News   Nov 14, 2024
 642     0 
News   Nov 14, 2024
 1.1K     0 
News   Nov 14, 2024
 470     0 

Should cities start blocking urban sprawl?

You don't think raising a family in a traditonal environment (i.e. single family home) is the most desirable? Resorting to ad hominen attacks and ridicule will only diminish what little of an argument you might have had.
And as a non-gay man, I doubt very highly I'll raise my children in a "traditional" household as well. Not everyone finds it the most desirable, and I'll guess that the biggest reason a vast majority of people living in single family home are doing so is because there is a lack of options. If they can get a cheap condo/apartment that can accommodate a family, they would. But such a thing basically doesn't exist in the city, and so they flock to suburban housing.
 
You guys may want to familiarize yourself with the planning framework in Ontario which has been turned on its head the last few years in efforts to manage growth - Ontario's plan to combat sprawl has won numerous planning awards across North America and is being hailed as a blueprint for other jurisdictions to follow. Without droning on here's a couple key points:

Places to Grow Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (an area anticipated to grow by 3.7 million people between 2001 & 2031)
- Extensive consultation between 2003 & 2006
- Includes growth forecasts and specific population allocations for all municipalities in GGH (19 upper & single tier & 89 lower tier)
- Plan came into force on June 16, 2006
- Municipalities were given until June 16, 2009 to conform official plans to the growth plan
- Extension recently given to June 16, 2010
- Once O.P.s are in conformity & approved by province there is a 3 year window to bring zoning into conformity with O.P.'s

Some details of plan
- A built boundary was established on June 16, 2009 - by 2015 - 40% of all growth must occur within the built boundary (this is a very ambitious target)
- Any growth outside the built boundary must have densities over 50 persons and jobs per hectare (designated greenfield areas i.e. 'The White Belt') – again a rather ambitious target
- Urban Growth Centres established in 25 communities with boundaries to be delineated within O.P's with density targets of 150 persons and jobs per hectare (downtown Barrie, Downtown Brantfort, Downtown Cambridge, Downtown Guelph, Downtown Peterborough, Downtown St. Catharines); 200 persons and jobs per hectare (Downtown Bampton, Downtown Burlington, Downtown Hamilton, downtown Kitchener, Uptown waterloo, Markham centre, downtown Milton, MCC, Newmarket Centre, Midtown Oakville, Downtown Oshawa, Downtown Pickering, Richmond Hill / Langstaff Gateway, Vaughan Metropolitan Centre) and 400 persons & jobs per hectare (downtown toronto, Etobicoke Centre, NYCC, SCC and Yonge-Eglinton Centre)
- The growth plan establishes very specific criteria that must be met for urban boundary expansions to occur
- Employment land studies are underway
- The plan is very detailed and complex and involves numerous Ministries and a huge amount of work – the conformity exercise alone is into its 4th year.

Simcoe Area Growth Strategy
- Legislation was passed recently resolving the Barrie-Innisfil servicing dispute
- Simcoe Area: A strategic Vision for growth - released in 2009 and municipalities are currently working towards O.P. conformity
- Lake Simcoe Protection Act and Lake Simcoe Protection Strategy passed last year – first type of watershed based planning legislation passed in Canada.

Provincial Policy Statement
- Updated in 2005 and a review is occurring this year – the PPS guides all planning decisions in the province – once again with a heavy emphasis on intensification

Planning Act Reform (Bill 51)
- major reforms to the planning act and OMB took place a couple years ago
- shifts the planning framework to heavily promote intensification


Brownfields amendments to Ontario Regulation 153/04
- A package a regulatory amendments were approved by the province in late 2009 with a transition period ending July 1, 2011

Greenbelt Protection Act
- Greenbelt Act became law in February 2005
- protects 1.8 million acres of land
- Criteria established for greenbelt expansion in summer 2008

Metrolinx
- Regional Transportation Plan
- Mobility Hubs are key component to plan and transportation oriented development and policies with respect to land use are being reviewed

I could go on and on, but needless to say we have a very very activist government when it comes to land use planning in the Province after decades (by all stripes of government) of relatively little to no involvement in strategic and regional planning.
 
Our govermnet may be activist in terms of commisioning award-winning reports, but from what I've seen in the plans for North Oakville and Seaton they'll end up with as much sprawl on their hands as most governments.
 
^ Currently 'we' (GTA) have less sprawl than most comparable jurisdictions in the U.S. in terms of population density (that doesn't mean we don't have major issues, but that we are already far ahead of most U.S. cities in terms of our built form). North Oakville was approved prior to the growth plan coming into effect - north oakville is also hardly business as usual - the years of negotiations resulted in public land takings which border on ridiculous - so it by no means is going to look exactly like mid-oakville or mississauga. Don't let perfection get in the way of progress - there are a lot of different stakeholders and interests at play and the north oakville saga has been going on for almost 20 years prior to approvals being granted.

Seaton will be interesting - it's being touted as a model for future suburban development and a showcase for new energy related initiatives - however we are still likely years away from anything concrete really happening there.
 
Last edited:
Seaton will have a lot of the same issues North Oakville had (an orgy of public land taking). The 'model sustainable community' stuff for Seaton is not gonna happen. The current plans show around 55,000 people in detached homes. The first phase includes a power centre (no suburb would be complete without one). The Ontario governement is hoping the employement district turns out the same as York Region's (which is nearly 100% car based).

I've heard from a lot of suburbabn planners that Toronto is way ahead of the US in terms of greenfield development. I belive them, I'm just not convinced we're good enough yet. I don't think we're setting up the suburbs to transition from car-oriented communities to transit / walking oriented communities over time. I'd be much happier if we either built balanced, urban communities from the start or, failing that, built communities with a street layout and land use distribution that allowed for a succesful transition.
 
Or, as I posted before, just halt that suburban development and pump all the region's growth into high density instead. The built GTA already covers a lot of land, much of it is just waiting to be redeveloped. There would be great benefits to building up places to grow and other density nodes ASAP, which would then allow for suburban redevelopment around the areas and avenuization between and radiating outwards from them. Maybe 20 or 30 years down the road, we can start talking about letting up some more land for sale.
 
valkoholic, in general I agree with you, we've got a long way to go, but we're slowly but surely getting on the right track - change takes a while to occur, especially major legislative changes and then the conformity followed by implementation and even once those changes are in place the results on the ground take a while to show up to the casual observer. (for those not familiar with development and planning - the lifecycle of many large scale projects can be measured in years, sometimes decades - changes take a while to filter through the system)

Second in Pie - sure in an ideal world we could stop on a dime and change directions immediately. It's not an ideal world and there would be major unintended consequences of what you've suggested, the first being skyrocketing housing prices, declining affordability, less competitive businesses - especially land intensive businesses that simply aren't structured to operate in medium-to-high density environments. This would lead to other major inflationary problems and a declining quality of life and income levels for people in the GTA not to mention major employment issues and declining tax revenues for governments already in major deficit positions (whether you like it or not, suburban development and land markets are major part of the economy - there is a reason why housing starts are one of the key economic indicators tracked by governments and banks).

I'm by no means suggesting the status quo is the way to go - it obviously is not. Change is necessary in an age of peak oil, climate change and massive congestion. But to draw a line in the sand and say 'stop' would have major economic consequences and lead to social and political upheaval (politicians won't get a lot of votes for increasing unemployment, decreasing economic competitiveness with other jurisdictions and causing home prices to skyrocket - it would be a suicidal platform - meaning it isn't going to happen).
 
Last edited:
You guys may want to familiarize yourself with the planning framework in Ontario which has been turned on its head the last few years in efforts to manage growth - Ontario's plan to combat sprawl has won numerous planning awards across North America and is being hailed as a blueprint for other jurisdictions to follow. Without droning on here's a couple key points:

Downtown Cambridge, Downtown Guelph, Downtown Peterborough, Downtown St. Catharines); 200 persons and jobs per hectare (Downtown Bampton, Downtown Burlington, Downtown Hamilton, downtown Kitchener, Uptown waterloo, Markham centre, downtown Milton, MCC, Newmarket Centre, Midtown Oakville, Downtown Oshawa, Downtown Pickering, Richmond Hill / Langstaff Gateway, Vaughan Metropolitan Centre) and 400 persons & jobs per hectare (downtown toronto, Etobicoke Centre, NYCC, SCC and Yonge-Eglinton Centre)

For some perspective downtown Toronto (wards 20,27,28)

Area 800, 800 1400 hectares resp.
Population 59,545 , 67,840 , 58,920 resp.
Employment by location - 1989 103,302 , 161,532 , 146,073
Employment by location - 2004 108,058 , 127,291 , 149,154

Total population + employment density (04) = 190

Job losses have outstripped population growth over the last 20 years.
 
Marc, sorry if I didn't make it clear - I'm attacking the report, not you. I think the guy who wrote it is a bonehead. Not you. Apologize for any confusion. I don't think he can read his own statistics. I thank you for pointing out the report - it was entertaining.

And no, as a gay man, I doubt very highly I will raise my children in a "traditional" household. If we accept that "traditional" has any meaning, it has to exclude anyone who isn't "traditional": ie, gay men raising their kids in a condo.

:):cool:
 
What is a traditional suburban household? In the days when suburbia began, the average target family was a man employed in a single company for his whole career, a stay-at-home wife, and 3 kids. This is not your typical 2010 family.
 
Last edited:
What is a traditional suburban household? In the days when suburbia began, the average target family was a man employed in a single company for his whole career, a stay-at-home wife, and 3 kids. This is not your typical 2010 family.

I agree with you. For better or worse those days are long gone.
 
According to an article in the Harvard Business Review, companies are returning back to cities, leaving the suburbs. See this link for the article.

Back to the City
by Ania Wieckowski

United Air Lines is set to move its operational headquarters, starting this year, from the Illinois suburb of Elk Grove to downtown Chicago. Quicken Loans, also citybound, recently began leasing space in Detroit and plans to build its headquarters there. And in February, Walgreens announced its acquisition of New York drugstore chain Duane Reade, signaling a deliberate decision to improve its capabilities in urban settings.

These companies are getting a jump on a major cultural and demographic shift away from suburban sprawl. The change is imminent, and businesses that don’t understand and plan for it may suffer in the long run.

To put it simply, the suburbs have lost their sheen: Both young workers and retiring Boomers are actively seeking to live in densely packed, mixed-use communities that don’t require cars—that is, cities or revitalized outskirts in which residences, shops, schools, parks, and other amenities exist close together. “In the 1950s, suburbs were the future,†says University of Michigan architecture and urban-planning professor Robert Fishman, commenting on the striking cultural shift. “The city was then seen as a dingy environment. But today it’s these urban neighborhoods that are exciting and diverse and exploding with growth.â€

Why Such a Major Shift?

The change is about more than evolving tastes; it’s at least partly a reaction to real problems created by suburbs. Their damage to quality of life is well chronicled. For instance, studies in 2003 by the American Journal of Public Health and the American Journal of Health Promotion linked sprawl to rising obesity rates. (By contrast, new research in Preventive Medicine demonstrates, people living in more urban communities reap health benefits because they tend to walk more.) Car culture hurts mental health as well. Research by behavioral economist Daniel Kahneman and his team shows that out of a number of daily activities, commuting has the most negative effect on people’s moods. And economists Bruno S. Frey and Alois Stutzer have found that commuters who live an hour away from work would need to earn 40% more money than they currently do to be as satisfied with their lives as noncommuters.

A recent report sponsored by Bank of America, the Greenbelt Alliance, and the Low Income Housing Fund examines the inefficiencies of the current “geographical mismatch between workers and jobs.†Focusing on California, it says that sprawl “reduc[es] the quality of life,†“increase the attractiveness of neighboring states,†and yields “higher direct business costs and taxes to offset the side-effects of sprawlâ€â€”which include transportation, health care, and environmental costs.

Solving problems like these is on the Congress for the New Urbanism’s agenda as the group holds its conference this month in Atlanta, fittingly cosponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As the CNU’s charter explains, proponents of New Urbanism, an architecture and design movement, advocate for “neighborhoods...diverse in use and population†and “communities...designed for the pedestrian and [public] transit as well as the car.†Max Reim of the urban-planning firm Live Work Learn Play describes the model by alluding to Starbucks’s creation of a “third place†for consumers, away from home and work. New Urban centers deliberately put all three places in close proximity, he says, with plenty of room for pedestrians and bikes. Houses are on the same streets (often in the same buildings) as shops; trains and parks are within walking distance from home.

How Companies Can Benefit

In the last U.S. census, almost two-thirds (64%) of college-educated 25- to 34-year-olds said they looked for a job after they chose the city where they wanted to live. That suggests that businesses like Quicken Loans are on to something: Move in and help build up urban neighborhoods, the argument goes, because that’s what will draw the talent.

For example, CEOs for Cities president Carol Coletta says that by supporting education in cities, companies not only help improve the prospects of entrants to the workforce but also enhance the overall value of the city and hence its attractiveness as a place for people to live and work. CEOs for Cities research suggests that increasing the proportion of residents with four-year-college degrees in the 51 largest metropolitan areas by only one percentage point would be associated with a $124 billion spike in aggregate annual per capita income.

“Increasingly CEOs understand that without a vibrant central city, their region becomes less competitive,†says Coletta. “Good CEOs care about the fate of their cities, because they have to question whether that is the place where they can attract the talent they need.â€

A shift to an urban model affects corporate strategy—especially for retail businesses currently thriving in strip malls on busy commuting arteries. Firms base many decisions on store locations and the types of customers served, and a move to the city changes both. Cheri Morris, CEO of the New Urban design firm Hedgewood Commercial Properties, warns that the rigid criteria for national chains’ store locations—such as deep buildings and interstate visibility—often render them unable to conform to the aesthetic or logistical requirements of New Urban developments, leaving them locked out of such areas entirely. Even in more traditional urban areas, big-box stores are forced to configure their familiar floor plans into narrower, multilevel spaces.

Marketing changes, too. In densely packed, walkable centers of living, “many of the benefits of costly national branding go away, while the benefits of passion and a close connection to the customer emerge,†says Peter Katz, the head planner for Sarasota County, Florida. In such settings, he and other New Urbanists believe, it’s easier for small, local, experience- and relationship-based businesses to thrive, and indeed many New Urban developers seek merchants like these to populate their newly minted commercial areas. Bigger retail companies will have to work hard to adopt strategies that take New Urban principles into account and learn to provide an authentic “local†experience.

In many ways, New Urbanism and the trends it captures are part of broader recent changes businesses already accept: the shift to an experience economy, consumers’ and employees’ demands for greater corporate social responsibility, an emphasis on work/life balance, and the importance of interaction between companies and their customers. The demographic aspect is simply the newest part of an ongoing conversation. Companies that recognize the larger trend, however, and seize the opportunities that it presents will contribute to its social impact—and may gain a competitive advantage in the process.
—A.W.
 
^^^ I think this shift has a lot to do with changes in peoples' perception of safety in urban centres, particularly in America, over the past decade. To be specific, the massive crime waves experienced by cities in the 1990s have subsided (largely due to the Roe v. Wade court decision of 1973). This has to be an equal if not more important factor than their geographic mismatch theory, but perceptions are difficult to measure compared to distances and commute times.
 
Last edited:
Found an interesting website called American Makeover, just started. Here's its first video called SPRAWLANTA.

[video=youtube;XoVXoB6x3vM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoVXoB6x3vM[/video]

American Makeover is a six-episode web series taking you to six cities across America in search of the antidote to suburban sprawl.
 
That Atlanta neighbourhood is a little too "Stuff White People Like", but it looks like it has assembled the kind of stores and services that Toronto's new developments fail to attract. I mean, there are independent coffee shops and pubs setting up in that New Urbanist hood. In Toronto, we'd be lucky if anything more than a Rabba locates to the base of a new condo. Of course, this has partly to do with the fact that there aren't too many existing urban spaces in Atlanta for the kind of stores and services that tend to appeal to urban lifestyles to locate to. In Toronto, miles of lower-priced, pre-war commercial strips are more attractive to these kinds of stores than the base of a newly-built condo. Nevertheless, from my experience in new American developments, the retail space is not treated as an afterthought to the condo tower as it is here in Toronto. They seem to be more inventive with how they repurpose the ground floor space.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top