I'm left puzzled by to which non North America lowrise suburbs he speaks of and, wouldn't that also suggest an impressive downtown skyline would mean the rest of the central city sucks?
The idea that suburbia must be mainly lowrise is a silly argument, and hearkens back to the immediate postwar period in my mind. Even if sprawl is being encouraged by the government, making housing and intensification focused solely on infill is much cheaper and more efficient when thinking about the infrastructure costs associated with sprawl. I don't see how a skyline is a problem if there's a transit station nearby or due planning arrangements are made to accomodate
There are a lot of nice suburbs where a skyline would be unthinkable. These are places like Newton, MA or Darien, CT. Places like Windlesham in Surrey even. Canadian suburbs aren't like that, they're a lot newer.
I've been abundantly clear that I wouldn't want to live in a 30 storey tower in any of these Canadian suburban city centres. The community offerings doesn't justify the dense, high rise living. I see the easy transit access to distant fun places as nothing more than a sales pitch. Tall towers have little relation to overall suburban master planning though. Post war era suburbs aren't generally better when they don't have skylines. The typical post 2000 subdivision with large houses on the narrowest of lots is even more unappealing.
Skylines or tall city landmarks( when tall towers aren't in abundance) are always a popular city identifier. They are never not a "thing" especially on a community forum with skyscrapers in its name
I figure he was comparing it to European suburbs where density is more uniformly midrise, whereas the Canadian model relies on towers to provide the density needed to support transit without impacting SFH areas.
I'd never live in a suburban tower unless it's in something like West Vancouver where scenic vistas can be had. Toronto has the most depressing suburban towers, nothing but views of hydro corridors and industrial hellscapes. An option if you can't afford a small inner city apartment, but I've found suburban towers to be terrible value relative to their prices
There are a lot of nice suburbs where a skyline would be unthinkable. These are places like Newton, MA or Darien, CT. Places like Windlesham in Surrey even. Canadian suburbs aren't like that, they're a lot newer.
I think a part of this is just that Canada tends to allow annexation. If Leaside or Point Grey were suburbs with the same buildings as today they might qualify. They are not really "inner city" areas, they're suburbs in the early 1900's sense.
Halifax has Bedford which is one of the most far-flung old railway towns in a Canadian metro. It's just getting fully "absorbed" in the suburbs now because the metro didn't grow very fast. It had a commuter rail stop in 1900 or so and has some leafy old parts from that era where nobody would allow any highrises.
I think a part of this is just that Canada tends to allow annexation. If Leaside or Point Grey were suburbs with the same buildings as today they might qualify. They are not really "inner city" areas, they're suburbs in the early 1900's sense.
Halifax has Bedford which is one of the most far-flung old railway towns in a Canadian metro. It's just getting fully "absorbed" in the suburbs now because the metro didn't grow very fast. It had a commuter rail stop in 1900 or so and has some leafy old parts from that era where nobody would allow any highrises.
I know of two families that moved from Toronto to Halifax during the pandemic for the real estate arbitrage. One settled in Bedford, and the other in Chester (thinking that it would still basically be "just outside of Halifax"). The former stayed, the latter is back in Cabbagetown.
Suburban towers have been a thing in Canada - and especially Ontario - for a long time now. But there's a big difference between a 15 storey slab with large, family oriented units and the massive point towers that are popping up in new "Centres". I've lived in the former and wasn't a big fan, but you couldn't pay me to live in one of the new towers. Ironically I think I had more real amenities (bars, takeout, groceries) within walking distance of the 60s era inner-suburban Ottawa condo we lived in than most of the newer master-planned developments. Even if it was technically more car-oriented.
Having commuted from central Toronto to York U, the proximity of transit isn't really as useful for day-to-day activities as claimed even if it may work well for commuting. You aren't taking a 45 minute train ride to casually meet a friend at a bar.
__________________
Check out my pics of Johannesburg
In my misspent youth, I rode the BMW (bus, metro, walk) for years to hit the bars in downtown Montreal (I lived way out in the Waste Island, which was far from everything exciting). When it took me at least 2 hours to get you where I want to go, you better believe that I made the most of it. I fucking lived on the 211 bus/green metro line.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. (Bertrand Russell)
skyline is starting to look massive. great to see surface parking lots around MCC get developed. .. finally!! YMCA to the left of the MCity tower on the left hand side being redeveloped into 5 new condos ranging from 52 to 65 storeys tall... crazy density.
The problem with MCC is not density. It is the stroads.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. (Bertrand Russell)
There's also more and more streets as the blocks fill in. The width of Hurontario and Burnhamthorpe will lessen even if they don't physically change in width. The blocks are too big and too many multi-tower subdivision plans. The much bigger issue is the haphazard planning up until the 2010s. You have the gated townhomes at Absolute. You have retail and at Citygate. You have the gated landscaping at Ovation and all developed post 2000.
To spin it positively, you "can't see the parking lots for the trees."
Very true. It makes Moncton look like a very leafy city. That is not a forest between this cluster of suburban apartment buildings and the downtown core. There is actually a continuous city lurking in there.
Prev
Linear Mode
