News   Nov 18, 2024
 1.5K     1 
News   Nov 18, 2024
 794     0 
News   Nov 18, 2024
 1.8K     1 

Planned Sprawl in the GTA

To me, I would want to get off my bus, or other public transit vehicle, at some strip of stores. Do my shopping errands and then walk to my home. The design shown above, seems to have you go past home to reach the shopping district, and then backtrack to get home.
 
It's hilarious that planners still can't figure out how to create walkable neighbourhoods, even though it was figured out 100 years ago in the old part of Toronto.
 
Last edited:
It's hilarious that planners still can't figure out how to create walkable neighbourhoods, even though it was figured out 100 years ago in the old part of Toronto.

There hasn't been a new neighbourhood built in the last twenty years in the GTA that wasn't much more walkable that those built in the 1980's. Planners have been building new walkable neighbourhoods for a long time. The media is just starting to pick up on it. The main problem is not the neighbourhood itself, it's how the neighbourhood interacts with adjacent areas to give people someplace to walk to.
 
As long as new subdivisions continue to build "want-to-be-expressway" arterial roads, we will continue to see sprawl.

People want arterial roads like they built before World War II. Store fronts facing the roads, with a wide sidewalk. Parking could be situated in lay-byes between the sidewalk and road, or behind the stores. Public transit users should not have to safari across an asphalt desert.
 
There hasn't been a new neighbourhood built in the last twenty years in the GTA that wasn't much more walkable that those built in the 1980's.
Please excuse me, but I'm going to go ahead and tell you that you're just making this up. Allow me to explain.

For example (because I am very familiar with it), Ajax subdivisions from the 80s tend to have retail within much shorter distances from even the farthest residences than most of what has been built in York Region in the last 20 years....or even what has been built in Ajax in the last ten, come to think of it. I just started a project in northern Richmond Hill and can't believe anyone willingly buys a house there. (Not that said Ajax subdivisions don't lead to the same thought).
 
Northern Richmond Hill is cheap, although very difficult to access. It requires a long trip over to either the 400 or 404.
 
It's cheap alright....the cheapest thing about it being the quality of life. Most of built up York Region is a planning disaster. I hate working up there, I find it depressing. Being forced to shuttle around in your car to run the most basic of errands is no life to live. As has been discussed recently on some news programmes, the amount of money you save on housing you more than make up for with car expenses, lost time to travel, health, and so on.
 
Please excuse me, but I'm going to go ahead and tell you that you're just making this up. Allow me to explain.

For example (because I am very familiar with it), Ajax subdivisions from the 80s tend to have retail within much shorter distances from even the farthest residences than most of what has been built in York Region in the last 20 years....or even what has been built in Ajax in the last ten, come to think of it. I just started a project in northern Richmond Hill and can't believe anyone willingly buys a house there. (Not that said Ajax subdivisions don't lead to the same thought).

Really? I've always found Ajax to be one of the least dense parts of the GTA. Plus, what are people walking to? There seems to be very little in terms of retail or restaurants. Nothing in Durham seems to be as dense as Southern York.
 
Please excuse me, but I'm going to go ahead and tell you that you're just making this up. Allow me to explain.

For example (because I am very familiar with it), Ajax subdivisions from the 80s tend to have retail within much shorter distances from even the farthest residences than most of what has been built in York Region in the last 20 years....or even what has been built in Ajax in the last ten, come to think of it. I just started a project in northern Richmond Hill and can't believe anyone willingly buys a house there. (Not that said Ajax subdivisions don't lead to the same thought).

Nottingham (Williamson and Westney) has a plaza with a Shoppers Drug Mart, a TD bank and No Frills in the middle of it. Lakeside (Ashley and Audley) has a Village Centre with a daycare in it, along with what were originally intended to be live-work units. Imagination (Williamson and Seward) has a similar Village Centre that was originally intended to have retail in it. The problem is retailers will always locate where they can make the most profit and in a suburban environment that is along the arterial roads, not in the middle of neighbourhoods. Those Village Centres are usually money losers for the developer.

Urban designers can give people the opportunity to walk and can give retailers the opportunity to locate in the middle of neighbourhoods, but they can't force people to walk or force retailers to locate someplace where they won't make any money. They can however locate parks, schools and other "destinations" along trails, walkways and sidewalks to encourage people to walk.
 
Last edited:
It's hilarious that planners still can't figure out how to create walkable neighbourhoods, even though it was figured out 100 years ago in the old part of Toronto.

It's at least as hilarious you dismiss what's changed since then. Things have changed in a billion ways but the most obvious is car ownership. It's indeed sad we "forgot" how to build at the right scale but how we get around is a big part of that. The Beach is walkable because of when it was built and how close it is to downtown. Most of Vaughan is unwalkable for precisely the same reasons.

The challenge is introducing these ideas we know work into areas built when cars were the priority. Cornell, for example, is a very walkable neighbourhood. The problem is that there is nowhere to walk to because:
a) It's a greenfield development on the edge of nowhere
b) Internal destinations (like a coffee shop, bank, grocer etc.) are hard to develop in an economy/transpo system that likes to concentrate retail on main streets. Not "Main Streets," like in Unionville or even on Queen East, but main streets people DRIVE on.

so, I think it's fair to say that mid-century planners (the ones Jane Jacobs hated) couldn't figure it out because they saw all the goods things about cars and one of the bad ones. I don't think it's fair to say planners today can't figure it out. It's that it's hard to implement. (Moreover, planners aren't decision makers so even if they KNOW how to do it, they have to convince developers and politicians to do it...)

It's cheap alright....the cheapest thing about it being the quality of life. Most of built up York Region is a planning disaster. I hate working up there, I find it depressing. Being forced to shuttle around in your car to run the most basic of errands is no life to live. As has been discussed recently on some news programmes, the amount of money you save on housing you more than make up for with car expenses, lost time to travel, health, and so on.

Personally, I agree with most of this. It's also somewhat judgmental in that I know people who live this lifestyle, in YR and elsewhere, who don't mind it all. They don't care about "walkability" and define "quality of life" in their own way...a cheap house, a nice yard. I know and you know it's unsustainable and unhealthy etc. but blaming planners for creating these neighbourhoods is like blaming doctors for cigarette smokers. We all know what's "right," but we can't expect every individual person (or "the market") to respond accordingly.

(And I hope it goes without saying there are many parts of YR that are walkable. They just tend to be older. Obviously this applies to the old villages [RH, Kleinburg, Unionville etc.] but also to areas closer to Toronto [e.g. Thornhill is about as walkable as Willowdale. There are also plenty of parts of Toronto as unwalkable as parts of YR.)
 
Last edited:
There hasn't been a new neighbourhood built in the last twenty years in the GTA that wasn't much more walkable that those built in the 1980's.

It's at least as hilarious you dismiss what's changed since then.

Yes, a lot has changed indeed!


Huge, high speed arterial roads continue to be built

15830644524_7fe77329f4_c.jpg




Houses either turn their backs to the street...

16265738360_3c7f061f6d_c.jpg




...or have roads next to roads.

16265469918_cef91b1a1a_c.jpg




This is where you do your shopping.

16265469498_dd1344a307_c.jpg




This is a drive through bank. Because you can't even deposit a freaking cheque without taking the car. While Toronto is developing many of their suburban plazas and strip malls (like Humbertown, Shops at Don Mills, Parkwoods Village, or any mixed use condo site), Brampton and others are building new ones exactly the same way as in the past.

16427168706_a96ae4bb7c_c.jpg




Bus routes have to be gerrymandered in weird ways to attempt to reach everybody.

16451419591_3cd1e14759.jpg




So much for mixed use. It's either pure residential, pure employment, or big box retail. You need a car to get between these different areas.

16427168916_9459449841_c.jpg




New business parks are being built farther away than ever before. See that scar east of Woodbine? I had to go there once for a job interview at a York Region municipal office. Getting there by transit was impossible. I brought my bike with me to the nearest bus stop (around Leslie & Davis), and biked the rest of the way. Not a single sidewalk or bike lane was to be found. We hear a lot from York Region about sustainability these days, but not only are they building more business parks with no shit given to non-motorists, but they even put their own offices there.

16267259917_12b6114d85_c.jpg




Milton is no better. Nothing is at a human scale. You'd think they could learn from Mississauga how not to build cities, but nope they want to apply the same discredited suburban planning principles.

16453163595_bf74225b8f_c.jpg




But other than that, new neighbourhoods these days are so much more walkable than before, as exemplified by their stellar walk score...

16427169376_8e8103918d.jpg




...which have come a long way from old suburbia like North Scarborough. Oh wait, they haven't.

16266917059_c74ea491ec.jpg




I'm not saying that new subdivisions should be like the Annex, but why not like Avenue Road? People can still have their mcmansions, but how about they face the street instead of turning their backs to it. How about cutting down on the disgusting amount of traffic lanes. Some main street retail like at Avenue & Lawrence would be great too, but apparently that's completely impossible to replicate in the 905.

15833091983_ba3ccf7b43_c.jpg




How about having non-industrial employment along key roads right up to the sidewalk, instead of only in business parks. Surface parking can be at the back, or underground.

15830645314_b1b5cdd773_c.jpg




How about plazas that face the sidewalk, with their parking lot at the back instead. This one is under construction near Bayview & Eglinton.

16116217322_18a907451d_c.jpg




How about having proper bus stops like the TTC, with a roof, bench, bus maps, route numbers, and concrete surface instead of this crap. This is where I recently waited 25 minutes on a really cold windy night. Later I got off the bus through the back door at a stop similar to this, and stepped in thick mud up to my ankle. Screw you Brampton and Mississauga transit.

11457886854_6f1ee1a3bd_z.jpg




Sorry, but suburbia today has never been more hostile for pedestrians. The only real difference I see is that new subdivisions are required to have a bit more density. You might even see an occasional bike lane if you're lucky. There's a lot of hype about Mt Pleasant or Cornell (which are only partially successful), but everything else being built is just plain ordinary business as usual.
 
Last edited:
There's the problem. You're not talking about the design of neighbourhoods, you're talking about he design of cities. It's an entirely different animal. Changes in the design of small components of a city, like a neighborhood, can happen in the course of a decade or so, but changes to the configuration of the whole city will take much longer, maybe centuries. The die was cast for most of the GTA back in the 1960 and 70's when the first round of urban development occurred. Once you have malls and single use industrial areas it takes a long long tome to get rid of them simply because of the economics of it.
 
Well, they can start by putting in grid streets as opposed to the collection of dead ends and sneeze trails.

Yes, I know my assessment of suburbia is judgmental but I can't even bring myself to apologise for that. I'm going to be at this job in Richmond Hill for the next three to four months and am already dreading the visceral reaction I have daily to these horribly inefficient wastes of prime land. It literally hurts my mind. I probably have my stubbornness to thank for that as I will never be convinced that inefficiently paving over prime land is a good idea. Cheaper houses, yeah, but as I said, what of the trade offs in other costs? It doesn't necessarily end up being cheaper at all.

I'm not necessarily blaming anyone, really....I just personally want nothing to do with any of it as it actually depresses me.
I would also like to take this moment to explain that I do work only on custom residential homes and 95% of my work is south of Eglinton.
Also, it's probably true that I'm just an arsehole as my Toronto ends at Dundas. ;)
 
Last edited:
There's the problem. You're not talking about the design of neighbourhoods, you're talking about he design of cities. It's an entirely different animal. Changes in the design of small components of a city, like a neighborhood, can happen in the course of a decade or so, but changes to the configuration of the whole city will take much longer, maybe centuries. The die was cast for most of the GTA back in the 1960 and 70's when the first round of urban development occurred. Once you have malls and single use industrial areas it takes a long long tome to get rid of them simply because of the economics of it.

I thought I talked about both. You say that "there hasn't been a new neighbourhood built in the last twenty years in the GTA that wasn't much more walkable that those built in the 1980's", so why is the walk score considerably worse in the GTA compared to older 416 suburbia? Why are new plazas today being build exactly the same way as 30 years ago, as if we don't know any better than that?
 

Back
Top