Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-26-2019, 11:58 PM
 
4,147 posts, read 2,903,278 times
Reputation: 2886

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
Arlington Virginia is 26 sq miles while Mississauga is 112 sq miles. I don't think you can really compare a small parcel of a suburb, against a larger burb like Mississauga, which is more expansive and a larger city really. In Toronto metro, Arlington wouldn't even be its own city, it would be a collection of census tracts. Mississauga itself, is more populated than Washingon D.C. It is highly likely that if you took the most dense 26 sq miles of Mississauga, which is where all those highrises are clustered, it would be more dense than Arlington. Arlington is also a lot closer to the core of D.C. as well. It is only 5.2 miles away from D.C and thus closer to urbanity, whereas Mississauga is 16 miles away from the core of Toronto so is just more suburban. 5.2 miles from Toronto's core and you are still actually in the city of Toronto and not a burb. I don't see these as comparable examples tbh.
Ah, so you're saying that in comparison to Mississauga, Arlington is really just a small pocket of urbanity, whereas Mississauga and other Canadian burbs have high rise urbanity on a a much larger, uniform, scale?

And you're also trying to say that Arlington is a inner-ring, prewar suburb (and inner-ring, prewar suburbs are typically denser than outer-ring, postwar suburbs) but that Mississauga is an outer-ring, postwar suburb, so Arlington appears, on paper, slightly denser than Mississauga?

Technically, though, Arlington is a county, a census-designated place, not a city, but still, got your point!

To a lesser degree, your points are also the points I want to make regarding dense, small, prewar, inner-ring suburbs like Oak Park, Illinois, vis-a-vis Irvine, a outer-ring, postwar suburb on a much larger scale.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-27-2019, 05:59 AM
 
Location: Toronto
15,109 posts, read 15,704,812 times
Reputation: 5191
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrJester View Post
Ah, so you're saying that in comparison to Mississauga, Arlington is really just a small pocket of urbanity, whereas Mississauga and other Canadian burbs have high rise urbanity on a a much larger, uniform, scale?

And you're also trying to say that Arlington is a inner-ring, prewar suburb (and inner-ring, prewar suburbs are typically denser than outer-ring, postwar suburbs) but that Mississauga is an outer-ring, postwar suburb, so Arlington appears, on paper, slightly denser than Mississauga?

Technically, though, Arlington is a county, a census-designated place, not a city, but still, got your point!

To a lesser degree, your points are also the points I want to make regarding dense, small, prewar, inner-ring suburbs like Oak Park, Illinois, vis-a-vis Irvine, a outer-ring, postwar suburb on a much larger scale.
I think we are on the same page here. Toronto as a city forget burbs, just as a city is the same size as the city of Chicago. They are both large cities. Toronto is 3rd largest in Canada/U.S and Chicago is 4th. So naturally their suburban satellite cities are going to be further flung away from the old built cores than D.C's. Arlington is so close to D.C because D.C is a smallish city surrounded by a bunch of smallish fairly dense cities. If you overlayed Chicago or Toronto on top of D.C - they would envelop not only D.C but probably quite a few surrounding cities including Arlington. City lines are arbitrary borders really and they don't really always properly define the density of the built up areas within them. This is especially true of larger cities.

Last edited by fusion2; 08-27-2019 at 06:54 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2023, 07:17 AM
 
1,171 posts, read 924,658 times
Reputation: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
In the case of Toronto - it is the most sprawled out Canadian city with the most suburbia in the country yet compared to U.S metro's of similar size - it is in a far more compact and dense area. A big part of why development favours densification has been largely due to a Provincial policy called the Places to grow act.

Places to Grow - Growth Plan 2017



This is why the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area with a population about the same as Greater Houston fits its 7 million into an area of 3134 sq miles vs Greater Houston's 10000 sq miles. Toronto is essentially forbidden to sprawl to U.S sized limits due to the government policy I addressed above. This is a big reason why Toronto is having sustained highrise and condo growth and even why SFH and Townhouse development is more compact and dense vs U.S cities.
The GGH contains many of Ontario's most significant ecological and hydrologic natural environments and scenic landscapes, including the Oak Ridges Moraine, the Niagara Escarpment and the other natural areas in the Greenbelt Area and beyond. These natural areas support biodiversity, provide drinking water for the region's inhabitants, sustain its many resource-based industries, support recreational activities that benefit public health and overall quality of life, and help moderate the impacts of climate change.
The region also has some of Canada's most important and productive farmland. Its fertile soil, moderate climate, abundant water resources, and proximity to markets support agricultural production that cannot be duplicated elsewhere in the country.


When did this act started in the 70s or 90s?

I hear in the news Doug Ford is trying to build more homes because of the major housing cost criss in Toronto and to a degree southern Ontario and getting much push back for not developing more apartments and condos but wanting more homes and highways build. As Toronto and Hamilton have been limiting growth for years.

Yes Dallas, Houston, and Tulsa like lot of southern US cities have two or three times the sprawl for same same people. In other words cities in southern ontario and GTA very much so would have to be two times bigger in size for amount people they have to be comparable.

But even Calgary and Edmonton being sprawl city of Canada getting bad rap is still not as sprawl like than the US cities.

And I don’t subscribe to augmented that the government, city hall, city planners and council so on are all just more liberal or green party like than the conservatives like in the US. Well may be now yes now but I’m sure in the 60s and 70s green party script was not so much issue back than with little population and city size.

But 30 years ago in places in Toronto the suburb was more dense even 40s years even in places like East York, North York, and York and even parts of Scarborough and Etobicoke was way more dense than most US cities.

Well Toronto and Hamilton seem to have lot of high rise apartments and condos that you just don’t see in US cities with the exceptions of Miami and Fort Lauderdale close to the water and parts of New York and Chicago. But it mostly always in city not the suburbs.

Some people say US had lot more political lobbying from the oil companies and car makers than Canada is the reason the US is more sprawling and car centric. But not sure on that.

Canada cities always had strange look where it does not look Europe like or Asian like but looks 90% US like with some odd mixers here and there may be because Canada was run and control by the British for long time.

May be the US white flight that US had that Canada did not experience had a culture impact
being US culture that likes suburbs over the city. That in Canada did not experience.

May be the green belts in Ontario are very different than the green belts in the US or the midwest or south could be the reason?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2023, 07:43 AM
 
1,171 posts, read 924,658 times
Reputation: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrJester View Post
There's one big exception: Coastal California suburbs.

Look at Irvine, California. The houses are just as, if not even closer together, than in Markham, Ontario.

California, once again, is the California to everything the U.S. is known for.
Well California is an exemptions and very much so Los Angles.

Where Los Angles took a medium density look than any city in world giving strange look of city going from walking to driving look and feel. Where there are homes very close to one other, lots of 3 to 6 story apartments and condos, parking garage, single story store front with parking on the street, very small parking lot, lots of grid system streets, alley ways and tight parking.

Toronto seems to took the the dense pre 1910 automobile look being in the city core look and post 1970 suburbs of low density with high-rise apartments and high-rise condos like in the suburbs like in Scarboroug, Etobicoke, North York and Mississauga so on.

Where Los Angles took lot of the 20s to 40s look with sprinkling in their own style. Where there is no city in world like Los Angles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2023, 09:11 AM
 
1,171 posts, read 924,658 times
Reputation: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
Mississauga is a strong example of suburban highrise density. It may be one of the strongest examples of that in Canada or the U.S. Don't mistaken that on my part for great urbanity. IMO Mississauga was off the mark in that they built their 'dt core' around a shopping mall. Good thing for Mississauga that there are some urban slices in Pt Credit and Streetville but most of the city is pretty suburban in nature. Next time your in Mississauga visiting family - check out the area around Erin Mills Town Centre - they are literally building a Canyon of mid rise condo's opposite that mall on Eglinton.

I know all too well about the U.S having some clusters of skylines outside DT cores - it just isn't as prevalent as in cities like Toronto, Vantcouver and also Montreal. In terms of penetration, Canadian burbs are simply more dense and more vertical than their American cousins. There are outlier examples in the U.S - just not as prevalent or penetrative.

This isn't a bad thing. Some people simply like the space that sprawl provides. I do think the concept of sprawl and space is more ingrained in the general American psyche than in Canada.
For people with low income or medium income apartments and condos are the only answer other than being homeless. These apartments and condos where not build to make it look city like but solution for housing for low and medium income and the sprawl.

If Mississauga really wanted to create a urban feel that urban activist want they would ban all parking lots, box stores, malls and go with mixed use where you live above the store. But it is to late now it is mostly all built up.

Mississauga like a lot of cities in Toronto area are really poor city planning as solution to sprawl cap apposed by the government where Toronto area could look more like San Francisco or Philadelphia or even parts of New York but is too late now.

Most of the US cities look more uniform like yes like this is low density area, this is medium density area and this is high density area and to give skyline uniform look and feel than the mix and match look in Canada.

If Mississauga was US city going for that density it would have a down town area where the mall is and plot office buildings and other high rises there and ban all parking lots and have street parking. Have mixed use buildings and offices and medium to high density in 4 by 4 KM area or 6 by 6 KM area in core than ban homes and go with roll-housing and 5 story apartments out side of the Mississauga down town area. Yes giving it more uniform look than plotting high-rise apartments and high-rise condos in low and medium suburban housing areas. It would have dense down town area and medium outer core than plotting high rise apartments and condos in low and medium single family housing and giving the skyline mix match look.

This is some thing I find really odd about city planners in Canada may be people are so use to Canadian culture of doing it this way it seem not odd to them but it is very noticeable to people in the US or spending time in the US you will pick up on these things.

And very much so the midwest and south and west coast with the rust belt cities taking on more older urban look like Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Detroit and Philadelphia but still looking different.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2023, 06:59 AM
 
Location: Germantown, Philadelphia
13,937 posts, read 8,779,876 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT View Post
I find Canadian suburbs to look very strange. The homes are too close together. They should either be fully connected and fireproof or farther apart.

I believe the reason American suburbs have larger lots and greater setbacks from property lines stems from the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. One of the reasons that fire did so much damage was that it was able to jump from building to building since they were so close. Out of that came stricter standards for American urban buildings as well as set backs. Jay
Are you 100% sure of that?

In Chicago itself, you can find blocks of freestanding houses spaced so close together that they look like rowhouses, all built after the 1871 fire. The difference is that they are built of more fire-resistant materials like brick and stone.

Yes, most US zoning ordinances do specify minimum lot sizes and lot coverage for houses. But as the California examples and those from Chicago (and parts of New York and San Francisco where the houses are freestanding but their outer walls abut one another) show, they don't all do so, and fire prevention was also addressed by other means.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2023, 10:49 PM
 
3,695 posts, read 4,959,309 times
Reputation: 2069
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl View Post
Are you 100% sure of that?

In Chicago itself, you can find blocks of freestanding houses spaced so close together that they look like rowhouses, all built after the 1871 fire. The difference is that they are built of more fire-resistant materials like brick and stone.

Yes, most US zoning ordinances do specify minimum lot sizes and lot coverage for houses. But as the California examples and those from Chicago (and parts of New York and San Francisco where the houses are freestanding but their outer walls abut one another) show, they don't all do so, and fire prevention was also addressed by other means.

Chicago after 1871 did require setbacks and still does. It is just that the setbacks are small and often used for the purpose of a "gang way" between the front yard and backyard. The current smallest setback is for the side of the building. It currently depends on zoning and does not have to be greater than 5 feet and can in some cases be not less than 2. The front and back yards are have the largest setbacks. Fire is the main reason for the setback. It is to reduce the chance of a fire jumping from one house to the next.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2023, 11:06 PM
 
Location: Knoxville, TN
10,619 posts, read 5,480,150 times
Reputation: 20933
Historic US car culture. Los Angeles was designed around the car. The older the city, the less so this is. Post World War II suburbs were driven by US car culture absent transit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2023, 12:07 AM
 
Location: Germantown, Philadelphia
13,937 posts, read 8,779,876 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
Chicago after 1871 did require setbacks and still does. It is just that the setbacks are small and often used for the purpose of a "gang way" between the front yard and backyard. The current smallest setback is for the side of the building. It currently depends on zoning and does not have to be greater than 5 feet and can in some cases be not less than 2. The front and back yards are have the largest setbacks. Fire is the main reason for the setback. It is to reduce the chance of a fire jumping from one house to the next.
Two feet separating one house from another isn't going to do much to prevent a fire from spreading sideways from one house to another if it gets serious enough.

Chances are, however, that the fire trucks will get there before it does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2023, 11:11 AM
 
32,796 posts, read 12,086,386 times
Reputation: 14623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Blevin View Post
Historic US car culture. Los Angeles was designed around the car. The older the city, the less so this is. Post World War II suburbs were driven by US car culture absent transit.

My grandmother started driving when she was 12 (in pre 1910 Los Angeles....DLs weren't yet required). Her father bought her a new car...mainly to drive her mother around. My great grandmother didn't want to drive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top