Danish tourists lament Canadian car culture

[destroycreate]

Originally Posted by FREKI

Denmark is as sprawly as it comes - Copenhagen itself has a lower pop density than Los Angeles and only the Norwegians beats us in single family homes afaik )

I actually had no idea -- Copenhagen always seemed super dense to me, but I guess that "inner city" is smaller than I thought when I think about it. I used to live on Kingosgade in Vesterbro and it always felt like Brooklyn aesthetics-wise.

[ukw]

I can only imagine what they would have written about U.S. cities if they had visited them!



Canada is like a thousand times closer to European culture than the USofA with regard to transportation, health, urbanity, etc. These Danes would have had a heart attack if they had visited an American municipality!! LOL!

[dc_denizen]

^ why just a 1000 times? I think its closer to 1,000,000 times. Windsor, ON looks just like Tarragonna, Spain!

[Doady]

Originally Posted by isaidso

In other words, that couple wants us to be more like Danes without bothering to understand why car culture is so prevalent here. Canada isn't a tiny speck of a country like Denmark and predictably this country developed quite differently. Cars have always been more of a necessity in Canada, and by extension, far more deeply rooted in our culture.

Cars have always been more of a necessity in Canada? Even in 1900?

Car ownership in Canada isn't much different than Western Europe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...les_per_capita

I don't see much correlation between size and number of vehicles there.

Reducing car dependence isn't about reducing car ownership (at least not lower than 1 car per household), it's more about reducing car use. It's not about selling the car, it's about leaving it at home. That's where Canada fails. And it's hard to see what that has to do with Canada's size, when the vast majority of trips are urban only.

Canada's car-dependence isn't a matter of size (otherwise Canada would be more car-dependent than the US), it's a matter of age: Canadian cities are very young compared to European cities. Toronto is a young city, it developed mostly in the automobile era, like a Sunbelt US city.

There's nothing inherent about Canada that forces people in Toronto to be more car-dependent. The driving distance from Mississauga to Whitehorse won't prevent Mississauga's LRT to Brampton from being successful. A post-war suburb-to-suburb bus route becoming so heavily used and overcrowded so as to necessitate a $1.6 billion conversion to light rail - does this sound like car culture to you?

Truth is, it's not a matter of necessity, it's a matter of convenience. The car is not a necessity in most of Canada, not even in Mississauga.

Originally Posted by isaidso

Expecting Canada to be like Denmark is ridiculous and insinuating that Canada isn't a sustainable 1st world nation due to our love of the automobile is both condescending and off the mark. Canada is far more self sufficient in practically every product segment than Denmark. In our city cores, we have the density to make transit viable. In these places car ownership and use it quite low.

I live in downtown Toronto, gave up my car, and walk everywhere.... but that couple can go buzz off. Do we go to Denmark and complain about all the bicycles and tell Danes they should be more like Canada?

Well, yeah. Canada is trying to be more like Denmark isn't it? Toronto wants more cycling. Even Mississauga wants more cycling. Canada wants more cycling. Denmark is further ahead, so why would Canadians tell them to go backwards? That makes no sense.

[FREKI]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I believe the author is a British person who lives as an expat or something in Copenhagen with her Danish girlfriend.

No one of that name lived officially in Denmark as of 2013 so I have my doubts about location - but a native English speaker I will certainly believe be it a Canadian, Brit or other..

But if it's a Brit then it just makes it even more strange as they are even more autocentric and closer to Canada..

Originally Posted by destroycreate

I actually had no idea -- Copenhagen always seemed super dense to me, but I guess that "inner city" is smaller than I thought when I think about it. I used to live on Kingosgade in Vesterbro and it always felt like Brooklyn aesthetics-wise.

I haven't been to Canada so I'm not the right one to say - but from imagery and Google Maps it seems that they are very fond of apartment highrises that would dwarf anything build here including bridge pylons and radio masts

As for the density of Copenhagen the old dense inner city with the old 5 story apartment buildings is about 5% of the city - the vast majority ( ~70% ) of Copenhageners lives in houses in the sprawly suburbs no different from any other developed city be it in Northern Europe, Western Europe, Central Europe, North America or Oceania..


http://i25.tinypic.com/2ppn1cl.jpg


http://i28.tinypic.com/e0sowg.jpg


In any case, be it a tourist, local or immigrant I do not believe that anything Canada can present would come as a shock big enough to anyone with Dnaish relations to spawn that letter.. why my guess is that it's a local Canadian trying to ( successfully ) get her personal opinion across using a faraway nation that is typically linked to green developement and walkability..

As a person living in Copenhagen and driving my car on a 6 lane street right through the city center to my office downtown, doing most of my shopping in malls or big box retail and being surrounding by a ring of about ~30km of sprawl, I simply cannot recognize anything that would truly shock me about Canada.. of course I have not been there but I have been to the US many times and it certainly wasn't the lack of sidewalks or number of freeways I found shocking ( the inequality on the other hand, but that is another topic ) - so there's just so many factors that makes me believe the letter is fake!

[Doady]

Originally Posted by FREKI

As a person living in Copenhagen and driving my car on a 6 lane street right through the city center to my office downtown, doing most of my shopping in malls or big box retail and being surrounding by a ring of about ~30km of sprawl, I simply cannot recognize anything that would truly shock me about Canada..

I think places are just a product of their time. Based on Google Street View some of the Copenhagen suburbs, and they are unmistakably a product of the automobile era. The density actually seems lower than Toronto's suburbs (which is very surprising), but Copenhagen's suburbs seem to have done more to hide the automobiles. I didn't see any "snout houses" for example.

I can imagine someone from Denmark coming here, going on a tour, and being surprised by the visibility of the car. Canadian cities are more utilitarian, not as much attention to aesthetics.

[destroycreate]

I will say that even though single family homes dominate the suburbs of Copenhagen, the suburbs in general are just so much more human scaled, pedestrian and bike friendly, and have everything you'd need in walking distance. You don't need a car anywhere in CPH, even the suburbs, so I think that's just what makes so much more of a difference. Density does not necessarily equal walkable.

[FREKI]

Originally Posted by Doady

but Copenhagen's suburbs seem to have done more to hide the automobiles. I didn't see any "snout houses" for example

That is a cultural thing - we have virtually no culture of having garages inside houses - instead people use carports ( typically seperate from the house ), drive way or simply street side parking

Originally Posted by destroycreate

I will say that even though single family homes dominate the suburbs of Copenhagen, the suburbs in general are just so much more human scaled, pedestrian and bike friendly, and have everything you'd need in walking distance. You don't need a car anywhere in CPH, even the suburbs, so I think that's just what makes so much more of a difference. Density does not necessarily equal walkable.

I haven't been to Canada so it's not for me to say, but about Copenhagen I don't think most would agree that everything is within "walking distance"..

One can get by without a car most places if relying on a bike and PT options, but from how it sounds it's the same in Canada..

A car is a tool that makes life easier be it in Canada or Denmark.. and when living in the suburbs it makes a lot of sense to have one..

On average the Danish commute distance is 25km - I doubt many is willing to bike or walk 50km a day and in most cases PT will be a very slow alternative - so while you do not technically need a car it's something most families would not be without..

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

I will say that even though single family homes dominate the suburbs of Copenhagen, the suburbs in general are just so much more human scaled, pedestrian and bike friendly, and have everything you'd need in walking distance. You don't need a car anywhere in CPH, even the suburbs, so I think that's just what makes so much more of a difference. Density does not necessarily equal walkable.

same in much of northern Europe too. The happy news is, it's relatively easy to retrofit sprawling suburbs (those where ppl have 50 k round trip commutes like Freki said) with bike lanes, traffic calming, more sidewalks, etc. More about political well to do it than about massive infrastructure investments.

The most bike friendly US suburb I've every visited was Carlsbad, SD (bike lanes on every road, etc).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by FREKI

That is a cultural thing - we have virtually no culture of having garages inside houses - instead people use carports ( typically seperate from the house ), drive way or simply street side parking


I haven't been to Canada so it's not for me to say, but about Copenhagen I don't think most would agree that everything is within "walking distance"..

One can get by without a car most places if relying on a bike and PT options, but from how it sounds it's the same in Canada..

A car is a tool that makes life easier be it in Canada or Denmark.. and when living in the suburbs it makes a lot of sense to have one..

On average the Danish commute distance is 25km - I doubt many is willing to bike or walk 50km a day and in most cases PT will be a very slow alternative - so while you do not technically need a car it's something most families would not be without..

I've been to Denmark and also have friends who live in suburban areas in other parts of Scandinavia and other parts of Europe. In short, their lives on a practical level are not very different from mine. I can bike to work and have all day and all evening bus service at the corner of my street that I can take to a main transit station 5 minutes away from which I can transfer to get to all areas of my city and the neighbouring city of Ottawa. Visiting my Euro friends and seeing the layout of their suburbs (apparent from Google Street View as well) it is obvious that they do not have train or metro stations right in the middle of most of them. If they want to take public transport they basically have to do the same thing as me.

My situation is typical for the suburbs of all of the major cities in Canada. I would say it is also true of most cities in the US, though it is true that in some American cities, suburban areas like mine do not have any transit service at all.

[memph]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

I will say that even though single family homes dominate the suburbs of Copenhagen, the suburbs in general are just so much more human scaled, pedestrian and bike friendly, and have everything you'd need in walking distance. You don't need a car anywhere in CPH, even the suburbs, so I think that's just what makes so much more of a difference. Density does not necessarily equal walkable.

I'd agree somewhat. I don't think Toronto's suburbs are necessarily worse in terms of how much time it would take to get to work, stores, etc without a car. The biggest difference to me is that life in Toronto's suburbs is centered around 6 lane arterial roads. That's where the buses are, that's where the retail is. They tend to have very high volumes of traffic, ie 40-80k ADT, usually moving at high speeds (70-80 km/h) with a limited number of gigantic intersections where you're risking getting hit by turning cars that didn't see you. The shopping centres are located at intersections with a big parking lot between the stores and the sidewalks, and between the intersections, it's usually the back fences of houses.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.75775...sglIdHfs9g!2e0
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Bra...86450073b9efcf
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Bra...86450073b9efcf

Jane-Finch, one of the busiest intersections in suburban Toronto, as you can see, a fair bit of pedestrians but even more cars and it looks pretty terrible.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.75726...7dSmKzLPgA!2e0
This is the busiest (not including North York Centre which is not really suburban anymore)
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Bra...86450073b9efcf

"Downtown" Markham
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.85606...Ewd27JN8-w!2e0
Richmond Hill Centre
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.85304...gXstFVF5gQ!2e0
Vaughan Centre, where the subway extension is going to
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.79411...x2kIoGDRYQ!2e0
Downtown Mississauga
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.59352...4RunCWwluA!2e0
etc
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.82856...AVvQQ3iF3g!2e0

Copenhagen's suburbs might have some elements of this, but overall I don't think it's nearly as bad. I think having a denser network of arterials would have alleviated this. The newer suburbs of Toronto are being built with more minor arterials in between the big ones, but since the 60s-80s suburbs didn't have as many, the minor arterials eventually hit a T-intersection or what not, so they're not ideal for transit.

[miketoronto]

Copenhagen's and other European suburbs where houses prevail tend to look more like the inner city neighborhoods of American and Canadian cities (old dense streetcar suburban style). They are not the same kind of suburbs as you see in North America.

I remember when I was at a planning event and a lady from Paris was complaining about the sprawl they have there, and she was showing pictures of suburban housing that looked like the coveted inner city neighborhoods of Toronto. But to her that was sprawl

[memph]

Depends. Some Northern European suburbs are pretty low density, just as low density as American suburbs. On the other hand I would say 95% of Athens or Barcelona's metro areas are denser than even denser streetcar suburbs like Earlscourt, Dovercourt Park or Danforth Village.


Overall all though, the average European city might have a large core, then streetcar suburbs (most European suburbs probably were streetcar suburbs before the streetcars were removed, yes, that happened in Europe too), then some post-war suburbs and also infilling with apartment buildings.

Also, a lot of the time, you don't have large scale post-war suburbia. It's more like expanding former small towns and streetcar suburbs by a few blocks here and there. It's rare, if not non-existant to have uninterupted post-WWII development for mile after mile.

[FREKI]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Copenhagen's and other European suburbs where houses prevail tend to look more like the inner city neighborhoods of American and Canadian cities (old dense streetcar suburban style). They are not the same kind of suburbs as you see in North America.

I'm not sure I understand - maybe you can post some examples

Copenhagen and the large Canadian cities seems to have sprawled out at about the same time periods and while you won't find the grid system here, to me they still follow very much the same basic idea.. only major difference I can spot from Google Maps and Bing seems to be that in Canadian suburbs houses are typically closer together / less yard surrounding houses..

[niwell]

Yeah I'm not really seeing it either with respect to inner cities.

Typical Toronto inner city verging on streetcar suburb -

Leslieville (built ~1890s-1910s): http://goo.gl/maps/JH4BJ

Beaches (built ~1910s): http://goo.gl/maps/ZjVwn

North Parkdale (built ~1900 - 1910): http://goo.gl/maps/7GqBB


I'm not an expert whatsoever on Denmark / Copenhagen, but the random streetview placements in single family areas of the outskirts looked nothing like that. No idea how long ago these examples were built:

http://goo.gl/maps/w3unH

http://goo.gl/maps/lM8kz

http://goo.gl/maps/XupVD

http://goo.gl/maps/f8L7p

Of course there are plenty of multi-family complexes as well, just focusing on single family. To contrast, a new single family subdivision in suburban Toronto looks something like this:


http://goo.gl/maps/MX7Yb

[MonkeyRonin]

I wouldn't consider Leslieville, the Beaches, or Parkdale to be streetcar suburbs. Built around the streetcar, but not really suburban.

But if you look at the areas in Freki's pictures you can see a definite similarity between Copenhagen's older suburbs and the more typical North American streetcar & railway suburbs, like most of what was built here from around the 30s to the 50s (Leaside, Bloor West Village, East York, central & southern Etobicoke, etc). Mostly single family housing with a higher density, retail core usually built around a transit corridor. Their houses seem to have more generous yards and the vernacular is different, but the basic form is more or less the same.







Unsurprisingly, as you move further out into newer subdivisions whether here or in Copenhagen, they become lower density and more auto-centric.






Point being I guess, that most of our 20th-21st century urban development hasn't been all too different. We just have more of the slightly newer stuff.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by memph

I'd agree somewhat. I don't think Toronto's suburbs are necessarily worse in terms of how much time it would take to get to work, stores, etc without a car. The biggest difference to me is that life in Toronto's suburbs is centered around 6 lane arterial roads. That's where the buses are, that's where the retail is. They tend to have very high volumes of traffic, ie 40-80k ADT, usually moving at high speeds (70-80 km/h) with a limited number of gigantic intersections where you're risking getting hit by turning cars that didn't see you. The shopping centres are located at intersections with a big parking lot between the stores and the sidewalks, and between the intersections, it's usually the back fences of houses.
t.

I agree with you it's very much about the design of arterial roads and the commercial areas that lie along them.

In European suburbs often the main arterial roads through a suburb are two lanes wide only (one in each direction). It could be that there are simply more of them, I don't know. But it certainly makes for a more amiable streetscape than 6 or 8-lane beasts like we often have here.

[miketoronto]

You guys do know that Toronto's post-war suburban development within the old METRO GOV area (now the City of Toronto) was designed as a mix of American and European style suburbia. That is why you see all the high-rises, etc.
Toronto even had North American's first high-rise new town(based on northern European suburbia), Flemingdon Park.

At the end of the day we can go on how similar places are. But the truth is that the mode share percentages show that European suburbia and Copenhagen suburbia is different than Canadian suburbia. The European ones still have higher shares of walking, biking, and transit use. Look at the Copenhagen suburbs and you see tons of bikes at the rail stations, etc. So there are still differences.

[whatnext]

Sigh, urban planning goes in cycles, and what wide eyed just-graduated planners fall in love with in Scandinavia now will be an outdated fad 40 years from now. As people zip quietly from place to place in their hydrogen powered self-driving cars they'll marvel at a time when it was considered trendy to entrust one's transportation needs to something as antiquated as a bicycle.

So long Danish tourists and thanks for all the fish.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Sigh, urban planning goes in cycles, and what wide eyed just-graduated planners fall in love with in Scandinavia now will be an outdated fad 40 years from now. As people zip quietly from place to place in their hydrogen powered self-driving cars they'll marvel at a time when it was considered trendy to entrust one's transportation needs to something as antiquated as a bicycle.

So long Danish tourists and thanks for all the fish.

The problem with cars isn't just their harmful emissions, but what they do to a city's built form. Even if we have hydrogen powered self-driving cars, the landscape still looks ugly with very wide roads and buildings set back from the street by surface parking lots while giant signs tower above this all. Urban planning's focus on minimizing car use isn't just for the environment, it's to make places prettier and more pleasant to be in.