Suburban Skylines

[vanman]

Originally Posted by mhays

I'm impressed with the existence of suburban tower nodes all over. But often (usually) they seem to be in terrible suburban locations aside from the stations and towers themselves. Maybe they need another generation to get rid of the sprawly stuff they were built next to?

Some nodes are in more urban places of course, like New West.

New West and North Vancouver are probably the nicest suburban nodes in the metro precisely because they were built around urban bones. The nodes built on the backs of stripmalls and parking lots will never be as good although they can still be attractive places.

Surrey has a remarkable amount of projects in the works and by the end of the decade it might actually start resembling something urban.

Originally Posted by officedweller

https://www.bristolestates.ca/downlo...fo-meeting.pdf


https://www.bristolestates.ca/downlo...fo-meeting.pdf

[WhipperSnapper]

In my humble opinion, a well integrated transit oriented development with 25000 inhabitants and a commuter line at its epicenter is a failure if the only commercial space is ground floor retail and second storey office space. Mississauga City Cente may not be a TOD development lacking the high speed communter line with pedestrian unfriendly station distances but it offers walkable employment that is unavailable in most TOD development in Toronto and those that I have seen elsewhere. Granted not everyone has the opportunity to work close to home. The entire workforce participants boarding a train to each travel 10 kilometres is not enjoyable efficiency either.

I don't venture too often into this forum. In the past, high percentage of downtown office space are celebrated and those with dispersed space are maligned. Vancouver has done much better created mixed use transit oriented development than Toronto and I'l wager the result is the percentage of downtown office space is higher for Toronto.

[mhays]

If Canadian offices aren't clustering in these highrise station areas, why?

[Obadno]

There are some tiny little areas of height around town. IDK if Tempe counts as a "suburban Skyline" but its technically a suburb.

Difficult to capture all of it in one shot as it now wraps around a small butte and is on both sides of the river.



from 2019 a little out dated.



Scottsdale has a collection of higher density areas but they aren't particularly tall.

Old Town (More density on the way, height??? Not likeley)





Kierland aka North Scottsdale (Mostly in Phoenix city limits) Not really good pictures of it, similar size and density to old town. all new high end retail, apartments, offices.




Phoenix Biltmore area, northwest of downtown


Phoenix Midtown, Just north of downtown actually getting a lot of infill development at the moment.



Midtown foreground with Biltmore in the background



Then you have Mesa's tiny downtown:


Chandler:




There is right now quite a bit of suburban office area development and densification in the various town centers around the metro, Id suspect in another decade or so we might have a few little skylines popping up on the west side and in Chandler and Gilbert

[proghousehead]

Nice pics but man is Phoenix a depressing looking city. No offense. Not my cup of tea at all.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by proghousehead

Nice pics but man is Phoenix a depressing looking city. No offense. Not my cup of tea at all.

Its better at street level, not much to see from a height perspective.

Edit these aren't flattering pictures they are just to show the areas the best I could in their entirety

these areas look better than the pictures above may imply, greener too.

[Doady]

Some ambition and attention to detail in Phoenix suburbs, it seems not bad. But still too many parking lots, not enough sidewalks, but at least they are trying.

Discussion about workplace transit use in suburbs in another thread made me think about what is the main thing holding a suburban downtown from becoming a true downtown: not enough suburban office workers using transit. The suburban office buildings still surrounded by parking, it kills street life. You can see that problem in "real" downtowns like OKC and Little Rock that have virtually no transit as well.

Some suburbs like Mississauga actually have really good transit ridership. The MiWay bus system had 201k boardings per weekday in 2019, almost twice as much as the entire Metro system in St. Louis for example. People misunderstand "TOD". Mississauga actually incorporated TOD measures in many new subdivisions, and you can see it in the high ridership. So what's the problem? The high transit use is not concentrated in one place. The transit service and TOD and riders are not concentrated in the "downtown" that it's trying to build. Instead, transit capacity and ridership is spread evenly all over Mississauga.

So I think that is where the Metro system in St. Louis succeeds where the MiWay system in Mississauga fails, even if MiWay's ridership is much higher. I can also see success of transit in Phoenix based on street view of its downtown, even if ridership not as good as Mississauga. Amount of residents using transit is not what's important, it's the amount of workers using transit that's important.

Hopefully, the Hurontario LRT and 407 Transitway will help change that, get more suburban workers onto transit, not just more suburban residents onto transit. But maybe it will take more to fully get rid of those parking lots surrounding those office buildings, and finally get more office towers constructed instead of just yet more condo towers. Maybe all-day GO Train service and/or Bloor-Danforth Line subway extension as well to make Mississauga City Centre a true downtown. LRT, BRT, commuter rail, subway, regular bus altogether to make a suburban node into a downtown.

Anyways, here was a part of Mississauga's City Centre in 2005. It's obviously a suburban location, isn't it?

[mhays]

True, to be a decent "downtown" you need low parking ratios. But that should be relatively easy in a region with good transit. DC's suburban downtowns do it, to a point.

Downtown Bellevue does it too, at least by suburban standards. Rail won't arrive until 2023, but it already has a lot of buildings with relatively low ratios, like 2/1000, i.e. two per five workers or so, supported by just buses and walkable apartments. New construction (millions of SF are underway) tends to be quite a bit lower still.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by proghousehead

Nice pics but man is Phoenix a depressing looking city. No offense. Not my cup of tea at all.

And you're from NYC...

[Doady]

Originally Posted by mhays

True, to be a decent "downtown" you need low parking ratios. But that should be relatively easy in a region with good transit. DC's suburban downtowns do it, to a point.

Downtown Bellevue does it too, at least by suburban standards. Rail won't arrive until 2023, but it already has a lot of buildings with relatively low ratios, like 2/1000, i.e. two per five workers or so, supported by just buses and walkable apartments. New construction (millions of SF are underway) tends to be quite a bit lower still.

I can see strong transit presence in Bellevue immediately in street view. Office buildings built right up to the side, little surface parking in Bellevue, and no doubt transit is the key for its success.

But not just any transit, but King County Metro, the main transit system in the Seattle area. I think THAT is the big difference. Mississauga City Centre is not served by the Toronto Transit Commission. It is served by a separate system, separate from the main transit system of the Toronto area, with no integration of services or fares with the TTC in any way (the City of Toronto actually bans Mississauga buses from picking up passengers while going into Toronto or letting off passengers on the way out of Toronto).

Mississauga has built a system that serves its residents well, but it will never be able build one that serves the people who work in Mississauga well, because many of those workers don't live in Mississauga.

I think that's the reason why Mississauga City Centre failed and Bellevue's downtown succeeded. A place cannot become a regional hub when regional transit is so poor, when transit is mostly funded by the municipalities, and so designed to serve their residents only, who also work in the same municipality that they live in. Transit is mostly designed for local interests, but places like Mississauga City Centre were supposed to have regional importance.

18.1% of Mississauga residents use transit to work, but only 12.8% of Bellevue resident use transit to work. Bellevue worse than Mississauga, right? But how many of people working in Mississauga use transit vs the people who work in Bellevue? I'll bet Bellevue is higher, especially its downtown. Toronto area may have higher ridership than Seattle area, but I think this is where transit in Toronto area fails so badly compared to many urban areas in the US, especially Seattle. Not just lack of integration between different systems but actually conflict and intentional barriers between different systems, low ridership for regional trips, and you can see it in the lack of new office towers in these would-be "downtowns" in the Toronto area.

[mhays]

It gets both King County Metro and Sound Transit buses. Sound Transit runs regional spine buses in addition to rail.

Mississauga's 18.1% transit commutes would beat many US central cities. Bellevue was doing pretty well for a US suburb without rail at 12.8% in 2019. When rail arrives and office workers continue to boom it'll grow further. Bellevue is pretty aggressive with TODs and upzoning, albeit on a smaller scale outside Downtown.

But you're right. Downtown itself would have a much higher number. I believe it was 20% a long time ago, counting all commute origins.

[Metro-One]

Nice pics of Phoenix (been there myself 15 years ago!), but many of those aren’t really skylines. A couple low rises in a neighborhood isn’t much of an urban or suburban core.

Here are some pics of the Brentwood Skyline in Burnaby (Vancouver suburb).

Originally Posted by davee930

[IMG]RemoteMediaFile_6619192_0_2021_09_05_19_53_28 by davee930, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]RemoteMediaFile_6554293_0_2021_09_24_18_49_44 by davee930, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]Photo_6554256_DJI_656_jpg_4465239_0_202192318436_photo_original by davee930, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]Photo_6554303_DJI_703_jpg_4413485_0_2021924185720_photo_original by davee930, on Flickr[/IMG]

[Obadno]

Vancouver Exists at another level, It has average densities higher than NYC metro.

the only actual skylines outside of downtown is Midtown and Tempe, those are the only areas with buildings over 10 stories.

The entire west valley doesn't even have a building over maybe 6 or 7 floors. I think the cardinals stadium is still the tallest building west of 7th Ave and has been for nearly 20 years.

There might be a new hospital pushing 10 im not sure.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

And you're from NYC...

I agree, whats nice about phoenix metro isn't the urban parts. Its kind of a low key kinda spot.

[Labtec]

Cinematic footage of a portion of Buckhead Atlanta:
• Video Link

An aerial shot of Sandy Springs, Buckhead, and Midtown/Downtown Atlanta:

[Doady]

Originally Posted by mhays

It gets both King County Metro and Sound Transit buses. Sound Transit runs regional spine buses in addition to rail.

Mississauga's 18.1% transit commutes would beat many US central cities. Bellevue was doing pretty well for a US suburb without rail at 12.8% in 2019. When rail arrives and office workers continue to boom it'll grow further. Bellevue is pretty aggressive with TODs and upzoning, albeit on a smaller scale outside Downtown.

But you're right. Downtown itself would have a much higher number. I believe it was 20% a long time ago, counting all commute origins.

Sound Transit bus service seems more robust compared to the GO Transit bus system in the Toronto area - more routes, higher frequencies. GO is mostly the GO Train system, and in terms of workplace destinations the GO Train system only really serves Toronto's Financial District. Add in the conflict and barriers between local systems in the Toronto area, building a downtown in suburban Toronto to match that of Bellevue's downtown will be impossible.

Because a suburban downtown has to be more than a downtown for one suburb, it has to be a downtown for the whole region, so it will require a regional effort. And the GTA is just not a true region, unlike Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue. City of Toronto, Peel Region, York Region, Durham Region, Halton Region - they are each their own separate regions, and so all these suburban downtowns in and around Toronto will continue be failures, with a lot of condo towers, but no new office towers.

[mhays]

That's very surprising.

A place like Bellevue definitely serves the whole region...any office employer depends on that. It drives me a little nuts when any downtown is referred to in relation with the city-limits population, which is basically irrelevant.

[WhipperSnapper]

Mississauga City Centre's failure as a CBD is entirely Mississauga's own doing. They allowed commercial development to run planning. Overall, I think it was a beneficial decision however, now it's hard to establish a city identity with a dispersed centre of gravity.

[Labtec]

A photo of the suburban skyline around the Atlanta Braves stadium at Truist Park in Cumberland, Cobb County:


https://twitter.com/mckayWSB/status/...931150/photo/1

Cumberland with 24 million square feet of office space, has more office space than downtown Miami. It is metro Atlanta's fifth-largest commercial office district, after Downtown, Midtown, Buckhead, and Perimeter Center (Sandy Springs). It has the global headquarters of Papa Johns, Home Depot, The Weather Channel, Travelport, the Genuine Parts Company, and more.

You can see views of the foothills of the North Georgia Mountains/Appalachian in the background and also Buckhead in some of the drone shots:
• Video Link

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by mhays

If Canadian offices aren't clustering in these highrise station areas, why?

Toronto's transit is extremely Downtown-centric, meaning all roads (or rails) lead to Union Station. Although there are very few people in the GTA who don't live <20 minutes from some transit or commuter rail station that takes them downtown, getting between suburbs via transit is not an easy task. The city has also been undergoing a reversal of the 90's/early 00's suburbanization of companies to far flung office parks, as talent heavily favours a downtown office. Lots of high profile names have moved their headquarters back to a central downtown office tower, as young people today have no desire for commuting on the city's increasingly congested highways.

This is just referring to the suburbs though. You could argue the office clusters all along the Yonge Street subway line from St. Clair, Yonge & Eglinton, to North York were the original transit oriented developments.