City's Future Up in the Air - Toronto has chosen one path...still hope for Vancouver

[Jonny5]

I agree as well. I didn't really see anything wrong with the article.

I think people are frustrated at the media for publishing continuously less informed opinion pieces about urban affairs.
He's telling a Vancouver audience that he flew over Toronto in a plane and discovered the city had grown.
Wow. What a contribution to the public discourse.
Having a knee-jerk, negative reaction to this kind of lazy, uninformed writing is a good thing. These writers need to be called out.

 

[Chuck]

Somewhat lost in this debate is what constitutes 'sprawl' and what type of sprawl is worse than others. It depends on who you ask.

For an ecologist, exurban sprawl like Atlanta or Boston is considered preferable to Toronto. Characterized by extremely low densities (in outer Atlanta, some areas might as well have the density of Muskoka), interspersed with woodlots and lakes and with little of the area actually paved or occupied by built infrastructure, wildlife corridors can still exist in regions like these. In contrast, the treeless landscape of a townhouse development in North Markham with a high amount of paved surfaces is more or less the death of whatever ecosystem existed there before.

From a city management perspective, Toronto's sprawl with its relatively dense, non-leapfrog development is preferable to pretty much anything else because it doesn't necessitate the construction of enormous amounts of physical infrastructure. Building water and sewer mains in Atlanta, for example, must be very cost prohibitive (all other things being equal) because you have to lay a lot of pipe (to use a funny term) to service fewer taxpayers.

From a food systems perspective, Toronto's sprawl onto high quality farmland is not encouraging, but probably better than sprawl in the Bay Area which encroaches on extremely valuable farmland. In areas where a high value crop is grown, such as vineyards, sprawl tends to be much more tightly reined in. On the other hand, sprawl in a city like Calgary or Las Vegas doesn't matter to an agricultural expert, because these are not food producing regions; sprawl in Calgary encroaches on marginal ranchland and sprawl in Las Vegas spills out into a desert that has never been farmed. From an ag POV, I imagine that sprawl in the Lower Mainland is just as bad, if not worse, than sprawl in the GTA.

And these are just differing perspectives from a disciplinary point of view. We should also take into account the points of view of different people who live amidst this sprawl, including people of different income groups, cultural groups, business needs, etc.

Throw all these societal factors into the mix, and what constitutes "bad" sprawl becomes very difficult to characterize.

Don't forget that regardless of what type of land is being sprawled onto, sprawl creates higher energy use and pollution per capita than infill. It may be "worse" to sprawl onto an established forest than desert, but in the end, both create traffic, air pollution, poor use of resources, etc. Just because the land surrounding Las Vegas isn't used for agriculture doens't make sprawl less of an issue there.

 

[adma]

The reason the city population numbers have stayed the same even with the building boom downtown can mostly be attributed to gentrification. If you look at where Toronto lost population in the last five years it in places like the Beaches, Parkdale, and Bloor West Village. Many of the larger homes in these neighbourhoods were once subdivided into apartments. As these areas got wealthier, these have steadily been converted back into single family homes, greatly decreasing the population density.

And that was even more the case in the 70s, when the former city of Toronto suffered the worst population loss in its history--something like 100K in a decade--even though that was the Crombie "City That Works" era. (With the more universal baby-bust pattern added for good measure. Plus the cease-and-desist with building St James Town-type jungles. But in general, the 70s was the era when urban gentrification really took root like wildfire as a mass phenomenon...)

 

[Hipster Duck]

Don't forget that regardless of what type of land is being sprawled onto, sprawl creates higher energy use and pollution per capita than infill. It may be "worse" to sprawl onto an established forest than desert, but in the end, both create traffic, air pollution, poor use of resources, etc. Just because the land surrounding Las Vegas isn't used for agriculture doens't make sprawl less of an issue there.

Chuck, my point was that it's hard to characterize what "bad sprawl" is because there are so many different ways to look at the problem. Las Vegas sprawl is only preferable from the narrow POV of an agricultural specialist (among the 3 disciplines I listed).

 

[T-Bor]

I'm assuming this is the same Sun as in Toronto right? My issue with the article is the same as most people's. Trying to make a sort of moral high-ground that Vancouver does not sprawl. It's just terrible journalism.

 

[OttoSchloss]

I'm assuming this is the same Sun as in Toronto right? My issue with the article is the same as most people's. Trying to make a sort of moral high-ground that Vancouver does not sprawl. It's just terrible journalism.

No. They're not owned by the same media company.

 

[ladyscraper]

Doesn't he state quite openly that he likes it here and has family here?

I bet he is not racist because he has a black friend too


Anyways, sprawl is a very big concern. It's upsetting that places like Vaughan are choosing to ignore greenbelt areas for new developments and I really wish the provincial government would flex some sort of muscle to halt that.

 

[Parkdalian]

The reason the city population numbers have stayed the same even with the building boom downtown can mostly be attributed to gentrification. If you look at where Toronto lost population in the last five years it in places like the Beaches, Parkdale, and Bloor West Village. Many of the larger homes in these neighbourhoods were once subdivided into apartments. As these areas got wealthier, these have steadily been converted back into single family homes, greatly decreasing the population density.

There is also evidence that there was a major census undercount in Toronto for the 2006 census - city staff definitely feel that way. Don't be surprised if Toronto shows a big population jump in 2011.

 

[that_girl_there]

I'm torn on this issue. On the one hand, I do feel that this reporter is being overly judgemental of Toronto in comparison to Vancouver. Vancouver has similar problems with sprawl, but the way he phrases the situation it's as if Vancouver is at a turning point - and hasn't yet reached Toronto's level of the problem.

On the other hand, Toronto definitely has problems with sprawl. And the potential solutions are complex. Middle-class families are being priced out of the city, forced to either accept apartments that are too small or move out. I've come to realize that many families don't want to leave the city but that they literally have no choice. It's hard for anyone to do anything about this - the market determines the price of real estate and Toronto is highly desired. Lowering property taxes would help but the city does need the money. So middle-class families were forced to flee to the nearest suburbs of Toronto. But then those areas became desirable too! Once cheap homes in Richmond Hill and Markham have double or tripled in price! So people have moved further and further away, to Aurora and Newmarket, to Whitby and Oshawa, to Milton and Georgetown, etc. These areas (perhaps Oshawa excepted for other reasons) are experiencing huge amounts of growth. Last year, Mississauga built on its last piece of greenfields land - the city is now full and can move nowhere but up. This is a city that was built on the idea of big lots and double-garages! And now it too has become so desirable that it is expensive.

Of course, the consumer is also to blame - the post-WWII society has emphasized the idea that families need a nice house with a big backyard for kids to play in. If you're a family who is willing to spend 600-700K for a house, you can certainly afford one in the city - but you can afford a much bigger, nicer house in the 905. And a lot of people are opting for that second choice.

The solutions are complex. The province has done a lot with the Greenbelt Plan and the Places to Grow Act. But municipalities are the ones responsible for enforcing these, and many are building on the greenbelt (not just Vaughan as mentioned before but King and Whitchuch-Stouffville and likely others). The province can do nothing about it. Durham Region has been in a fight with the province for at least a year (seems like forever) over their new Official Plan, which ignores density requirements in Places to Grow. So there are enforcement issues.

New transit systems into the 905 are also helping. York Region has the VIVA, forward-thinking express bus routes along major corridors (such as Yonge street). I've ridden it many times, and it is excellent - and ridership proves it. A new GO station opened in East Gwillimbury to serve residents in northern Newmarket and East Gwillimbury. Proposals are in place to increase service on that line. And the proposed extension of the Spadina subway line to Vaughan has certainly sparked many interests.

But this is getting rambly. The point is:
1. Toronto has problems with sprawl, yes.
2. Vancouver does as well. And this reporter better look a bit closer at those supposedly pristine mountains surrounding the city, and look for all the many, many suburbs that are being built on them.

 

[MisterF]

I bet he is not racist because he has a black friend too


Anyways, sprawl is a very big concern. It's upsetting that places like Vaughan are choosing to ignore greenbelt areas for new developments and I really wish the provincial government would flex some sort of muscle to halt that.

Vaughan isn't sprawling into the Greenbelt.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Greater Vancouver/Fraser Valley/Vancouver Island has always struck me as a very Japanese landscape...a limited amount of excellent farmland wedged between mountains and oceans that also happens to be home to millions of people. They've done a decent job so far at using both urban land and farm land fairly intensely and while some great arable land has been lost and continues to be lost, there's opportunities to save a significant amount of what's left. Does BC have a well-organized farming lobby, or does Vancouver have an equivalent to SOAR in Oxnard, which fights to preserve farms in Ventura County (some of the world's best cropland) from McMansions? Maybe they just caught left coast urban fever and one symptom was stronger anti-sprawl measures. Whatever their motivation, they've made plans to combat sprawl (the easy part) and I hope they can carry them out (the hard part). Even if Vancouver stops growing, it'll still need new residential units to keep pace with household size declines, but Vancouver should find this a rather simple problem to tackle (as would Toronto) due to the condo tower trend.

 

[insertrealname]

On the issue of the dearth of affordable family-size apartment/condo spaces: doesn't the most recent Toronto Official Plan mandate some kind of mix of sizes that must be included in any new development? Or am I just imagining I read about something like that as one measure to stem the tide of families moving to the suburbs? Or would the OMB turn down any such constraints anyway?

 

[that_girl_there]

On the issue of the dearth of affordable family-size apartment/condo spaces: doesn't the most recent Toronto Official Plan mandate some kind of mix of sizes that must be included in any new development? Or am I just imagining I read about something like that as one measure to stem the tide of families moving to the suburbs? Or would the OMB turn down any such constraints anyway?

And now we turn to the real enemy - not Vancouver or the 905ers - but the OMB...

Would be interested to hear if anyone knows anything about this. But I don't know if that would help, since most new developments are high-rises and a lot of parents just all-around don't want to raise their kids in a high-rise.

But that's discussion spilling over from another thread...

 

[insertrealname]

But that's discussion spilling over from another thread...

No, I think it is relevant to the issue of sprawl: after all, there is such a thing as *medium* rise apartment/condo building, not everything has to be 30 floors high. Happily raising families in such buildings is normal in other cities all over the developed world--why not Toronto?

 

[that_girl_there]

It's true, Toronto has become a high-rise paradise. I'm not sure if I believe these stats, but they did shock me: http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/

Second only to NYC? Seems kind of unbelievable.

But the point is, I think a lot more families would be attracted to living in condos if the apartments were of a more manageable scale. Density is good, but there is such a thing as too much density.