The burbs, without the barbs
Charles Mandel
CanWest
7 November 2005

Meet the future of suburbia. Urban geographer Joel Kotkin envisions it as an archipelago of self-contained villages featuring lively cores full of shops and office space.

They will be ringed by clusters of homes grouped on pedestrian-friendly streets and surrounded by verdant parks. The residents would rarely venture into the big city nearby because everything they need would be within walking distance.

In a report released last week titled The New Suburbanism, Mr. Kotkin writes that "in general suburbs are good places for most people and we need only to find ways to make them better."

That means building denser suburbs instead of trying to lure people back downtown, said Mr. Kotkin, who will be the keynote speaker at Toronto's 15th annual Planning Dinner on Nov. 15.

"The predominant pattern is people want to go to suburbia," Mr. Kotkin said in an interview while he was stuck in traffic on the Hollywood Freeway. "What we can do is, instead of trying to say we're going to end suburbia, how do we work to make it better?"

The Los Angeles resident and author of such books as The City: A Global History and The New Geography takes his cue from the New Urbanist planning movement, which favours building up density to create more liveable, walkable cities, towns and villages.

Many observers believe Mr. Kotkin is articulating a new theory in one of the most debated ideas in planning: the reformation of the suburban ideal.

"It's current thinking,'' said Lawrence Frank, the Bombardier Chair in Sustainable Transportation at Vancouver's University of British Columbia. "We have to be realistic. How these places develop will determine what our quality of life is in the future."

The New Surburbanism is also sparking considerable interest among planners, some of whom believe the report may help solve a number of suburbia's problems.

Suburbs have been accused of causing everything from air pollution -- because of greater commute distances to cities -- to obesity and a wide range of other health concerns.

Mr. Kotkin's report, written in conjunction with the California-based Planning Centre, is subtitled A Realist's Guide to the American Future.

"There are going to be people who want to say, 'You're a cheerleader for sprawl.' They're going to do that because if you don't back them in their orthodoxy in every single way, you're some sort of horrible heretic who should be burned at the stake."

Mr. Kotkin argues all the signs point to continued suburban growth both in the United States and Canada.

"It's not like I'm saying, let's have more sprawl, more suburbs. I'm saying this is where things have been going for 100 years. There's no reason to expect they're going to change."

Mr. Kotkin dismissed studies linking suburbs to obesity and poor health, calling them "a lot of garbage." He argues that the vast majority of 50-year-olds "working 80 hours a week" and with two kids are more likely to live in suburbia than in urban areas.

"Those are the people likely to have heart attacks. When you strip away the demographics, from what I've seen, that's greatly overestimated."

But Stephen Samis, director of health policy with the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, said associations between suburbs and poor health have been documented, particularly showing increased rates of obesity. Mr. Samis responded, "I wouldn't say it's garbage."

Build suburbs like you're building a regular downtown core! What a novel concept Mr. Kotkin has envisioned! :|

While it's not a new idea and has been a dream of urban planners for a long time, the very fact that it's in the papers shows how much of a movement there is to new Urbanism. I think it's good to have research and articles done on this subject as it brings attention for the needs to change suburbs.

Make suburbs more dense, more pedestrian friendly, and less car dependant? It sounds like the article should have been titled "If you can't bring suburbanites to the city, bring the city to them". I mean, it just sounds like his plan is to make suburbs less, well, suburban. But that isn't "new suburbanism". It's just suburbanism in moderation. Or urbanism in moderation. Whichever.

Sounds good though. :)

the townhouse my mom has bought is in a neighbourhood in markham being designed in the new urbanism style. its already been done before also around these areas. not really new or innovative, since its mainly emphasizing the way natural settlements form and develop as they grow in the first place. But there are also qualities to the homes/lots that are quite nice like garages in the backyard with laneways leading to them, and houses closer to the street with large sidewalks... central/shared parks and facilities/shops/ammenities that bring the community together and interact together... all hoping to create a sense of community. Don't know if it reallly works in the artificial/created sense, but its a good practice to be used by developers/builders.

I can see this everyday here in Calgary. The suburb under construction right next to the one I live in reflects the kind of development in the rest of the city. The homes are closer together with smaller lots and a lot of parks. They are about 40% multi-family and 60% single-family, most with garages out back. I can't say there's a large commercial component yet aside from the local town centres, which seems to be one shopping area for every 3 suburbs.

I can see this everyday here in Calgary. The suburb under construction right next to the one I live in reflects the kind of development in the rest of the city. The homes are closer together with smaller lots and a lot of parks. They are about 40% multi-family and 60% single-family, most with garages out back. I can't say there's a large commercial component yet aside from the local town centres, which seems to be one shopping area for every 3 suburbs.

What you describe is pretty normal. What suburbs really lack are mixed-use pedestrian-friendly developments.

I can see this everyday here in Calgary. The suburb under construction right next to the one I live in reflects the kind of development in the rest of the city. The homes are closer together with smaller lots and a lot of parks. They are about 40% multi-family and 60% single-family, most with garages out back. I can't say there's a large commercial component yet aside from the local town centres, which seems to be one shopping area for every 3 suburbs.

then it really isn't new suburbanism is it? the shared amenities/commercial shops are the main component/idea... since people are suppose to be able to rely on their legs instead of their cars to get their shopping needs satisfied. I guess what is happening in Calgary is that they are adapting the housing design/layout, but not the critical component since people are still reliant on their cars to get to their "power centres" and big box malls. Its still pretty suburban even if the layout of the houses/lots is different. Hopefully one day it will adopt the commercial component also.

then it really isn't new suburbanism is it? the shared amenities/commercial shops are the main component/idea... since people are suppose to be able to rely on their legs instead of their cars to get their shopping needs satisfied. I guess what is happening in Calgary is that they are adapting the housing design/layout, but not the critical component since people are still reliant on their cars to get to their "power centres" and big box malls. Its still pretty suburban even if the layout of the houses/lots is different. Hopefully one day it will adopt the commercial component also.

I suspect that will be the next step. The situation has improved rapidly, so I would guess that in a few years new developments will include commercial development.

EDIT: No doady, that is definitely NOT normal for Calgary. This has only happened in the last few years.

DOUBLE EDIT: BTW, I did notice a few of these 'new suburbanism' developments while in Houston, although those are horrendously far from Houston itself.

This is the original surburban design really... the ideal version of Don Mills.

I can't think of one example of the "NewUrbanism" in the GVRD.

Examples in the GVRD? What about "Sawyers Landing?" It's Georgian-inspired (since georgian screams west coast) housing on the fraser in pitt meadows, or some hole. I don't know if straight streets and small yards is all this new-suburbanism consists of, but if it is, then this development is The Shit. If not, then it's just shit.
http://www.pittmeadows.bc.ca/images/Sawyers%20Landing%20Aerial_s.JPG
Huge picture available here (http://www.pittmeadows.bc.ca/images/Sawyers%20Landing%20Aerial.JPG)
http://www.globalairphotos.com/images/bc/pitt_meadows/2005/pts2005_208.jpg
Bigger aerial photo(s) here (http://www.globalairphotos.com/large/BC/Pitt_Meadows/West/2005/208/2)

Make suburbs more dense, more pedestrian friendly, and less car dependant? It sounds like the article should have been titled "If you can't bring suburbanites to the city, bring the city to them". I mean, it just sounds like his plan is to make suburbs less, well, suburban. But that isn't "new suburbanism". It's just suburbanism in moderation. Or urbanism in moderation. Whichever.

Sounds good though. :)

I agree. Check out my hood in the suburb of Burnaby:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v643/vannmann/bys2005_172.jpg
This 900 unit development has replaced a strip mall. Now instead of crackheads and whores lining the street there is stores,a restraunt and a coffe shop.

This tower is being built 2 blocks down the road which is lined with rowhouses:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v643/vannmann/park360.jpg

This is the City in The Park development in the background with 100s of townhouses in the foreground.This whole area is very close to skytrain.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v643/vannmann/PICT0009.jpg

I think Burnaby is doing an excellent job in making this area more urban and livable. The neighborhood has vastly improved in the last decade

^ I'm thinking I could rather enjoy that kind of suburb. Comfortable and quite without feeling dead. And those highrises look kind of cool too, especially those in the last pic.

Its good to have medium/high density but that is not an example of the New Suburbanism".

Isn't North York an example of that new vision??

Mississauga, Scarborough, Etobicoke are all along the same path too.

Yes much of the new wave development in the GTA is this style.

Here is North York from hk's site.

http://www.globalphotos.org/toronto/20040612/RIMG6595.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/toronto/20040612/RIMG6586.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/toronto/20040612/RIMG6623.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/toronto/20040612/RIMG6598.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/toronto/20040612/RIMG6585.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/toronto/20040612/RIMG6592.jpg

I dont know, I am not really a fan of the fauxish look. Maybe the newness has something to do with it. Definitely a step in the right direction though. It helps that North York has a subway line under it.

The funny thing is that before the mega-amalgamations of cities in Ontario and Quebec, this was already happening in the last 10 years or so, with each small city trying to put up a town centre. The new mega-cites now just want justification of it and are trying to put a "planned" label on it

Its good to have medium/high density but that is not an example of the New Suburbanism".

It is an example of new suburbanism because the area IS suburban. The townhouses in the last pic I posted replaced a large warehouse.The towers replace an old landfill.The surrounding neighborhood is mostly made up of single family homes and strip malls. A very typical suburb. Almost every suburb of Vancouver is trying to create it's own core so that the suburbs do not have to be so suburban

North York looks like a lot of the new stuff that's going on in the central parts of Halifax, except with tall.

Vanman

The NewUrbanism doesn't have strip malls.
It is a neighbour of low rise/medium rise condos with single family homes with small lots on straight streets with townhomes as well. The garages are in the back accessed by alleys and the homes all have front porches. They are TOD which have a definate town centre consisting of shops, library etc much like a spoke with the streets going out and the centre is a small parkette.
There would be no reason to have to use your car for everyday shopping or recreation.
It is a real community not just condos that happen to be close to each other resulting in high density.
Like I said, it is more than just a bunch of people living in high density.

^
Vanman, to use an example, it would be similar in idea to the area of DunbarVillage in Vancouver. Walk to shopping from your smaller sized house/lot with recreation, library, community centre right there. Front porches and none of the houses have driveways or garages in the front.

From combining Mr. Kotkin's and ssiguy2's definitions of so called "New Suburbanism", I think a better Burnaby example would be The Heights (http://www.burnabyheights.com/). However, the site says at least the commercial part has been around since 1909 so there's not much new about it, except it seems to be densifying these days.

^
Vanman, to use an example, it would be similar in idea to the area of DunbarVillage in Vancouver. Walk to shopping from your smaller sized house/lot with recreation, library, community centre right there. Front porches and none of the houses have driveways or garages in the front.


So what is the difference then when you live in your townhouse which has street facing doorways and underground parking, and are able to walk less than five minutes to the nearest mall , which also has street facing shops/cafe/restraunt, with all parking underground.On your way you pass the senior's centre and the library . You buy your groceries ,stop at the flight centre to book a flight, and then walk 2 blocks home.After dropping off your groceries you walk down the bike path 2 blocks to the skytrain to go to work.on the way you pass by a park filled with kids and parents. The whole time you never once have to get into your car.This neighborhood is not fictional ,I should know.As well its in the suburbs.

SSiguy you contradict yourself all the time. In many other posts you say that Vancouver doesn't have any examples of new urbanism yet you describe the dunbar neighborhood in this post. You really got to understand that new urbanism comes in all shapes and sizes: from compact houses on small lots to high rises close to rapid transit and amenities.

I am confused by all the labels.

I really don't think there is much meaning to "New Urbanism" in practice except as a marketing term to get people to buy densely-packed houses / condos and accept the 60s "Leave It To Beaver" or "Brady Bunch" car-centric madness being over.

To me, a mixed density, integrated residential - commercial - non-polluting industrial design is the way "old urbanism" used to work.

The only thing new about "New Urbanism" is that it means developing on virgin land in outer city edges as opposed to "Densification" and redevelopment of brownfield sites.

This still doesn't stop the loss of farmland or sprawl (might slow it down a bit).

And that is what I am afraid this New Urbanism exercise to be -- the developers and fringe city mayors saying "see, we're environmentally and socially friendly" but in the meantime the land flipping just continues.

I am confused by all the labels.

I really don't think there is much meaning to "New Urbanism" in practice except as a marketing term to get people to buy houses / condos and accept the 60s "Leave It To Beaver" or "Brady Bunch" car-centric madness being over.

To me, a mixed density, integrated residential - commercial - non-polluting industrial design is the way "old urbanism" used to work.

The only thing new about "New Urbanism" is that it means developing on virgin land in outer city edges as opposed to "Densification" and redevelopment of brownfield sites.

This still doesn't stop the loss of farmland or sprawl (might slow it down a bit).

And that is what I am afraid this New Urbanism exercise to be -- the developers and fringe city mayors saying "see, we're environmentally and socially friendly" but in the meantime the land flipping just continues.


That's very true.The developers talk about new urbanism having very high levels of environmently friendly development, meanwhile they rape forested,mountains ,hillsides etc. for the land.

The new urbanism that I was talking of earlier is more along the lines of infill and greater densification in old suburbs