Should cities start blocking urban sprawl?

[Danielinthecity]

Assumptions!

"Should Cities Start Blocking Urban Sprawl?"

NO. Most people don't want to live in towers.

Huh? What do towers have to do with anything...????? You can block urban sprawl and NOT have anybody living in towers!

 

[W. K. Lis]

Blocking sprawl can only be done by rezoning and changing by-laws. Several by-laws requiring parking spaces (many of them free) have to be repealed or altered. Unfortunately, there are politicians that even when told of the problems of sprawl, ignore them. Start with the current crop of politicians currently on the ballot. Ask them, when they come to your door, on their stand on sprawl and vote accordingly.

 

[cfloryan]

Huh? What do towers have to do with anything...????? You can block urban sprawl and NOT have anybody living in towers!

Um ok so if you block the city from expanding outwards where's the only direction it can expand? Upwards. I don't think this is hard to understand.

 

[jje1000]

Um ok so if you block the city from expanding outwards where's the only direction it can expand? Upwards. I don't think this is hard to understand.

You're thinking in extremes. Towers are not an essential part of density. It's possible to hold at least another 1-2 million people in Toronto if the suburbs were rebuilt at a Paris-level of density.

 

[cfloryan]

You're thinking in extremes. Towers are not an essential part of density. It's possible to hold at least another 1-2 million people in Toronto if the suburbs were rebuilt at a Paris-level of density.

Sure but those are still towers.. be it 9-11 story towers rather than the 50 floors that usually pop into our minds when we hear "tower." My point really is that not everyone wants to live in multi-unit buildings. Most people (Yes, I know, it's hard to believe to the Urban Toronto crowd, but really, most people) prefer to have a single house with a yard. The reason most DON'T live in single houses (in Europe or Asia) is because they're not affordable. They have no choice but to live in multi-unit buildings but believe me they'd run at the chance to have a yard.

Of course most young people(say 18-30) prefer dense, downtown living, and arrogantly and naivly presume that this preference is universal. But oh well that's UT for you

 

[Ladies Mile]

This is of course why Park Avenue apartment buildings command some of the highest square footage prices in the Western Hemisphere.

All those wacky 18-30 year olds.

 

[cfloryan]

This is of course why Park Avenue apartment buildings command some of the highest square footage prices in the Western Hemisphere.

All those wacky 18-30 year olds.

Right, anyone can always find a counterexample to anything.

But Manhattan (and now Brooklyn too!) is still predominantly 21-35 year olds (I had to change the age bracket after a bit of thought), and yes they are willing to pay half their incomes on housing to be "in the center of it all," which drives up the property values to insane levels.

But relating this back to the point: Most people (let's define it: >50%) prefer living in single family homes.

 

[gabe]

This is of course why Park Avenue apartment buildings command some of the highest square footage prices in the Western Hemisphere.

All those wacky 18-30 year olds.

Most of those rich folks on Park Ave also own houses in wealthy suburbs like Putnam County, and Suffolk County, for weekend retreats. I think it's pretty obvious weather you like it or not people prefer living in single family homes. Vaughan is one of the fastest growing cities in Canada I don't see a whole lot of high rises under construction there just millions of cookie cutter homes.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Part of it. Another part is that the cars tend to be more efficient. Australia's fuel costs are about the same as Canada, which are significantly higher than the US, and people tend to drive cars or smaller vans/SUVs than the monstrosities that rule American roads. One of my opinions is that somebody who buys a Ford Expedition just to drive to work is either paranoid about safety or just plain nuts.

Ironic, because SUVs are actually considerably more dangerous than regular cars.

 

[jje1000]

Sure but those are still towers.. be it 9-11 story towers rather than the 50 floors that usually pop into our minds when we hear "tower." My point really is that not everyone wants to live in multi-unit buildings. Most people (Yes, I know, it's hard to believe to the Urban Toronto crowd, but really, most people) prefer to have a single house with a yard. The reason most DON'T live in single houses (in Europe or Asia) is because they're not affordable. They have no choice but to live in multi-unit buildings but believe me they'd run at the chance to have a yard.

Of course most young people(say 18-30) prefer dense, downtown living, and arrogantly and naivly presume that this preference is universal. But oh well that's UT for you

I'm pretty sure that looks like 9-11 stories. It doesn't even need to be as dense as that. Even replacing the 50s-70s housing stock with detached housing at the density as that in the Annex would be fine.

I don't live in the downtown core, but it's much better for everyone if you stay away from making blanket statements that assume that it's only those folks who think oh so differently. Also, please back up your statement that >50% of people prefer houses with yards.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Right, anyone can always find a counterexample to anything.

But Manhattan (and now Brooklyn too!) is still predominantly 21-35 year olds (I had to change the age bracket after a bit of thought), and yes they are willing to pay half their incomes on housing to be "in the center of it all," which drives up the property values to insane levels.

But relating this back to the point: Most people (let's define it: >50%) prefer living in single family homes.

How do we know they wouldn't be happy with a reasonable alternative? Give families a reasonably priced 3-bedroom apartment in a nice neighborhood, maybe close to transit and a local main street, and I feel like tonnes of people'll be going after a more high density lifestyle.

 

[Ladies Mile]

Right, anyone can always find a counterexample to anything.

But Manhattan (and now Brooklyn too!) is still predominantly 21-35 year olds (I had to change the age bracket after a bit of thought), and yes they are willing to pay half their incomes on housing to be "in the center of it all," which drives up the property values to insane levels.

But relating this back to the point: Most people (let's define it: >50%) prefer living in single family homes.

According to the 2000 US Census data, the average age for Manhattan is 38.3--slightly higher than the national average of 36.8.

So your information is crap.

I would add the Upper West Side, Murray Hill, TriBeCa, the West Village and large swathes of the East side of the island as monied areas with plenty of middle-aged occupants.

And Park Avenue was always expensive, long before there was any "youth culture" associated with cities.

 

[adma]

I am not defending Grosse Pointe, but the place goes on for miles. As for Ann Arbor, it's much, much, much uglier than Detroit and is inhabited by insufferable middle-class cretins. Not sure what your argument is.

Uh, re "goes on for miles":

it's only that stuff at the upper right corner. Geographic illiteracy ain't good.

 

[andrewpmk]

One item that most people want when they will be buying a house, is a garage. Even without sprawl or owning a car, people will still want a garage. Not to store a car, however. But to store their bicycles, lawn mower, BBQ, snow shovel, camping equipment, tools, etc.

That also means that condos and apartment building will have a disadvantage. What to do with their extra space that previously would have been used by a second or third car. People may end up rented storage lockers while leaving available underground parking space empty. Consideration should be given to converting those empty spaces into additional storage lockers.

Not sure how much of this stuff the typical condo owner actually needs. Lawn mower and snow shovel obviously are not needed in a condo because management does that sort of maintenance, BBQs are banned in condos because they are a fire hazard. Tools are probably less needed in a condo because again, a lot of the maintenance is done by management. Bicycles and camping equipment seem to be the only thing on that list that condo owners really need. Obviously condo owners do need storage space (either in storage lockers or in off-site self-storage places), but I think that the typical condo owner has less stuff than the typical single-family home owner because they don't need as much of it.

 

[andrewpmk]

But relating this back to the point: Most people (let's define it: >50%) prefer living in single family homes.

Is this still true in a big city like Toronto where a middle class family who wants to buy a single family home has to put up with long commutes, traffic congestion, bad drivers, high gas prices etc. because they can't afford a single-family house close to work? When a middle-class person practically has to commute to Hamilton, Oshawa, or Barrie to afford a detached house these days, the advantages of living in an apartment begin to outweigh the disadvantages. Yes, I would rather live in a detached house in Rosedale than a 2-bedroom condo downtown, but I can't afford a house in Rosedale, so I would rather live in the condo than commute.