Downtowns aren't built in one day, and today's "real" downtowns weren't either. They are the result of continuous building and rebuilding.
The problem with pseudo-downtowns is that they are still a work-in-progress, but that is also the key to their success. They need to remain a work-in-progress, like any real downtown. So the question is, can they remain a work-in-progress. That's the real challenge.
I think people need to stop evaluating urbanity as simply a binary quality, like urban vs. suburban, or downtown vs. not downtown. It is not black and white. "Suburban" itself is a grey area by definition (a place with a mix of rural and urban qualities). The key is increasing the urban, and/or reducing the rural. Think of "urban" or "downtown" as a percent value instead of either 1 or 0. What is the urbanity in terms of percentage of Mississauga City Centre compared to the typical neighbourhood in Mississauga? How many people walk to store/work, take transit in Mississauga City Centre compared to the rest of Mississauga? How about in Mississauga compared to Vaughan or Milton? When you see buses on Hurontario becoming so overcrowded to the point that they need to be replaced with LRT, is that not a step forward in the right direction? Is it a failure to take steps forward? Does it need to be a leap forward?
I don't see why single out and nitpick about these suburban "downtowns" so much. What are we supposed to do, just build regular subdivisions? What exactly does a regular subdivision mean in Canada anyways? Jane-Finch? In what time in Canadian history did new suburbs not make any attempt at all to increase density and mixed-use development, reduce walking distances, or promote transit use? Look at my thread about Mississauga's "original" downtown, Cooksville (
The North American Moscow and
Cooksville Village), to see attempts from the 60s and 70s. Mississauga City Centre is basically an extension of Cooksville, and you can see MCC towers in my Cooksville photos as well.
So it's not a new thing. All those 60s and 70s subdivisions in Toronto, these are some of the most transit-dependent places in North America. According to the 2016 Census, 34.6% of Scarborough residents commuted to work by public transit. That's higher than the central cities of Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, Philadelphia. Even without a real downtown, is Scarborough really a failure? Have the attempts there to get people out of their cars, even half-hearted, really not been meaningful?
Canada is a car-dependent country, and the biggest competitor to the car in the suburbs is not walking, it's transit. If we can shift suburbanites away from cars to transit, then we can try to shift them away from transit onto bicycles. If that is successful, then we can start to try to get them off their bicycles and onto the sidewalks. Gradually reducing distances. One step at a time. And density is the key for every step. Arguably, a lot of suburbs in Canada are already on that second step, and they need to keep working toward the third step, and that means building more places like Mississauga City Centre, Scarborough City Centre, Metrotown, etc. and continuing to build upon them also.
And let's not forget, these pseudo downtowns are a reflection of real downtowns as well. Whatever little success they had, it is because of their connection to the real downtown. And at the same time, the real downtown is also in turn strengthened or weakened by these pseudo downtowns, or lack thereof. Think about it. What would downtown Toronto look like today if no one in Scarborough used public transit? What would all that demand for parking do to Toronto's downtown?
Prev
Linear Mode
