Danielinthecity
Active Member
Be sorry for yourself too...we may not share the same views, but we share the same air...
|
|
|
Should cities start blocking urban sprawl?
- Thread starter Ervin
- Start date
Be sorry for yourself too...we may not share the same views, but we share the same air...
BMO
Senior Member
isn't "blocking sprawl" essentially what places to grow is supposed to do?
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
cfloryan
Here
YES let's stop them! Let's eliminate all new land for development! But do you know what happens when you do this? Housing prices go up. Look at Vancouver: They ran out of development land and the average house price is what? $700,000?
Do you want to pay $700,000 for a house? (or $400,000 for a one bedroom condo with a view out the window of someone else's 1 bedroom condo?)
Supply/Demand people. Let's not forget the fundamentals here.
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
^^ You're right, we should just build as much suburbia as we want. Who cares about forests and farms and clean water and nature, we need those cheap 4 bedroom houses!
Oh wait, I was thinking in the mind of an anti-environmentalist for a second there. Do you honestly see nothing wrong with undending suburbanization? At some point, we'll have to start building high density. The only question is how much farmland we eat up before doing so.
Oh wait, I was thinking in the mind of an anti-environmentalist for a second there. Do you honestly see nothing wrong with undending suburbanization? At some point, we'll have to start building high density. The only question is how much farmland we eat up before doing so.
cfloryan
Here
But if you double the size of the GTA's built-up area you're still left with 99% of Ontario as forest and farmland. We really don't have a shortage of land.
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
But you'd lose an entire 1.3% of Southern Ontario to suburbia, which isn't even including actual farmland. If we were judging by actual farmland, it'd be over 2.5% of the arable land in Ontario just to house 5 million more people (which isn't actually the case because free suburbanization will yield a far lower density than we currently have, with not as much new high density development due to lower housing costs in the suburbs.) So really, it'd be closer to a full 5% of all arable land in Southern Ontario for the GTA to double in population with unchecked suburbanization (a reasonable expectation given current growth rates,) of which a significant portion (at least another 4 or 5%) is already urbanized.
And even 1% is huge. If that 1% of farmland was going towards feeding the city itself, would you stand by to let 50,000 people die of starvation? How about the huge amount of toxic runoff that'd be seeping straight through the soil into the lake that we drink water from? Or the amount of gasoline it'd take to accommodate so many trips across such large distances? Or the increased amount of salt and dirty snow we'd be throwing around everywhere in the wintertime? People in the GTA would have to travel much farther to go out to the woods or country for the day. Nature would become even more isolated and fragmented than it is now.
What about habitat destruction? Through this "we're such a tiny impact on the earth" idea, we've managed to cause one of the largest global extinction events ever, as well as start the chain of events that will likely lead to an over 1 degree increase in global temperature and tens of feet more water in the oceans.
And what's that for? So we can all live "comfortable" lives in 4 bedroom houses with a 3 car garage and swimming pool out back? Firstly, it's been noted that you're under the delusion that's what everyone wants, and secondly, human society exists within the global ecosystem. If we have to hunker down and live a bit more meagrely in order to stop the Earth from being destroyed, it should be a no-brainer what the proper solution is.
And we wouldn't be hunkering down and living more meagrely; you'd be able to walk anywhere you wanted! No more arduous hour long trips down the DVP. You could have magnitudes more friends and family local to you than you ever could in a suburban environment. You could just walk down the street with your kids to a local restaurant instead of driving for 20 minutes to McDonalds. You'd be able to enjoy a vibrant and more local community.
What exactly is so bad about a more urban lifestyle that you're hell bent on building as much suburb as possible?
lafard
Active Member
http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/agrc25g-eng.htm
Total land in farms: 5,386,453 ha.
This is 53,860 km^2.
City of Toronto is 630 km^2, nearly completely urbanized.
City of Mississauga is 290km^2, nearly completely urbanized. If Mississauga is typical of urban density, there are about 3 more Mississaugas of urbanized land in 905, totalling ~3 million people and 1100 km^2. Mississauga's density is skewed down somewhat by the airport, but much of the remaining 905 also has enormous tracts of transportation-only land (eg, rail yards in Vaughan, the "Parkway belt" et al that although not densely developed, can be considered "urbanized".
This is still 1100km^ more land.
In fact, GTA has already urbanized around 3.5% of all farmland in Ontario. That farmland figure, by the way, includes a wide swath of marginal farmland - little more than glorified sand, really - in Northern Ontario, around Chelmsford north of Sudbury, New Liskeard, Thunder Bay, Rainey River, the Soo, etc.
The 519 has a similar amount of urbanized land, as does the 613, and half as much again in non-GTA 905. Most of this is on prime farmland. All told the image of farm land loss is far grimmer than it looks, superficially.
The GTA could double its urbanized area, but would sit on more than a tenth of the formerly prime farmland in Ontario. Is single family houses and backyards really the optimal use of that land?
Keep in mind that Ontario sits on the largest proportion of class 1 and 2 farmland in Canada. Other than the St Lawrence valley, some valleys in BC, and pockets in the maritimes, that's it for prime farmland. Cities like Saskatoon debate conserving Class 4 farmland as it's considered high quality in the area.
At some point, owning a piece of land becomes a very privileged position. Nobody says you cna't have a yard, but be prepared to pay for the privilege.
Vancouver's a terrible example - they are not running out of land, like "foreign investment" it's an excuse to justify an enormous real estate bubble. The majority of residential construction is still single houses, although most development is actually redevelopment of a large residential lot into between three and twelve small lots. Surrey has been building hundreds of houses a year without losing a square foot of farmland, as the land supply is largely redeveloped "estate lots".
cfloryan
Here
That's a lot to retort so I'll just make two points:
---
AFFORDABILITY ISSUES
You will agree that capping suburbanization leads to higher housing prices? (All empirical evidence does suggest so)
If we cap suburbanization in the GTA and prices go up, can you personally afford a, say $700,000 dwelling? If not are you willing to put up with something less desireable or to move to another, cheaper city?
Many people wouldn't be able to afford that and will either choose to move elsewhere or live more impoverished. Should we see a rise in poverty in exchange for helping the environment? Is poverty or a bad environment worse? (Though one could easily argue that suburbia, if done right, doesn't worsen the environment... I'll leave that point of view for another post)
----
SUPERIORITY OF URBAN LIFESTYLE?
With all due respect I do live an "urban" lifestyle right now and walking to my neighbourhood McDonalds (or better restaurants) takes longer than driving to local establishments from my parents suburban house, , it doesn't improve my social life (do I need to live within a few blocks of my friends?), and shopping for anything that takes up more than 2 grocery bags is just not possible. Oh and actually driving from my parents suburb downtown is faster than taking the subway from my more centrally located place.
cfloryan
Here
I wrote farms and forests.
Ontario = 1,076,000 km^2
Urban GTA = 3000km^2 from your figures above?
So then we're replaced 0.3% of Ontario's forests and farms with an urban area.
And I don't see why Vancouver's such a bad example? Eve nwithout the bubble it's had high housing prices since agricultural reserve lands were introduced. All land in the Lower Mainland that's open for development has been developed (all remaining land is part of the the agricultural land reserve). Evidently subdividing existing lots for new housing and building "hundreds ofnew houses" can't keep up with the demand side of the equation.
What's another place that's capped suburbanization? The Bay Area! avg house price: $500,000. ($800,000 before the housing crash)
lafard
Active Member
If sprawl were destroying primarily forest then that might be valid.
However, 90% of the land it's destroying is farms, which are in much shorter supply than Ontario's total land area. The subset of land being destroyed is almost entirely within that 5% of land that is agricultural.
Sprawl is a serious threat to farmland. It's not a threat to forests. I must admit though, that places up north where growth occurs mainly on forest could use a bit more reason in development. Sudburys' got the worst urban planning I've ever seen, it's almost American.
I'm aware of the land situation in the lower mainland; I spent the better part of my teenage years living in Abbotsford. The ALR is extremely political even 35 years after its introduction. The claim is put forth mostly by a right wing think tank funded primarily by land speculators and developers with significant holdings in the ALR. If they can get it pulled out its value immediately quadruples even before it's developed so obviously they'll put out studies claiming the ALR needs to be removed. Surrey, Maple ridge, PoCo, Abbotsford, Langley, Mission, Chilliwack, all sit on many thousands of hectares of developable land outside the ALR.
It's exactly the same sort of situation that would exist were a bunch of Greenbelt landowners to band together and say the Greenbelt was making houses unaffordable in the GTA while Brampton, Barrie, Vaughan, etc still have 30 year supplies of land in their "white belts". Tilting at windmills.
However, 90% of the land it's destroying is farms, which are in much shorter supply than Ontario's total land area. The subset of land being destroyed is almost entirely within that 5% of land that is agricultural.
Sprawl is a serious threat to farmland. It's not a threat to forests. I must admit though, that places up north where growth occurs mainly on forest could use a bit more reason in development. Sudburys' got the worst urban planning I've ever seen, it's almost American.
I'm aware of the land situation in the lower mainland; I spent the better part of my teenage years living in Abbotsford. The ALR is extremely political even 35 years after its introduction. The claim is put forth mostly by a right wing think tank funded primarily by land speculators and developers with significant holdings in the ALR. If they can get it pulled out its value immediately quadruples even before it's developed so obviously they'll put out studies claiming the ALR needs to be removed. Surrey, Maple ridge, PoCo, Abbotsford, Langley, Mission, Chilliwack, all sit on many thousands of hectares of developable land outside the ALR.
It's exactly the same sort of situation that would exist were a bunch of Greenbelt landowners to band together and say the Greenbelt was making houses unaffordable in the GTA while Brampton, Barrie, Vaughan, etc still have 30 year supplies of land in their "white belts". Tilting at windmills.
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
Firstly, yeah if I had to choose poverty vs large environmental damage, I'd choose the environment.
Secondly, it doesn't need to be poverty. If you run out of room to build single family houses, start making mid rise apartments and high rise buildings, or redeveloping larger lot housing. This will not raise housing prices substantially, and might actually lower prices down than from what they are today (due to current pressure to prevent sprawl.) So, I will not agree that capping suburbanization leads to higher housing prices. Take a look at East Asian cities; density's cheap there. It's also cheap in slums, places with the lowest land values in cities and sometimes without any housing price at all. Under the current suburban model, yes density would cost more. But that model's easy to overcome.
When you have the market focused on single family housing as you do now, any high density is going to be a niche market. This means that high density's high prices become a self-perpetuating system, as only the rich are able to afford high density, while the poorer or less committed people buy up houses that are able to be cheap because of the huge market. When you put pressure on this model by restricting suburban development a bit, as we see already, prices will rise because less houses are able to be built.
But if you've got high density as the norm and detached housing as the niche market for country folk at heart, it's a whole new story. While higher density slowly builds over lower density and infills vacant lots, you have opportunity for people that are fine either way (or even want higher density but can't afford it) to start taking those new opened houses, as well as a large number of newcomers to the city that feel the same way.
These people coming out of the turning niche market suburban housing open up room for newcomers that would really like a detached house, while in total allowing for more people to economically fit into the city without disturbing farmland. Just a comfortable mildly redeveloped GTA could easily fit in 2 or 3x as many people as we have now without intruding on new land, and giving countless opportunities for local business and public transit (also improving the efficiency of public transit by giving density of scale for subway, LRT, and regional rail.)
I'm quite intrigued as to why you'd say that suburbia doesn't worsen the environment.
It's kind of hard to note the superiority of driving to subway when our subway network's been neglected for the past 30 years while our roads have been a top priority for the past 60. And even still, are you driving downtown during rush hour? Are you driving downtown from Bowmanville? (which is the distance many would be living in 30 years if the GTA were to continue sprawling outwards.)
In a city built equally for transit and the automobile (eg. London, Paris, New York City,) transit is commonly around the same speed as driving, and the only reason driving is any good is because so much of the population is taking transit. And, transit keeps you active, frees up space for more housing, helps those that can't afford or drive an automobile, and forces you to socialize.
If you need a reason why it'd be good for you to live close to your friends and family, I'd recommend that you go out and get some friends and family. What happens when you're close to your loved ones? You have opportunities to see them more often, especially casually, leading to more enriching relationships. It's not as much of a hassle to go to a "local" restaurant or to invite them over. In the suburbs, your mate from work/school/wherever could be kilometres away halfway across the region, making an intimate (human) relationship hard and further isolating yourself to your household.
For me, it's hard enough getting around the relatively small region of the city I interact with, even in a car. I couldn't imagine someone who's ties stretch from Brampton to Durham or (god forbid) is inhabiting the 2.5x as big GTA that you'd like to see with unchecked suburbanization.
Dandy Horse
Active Member
there are a lot of spaces between things in the driving suburbs that we could fit new things into. in fact i would go as far as to say that the dominant architectural form here is the void. Not only should we ban the expansion of any urbanization, but banning the expansion is the only thing that can help the existing car-centered sprawl. With nowhere to build, the spaces will have to be filled, aging neighborhoods will have to be reinvested in, and these places may actually become hospitable for those who live there sans auto.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
We need higher, more medium density in new developments and in infill developments. Also, allow basement apartments, currently illegally in most municipalities. Also, more mixed zoning, no more single use buildings, separating commercial and residential from each other. End the use of cul-de-sacs, so people can walk to one destination to another. Enough already with the big box stores, you only end up having to use your car and use more gasoline than the item you wanted to buy. Same with schools, especially the elementary schools, parents should walk their kids to and from school and not take their car. And better public transit, start with buses in brand new developments, then switch to light rail as it is filled up, and then should the developments warrant it in time put in heavy rail (but only when there is high density).
Action Jackson
New Member
One could fire back at this comment by pointing out that taking transit allows you to leave the driving to somebody else. I NEVER drive my car into the city, because its quite frankly a pain in the arse, even with my cushy car, with seats like good easy chairs, perfectly-weighted controls and my XM Sirius satellite radio. Car companies IMO should be promoters of mass transit, because in major cities, where 80% of the population of Canada, the United States, most of Western Europe and Australia live, traffic is a major problem. Better transit from suburbs into the city reduces traffic, which can only benefit drivers. I'd wager there are many people who drive into the city because there is no other option that works in their schedule or needs. Living in Oshawa and going to Durham College, using DRT buses takes me 25 min to get to class, a trip which takes about five in an automobile. Some will always drive cars, but the point is to get people out of them as much as possible.