Residents of urban centres are victims of suburban sprawl, even if they rarely step outside city limits, finds a report by the Canada West Foundation (CWF).
That’s because when cities expand away from the urban core, it means more money from taxpayers and a greater impact on the environment.
Robert Roach, director of strategic policy and research at CWF said in a press release, “Urban sprawl is neither required nor desirable.”
The CWF reports that transit constantly expanding to newly built suburbs is not the answer to increasing ridership.
“New developments require far-reaching roads to be built at great expense to taxpayers. Those far away neighbourhoods don’t provide enough riders to justify frequent service by mass transit system, so the residents end up driving and adding to traffic congestion, increasing the city’s carbon footprint and affecting the quality of life,” Roach said.
“Planners should seek to optimize the operation of rapid transit systems by increasing rider-ship through the tailoring of housing and commercial development. This not only offers substantial improvements to land use efficacy through densification, but also meets the goal of improving access to rapid transit and increasing rider-ship,” the report states.
Maureen Enser, executive director of the Urban Development Institute’s pacific region, said, “If you’re really serious about being sustainable you have to use your land wisely. You want to make sure if you invest in infrastructure like transportation, you get a return on the investment and that only happens if it’s easy for people to use.”
Enser stated that its important to have densities located around public transit as it encourages the use of public transportation and reduces the impact of a urban centre on the environment by discouraging the use of automobiles on a daily basis, a strategy Vancouver has embraced with its eco-density charter.
“The problem with urban sprawl is people don’t often live close to transit…urban sprawl is counter productive at increasing density around transit nodes like transit stations,” Enser said.
Anthony Perl, director of the urban studies program at Simon Fraser University explained that urban sprawl could be the end of urban core communities, “We have to stop sprawling before it kills us,” Perl said.
When asked if Vancouverism would catch on as an alternative to urban sprawl, Perl explained that although Vancouver is developing population density in certain parts of the city, there are huge parts of the city that still need to be utilized.
“We still have a long way to go for our own development but of course other cities could benefit from following [Vancouverism] as well,” Perl said.
According to Perl, making cities more compact is something that needs to get done whether there is a public demand for it or not.
“We are going to have to find ways to live more compactly whether we like it or not, because energy and environment is going to drive that change.
19
Login or register to post comments
Rod Smelser
3 years ago
Another damn the suburbs conference.
It's getting tiresome hearing this empty refrain. The notion that lower density communities are more expensive to service than denser, inner city areas is hard to accept. Those inner city areas need very expensive transit services, such as LRT or ALRT.
Suburbs really only need a basic trunk line into the city that operates on a reliable schedule.
Conferences like this are designed to promote downtown real estate at $600 per square foot and up, not to save taxpayers money.
jimmy_laroux
3 years ago
@ Rod Smelser
The ridership is much higher in higher-density areas, so their argument is that one dollar of transit money goes further in "urban centres" and in fact transit cannot be justified in some areas.
http://www.cwf.ca/V2/files/GFG5.pdf
Wrong again. Everyone knows that opposition to denser development is only supported by avaricious landowners in the suburbs trying to increase their land values.
Hey, you don't own land in a suburb by any chance, do you?
Grumpy
3 years ago
Rod's right
Vancouver's core is far too dense; shoe-box sized condo's and apt. promote social problems and in the end cost's the taxpayer more in social services, etc.
In Europe, in the 50's, 60's & 70's, the mantra was massive density, which lead to massive engineering for subway, highways and services. All hugely expensive, but the social problems increased exponentially, so today, these massive densified city centres have become ghettos.
Many cities in Europe are tearing down these instant slums and erecting medium density cities, which can be affordably accessed by transit, yet provide enough living space (parks, playing field/swimming pools, etc.) to make it livable.
Vancouver offers us nothing, except selling overpriced leaky condos to people who have no life. Sad comment yes!
Rod Smelser
3 years ago
Jimmy_laroux: Where do you or your parents own property?
jimmy_laroux:
Wrong again. Everyone knows that opposition to denser development is only supported by avaricious landowners in the suburbs trying to increase their land values.
Hey, you don't own land in a suburb by any chance, do you?
Yes jimmy, I own a single family dwelling in Maple Ridge, purchased in 1997 for $192,000, now assessed at $400,000, but those assessments are no longer realistic. My guess is about $350,000 if I sold today.
So yes, jimmy, in answer to your question I do have an interest in real property in a suburban area which I had mentioned to you some months ago in another thread. It's nice to see your memory is better than your logic! And yes, that implies an interest on my part in transit and highway systems affecting suburban parts of Metro.
Tell me, jimmy, where do you or your parents own property? Are you willing to disclose your interests or not, and if not, why not? What about the people who fund or lead the organization()s) that employ you and provide your income? What kind of real estate assets do they hold, what kind of interests do those organizations represent and respond to? Any idea at all?
As far as I know there has never been a single public meeting in Maple Ridge, or Surrey, or Langley held to protest the granting of greater densities to any piece of property in the City of Vancouver. There have probably been scores if not hundreds of such meetings over the years in Vancouver itself, where home and apartment owners have vehemently opposed greater densities, not just in their own neighborhoods, but in downtown areas slated for redevelopment, such as the old Expo lands, now False Creek North.
IIRC, the original plan put forward by Li Ka-Shing's group called for about 20,000 apartments on the Expo site. City Councillors both left and right cut that roughly in half. They were responding to public pressure from citizens (READ: owners of houses and apartments) who were absolutely opposed to any plan that involved too much additional supply coming onto the market in too short a time frame.
Like a profit maximizing monopolist, city landowners are very cagey and savvy about managing each increment in supply so as to maximize prices and their personal income and wealth. Their cleverest trick is to package all their moves in various green or urbanist rhetoric, and with the help of zealous disciples who trumpet their propaganda, it's working for them!
Grumpy
3 years ago
Denisfication =
profits for developers who buy low density property and then apply to council to increase density on the property which in-turn increases the cost of the property.
The bigger the increase in density, the bigger the profit.
The density game is nothing more than a high price shell game played by the very wealthy.
Just wait and see along the Canada Line where low density properties will be bought up by wealthy land developers who will be guaranteed a massive increase in density, there by assuring massive profits. It is the real reason why the Canada Line was built.
jimmy_laroux
3 years ago
@ Rod Smelser
Haha! Yes, a little tongue in cheek humour on my part :) Those damned suburban bridge and tunnellers...
You'd have to be a complete idiot to give out personal information on the internet.
On the one hand you accuse them of conspiring to limit density, and on the other you accuse them of using "green or urbanist rhetoric" to defend this limit. But stopping urban sprawl, which I'm assuming is the "urbanist rhetoric" of which you speak, would call for an increase in density (in Vancouver as well as throughout the GVRD). Surely even you must see a contradiction.
Beatriz
3 years ago
Grumpy, when was the last time you were in Europe??
"In Europe, in the 50's, 60's & 70's, the mantra was massive density, which lead to massive engineering for subway, highways and services. All hugely expensive, but the social problems increased exponentially, so today, these massive densified city centres have become ghettos"
Really? European city centres are ghettos? You obviously have no idea of the problems that European cities are facing. City centres are the best part of any European city, and it is the suburbs that are what you call ghetto... where detached and marginalised communities feel alienated from the rest and cause problems. It's the same in Madrid, Barcelona, Rome, London, Paris (I mean, the 'banlieu'!). It is a completely different urban layout to North American cities and you seem incapable to grasp this crucial difference.
jimmy_laroux
3 years ago
@ Grumpy
Do the West End or Yaletown really scream "social catastrophe" to you? Have you ever been there?
You haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.
Grumpy
3 years ago
Just wait..........
.........a few years, when shoddy building practices and life expired rentals start showing their effects.
As for Europe, the cities already had large populations and are reeling from the effects of added massive density. In London and elsewhere, the concrete multi story apartments are being torn down, replaced with smaller, 'human scale' housing estates.
We are, as always, 30 to 40 years behind and never learn from others past mistakes.
I think the "little Mountain" debacle speaks volumes about a 'human scale' density, versus high-rise apartments.
Even the European city centre's are being jeopardized by big box stores (an easy drive from the city) and decaying social services. The satellite neighborhoods with massive big block high-rises are near anarchy. The annual summer riots in Paris are a good example.
What densification means in Vancouver is large profits for the property pimps, it is as simple as that.
Rod Smelser
3 years ago
jimmy_laroux: You're not willing to disclose your interests
If you're not willing to disclose your interests, may I ask why not? What are you afraid of? Frankly, I find your excuse about the internet to be almost as phoney as some of the treatises I read on Stephen Rees's blog.
On the one hand you accuse them of conspiring to limit density, and on the other you accuse them of using "green or urbanist rhetoric" to defend this limit. But stopping urban sprawl, which I'm assuming is the "urbanist rhetoric" of which you speak, would call for an increase in density (in Vancouver as well as throughout the GVRD). Surely even you must see a contradiction.
The urbanist rhetoric as practiced does not call for more density in general. It instead celebrates situations where carefully managed increments to density on major sites with genuine world class amenity values, principally False Creek and Coal Harbour, have been permitted to go ahead.
As practiced according to the doctrines of "Vancouverism" it absolutely does not advocate even weakly for increases in density in other areas, such as East Vancouver transit hubs or all up and down Cambie Street, where a widespread increase in density would lead to significant downward pressure on apartment prices.
The other trick is to insist that any future land developments in outer suburbs should be more dense, with the ridiculous result that some newer subdivisions in Maple Ridge have lots smaller than the standard 4000 sf commonly found in Vancouver and parts of Burnaby. The point of the operation is to provide greater than expected densities at the fringe rather than at the core so as not to threaten price levels.
grapeman
3 years ago
"... avaricious landowners
"... avaricious landowners in the suburbs trying to increase their land values."
....................
That's hilarious! I assume you're part of that condescending group of single or childless urbanites that knows nothing about families, but keeps on pontificating as if it does. Our four person lower middle class family, with a boy and a girl, tried to stay in the city, but we simply couldn't find anything appropriate that we could afford. The very few options available meant a much lower standard of living than what singles or "dinkies" comparatively face. I know you'll shrug your shoulders and say, "Tough", but such a double standard contradicts your own piousness. Ultimately, suburbia wasn't an immoral, decadent choice; it was a mathematical necessity. If childless, bike riding yuppies think otherwise, I can only laugh.
Until Vancouver can start offering affordable family-friendly housing (and not just low income housing for single people), then Vancouver remains as much a cause of suburbia as the suburbs themselves. Vancouverism, as such, is a doctrine of failure.
jimmy_laroux
3 years ago
@ Rod Smelser
Was I not sufficiently clear on this point in my last post? I'll repeat in just in case: You'd have to be a complete idiot to give out personal information on the internet.
I can only assume by "urbanist rhetoric" here you mean "Vancouverism", as you use this term as a synonym later. (Though apparently without having any idea what it means.) Anyway, you are equivocating here, if not completely wrong. In the context of Vancouver, it explicitly calls for greater density.
Yes, because they are the easiest, and thus first, to develop. Your point?
More equivocation. "Vancouverism" is vague term with many shades of meaning. But perhaps the following sources might provide a more concrete idea of what this term means. According to Bing Thom (from wikipedia):
A quote from the New York Times (from the "Vancouverism" link in the article):
High densities and mixed use - everywhere. There you go. If you were to argue that this formula has not been applied in much of Vancouver, let alone the GVRD, and where it has been applied the developments have been too narrow in focus, I would agree 100%. But this is not a failing of the model. I'd say that, in the few pockets of land in which it's been applied, it's been fairly successful.
jimmy_laroux
3 years ago
@ grapeman
Children? Yuck! You should have gotten a tiny dog instead! Then you could ride a bike everywhere instead of selfishly destroying the planet like you are doing now.
Seriously though, the breathtaking stupidity and off-topic nature of nearly all of your post detracts from this one sensible statement:
Rod Smelser
3 years ago
jimmy_laroux: What about prices? Do they count?
jimmy_laroux
Was I not sufficiently clear on this point in my last post? I'll repeat in just in case: You'd have to be a complete idiot to give out personal information on the internet.
What are you afraid of? I find your rationalization totally unconvincing.
You can tell people whether or not you or your family own real property and in which municipality without disclosing anything sensitive. Similarly with your employment. I am a public servant. Does that open me up to some kind of risk? What about the authors of these articles who use their real names rather than psuedonyms? Are they at risk? Of what?
Yes, because they are the easiest, and thus first, to develop. Your point?
Easiest? Or most profitable?
...According to Bing Thom (from wikipedia):
I would like to point out that when the Smart Growth on the Ground people did their review of Maple Ridge's town core they recommended that mixed use zoning be cancelled in favour of apartment only zoning because the local realtors told them that's what would sell. They also said that auto dependence would be reduced once the Golden Ears Bridge was in place because there would be more people living in the Maple Ridge core. An interesting twist, a large, billion dollar plus structure intended mostly to carry vehicles will eventually reduce car dependence, according to the Smart Growth experts.
Bing Thom is a great architect and I am loathe to take issue with him, but I would point out that he doesn't say that Vancouver's approach to density is in any way designed to bring about increased affordability or to create family sized accommodation in downtown or midtown locations.
A quote from the New York Times (from the "Vancouverism" link in the article):
I have heard the same "podium and tower" jargon in relation to Toronto. The real reason for the slender towers is to reduce effective densities by restricting the amount of actual square feet available for dwelling units. I know it's sold to people as "view corridors" and keeping sunlight on the street, but that's just spin. The real motive as far as I can tell is to restrict supply while providing an appearance of densification with the use of slender towers, because that will keep prices as high as possible.
jimmy_laroux
3 years ago
@ Rod Smelser
Fine. I will not change my answer :)
Easiest, but maybe more profitable as well, I'm not sure. Does it matter?
That sounds pretty dubious to me. Feel free to throw in a source with your posts. It's not that I don't trust you, but...
Do you think that increasing the housing supply might drive prices up? Anyway, with regards to "family sized accomodation", I agree that the focus has mostly been on other kinds of housing. It is unfortunate that there is not a greater mix. But if you are insinuating that this is somehow necessarily a failing of the model that Bing Thom describes, then you are not only mistaken but have completely missed the point.
Seriously? Now you're complaining that densities downtown are too low? You're complaining about restricting supply in forty story tower blocks? I honestly don't know what to say....
jimmy_laroux
3 years ago
@ Rod Smelser
The "appearance of densification"? What, are the top thirty floors empty? They're added as some sort of facade, to give the illusion of density?
Rod Smelser
3 years ago
jimmy_laroux: What is your specialty
jimmy, you speak with an air of great authority on these subjects. What is your specialty, your professional background.
I didn't say the downtown densities were low, only that they were lower than they appear to be because the towers are slender, with small floorplates, typically less than ten suites per floor. If you look at a diagram of a typical Yaletown block, you'll see that the towers cover only a fraction of the land area. The rest is about three or four floors maximum.
Probably the same occupiable volume could have been created with eight or ten story buildings with larger floorplates.
Rod Smelser
3 years ago
jimmy_laroux: Once again on your internet excuse
jimmy, I shouldn't belabour this, it's probably pointless, but you need to know I find your excuses totally unbelievable.
I asked what the risk was and you couldn't come up with anything. Do the authors of articles on the internet who use their real names strike you as people who are "complete idiot(s)" because they "give out personal information on the internet"? You couldn't answer that either. Your rationalizations are totally fake.
I am using my real name and no harm has come to me. Why do you think you cannot use your real name, or even say where you live, or what you do?
jimmy_laroux
3 years ago
@ Rod Smelser
You wrote that the towers provided "an appearance of densification", the implication being that densification was not infact occuring.
That may be what you meant to write, but it's not what you wrote.
This could very well be true, and it's an interesting topic for discussion.
It probably is. And by "probably" I mean definitely.
Believe, don't believe, I don't care either way.
Do you really think that anonymously commenting on a regional news blog is the same as a professional journalist remaining anonymous? Really?
Okay, good luck with that.
I could use my real name. I could, but I won't. I choose to remain anonymous. Would you prefer I invent a name/occupation/residence for you? How about...
name: Count Ernst von Poopindorff
occupation: Intergalactic Man of Action
residence: Underwater.