evolution of urban city to suburb?

[nec209]

Does anyone know the evolution of urban city to suburb to now? I find those different types of stores and layouts quite confusing.It funny being in the suburb I get to see those crazy things the suburbs do.And in the end it just points out that suburbs are crazy:banana: .


Like store type A,B.C and the different layouts.I did some drawings to explain what I mean but I know in the Toronto area we gone through all of those evolution of stores .

The first store type (A) classic city type with the storefronts on the road.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/2576/01mq7.jpg

The store type (B) each store by it self on a road an parking lot for each store.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/3782/02uq0.jpg

The store type (C) a straight strip mall in parking lot

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/1962/03gj9.jpg

Now we get into the more modern stores .

A (L) type strip mall in a parking lot very common in the 90's than the store type (C)

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/7269/04vn2.jpg

A store type (L) in a parking lot with a very small straight strip mall one type only.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/8519/05ac8.jpg

A hybrid of a tore type (L) using 2 very small straight strip mall.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/8772/06sp9.jpg

This is now a new set up in the suburbs now it uses 2 (L) type strip malls in a parking lot that wrap around the parking lot.I would never have believe to I seen it and you may not see it because it is very new now.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/6547/07kv4.jpg

It very strange and fun when you look at the evolution of urban city to suburb to now..

[raisethehammer]

what happened you ask?
N. American governments became puppets to the auto/oil/home building industries and viola....sprawl. it actually become profitable for land owners to waste their land and build the lowest possible densities (a completely foreign thought in a free market economy) because of massive subsidies.
No land owner or developer in their right mind would take a piece of land and leave huge hunks of it undeveloped and build one-storey slabs as their 'investment'. Market economies would lead land owners to say "I own 4 acres. I want to use it as smart as possible so I can make the best return on my investment and see the largest number of businesses or residents buy my product."
Government subsidies mean those land owners can throw logic and free market economics out the window and do almost nothing with their land and yet still make a profit.

[waterloowarrior]

nec, you seem to have lots of questions about the evolution of cities, especially from traditional urban areas to today's suburban development. One book I have read as part of a couple of courses is Canadian Cities in Transition (http://www.amazon.ca/Canadian-Cities-Transition-Through-Perspectives/dp/0195422198/ref=pd_ka_1/702-3531747-8869600?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174618340&sr=8-1): Local Through Global Perspectives. There are lots of articles about the history of different forms of development that will answer a lot of the questions you have been posing.

[ScottFromCalgary]

what happened you ask?
N. American governments became puppets to the auto/oil/home building industries and viola....sprawl. it actually become profitable for land owners to waste their land and build the lowest possible densities (a completely foreign thought in a free market economy) because of massive subsidies.
No land owner or developer in their right mind would take a piece of land and leave huge hunks of it undeveloped and build one-storey slabs as their 'investment'. Market economies would lead land owners to say "I own 4 acres. I want to use it as smart as possible so I can make the best return on my investment and see the largest number of businesses or residents buy my product."
Government subsidies mean those land owners can throw logic and free market economics out the window and do almost nothing with their land and yet still make a profit.

Are you serious? Its quite possible that you know more about the subject than me, but I have never heard anything like this before. It seems doubtful to me that the government would pay corporations to waste land.

[nec209]

I guess I'm the only one who finds this very strange or you are all in the classic city and have not seen this:eek:

[Policy Wonk]

Are you serious? Its quite possible that you know more about the subject than me, but I have never heard anything like this before. It seems doubtful to me that the government would pay corporations to waste land.

Haved you heard, if you and your family live in anything larger than a 20ft intermodal container and unless they are stacked atleast 40 deep, you are wasting space and no better than Dick Cheney.

[CMD UW]

what happened you ask?
N. American governments became puppets to the auto/oil/home building industries and viola....sprawl. it actually become profitable for land owners to waste their land and build the lowest possible densities (a completely foreign thought in a free market economy) because of massive subsidies.
No land owner or developer in their right mind would take a piece of land and leave huge hunks of it undeveloped and build one-storey slabs as their 'investment'. Market economies would lead land owners to say "I own 4 acres. I want to use it as smart as possible so I can make the best return on my investment and see the largest number of businesses or residents buy my product."
Government subsidies mean those land owners can throw logic and free market economics out the window and do almost nothing with their land and yet still make a profit.
Ahhh err yeaaaah...not quite sonny.

[Doady]

Raisethehammer obviously knows nothing about urban development and planning, or economics for that matter.

In a free market, what is the most profitable way to develop a land depends entirely on demand (and supply), which is reflected by the property values. If there is not high demand (or low supply), then there is no reason to build at high density. Suburban municipalities can zone all the high density they want but it may never get developed.

Parking is an issue as well, especially in the suburbs. If you build at the highest density possible in the suburbs, you are going to have huge problems finding space for all those cars and still have a profitable development. Therefore, higher density means less profit when there is a lack of transit.

Then there is the fact that certain kind developments are low density in nature to begin with, like industry, and need to be built the cheapest way possible on the cheapest land possible and therefore move out the suburbs. Cityplace in Toronto, for example, was built on abandoned industrial land.

[hamiltonguy]

The Governments support comes in the form of sprawl subsidies (low development fees) which makes spawl cheap enough that people can afford it. It also means higher taxes on denser urban areas than necessary which reduces their attractiveness.

It's not just economics: It's Sprawlenomics

[LordMandeep]

you mean how it could cost 400k to buy a nice home in Toronto then you can get a house even larger or bigger for 330-350k 1 hrs north of Toronto.

[jeicow]

The Governments support comes in the form of sprawl subsidies (low development fees) which makes spawl cheap enough that people can afford it. It also means higher taxes on denser urban areas than necessary which reduces their attractiveness.
Residential taxes in Toronto are the lowest in the region. A 500K house in TO pays about the same property taxes as a 300K house in Markham. I fail to see how denser urban areas are being put at a burden when they pay the same amount as their suburban, low-rise equivlants. The only major sector that suffers in TO is the office/commercail sector who pay the highest taxes in the region to make up for the low-residential taxes in the city. Those commerical propertues in the suburbs pay significantly less because of the higher residential taxes.

High Rez + Low Commerical = jobs
Low Rez + High Commercial = jobs going to where they're cheaper

[hamiltonguy]

Toronto is an exception because of their choice to keep low residential taxes by high commercial taxes which will cause problems later. In Hamilton however we constantly pay taxes to subsidize sprawl (development fees FAR below cost).

[LordMandeep]

They could increase taxes on residental but really it causes an uproar, but only in Toronto it does.

In Brampton taxes have gone up 5-10% for the last 5-6 years straight and i really haven't heard any disagreement. Actually i was shocked when i learned property taxes were so much lower in Toronto, consideirng how much stuff they pay for.

[SteelTown]

Hamilton I believe has the highest residential tax in Canada, mostly thanks to Harris for downloading to a city that happens to have the highest poverty rate in Ontario. Over the last 4 years municipal taxes have gone up on an average of 3% each year so just in 4 years taxes have gone up 12%. This year we're looking at 5%.

I believe last year Hamilton raised the development fee so it would pay for it's own but the Hamilton Builder Association is taking the issue to the OMB.

[LordMandeep]

i could see why there is an uproar in Toronto from raising property taxes.

In some neighbourhood, poor seniors purchased home that were very cheap 40-50 years ago. Now they are 400k, and there income can't support the taxes now. Wierd enough in the News cast they say "we may have to move", but where?? All of the other areas have higher taxes...

[SteelTown]

Yea and we're absolutely delighted to hear from the recent provincial budget that the GTA will no longer have tax pooling since the province will absorb the cost from the downloading from the Harris government, splendid.

All well Toronto and Hamilton tied with the highest poverty rate in Ontario is still struck having to pay for all these social programs through municipal taxes.

[LordMandeep]

sure i would love to see my local city provide the services of the big cities.

[realcity]

interesting... i've always been interested in the retail evolution as well.
keep it up.

[vincebjs]

Raisethehammer obviously knows nothing about urban development and planning, or economics for that matter.

In a free market, what is the most profitable way to develop a land depends entirely on demand (and supply), which is reflected by the property values. If there is not high demand (or low supply), then there is no reason to build at high density. Suburban municipalities can zone all the high density they want but it may never get developed.

Parking is an issue as well, especially in the suburbs. If you build at the highest density possible in the suburbs, you are going to have huge problems finding space for all those cars and still have a profitable development. Therefore, higher density means less profit when there is a lack of transit.

Then there is the fact that certain kind developments are low density in nature to begin with, like industry, and need to be built the cheapest way possible on the cheapest land possible and therefore move out the suburbs. Cityplace in Toronto, for example, was built on abandoned industrial land.

The fact that developers much prefer to build low-density sprawl is not necessarily an indication that that is what the free market wants. The local governments of the U.S. and Canada have made many laws that discourage urban development:
- minimum greenspace laws: lowers density, lowers neighborhood interaction
- minimum setbacks for buildings: lowers density
- minimum parking : encourages car use and lowers ridership, plus it also lowers density (gotta make space for the parking)
- maximum height or floor space to area ratio: lowers density
- zoning regulations: makes it hard to develop mixed-use buildings, and people have to go out of their neighborhood to work or shop.
- much less bureaucracy to get roads and highways built compared to public transit projects. Years of environmental assessments, trying to get governments to cough up funding. There is no charge for using most roads due to the government covering the cost of repairs and maintenance, so often it is cheaper to drive than to take transit. Also, lower density makes transit less convenient and more costly to build and maintain.

Without such government laws, there would not be the same level of suburbanization today.

Besides government, there is also the NIMBY factor, and the city councillors who pander to them. Developers have to pay millions and waste years fighting in court, and then hope (in Ontario) that the OMB will let their application pass through. They have to water down their proposals to make them more "neighborhood-friendly" (i.e. more suburban).

[hamiltonguy]

I agree with everything just posted except the Greenspace. You can't pack so many people into cities without Green Space, that is very depressing for people who live there.

[Doady]

The fact that developers much prefer to build low-density sprawl is not necessarily an indication that that is what the free market wants. The local governments of the U.S. and Canada have made many laws that discourage urban development:
- minimum greenspace laws: lowers density, lowers neighborhood interaction
- minimum setbacks for buildings: lowers density
- minimum parking : encourages car use and lowers ridership, plus it also lowers density (gotta make space for the parking)
- maximum height or floor space to area ratio: lowers density
- zoning regulations: makes it hard to develop mixed-use buildings, and people have to go out of their neighborhood to work or shop.
- much less bureaucracy to get roads and highways built compared to public transit projects. Years of environmental assessments, trying to get governments to cough up funding. There is no charge for using most roads due to the government covering the cost of repairs and maintenance, so often it is cheaper to drive than to take transit. Also, lower density makes transit less convenient and more costly to build and maintain.

Without such government laws, there would not be the same level of suburbanization today.

Besides government, there is also the NIMBY factor, and the city councillors who pander to them. Developers have to pay millions and waste years fighting in court, and then hope (in Ontario) that the OMB will let their application pass through. They have to water down their proposals to make them more "neighborhood-friendly" (i.e. more suburban).

All your points might mean lower densities are forced, but they don't necessarily make lower density profitable than higher density, which is the real issue.

There are lots of examples of land that has been zoned for high density mixed-use development with few of the restrictions that you mention but have remained undeveloped. Most of MCC for example is still undeveloped.

[ScottFromCalgary]

i could see why there is an uproar in Toronto from raising property taxes.

In some neighbourhood, poor seniors purchased home that were very cheap 40-50 years ago. Now they are 400k, and there income can't support the taxes now. Wierd enough in the News cast they say "we may have to move", but where?? All of the other areas have higher taxes...

This is big in Calgary because of our constantly increasing property taxes and the HUGE increases in price for 50 year old homes close to downtown. I really don't have much sympathy for the little old ladies who don't want to pay the the few thousand a year in taxes on their million dollar homes. If they really wanted to stay in their home they would just take out a home equity loan to pay their taxes, with the loan being repaid from the sale of their house when they die.

[nec209]

Does anyone know why the old suburbs the homes have bigger lots and more green than todays small lots and less green?

Well the old suburbs the stores and factories had smaller lots and less green and the new suburbs the stores and factories are pulled back from the street more and more green and parking?

Why is that or I'm I generalize and only seeing some cities?

[waterloowarrior]

planners regulating minimum densities (less sprawl) and/or developers wanting to increase profits (more yield/acre)

[nec209]

But what I don't understand if there is so much of a demad for growth why is it now they have smaller housing lots and less green for housing but they have more green for stores and factories and more pulled back?


Well the housing is more at the street and less green and stores and factories more pulled back and more green now.. This is so strange it is like a switch from in the old days how the suburbs where the stores and factories almost at the street and less green to now the stores and factories more pulled back and more green now..

[nec209]

Many people do not understand this post and it has nothing to with this thread so I will post it in other thread and word it different..

[icescraper]

It ain't the working poor buying those homes. Their off renting 400 sq/ft condos in less desirable neighbourhoods.... - ice

[nec209]

I don't understand:shrug:

[WhipperSnapper]

There are lots of examples of land that has been zoned for high density mixed-use development with few of the restrictions that you mention but have remained undeveloped. Most of MCC for example is still undeveloped.


yeah ... most high density zoned land in the 905 has largely remained undeveloped till now

The fact that developers much prefer to build low-density sprawl is not necessarily an indication that that is what the free market wants. The local governments of the U.S. and Canada have made many laws that discourage urban development:
- minimum greenspace laws: lowers density, lowers neighborhood interaction
- minimum setbacks for buildings: lowers density
- minimum parking : encourages car use and lowers ridership, plus it also lowers density (gotta make space for the parking)
- maximum height or floor space to area ratio: lowers density
- zoning regulations: makes it hard to develop mixed-use buildings, and people have to go out of their neighborhood to work or shop.
- much less bureaucracy to get roads and highways built compared to public transit projects. Years of environmental assessments, trying to get governments to cough up funding. There is no charge for using most roads due to the government covering the cost of repairs and maintenance, so often it is cheaper to drive than to take transit. Also, lower density makes transit less convenient and more costly to build and maintain.

Without such government laws, there would not be the same level of suburbanization today.


lower density is cheaper to build and easier to lease/sell than higher density development - less risk and the lower costs allow for more players

Besides government, there is also the NIMBY factor, and the city councillors who pander to them. Developers have to pay millions and waste years fighting in court, and then hope (in Ontario) that the OMB will let their application pass through. They have to water down their proposals to make them more "neighborhood-friendly" (i.e. more suburban).


I don't follow as a developer wanting to rezone high density for low density will have the same hoops to jump through as a developer wanting to build a 70 storey highrises on lands limited to 10 storeys

[nec209]

sorry if everyone got confused with my above post .I will word it different in an other post.

[LordMandeep]

yeah ... most high density zoned land in the 905 has largely remained undeveloped till now

that is true in Brampton. The condo craze has finally spread here. There are two condos u/c and two more in the works.