Quality of Canadian urbanism

[Marshal]

We should put the wealthy on buses and ship them straight out of town. Then urbanity will flourish.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by rousseau

That was my impression in the mid to late 1980s when I was in Winnipeg. The North End was synonymous with danger, but it didn't really look like it to me, and some of the people I worked with in construction lived there raising families.

Coincidentally enough, being from Hamilton I recognized the dynamic of a place's bad reputation being overblown, as that was the case with the North End in Hamilton. But that was then, over thirty years ago. Sounds like the North End in Winnipeg has changed a lot.

The funny thing about the North End is that Selkirk Avenue, its main drag, or what remains of it, is the best high street outside of downtown Winnipeg in terms of urban form. The storied Corydon and Osborne don't even come close to Selkirk in terms of urbanity. Yet it has been largely emptied of vitality... there are no trendy shops or cafes on Selkirk. Not even the discount stores and dress shops when I was a kid. These days it's convenience stores and social services. But at least some of the buildings remain.

[ssiguy]

Before we measure what the "quality of urbanism" is in Canada, we first need to define what quality urbanism means.

Many may hate the suburbs but the reality is that, especially in our expensive cities, suburbs are their only option. No one loves long commutes but due to the high cost of housing in our inner cities, they have no choice. Most have kids and want their kids to have their own bedrooms and space as well as a decent back yard. Is that too much to ask?

Do we want urbanism just to be a domain of the wealthy? What about these McDevelopments you get near rapid transit station. Looks pretty until you find out how many renters were thrown out to make way for them. They have become our new "financial gated communities" where lower income people are not welcome.

For me good urbanism is a place where the conveniences of life are within a short walk/drive and the area puts priority on people and not cars. It also must be an area that is welcoming to all regardless of their socio-economic backgrounds.

[esquire]

^ I agree that we need to take a broad view of urbanism. I don't subscribe to the notion that it's downtown only and everything else is a wasteland. There is significant room for improvement with respect to how suburbs are done in Canada.

[ue]

Originally Posted by esquire

The funny thing about the North End is that Selkirk Avenue, its main drag, or what remains of it, is the best high street outside of downtown Winnipeg in terms of urban form. The storied Corydon and Osborne don't even come close to Selkirk in terms of urbanity. Yet it has been largely emptied of vitality... there are no trendy shops or cafes on Selkirk. Not even the discount stores and dress shops when I was a kid. These days it's convenience stores and social services. But at least some of the buildings remain.

I agree that Selkirk could be better. Although at least it still does have some services you mention which are no doubt used by that community. The closest to Selkirk would be Sargent and Ellice in the West End, which are more vibrant. Provencher is one that surprises me - it's pretty nice and walkable, so why isn't it more vibrant?

Again, Winnipeg seems to excel more at neighbourhoods than main streets. Places that aren't so focused on the commercial activity of one particular street. Wolseley, the Exchange, West Broadway, Crescentwood, and the West End.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Before we measure what the "quality of urbanism" is in Canada, we first need to define what quality urbanism means.

Many may hate the suburbs but the reality is that, especially in our expensive cities, suburbs are their only option. No one loves long commutes but due to the high cost of housing in our inner cities, they have no choice. Most have kids and want their kids to have their own bedrooms and space as well as a decent back yard. Is that too much to ask?

Do we want urbanism just to be a domain of the wealthy? What about these McDevelopments you get near rapid transit station. Looks pretty until you find out how many renters were thrown out to make way for them. They have become our new "financial gated communities" where lower income people are not welcome.

For me good urbanism is a place where the conveniences of life are within a short walk/drive and the area puts priority on people and not cars. It also must be an area that is welcoming to all regardless of their socio-economic backgrounds.

I agree with pretty much everything you're saying here. Quality urbanism can only be considered as such if it is affordable and accessible to all. Obviously there will be nice areas that only the wealthy can afford, but the city in aggregate cannot just be the domain of the wealthy. Access to the city should not be dependent on a flawed economic system. It's no different than the livability indexes which frequently put expensive cities like Vancouver and Auckland at or near the top - it begs the question, for whom is this city "livable"?

It's quite unfortunate what is happening in BC, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal, and Halifax. It isn't right that existing communities (and even new communities from lower socioeconomic backgrounds) are pushed out of great cities. Unfortunately the existing structures are oriented toward complacency so I foresee it will stay getting worse for a bit. Hopefully I'm wrong there. There's also a lot of qualms that I have with so-called "affordable" housing. They are often not affordable to those facing the greatest difficulties accessing housing and, depending on context, can lead to a net reduction in units that are affordable. What we need is strong rent controls, more public housing, other non-profit low-income housing, and to decommodify housing. If we are able to do that, we might get cities that are truly accessible to all.

There is also the problem of improving cities and thus making the urbanism better in quality leading to gentrification. Winnipeg may be affordable and have some high-quality urbanism, but if it started implementing the public infrastructure improvements on the scale of Edmonton or Calgary, it would start making many areas of Winnipeg inaccessible and unaffordable. And while overlooked due to how "cheap" it is, Winnipeg is gentrifying and is facing a dwindling amount of low rent housing.

[GreaterMontréal]

Montréal is not on the same level as Vancouver and Toronto. It's getting expensive but it's still pretty affordable. There are plenty of SFHs under $500k in Laval or in Longueuil.

[ue]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

Montréal is not on the same level as Vancouver and Toronto. It's getting expensive but it's still pretty affordable. There are plenty of SFHs under $500k in Laval or in Longueuil.

Yeah, but a SFH in the suburbs is not exactly what ssiguy and I are talking about here. Montreal may not be on the level of Toronto and Vancouver, but nor is Winnipeg or Calgary, both of which have their fair share of housing issues. Just because the housing crisis isn't taken to its most extreme doesn't mean that Montreal is becoming more unaffordable. I know many Montrealers who've complained about certain areas no longer being affordable and encroaching gentrification, particularly in the Sud-Ouest. The Lachine Canal has been called "green gentrification" and of course le Plateau / Mile End are not cheap anymore. Meanwhile the condo phenomenon, while late, is taking the city by storm, slowly turning the skyline into a Vancouverist manifestation.

[someone123]

I thought this shot gave an interesting summary of Canadian urbanism. Some obvious aspects and some less obvious:

- There's a suburban style Shoppers that will be next to a 32 storey complex separated in time by 10-15 years. There was a shift in planning rules and standards around here, with the standards up until recently being low and relatively suburban. There is early 2000's urban infill but it's mostly pretty ugly; it is the immediate ancestor of the current round of construction.
- The green area of trees in behind is a "stable" residential area where it's hard to build much of anything.
- Foreground right was a Victorian era garment factory that decayed for many years and eventually was unceremoniously demolished and replaced with nothing.
- On the left there are some historic school structures that have been abandoned for around a decade. Even though there is lots of private development, the municipality really bungled the sale of this site. There was a lot of talk about affordable housing developments here but nothing happened and in the end it was sold to a developer.
- You can't see it in this but the stretch of shops along Robie, a quasi light industrial area, has become quite eclectic and interesting. There is a mosque next to a craft brewery in an old industrial building, next to a Japanese place, etc. Canadian cities tend to do well in this area.

Originally Posted by bluenoser

Source: Saltwire: Halifax better off than Canada's big cities, where offices remain stubbornly empty

[ue]

^ This is also the area that you've spoken about becoming a 'second downtown' with taller buildings in the proper downtown, right?

[MonkeyRonin]

That picture totally is immediately and unmistakably Canadian (regardless of the visible store brands). The slab towers + leafy SFH + big box stroads + new condo construction combo is pretty quintessential urban Canada, for better or worse.

[giallo]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

That picture totally is immediately and unmistakably Canadian (regardless of the visible store brands). The slab towers + leafy SFH + big box stroads + new condo construction combo is pretty quintessential urban Canada, for better or worse.

Indeed. And I'd say for worse.

Outside of added density and some nice greenery, everything else in that photo makes me depressed.

[Peggerino]

At least it's getting better? This picture once those developments are done will hopefully also include more pedestrians on the street and a more urban environment. Being ridiculously optimistic, maybe even more support for things like protected bike lanes and taking space away from cars for things like trees and better public space as people start to live there.

While a lot of Canadian urban environments are depressing nowadays, at least it seems to be improving somewhat (at least that's the impression I get from this forum).

[giallo]

Originally Posted by Peggerino

At least it's getting better? This picture once those developments are done will hopefully also include more pedestrians on the street and a more urban environment. Being ridiculously optimistic, maybe even more support for things like protected bike lanes and taking space away from cars for things like trees and better public space as people start to live there.

While a lot of Canadian urban environments are depressing nowadays, at least it seems to be improving somewhat (at least that's the impression I get from this forum).

Oh, for sure. I'm just basing my impression on that photo alone. I love seeing Halifax grow in to a much larger city, as it's got so much potential to be the big city of the Atlantic. I'm just not a fan of most of the city's modern architecture.

[Al Ski]

Originally Posted by giallo

Oh, for sure. I'm just basing my impression on that photo alone. I love seeing Halifax grow in to a much larger city, as it's got so much potential to be the big city of the Atlantic. I'm just not a fan of most of the city's modern architecture.

The charm of Halifax lies in its established neighbourhoods and older architecture.
That they're suffering from the same investor-driven crap that the rest of us are isn't their fault.
It has always has been the big city of the Atlantic!
And it has always struck me as much bigger than it actually is.
If bigness is important..

[Al Ski]

Originally Posted by ue

Yeah, but a SFH in the suburbs is not exactly what ssiguy and I are talking about here. Montreal may not be on the level of Toronto and Vancouver, but nor is Winnipeg or Calgary, both of which have their fair share of housing issues. Just because the housing crisis isn't taken to its most extreme doesn't mean that Montreal is becoming more unaffordable. I know many Montrealers who've complained about certain areas no longer being affordable and encroaching gentrification, particularly in the Sud-Ouest. The Lachine Canal has been called "green gentrification" and of course le Plateau / Mile End are not cheap anymore. Meanwhile the condo phenomenon, while late, is taking the city by storm, slowly turning the skyline into a Vancouverist manifestation.

You are absolutely correct.
I live in Villeray and we've seen many of our lifelong, generational residents booted out in favour of moneyed refugees from France, Belgium, Vancouver, Toronto - you name it. A lot of weird accents replacing the traditional working class Francos, Italian and Portuguese who grew up here. Much more English being spoken. Many factory loft conversions and 3-unit triplexes turned into 2 unit or even SFHs.
Now, not all of this is bad, if anything the mix is becoming 'different' rather than problematic. A natural evolution.
What worries me is that the mix of economic classes - the very thing that makes neighbourhoods interesting - is being supplanted by a homogenous economic class - albeit a very diverse mix within that class - and that has always been proven to be unhealthy.
And believe me: nobody here gives a flying f*ck about Laval or Longueuil!
And nobody, I repeat: NOBODY that I've ever spoken to in my entire lifetime - anywhere- has ever expressed even so much as a half a f*ck about the skyline lol
Skyline weirdos are so hilarious. They are to urbanist sites what the skat fetish people are to porn sites!

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Al Ski

And believe me: nobody here gives a flying f*ck about Laval or Longueuil!
And nobody, I repeat: NOBODY that I've ever spoken to in my entire lifetime - anywhere- has ever expressed even so much as a half a f*ck about the skyline lol
Skyline weirdos are so hilarious. They are to urbanist sites what the skat fetish people are to porn sites!

No question that people who take an active interest in skylines are a pretty rare breed, at least outside of websites like this one. But there is no way that you could convince me skylines don't play a key part in forming general impressions of cities for most people.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by ue

^ This is also the area that you've spoken about becoming a 'second downtown' with taller buildings in the proper downtown, right?

Yes (extending north outside of this shot as well). I am not sure if it will go that way or be a mix of light industrial and larger residential buildings for a long time. This area was just light industrial and box style retail not too long ago; it was originally developed as an industrial park served by a rail line and was a race track and fair grounds. I would guess that a big development will be announced soon for the empty lot at the right end of the photo.

One challenge here is a huge block that made sense for the old uses but won't be as desirable if there is a lot more density here. I don't think the streets themselves are a big deal. Robie is just 4 lanes with a transit priority lane for example. Crossing it is quite easy. The excessive curb cuts and building setbacks of the suburban developments are bad.

Originally Posted by Al Ski

The charm of Halifax lies in its established neighbourhoods and older architecture.

Yes, the "real" North End is outside of this shot and doesn't appear on SSP all that often. But in any case it's better for those areas to be adjacent to vibrant mixed use blocks than empty lots.

[ssiguy]

While most Canadian downtowns/inner cities are quite vibrant and appealing, the reality is that most Canadians live in the suburbs. Whether that being due to not being able to afford to live in the inner cities, being closer to work as most do NOT work right downtown, or having the complete audacity of actually wanting a back yard or a bedroom for each kid, there are several factors at play.

Also most people have a car and that will never change regardless of how good the transit is. Having a car is expensive but it is a convenience that allows far more freedom than transit every could and hence it is an expense they are willing to pay.

The question is not how we get people to ditch their cars because it's never going to happen but rather how we can work with our cars and still make vibrant communities. One very easy and cheap way we can do this is reconfiguring parking.

Much of our urban blight and pedestrian unfriendly suburbs is that stores are fronted by massive parking lots taking the store fronts far off the roadways and sidewalks. We don't have to force less parking but rather reconfigure where we put it. Putting all store fronts at the sidewalks and putting the parking in the rear would go miles to bringing vitality to our streets. We have recently seen the development of such communities with streets offering a more pleasant pedestrian realm being created in our suburbs but the reality is that they don't have any less parking than what we are use to but rather the parking is behind the stores and not in front of them.

Getting rid of parking minimums in our suburbs may look great for urban policy wonks but it is key to a businesses success because they know the the VAST majority of people going to their business are going to drive. This is why businesses fight back against such proposals..........getting rid of parking spots is a one way ticket to insolvency and they know it.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

While most Canadian downtowns/inner cities are quite vibrant and appealing, the reality is that most Canadians live in the suburbs. Whether that being due to not being able to afford to live in the inner cities, being closer to work as most do NOT work right downtown, or having the complete audacity of actually wanting a back yard or a bedroom for each kid, there are several factors at play.

Also most people have a car and that will never change regardless of how good the transit is. Having a car is expensive but it is a convenience that allows far more freedom than transit every could and hence it is an expense they are willing to pay.

The question is not how we get people to ditch their cars because it's never going to happen but rather how we can work with our cars and still make vibrant communities. One very easy and cheap way we can do this is reconfiguring parking.

Much of our urban blight and pedestrian unfriendly suburbs is that stores are fronted by massive parking lots taking the store fronts far off the roadways and sidewalks. We don't have to force less parking but rather reconfigure where we put it. Putting all store fronts at the sidewalks and putting the parking in the rear would go miles to bringing vitality to our streets.

We have recently seen the development of new communities with street more pleasant pedestrian realms being created in our suburbs but the reality is that they don't have any less parking than what we are use to but rather the parking is behind the stores and not in front of them.

Getting rid of parking minimums in our suburbs may look great for urban policy wonks but it is key to a businesses success but they know the the VAST majority of people going to their business are going to drive. This is why businesses fight back against such proposals..........getting rid of parking spots is a one way ticket to insolvency and they know it.

There are downsides to car dependence that go beyond unsightly parking lots. They have one of these new developments in Langley near Willoughby, and traffic is a mess in the area. Getting everyone to pile into a car so they could all eventually squeeze into the narrow parking lane creates bottlenecks. The area would have been better off had they just scrapped the parking and built a shopping centre that the locals could walk to.

[DirectionNorth]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

While most Canadian downtowns/inner cities are quite vibrant and appealing, the reality is that most Canadians live in the suburbs. Whether that being due to not being able to afford to live in the inner cities, being closer to work as most do NOT work right downtown, or having the complete audacity of actually wanting a back yard or a bedroom for each kid, there are several factors at play.

Hm, I have a couple of questions. Being close to work is a very good reason, as is unaffordability. The solution is to make downtowns more affordable, and build higher quality units - 3 or 4 bedroom units would make a big difference for those who want to live in urban settings but can't afford a SFH and for whom a condo isn't large enough. I'm sure I've posted some more detailed analyses on UT, but I can't be bothered to find them ...

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Also most people have a car and that will never change regardless of how good the transit is. Having a car is expensive but it is a convenience that allows far more freedom than transit every could and hence it is an expense they are willing to pay.

Ah, the "cars are freedom" argument.

The issue with cars is environmental, mostly. Even with electric cars, suburbs take far more space than urban environments, paving over farmland and natural habitat.

The other issue with cars is congestion. Cars take more space than transit - how many cars can fit into the space for a bus? How many people can the cars hold, compared to those buses?

How about LRT. You can probably put a 2 lane road into the room for one. How many people use that LRT, compared to the road?

What about those who can't afford cars?

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The question is not how we get people to ditch their cars because it's never going to happen but rather how we can work with our cars and still make vibrant communities. One very easy and cheap way we can do this is reconfiguring parking.

See above.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Much of our urban blight and pedestrian unfriendly suburbs is that stores are fronted by massive parking lots taking the store fronts far off the roadways and sidewalks. We don't have to force less parking but rather reconfigure where we put it. Putting all store fronts at the sidewalks and putting the parking in the rear would go miles to bringing vitality to our streets. We have recently seen the development of such communities with streets offering a more pleasant pedestrian realm being created in our suburbs but the reality is that they don't have any less parking than what we are use to but rather the parking is behind the stores and not in front of them.

OK, but that still doesn't solve the fact that walking on roads is awfully-unpleasant, nor the fact that cars inherently take a lot of space ... putting lipstick on a pig, as they say.

I don't like walking in front of stores with lots of cars, anymore than I like walking through parking lots. If you make it easy to drive, they'll drive, no matter whether the parking lot is in front or behind the store.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Getting rid of parking minimums in our suburbs may look great for urban policy wonks but it is key to a businesses success because they know the the VAST majority of people going to their business are going to drive. This is why businesses fight back against such proposals..........getting rid of parking spots is a one way ticket to insolvency and they know it.

I've never understood why people are for parking minimums. As they say, if there's demand, they will build it ... if there's no demand for parking, why force it?