Today Sun Mon
It is forcast to be Mostly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on May 26, 2012
Mostly Cloudy
27°/17°
It is forcast to be Chance of Rain at 11:00 PM EDT on May 27, 2012
Chance of Rain
26°/20°
It is forcast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 28, 2012
Chance of a Thunderstorm
32°/20°

11 Comments

news

Sewell and the Suburbs

20090423sewellandthesuburbs1.jpg
Toronto poster boy John Sewell has been hard at work. Building on the research that he conducted for a 2005 lecture series, he has written a new book, The Shape of the Suburbs, that attempts to explain how Toronto’s suburban communities have spread over time and how they have shaped Toronto. Because of its insight, the work has been selected for Pages Books and Magazines’ This Is Not A Reading Series, and on Tuesday night at the Gladstone Hotel, Sewell had the opportunity to not read his book.


Instead, eighty or so people showed up to watch Sewell sit on a discussion panel (moderated by Kim Storey of Brown and Storey Architects) with Jack Heath, the deputy mayor of Markham, and Steve Parish and Rob Burton, the mayors of Ajax and Oakville. Storey and the event’s organizers pre-selected five major discussion points that centred on a few of the new book’s themes (i.e. Toronto’s urban planning proposals from the 1960s, the cultural divide between Torontonians and their suburban allies, public transportation, and the contribution of water and sewage systems to Toronto’s suburban landscape), and each subject was presented to the panel through pointed questions intended to invoke debate. Unfortunately, this structure did not engender any constructive answers: the three public servants often got lost in their words and refused to confine their replies to the topic at hand. (In case you forgot, they are politicians.)
But that doesn’t mean that the event wasn’t a success. In fact, some over-arching themes became fairly evident through this peripatetic discourse and these should be addressed the next time anyone sits down to discuss any sort of development plan for the GTA. First, it became clear that we must adopt a new model for zoning. Parish claims that “we’re still doing the same two-dimensional planning and making the same mistakes that we did in the 60s, 70s, 80s, [and] 90s,” meaning that we continue to look at a map and arbitrarily assign areas of land that will be used for certain types of development. We must instead take the land’s resources and location relative to other communities into account in order to appropriately assess what it can be best used for. For example, a new community in Durham Region is not contiguous to any other populous neighbourhoods, and its distance to other suburban communities has made it a nightmare for public transit officials who must efficiently connect it to their current transit system.
20090423sewellandthesuburbs2.jpg
We also must not submit to the will of developers who focus on low-cost growth and achieving enormous economies of scale. In the GTA’s past, succumbing to their plans has resulted in pipes being laid in formations that inhibit the development of vibrant communities above ground because the infrastructure below has already dictated how neighbourhoods must be organized.
Finally, going forward, any discussion of Toronto’s suburbs must mitigate the difference of opinion between Torontonians and people who live in the GTA. To the former, Toronto is viewed as its own unique city and the suburbs are mutually exclusive communities; to the latter, the GTA is an expansive extension of the city of Toronto. Until these paradigms are reconciled and the GTA is viewed as a whole, inter-connected community, a comprehensive plan (for transit, for business development, for anything) cannot be drawn up. It is simply too hard to try to establish strategies for sustainable urban growth when constituents of the two areas do not view their cities in the same light.
Because it’s hard for anyone to reach any solid conclusions on the future of the GTA in a ninety-minute discussion, uncovering these over-arching ideas was a welcome surprise. But these concepts alone are not what made the event worthwhile: it was much more important that the panellists agreed to come together and talk, even though they gained few political points from their own constituents for doing so. (The event was downtown, not in their own cities.) A gathering of community leaders, open to the public, cannot go unappreciated when the topic is as highly bureaucratic as the future development of the GTA. Bringing these leaders together was a very small step forward for Toronto and its surrounding suburban communities, but it’s small steps that can help foster the momentum needed to make a monumental change.
Photos by Tim Kiladze/Torontoist.

Filed under: , , ,

Report error Send a tip

Comments

  • http://null Paul Kishimoto

    As a Mississauga-raised Toronto resident, this issue really interests me. For example, “the infrastructure below has already dictated how neighbourhoods must be organized”—who raised this?
    After a debate with a classmate recently, I’m convinced that sprawl needs to be tackled at both ends. On one hand, solid lines need to be drawn to confine new development. At the same time, a strategy for infill development needs to be devised that’s affordable and sidesteps NIMBYism. Solving the “plumbing” problem will be a part of developing such a plan.
    I personally like European-style row housing or Japanese-style small apartment blocks as a halfway point between subdivisions and condo towers…but whatever realizes increased density is good in my book.

  • http://www.torontocitylife.com/ torontocitylife

    There are a few things that set the burbs apart from the city:
    1. Communities aren’t self-contained. Most are gated behemoths with nothing but cookie-cutter housing, abandoned streets (it’s creepy out there), and nothing else. Communities in Toronto have stores within them (or nearby), community centers, etc.
    2. Every adult in the burbs needs a car. Two adults in household means two cars. Public transit is often a car drive away, even for the folks who take GO trains (my sympathies).
    3. Suburbs cater to families almost exclusively. Specialty (non-big-box), risque (hemp stores, strip bars, etc.), and so on are virtually non-existent.
    I lived on the very edge of the Durham suburbs for five years so I had plenty of time to think about this :)
    It’s not about people’s mind-sets, it’s about policy. My opinion, after all, doesn’t decide which streets are plowed. If politicians are going to continue to zone the sticks in the same ridiculous way they have then yes, these places will continue to be suburbs of Toronto.
    http://www.torontocitylife.com/

  • http://null scorchez

    To Paul Kishimoto: Take a look at the Ontario ‘Places to Grow’ document as well as plans for the Oak Ridges Moraine and Greenbelt. These plans restrict where development can and cannot take place. In York Region for example, I think something like 69% of the land area is now “protected”, meaning it cannot be used for commercial, industrial or residential development. Things are certainly beginning to change in the 905, with the focus moving towards city building (e.g. transit/employment corridors etc) rather than just continuous sprawl.

  • Tim Kiladze

    Steve Parish, the mayor of Ajax, is who brought the infrastructure comment up.

  • http://null Vincent Clement

    Keep in mind that by restricting the urban envelope, you make land within that envelope more expensive. That increases the cost of providing so-called affordable housing. Note, I’m not saying that Places to Grow is bad document. Just that there are implications down the road.

  • http://null Vincent Clement

    There hasn’t been any change because politicians don’t want to deal with NIMBYism.
    I’m a practising urban planner. I don’t understand how the municipality I work for, has residential zoning that only allows single-unit dwellings (aka single family housing). Our official plan defines what low density housing is and it includes more than a single-unit dwelling.
    I’ve always argued that, as a bare minimum, the lowest-density residential zoning should allow any dwelling with up to four, six, even eight units (Our Official Plan define low-density small-scale as up to eight units). But our Council will never ever let that happen because a vocal minority will go ape shit. People here think that a 40 foot by 100 foot lot is small. I tell them go to Toronto to see small lots.

  • http://null Paul Kishimoto

    I’ve been following Places To Grow since its inception. Like Vincent, I think it’s a qualified good thing. Another unexpected side effect is builders “leapfrogging” the green belt under the premise that any land not explicitly off-limits is fair game. This is the worst example I’ve seen—layoff threats, ugh. Part of this problem is I don’t trust the OMB to make good decisions in such cases.
    @Vincent: I remember seeing an interesting piece in the Star around a year back about “illegal” rooming houses in Mississauga and Brampton. People were converting the usual single-unit, two-story semi-detached homes into 3-4 unit apartments, and the municipalities were cracking down. I understand there were safety issues involved, but it still seemed highly counterproductive to me. This sort of response is overdue.

  • http://null spacejack

    Maybe an urban planner can answer me something I’ve wondered about for years…
    How feasible would it be to require new developments design in bike paths that make it possible to traverse your typical suburban major-street-block via bike. As it is, the residential streets within each major block are designed to deter drivers from driving through, keeping them on the main roads. That’s fine, but bikes then have the problem of being forced onto the main roads to get anywhere. All those quiet streets go wasted. No one bikes anywhere because the small streets don’t go anywhere for them. Kids are deterred from biking anywhere because they’ve got to cross major intersection as soon as they leave their block.

  • http://undefined Vincent Clement

    Completely feasible with one proviso: the width of any trails has to be at least 20 feet, 30 to 40 feet is preferable. It shouldn’t be too hard considering that we design local streets with a right-of-way width of 50 to 66 feet.
    In the past ‘walkways’ were built that were, at best, 10 feet wide. Once trees and bushes grow into that space, the walkways become nothing but hangouts for teenagers.

  • http://undefined Vincent Clement

    That Toromont example is interesting. The Provincial Policy Statement will provide no guidance in this issue. On one hand it promotes compact development and so on. On the other hand it encourages economic development. Which one is ‘more important’? Depends on the economic climate.
    Regarding your second point, well, there are at least two sides to the story. It’s one thing to legalize a basement apartment. The Planning Act gives municipalities the authority to allow a second unit in certain types of dwellings as of right. An additional dwelling unit in a single-unit dwelling is not going to overwhelm or adversely impact a neighbourhood.
    But if the situation in Mississauga and Brampton is similar to what is happening in Oshawa, where single-unit dwellings were being converted into 6 or 8 room lodging houses, then there is a concern. Parking, pressure on existing infrastructure and lack of property maintenance are some concerns.
    It’s one thing to plan an area to allow a range of uses. It’s another to plan an area for one type of use, such as single-unit dwellings, and then have people convert said dwelling into a rooming or lodging house with 6 to 8 adults. I’m not saying that the single-unit dwelling development is right, good or better, but it is not fair for the residents of that single-unit development to have to deal with the impact of an increasing number of illegal rooming houses.

  • http://null Paul Kishimoto

    It’s another to plan an area for one type of use, such as single-unit dwellings, and then have people convert said dwelling into a rooming or lodging house with 6 to 8 adults.

    I agree completely…in my first post, when I said, “a strategy for infill development [...] that sidesteps NIMBYism,” I was perhaps being unfair. What I means was there must be some fair way—to borrow your phrasing—to help that single-unit development deal with the impact of an increasing number of legal rooming houses.
    Zoning aside, if I bought only two adjacent single-unit dwellings, tore them down and built a few row houses, then repeated the process on every block, I can’t see there being huge problems. Such buildings can be very elegant; for example one on the east side of Madison Ave. between Lowther and Bernard, downtown. Parking pressures could be addressed with appropriate technology and increased availability of transit. And so on.
    I don’t expect these would be simple solutions, but with I feel creative solutions must exist, for example at the 17-minute mark of this video.