New Urbanism: Suburban salvation just fancy architecture?

Posted on November 1, 2008 at 11:01 am by Andrae Griffith

If you look at a arial photograph of the residential areas in the historic downtowns of the GTHA and compare them to the areas built after the second world war, you’ll notice a few major differences. First of all, the streets in the downtowns are usually a neat, orderly grid, while the suburban areas tend to have winding, almost disorderly streets. Next, you’ll notice that the houses in the old neighbourhoods are build very close to the street and very close together, with garages (if any) accessible by a rear laneway. Newer suburban neighbourhoods tend to have houses which are setback from the property line in all directions, and the garages and driveways are often the most prominent feature of the front facade.

While this may be over simplifying the last 50 years of urban development history, the car is essentially to blame for this change. When we had to walk or take the trolley everywhere, development had to be compact and orderly to allow more people to live close to the streetcar stop. Now that we can drive everywhere, development can be more spread out, and walking provisions (front door close to sidewalk) can be replace with automobile provisions (garage close to street). Also, with land cheaper away from the transit stops, more of it can be devoted to each individual lot. Since lower density means more privacy, the suburbs pretty much sold themselves. While it was a foolish idea that has come back to bite us on the arse, we have to look forward.

Of course, if we had a nickel for every “it seemed like a good idea at the time” scheme, we probably would have eliminated poverty in the 1300s. But I digress…

New Urbanism has been talked about as a solution to the ills of suburban development, and examples of the concept have been constructed across North America, including the eastern Markham community of Cornell. The idea is, simply, to build communities modelled visually and spatially on those found in historic downtowns instead of those found in areas we would identify as sprawl. In a new urbanist community, Cornell in particular, the streets form an orderly grid and parking areas are located in the rear of the dwellings. The houses themselves are often three-storey rowhouses and are build very close to the sidewalks. Along the main streets, live-work units have businesses on the ground floor and residences above. From a planning perspective, the idea is a good one. Amenities are close by, and transit services are just a short walk away for anyone needing to leave the community. Unfortunately, the devil is in the implementation.

Earlier this year I made a trip to Cornell to see what the fuss was about. Starting at York University, I boarded a VIVA Purple bus heading east to Markham-Stouffville Hospital in the community. At the hospital, which really is only the edge of the community, I transfered to the 85 Rutherford – 16th Avenue bus for a trip into the heart of the community. Going in with great expectations, it’s sad to say that I left with disappointment. Here’s why:

High-frequency VIVA service is a long walk from the centre of the transit-oriented neighbourhood. The Cornell transit terminal will be built further away from the residences than the temporary terminus at the hospital is – a move that really runs against the point of a transit-oriented community.
While transit route coverage is above average for the suburbs, most of the routes operate limited service or peak hours only.
Many of the stores in the community only fill a very small percentage of all the services necessary for urban life. For a wider range of services (like a grocery store), it is still necessary to drive out of the nieghbourhood.
The neighbourhood itself is built out in the far corner of Markham. Yes, it’s walkable, but there isn’t much to walk to.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure Cornell is a great place to live and raise a family. But it, like all communities of its type, is only as good as the support its given. If we’re going to make the suburbs better, we have to match land uses with transportation infrastructure. We need to build more Cornells instead of Valleywoods*, and we have to recognize that transit in the 905 will not bring the perceived ills of the city to our doorsteps. We can’t expect everyone to move into the 416, so saving the 905 has to be on our agenda. New urbanism, as its been implemented so far, isn’t the salvation it was promised to be, but there’s still time to set things right. In the mean time, new urbanism does result in attractive architecture – at least according to my tastes.

*It’s where I live.

Tags: 905, architecture, cornell, downtown, historic, markham, new urbanism, Transit, Viva

10 Comments »

Thanks for sharing this info on a more sustainable community outside of the 416. As someone who will probably have to move outside the 416 to the 905 out of necessity (partner’s long commute out to the 905 is getting onerous), I am interested in finding a community that would fit in more with my current urban way of life. While Cornell doesn’t exactly sound perfect, it’s better than the endless cul-de-sacs with an SUV in every driveway.

Comment by Chris — November 1, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
Than-you for the informative post. I think the community’s name has a wonderful ring to it – but I’ve never managed to make it up there. I think the best way to look at things is by remembering that “Roma die uno non aedificata est”.

A large proportion of the residents in Cornell are likely families – many with two working parents. Even in a pre-WW II neighbourhood such as The Beach, most people in this demographic drive to get groceries. When the kids are in a certain age-range, they mostly drive everywhere – other that than some take transit to and from work.

When I was growing up in Montreal, my mom stayed at home – and could hence get groceries delivered.

Another demographic difference today is that society is much more diverse. To satisfy the old-fashioned Anglo- eating habits would require barely more than 15 basic ingredients. We – as a society – don’t eat that way anymore. East Asian and South Asian immigration, the infusion of culinary ideas from all over for reasons of taste and health mean that people are gravitating towards large supermarkets and specialty food stores. It’s hard to shoehorn these type of retailers into small retail pockets in the middle of subdivisions.

The other point I’ll make is that the suburban layout that is causing so much angst is reflective of about 90% of urban Canada. Most of Toronto has a suburban layout. Even in relatively mature neighbourhoods such as Forest Hill, there are streets without sidewalks. (Montreal is better for walking in general – and especial downtown where the one-way grid allows most every intersection to be signalized.)

Comment by J Albert — November 1, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
Great post (and compelling comments so far too)!

The community you describe sounds similar to the Village at York University, which is just south of the campus and now houses quite a few students (and, interestingly, apparently a large percentage of recent Russian immigrants to Canada).

Even there – where you’ve got high-order bus transit (the 196 Rocket running constantly between the Village and Downsview station, as well as the Finch buses), it still feels quite suburban. There have been problems of sexual assaults and other violence in the area, speaking to the problem of too few eyes on the street – it’s quiet at night, it’s quite during the day, other than the stream of traffic going up and down Sentinel Road (which bisects the village and provides the main southern access point to York U).

The solution is so hard to arrive at. How do you get that vibrant work/life/play combination of an area that means people are coming through at all times of the day, that there are always eyes on the street, etc. You can’t really plan it in, as we’ve seen with a lot of developments, but the market really isn’t making an attempt either. Perhaps the answer lies in density, but hmm…

I like J Albert’s comment as well, I think his idea of looking to demographics is a compelling one.

This is a bit of a ramble, but it’s a tough issue.

Comment by Ian Milligan — November 1, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
The truth is the majority of the population in the US and Canada doesn’t want to live in a pre-1950 dense neighbourhood layout. It’s more profitable for a developer to build dense, so why haven’t they? … because most people don’t want it.

Comment by Nathan — November 1, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
Nice of them to build it in the quietest reaches of Markham, so visitors aren’t likely to see it.

If you want to see a better example of new urbanism look at Thornhill Square, the shopping mall has been torn down, now there is townhouses without garages, grocery, library, and many small shops all occupying the same lot.

Comment by Triceratops — November 2, 2008 @ 12:57 am
Developers are forced to build less dense due to local and provincial legislation. People want to have basement apartments, but have to do so illegally, so example. People want to be closer to downtown, but would have to pay more (supply and demand) for it. People want more storage space, but have to use the garage for it or rent space.

Comment by W. K. Lis — November 2, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
@ Nathan

It’s true – people want space to move around in their homes and yard. I think attitudes are changing though, as people realize that large houses on large lots are not environmentally friendly. But, it’s not going to change overnight.

I think it’s all about design. You can design a neighbourhood of semis and townhouses that feel like larger “American Dream” style homes – but as I said in the article it’s pointless unless you’re going to have the transportation and services nearby so people don’t have to drive.

Comment by Andrae Griffith — November 2, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
My observation is that – other than not living directly on the major artery – people are not that concerned about the layout of the neighbourhood – per se. The features of the property in terms of space and backyard are the big factors.

It works like this – the backyard must be big enough so that the kids can play – and be out of mom & dad’s hair, while still being visible and/or in earshot. The finished basement has a similar role when it’s cold and snowy out. Basically, parental sanity-preservation trumps just about everything else.

Comment by J Albert — November 2, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
Who knows how long the isolationist trend will last? Hopefully it will die soon.

In the old days, it was okay to have a small house because you can go to the cinema, but now that’s not good enough, you need to have a home theatre in your living room. It used to be okay to go to the public park with your family, now you have to play in your private back yard.

Isn’t this all part of the dying culture of excess. Buy a house you can’t afford on credit, buy a huge TV on credit, it’s not going to be like this after the credit crunch.

Comment by Triceratops — November 3, 2008 @ 12:19 am
I’ve taken a visit to Cornell to take a brief look around (when a major portion of it was still under development, and then again when that chunk was complete but a new portion was in development).

My understanding is that Cornell is divided into multiple segments, each developed by a different developer with their own ideas as to what Cornell should be like. So I would suggest taking another visit again in the new year, because by then there’s a good chance the latest portion will be completed and you can get another look at what the overall development is set to look like upon completion.

I like the idea that there are numerous parks spotted throughout the neighbourhood surrounded by houses that are looking onto the park. This way, nobody feels the need to drive to a park to have some fun on the field or in a playground. And every so often there’s a “main street” lined with shops to encourage the “home-style” feel that Markham longs to maintain just about everywhere (heck, they refuse to change from town to city simply because of that).

I think a major problem with transit in the suburbs is that more often than not, transit is only introduced into the area with more than just sparse or peak only service if the demand is there. You don’t see them put a frequent service route somewhere in anticipation of a new development very often; it’s as if they work backwards and WANT to play catch up all the time.

I think the only case (aside from Viva Orange and Green) where they decided to put frequent routes along a corridor without demand would be the portion of the Viva Purple which dips down south to Enterprise Road (the location of the future Downtown Markham) in anticipation of a very dense downtown area coming in a few years. For about 4 years now the bus has been rolling through that corridor even though ridership doesn’t exist (nobody lived there until just these past few months). But at least you can almost guarantee that the existence of such a route at the time of people moving in would encourage people to try transit before getting used to using their car for everything.

Comment by Raffi — November 7, 2008 @ 2:14 pm