Google sattleite view of Toronto updated

[Ervin2]

Anybody who has ever checked out Toronto on Google Earth/Maps probably knows that the existing satellite pictures were very outdated (at least a few years, maybe 5), and were taken during fall so everything was rather brown and ugly. Well just today I went on and found that they have new shots, taken during the summer and rather nice looking. Go check it out.

Edit: In fact, it's more up to date than street view now.

[Sid_toronto]

yeah its pretty awesome, i wish they would update city sat-views more often though.

[TRZ]

At last!!!

Google must be in Xmas spirits.

Awesome!

[Marcanadian]

They've done the images during late August/early September judging by the Exhibition. It's awesome to see the city nice and green, rather than dull and brown like the previous imagery.

[doogerz]

Great update! So much for Premier McGuinty's 'greenbelt' policy, there is just as much if not more urban sprawl than during the 90s! Just look at North Oshawa, West Mississauga, Markham, etc.

[monkeyronin]

Originally Posted by doogerz

Great update! So much for Premier McGuinty's 'greenbelt' policy, there is just as much if not more urban sprawl than during the 90s! Just look at North Oshawa, West Mississauga, Markham, etc.

Well of course there's going to be more sprawl than there was considering the city has grown by a million since then.

The more important part is that the sprawl has become considerably more dense and better-designed than it was 10 years ago.

[urbanboom]

And of course sprawl hasn't decreased! It's not like the greenbelt police are demolishing houses and planting trees... It's just a political boundary set up where development cannot occur - pretty much, a cap. Infact, most suburbs haven't even reached the boundary yet:
(Developed areas in grey, greenbelt in green).

All in all, it's a very good first step.

[Tuscani01]

Another thing, much of the sprawl that has occurred since the Greenbelt Act was created was planned way before the Greenbelt Act came into effect. The Places to Grow Act requires municipalities to reach target densities, further strengthening the Greenbelt Act.

[Kensingtonian]

Originally Posted by urbanboom

And of course sprawl hasn't decreased! It's not like the greenbelt police are demolishing houses and planting trees... It's just a political boundary set up where development cannot occur - pretty much, a cap. Infact, most suburbs haven't even reached the boundary yet:
(Developed areas in grey, greenbelt in green).

All in all, it's a very good first step.

this map shows Oakville developed all the way up to the 407 and that's not the case. there's barely any develpment north of Dundas right now.

[urbanboom]

Originally Posted by Kensingtonian

this map shows Oakville developed all the way up to the 407 and that's not the case. there's barely any develpment north of Dundas right now.

Projected growth.

[allurban]

Originally Posted by Kensingtonian

this map shows Oakville developed all the way up to the 407 and that's not the case. there's barely any develpment north of Dundas right now.

the original plan was to have Dundas as the northern boundary of Oakville's development, with the area to the north and around Burnhamthorpe and Highway 403 (as originally planned) to be left to the farms.

But the council changed their land use policy to make the 407 the northern border...3 years ago?

Originally Posted by Kensingtonian

definitely more dense - townhouses, small apartment buildings and side-by-side detached houses on small lots are the norm in new GTA suburbs. compared to bungalows on huge lots from the mid 20th century it's much better. the huge design problem that remains is that retail is still located in power centres serving huge and vast residential regions. while denser, the newer suburban areas still cater 100% to the car and 0% to pedestrians.

Agreed, still a major problem. Now our suburbs look like modern versions of the suburbs from the 1920s

More density but still suburbs.

Originally Posted by Kensingtonian

Denser suburbs ARE an improvement because it means the 100 000 people who move to the GTA each year will be living closer together and taking up less farmland or greenspace. And even if they're only driving 9km instead of 10, that's a significant impact on vehicle emissions when you're talking about millions of people. Also, people in the GTA don't move to the suburbs to be closer to nature (that's more of a B.C. thing). They move there because they can get more house for their money. Most people would prefer to live in Toronto if they could afford a similar house in a good neighbourhood.

This whole power centre thing has GOT to go. imo, this is the single biggest problem with suburbia. I did some xmas shopping at these power centres and it was a horrible suburban nightmare. You spend 15 minutes looking for a parking spot to go to ONE STORE. You can't walk between stores because they're so far apart, so you get in your car and waste another 15 minutes finding a parking spot for the next store. Traffic is also horrendous at the intersections between the parking lots, at least during the holidays. I really don't understand how this is more convenient for people. The only time it would make sense is for groceries or large pieces of furniture that you want to carry directly to your car.

The problem is that, while the planners have gotten over their segregation of land and returned to the concept of mixed use, the developers and the government has not.

For a lot of people, 'mixed-use projects' means a tuck shop (convenience store) & maybe a dry cleaners along the street at the base of a 20 storey condo tower.

In order to have vibrant suburbs we need more areas like Port Credit and 'downtown' Oakville as compared to Dundas St. (aka 'Furniture Shop' road west in Mississauga)

Cheers, m

[Kensingtonian]

Originally Posted by monkeyronin

The more important part is that the sprawl has become considerably more dense and better-designed than it was 10 years ago.

definitely more dense - townhouses, small apartment buildings and side-by-side detached houses on small lots are the norm in new GTA suburbs. compared to bungalows on huge lots from the mid 20th century it's much better. the huge design problem that remains is that retail is still located in power centres serving huge and vast residential regions. while denser, the newer suburban areas still cater 100% to the car and 0% to pedestrians.

[Epi]

Noticed the Google update myself a few days ago. Good to see that the golf course at Cityplace is no longer on Google

[vid]

Originally Posted by Kensingtonian

definitely more dense - townhouses, small apartment buildings and side-by-side detached houses on small lots are the norm in new GTA suburbs. compared to bungalows on huge lots from the mid 20th century it's much better. the huge design problem that remains is that retail is still located in power centres serving huge and vast residential regions. while denser, the newer suburban areas still cater 100% to the car and 0% to pedestrians.

I thought this was interesting when I first saw it. It's not as good as neighbourhoods were 80 years ago, but it's a step in the right direction.

(In the 1910s in my neighbourhood, you didn't have to walk more than 2 blocks to find a general store. Now you have to walk as much as 8!)

One thing I would like to see in suburbs is preservation of existing trees whenever possible. It might be more difficult in Toronto since you're building on farms but up here there is no reason to clear out a huge area so that it can slowly develop over 20 years. It's unsightly and damaging. The last place I would want to raise my family is in a neighbourhood that is constantly under construction. (That of course probably isn't as much of a problem in the GTA as it is in the north; some neighbourhoods are still being developed after 30 years.)

[Kensingtonian]

Originally Posted by vid

One thing I would like to see in suburbs is preservation of existing trees whenever possible. It might be more difficult in Toronto since you're building on farms but up here there is no reason to clear out a huge area so that it can slowly develop over 20 years. It's unsightly and damaging. The last place I would want to raise my family is in a neighbourhood that is constantly under construction. (That of course probably isn't as much of a problem in the GTA as it is in the north; some neighbourhoods are still being developed after 30 years.)

i assume it's cheaper to clear cut all the trees and replant new ones after. that's what they always do. a neighbourhood under contruction would not be fun to live in. the wind would regularly be blowing loose dirt all over your car and house.

[UrbanDave]

Oh well, I guess there's just no stoping to the LA inizing of the GTA.

[Kensingtonian]

ah, ok.

they seem to be moving in the right direction as far as the density of housing in newer suburbs is concerned. The following link shows an area in Oakville that rivals some inner-city Toronto neighbourhoods for density. It looks a bit contrived, but it beats most of the suburban development I've seen.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...46.71,,0,-7.91

The big remaining problem is the retail. As dense as the above area is, the closest retail is still in the form of big box stores at Dundas and Trafalgar. I don't know why they don't build more suburban plazas like the one below. The storefronts come up to the street and there are still parking lots behind the stores. Even if the majority of people still drive to get there, at least it looks much better from the street.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...03428&t=h&z=18

btw, how do I embed an image right into the post?

[HipHopCanada]

Originally Posted by Kensingtonian

btw, how do I embed an image right into the post?

Well if you want that google maps image you have to go to the page then press the "print screen" button on the keyboard. Paste it inside paint, crop it, then save it as PNG/JPEG. Then go to www.imageshack.us host the file, then look for the URL link (should be embedded in some [img] [/img] tags). Then post it here.

[Kensingtonian]

Originally Posted by HipHopCanada

Well if you want that google maps image you have to go to the page then press the "print screen" button on the keyboard. Paste it inside paint, crop it, then save it as PNG/JPEG. Then go to www.imageshack.us host the file, then look for the URL link (should be embedded in some [img] [/img] tags). Then post it here.

ok, thanks. i'll just stick to posting links. less complicated.

[dleung]

Wow toronto looks so much happier when its green... I've been using the nasty winter images in school projects for the past 3 years. Check out the view from google maps, and alternate between old and new satellite images by zooming in/out. Looks like the 3km gap between Vaughan and Richmond Hill has been all but filled in by cookie cutter, and Richmond Hill is now practically touching Newmarket/Aurura. The way it is located, it will be many long - and profitable - years for developers, before they need to even begin thinking about the greenbelt. What's really needed is a moratorium on expanding the built area, and restrictions on all new development to brownfield and infill.

And I'm not convinced that the new denser suburbs are any improvement. What good is spacing the houses closer together - at the expense of any last trace of greenspace and nature (what people move to suburbia for in the first place) - when the paved and built footprint remains the same (albeit with slightly less roads)? Everyone drives 9 instead of 10km to the neighbourhood power centre?