Define "Suburb" (Winnipeg)

[esquire]

Whether steveo's friend was being literal or not, the point remains that there are many people in this city who live a totally suburban existence. It's a hell of a lot easier to do that in this city than to live a totally urban lifestyle, unless you're prepared to make a lot of compromises.

[The Jabroni]

The job that I do pretty much eliminates the invisible barriers between urban and suburban.

Having said that, my definition of suburb is any residential homes NOT part of the city street grid system. Garden City and Windsor Park are in that grey area, because they were the first to have the cul-de-sacs, crescent streets, bays, and whole others, while still maintaining that grid sort of thing.

[alittle1]

Anyone want to take a shot at Fort Rouge and Fort Garry?

[Andy6]

Basically it seems as though a suburb is anything built with houses farther apart than they used to be before the War. I grew up in St. Vital and was back "home" for most of this past week - you can walk to all kinds of stores in 10 minutes but they're in strip malls and at Dakota Village (or the St. Vital Centre). You have to cross a parking lot to get to them and the whole area does a poor job of looking like a neighbourhood would have looked in 1924 -- so it apparently doesn't count as "urban living".

It's more an aesthetic judgment, I think, than one about the substance of what you can do in a given place without a car. My grandparents' old neighbourhood around Jubilee Avenue looks "urban", because the houses are close together and more vertical in orientation than the horizontal bungalow style of the 60s, but there is virtually nothing you can walk to there. There used to be a couple of old corner stores but I think they're gone and in any event they weren't much even when they existed. And yet I'm pretty sure it would be considered more "urban" than my 60s suburb in St. Vital despite being, in reality, equally or more car-dependent.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Basically it seems as though a suburb is anything built with houses farther apart than they used to be before the War. I grew up in St. Vital and was back "home" for most of this past week - you can walk to all kinds of stores in 10 minutes but they're in strip malls and at Dakota Village (or the St. Vital Centre). You have to cross a parking lot to get to them and the whole area does a poor job of looking like a neighbourhood would have looked in 1924 -- so it apparently doesn't account as "urban living".

It's more an aesthetic judgment, I think, than one about the substance of what you can do in a given place without a car. My grandparents' old neighbourhood around Jubilee Avenue looks "urban", because the houses are close together and more vertical in orientation than the horizontal bungalow style of the 60s, but there is virtually nothing you can walk to there. There used to be a couple of old corner stores but I think they're gone and in any event they weren't much even when they existed. And yet I'm pretty sure it would be considered more "urban" than my 60s suburb in St. Vital despite being, in reality, equally or more car-dependent.

The Jubilee (south Lord Roberts) area is a bit strange... Originally, south of Jubilee was an amusement park that was the terminus and turnaround area for the streetcar. And from what I have heard (might not be completely accurate), Jubilee had a few stores, but most got torn down to make way for residential and street widening.

I think this area would be considered urban in its original context, but now I would consider it suburbanized.

[esquire]

Most of Jubilee, other than the far western reaches, is still pretty convenient to Osborne as the neighbourhood commercial strip and the whole stretch is definitely walkable. It's certainly more "urban" to be living right next to, or literally on top of neighbourhood amenities, but even in large cities you still see some homes (like the ones on Jubilee) that are more than a few minutes' walk away from the closest cornerstore.

I should add that I am floored when I visit the suburban parts of some cities (mostly in the US) where walkability is non-existent, i.e. no sidewalks, no transit service, long walks due to convoluted street networks, long distances to schools and stores, etc. Winnipeg has generally been spared from the worst of that...even the most autocentric 80s and 90s subdivisions in this city still generally have some urban features like sidewalks and bus service. Only in the exurbs is it really possible to be totally away from all of that.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by The Jabroni

my definition of suburb is any residential homes NOT part of the city street grid system.

One potentinal issue with that definitation is downtown Transcona. It is a grid system and very walkable to the business core. It has the same "urban" feeling that a lot of other old neighbourhoods do however I think few would question it is a "suburb".

Another piece I look at is that the St Charles parish was established over 100 years ago. Back then a church was the heart of a rural community which the area would have been at the time.

For both these areas they were effectively independent towns similar to say Selkirk or Steinbach today. As those towns continue grow and Winnipeg continued to grow they grew into each other. This is also similar to what has been happened more recently with North Kildonan and Birds Hill/East St Paul.

Just because an area is past some arbitrary line does not automtically make it either urban or suburan. With the way Winnipeg came about as a merger of many smaller towns the lines are a lot more complicated.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by CoryB

One potentinal issue with that definitation is downtown Transcona. It is a grid system and very walkable to the business core. It has the same "urban" feeling that a lot of other old neighbourhoods do however I think few would question it is a "suburb".

Another piece I look at is that the St Charles parish was established over 100 years ago. Back then a church was the heart of a rural community which the area would have been at the time.

For both these areas they were effectively independent towns similar to say Selkirk or Steinbach today. As those towns continue grow and Winnipeg continued to grow they grew into each other. This is also similar to what has been happened more recently with North Kildonan and Birds Hill/East St Paul.

Just because an area is past some arbitrary line does not automtically make it either urban or suburan. With the way Winnipeg came about as a merger of many smaller towns the lines are a lot more complicated.

I made the comment before about the difference between Suburban and Sprawl. I would not call Downtown Transcona urban by any stretch, it is as suburban as it comes, but I also wouldn't call it sprawl. As for the Eastern reaches of Transcona, that is both suburban and sprawl.

I don't have a problem with suburbs, I have a huge problem with suburbs with bad form.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Basically it seems as though a suburb is anything built with houses farther apart than they used to be before the War. I grew up in St. Vital and was back "home" for most of this past week - you can walk to all kinds of stores in 10 minutes but they're in strip malls and at Dakota Village (or the St. Vital Centre). You have to cross a parking lot to get to them and the whole area does a poor job of looking like a neighbourhood would have looked in 1924 -- so it apparently doesn't account as "urban living".

It's more an aesthetic judgment, I think, than one about the substance of what you can do in a given place without a car. My grandparents' old neighbourhood around Jubilee Avenue looks "urban", because the houses are close together and more vertical in orientation than the horizontal bungalow style of the 60s, but there is virtually nothing you can walk to there. There used to be a couple of old corner stores but I think they're gone and in any event they weren't much even when they existed. And yet I'm pretty sure it would be considered more "urban" than my 60s suburb in St. Vital despite being, in reality, equally or more car-dependent.

Yep, completely agree. Here's what I posted a while back on a different thread, about how "suburbs" can actually be very complete communities:

Originally Posted by Bdog

The area around St. Vital Mall is about as complete as you can get (although maybe not in the form some urbanists would like). Within a 2 km radius of the mall, there are several schools (including french and high schools), doctors, dentists, and all the retail you could ask for. There are offices, banks, services, anchor stores, a hotel, parks. There are all housing tenures and types (from low income rentals, to condos, to seniors housing... to single family homes, to townhouses and mid-rise apartments). There is also access to several bike paths, and many major bus routes. Not too sure how much more complete a small area can get, except maybe heavy industry... Either way, people still need to commute, and go to other areas of the city.

[esquire]

Built form definitely counts when assessing urbanity. The Dakota Village area is dense and varied enough to have urban characteristics, but at the end of the day the streets and commercial centres there are built mainly for cars. A truly urban area will have streets that are a pleasure to walk.

It's true that Dakota Village has a lot of the same amenities that Osborne Village has, but who ever goes to Dakota Village to walk around and enjoy the urban surroundings, do some window shopping, get a coffee, etc., the same way they might in Osborne Village? That's why on my map on page 1 I gave Dakota Village the blue "semi-urban" treatment... like many other neighbourhoods from around that era, it's clearly a transition zone from the prewar urban to the postwar suburban.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by esquire

Built form definitely counts when assessing urbanity. The Dakota Village area is dense and varied enough to have urban characteristics, but at the end of the day the streets and commercial centres there are built mainly for cars. A truly urban area will have streets that are a pleasure to walk.

It's true that Dakota Village has a lot of the same amenities that Osborne Village has, but who ever goes to Dakota Village to walk around and enjoy the urban surroundings, do some window shopping, get a coffee, etc., the same way they might in Osborne Village? That's why on my map on page 1 I gave Dakota Village the blue "semi-urban" treatment... like many other neighbourhoods from around that era, it's clearly a transition zone from the prewar urban to the postwar suburban.

I kinda said the same thing, which came from experience living there for a short time. The area may be "complete" in the sence that it has everything that is needed, but it isn't "complete" because it forces people to own cars. I use myself an avid walker, transit rider, and non car owner as an example. I literally would not walk to St. Vital mall even though I lived less than 1km from the place door-to-door.

On another note -- The City wants your input on walking and cycling: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...ject-1.2125629

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by esquire

Built form definitely counts when assessing urbanity. The Dakota Village area is dense and varied enough to have urban characteristics, but at the end of the day the streets and commercial centres there are built mainly for cars. A truly urban area will have streets that are a pleasure to walk.

For sure, I agree that built form counts. Just noting the fact that often the lines blur between urban/suburban, walkable/transit friendly/auto-dependent, complete community/non-complete community. Many will have characteristics of each, making it hard to truly define.

My main point was that suburban doesn't automatically equal car-dependant, transit-poor, non-complete community.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by esquire

[IMG][/IMG]

Esquire, please tell me how you did this, I would be anxious to do the same for a upcoming blog.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

Esquire, please tell me how you did this, I would be anxious to do the same for a upcoming blog.

All I did was grab a screenshot of a Google Map and drew lines on it using an elite, highly sophisticated graphics software package (MS Paint) to illustrate what I consider to be the urban areas of Winnipeg (inside the red line), and the "semi-urban" or transitional areas, which have characteristics of urban and suburban areas (inside the blue line).

I just went by my knowledge of the various neighbourhoods and what they're like... it was a subjective take on my part, but that said I think most people would agree that the centre of Winnipeg is urban and the outlying fringes are suburban... the disagreements would largely centre on where one ends and the other begins. To some people, West Kildonan would be purely suburban (big lots, single family homes) whereas to others it might have some urban qualities (grid streets, walkable neighbourhoods and commercial strips, etc.).

I recognize that I left Transcona out, but that's because Transcona is a bit of an oddity in the Winnipeg context... it was essentially a full-fledged small town that was completely independent from Winnipeg in a way that the other pre-unicity municipalities weren't. But at the same time it wasn't what I'd describe as fully urban either... more like a small town on the fringes of Winnipeg's orbit. One could certainly argue that it has (had?) urban qualities, though.

[Jets4Life]

Red- my definition of Inner City Winnipeg
Blue- the towns and cities of Metro Winnipeg before amalgamation in 1972., or at least the older areas of the towns and cities. I have included Old Tuxedo, Old St.James, Old St.Boniface, St.Vital (north of St.Vital Road), Fort Garry, and the older area of Transcona.

[James Gablan]

To the best of my knowledge there are three categories into which a location can fall: Urban, sub-urban and rural.

Urban is any location which has convent access to an abundance of services, without the need of a personal auto mobile.

Sub-urban is any location which has access to an abundance of services, but only with access to a personal auto mobile.

Rural is any location which does not have access to an abundance of services, even with access to a personal auto mobile.

The dominant expression of the difference difference between urban and suburban is that suburban locations are highly dependent upon oil. This dependence makes them vulnerable to price fluctuations and drives their politics.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by James Gablan

To the best of my knowledge there are three categories into which a location can fall: Urban, sub-urban and rural.

Urban is any location which has convent access to an abundance of services, without the need of a personal auto mobile.

Sub-urban is any location which has access to an abundance of services, but only with access to a personal auto mobile.

Rural is any location which does not have access to an abundance of services, even with access to a personal auto mobile.

The dominant expression of the difference difference between urban and suburban is that suburban locations are highly dependent upon oil. This dependence makes them vulnerable to price fluctuations and drives their politics.

I guess I would fall into the "sub-urban" category, since I currently reside in Leduc, a city roughly 20 km from the Edmonton Ring Road. There is transit service that goes to Edmonton, but it's spotty at best, only running at peak weekday hours, for commuters from Edmonton going to work in the Nisku industrial area.

I definitely would be screwed if I did not have a automobile, but personally, I'm not a big fan of Edmonton, and I only have to report to the office once or twice a month.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

I'm not a big fan of Edmonton, and I only have to report to the office once or twice a month.

How come? Just wondering as I've always thought of Edmonton as similar to Winnipeg and that river valley in the centre of the city is gorgeous.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by Riverman

How come? Just wondering as I've always thought of Edmonton as similar to Winnipeg and that river valley in the centre of the city is gorgeous.

Not sure. Just not my cup of tea. I'm sure many like the city, but I prefer Winnipeg and Calgary.

[armorand93]

Although alot of you consider this impossibly suburban, I believe Portage Avenue from Cavalier to Assiniboine Park (de facto limit of "urban" Winnipeg), is very much easy to get around without a car. By foot and by bike too. Sadly, I can't say the same for Crestview and Westwood... St. Charles is the same, but on the other hand, there's quite a few services and stores within a 15 minute walk of lets say, LePine and Gagnon. Add an extra 5-10 and you'd have ALL of Unicity as well, and the YMCA too. If you're looking for a doctor, minus the Westwood walk-inn and the Grace Hospital, good luck lol