Quote:
Originally Posted by Docere
I think you're referring to railroad suburbs, not streetcar suburbs. Canadian cities (not just Toronto, but Montreal too) just weren't that big a century ago, so you have no equivalent.
The closest you'll get for that type of feel in Toronto is Port Credit or Oakville, but even they're more postwar suburbia with a little historic village.
|
Much of Greater LA's bones were built around the Pacific Electric Railway, which was a giant interurban streetcar network that included exclusive ROWs like you would find running through railroad suburbs as well as dedicated ROWs that were neither grade-separated nor mixed-flow. Highland Park was once considered suburban, and is analogous to the Toronto examples you've shared, only the latter have more of an urban form and are better integrated into the larger urban fabric.
South Pasadena is a traditional streetcar suburb based on the definition I've been using. Even though it's served by light rail, the rail line runs along a mostly exclusive ROW and not in the middle of a corridor sharing a surface with automobile traffic. Then there's Claremont, also originally built around the PE, but it's served by traditional commuter rail because it's a stop along a line that extends beyond LA County (Claremont will eventually have light rail as well).
Everything from Ventura to Santa Monica to Beverly Hills to Pasadena to San Bernardino to Riverside to Long Beach to Anaheim to Huntington Beach to San Clemente started out as suburbs that over time became satellite cities, large suburbs, "technically suburbs but not really," suburban-form areas that were absorbed by LA city, and suburbs that remained such in both form and function. LA's complicated.
LIRR and even the NYC Subway started out as trolleys/streetcars, so it's all semantics. South Pasadena is a streetcar suburb that's more like an older East Coast bedroom community than an older neighborhood in Toronto city proper one square block removed from Old Toronto.