ok, if not preferable for a well planned city to contain such enclaves....an exception...not the rule.

Although I'm not sure if it's best to have it zoned the way it is. If you look at SE Oakville for instance, in many cases you can redevelop multi-acre estates into smaller lot mansions (ex Bel Air Dr and Waterstone Ct). There two adjacent estates that are going to have the same happen (combined into 1 development I think), and a third West of downtown Oakville. You also have the Edgemere estate, where they're tearing down a mansion (a quite nice one, and big, at 15,000sf) to build condos. In all of these cases, what they're building is still catering to the rich, with homes in the $2-3 million range, but basically what it shows is that it's more profitable to build 1-2 dozen homes at this price than a $10-20 million mansion.

I suspect that if zoning allowed it, you'd see similar types of development in the Bridle Path. In Forest Hill and Bedford Park, you might get $0.5-1.5 million apartments outcompeting the $2-7million new mansions. In more average and less exclusive neighbourhoods, you might get $200-$500,000 apartments and townhouses outcompeting $0.5-1.0million 2 storey homes that are replacing bungalows. But right now, I'm pretty sure all that's allowed is bigger houses on the same size lot (outside of certain arterials/nodes), so that's how they're responding to rising land values. I don't think allowing denser slightly less expensive housing would really bring down the desirability of the neighbourhood either, at least it doesn't seem to be happening in SE Oakville and other similar neighbourhoods (ex Richvale in Richmond Hill). You can still have your estate style mansion, and in some cases that has happened in SE Oakville, but it will cost more since you have to compete with higher density development.

These zoning constraints by the way, are probably the reason why those large lot exurbs in Connecticut are so cheap. Yes I said cheap, people from metro New York might not think of it that way, but for the size of the lot, they are cheap. Something similar would probably sell for 3-10 times the price in the GTA, because here in many places you can likely build at densities of 4 units per acre, if not denser, whereas these CT exurbs often have 1-4 acre lot minimums, which is likely because of the large lot zoning, which creates an "oversupply" of such housing, since metro New York is pretty expensive, and there's likely strong demand for infill (they've basically sprawled out as far as they can).