HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2014, 8:13 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
^ Thanks for the insight as to how it's done... you provided a window into something of a mysterious world for me. But perhaps there is some middle ground between the old ways and the current model of "let the developer map out a square mile worth of roads in whatever layout they want"?

To some degree cities control the form of structures that get built through zoning and codes, but they seem far less interested in the equally important issue of roads within developments. You see this manifest itself in the anti-pedestrian nature that many newer subdivisions have, as well as the atrocious road networks in power centres, suburban shopping areas, etc. I think we can do a little better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2014, 8:16 PM
Stryker Stryker is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,558
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm7N4PlQiXc

Some of ya'll might appreciate this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2014, 8:18 PM
SHOFEAR's Avatar
SHOFEAR SHOFEAR is offline
DRINK
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: City Of Champions
Posts: 8,219
Also, as mentioned by others, the biggest drawback about new neighborhoods from a sustainability standpoint is the lack of any local commercial within these neighborhoods. This is absolutely true.

However, the reality is people's shopping habits have essentially eliminated neighborhood stores. It's not developers, or the city who brought upon these changes....it has everything to do with peoples modern shopping habits. If they don't care about living in a community that has a grocery store a few blocks away, why should we force it upon them.
__________________
Lana. Lana. Lana? LANA! Danger Zone
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2014, 8:27 PM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 11,438
IMO, a grid within a subdivision isn't that important, as long as the following are met:

1) It's easy to get a more or less linear transit route (NOT an insanely curvy one that takes forever to get anywhere) within a 5-10 minute walk of every home, either by having arterials closely spaced (like in that Alta Vista map above in Ottawa) or by having well designed collector roads.

2) There's pathway cut-throughs for pedestrians and cyclists that let them travel in more or less a straight line even through all the curves... like in this area of Kingston for example: https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.2349789,-76.5231212,16z. This can help with point #1 above too.

Essentially, as long as its easily serviceable by transit and pedestrians/cyclists can have a decent linear mobility, the roads for cars can be laid out in swivels and I don't think it's that big of a deal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2014, 3:16 AM
dleung's Avatar
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,943
Richmond in 1957.


http://www.richmond.ca/cityhall/arch...0001-00105.gif

Richmond today, population 190,000. Arguably the most urban and transit-oriented post-war suburb of its size in Canada.

http://graham.ca/Projects/Commercial/Aberdeen.aspx


residents have more greenspace per capita than in a high-density sprawl.

Greenfield development is virtually unheard of in metro Vancouver now. Almost all new construction requires demolition.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2014, 3:33 AM
miketoronto miketoronto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,978
While people may not think of them as outstanding models of sustainability, Toronto has a rich history of trying to build more sustainable and complete suburbs.

Examples include

-Flemingdon Park: The first high-rise suburban new town in North America, modeled after high-rise suburbs in Europe.

-Alton Towers, Sandhurst, Bamburgh, and Bridletowne areas of Scarborough are examples (there are plenty more within Toronto) of unique suburban design of the time. Each community is centered around a mall (yes a strip mall), with high rise housing surrounding the mall, then town homes, then single family homes. Almost all homes are within walking distance of the mall. On the outskirts of the neighborhood is industrial parks in some of the neighborhoods.

-Bramalea and Erin Mills out in Brampton and Missisauga are also examples of the new town style developments mentiond above in Toronto.

Again, people don't always think of these areas as interesting. But from a planning perspective, they are pretty interesting, and unique in North America. And they have had some results. Residents do take transit at higher levels than elsewhere, and you will see people walking around, they provide housing choice, and a mix of incomes. And they have complete communities with schools, etc all within walking distance for the most part.

This map will show you the Alton Towers and Sandhurst developments. You can see the circular ring road around the mall with the corresponding high-rises.


https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Alt...7ef62322290c32
So they do work to a degree.
__________________
Miketoronto

Last edited by miketoronto; Sep 26, 2014 at 4:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2014, 2:06 PM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 11,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by dleung View Post
Richmond in 1957.
http://www.richmond.ca/cityhall/arch...0001-00105.gif

Richmond today, population 190,000. Arguably the most urban and transit-oriented post-war suburb of its size in Canada.
http://graham.ca/Projects/Commercial/Aberdeen.aspx
residents have more greenspace per capita than in a high-density sprawl.

Greenfield development is virtually unheard of in metro Vancouver now. Almost all new construction requires demolition.
What's the street-level like? That's a huge killer for these sorts of things... in the few 'urban suburbs' that exist in Canada (like Mississauga Centre or Metrotown) the skyline & density are amazing for a suburb but the street level is crap.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2014, 2:36 PM
ciudad_del_norte's Avatar
ciudad_del_norte ciudad_del_norte is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Amiskwaciwâskahikan/Mohkinstsis
Posts: 986
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1overcosc View Post
IMO, a grid within a subdivision isn't that important, as long as the following are met:

1) It's easy to get a more or less linear transit route (NOT an insanely curvy one that takes forever to get anywhere) within a 5-10 minute walk of every home, either by having arterials closely spaced (like in that Alta Vista map above in Ottawa) or by having well designed collector roads.

2) There's pathway cut-throughs for pedestrians and cyclists that let them travel in more or less a straight line even through all the curves... like in this area of Kingston for example: https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.2349789,-76.5231212,16z. This can help with point #1 above too.

Essentially, as long as its easily serviceable by transit and pedestrians/cyclists can have a decent linear mobility, the roads for cars can be laid out in swivels and I don't think it's that big of a deal.
While agree it doesn't necesarily have to be a grid, I haven't seen many cases so far where the ped/bike connections alone make a huge difference. Obviously it's better than not having these connections, but I don't think they have the same functional effect of full on connectivity, including vehicular. There is almost a psychological effect of the neighbourhood being designed with it's back to major arterials, especially when compared to,say, a gridded streetcar suburb design where the arterial forms a central core/spine for the neighbourhood. Not only do grids provide simple, often direct routes, but there are multiple paths to the same destination.

The bottom line is, though, that people don't want connectivity in suburbs, they want an isolated quiet street with limited accessiblity for anyone that doesn't live there. Pathway connections are a start but they still leave a lot to be desired IMO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2017, 3:26 PM
TownGuy's Avatar
TownGuy TownGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Cobourg, ON
Posts: 3,047
Thread revival. I was screwing around on Google Maps and was extremely impressed with the Cornell subdivision in Markham, ON. Why can't all suburbs be built this way?























Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2017, 4:13 PM
north 42's Avatar
north 42 north 42 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Windsor, Ontario/Colchester, Ontario
Posts: 5,803
^^ Where are all the people? Kind of creepy!
__________________
Windsor Ontario, Canada's southern most city!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2017, 4:21 PM
TownGuy's Avatar
TownGuy TownGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Cobourg, ON
Posts: 3,047
Weekday? Probably working.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2017, 5:39 PM
rotten42's Avatar
rotten42 rotten42 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 462
TownGuy, that reminds me a lot of the Currrie Barracks development in Calgary. A former Army base not far from downtown that has been redeveloped.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTcUcsepNQs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2017, 6:22 PM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by BretttheRiderFan View Post
What are some suburbs in Canada that are densifying, becoming less car-dependent, more walkable, building up and not out, etc?

Post some examples of steps to urbanize Canada's suburbs.
My suburb has virtually eliminated single family homes at this point:



Street views:



https://goo.gl/maps/pTdKj3JwVEk
https://goo.gl/maps/GYKVtQ7todG2

Even the smaller ones are multi family dwellings until you get to the District of North Van borders.

One of the last SFH neighbourhoods to the east of me is getting completely razed as we speak for 3-4 story condos and townhomes.

Green on Queensbury, North Vancouver by chrisjohann, on Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2017, 6:40 PM
TownGuy's Avatar
TownGuy TownGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Cobourg, ON
Posts: 3,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by rotten42 View Post
TownGuy, that reminds me a lot of the Currrie Barracks development in Calgary. A former Army base not far from downtown that has been redeveloped.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTcUcsepNQs
That's the thing though that is close to downtown Calgary. I'd argue such development should be even denser that close to downtown. The Markham example is on the very fringes of the GTA not anywhere near downtown Toronto. Probably about 30 km as the crow flies.

Similarly with North Vancouver. Technically a suburb but very close to downtown Vancouver. Surrey is more the distance that Markham is from Toronto.

I guess I should've revived the sprawl thread, lol.

Last edited by TownGuy; Jan 28, 2017 at 7:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2017, 1:25 AM
vanman's Avatar
vanman vanman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 6,341
In Metro Vancouver Burnaby, New West, Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Richmond all have rapidly growing urban cores that are centred around rapid transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2017, 3:53 AM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 21,893
I haven't been to Cornell in a while but, remember a couple short blocks of mixed use residential surrounded by block after block of homes with rear laneway parking followed by big box plazas. I don't get the big deal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2017, 4:00 AM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 21,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinion View Post
My suburb has virtually eliminated single family homes at this point:



Street views:



https://goo.gl/maps/pTdKj3JwVEk
https://goo.gl/maps/GYKVtQ7todG2

Even the smaller ones are multi family dwellings until you get to the District of North Van borders.

One of the last SFH neighbourhoods to the east of me is getting completely razed as we speak for 3-4 story condos and townhomes.

Green on Queensbury, North Vancouver by chrisjohann, on Flickr
Noth Vancouver must be really, really small as there's a ton of single family homes a few blocks away from Lonsdale in that aerial photo. Why even bother. Doesn't mean much.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2017, 5:19 AM
TownGuy's Avatar
TownGuy TownGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Cobourg, ON
Posts: 3,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper View Post
I haven't been to Cornell in a while but, remember a couple short blocks of mixed use residential surrounded by block after block of homes with rear laneway parking followed by big box plazas. I don't get the big deal.
Hasn't been to a growing development in awhile, says it's no big deal. That's like me saying I was at One Bloor East when it was half built and its no big deal. There's actually multiple blocks of mixed use residential with retail, dense housing with a number of different options, walkable, lots of parkland and transit friendly. What's not to like about that? What are we supposed to build? It's like any new residential development is automatically written off.

What's stopping one from describing Toronto's old neighborhoods, that everyone loves, as block after block of housing with rear laneway parking near a commercial strip. I don't get the big deal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2017, 4:12 PM
toaster toaster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 329
Of course, Mississauga City-Centre. It's a matter of time before the huge parking lots of Square One get redeveloped. You'll notice at the most recent-opened expansion, they added what looks like actual city streets between the mall and the parking lot, with spots to parallel park.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2017, 11:22 PM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanman View Post
In Metro Vancouver Burnaby, New West, Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Richmond all have rapidly growing urban cores that are centred around rapid transit.
Having transit and high-rise condos mean little when the public realm still looks like this. Walkable, fine-grained urbanism still seems to be lost on the developers of these areas. New West and North Van are good examples, but they're benefited by having started development before WWII. Coquitlam has potential in slivers like this, but it lacks human scale and has a sterility to it and the main draw for the area (Coquitlam Centre) is still surrounded by huge parking lots. Burnaby's Metrotown has some good pockets, like this older stretch of fine-grained urbanism, but turn around and you've got a gaudy, inwardly-focused suburban mall still and a huge arterial road. It's like a further-along Coquitlam, but still leaves a lot to be desired, even if it's shaping up to have a nice skyline. Richmond seems to be doing things the best of the post-war suburbs, with a main road that has a nice central tree median, somewhat shorter blocks, and nicer scale, although it still has way too much auto-centricism to be fully sustainable. Places like Langley, Delta, and Tsawwassen seem to be places of automobility despite things like the ALR. Cloverdale and particularly East Clayton in Surrey is probably a finer example of more sustainable design, despite lack of SkyTrain access.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toaster View Post
Of course, Mississauga City-Centre. It's a matter of time before the huge parking lots of Square One get redeveloped. You'll notice at the most recent-opened expansion, they added what looks like actual city streets between the mall and the parking lot, with spots to parallel park.
No. Square One has potential, with the increased intensification, but high-rise condos aren't the only thing necessary to make sustainable suburbs. Mississauga's Square One doesn't even have a GO Station like the Vancouver suburbs mentioned above have with SkyTrain. There's Cooksville, but it isn't actually in the environ, just the vague vicinity of it. The road design is still loops and lollipops and major thoroughfares are very pedestrian-hostile. The main attraction, Square One itself, is surrounded by parking lots that may or may not be razed, buried, or otherwise moved, but as it stands, there are no plans that I've seen for this to occur. This is a far cry from this, in Markham. The Markham example is far from perfect, but a much better example of sustainable suburban design, even if it's less flashy than the Marilyn Monroe towers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:18 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.