The Politics of the End of Suburbia

Posted on August 23, 2008 at 12:00 pm by Mark Kuznicki

The economic conditions that supported the tremendous growth of North American suburbs during the last half of the 20th century – cheap energy and the modern industrial production system – appear to be undergoing a sharp reversal. What do these signals of the future mean for the suburbs and the demands that will be placed on politicians asked to respond to these changes?

You don’t have to be a peak oil theorist to recognize – as James Smith, CEO of Shell UK has – that “the era of easy oil is over”. The reality that we are not going to ever return to an age of cheap oil is just starting to sink into the consciousness of the marketplace, electorate and policy-makers. Scenarios of a serious supply crunch and $200 a barrel oil are no longer on the fringe.

The Freakonomics blog at NY Times recently held a quorum inviting a small group of smart and opinionated experts to imagine the future of American suburbia in 40 years time. The responses vary from James Kunstler’s “the suburbs have three destinies, none of them exclusive: as materials salvage, as slums, and as ruins” to the more hopeful “Suburbia will be flexible, it will be smarter, and it will be hybrid” of John Archer.

What about in the Toronto region?

In the Toronto area context Toronto Star writers Christopher Hume and Phinjo Gombu have been considering these same issues in the GTA: Downtown density will prevail over slums of suburbia, A planning headache, 50 years in the making; Reinventing Suburbia.

One of the primary issues facing the suburban electorate and their politicians are the very real economic hardships that expensive oil will bring to the suburbs.

The cost of living is increasing with the cost of transportation. Ontario’s industrial economy is being hit hard. The investments necessary to reconfigure how we plan and build and how we move around the sprawling megalopolis are staggering. The required shifts in 50 year-old cultural mindsets and behaviours may be even more difficult to make. The very instruments being suggested to help pay for some of this – road-pricing, congestion charges and other carrots and sticks – are political hot potatoes unpopular to those being asked to pay the price or change their behaviour. There are economic winners and losers, and where the money flows, politics is sure to follow.

Can our politics cope with what is being asked of it? Can we move beyond the us vs. them dynamic across municipal boundaries to a greater sense of shared destiny and community across a vast city-region? Can our institutions adapt? Can we solve the wicked problems that will surface during a period of rapid change and uncertainty? Will our suburbs become slums and ruins or smarter and hybrid?

These are questions that we’re looking to our community of readers to help answer. What are the political fault-lines of suburbia’s adaptation, re-imagination and renewal?

Photo Source: Rosanne Haaland.

Tags: , , , , , ,

14 Comments

  1. [...] Cross-posted from Metronauts.ca. [...]

    GravatarPingback by Remarkk! » The Politics of the End of Suburbia — August 24, 2008 @ 10:38 pm

  2. Part of the change is going to come from technology. As the demand for a clean non-oil-dependent vehicle is proportional to the price of oil, and the technology is out there if someone steps up to refine and mass-produce it, then the market will step in to satisfy that demand. If politicians are smart and jump on-side with it to offer incentives to all people to switch, then oil companies can be put out of business, as cars no longer need them. The day gas stations polluting corner lots becomes a thing of the past is the day suburbia gets a second lease on life.

    However, that’s not the only thing suburbia has to worry about – they’re already facing large property tax hikes, and it is clear that they need higher density development to expand their tax base before their infrastructure gets much older. Mississauga is probably leading the pack in this respect, but is still not moving fast enough.

    All suburbs, including the outer 416, need to strategize their corridors to increase density in. Corridor diversity and planning become very important, however there are problems that are difficult to resolve; along many of the corridors, properties often don’t face onto the arteries themselves. This could involve some very hard decisions that will take political fortitude to resolve effectively, and would include expropriation and road network changes – including changes in use, where it is going to have to include pedestrians, bike paths, and dedicated transit lanes in addition to auto traffic… suburban roads are usually wide enough to accomodate this.

    It is going to also take political will to get changes in the way energy is generated and the scale through which it is generated, because not only oil, but infrastructure costs are a big part of the problem, and energy distribution is a big deal.

    Energy needs to be generated and distributed at a local level in urban and suburban areas. Strategization is important as some sites are much more suitable than others, but homeowners and businesses alike can become local power plants powering only a few buildings in the immediate area.

    If 20% of people could sign on to such a program, Toronto and the innermost 905 communties’ dependence on the electrical grid from Bruce and other far off super plants could be reduced by an enormous margin, and could go a long way to avoiding disasters like that of August 2003.

    Also an important issue to deal with is the infrastructure related to water, both supply and waste. This may be the most complicated of the lot, since sewer infrastructure is the most difficult to change with its underground nature. Sewers and mains need to be upgraded to house higher densities and improve the cost-efficiency of the infrastructure with a densely populated tax base. Unlike the situation with power and road use, only after the density is already approved and on the way can this challenge be overcome, which is worrisome since it is a bigger expense for the municipalities than electrical power in the long term.

    It is important to recognize the merits of densification and improved transit services, but at the same time not lose sight of the fact that not all aspects of the suburban landscape are going to change; car technology will change, power generation and distribution will change, road use and networks will change, but there will still be a difference between in lifestyle between 416 and 905, simply because of different histories and origins and resident mindsets/philosophies.

    GravatarComment by Karl Junkin — August 25, 2008 @ 12:16 am

  3. Karl, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I think you raise an important point that new urbanists need to appreciate that the suburbs will never be like the downtown core. They have their own histories, their own identities, and downtown activists should be cautious in prescribing solutions for these places they do not fully understand.

    But because the choices are so difficult, it becomes all the more critical that citizens are engaged in this process of reimagination. This requires a new kind of engaged and mobilizing leadership. This is a kind of meta-innovation that can enable other innovations. A new generation of leaders that have learned the value of grassroots mobilization as a positive force for change.

    GravatarComment by Mark Kuznicki — August 25, 2008 @ 5:50 pm

  4. I thought the post about the development along the Sheppard subway was original. This, unfortunately, is not. Living in the suburbs doesn’t need to equate to using a lot of gas.

    Firstly, most job growth in the GTA is in the 905. The 416 is virtually bereft of job growth other than downtown. As the price of transportation goes up, most suburbanites are going to adjust by moving closer to their jobs – or changing jobs to be closer to home.

    If one:

    1. Moves 40% closer to work
    2. Gets a car with 20% better fuel economy
    3. Car pools 1 day out of 5

    ..presto, you’ve cut fuel costs involved in getting to work by over 60%. (That’s before buying one of those cute Vespa things.)

    2nd – what is talked abourt as suburbia – is really Canadiana. Other than the very core of Montreal and Toronto, there is no significant area of dense, mixed residential. Most small cities have a small core with old homes that are slightly denser.

    However, it seems that it’s only in Toronto where we have this divide. In Montreal, people seem to recoginze that people have different needs at different times of life. I was there for a few months this spring. Why is there this preachiness in the GTA?

    Most communities evolve. Only planners seem to have the level of hubris to think they should dictate how.

    GravatarComment by N Clawson — August 25, 2008 @ 10:35 pm

  5. I’ve lived in suburban Toronto and I’ve lived downtown, and I agree, the downtowners should really stop knocking the suburbs.

    I live in the Annex now and it’s vastly over-rated.

    GravatarComment by M. Briganti — August 26, 2008 @ 2:16 am

  6. The suburbs will adapt and build on their strengths.
    - An increasing number of people will be able to work flexible schedules, so they will work from home or even a local coffee shop. People who need to commute will be able to take transit as the system expands. In turn, more people will buy transit passes, some households will give up the second car, and we may reach a tipping point.
    - Even the newest suburbs will mature and develop a soul. Over time, chain stores will be replaced with independents, as has happened in the inner ring – with a more interesting retail landscape than in central neighbourhoods in many cases.
    - Residents will take advantage of the space available to grow food and produce energy (although it is alarming that in some recent suburbs the layer of topsoil may be too thin to support a lot of trees). As municipalities price water at its true cost, more and more people may choose to replace grass with more water-efficient species.
    - Transit will adapt. The monolothic models currently in place will be replaced with flexible, on-demand services (possibly with cheaper labour).
    - There may be a growth in scooters, vespas, electric bikes, etc. This market is underdeveloped in Canada, but except on the coldest and snowiest days, these might be able to fill a niche.
    - We will have to learn to make suburbs more resilient and cheaper to maintain. A big issue with what is out there is the upcoming repair bill. Who is going to pay to replace all the streets, highways, sewers, etc? It may be “canadiana”, as someone put it, but it’s expensive, and we – especially suburbanites – don’t like to pay taxes.
    -

    GravatarComment by Anton — August 26, 2008 @ 8:06 am

  7. That’s one thing that angers a lot of people. Suburbanites’ attitude of wanting more land than those in Toronto, with less tax and/or upkeep costs. Economies of scale doesn’t work that way. The inefficiencies of suburbia will obviously result in higher taxes than the more efficient Toronto model. Suburbia has been able to get away with a free ride until now because everything was new. Now they’ve made their bed.
    No one can have vastly more land and not expect to pay the price for its upkeep.

    GravatarComment by Karl Junkin — August 26, 2008 @ 12:26 pm

  8. When the bill comes, it will likely be sent to senior levels of government. So everyone will be on the hook.

    GravatarComment by Anton — August 26, 2008 @ 12:54 pm

  9. Where “everyone” means Toronto since that’s where the money generally comes from.

    GravatarComment by Karl Junkin — August 26, 2008 @ 3:32 pm

  10. The suburbs pay slightly more in residential tax than the city – but Toronto has a much, much higher tax rate for commercial and industrial. (For many years, the suburbs have been subsidizing Toronto – not the other around. Do a google on GTA pooling.)

    Ontario’s growth engine has been the 905. The contribution from the 416 is greatly exaggerated.

    GravatarComment by N Clawson — August 26, 2008 @ 6:16 pm

  11. The greatest problem for the GTA, on almost all issues, is that it always seems to assume that it’s problem is original and unique. Regional transit planning is something that Hamburg, Germany did over 40 years ago, as many European cities have done.

    GravatarComment by Wogster — August 26, 2008 @ 11:53 pm

  12. The only reason the 905 has been “subsidizing” Toronto is because Toronto has no money due to downloading that occurred in the 1990s, which is not felt nearly as much in the 905 as in the 416, although 905 is starting to catch up as demographics diversify.

    The economic engine is still Toronto, and most of the money generated for redistribution everywhere other than Toronto comes from Toronto, this hasn’t changed and is unlikely to change anytime soon. The 905 wouldn’t have much without Toronto sending the province huge sums of cash to redistribute to the rest of the province.

    GravatarComment by Karl Junkin — August 27, 2008 @ 1:30 am

  13. The idea of more than a small minority of 905ers driving Vespas and growing their own food seems ridiculous to me, as someone who has lived in York Region my entire life.

    People drive cars and live in the suburbs because they can afford to (increasing poverty in Etobicoke/Scarborough/North York notwithstanding). A family earning $100,000 a year (which is pretty much average for Markham/Vaughan/Oakville/Aurora etc) will complain about the price of gas, but won’t change their behaviour much. Maybe they won’t buy an SUV next time, but the tipping point for dramatic change is not here yet. Once again, these people will complain about rising property taxes, but they CAN afford to pay and don’t want to move anywhere else.

    There may be large employment growth in the 905 region, but I don’t think I’d argue that the majority of residents live in the same town they work in. You still might live in Keswick and commute to Mississauga…. not much of an improvement than driving all the way downtown Toronto, except it’s IMPOSSIBLE to take transit.

    GravatarComment by Cameron — August 27, 2008 @ 11:26 am

  14. Karl Junkin “The economic engine is still Toronto”

    Ultimately, the region is more of the economic unit – but it’s the 905 region that has just about all the new businesses and job growth. The downloading issue is actually very minor. A large chunk of education funding has been uploaded, and the province has adjusted many programs over the years (e.g GO, court costs and paramedics.)

    There was a study by an economist Mark Mullins a few years ago looking at the Munipcial Financial reporting data. (See http://oraweb.mah.gov.on.ca/fir/Welcome.htm.) He found that Toronto has:

    32% of the provinces municipal spending
    22% of its population
    23% of its income

    This means that Toronto is only marginally a net contributor to the province in terms of income. The big ticket contributions come from the 905.

    PS – Just because the banks have headquarters in DT Toronto doesn’t mean Toronto is the source of the banks’ economic activity – the banks economic activity. You have to realise, The Star’s ‘new deal’ campaign has nothing to do with cities – but protecting Toronto’s fat payroll.

    GravatarComment by N Clawson — August 27, 2008 @ 7:42 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

"));