Historicist: "The city that nobody loves"
Elsewhere in the Ist-a-Verse
We're generally fans of GO Transit, yet we can't help but see an almost ironic statement in this bureaucratic SNAFU at Oakville station. The busiest GO station by daily passenger volume and running coaches to-and-from Toronto since 1967, Oakville shares its site with an older depot operated by federal Crown corporation VIA Rail. When the Ontario government refreshed the GO terminal years ago, somebody seems to have been asleep at the switch, positioning the roof overhang too closely and forcing a tiny cutout in the siding to accommodate the eaves of the VIA station.
We like to think of it as a symbol for the lack of communication between both our private and public transit systems, who still seem unable to hammer out a co-operative fare agreement—separate entities with similar services sharing common spaces, yet ne'er the twain shall meet.
Photo by Marc Lostracco
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
i take it canada doesn't have air rights in their real estate laws? that should be illegal.
I'm confused - which one of them (VIA or GO) is supposed to be the private one?
Mark: the TTC is the private element (and Mississauga Transit, etc.), while VIA is a federal corporation and GO is a provincial Crown agency. I don't really see any reason why there shouldn't be an amalgamated, distance-based transit agreement by now considering the amount of commuting in and out of Toronto. Two of the majors are government services, and some people have to pay for tickets on three different transit systems to get into the city. Ridiculous.
Good post Marc.
Ha! That's ridiculous...seriously, we could have had (and possibly still have) the opportunity to have an awesomely integrated transit network across Ontario... but failed miserably.
Via has some sort of priority at the Oakville train station. They get to use Track 1 for their trains so their 10 passengers aren't inconvenienced, whereas the mass of GO passengers bottlenecks in the main stairs, making the poor suckers at the back of the mass of people miss the Oakville buses (I've had this happen to me, and it stinks). Via also gets to ticket people who park in their almost empty, 20 space parking lot within the overcrowded Oakville GO lot.
@Marc: The Via train that goes through Oakville also to the States (it's Amtrack on the other side). I don't want my train to be late due to a search at the border. Also, most people have to pay 3 types of transit: their town/city transit, the train/bus transit between major hubs (Go, Greyhound, whatever) and then TTC. Plus, it's $16 for Via from Oakville to Toronto, and $6 for the Go. I don't see how merging Via with GO would make anything better. They can use the same building, and in fact that would be better, but the same fare system? No thanks...
Sorry, just had to vent. I'm sure I'll come up with more problems with Via later...
I'm not talking about merging transportation systems, but just implementing a common fare system, which is supposed to happen starting this year with full implementation by 2010 via the formation of a Greater Toronto Transit Authority. My concern is that it's going to be expensive, which is where government subsidies should be more significant. A metropass is already really expensive by itself. I'd like to see it distance-rated (similar to how the London Underground does it and GO Transit does now), which I assume is the only viable fare solution anyway.
Isn't this just all approaching the problem backwards? Shouldn't the emphasis be on placing people near their jobs in the first place so they don't in fact have to commute? If people didn't insist on insulating themselves from society in the suburbs we wouldn't have these commuter problems. Not that it shouldn't be integrated and simplified, but I'd like more focus on actually advocating that people start to live in a more sustainable manner.
Alain, you hit the nail on the head. If everybody could walk to work, the world would be a much better place.
This is one situation where I know I'm wrong, though. I have this strong feeling that says, "Why would you ever live in the suburbs and commute an hour to work? Nobody should do that!"
I would raise children in the city. I am resentful at my fairly sheltered rearing and I think my upbringing would have been much more fulfilling if I had lived in a city before now.
Having been raised in the suburbs I cannot agree more.
I think expecting people to live near work (and thinking its an easy solution) ignores many difficult issues.
How many people could possibly live within walking distance of the hundreds of floors of office space in the downtown core?
What about low paying jobs downtown? There are thousands of jobs that simply do not pay enough downtown to allow you to raise a family in anything other than a 350 sf bachelor that is close to work (or less).
What if there is more than one person in a household that works and they do not work close to each other?
What if people choose a location based on being close to family that they have to look after or that provide child care? Is this not important?
What if your job changes or it moves? Do you have to move each time also?
Should there be a government agency approving the location of jobs so that there is sufficient residential capacity near the office/facility?
And then what happens if you live in the city close to transit and your job is in the suburbs? I guess the suggestion is to move to the suburbs?
"Now, of course, you realize that piece in the overhang is a custom cut and mold and I'm afraid that'll cost ya' extry"
I live near a city and work in the suburbs (unfortunately) . My commute isn't much, but as I drive through, what were once small, friendly towns, that now have 4 lane roads in front of shopping centers and it takes forever just to drive through it, I cannot believe we think that THIS is better. At least you guys have a mass transit system. In the summer I try to bike it as much as I can, it's about 12 miles one-way, and I'm pretty certain that I WILL die on my bike when some idiot runs me over.
I'm curious though, why are sububanites so angry on the road? If they have the house,a $40,000 vehicle, a wife, family, good job...you'd think they would be the nicest people on the road. I mean, THIS is the way they wanted it, right?
GH: The problem is how the suburbs are designed. They aren't designed like villages have been for thousands of years anymore. In today's suburbia, everything is a car ride away—the GO station, Wal-Mart, the grocery store, school—and neighbourhoods (if you can call them that) are a single-class demographic rather than a varying class/cultural mix that fosters healthy settlements.
Urban sprawl infrastructure and public services are also extremely expensive to maintain relative to dense, high developments, and they are susceptible to flux issues as children grow up and families move around (hence the frequent closing or decay of big box stores and schools).
The sad thing about today's rampant sprawl is that it creates a severely insular culture and hobbles any intent or need for a sustainable public transportation system. It's even a whole process to drive your car to the GO station and take the train into the city. And yay! More parking lots!
It's not suburbia as a concept or the people that live there that are the problem (necessarily), but it's out-of-control, poorly-planned, cookie-cutter development that is destroying the GTA. What's scary is that it's a relatively new thing, and it's virtually irreversible.
Take a look at this satellite image in Google Maps, which is about five years old. Guess what that area to the left looks like today? Now compare it with how neighbourhoods used to develop.
Marc, your response just tells us that suburbs are bad. Fine. My comment was that "move closer to work" solutions to congestion, pollution etc are really not workable as they do not take into account the real world of many, many people.
Well, it's a habit/culture problem. We've manufactured desires for things like big houses and SUVs, and still demand easy access to everything. That is the real world situation we find ourselves in, and it's happened by our own design. We moved away from work and away from the cities, and that brings a whole set of unique problems.
We need a culture-shift where we can meet halfway and get used to living differently:
• Stop complaining about traffic and wanting to widen or build more roads and consider public transportation and carpooling as a viable, desirable option.
• Our family cars and vans are much larger than they need to be.
• Strongly legislate developers and employ experts on urban planning to review new developments (not bloody likely).
• Suburban developments needs to be centred around mixed-use neighbourhood designs, not big box stores (again, not bloody likely).
• 400 square feet of downtown condo may not be a good size to raise a family, but 4,500 square feet isn't particularly necessary either.
• Modern subdivisions use a disproportionate amount of electricity, public services, land, and other environmental resources considering how few people live on any given plot, and there is little concern for the greater environmental effects paving-over farmland is having.
As for job distances, people moved away from the jobs; the jobs didn't move from the suburbs into the city. I understand the reality, but it's as a result of rampant, uncontrolled sprawl rather than the natural historical development of neighbourhoods. We have ourselves to blame for pollution, long distances and traffic. The family issue is a bit of a red herring because children have been successfully growing up in cities all this time.
Look, I'm not blaming suburbanites for being attracted to the suburbs, even if I don't really understand it. I understand why people like to drive SUVs. I get that the city can be overwhelming. I acknowledge the undeniable appeal of big box stores. However, that is because our habits and our culture have encouraged it, and because we have had the wealth, space, and luxury of being able to expand as quickly as we are. The bottom line is that we made our own choices and created these problems ourselves and most people are either unconcerned, indifferent, or ignorant about fixing them.
What bothers me...this unplanned sprawl, lost neighborhoods, outsourcing, widening income gap, etc., is, just how far can all of this go and where will it finally end up? Will we literally have walled cities for the poor, no middle class and the rich live on the outside? They're building huge houses that hardly anyone can afford, but then, rent is rising too. So, whaddya do? Most of the so called "well off" are really in moutains of credit card debt and a pink slip away from bankruptcy. A lot of this "growth" is built on a house of cards. I mean, Donald Trump is a celebrity for crying out loud and people are reading HIS book on how to make it. Yikes.
I'm always amazed when I look at old photos of New York City at the turn of the century and you see a whole family living in one room, one bed, maybe one chair, bathroom in the hall. Not saying we need to go back to that, but they did it, they managed to raise kids. At one point, the suburbs probably felt like paradise...but, once you call something paradise, kiss it goodbye.
"What we want, and what we need, has been confused"
I think the attention really needs to focussed on the developers and on the planning frameworks that allow them to build relatively unsustainable communities -- rather than on pillorying and ridiculing the people who live in those communities.
When smart communities are developed, they're snapped up pretty quick: like that Markham project, I think (can't recall). I have a young family. We're about to move from Montreal to Toronto. And there's a good chance we'll end up in the suburbs. Now, would I pay -- more, even -- for a smaller, compacter house, maybe part of a stacked townhouse, where I can walk to a corner store? Uh, yeah. But in a lot of the neighbourhoods and projects I've looked at, it just doesn't exist.
As a consumer, the individual family's power is minimal. It's the developers who can implement these changes. But they don't -- first, they're risk-averse; second, they're not made to. I mean, look at someone like Cadillac Fairview. They're a single company whose awful sustainability choices have an unbelievably disproportionate effect on the city, as just one entity.
Take the Promenade mall, a giant suburban block in the heart of east Vaughan. A VIVA transit terminal is right there, but it's fenced off and walkable to almost nothing -- in contrast to, say, Ottawa's Rideau Centre. A bunch of condo buildings have gradually gone up in the gigantic parking lot and yet, amazingly, there's no walking even from them to the mall, never mind adding mixed housing/shopping and burying the parking to create a walkable community.
So, by all means, suburbia sucks and all that. But I think the target has to be the developers and the rules they play by.
I wasn't intending to ridicule the members of the communities at all, since we all are attracted to things that aren't particularly progressive, so apologies if it came off that way. Nonetheless, Disparishun, brilliantly said.
I'm not one for excessive legislation, but when it comes to big money (telcos, developers, billboard companies), we don't legislate or enforce nearly enough. We have to get in the habit of encouraging practices that may be tough in the short term to deal with but are good for us, rather than being outraged that we aren't allowed to do anything we want and dealing with the repercussions later. We're spoiled, but we're also the bitches of the wealthy few (and that includes lawmakers).