Suburban Skylines

[davee930]

Originally Posted by badrunner

The Canadian condo aesthetic triggers my trypophobia.

Thanks now I can't unsee it.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by Nite

I feel it odd you complain about modern Canadian architecture and yet compliment Japan, which just build square concrete block after square concrete block.

There's a lot to learn from Japan in terms of fine-grain urbanism, but as far as mid-market mass-produced architecture goes, I'll take wall-to-wall floor-to-ceiling glass in my condo over a punched window any day

[edale]

Originally Posted by Nite

You shit on Mississauga but most of it's new highrises have retail at grade and its building an LRT to service its high transit usage.
What US suburb is Mississauga copying?

https://goo.gl/maps/fU2Eeonw69JLHvqv9

Residential towers sprouting out of suburban mall parking lots is a pretty funny phenomenon. It's no doubt a good thing that Canadian cities/metros are really embracing urbanization-- expansion of transit, construction of highrises, etc. in their suburban areas. But there is something strange about many of these developments. The architectural monotony has already been mentioned, but I find the total lack of density gradient in these areas to be the most jarring thing. Yes, your example from Mississauga looks good at street level...impressive to have such a scene in a suburb. But just go a block or two over, and look at what you see:

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5918...7i16384!8i8192

It's like Mississauga's 'urban core' is more or less a film set. Add in the fact that many of these buildings are built on huge parking podiums and fronting very wide streets, and proximate residential is built in typical sprawl patterns, and it feels like the urbanism is more or less performative. I think one could argue that Mississauga and the like are in their awkward teen years, and they are at least growing more urban and honestly seeking to transition away from their suburban pasts. That very well could be true, but it doesn't make the current reality any less strange.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by edale

It's like Mississauga's 'urban core' is more or less a film set. Add in the fact that many of these buildings are built on huge parking podiums and fronting very wide streets, and proximate residential is built in typical sprawl patterns, and it feels like the urbanism is more or less performative.

But that's because Mississauga is attempting to build an urban core on a greenfield site surrounded by sprawl. The greenfield site is huge, so they might be able to pull it off, but it'll always be a bubble. That is unless we mass demolish the tract house neighbourhoods around it and replace the cul de sacs and crescents with a street grid that can handle the traffic (of all kinds) of a dense, urban, walkable neighbourhood.

There is a long term plan to demolish the shopping mall that your linked picture was taken from and replace about a square mile of that remaining space with dense infill similar to the streetview that nite posted, but given the size of this development and the ability for the market to absorb all those units, that'll take decades.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

But that's because Mississauga is attempting to build an urban core on a greenfield site surrounded by sprawl. The greenfield site is huge, so they might be able to pull it off, but it'll always be a bubble. That is unless we mass demolish the tract house neighbourhoods around it and replace the cul de sacs and crescents with a street grid that can handle the traffic (of all kinds) of a dense, urban, walkable neighbourhood.

There is a long term plan to demolish the shopping mall that your linked picture was taken from and replace about a square mile of that remaining space with dense infill similar to the streetview that nite posted, but given the size of this development and the ability for the market to absorb all those units, that'll take decades.

Well, at least the large Canadian cities still retain very vibrant traditional downtowns despite the suburban high rises. I visited Vancouver 18 months ago and saw all of the suburban highrises but the downtown core was still quite lively, walkable, and relatively safe, with a good mix of old and new buildings.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Nite

What exactly is the US doing to stop urban sprawl and how is Canada copying them because i am not aware of any US region which has policies to stop sprawl?
stopping sprawl is the goal ie land use policy for both Toronto and Vancouver, two of the fastest growing cities in North America.


https://goo.gl/maps/fU2Eeonw69JLHvqv9

The West Coast states all restrict sprawl quite a bit through legislation, in addition to natural boundaries.

In Washington's case (my state), the limits came relatively recently, with state legislation in 1990 followed by years of filtering through local plans and already-permitted sprawly development. And the limits aren't as tight in some counties as they are in others. But they've made a huge difference. Every urban county and municipality has to plan for and allow growth, and limit outward sprawl. So a large percentage of our growth is infill. Not highrises of course, more often the six-story variety.

Oregon did something similar and started earlier. I'm less familiar with California's rules but they have similar ideas in place, without the part about localities having to accommodate growth.

Vancouver does better than any of us though, thanks policies from long ago and today. A satellite view shows this clearly.

[Metro-One]

I also want to note that living in Japan I can personally say that the average residential tower here is pretty fucking ugly.

Also they got much worse in the suburbs, where outside of the most crowded locations most suburban towers here don’t have underground parking, instead surface parking surrounds the base of the towers...

Mississauga is perhaps the worst example of a suburban tower node in Canada. It was built on a mall, surrounded by freeways, on a complete green field site, and didn’t have any urban mass transit stations to be anchored around. Therefore while it is definitely improving it has the worst street level presence of all the suburban tower nodes in Toronto and Vancouver.

Come to Vancouver and actually the suburban tower nodes are nearly all based around metro stations and actually vary quite a bit in urban form.

For example there is New Westminster, which is actually built around an urban core as old as Vancouver itself, then you have North and West Vancouver both unique in their character, as is Richmond, then you have the staples of Metrotown and Brentwood which are built around / on malls but are still anchored by metro stations, etc...

[craigs]

Originally Posted by mhays

The West Coast states all restrict sprawl quite a bit through legislation, in addition to natural boundaries.

In Washington's case (my state), the limits came relatively recently, with state legislation in 1990 followed by years of filtering through local plans and already-permitted sprawly development. And the limits aren't as tight in some counties as they are in others. But they've made a huge difference. Every urban county and municipality has to plan for and allow growth, and limit outward sprawl. So a large percentage of our growth is infill. Not highrises of course, more often the six-story variety.

Oregon did something similar and started earlier. I'm less familiar with California's rules but they have similar ideas in place, without the part about localities having to accommodate growth.

Vancouver does better than any of us though, thanks policies from long ago and today. A satellite view shows this clearly.

Oregon's mandated urban growth boundaries are successful enough that they are quite visible to the casual traveler--one minute you're surrounded by small apartment buildings and homes on small lots, and the next you're in a farm belt, and can see for miles.

[Doady]

Mississauga City Centre isn't even the worst suburban tower node in Mississauga, let alone in all of Canada.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I also want to note that living in Japan I can personally say that the average residential tower here is pretty fucking ugly.

Also they got much worse in the suburbs, where outside of the most crowded locations most suburban towers here don’t have underground parking, instead surface parking surrounds the base of the towers...

Mississauga is perhaps the worst example of a suburban tower node in Canada. It was built on a mall, surrounded by freeways, on a complete green field site, and didn’t have any urban mass transit stations to be anchored around. Therefore while it is definitely improving it has the worst street level presence of all the suburban tower nodes in Toronto and Vancouver.

Come to Vancouver and actually the suburban tower nodes are nearly all based around metro stations and actually vary quite a bit in urban form.

For example there is New Westminster, which is actually built around an urban core as old as Vancouver itself, then you have North and West Vancouver both unique in their character, as is Richmond, then you have the staples of Metrotown and Brentwood which are built around / on malls but are still anchored by metro stations, etc...

Mississauga square one area isn't that bad and it's getting better all the time. And despite what you wrote, which leads me to believe you have not been to the area, It has one of the largest transit nodes in the GTA at the City Centre Transit Terminal and LRT is being built on Hurontario. The only GTA mall surrounded by expressways are Sherryway Garden and Yorkdale, there is one nearby Square one but it doesn't surrounded it and it's not adjacent to it.

[nito]

I suppose what makes these high-density developments so surprising from an urban connectivity perspective is the absence and/or distance of heavy rail connections. Since that Humber Bay development was shown, I’ve been very curious as to the modelling behind these schemes which are used to secure planning approval.

[jtown,man]

I don't understand the hate of residential towers in suburban Canada. They are light years better than standard american tract housing and suburban-style apartment complexes.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I don't understand the hate of residential towers in suburban Canada. They are light years better than standard american tract housing and suburban-style apartment complexes.

From an environmental perspective, yeah. Not from an aesthetic or lifestyle perspective.

Canadian suburbia, generally speaking, is ugly, and lacks the streetcar suburbs of the U.S. But it's generally far denser and more efficient. But people generally don't live in sprawl to be packed in; that's kind of a worst of both worlds scenario.

There's some nuance, though. Someplace like Humber Bay isn't like Vaughn. The former is older, semi streetcar-suburbanish and quasi-walkable. The latter is just dense cornfield sprawl.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Crawford

From an environmental perspective, yeah. Not from an aesthetic or lifestyle perspective.

Canadian suburbia, generally speaking, is ugly, and lacks the streetcar suburbs of the U.S. But it's generally far denser and more efficient. But people generally don't live in sprawl to be packed in; that's kind of a worst of both worlds scenario.

There's some nuance, though. Someplace like Humber Bay isn't like Vaughn. The former is older, semi streetcar-suburbanish and quasi-walkable. The latter is just dense cornfield sprawl.

Oh, ok. I get the lifestyle point, but aesthetically I think it looks better also.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Oh, ok. I get the lifestyle point, but aesthetically I think it looks better also.

I mean, it's all subjective. But I don't think most would agree that suburban Moscow (which has essentially no SFHs, and is entirely transit-oriented commieblocks) is the suburban ideal, even if it's probably the most environmentally friendly Western suburban typology.

I think most would prefer the American typology, which is the other extreme, and indeed very sprawly and environmentally suspect. Suburban Canada is like the two typologies had a baby.

[Doady]

I don't think typical Canadian suburb is much different from those in the US, especially the Sunbelt. It's basically Sunbelt style sprawl, but with some half-hearted TOD measures and a few high-rises along certain corridors and at certain nodes.

To promote the separation and disconnection between suburbs and central cities, to promote divergence and segregation within urban areas, is just strange to me. Isolating neighbourhoods, isolating people, isn't giving people more choices. Quite the opposite, actually.

I prefer suburbs and central cities to be connected and integrated, united urban areas instead of divided urban areas, and I think that division is the number one issue holding back both central cities and suburbs in the US. The inner suburbs should an extension of the central city, and the outer suburbs should be an extension of the inner suburbs and of each other. In Canada, they are. In the USA, they aren't. That's the difference. Canadian sprawl is basically Sunbelt style sprawl, but without those divisions. It's just a different political system.

Originally Posted by nito

I suppose what makes these high-density developments so surprising from an urban connectivity perspective is the absence and/or distance of heavy rail connections. Since that Humber Bay development was shown, I’ve been very curious as to the modelling behind these schemes which are used to secure planning approval.

The problem with building high density only at heavy rail stations is that suburbs don't have heavy rail lines. They are suburbs. To build new heavy rail lines or extend existing ones outside of the inner city, you need to build up the bus ridership in the suburbs, to lay the foundation for future rail expansion, and that means higher densities. The bus service along Hurontario Street in Mississauga is getting converted to light rail now because of overcrowding (buses come every 3-4 minutes now), and that wouldn't be happening if there was no high density. Of course, light rail isn't heavy rail but it's another step.

[Nite]

Burnaby, Metro Vancouver:


Source:https://www.flickr.com/photos/garryj...19373/sizes/k/

[isotack]

Originally Posted by Nite

Burnaby, Metro Vancouver:


Source:https://www.flickr.com/photos/garryj...19373/sizes/k/

Do you ever post your own photos? Because you to post everyone else's.
Including mine a few pages back.

[Nite]

Around promenade Mall in Vaughan
North York City Centre and downtown Toronto in the background


https://www.yorklink.ca/york-region-communities/

[memph]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

But that's because Mississauga is attempting to build an urban core on a greenfield site surrounded by sprawl. The greenfield site is huge, so they might be able to pull it off, but it'll always be a bubble. That is unless we mass demolish the tract house neighbourhoods around it and replace the cul de sacs and crescents with a street grid that can handle the traffic (of all kinds) of a dense, urban, walkable neighbourhood.

There is a long term plan to demolish the shopping mall that your linked picture was taken from and replace about a square mile of that remaining space with dense infill similar to the streetview that nite posted, but given the size of this development and the ability for the market to absorb all those units, that'll take decades.

I don't think the "surrounded by sprawl" is such a big deal tbh. As long as the Mississauga Center area can reach a certain critical mass.

The network of arterial and collector roads is quite dense. It's not like parts of suburban Atlanta that have only one arterial road every 2 miles.

The surrounding SFH neighbourhoods are reasonably dense too. The built density is probably higher than for more of the neighbourhoods surrounding Midwestern downtowns.

There's some cul-de-sacs, but most of them have walkways at the end to give pedestrians a way out.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5873...7i16384!8i8192

For any missing connections, there's no need to raze the neighbourhoods wholesale, just to acquire a 5-10 foot wide sliver of land to build some new walkways. You could probably do that by upzoning/density bonusing developers that agree to transfer a narrow strip of their land for those walkways.

From the time I've spent in the area, mainly on trips to Square One or on bike rides through Central Mississauga, I'd say one problem is that it currently still feels like disjoined clusters of highrises. That's at least as much due to the arterial roads, mainly Hurontario and Burnhamthorpe that function as barriers, as it is due to the Square One parking lots. These are both wide, very high volume, high speed roads, with not much along them to draw pedestrians. Confederation Parkway is quite wide too, but the ground level retail and the design of the public realm makes for a much better urban environment that's much more akin to a typical downtown Toronto street.

Overall, I'd say Mississauga Center has a few assets in terms of vibrancy, activity, etc. In no particular order.

1) MCC Transit Terminal. I've taken the bus through here a few times. The connections to Mississauga and beyond are really quite good, with routes fanning out in every direction, many express routes, high frequency routes, long distance routes... It makes you feel like you can conveniently go almost anywhere by bus. It's a very busy terminal too, giving it a sense of vibrancy. I'd love to see some retail pop up here to provide transit users a chance to grab a coffee, breakfast, lunch, etc. I suppose there's the Starbucks, Whole Foods and Square One food courts, but Mississauga should really take advantage of high volume transit hubs like this ASAP, get some big towers with 20 floors of office + 40 floors residential and ground floor retail built right next to the transit hub (or even on top of it).

2) Parkside Village/Confederation Parkway. As mentioned earlier, this is imo the best urbanism in Mississauga Center. It's also the most recently built, so it's a reflection of what we've learned from the mistakes of the past. You're much more likely to find people sitting at a restaurant's sidewalk patio here than anywhere else in Mississauga Center.

3) Celebration Square. Although I agree with Jane Jacobs that it's better to distribute civic buildings across a downtown than having them clustered all in one district, this square still works reasonably well. The city does a good job with programming, you've got food trucks stationed there relatively often, and decent usage even when there's no particular programming.

4. Kariya Park. This is a very nice little oasis in the middle of the concrete jungle, and I'm clearly not the only person to think so since it seems to always be well used.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5894...!7i8704!8i4352

5. Square One. I know shopping malls aren't that popular here, but fact of the matter is Canadian winters are long and I think it has the potential to work well with the surroundings. Just need to gradually redevelop certain parts of the property so that there's fewer parking lots, parking garages and blank walls along the public realm. The new additions have been a step in the right direction.


Right now, a big part of the problem is that the parts of MCC that work are all kind of disjointed from each other. However, I think that will improve significantly over the next few years as some of the gaps start to fill in. I think the Hurontario LRT and related road redesigns will also help make Hurontario and Burnhamthorpe feel a lot less like barriers.