No sign of a slowdown in Burlington

[HSRman]

ive been north of the QEW a fair number of times, and i seem to like it a far bunch. i like the new developments up around Upper Middle between Brant and Walkers. I think it resembles our upper james business corridor, just without the auto dealerships.
but the city as a whole has a lot more money than hamilton does, so they can build and develop alot easier than us.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by DC83

DON'T DO IT! hahaha

Ya, imo, everything north of the QEW is crap. I believe they call it "up town" to sound more Toronto or NYC. Infact, this "up town" is nothing more than sprawl and super-lane roads much like Mississauga. There are big box plazas, smaller park-in-front plazas & more sprawl. The sidewalks suck and there's a useless transit system.

Seriously man, if you're looking for a hood to raise your kids, try Durand! (Have you been yet? You're in desperate need of a SSP Forumer Tour! haha)

And why transportation engineering? This makes me sad. You should switch over to the Urban Planning program now! There's a great affiliation program with Mohawk & Ryerson to get a Degree!

Actually I'll explain my situation.

I am from London originally, having lived there for 7 years since 2000. I was 13 when I moved there, and fell in love with the city right away.

Last year, I was at Fanshawe College for a Bachelor of Applied Arts focusing on Urban Planning and Landscape Design in Fall 2006 Semester, Unfortunately, I hated Landscape design with a passion, so I dropped out, and transfered over to GIS & Urban Planning for the Winter 2007 semester. Due to some problems with transferring, I had some problems with prerequisites and from the beginning, I knew I wanted to get into a job in the future in regards to Transportation. Within a few weeks of being in GIS & Urban Planning, I found out about Mohawk College's program called Transportation Engineering. I used to be really really interested in roads and highway design, and still am, but however, I began to take Public Transportation when I was at Fanshawe, and found that to be fascinating, and I went to Europe last summer and rode on the London Underground and other public transportation systems in the Netherlands and was fascinated by that.

I have sort of wished I was in Urban Planning and GIS again, since I have a strong interest in cities, maps, but more specifically, transportation. I'm a first year student in my 2nd semester. right now, I'm with Civil Engineering and Architectural Engineering students, so my programs are not too diverse right now. The program does focus more on roadways than public transportation, but looking in the future, at my courses, I have courses called Public Transportation, along with Many Transportation Design courses, along with Introduction to Land Use Planning, and Introduction to GIS (which I already have).

What i really would like to see is a hands-on transportation course that does not focus nearly as much on the practicality of physics and design, but the function of transportation systems interlinked with mapping and urban planning and design.

I'm one who just turned 20, I'm not really wanting to be in school forever. I want a great job, with flexibility in alot of regions. Right now I'm most interested in public transportation, but that is due to the lack of having a vehicle. If i had a car, I'd be touring roads and highways more,

Hope that helps. Feel free to ask any questions. I don't know where I'll end up, but if you have seen my ideas and maps i've created with google maps about Hamilton, give me some feedback.

[DC83]

^^ Ya, Universities & Colleges aren't very good at handling credit transfers and Major changes. I know first hand.

Hopefully you decide to get into Public Transportation rather than Highway design... especially with the fossil fuel issue our planet is facing.

If you DO happen to stick with roadway design, being in europe I'm sure you learned to appreciate how well slowing traffic works (ie roundabouts & traffic circles). Kudos to you, man. But give it a couple years... you'll love Hamilton and all it's gritty-glory

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by DC83

^^ Ya, Universities & Colleges aren't very good at handling credit transfers and Major changes. I know first hand.

Hopefully you decide to get into Public Transportation rather than Highway design... especially with the fossil fuel issue our planet is facing.

If you DO happen to stick with roadway design, being in europe I'm sure you learned to appreciate how well slowing traffic works (ie roundabouts & traffic circles). Kudos to you, man. But give it a couple years... you'll love Hamilton and all it's gritty-glory

I hate traffic circles to be honest

[fastcarsfreedom]

Fair enough RTH--I see where you're coming from. Dundas and Hamilton--from an urban perspective--are apples and oranges to use your previous quote. Keep bars/restaurants/pubs open late in Dundas? You'd be dealing with an absolute mutany on your hands--it's a wonderful town--and rest assured that the core neighborhoods near downtown are filled with people who like things exactly the way they are. Burlington is a different animal again--the "old" city of Burlington--say south of Fairview is fairly large--and taking Aldershot into account is relatively urban. Burlington is interesting from an urban planning perspective because it's growth pattern has been almost exclusive south-to-north--so starting at New Street and moving northward you can actually see the different eras of suburban development, practically by decade--up to the newest developement in the Dundas Street corridor.

We are on the same page in relation to Mississauga (there is another fine example of engineering a downtown local to me in a place called Troy, Michigan). I never understood the idea--particularly in light of the existence of "town centers" in some of the flash-frozen little burgs Mississauga was created from including Streetsville and Port Credit. Choosing a chunk of land across from Square One?...I never understood that. Imagine if the Living Arts Center had been done in Port Credit? Imagine if the City Hall was done in Port Credit? Imagine if the City Hall didn't look so completely ridiculous? I'm a suburban guy through-and-through and I think of all the suburban tracts I've seen--Peel Region is far-and-away the least appealing--Mississauga and Brampton hold all the appeal of your grandma's underwear drawer.

[matt602]

What little trips to Burlington I have taken have been fairly enjoyable. Their waterfront is really nice and the downtown is very good for a "city" their size. Given a bit of time and some build up of density, we're gonna have a nice little "mirror image" skyline to match Hamilton's across the bay. Of course Hamilton will always dwarf it, but it'll look nice. Burlington will have the more modern, glassified skyline. I expect a big condo boom will happen in Burlington in the next 20 years.

The rest of Burlington of course is sprawl, sprawl, sprawl but you really can't expect anything much different considering the big cities knocking on their doors (Hamilton and Toronto). Burlington, Oakville and Mississauga were never really destined for anything other than sprawl and I think they've done fairly well considering.

[BCTed]

Count me among those who like Burlington.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

Mississauga and Brampton hold all the appeal of your grandma's underwear drawer.

I'm not sure if it's Mississauga and Brampton getting bashed here now, or your grandma's underwear drawer. Either way, your last post seems to contradict you earlier post bemoaning posters who 'crap' on suburban communities. Maybe you just meant ot say you simply really don't care much for Mississauga or Brampton. Neither do I, for that matter.

[BCTed]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

I'm not sure if it's Mississauga and Brampton getting bashed here now, or your grandma's underwear drawer. Either way, your last post seems to contradict you earlier post bemoaning posters who 'crap' on suburban communities. Maybe you just meant ot say you simply really don't care much for Mississauga or Brampton. Neither do I, for that matter.

As I think you have pointed out, you can defend suburban communities in general while disliking some of them in specific.

Anyway, you misunderstood fastcars' post... I don't think he was bashing Miss/Bram, but rather quite the opposite. I have it on good authority that he actually finds grandmothers' underwear drawers very appealing.

[fastcarsfreedom]

There you go--you're onto me--I'm all about underwear drawers, blue rinses and the Mercury Montego.

I was slightly misunderstood in regard to Mississauga and Brampton. What I was drawing attention to--was the decision in Mississauga to "create" a city center instead of using one of the urban areas the city already contained. Frankly, I think it reduces the civic identity vs. a community like Burlington or Oakville where the traditional waterfront urban area was maintained and is a node for higher density development.

Perhaps I will restate what I said--I'm a content suburban dweller myself--I think Burlington is a wonderful and successful city with more of a community heritage and identity than it has been given credit for on this Forum. Downtown Burlington is great, healthy and growing. I find Mississauga and Brampton far less appealing--that is the gentler way of making my point.

[raisethehammer]

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

There you go--you're onto me--I'm all about underwear drawers, blue rinses and the Mercury Montego.

I was slightly misunderstood in regard to Mississauga and Brampton. What I was drawing attention to--was the decision in Mississauga to "create" a city center instead of using one of the urban areas the city already contained. Frankly, I think it reduces the civic identity vs. a community like Burlington or Oakville where the traditional waterfront urban area was maintained and is a node for higher density development.

Perhaps I will restate what I said--I'm a content suburban dweller myself--I think Burlington is a wonderful and successful city with more of a community heritage and identity than it has been given credit for on this Forum. Downtown Burlington is great, healthy and growing. I find Mississauga and Brampton far less appealing--that is the gentler way of making my point.

no need to be gentle about it...Mississuaga and Brampton blow! haha.

[Millstone]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

I hate traffic circles to be honest

Were you with us (HHSO) at the Waterloo meet?

[HAMRetrofit]

No sign of a slowdown in Burlington

Is this thread about traffic flow in Burlington?

[raisethehammer]

Downtown density will prevail over slums of suburbia


Mar 03, 2008 04:30 AM
Christopher Hume
At the moment of its triumph, suburbia is starting to show signs of collapse.

Having remade the face of North America, the tide now seems to be turning against the 'burbs. The downfall won't be quick, but already the unthinkable is starting to happen.

As Christopher Leinberger argues in an article in the current Atlantic, "a structural change is underway in the housing market."

The author and urban planner insists that the troubles go well beyond the U.S. subprime crisis, that in fact they are evidence of a shift that will fundamentally alter the social and economic map of the continent.

In short, Leinberger charts the return to the city that began late in the last century and has been picking up speed ever since. Toronto is a good example; just look at the condo boom, now in its third decade, and the rising price of housing in neighbourhoods that until the 1970s, '80s and '90s, were assiduously avoided by the middle class, areas such as Cabbagetown, Riverdale and now Parkdale.

Canada has not experienced a subprime catastrophe, so perhaps we are an even better example of the city's new popularity. There are objective reasons – escalating cost of gasoline, heating oil and natural gas – but there's more.

As Leinberger writes, "Most Americans now live in single-family suburban houses that are segregated from work, shopping, and entertainment; but it is urban life, almost exclusively, that is culturally associated with excitement, freedom, and diverse daily life. And as in the 1940s, the real-estate market has begun to react."

The key phrase here is "culturally associated." Instead of Leave it to Beaver, the suburbs have now become the setting for Desperate Housewives.

Looking back at the postwar conditions that unleashed the explosion of suburbia, it's clear the growth was inspired as much as anything by a desire to escape from the city. Density, associated with danger, disease and decay, was the enemy.

Sixty years later, beset by gridlock, shoddy construction and environmental degradation that can no longer be ignored, density has started to look good again.

The response has been to make the suburban more urban. But as Leinberger notes, "Sprawling, large-lot suburbs become less attractive as they become more densely built, but urban areas – especially those well served by public transit – become more appealing as they are filled in and built up. Crowded sidewalks tend to be safe and lively, and bigger crowds can support more shops, restaurants, art galleries."

According to a study quoted by Leinberger, only a third of suburbanites "solidly preferred traditional suburban lifestyles." The rest claimed mixed feelings, or said they couldn't afford downtown prices.

And as Boomers grow older and couples put off having children, the appeal of the subdivision wanes even further. The result, Leinberger argues, is that the suburbs could well be on their way to becoming America's "next slum."

Research by David Hulchanski at the University of Toronto has already found that poverty here is being pushed out of its historic inner-city precincts and into "postwar inner suburbs" and "large postwar housing projects." Read Scarborough, Etobicoke, Jane-Finch, Rexdale and the like.

Toronto architect/planner Ken Greenberg rightly calls this the elephant in the room. His point is that the growing good health of downtown has blinded us to the looming crisis of the areas beyond.

In the years ahead, this process will become more pronounced. Just three weeks ago a Scarborough couple was fined $10,000 for turning their home into a rooming house.

Clearly, we have much catching up to do; reality is well ahead of our ability to deal with it.

[fastcarsfreedom]

Where is this article sourced from?

The fundamental problem I have with this argument--and the arguments I often see put forth by other neo-urbanists is that they are basing the renaissance of urban North America on the decline of the suburbs (in fact, they seem gleeful in their use of the word slum.) The basic premise, as I read it, is that urban centres will be reborn because the suburbs will fail for one or a number of reasons. Is a renewal of urban North America impossible without the collapse of "suburbia"? It's a serious question.

Secondly, growing poverty in "inner-ring" suburbs is not a new phenomenon. Anyone who has studied urban issues in any major U.S. city knows that this has been an ongoing issue for the last few decades--as usual Toronto is merely facing the same issues as it's major U.S. counterparts--it's just facing them a decade or two later. Poverty in North York and Scarborough is not news. In fact the displacement of the indigent population in urban areas by this renaissance in fact suggests that this "urban renaissance" is not about diversity at all--but about bringing the same luxury/homogeneity/isolation that the suburbs are so ridiculed for--into the city.

Thirdly, the author ignores the massive demographic shift occuring in society today--boomers are downsizing--and for many, condos are a real and viable option. Nevermind that Toronto's "condo boom" is as prevelant on the 401 corridor as it is in any other area of the city. Is the Scarborough Town Center area considered urban now?

I am most interested in the author's assertion that most people--living in the suburbs--are isolated from what he deems to be an urban life of excitement, freedom and diversity. While he fails to identify just who coupled urban life with these attributes (almost exclusively, apparently)--he also ignores the fact that there are many people in this society who simply prefer the isolation from work, entertainment and shopping. I bristle at the suggestion that I am somehow deluded into a false sense of contentment like some chubby housecat. I tried living in the city--didn't work for me...more power to you if you love it--in fact I encourage you to live and prosper in the city if that's how you roll--afterall, my entire viewpoint is based on the belief that there can be a successful coexistence among the lifestyles of urban, suburban and exurban living. Playing pick up hockey at the arena, cutting my grass and listening to the quiet at night--those things make me happy. Different strokes. The bottom line here is that this author presents what is his viewpoint--a very biased piece--as fact. I should take a straw poll on my block and see how many people are truly miserable--truly trapped out here in this depressing mire. I assure that my poll--regardless of outcome--would be no less scientific than the unsubstantiated claims made by Hume.

[markbarbera]

Christopher Hume is a regular columnist in the Toronto Star.

In all fairness, his claims cannot be described as unsubstantiated or unscientific simply because you disagree with them. His article cites the findings of several esteemed urban planners and academics.

Christopher B. Leinberger is a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, a professor of urban planning at the University of Michigan, and a real-estate developer. (Hume article cites "The Next Slum?": Atlantic Magazine, March 2008)

J. David Hulchanski is the Director of the Centre for Urban Studies at The University of Toronto(Hume's article cites Suburbanization of Poverty in Toronto: Urban Affairs Association Conference, 2006)

And Ken Greenberg is an urban planner and the former director of Urban Design and Architecture for the City of Toronto. Hume also quotes him in the article.

I have placed links to the two main articles Hume cites in the column. They make for an interesting read. In short, Hume is not talking off the top of his head here.

[fastcarsfreedom]

Your correct markbarbera--obviously I was tired when I wrote my rebuttal--I should have taken Hume to task for citing the unsubstantiated and non-quantifiable remarks made by others.

Quote
but it is urban life, almost exclusively, that is culturally associated with excitement, freedom, and diverse daily life

That is my favorite 'fact' quoted in the article.

So apologies for the skewed criticism--I nonetheless stand by what I said in regard to this article.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

Your correct markbarbera--obviously I was tired when I wrote my rebuttal--I should have taken Hume to task for citing the unsubstantiated and non-quantifiable remarks made by others.

Quote
but it is urban life, almost exclusively, that is culturally associated with excitement, freedom, and diverse daily life

That is my favorite 'fact' quoted in the article.

So apologies for the skewed criticism--I nonetheless stand by what I said in regard to this article.

Obviously you were also too tired to follow the links I provided to the published articles by Leinberger and Hulchanski, who are among North America's leading experts on urban planning.

To be fair, I would like to explore your position further. Kindly provide the links to the urban planning articles or keynote urban planning conference addresses that demonstrate how these experts in their field got it so wrong and you got it so right.

[RePinion]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

To be fair, I would like to explore your position further. Kindly provide the links to the urban planning articles or keynote urban planning conference addresses that demonstrate how these experts in their field got it so wrong and you got it so right.

I tend to agree with Leinberger and Hulchanski's thesis. However, virtually every urbanist working today has a profound distaste for the suburbs and a desire to demonstrate how utterly unsustainable and ultimately unsuccessful this mode of living is. It is not likely that anyone of any note would take it upon him/herself to rebut data which can be interpreted to show the decline of a phenomenon which has been anathema to the academic orthodoxy of an entire generation of scholars. Fastcarsfreedom is thus assuredly right to point out that the analyses of these theorists are to some extent tainted by bias. That doesn't mean that their conclusions are false, though ...

[highwater]

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

Where is this article sourced from?

The fundamental problem I have with this argument--and the arguments I often see put forth by other neo-urbanists is that they are basing the renaissance of urban North America on the decline of the suburbs (in fact, they seem gleeful in their use of the word slum.)

Which neo-urbanists are you referring too? I sensed no glee coming from Hume or Greenburg. The suburbanization of poverty isn't going to benefit anyone. Judging from the way Greenburg describes it as "the elephant in the room", I'd say he sees it as a looming social crisis rather than something to celebrate.