The Soul-Sucking Canada Thread

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Just to note, that's a Slovak Catholic Church. The neighbourhood gained notoriety for a statue of a cow on stilts a while back. I think it was removed after objections from the neighbours.

The cow is still there. I think it's kind of cool. Too bad the neighbours are so uptight about it.

Originally Posted by lio45

It would be fine if the church didn't have so much room on either side, and if the buildings and street furniture weren't all so perfectly uniform, bland and sterile.

Here are examples of the exact same layout in Paris (first pic) and Bruxelles (second pic). Surely no one can say it looks bad...?

(For the record, I actually like the urban planning concept of a view axis - the Austin pic I posted last page looks great IMO. The problem in that Markhamgrad picture is really the architecture, not the layout.)




Bruxelles-Schaerbeek, Belgique: église royale Sainte-Marie au bout de la rue Royale. by Marie-Hélène Cingal, on Flickr

That's the thing though, it's not the exact same layout. Those streets in Brussels and Nashville are only 19-20 m wide from building to building. Cathedral Main Street is 33 freaking metres wide. That's way too wide for a street like this.

On Rue Royale in Brussels they manage to fit two streetcar lanes, two general traffic lanes, two parking lanes and sidewalks! We truly do waste an enormous amount of space in this country and it kills the vitality of our newly created urban spaces.

The Markhamstan street is not only too wide and with shoddy architecture, but it has other problems too. An unnecessary ~3 m setback from the sidewalk to the buildings. A location that's not on any natural travel route (pretty much every historic main street developed on a natural travel corridor). Unnecessary bike lanes, which aren't needed on a quiet street like this one. The vast amount of empty space that surrounds the cathedral. It's like they looked at the tightly packed cities surrounding European cathedrals and completely missed the point.

Originally Posted by Doady

Hurontario isn't as wide as Champs-Elysees, at least.

I don't see why single out one of the busiest transit corridors in the GTA for being pedestrian unfriendly. They are planning to spend $1.2 billion on an LRT here that won't connect to the TTC. Maybe it's for a good reason.

To say that a road with 4 lanes for cars and 2 lanes for LRT will still be too wide is criticize the entire LRT concept to begin with. It's the same idea as St. Clair and Spadina. How else are they supposed to build it? Only 2 lanes for cars? Underground? Elevated? I don't get it.

If it wasn't in Mississauga, it wouldn't be such a stupid idea, I guess.

There are many differences between Champs-Elysees (or any traditional grand boulevard) and Hurontario (or any suburban arterial road). Even if the former is wider, it's still much more pedestrian friendly. It has wider sidewalks that are buffered from the traffic lanes by street trees, street furniture, etc. It has short blocks and frequent intersections. It has buildings right up to the sidewalk with shops on the ground floor opening directly onto the sidewalk with nothing in between. Those buildings go straight up several storeys from the sidewalk, which provides a sense of enclosure. Side streets are narrow and the turning radius at intersections is small, reducing traffic speeds and pedestrian crossing distances. And despite the number of lanes, most of the space is dedicated to pedestrians. St. Clair and Spadina share most of these characteristics while Hurontario doesn't. The streetcars don't make or break the character of those streets.

Contrast that with Hurontario. It has long, traffic-friendly blocks with infrequent intersections. Wide side streets and large turning radius at intersections, which speeds up traffic and lengthens crossing distances. Buildings are generally set way back from the sidewalk, which is usually right up against traffic. Even buildings built close to the sidewalk don't meet the street properly - street trees and planting beds are generally between the sidewalk and the buildings, which creates obstacles and makes stores not very accessible from the sidewalk. And very little of the space is dedicated to pedestrians. The LRT won't fix most of these problems.

[GeneralLeeTPHLS]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

It will still be wide to cross with little interaction between the two sides. Adding the LRT line is great, but it's still in all its deep-down nature, a stroad. Does anyone have links to plans or concepts. I'm curious what they are envisioning for all of the street-front parking in front of stripmall situations that abound.

Here's the link from Metrolinx:
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/projects...urontario.aspx

The renders are really basic....and suggest a very urban streetwall and general area around these routes, something I don't ever see happening. I'd imagine the city would want to pressure owners like Oxford to redevelop parking lots along the "downtown" area, especially around that POS mall "Square One". I've read articles showing the city understands and wants more office space to be created in the "downtown", and that they're aware that employment numbers aren't very high in that area. The "downtown" also suffers from a lack of parks, with 4.3% of the area with parks.....which is much worse then the 7% figure they give for other cities in NA. The city is trying to buy out homes from a watershed next to a river....to try and build a "Central Park". They already paid about $1 million for three homes, and the city wants over 20 other homes. The homeowners are NOT pleased.

Missingsausage really fails to maintain a good hold on it's traffic issues, while also trying to create an "urban" core. I've noticed many times along roads like Creditview and Burnamthorpe Rd that the traffic is pretty bad every day as is (flowing toward Toronto, out from the outer burbs of Missingsausage). I don't understand how the city plans to deal with all this extra gridlock which will be created in the next few decades as the population grows. The government has allowed construction to start very soon on expanding the 401 from Milton to the Credit River by two lanes (one on each side), but this won't do much in the years onward.

[hipster duck]

I think it was Rico Rommheim who once observed that the new subdivisions of Vancouver were the "least bad" in Canada. I find that that's generally true.

Consider this newly-built subdivision in Langley, BC
Now, the neighbourhood is not my cup of tea, but at least it contains:

- variation in the colour, shape and external materials of the homes
- decent, environmentally-sensitive landscaping
- a public realm that allows for walking, even if it isn't walkable.

By comparison this subdivision in Brampton, ON has a much more muted colour palette, only contains a sidewalk on one side, and has little landscaping beyond grass turf and the planting of the same kind of tree.

This subdivision outside Montreal has a narrower roadway, but no landscaping or sidewalks at all, while the hardscaping and houses seem to dominate and overpower the view of this subdivision in Calgary

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I think it was Rico Rommheim who once observed that the new subdivisions of Vancouver were the "least bad" in Canada. I find that that's generally true.

Consider this newly-built subdivision in Langley, BC
Now, the neighbourhood is not my cup of tea, but at least it contains:

- variation in the colour, shape and external materials of the homes
- decent, environmentally-sensitive landscaping
- a public realm that allows for walking, even if it isn't walkable.

By comparison this subdivision in Brampton, ON has a much more muted colour palette, only contains a sidewalk on one side, and has little landscaping beyond grass turf and the planting of the same kind of tree.

This subdivision outside Montreal has a narrower roadway, but no landscaping or sidewalks at all, while the hardscaping and houses seem to dominate and overpower the view of this subdivision in Calgary

It's funny I recognized that Calgary subdivision instantly (Summit of Montreux). It seems to have less models of homes so the cookie cutter feeling is overwhelming. That and virtually all of them have the same colours and materials. Sidewalks are typically only on one side of the street and there is piss poor public landscaping. It's a shame as they plopped this down right in the middle of an aspen forest. That whole area is basically named for the species that died for it to exist (Aspen Landing shopping centre, Aspen Estates etc.). A tornado touched down there about 7 years ago. Tossed some plastic sheds and vinyl siding a few blocks up the hill.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I think it was Rico Rommheim who once observed that the new subdivisions of Vancouver were the "least bad" in Canada. I find that that's generally true.

Consider this newly-built subdivision in Langley, BC
Now, the neighbourhood is not my cup of tea, but at least it contains:

- variation in the colour, shape and external materials of the homes
- decent, environmentally-sensitive landscaping
- a public realm that allows for walking, even if it isn't walkable.

By comparison this subdivision in Brampton, ON has a much more muted colour palette, only contains a sidewalk on one side, and has little landscaping beyond grass turf and the planting of the same kind of tree.

This subdivision outside Montreal has a narrower roadway, but no landscaping or sidewalks at all, while the hardscaping and houses seem to dominate and overpower the view of this subdivision in Calgary

It's interesting to compare them, but one caution: if we're judging them at least partly on landscaping then one needs to consider that they're not generally of the same age.

I agree that Langley looks the best here. But it's also the most mature of all four. Judging by the tree sizes it looks to be about 10 years old. Though I don't disagree that even if you fast-forwarded the others to 10 years old, that Langley would still look the best. Another thing is that Langley is also favoured in terms of climate over the other places and this has an effect on both vegetation and other stuff that isn't as vulnerable to winter damage.

The Calgary and Brampton examples look to be about five years old.

The Mirabel example looks like it's about six months old.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's interesting to compare them, but one caution: if we're judging them at least partly on landscaping then one needs to consider that they're not generally of the same age.

I agree that Langley looks the best here. But it's also the most mature of all four. Judging by the tree sizes it looks to be about 10 years old. Though I don't disagree that even if you fast-forwarded the others to 10 years old, that Langley would still look the best. Another thing is that Langley is also favoured in terms of climate over the other places and this has an effect on both vegetation and other stuff that isn't as vulnerable to winter damage.

The Calgary and Brampton examples look to be about five years old.

The Mirabel example looks like it's about six months old.

The Calgary example is 10 years old.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

The Calgary example is 10 years old.

You don't have bylaws requiring homeowners to plant at least one tree out front?

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You don't have bylaws requiring homeowners to plant at least one tree out front?

I think we used to. It seems like since the city decided to reduce lot sizes to increase density in suburbs there is less available space to plant trees. When there is space somehow people feel content with a dead patch of lawn. Unless the city or developer plants the trees on the blvds it usually ends up haphazard looking like this.

Where do you plant a tree here?

https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.03714...7i13312!8i6656

The ugliest corner lot backyard in the city happens to be in Summit of Montreux. They shelled out money for a fire pit / patio area along with stone retaining walls and not a single tree or shrub or anything else.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.03761...7i13312!8i6656


Here is another egregious example from a different part of the city:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@50.88799...7i13312!8i6656

[Acajack]

If there's room for a patch of grass there is room for a tree, I always say.

It won't please SSPers but here is what a 10-year-old suburban street looks like when everyone is obliged to have a tree out front (and most everyone complies:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.49250...2!8i6656?dcr=0

And after about 20 years:

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Rue...!4d-75.6582089

[MolsonExport]

Snout houses are soul sucking.

ottawa citizen


cbc windsor


globalnews brampton

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If there's room for a patch of grass there is room for a tree, I always say.

It won't please SSPers but here is what a 10-year-old suburban street looks like when everyone is obliged to have a tree out front (and most everyone complies:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.49250...2!8i6656?dcr=0

And after about 20 years:

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Rue...!4d-75.6582089

The way it's done in my neck of the woods in both Florida and Texas is that in both cases there's a strip of grass between the sidewalk and street that belongs to the city, and there's usually an average of at least one tree for every house.

Obviously the advantage with this method is that people like SignalHillHiker's mom can't do anything about eliminating the trees in front of their properties. The downside I suppose is that it's the city that's responsible for them... though a mature tree usually doesn't require much maintenance anyway.

Typical example in TX not that far from my duplex:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2035...7i13312!8i6656

Typical example in FL in my neighborhood:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.3977...7i13312!8i6656

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

The way it's done in my neck of the woods in both Florida and Texas is that in both cases there's a strip of grass between the sidewalk and street that belongs to the city, and there's usually an average of at least one tree for every house.

Obviously the advantage with this method is that people like SignalHillHiker's mom can't do anything about eliminating the trees in front of their properties. The downside I suppose is that it's the city that's responsible for them... though a mature tree usually doesn't require much maintenance anyway.

Typical example in TX not that far from my duplex:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2035...7i13312!8i6656

Typical example in FL in my neighborhood:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.3977...7i13312!8i6656

Yup. Those areas do have bigger setbacks than most newer Canadian suburbs though.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Mister F

That's the thing though, it's not the exact same layout. Those streets in Brussels and Nashville are only 19-20 m wide from building to building. Cathedral Main Street is 33 freaking metres wide. That's way too wide for a street like this.

Did you just mistake Paris for... Nashville? You're probably the first person ever in the history of this urban affairs website to do this.

I agree with you though, except that in my opinion it's the same basic layout, just with the difference between "well done" (Brussels example) and "poorly done" (in Markhamgrad).

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Yup. Those areas do have bigger setbacks than most newer Canadian suburbs though.

Speaking of which, I have properties in downtown Sherbrooke that have trees in front of them that are technically on city land (dans l'emprise de la rue, I think in English that strip of land is called the right-of-way, at least in FL it is) even though I'm sure they were planted by previous owners, not by the City. In such cases (it's a very common situation) it's always been the owner who mowed/maintained that land anyway - it 100% looks like one's front yard.

If I were to apply for a permit to cut them (required in Sherbrooke), it's possible that I would be told "huh, sorry but they're not even yours!"

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I agree that Langley looks the best here. But it's also the most mature of all four. Judging by the tree sizes it looks to be about 10 years old. Though I don't disagree that even if you fast-forwarded the others to 10 years old, that Langley would still look the best. Another thing is that Langley is also favoured in terms of climate over the other places and this has an effect on both vegetation and other stuff that isn't as vulnerable to winter damage.

I don't even think it boils down to the presence of trees, as nice as they are. The Langley developers made an effort to incorporate natural landscaping/drainage features like bioswales and a wide, multi-purpose sidewalk. These things really make the area much more attractive and aren't really dependent on climate.

Even if a city has a short growing season, and a harsh winter climate, you can design around that. The Calgary example could have featured prairie xeriscaping and native shrubs and looked okay.

I think that Canadians really have low standards when it comes to their residential environments. Those links that lio45 posted from Florida and Texas are much more pleasant than any of the links I posted from Canada (except maybe the bioswale side of the Langley street).

If you're going to live in a suburb and drive everywhere, you might as well live in a sprawling area with plenty of trees and a lot of privacy. Americans would never accept living in a place like this (no, that is not the alley) - which is really the worst of all worlds. They certainly wouldn't accept living in a place like that and paying the prices that we do.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I think it was Rico Rommheim who once observed that the new subdivisions of Vancouver were the "least bad" in Canada. I find that that's generally true.

I think there's probably a few reasons for that. I agree with Acajack that the appeal of subdivisions has a lot to do with how mature the greenery is. My parents live in a older one in Markham where about half the mature trees were taken out by the ice storm a few years back, and it really affected the feel of the neighbourhood. It feels barren without the trees, but was actually quite attractive prior to the storm.

Also, a lot of the neighbourhoods here in Surrey are pretty ugly and close to those Brampton neighbourhood you posted. I imagine that the Langley neighbourhood you posted was selling a more premium housing product.

What does SSP think about faux-urban subdivisions like Cornell?

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.88758...7i13312!8i6656


https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.61988...7i13312!8i6656

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by theman23

What does SSP think about faux-urban subdivisions like Cornell?

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.88758...7i13312!8i6656

Hey, I like that! I think it replicates the architecturally haphazard look of a classic turn of the century southern Ontario street really well.

[DizzyEdge]

Of course like a lot of cities Calgary used to plant a lot of trees.
The build dates on the original houses on this block would have been 19-teens or 1940s, (6 houses appear in 1924 photo, full block in 1948 photo) although many have been replaced since. Unsure at which point the trees were planted, they don't readily appear in either 1924 nor 1948 aerial photos.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.06966...7i13312!8i6656

[theman23]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Of course like a lot of cities Calgary used to plant a lot of trees.
The build dates on the original houses on this block would have been 19-teens or 1940s, (6 houses appear in 1924 photo, full block in 1948 photo) although many have been replaced since. Unsure at which point the trees were planted, they don't readily appear in either 1924 nor 1948 aerial photos.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.06966...7i13312!8i6656

That's a beautiful canopy. Its a good example of how trees can dominate a streets cape. Remove them, and that street would be unrecognisable.

Originally Posted by roussea

Hey, I like that! I think it replicates the architecturally haphazard look of a classic turn of the century southern Ontario street really well.

I'm not sure what to think. It looks nice at first, but the illusion gets broken once you round the corner to see the alleys filled with garages. Say what you want about snot houses, but neighbourhoods filled with them don't have that same jarring effect.

[Vixx]

Originally Posted by theman23

I think there's probably a few reasons for that. I agree with Acajack that the appeal of subdivisions has a lot to do with how mature the greenery is. My parents live in a older one in Markham where about half the mature trees were taken out by the ice storm a few years back, and it really affected the feel of the neighbourhood. It feels barren without the trees, but was actually quite attractive prior to the storm.

Also, a lot of the neighbourhoods here in Surrey are pretty ugly and close to those Brampton neighbourhood you posted. I imagine that the Langley neighbourhood you posted was selling a more premium housing product.

What does SSP think about faux-urban subdivisions like Cornell?

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.88758...7i13312!8i6656


https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.61988...7i13312!8i6656

Those faux-urban subdivisions look pretty tacky. At least in the second link, the neighbourhood looks decent because of the predominantly nice colour in brick and stone.

There are a couple of subdivisions off the top of my head in Edmonton that have a similar faux inspired tackiness to them, but they look much worse because of the vinyl siding that Alberta has a hard on for.