Planning: Suburbs Doing Little to Curtail Sprawl

[Observer Walt]

Several things come to mind.

There are major differences between suburbs built in the 1960s and 70s, and those being built in the past few years. The loopy crescents are now a thing of the past, and the grid pattern has returned. Short blocks make it possible to walk to the arterial streets, where transit can (usually) be found. Examples include Churchill Meadows in Mississauga, Velore in Vaughan, the Bur Oak section of Markham, the part of Aurora east of Bayview Avenue, etc. I think this change is now permanent.

The car dependency is less a function of the physical design of the area, and more a function of how much transit service is actually provided. This has been seen clearly in Mississauga and Brampton, and probably other suburban areas as well. When transit service is increased to a reasonable level, people will move from cars to transit, as shown in ridership statistics.

I agree that older suburban residential neighbourhoods are highly resistant to change, as pointed out above, and for most practical purposes, can't be retrofitted. But having said that, it's amazing the number of little pockets that can still be infilled (several within a short radius of my place in eastern Mississauga). The best prospects for intensification are the "avenues", as they are being called in Toronto, being the arterial streets where old, low-density developments, mainly commercial, can be redeveloped with a higher density of mixed use structures.

 

[syn]

What are you talking about? I lived there nearly 20 years; I walked lots of places. To schools, malls, corner stores, GO stations, parks... what's the problem? You move your feet, same as anywhere else; sidewalks and park paths, traffic lights with walk/don't walk signals, all just like Toronto, or anywhere else.

Of course you can walk, but is it an option that's encouraged? I went to school in Mississauga, so I can tell you than in many, many cases, the answer is no.

It's because they passed an ordinance against it, and it's one of the best things about Mississauga and one of the wisest things they ever did. Whenever I'm trying to get someplace on some Toronto main street south of Eglinton, and I'm stuck behind street cars or a bus and some selfish, impatient jackass is dodging in and out of traffic without signaling whenever there's a three-foot gap in the cars parked down the outside lane, I find myself pining for Mississauga. Toronto abounds with side streets; they're a nickel a ton. That's where people ought to park, not on main streets. If I could be mayor for just one day, that's the first thing I'd clear up. The smog, the traffic jams, the accidents we could eliminate with just that simple step... it's incalculable.

Well, as it's been pointed out, you can park on main streets of Mississauga. I've witnessed it too. Secondly, you're looking at Toronto from the eyes of a motorist. If you want to ease some stress, leave the car at the TTC/GO station and take transit. That will help reduce smog, traffic jams, etc. a lot more than just parking on a side street.

This might come as a shock to you, Mayor Miller, and the late great Jane Jacobs, but those things inside the cars? They're people. They're people moving around, trying to get somewhere. They're not asking to bulldoze your house or run over your dog; they're not insane or wicked or twisted. They're going from point A to point B. That's it. The reason so many people are moving into 905 is because of the design of those communities. They're not "designed for cars", cars don't vote, cars don't buy houses, cars don't pay taxes. No, modern cities are designed to facilitate people getting to work, getting to shops, getting the kids to school and band practice. Think outside the slogans, for God's sake. I know they sound clever and they're satisfying ipse dixits to whip out, but they're an insult to millions of people and they don't speak highly of your own ability to be introspective.

This might come as a shock to you, Ms. Wente, but a city designed overwhelmingly in favour of automotive transport is badly designed, irresponsible and ultimately unsustainable.

A modern city should be designed with sustainability and flexibility in mind. One should have the option of leaving the car at home if they really want to. You talk about a modern city being designed "to facilitate people getting to work, getting to shops, getting the kids to school and band practice.". I agree. The problem is that your concept for getting people around is based on a single mode of transport - the car.

A city built for the car is a pretty apt description in this case.

 

[MisterF]

That's a separate issue. People have to live someplace. Whether or not the municipalities in which they live take public transit seriously or if their province anticipates transportation needs in terms of interurban lines and controlled access highways is another matter. You can't expect people to go live like rats someplace because governments won't face up to their responsibilities... why would they, if you simply let them off the hook?

Living like rats? What are you talking about? It's already been pointed out that most of the new 905 subdivisions have houses that are closer together than in the old streetcar suburbs. I think you're entirely missing the point of what makes a place pedestrian-friendly. It takes more than a sidewalk. In fact, all those things you hate about Toronto - the congestion, street parking, slow car traffic, narrow streets - are exactly what makes a city pedestrian friendly. It works that way in every city in the world. Just because it's possible to walk somewhere in the suburbs that doesn't mean most people will do it. There's a reason the Yonge Street is full of pedestrian traffic and Hurontario Street isn't. Even the main streets in the old villages like Weston and the Junction have more pedestrians than the big suburban streets.

You can't properly compare streetcar suburbs adjacent to downtown with stuff getting built 30km away next to cornfields. There's plenty of 905 areas which, if you were to add shopping strips on arterial roads, would have an urban form more or less identical to streetcar suburbs, but would not become substantially more urban. This applies to most of the 416, too.

Sure you can properly compare them. Streetcar suburbs were once next to cornfields too, except they were accessible because of streetcars. New suburbs 30 km out are no different. Theoretically, they should be just as accessible, except with regional rail. There's no reason that new neighbourhoods can't be planned just like streetcar suburbs, with urban main streets and regional rail stations fed by local buses.

I disagree that adding shopping strips on arterial roads would give suburbs a similar urban form to older neighbourhoods. Those suburbs have a lot of fundamentally suburban and car-oriented features besides the lack of shopping strips: wide multi-lane arterials with fast traffic, wide residential streets, long blocks because of infrequent intersections, a local-collector-arterial-highway hierarchy of streets, no grids to be found, garage-dominated residential streetscapes, segregated land uses, huge parking lots, backlotting on parks and main streets..............

Cornell and similar neighbourhoods are becoming more mainstream but they're still the exception. And even in those areas there's room for improvement.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Sure you can properly compare them. Streetcar suburbs were once next to cornfields too, except they were accessible because of streetcars. New suburbs 30 km out are no different. Theoretically, they should be just as accessible, except with regional rail. There's no reason that new neighbourhoods can't be planned just like streetcar suburbs, with urban main streets and regional rail stations fed by local buses.

I disagree that adding shopping strips on arterial roads would give suburbs a similar urban form to older neighbourhoods. Those suburbs have a lot of fundamentally suburban and car-oriented features besides the lack of shopping strips: wide multi-lane arterials with fast traffic, wide residential streets, long blocks because of infrequent intersections, a local-collector-arterial-highway hierarchy of streets, no grids to be found, garage-dominated residential streetscapes, segregated land uses, huge parking lots, backlotting on parks and main streets..............

Cornell and similar neighbourhoods are becoming more mainstream but they're still the exception. And even in those areas there's room for improvement.

If the GTA had many, many more proper mass transit lines running out to every suburban area, they probably would have developed differently. Often, the increased density of houses is cancelled out by decreased density of everything else (including overly abundant green space). If there was a great rail line running out to "New Town" ten miles north of Stouffville, with a village-like main street, I'm not convinced that the rote following of a 'streetcar suburb' checklist would be preferable for the purely residential streets that surround it.

Strict grids can be overrated - there's lots of really long rectangular blocks in our older suburbs. Block lengths vary wildly throughout the suburbs - some areas have enough parks and trails that pedestrians can get around very easily even as drivers are obstructed by loopy crescents. Houses back onto parks all over the city. Every neighbourhood has multi-lane arterials with fast traffic. Streetcar suburbs have segregated land uses, too - remove the main shopping strips and what do you have apart from houses?

Wide residential streets are often cancelled out by tiny backyards so that the houses are further apart front door to front door, but closer together in other directions. The aesthetics of old homes are preferred, though, so I'll give you that one - people would rather walk in pleasing places and crappy, lower middle class housing covered in aluminum siding or pink brick with keystones is just not going to be the same as strolling by the lovely old homes of the Annex or Lawrence Park. Older areas benefit immensely from mature tree cover...the dearth of vertical green things in newer suburbs means pedestrians may feel more exposed no matter what the setbacks and spacing are like.

In reality, pedestrians aren't so spleeny that the sight of garages or a metre of grass between the sidewalk and the road halts them in their tracks. And, of course, the backyards fronting arterials and much of the parking lots wouldn't be there if the arterials were lined like Yonge or Danforth, which was my point before...replace the houses and their backyards that back onto arterials with a 'main street strip' and run good transit out there and the area can function quite urbanly.

It doesn't matter to what degree it pretends to be a Victorian village, Cornell is doomed to failure if only because it's in the middle of nowhere...it isn't even near transit other than awful bus service.

 

[junctionist]

I've had some experience as a pedestrian and cyclist recently in Brampton and Oakville. Both are quickly growing suburbs. Notice the recent subdivisions Bovaird at Chinguacousy, there isn't a single home facing Bovaird. Backyards face the street, and the loop street design is common. This makes it difficult for pedestrians to get around, not to mention that a single subdivision will still go on for kilometres before one arrives at a plaza where the stores are built far from the street and typically require a walk through a parking lot.

What I hated about Mississauga is that in a commercial area such as on Royal Windsor Drive in the west end the sidewalk was only built on one side of the road, and actually switched sides randomly. Oakville was by far the worst. Farms have disappeared in the north by Dundas Street. However, Dundas remains a rural four lane highway, impossible to walk or even ride without fearing for your life (especially at bridges without shoulders). Upper Middle Road heading east features nothing but the fences of backyards. Credit is due for a separate bike path, but moving towards Ford Drive the sidewalk and bicycle path just ends.

Bicycle paths are plentiful in new suburbs. But they tend to be just a way to get around the subdivision, not to any destination such as Go Station, plaza, commercial strip or your office/manufacturing job. And if you're riding on the road, I've found drivers to be a lot more patient in Toronto if you follow the rules of the road. Under identical light traffic conditions on a four lane divided road in Toronto, drivers typically gave me the whole lane by using the centre lane to pass me. In Mississauga, under the same conditions, no one did this.

 

[Hydrogen]

Most suburban areas are more hospitable to pedestrians than they get credit for.

But considering the distances between most suburban shopping and ammenities, walking is rarely an option. Otherwise, your point is valid.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

It depends on the suburb. "Walking is rarely an option" is not a valid generality.

 

[Hydrogen]

Maybe its the suburbs that I've been to.

Of course, generalizations like hospitable are vague to begin with.

 

[Lone Primate]

Umm... Lakeshore, Hurontario, Dundas, and Burnhamthorpe all have sections of on-street parking.

I'm not talking about those little concrete pockets they build off to the side and slap meters on. I'm talking about parking in driving lanes on arterial roads. Such places in Mississauga are few and far between.

 

[Lone Primate]

Backyards face the street, and the loop street design is common.

Again, the idea is to limit disruptions to efficient transportation. Having driveways on arterial roads implies people backing either in or out, and the expectation people can park in front of houses. All those things are fine on residential side streets but they're the cause of accidents on arterial roads. How is this an impediment to anyone? The only people who benefitted from the older paradigm were people who actually lived on arterial roads. If you weren't one of them, you were living on a side street and had to walk to the arterial roads anyway, just like people in newer subdivisions.

This makes it difficult for pedestrians to get around

It doesn't make it difficult for anyone to get around; they're not lining the sidewalks with land mines or something. People just have to take access paths or walk to the feeder roads, the same as anyone who didn't actually live on an arterial road to begin with always had to do. Why wasn't that "difficult" for them?

 

[Pep'rJack]

In reality, pedestrians aren't so spleeny that the sight of garages or a metre of grass between the sidewalk and the road halts them in their tracks.

Pep'rJack learns a new word. Thanks!

 

[junctionist]

Again, the idea is to limit disruptions to efficient transportation. Having driveways on arterial roads implies people backing either in or out, and the expectation people can park in front of houses. All those things are fine on residential side streets but they're the cause of accidents on arterial roads. How is this an impediment to anyone? The only people who benefitted from the older paradigm were people who actually lived on arterial roads. If you weren't one of them, you were living on a side street and had to walk to the arterial roads anyway, just like people in newer subdivisions.

It doesn't make it difficult for anyone to get around; they're not lining the sidewalks with land mines or something. People just have to take access paths or walk to the feeder roads, the same as anyone who didn't actually live on an arterial road to begin with always had to do. Why wasn't that "difficult" for them?

Well, if you're looking for an address of a property facing the arterial road, it would be easier if the houses faced the street. Garages could be built on laneways in the back, eliminating any issue of cars backing out of driveways.

And I can't believe that there is this desire for an "efficient" road network above all else, when so many cars on the roads carry only the driver. Such inefficiency is common when a couple has to have two cars for commuting/everyday tasks, and eventually the teen also has a car.

 

[syn]

Again, the idea is to limit disruptions to efficient transportation. Having driveways on arterial roads implies people backing either in or out, and the expectation people can park in front of houses. All those things are fine on residential side streets but they're the cause of accidents on arterial roads. How is this an impediment to anyone? The only people who benefitted from the older paradigm were people who actually lived on arterial roads. If you weren't one of them, you were living on a side street and had to walk to the arterial roads anyway, just like people in newer subdivisions.

Again, you're definition of transportation is limited to the automobile.

You can find many instances in Toronto of neighborhoods with driveways facing the street without fenced backyards facing a major road.

It doesn't make it difficult for anyone to get around; they're not lining the sidewalks with land mines or something. People just have to take access paths or walk to the feeder roads, the same as anyone who didn't actually live on an arterial road to begin with always had to do. Why wasn't that "difficult" for them?

Reading comments like this makes me inclined to think you've never taken public transit. When people claim such design forms make it difficult for pedestrians, they don't always mean so in the most direct sense. Of course one can still walk on the sidewalk; but where is it located? Is it safe? Is it a viable transit solution? In many areas of the suburbs, the answer to all of these questions is no, even if only in perception.

For example, do you think a lot of people feel safe waiting for the bus on an empty sidewalk with a fence behind them after dark? What about the increased walking distances with nothing more than a fence beside them?

You're looking at walking entirely from a motorists point of view. Sidewalks alone do not make an environment pedestrian friendly.

 

[doady]

I've had some experience as a pedestrian and cyclist recently in Brampton and Oakville. Both are quickly growing suburbs. Notice the recent subdivisions Bovaird at Chinguacousy, there isn't a single home facing Bovaird. Backyards face the street, and the loop street design is common. This makes it difficult for pedestrians to get around, not to mention that a single subdivision will still go on for kilometres before one arrives at a plaza where the stores are built far from the street and typically require a walk through a parking lot.

Actually in your example, most of the crescents do not have houses blocking access to the arterial.

I'm not talking about those little concrete pockets they build off to the side and slap meters on. I'm talking about parking in driving lanes on arterial roads. Such places in Mississauga are few and far between.

So what difference does that make? Toronto may not have as wide roads, but there are more such roads to begin with. The arterials in downtown Toronto are much closer together than in Mississauga. The fact is, the streets of downtown Toronto have less traffic congestion than those of Mississauga, so your whole argument about Mississauga's transportation being more efficient doesn't much sense at all in the first place.