Canada's Panamerica Identity

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

(and the third could have easily been Quebec St. instead of Rue du Québec)

FWIW, the original name of that street was Quebec Street.

If I recall correctly those four parallel consecutive streets (London, Quebec, Victoria, Ontario) were laid out together with the first North Ward western expansion. One of Sherbrooke's three streetcar lines did the loop passing on Ontario Street as the western side of the loop. That's as far away from downtown as the streetcar network ever got in this ward.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by lio45

Of course not... at least in my case... because "within a North American context", Canada and the US are about as different as possible in nearly every respect.

A and B can be very alike, but if you're analyzing only these two "within a strictly A-and-B-only context" you will only see the differences.



Out of pure curiosity, I'd like to do a test with you (you'll be an awesome subject thanks to your vast knowledge of architectural styles). Try to make sure you don't see the location (be careful, it's super easy to have it spoiled!) of these four semi-random samples of centenarian residential areas, take a short look, and let me know your suppositions/conclusions.


https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.40832...MGoQ!2e0?hl=fr

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.40592...01gQ!2e0?hl=fr

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.40593...G0Kw!2e0?hl=fr

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.40577...02MQ!2e0?hl=fr

I had already read the location, and that looks like a nice area in Sherbrooke. The houses seem mostly a variation of typical Canadian-American, but I would expect a local person could identify unique features typical to Quebec.

https://goo.gl/maps/3j1RH

[Dr Nevergold]

Originally Posted by rousseau

They almost look American to me, except that the houses in an older, upper income neighbourhood like that would have busier detail on them, more baroque flourishes in the trim and the like. And in the U.S. you never have small apartment complexes or semi-detached houses on the same street as grand mansions. In keeping with the theme of this thread, somewhat, the socioeconomic classes in the U.S. have always been much more clearly delineated and separated from each other geographically than in Canada, and that's reflected in the architecture and neighbourhood layouts.

Okay, I couldn't help cheating: I looked and saw that they're in Sherbrooke, Quebec. Honestly, I would have had a hard time guessing, but in the end I probably would have guessed somewhere in the eastern half of Canada containing Quebec and the Maritimes.

Another large difference between Canadian single family home lots and American SFH lots is the sheer physical size. In this respect, western cities tend to have smaller lots than eastern cities. However, north of the border most subdivisions and suburbs have smaller lot sizes and more planned infrastructure.

From the exurbs of Cleveland to the exurbs of Nashville. From Indy down to Oklahoma city, American suburbs have many communities with huge fricken lots, many times with very reduced services. Many don't have sidewalks, for example, or zero to very poor bus services. Most American suburbs don't have a fraction of their Canadian counterparts in terms of usable services and there's more of a reliance on the automobile even in suburbia.

Whenever someone shows a photo of a city and asks "where do you think this is" the physical layout is what I look at as much as architecture. There's a huge difference in how Canadian communities are planned and the relative lack of planning many American burbs pop up with. Some of the lot sizes in America are insane. The ranch house literally comes with a ranch around it, no sidewalks, and copious amounts of burning hydrocarbons to keep it up.

[MonctonRad]

I have always been struck how the architectural styles differ on either side of the St. Croix River when you drive into Maine from NB.

In many ways, St. Stephen (NB) and Calais (ME) are functionally a single community of roughly 12-15,000 people (during the War of 1812 the denizens of St. Stephen loaned their American counterparts some gunpowder so that they could celebrate the 4th of July ), but architecturally the Canadian side is Victorian and the American side is Federal. There is no mistaking the two. I find it fascinating......

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Dr Nevergold

Another large difference between Canadian single family home lots and American SFH lots is the sheer physical size. In this respect, western cities tend to have smaller lots than eastern cities. However, north of the border most subdivisions and suburbs have smaller lot sizes and more planned infrastructure.

From the exurbs of Cleveland to the exurbs of Nashville. From Indy down to Oklahoma city, American suburbs have many communities with huge fricken lots, many times with very reduced services. Many don't have sidewalks, for example, or zero to very poor bus services. Most American suburbs don't have a fraction of their Canadian counterparts in terms of usable services and there's more of a reliance on the automobile even in suburbia.

Whenever someone shows a photo of a city and asks "where do you think this is" the physical layout is what I look at as much as architecture. There's a huge difference in how Canadian communities are planned and the relative lack of planning many American burbs pop up with. Some of the lot sizes in America are insane. The ranch house literally comes with a ranch around it, no sidewalks, and copious amounts of burning hydrocarbons to keep it up.

This is mostly a Canada vs. US difference although there are exceptions. Atlantic Canada has lots of sprawl like what you described as 'American sprawl' and the US Sunbelt generally has suburbs like ours.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

... but architecturally the Canadian side is Victorian and the American side is Federal. There is no mistaking the two. I find it fascinating......

Indeed fascinating!

Here in the Townships you have Derby Line and Stanstead that have been also operating as a single community for the longest time (a bit reduced now that the Americans have put little traffic barriers on previously open streets and also the fact you now need a passport or special driver's license)... but architecturally, the styles are totally identical.

May I venture a guess, they did not (mainly) develop during the same era?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Dr Nevergold

Another large difference between Canadian single family home lots and American SFH lots is the sheer physical size. In this respect, western cities tend to have smaller lots than eastern cities. However, north of the border most subdivisions and suburbs have smaller lot sizes and more planned infrastructure.

From the exurbs of Cleveland to the exurbs of Nashville. From Indy down to Oklahoma city, American suburbs have many communities with huge fricken lots, many times with very reduced services. Many don't have sidewalks, for example, or zero to very poor bus services. Most American suburbs don't have a fraction of their Canadian counterparts in terms of usable services and there's more of a reliance on the automobile even in suburbia.

Whenever someone shows a photo of a city and asks "where do you think this is" the physical layout is what I look at as much as architecture. There's a huge difference in how Canadian communities are planned and the relative lack of planning many American burbs pop up with. Some of the lot sizes in America are insane. The ranch house literally comes with a ranch around it, no sidewalks, and copious amounts of burning hydrocarbons to keep it up.

Out of curiosity, what's your experience with Canadian suburbs? I mean, if you seem to think one doesn't need a car...

[1overcosc]

You can get by with transit in Canadian suburbs. It's not great, you're restricted to half-hourly buses for the most part especially in the smaller areas, but at least you can do it if you're dedicated. Many American suburbs have lterally no transit service or peak period only transit service, or bihourly only in the off-peak, that sort thing.

Compare Atlanta suburbs to Toronto suburbs. The contrast is intense.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

This is mostly a Canada vs. US difference although there are exceptions. Atlantic Canada has lots of sprawl like what you described as 'American sprawl' and the US Sunbelt generally has suburbs like ours.

On the other side of the country, Victoria, BC has Eastern American exurban-style sprawl despite its high growth, high housing values and [relatively] constrained areas for growth.

[MolsonExport]

Rochester, NY.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...30#post6865330

EDIT: Whoops, reading more clearly I can see that the city/thread was already disclosed by Lio. My bad.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

This is mostly a Canada vs. US difference although there are exceptions. Atlantic Canada has lots of sprawl like what you described as 'American sprawl' and the US Sunbelt generally has suburbs like ours.

There's some large lot exurbia in Atlantic Canada but I don't think suburban residential development in Atlantic Canada resembles the Northeastern US that closely. The detached vs. multi-unit breakdown in Halifax for example is around 1/3 to 2/3.

The vast majority of new suburban units in the Halifax area are going into developments that look like this:


Source


Source

Many more people live in these mid-sized multi-unit buildings than in suburban homes on large lots. I think these developments are pretty awful but I haven't seen a lot of this kind of thing in US suburbs.

[Hali87]

I think he meant areas more like Hammonds Plains and Fall River.

Lincoln, RI (suburb of Providence)

Bedford, NH (suburb of Manchester)

Westbrook, ME (suburb of Portland)

For comparison's sake, Fall River, Stillwater Lake, and Herring Cove, all of which are within the HRM (Herring Cove is a bit closer to the city centre, as some may guess based on the smaller lots; I find the overall "feel" similar to the US examples though). That said, each of these cities probably have closer suburbs that look more like "typical suburbia", as do Halifax, most other East Coast cities, and Victoria.

[someone123]

My point is more that Fall River or Hammonds Plains aren't representative of "typical" suburban growth in the city, even though they receive a lot of attention as examples of haphazard urban planning. I'm not sure the city is issuing a significant number of permits for that style of development at this point either. From what I've seen, few US cities have many multi-unit buildings, particularly built out in greenfield areas.

I tend to post about this from time to time because I find that people in Halifax place disproportionate weight on exurban and rural areas as if they are a huge burden the city needs to deal with, are unusual in some way, or are somehow imaginary suburbs that inflate the "real" size of the city. In reality they account for a very small percentage of the population and many other metropolitan areas in Canada are pretty similar.

I'd also guess that in some ways Atlantic Canada must be one of the least suburban parts of North America because it has seen relatively little postwar growth. There are no Dallas, Atlanta, or Toronto analogues. There's Moncton, but it is small even compared to the rest of the region, so it's kind of misleading to represent Atlantic Canada as a super sprawly area.

[Hali87]

I think they seem like more significant population centres just because of how much land they take up (HP and FR specifically). On a map, Hammonds Plains looks several times larger than Bedford, but Bedford's population is probably higher (or definitely, if you include Bedfords South/West). I'm not sure if that type of development is really allowed/done anymore (it seemed to hit its peak a few years after amalgamation). There was a moratorium on that type of development (I'm not sure what ever happened with that), and Conservation Subdivisions seem to be the new design paradigm for greenfield developments on the fringe.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by someone123

Source

I think these developments are pretty awful but I haven't seen a lot of this kind of thing in US suburbs.

I can't stand those new suburban developments in Halifax either. They're not dense enough to make them pedestrian friendly but you don't get the benefits of suburban living either (big house on big leafy lot). It's the worst of both worlds.

Build stuff like the original Clayton Park: Bayview Road, Hazelhome, etc. or then do row houses/condos with retail at the base. None of this in between stuff that does nothing well.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

You can get by with transit in Canadian suburbs. It's not great, you're restricted to bihourly buses for the most part especially in the smaller areas, but at least you can do it if you're dedicated. Many American suburbs have lterally no transit service or peak period only transit service, or bihourly only in the off-peak, that sort thing.

Compare Atlanta suburbs to Toronto suburbs. The contrast is intense.

Atlanta is probably THE most sprawling region on the planet as well. It has a footprint about four times larger than that of the built-up Toronto area, despite a smaller population. Heck, it is about as expansive as the built-up NYC area (which has about 4x the population).

[MolsonExport]

I thought that greater Houston was almost the size of the contiguous United States.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Atlanta is probably THE most sprawling region on the planet as well. It has a footprint about four times larger than that of the built-up Toronto area, despite a smaller population. Heck, it is about as expansive as the built-up NYC area (which has about 4x the population).

Yes, I was going to point out it's not really an apples to apples comparison. Atlanta is a particularly sprawly city that's not even in the top few (NYC, Chi, LA, etc.) while Toronto is the big hub of the country with the banks and HQs and all. Toronto suburbs would be more apples to apples with NYC suburbs.

Atlanta's ranking in the country would match with Winnipeg/Hamilton/K-C-W/London. Pick the sprawliest of the bunch... Kitchener maybe?

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I can't stand those new suburban developments in Halifax either. They're not dense enough to make them pedestrian friendly but you don't get the benefits of suburban living either (big house on big leafy lot). It's the worst of both worlds.

Build stuff like the original Clayton Park: Bayview Road, Hazelhome, etc. or then do row houses/condos with retail at the base. None of this in between stuff that does nothing well.

It's not even that they aren't dense - Clayton Park West is one of the most densely populated census tracts in Atlantic Canada - it's more the layout that's the problem. The buildings are oriented towards parking lots and do not relate to one another at all except for the occasional cluster of two or three buildings that share a parking lot or cul-de-sac. Generally, all of these buildings are 100% residential, and it is basically assumed that every single resident will drive everywhere. In practice, they are not really any different from Highfield Park, which is largely considered one of the worst neighbourhoods in Dartmouth in terms of design. Fortunately the newest developments in Mainland North (Seton Ridge and Rockingham South) have some mixed-use buildings, and attention to building aesthetics and the pedestrian realm. It will be interesting to see the differences in opinion/lifestyle/price between the newest subdivisions and the ones currently or recently under construction - on paper they probably look similar but in practice they will probably be very different.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by lio45

Yes, I was going to point out it's not really an apples to apples comparison. Atlanta is a particularly sprawly city that's not even in the top few (NYC, Chi, LA, etc.) while Toronto is the big hub of the country with the banks and HQs and all. Toronto suburbs would be more apples to apples with NYC suburbs.

Atlanta's ranking in the country would match with Winnipeg/Hamilton/K-C-W/London. Pick the sprawliest of the bunch... Kitchener maybe?

I was in Atlanta this past month for a company convention and its older postwar residential areas look very similar to the older postwar residential areas of Waterloo. Big lots, mature trees, big bungalows , hilly terrain. Lots of greenspace.