Developing new Towns and Cities?

[Canadave]

I don't think Ottawa really has much urban sprawl. Perhaps in the newer suburbs, but most parts of Ottawa proper I've been through have grid streets, relatively walkable neighborhoods, and small shopping districts within residential neighborhoods.

Ottawa actually has a fair bit of sprawl, unfortunately. Mostly because when our greenbelt was created in the 60s, it set to close a boundary to the core, and the city has spilled over it to create a number of large, very car-oriented neighborhoods in the outskirts. This neighborhood, which is one of the ones I was in, is a good example... it's a very boring and faceless suburb. Don't get me wrong, Ottawa's core is great, but we do have a serious problem with sprawl.

It doesn't have sprawl to the same extent as a lot of western North American cities do (try looking at Calgary and Ottawa at the same magnification on Google Maps).

True, but compare nearly any Western North American city to an Eastern one of comparable size, and you're going to see more sprawl in the West (And I mean West distinctly from Pacific, incidentally). It's just different development patterns.

Ottawa's problem, really, is that we don't know what we want to do with the urban space we have. We seem to have trouble making a plan and sticking to it... but I won't vent about local politics, not enough people here care.

I will say, in response to what some of the above people have been saying, is that one of the most interesting differences between Canadian and American cities is that in Canada, the inner city is not only a desirable place to live, but a desirable place to raise families for the middle and upper classes. The majority are still suburban, of course, but a growing segment of Canadians choose to raise families in very urban neighborhoods, mostly because there are many very good inner city schools in Canada. In fact, in my relatively small hometown (~75,000 people), one of the best high schools in the city was one smack dab in the middle of downtown.

The other thing is, Canada has no ghettos. And I mean the technical version of a ghetto, where more than 80% of the population is of one particular ethnic group. Well, the exception might be the fact that there are some "white ghettos", but that's a whole other issue. The bottom line is, Canadians don't tend to be very segregated, which also leads to a lot of mixing between classes and social groups. In my neighborhood, where I can get a one bedroom apartment for $700-800 on the bottom end of the range, there are also people who buy $2 million houses.

What it all adds up to is a very healthy inner-city, for the most part. American cities need to start encouraging the same sort of scenarios if they want to curb sprawl... the best way to stop people moving to the 'burbs is to make the inner city a place they want to live.

 

[Ariadne]

We seem to have trouble making a plan and sticking to it... but I won't vent about local politics, not enough people here care.

Sorry, is that a vent about light rail? *apologizes for the derailment, and then for the pun*

I will say, in response to what some of the above people have been saying, is that one of the most interesting differences between Canadian and American cities is that in Canada, the inner city is not only a desirable place to live, but a desirable place to raise families for the middle and upper classes. The majority are still suburban, of course, but a growing segment of Canadians choose to raise families in very urban neighborhoods, mostly because there are many very good inner city schools in Canada.

New York City, of course, being an exception.

 

[Canadave]

^ NYC is generally the exception when it comes to American cities.

The light rail pun I'm leaving alone.

 

[MIB]

This is a topic that has grabbed my attention for a while now. For those who might be interested, James Howard Kunstler wrote two very facinating books on suburban sprawl, the rise of the car culture, and how it has extensively damaged our towns and our societies. His books are called The Geography of Nowhere and Home From Nowhere and are certianly worth a read. It was an eye opening experience (and, I must admit, a little depressing) to have a drive around town immediately after reading those books and to see, first hand, exactly what he was talking about. But it was also a relief to finally be able to put into terms and express just why this town I'm living in invokes so many negative vibes.

Again, if anyone is interested, Kunstler was also a speaker for the 2004 TED conference, which you can see here: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_suburbia.html

 

[Michael Chris]

What's wrong with suburban sprawl? I don't understand. It's nice, feels homey. Sure it takes a bit longer to get places, but who cares?

 

[John Picard]

What's wrong with suburban sprawl? I don't understand. It's nice, feels homey. Sure it takes a bit longer to get places, but who cares?

What's wrong with suburban sprawl?

1. Nothing like paving over pristine land
2. Invading the natural habitat of wildlife and then complaining when coyotes, wolves, cougars, etc run off with the family pet
3. Damaging the ecosystem running sewage, water, and gas service
4. Poorly planned communities where destinations can only be reached by driving rather than a brisk walk (10 minute drive to the grocery store)
5. Poorly laid out communities with curvy, windy streets and no amenities like parks for children

Sorry, but you have a very perverse view of what's considered "beautiful". Suburban sprawl is wrecking the country and tears communities apart. Like someone previously mentioned, in Europe there are neighborhoods where multimillion dollar houses are next to houses of a lesser value. Here, the people in the "rich houses" gate themselves away from the rest of us vermin.

 

[Michael Chris]

Oh, so lame ecological arguments and personal preference.

 

[Neeka Keet]

JP's right though (I never thought I'd say that, woah). Bad urban planning, white flight, and the ghettification of America's major cities is the cause of many of the ills we live with today.

 

[John Picard]

Oh, so lame ecological arguments and personal preference.

No, not personal preference. Rather than cleaning up their cities and towns, people just flee and ruin the pristine environment in the name of "progress". Luckily, in the PNW, cities such as Portland, have been reinventing themselves and cleaning up. The big Urban Renewal push of the 1970's destroyed much history and structure of many cities across the US.

I get so fed up with people who move away from the city and complain that the farm down the road stink, that the aforementioned wildlife is killing their pets, that gas is too expensive to drive their thirsty SUV to town to get a gallon of milk, etc. etc. etc.


Sorry, but raping the land is irresponsible and immoral.

 

[Michael Chris]

Raping the land? LOL!

 

[PlixTixiplik]

What's wrong with suburban sprawl? I don't understand. It's nice, feels homey. Sure it takes a bit longer to get places, but who cares?

Let me list a couple of things:

Reliance on Middle East oil. Per capita driving has increased by 50% since 1980. Was our quality of life really any worse then (aside from things like extremely high interest rates) - I don't think so.

Cost. Car-dependent families spend nearly 25% of their salary on their vehicles, compared to 9% for people living in more walkable neighborhoods. You also pay higher property taxes because of the cost of providing all of those utilities.

Obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, and health care costs. Sprawl has contributed to the obesity epidemic and people living in sprawling suburbs are about 6 pounds heavier than those living in more livable suburbs.

Traffic deaths. Pedestrians and cyclists (and drivers too) are far more likely to be killed by drivers in areas where streets are designed exclusively for cars. Traffic fatalities can be as much as 4 times greater on a per-capita basis.

None of this says that you have to sell your car and eat granola in a hippie commune apartment block. Smart growth is all about zoning and street design. By integrating small commercial and residential properties, as was done in the early suburbs, you can maintain all of the benefits of having a regular house with a backyard in a quiet neighborhood but without having to be completely car dependent.

 

[spinnerlys]

The topic of creating new cities reminds me of the Masdar project, that is taking place near Abu Dhabi.
It's a new town, which will be build for around 50.000 people with no carbon emissions as a goal.

It sounded promising and the video advertising all the "cool" new and futuristic things this new city could be had me going then.

Here's a link to Masdar: http://www.masdar.ae/en/home/index.aspx


I can't speak of urban sprawl, as I either lived in villages, small towns or the center of the big cities I lived in.

But Europe (Berlin) is not as "urbany" sprawled as north american cities as it seems.

 

[Canadave]

What's wrong with suburban sprawl? I don't understand. It's nice, feels homey. Sure it takes a bit longer to get places, but who cares?

None of this says that you have to sell your car and eat granola in a hippie commune apartment block. Smart growth is all about zoning and street design. By integrating small commercial and residential properties, as was done in the early suburbs, you can maintain all of the benefits of having a regular house with a backyard in a quiet neighborhood but without having to be completely car dependent.

Exactly. Traditional streetcar suburbs, which featured a medium density commercial strip centred on a streetcar line surrounded by moderate density homes are much more compact and livable than modern suburbs. Take this example from Ottawa, Old Ottawa South:

It's compact, green, easy to walk places you need to go, a relatively efficient use of land, and yet there's still plenty of room for single family homes with backyards. And, incidentally, this is amongst the most desirable neighborhoods in the city, along with a number of other streetcar suburbs.

In a modern suburb, on the other hand, houses sprawl away from main roads and commercial centres for kilometres, and those commercial strips are basically buildings smack-dab in the middle of giant parking lots. Not only is it a long walk from a home to a store, but pedestrians are made to feel like second-class citizens as they pick their way across parking lots and dodge SUVs on six-lane boulevards.

Now, I'm not saying that we should halt all development and live in apartment buildings, but we just need to be smart about how we build our cities and our suburbs. Walkable main streets with stores up against the sidewalk and parking underground, combined with gridded homes nearby and plenty of access to public transit is how we can go back to building places that are pleasant to live in and don't needlessly waste space around our cities.

 

[FordSVT]

Oh, so lame ecological arguments and personal preference.

"Lame ecological argument?" Are they ALL "lame to you"?

Jesus would be just fine with paving over thousands of square miles of natural habitat to make suburban homes that are a thousand square feet bigger than anyone needs and an hour by car from where anyone works? "Yeah, FUCK the watershed and swamp land that used to be here and was habitat for tens of thousands of animals and migrating birds, I wanna McMansion no more than 5 minutes from a WalMart and a 32 mile one way commute in rush hour traffic goddammit!".

Instead of addressing John's argument you dismiss it like the "born into the suburban wasteland" individual you seem to be. Go take a walk in the woods FFS.

 

[Canadave]

^ And, along with it, fuck the diversity, excitement and density that goes hand-in-hand with a truly urban area. The suburbs are the worst of both worlds.