What Constitutes Urban Sprawl?

[Kokkei Mizu]

I'm asking this because there's a development near my house (which is already an urban sprawl type of neighbourhood built in the 50's) where they are building one street with about 30 homes where one house used to sit. The land wasn't a farm, just one house with a big property.

Would you consider this infill or urban sprawl, or both?

Here's a map of where it is in relation to St. Thomas and London.

http://goo.gl/maps/vhjP

[MolsonExport]

^more infill than sprawl.

[Simpseatles]

There's a couple of these types of infill developments on Hyde Park south, and I'm not a big fan of them! They are tightly packed condominiums with almost no backyard, and giant garages in the front.

Although I would consider them infill, the type of planning behind them definately has the sprawl mentality in mind. Just in a very tight space. Which bugs me because it doesn't succeed in providing the people who want to live the suburban lifestyle what they want (big enough yard, privacy), or the people who want to live the urban life what they want(pedestrian orientation, welcoming appearance, shops).

[manny_santos]

The age of building houses with big backyards is over. We can't afford to keep wasting land for houses with big backyards at the rate we have been, or else food prices are just going to keep going up as our planet's population skyrocketing. And more people are going to go hungry. Any food grown on Southwestern Ontario farms doesn't just get used to feed Canadians or Americans.

The so-called suburban lifestyle was a fairy tale that is not sustainable. All future development in London, except for some industrial developments, need to be infill. The amount of land London's urban/suburban area can easily fit 500,000 people. We've got enough land within the urban development boundary to last us at least another 60 years, at the rate London's population is growing.

It's all about shared sacrifice. I've said it before and I'll say it again: just because individuals want something doesn't mean they should automatically get it.

On a personal level, I could care less about ever having any backyard. It's not something many urban dwellers in other parts of the world have anyways.

[Simpseatles]

^Well said. But I still stand by my perspective. Even if building the "suburban dream" is no longer feasable in London, this type of infill shouldn't be the alternative. Just look at the crap behind the Superstore and barracks. While building "sprawl style" developments inside the city may be better than outside, it doesn't change the fact that they are poorly designed and could be turned into higher density residential areas, that are much more appropriate for their setting.

[bolognium]

That new neighbourhood is a little disappointing, Simp, but I think it's actually quite dense. As far as single-detached areas go, that one seems to be packed tightly.

Also, I'm pretty sure it's mostly young families, which is great.

[vid]

I consider sprawl to be building on land that has never been built on before, at a rate exceeding population growth. (Some ratio could be determined by experts.) Doing this on pockets of undeveloped land within the city isn't as bad as doing it on land outside the city as the infrastructure already exists in the city to support the development. I wouldn't consider the example in the original post to be urban sprawl, but it is drawing it pretty close. The neighbourhood was probably urban sprawl when it was built.

Off topic, but this is really interesting. Alma College. Not often you catch an event from this angle.

[Kokkei Mizu]

Originally Posted by vid

Off topic, but this is really interesting. Alma College. Not often you catch an event from this angle.

Haha yeah... I don't know if that's an inside joke within Google, or if it was just bad luck. Definitely doesn't make St. Thomas look that great from Satellite.

Also, I don't know if anybody looked at the land on Google Street View, but here you go: http://goo.gl/maps/AbQQ

The house in the back was moved, and the barn demolished.

[Wharn]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

The age of building houses with big backyards is over. We can't afford to keep wasting land for houses with big backyards at the rate we have been, or else food prices are just going to keep going up as our planet's population skyrocketing. And more people are going to go hungry. Any food grown on Southwestern Ontario farms doesn't just get used to feed Canadians or Americans.

I agree with the need to reduce the size of backyards or rethink land use, but not for the reasons that you mentioned. The amount of farmland lost due to urbanization since World War II has been pretty marginal compared to the amount lost due to abandonment. Higher density needs to be encouraged not because of marginal loss of farmland, but because of the prohibitive costs of serving extremely low density housing. The problem is, whenever developers try to increase density in new subdivisions, they often do so in a very unpleasant manner.

Originally Posted by manny_santos

On a personal level, I could care less about ever having any backyard. It's not something many urban dwellers in other parts of the world have anyways.

Having a backyard of some kind is actually very common throughout the world, even in extremely dense countries like Japan. Surprisingly, many Japanese houses have courtyards surrounded by low walls where people can go out and sit. Some of them, especially in smaller cities like Hakodate (about the same size as London) can be quite large and even have grass lawns and garages. In Britain, which somehow manages to feed itself and has more people than Canada crammed into a space about the size of Southern Ontario, plenty of people have backyards with gardens. Obviously urban dwellers the world over enjoy having an outdoor space that is not just a slab of concrete jabbing out of a wall, and it is not the government's business to deny them that if it can be feasibly built. Maybe when Ontario achieves a population density similar to South Korea, we can consider more drastic measures.

[MolsonExport]

I like having a backyard....mine is rather smallish, but it is great for the kids and BBQ. Front yard, I don't care so much about. What I really hate is the fact that most new homes are pretty much all truck-faced garages in the front main floor: Double garage with a 3-foot wide front door. No window on main floor. Makes for a fugly landscape at eye level. In addition, double garages on narrow lots implies that most frontage is actually driveway and not lawn.

My home is one of the few notable exceptions on my street: I have a very large front window on the groundfloor, with only a 1.5 width garage. Consequently, my lawn is larger than most, and thus, I can have a nice garden in the front.

[Simpseatles]

My family has a large backyard, and we make great use of it. We have a nice deck, a garden and a koi pond. While I could see myself living the apartment or condo lifestyle downtown for a period, I will eventually want some sort of home with a nice yard. This is something that I value.

What annoys me are people with large yards, that do nothing but simply watch the grass grow!

[manny_santos]

Nothing wrong with having some sort of backyard - but many of the ones I've seen in London are large enough to fit another whole house on, or more. The lot behind my parents' house has a backyard large enough to fit a small condo complex! And the people that live there don't even use their backyard.

[Wharn]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Nothing wrong with having some sort of backyard - but many of the ones I've seen in London are large enough to fit another whole house on, or more. The lot behind my parents' house has a backyard large enough to fit a small condo complex! And the people that live there don't even use their backyard.

This is likely a result of the childish privacy complex found in so many North Americans. Though there are plenty that do well in standard low-density layouts, there are those who absolutely cannot bear having any contact with their neighbours, and thus seek outrageously sized lots.

For the record, I would consider these houses near Kilally Road to have reasonably-sized lots: http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&sourc...150.12,,0,-2.5

These ones south of Hyde Park, not so much: http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&sourc...144.33,,0,-0.5. Imagine what this kind of development does to our property taxes and utility network maintenance fees.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Wharn

This is likely a result of the childish privacy complex found in so many North Americans. Though there are plenty that do well in standard low-density layouts, there are those who absolutely cannot bear having any contact with their neighbours, and thus seek outrageously sized lots.

Couldn't have said it better myself. In the Byron area where I grew up, the typical residents wake up in the morning, emerging from their 2-car garage in an SUV, drive to their job, drive home into that garage, and disappear never to be seen again. Intelligence says these people are in hiding in their rec rooms or in their backyards, protected from the outside world by ultra-tall wooden fences. The only people that ever emerge from their secure compounds are those who have dogs and must walk them, and the kids who go to school.

After I spent that month in Latin America two years ago, where the streets were vibrant with kids playing, adults out shopping, and people selling food on the street, the first thing that struck me coming into my parents' neighbourhood was how DEAD everything was. I thought I was in a cemetery. Everyone was hiding inside. From what? Their neighbours? And where were the kids? Not outside kicking a ball around, but likely inside playing Xbox for hours on end.

It's not unique to London either. I'm working in a smaller Ontario city right now and it's the same deal in the suburbs there. Absolutely dead.

[Wharn]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

After I spent that month in Latin America two years ago, where the streets were vibrant with kids playing, adults out shopping, and people selling food on the street, the first thing that struck me coming into my parents' neighbourhood was how DEAD everything was. I thought I was in a cemetery. Everyone was hiding inside. From what? Their neighbours? And where were the kids? Not outside kicking a ball around, but likely inside playing Xbox for hours on end.

You don't even need to go to Latin America for that. Townhouse complexes, by virtue of their higher density, often encourage people to interact more with each other. In my London complex, backyards have no rear fence, and so people often mingle together, talk and have outdoor BBQs. I rarely saw this happen in my old Toronto suburb. Speaking of the Imperial Capital, The Danforth area in Toronto, and even certain sections of Scarberia, are alive and teeming with people.

Then again, increasing density is not always the answer. In particular, I was surprised with how antisocial everyone was in my ex's tower block on Richmond. Nobody even responded to a friendly "hi" on the way in the door

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Wharn

Then again, increasing density is not always the answer. In particular, I was surprised with how antisocial everyone was in my ex's tower block on Richmond. Nobody even responded to a friendly "hi" on the way in the door

I don't know if that is a density problem or a London problem. However, I recently discovered there are places in Canada less friendly than London. Has anyone here been to Simcoe? That's my new winner.

[Wharn]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

I don't know if that is a density problem or a London problem. However, I recently discovered there are places in Canada less friendly than London. Has anyone here been to Simcoe? That's my new winner.

I've noticed it in other apartment blocks before, first as a child at my grandparents' low-rise in the Don Mills and Lawrence area in Toronto, then when visiting friends. You hardly ever saw the neighbours, and when you did they tried their best to ignore you. Just that one example in London happened to be especially closed-in.

[Kokkei Mizu]

Okay, I have another riddle for you guys. Obviously urban sprawl is an issue, and we're getting smarter, as a society, in some ways. However, I think some regulations encourage it.

For example, imagine a country highway on the outskirts of London, or even in the middle of nowhere. Now, imagine where a gravel road intersects that country highway. A developer comes along and wants to build a 200-home development, pretty much making their own town. The catch, however, is they want to build a row of 10 commercial stores, as well as some townhouses, less than 5 metres from the edge of the country highway. The developer will redevelop the highway in this newly created town to have curbs, gutters, wide-sidewalks, and parallel parking.

Back in the 1800's, this would fly. But I doubt it would nowadays. How come?

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

I don't know if that is a density problem or a London problem. However, I recently discovered there are places in Canada less friendly than London. Has anyone here been to Simcoe? That's my new winner.

Yeah. Nice guys finish last. London is friendly, but what's the deal with the never-ending bad news on the job front?

[Wharn]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Yeah. Nice guys finish last. London is friendly, but what's the deal with the never-ending bad news on the job front?

I would not classify London as a "friendly" city overall. Though the North and West tend to be fine, I've definitely noticed some people in other parts of town have serious attitude problems, often directed towards students in particular. I can understand that residents get frustrated with Fanshawe/Western party antics, but treating random students off the street like crap is not a solution to noise pollution. Torontonians, the classic "meanies of Canada", seem to be cold and uncaring, but they don't actively go out of their way to make sure that you feel put down.