Greater Toronto's Sprawl

[gristle]

^You convert a dead mall here, an empty lot there. You start in corridors that are somewhat 'urban' already, like along O'Connor Drive or the Queensway west of Park Lawn. You build one-storey retail with parking in the back, then you add some midrise, wood-framed residential infill with a relatively conservative design. You build momentum incrementally, rather than radically.

Exactly. Attractive working examples, while not convincing to everyone, will draw in people who see the value of such planing and development. Given the numbers of how many people are opting to buy into condominium living today over those who were doing so 20 years ago, it is clear that perceptions of what is good housing can change over time. I'd much prefer a more compact main street environment pictured above to the typical desolate housing tracts that define contemporary subdivisions. The funny thing is that this is not new conception.

 

[doady]

*sigh* I long for the days when major streets like Islington and Kipling in Etobicoke will look like that...but how do you re-zone such streets without causing an uproar from all the selfish, single-detached home living NIMBY's that surround them?

Why Islington and Kipling? Aside of the various commercial streets in Etobicoke can be redeveloped like that far more easily, I think Burnhamthorpe should be redeveloped first, so that there are no more home owners to stage protests/blockades against Mississauga Transit buses, because protesting against buses and bus riders in the central city is just dumb.

 

[spider]

It’s unlikely suburbanites would take kindly to Adams’ suggestions, but that hasn’t stopped him. His thesis, completed just months ago, proposes a series of moves that would transform the face of suburbia. The most contentious is probably a rezoning that would allow a new layer of housing in spaces now occupied by front yards. “Front setback policies create a lot of space that is never used,” Adams says. “These allowances are really problematic.”

In his thesis, Adams starts with a typical subdivision from Richmond Hill. Houses are set well back from the sidewalk, even further from the street. It’s clear that the space in between could be put to many other uses. In his scheme, Adams imagines a row of small houses, maybe two storeys, that fill these spaces and form a high-density, mixed-use, streetscape. “Single-family housing isn’t always the best solution,” he argues, “but it comes closest to what people need. I don’t think highrise is appropriate in suburban sites. What we need is lowrise and midrise high-density housing.”

What a great idea! Let's expropriate the front lawns of all these rich bastards and replicate Humes' dream streetscapes like Gerrard or Dundas or College complete with all the for lease signs, they will grow to love it. And for a grand finale we'll install a streetcar line, surely their cups will runneth over.

 

[jje1000]

What a great idea! Let's expropriate the front lawns of all these rich bastards and replicate Humes' dream streetscapes like Gerrard or Dundas or College complete with all the for lease signs, they will grow to love it. And for a grand finale we'll install a streetcar line, surely their cups will runneth over.

What's the alternative, eh? Suburbia forever?

 

[nfitz]

What's the alternative, eh? Suburbia forever?

Probably not ... like parts of Rexdale and Scarborough now ... many of today's suburbs, are tomorrow's impoverished, run-down neighbourhoods.

 

[lafard]

What a great idea! Let's expropriate the front lawns of all these rich bastards and replicate Humes' dream streetscapes like Gerrard or Dundas or College complete with all the for lease signs, they will grow to love it. And for a grand finale we'll install a streetcar line, surely their cups will runneth over.

Not expropriate. Rezone it and let capitalism take care of the rest.

You don't think all those new condos up along the Sheppard corridor were expropriated, do you? They were rezoned according to the "Avenues" study, their values more or less doubled overnight, and those homeowners sold to developers and made a killing doing so (600k for a little bungalow on a main street? )

There is no reason a similar strategy would not work elsewhere. The key is doing it in a somewhat coordinated manner or else it ends up being very piecemeal and difficult to serve with improved infrastructure (esp. transit, whether subway or LRT), which is pretty much how GTA planning has worked thus far.

 

[torontoplanner]

Probably not ... like parts of Rexdale and Scarborough now ... many of today's suburbs, are tomorrow's impoverished, run-down neighbourhoods.

Ya...Brampton is the new Scarborough...it will NOT age well...of all places in the GTA it will become a suburban slum the fastest. At least Scarborough has the bluffs. What does Brampton have? Chinguacousy Park?

 

[freshcutgrass]

This isn't a new idea of course...you can see plenty of evidence of this going back nearly 100 years in old parts of the city.

Many of the "main" streets of the city were once partly or mostly victorian residential single family homes with setbacks. Starting in the 1910's and 1920's, as the city grew, these streets became more commercial and additions were built out to the sidewalk for commercial uses, becoming mixed-use, higher density, more urban streets. Bathurst...College...you name it...it's everywhere.

 

[spider]

Starting in the 1910's and 1920's, as the city grew, these streets became more commercial and additions were built out to the sidewalk for commercial uses, becoming mixed-use, higher density, more urban streets. Bathurst...College...you name it...it's everywhere.

The planner is proposing developing the space between these homes and the street with separate buildings- not purchasing them and expanding them to the curb or allowing the present owners to do so. If the current owners wanted to live in an urban wasteland they wouldn't have purchased the nice homes they are in now, they would have bought on Bathurst...College...you name it.

In his scheme, Adams imagines a row of small houses, maybe two storeys, that fill these spaces and form a high-density, mixed-use, streetscape.

 

[jje1000]

The planner is proposing developing the space between these homes and the street with separate buildings- not purchasing them and expanding them to the curb or allowing the present owners to do so. If the current owners wanted to live in an urban wasteland they wouldn't have purchased the nice homes they are in now, they would have bought on Bathurst...College...you name it.

Wasteland? Tone please!

And what's the problem about capitalism? If every party gets a fair share (the developer gets the lot, the previous owners get the money), what's the problem? Do you hate capitalism?

 

[spider]

Wasteland?!

Ok that's over the top but I was provoked by the proselytizers who insist in telling us that if you drive a car or have a lawn or don't bring your groceries home on a bicycle you are a bad person or worse.

Those members of this forum who choose to live downtown are perfectly entitled to do so, I wouldn't dream of trying to change their minds. I would appreciate their understanding that I don't share their opinions and expect them to reciprocate by not depreciating my choice of where and how to live my life.

Attempts to impose their lifestyle and structure on me in the belief that they are saving me from an uninformed and inferior life are not only a waste of their time they are also an undeserved insult.

Chacun a son gout mon ami.

 

[TOareaFan]

Ya...Brampton is the new Scarborough...it will NOT age well...of all places in the GTA it will become a suburban slum the fastest. At least Scarborough has the bluffs. What does Brampton have? Chinguacousy Park?

I am not sure where Brampton ends up....the next 10 years will likely be the most crucial in the city's development....but your statement seems to say that any city/town that does not have lake Ontario shoreline is destined to be a slum? That sorta condems a lot of places.

 

[jje1000]

Ok that's over the top but I was provoked by the proselytizers who insist in telling us that if you drive a car or have a lawn or don't bring your groceries home on a bicycle you are a bad person or worse.

Those members of this forum who choose to live downtown are perfectly entitled to do so, I wouldn't dream of trying to change their minds. I would appreciate their understanding that I don't share their opinions and expect them to reciprocate by not depreciating my choice of where and how to live my life.

Attempts to impose their lifestyle and structure on me in the belief that they are saving me from an uninformed and inferior life are not only a waste of their time they are also an undeserved insult.

Chacun a son gout mon ami.

How is someone developing a suburb into a mid-density neighbourhood imposing their lifestyle on you? If they want to do so, let them be. It is the natural progress of capitalism- you have the liberty of moving somewhere else or appealing the development.

Simply don't expect the world you live in to remain the same just for you. The world evolves beyond your control- 50 years ago, the modern concept of the suburb was still in its infancy. Who knows what our world will look like 50 years from now?

I also fail to see how anyone has put you down for living in the suburbs. It honestly feels like you've simply taken offense to the discussion going around you.

 

[adma]

Though I think too much of this discussion oversimplifies/overgenericizes/over-common-templates the 'burbs. Like, when we're talking about certain parts of Etobicoke, we're tallking about suburbia of some affluence and stability where to impose intensification would be heavy-handedly dogmatic...

 

[torontoplanner]

Ok that's over the top but I was provoked by the proselytizers who insist in telling us that if you drive a car or have a lawn or don't bring your groceries home on a bicycle you are a bad person or worse.

Those members of this forum who choose to live downtown are perfectly entitled to do so, I wouldn't dream of trying to change their minds. I would appreciate their understanding that I don't share their opinions and expect them to reciprocate by not depreciating my choice of where and how to live my life.

Attempts to impose their lifestyle and structure on me in the belief that they are saving me from an uninformed and inferior life are not only a waste of their time they are also an undeserved insult.

Chacun a son gout mon ami.

I don't live downtown either but I absolutely disagree that suburbia is a life choice as equally benign as living downtown or more specifically living a more balanced life where every moment need not revolve around a car. Suburbia s much more than a place - it is a mind set - a very selfish and condescending one at that. It is this that turns the stomachs of those who by riding bicycles and buying local produce think they are doing something good. I can absolutely sympathize with these ones, just like I can sympathize with the homeless who I pass daily with my suit on (though it doesn't mean I want to be one of course). Let's face it. Suburbia is only as attractive as the second and third digit on the gas station price board. If one day you pull up and either can't afford or simply can't obtain a full tank, that lifestyle withers away instantly and you become the pinko you so now denigrate not out of conscience but out of necessity.