The Great Canadian Sprawl Thread!

[thegx]

Big box stores and freeways

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I don't see what the issue is with having areas with very similar architecture. There are many whole cities in Europe that are built with the same materials and style, and they usually look spectacular.

That only works when the architecture in question is actually attractive.

[niwell]

Downtown Markham is probably my favourite suburban development in the GTA (oxymoron?). The design isn't groundbreaking, but it's solid.

Cathedraltown is Silent Hill creepy. I mean it's still better than most suburban developments, but I wouldn't want to live there with that cathedral looming over you...

[dleung]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Some of the new development in Markham. Had they used more attractive architectural styles it could actually be pretty decent.



Cathedraltown by Jimmy Wu Photography, on Flickr


20141224. In a new subdivision in the future downtown Markham, "they are all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same" by Vik Pahwa Photography, on Flickr

Looks like a nostalgic dystopian movie. Agree with milo that the problem has nothing to do with the sameness.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Some of the new development in Markham. Had they used more attractive architectural styles it could actually be pretty decent.

Just remember to bring your car. Despite being denser than many inner city Toronto areas, forget trying to get a bus in Cathedral Town.
Buses operate about every 45-60 minutes, and end in the 6:00-9:00pm range.

[Calgarian]

A little more greenery would go a long way there.

Here's a new community in the deep SE of CAlgary, the first few buildings and homes are just finishing up IIRC. Much better density but still very car oriented with massive surface lots.

http://vimeo.com/51303533

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

That only works when the architecture in question is actually attractive.

Yes, absolutely - I should have qualified my statement with that. The cities of old I'm talking about have similar building materials because that's what was locally available, and it ends up looking 'right'. Albertan cities have not found a style that looks good (except places like Canmore, whose use of log built buildings suits the setting and looks great).

I actually think the expectation of variety can often degrade the overall quality - if developers are spending time and energy on making each of their already dire boxes of ticky tacky look slightly different, then something else will be lost in return.

Those Markham areas will probably look 10x better with some trees, street life and better weather, those photos are about as unflattering as possible!

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

A little more greenery would go a long way there.

Here's a new community in the deep SE of CAlgary, the first few buildings and homes are just finishing up IIRC. Much better density but still very car oriented with massive surface lots.

http://vimeo.com/51303533

Man, that's weird. From some perspectives it looks denser than most of our big-city downtowns, but when the camera shifts one way or the other it's just acres of surface parking. That makes me wonder if the density is actually any higher than a standard subdivision full of single-family houses.

What's the demand for all that multi-unit at the edge of town, anyway? Employees at the new hospital down there?

The main street looks good, anyway. Just fill in a bunch of those parking lots with houses/apartments and it'd actually be walkable. I guess that might happen over time.

[Calgarian]

Seton is designed as a sort of downtown for the deep SE of Calgary, this area is about 20km straight south of downtown Calgary. City bylaws and zoning are what are guiding the density there as it's all greenfield development.

[manny_santos]

I was in Nepean today along Carling Avenue, and I noticed several big-box style stores with pedestrian-oriented entrances right up against the sidewalk. Stores included Sleep Country Canada and LCBO.

Does the City of Ottawa mandate this style of commercial development? If not, why is this style of commercial development happening in Ottawa but not elsewhere in Ontario, save for some of the GTA?

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

I was in Nepean today along Carling Avenue, and I noticed several big-box style stores with pedestrian-oriented entrances right up against the sidewalk. Stores included Sleep Country Canada and LCBO.

Does the City of Ottawa mandate this style of commercial development? If not, why is this style of commercial development happening in Ottawa but not elsewhere in Ontario, save for some of the GTA?

Yes, I believe Ottawa's zoning laws do require this. Specifically, I think the rule is that new suburban strip malls are required to have at least some of their street frontage to have buildings in it that orient towards the street, but they can build as much as they want behind the parking lot as well.

Examples of this sort of thing:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.33863...ZToKIPmjKw!2e0 - notice the Lowe's behind the two restaurants

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.36262...5Q!2e0!6m1!1e1 - notice the Walmart behind the street oriented retail

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.28926...EmD71Hgwag!2e0 - notice the strip mall in that giant parking lot behind the stores on the street. This one is rather weird looking as it's in a very new area that still has lots of greenfield around.. it's literally across the street from a farm.

I think this rule is relatively new. I'm pretty sure all three of these were built in the past decade. There are definitely areas dating back to the 1980s and 1990s that have none of this sort of thing.

Ottawa is getting better at suburban growth, to an extent. Many of the newer subdivisions are designed with linear-ish street layouts, have high densities (often having as much as half of new buildings be rowhouses or duplexes), are increasingly using brick, and have narrow driveways that only fit one car. Unfortunately Ottawa for the most part stopped extending real transit into new growth areas around 2009 or so (often new subdivisions have token bus service or literally none at all--these's a whole neighbourhood in Kanata that opened up in 2012 with literally no transit service), so they continue to be car oriented despite having real potential to not be.

[TownGuy]

^ New big box around here looks very similar to that. The only problem is I don't think it encourages anyone to walk to these places. You still need a car.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

A walkable, urban neighbourhood can be achieved with most of the land use taking up by single family homes with more generous setbacks the what we are seeing in suburbs today. The bigger issue is the design of commerical areas and multi-family that should be built to higher density but, usually aren't due to the majority of the lot coverage being for surface parking. Fix those and our existing suburbs will take on a drastically different character. Of course, future suburbs should follow some sort of modified street grid and lanes. Nothing more homey than neighbourhood kids playing in the street while parents watch over from their porches. Not sure when backyards role changed from being a utility space (garden, waste dump, storage) to being a play pen.

probably around the same time that the typical suburban house became mostly fugly faceless garage on the first floor facing the street. Exemplified by the infamous Calgary unidriveway "neighbourhood" (which wouldn't pass the Mr. Roger's test of said descriptor).

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Yes, absolutely - I should have qualified my statement with that. The cities of old I'm talking about have similar building materials because that's what was locally available, and it ends up looking 'right'. Albertan cities have not found a style that looks good (except places like Canmore, whose use of log built buildings suits the setting and looks great).

I actually think the expectation of variety can often degrade the overall quality - if developers are spending time and energy on making each of their already dire boxes of ticky tacky look slightly different, then something else will be lost in return.

Those Markham areas will probably look 10x better with some trees, street life and better weather, those photos are about as unflattering as possible!

There are prairie styles that look good that look good if they are not improvised. The biggest problem is that for the styles to work, the lots have to be fair sized, especially in width and those developing large subdivisions are not wont to dividing their sections like that. So what we are seeing is a lot of improvisation and that improvisation is not looking all that great.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Ottawa is getting better at suburban growth, to an extent. Many of the newer subdivisions are designed with linear-ish street layouts, have high densities (often having as much as half of new buildings be rowhouses or duplexes), are increasingly using brick, and have narrow driveways that only fit one car.

Ottawa is going to have to run off peak buses more than every 30-60 minutes in these areas, including operating them late into the evening, before people can alter their travel habits.

[DrJoe]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

This confuses me. Isn't the main concern the anti sprawl lobby has is the density of sprawl? That stuff in Coburg, while very attractive, appears to have a density that is a fraction of the typically Calgary/Edmonton sprawl.

If your concern is land use....who gives a shit what it looks like....you don't live there? Seems like the majority on here will find any reason to bitch about sprawl and move the goal posts to fit their anti sprawl rhetoric.

Major bump but funnily enough my son moved to the Cobourg neighbourhood being discussed. Also ironic he moved back from Alberta to Ontario. As he pointed out himself the housing stock here is a million times better looking, not as monotone and soul sucking in general.

Anyways your question as to whether or not it is just as dense I'm not sure but as mentioned the set backs are quite small for a new suburb. Also there is mixed housing types so there are semis, and towns interspersed with the detached which would boost density. Also was mentioned targets have to be reached that are set out by the province. Not sure how they compare with Alberta.

Towns


Semis, towns


Semis, detached


Just a beautiful development in general (rear driveways, greenery, etc)




Neighbouring development, while not as nice, still has a good mix of styles and is pleasant looking. Some rear driveways, some not, decent greenery.


Development uses a lot of siding for Ontario but is broken up with brick as to not be as monotone




Across town there is a traditional suburban development, open space, big garages, driveways, etc but once again not ugly

[Martin Mtl]

/\ I would rather kill myself.

[GeneralLeeTPHLS]

It's okay....the regular suburban area looks poor for walking, though the newer stuff is nice......mostly. If that area gets transit sometime, that'll be a more successful community.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by niwell

The closer ones can be dense, for sure. However many of these date back from the 1920s/30s, if not earlier. And have historic town centres. Some of the 1940s/50s growth areas seem reasonably dense as well. It's after that things get really sprawly with large estate lots, leapfrogged developments and whatnot. The type of tract development you see in Mississauga and Brampton doesn't really exist on the east coast of the US.

The only place on the east coast with such a large scale of similar dense 2 story SFH development is the newer suburbs of Miami.

[yaletown_fella]

I've done work in Cathedraltown and it's a pretty nice development.
It's just a shame the main street didnt take off. The main street should have been laid out more like a lifestyle center and been located closer to Major Mackenzie with a major anchor tenant like a major asian grocery store and/or Saks Off Fifth type store. This wouldve boosted traffic in the area and there wouldnt be so many empty stores.

Also, why paint window mullions a soul sucking white when a caramel or off-black wouldve looked so much better?