Suburban Development and Sprawl

[Platinum107]

You people have fair points, and I do respect your opinions, so I do apologize if I came off as hostile. I don't deny that it could lead to a better city in years to come, however it likely isn't better for most Edmontonians currently. Encouraging public transit is fine, and I support public transit (as for some, it's more convenient and economical).

But why do you need to specifically discourage cars? I think it's that even you realize that most people will choose a car if they could. It's more comfortable, private, quicker, and allows for people to deal with variability and multiple locations to transit to. If you really believe that discouraging cars for more to take public transit, you could very well be correct.

I will admit, I thought this might be feasible as I lived in Oliver previously, and have a spouse who worked downtown. However, moving away from the core, and purchasing a single family home away from the core, opened my eyes a lot away from the perspective of a yuppie, and how the majority of Edmontonians actually live (especially those with families). I've also worked in Europe where I didn't own a car, and had been a user of a fantastic public transit system. I realize I may be projecting my own situation here, but I guess I question if the people who really want to get rid of cars could possibly living in a bit of a bubble themselves, and could possibly have a limited perspective (which is why their beliefs may be popular on a forum like this, however not so popular in a broader public opinion).

Thanks for the response! I can come off a little forceful with my posts sometimes as well, so I get it.

I guess my thinking comes down to this: It's less about "discouraging/hating on cars" and more about having a more appropriate and functional balance of modes which people use to traverse an urban area. Of course walking, biking, rolling, and public transit don't work in every case and private vehicles (especially when travelling to and from a rural area and relating to commercial/industrial uses) are an important piece of the pie needed for a healthy city to function. However, 90% or more of the transit pie is made up of this one section and it's draining the wealth and social stability that has been built up in this city over hundreds of years, the effects of which are becoming more and more pronounced as time goes on.

I'll respond to your specific points:

I think it's that even you realize that most people will choose a car if they could. It's more comfortable, private, quicker, and allows for people to deal with variability and multiple locations to transit to. If you really believe that discouraging cars for more to take public transit, you could very well be correct.

I agree, and I do realize that the demand is very real for cars. However I'd argue that for the most part the demand doesn't stem from an actual true desire for a car, but rather more from knowing that you'd need to have one to do anything easily and quickly in the urban environment we've built. It's really more like a forced demand rather than an optional one, and that's what many of us here are advocating to change! Besides the private part, frequent quality transit mixed with a dense and walkable urban form could beat out cars on all those metrics, and I do believe that people would choose those options if it was made optimal to that point.

However, moving away from the core, and purchasing a single family home away from the core, opened my eyes a lot away from the perspective of a yuppie, and how the majority of Edmontonians actually live (especially those with families). I've also worked in Europe where I didn't own a car, and had been a user of a fantastic public transit system.

This is exactly the issue right here!! The majority of Edmontonians live in low-density pre-suburban or new suburban areas with Euclidian zoning and car-centrism, and that's really hurting the health and wellbeing of our city. I'm not putting the blame on the people here, rather on the post-war standard created by private companies and upheld by the government for so long, the results of which are cities built against the principles of what made them cultural-packed self-sustaining places of the past.

Your Europe point plays exactly into what I'm saying: Ask yourself, why didn't you have to own a car in that particular city? Why was the public transit fantastic? Because it was a city that used what it had to its advantage, being walkability and density!

Would you believe me if I told you that Edmonton used to be just as powerful and full of life as many European and Asian cities??

Look at these historic photos of Jasper Avenue:

15 extraordinary photos of Edmonton's Jasper Avenue dating all the way back to 1907 - Livabl

See what was it like to walk down Edmonton's bustling Jasper Avenue in the first half of the 20th century.

www.livabl.com

^Although old, these pictures show a place fully come alive, full of activity, social and economic wealth, and just overall the true spice of what makes a city a city rather than a puzzle of uses.

Now look at Jasper ave today:

Speed limit on Edmonton's residential roads will drop to 40 km/h next summer

Speed limits on Edmonton’s residential roads and several high-pedestrian main streets will drop to 40 km/h next summer after a 9-3 vote by city council Wednesday af…

edmontonjournal.com

I see a thoroughfare more than anything else, a space that people want to pass through or only be in for minutes at a time.

I realize I may be projecting my own situation here, but I guess I question if the people who really want to get rid of cars could possibly living in a bit of a bubble themselves, and could possibly have a limited perspective (which is why their beliefs may be popular on a forum like this, however not so popular in a broader public opinion).

I think living in bubbles is a problem that everyone faces, which is why it's great to have a healthy but effective discussion like this. One of my goals as of recent has been to really look at the other perspective on the issues of urbanism and get down to the arguments of why people may support urban sprawl and car-centrism, and you've really helped me today see that other side a little more, so thank you for that! To be honest, I want to share my ideas past this forum and have discussions with more people, but I'm still figuring out how I could do that sustainably.

Either way I believe that we all want to see things improve in Edmonton and in North America as a whole, and that we all have different solutions and ideas which each have a thread of truth in them. I just wanted to share mine today. Thanks for reading!


P.S. could @CplKlinger or @westcoastjos move these last few posts to the Suburban Sprawl thread or something related if possible? I think we've gotten a little too far off of Stantec Tower hahaha!

 

[IanO]

It's not about discouraging cars, it is about encouraging people.

 

[thommyjo]

It's not about discouraging cars, it is about encouraging people.

Idk. I do think its about discouraging cars...

Same way we discourage smoking, excess sugar, etc. Cars are bad for people. Both on an individual level (health/fitness, stress, empathy, relationships, neighbouring, finances, safety) and on a communal level (cost, danger, noise, space, vibrancy, justice/care for the poor, etc).

They aren't bad all the time, but they can't be of primary use for most people.

I think what Jason is articulating, which I can empathize with to a degree, is that it is nice for many to have big homes, private cars, and fast commutes. Its not sustainable for our city, but when subsidized it seems nice vs a 500sqft condo in Vancouver for 1.3mil.

The challenge we have in edmonton is that we have overextended. We were given daddy's credit card with no limit as a teenager. We got used to a lifestyle. But now that we are adults, we've realized we can't actually keep living this way. Environmentally, financially, in terms of community and vibrancy, small business success.

I get why my friends pay 380k for edgemont homes instead of 600k for grovenor infills. But like mentioned earlier, its not the TRUE cost. Thats what we need to adjust.

Implement a mileage tax and use it to fund free transit. I'm fine if people want to live in st albert, sherwood, etc. Let's just ensure they have to PAY for it. Why are we expanding roads that make driving into the city so easy? Terwillegar, yellowhead, 100ave. Make it an hour commute to downtown if you live in st albert and less will do it.

Our city is a huge circle with fair pricing in all corners. People need to start choosing where they live with transportation being a factor. Not just getting whatever house then expecting the city to provide good roads and transit wherever they are. Incentivize central living by limiting transit outside the henday.

 

[Gronk!]

P.S. could @CplKlinger or @westcoastjos move these last few posts to the Suburban Sprawl thread or something related if possible? I think we've gotten a little too far off of Stantec Tower hahaha!

Yes please

 

[CplKlinger]

P.S. could @CplKlinger or @westcoastjos move these last few posts to the Suburban Sprawl thread or something related if possible? I think we've gotten a little too far off of Stantec Tower hahaha!

Good idea, it's done!

 

[archited]

@Platinum107 you do realize that the first Jasper Ave. photo was a street parade -- thereby accounting for the people gathering (it also coincided with the Circus coming to town -- note the carnival wagons). The second "history" photo had just as many cars as the modern day photo -- more people because there was main street Retail and Hospitality back then -- nothing to do with auto traffic.

 

[IanO]

Haha... it's like that VE Day shot which many have used in the past as a comparison to a winter day today.

 

[Cumberland]

Interesting conversation all.

My wife and I moved into our place here in 2010. We chose this area because, at the time I worked in the west end, and my wife was doing industrial construction work. And there are lots of folks like us that work in trades or industry so we're not alone. The suburban housing choice is what made sense to us.

Trust me, I so wanted to be within walking distance of shopping and other activities, and we're probably closer to some of that stuff than many Edmontonians, but it still sucks that the urban design is so dismal out here. I mean, all it would take is a little better thought-out design of walking and cycling infrastructure, better transit and shopping areas, and the burbs could be so much nicer to live in.

Despite the large swaths of McMansion development, the density is way higher here than in Dunluce, where my sister lives. The narrow lot homes here prove that single-family homes can be built within surprisingly good densities.

It just sucks that it's so close to being a decent development, but we couldn't quite get past the archaic 20th century zoning and car-centric thinking.

 

[EtoV]

It's unfortunate that the discussion in Canada is split between either two options, dense urban central living, or low density SFH car centric suburbs. As much as consider myself an urbanite, I understand many of the reasons people don't want to live in DT or Oliver etc. The arguments that it's too loud, too hectic, that they don't have a place to just let their dog play, or a place for their kids to play, or any private space are completely reasonable. However, the bigger issue is that the last 80 years of planning has resulting in this thinking that in order to have those amenities you need a single family home. This video By Eco Gecko is a great showcase of how you can have dense suburbs that still provide all the amenities people long for in the suburbs, while being transit oriented and walkable. It honestly makes me sad that we likely wont see this form of development in Canada any time soon, unless the plans for Blatchford really up their vision.

As a planner in currently in Metro Vancouver it's sad to see the decision for a semi "affordable" home here is either a cramped condo by the Skytrain, or a townhouse with no outdoor space deep in the Surrey suburbs.

Alternatives to Sprawl: Case Studies in Building Better 'Burbs

 

[kcantor]

Who said single family homes in central Edmonton? Plenty of ways to change the way a city grows without making a false dilemma between towers and houses. Some good examples:

The idea of what a city should be needs to be asked and redefined in our North American context. I'm all for people having the option of a low-density suburban car-centric lifestyle and I think its a valid choice depending on profession, personal life goals, etc., but I believe that these places cannot be reliant on urban areas for their existence (as the situation is now).The construction of (most) suburban areas is heavily subsidized with roads, water systems, electricity, natural gas, schools, etc. from the local and provincial government to the point where almost all the private developers have to do it build the product (the houses) in order to make a profit. This is why houses are so "dirt cheap" in peripheral communities, and let me tell you @jason403 , maybe if you had to pay the true full price of the life you'd consider the "condos and townhomes".

But I could be wrong

denser development is certainly a desirable trait.

better transit and less single car commuting and travel is also certainly a desirable trait.

having said that, they are not the same thing and while related it's a tangential relationship.

we can build as much higher density as we want but if there are no decent reliable public transportation options then those residents will still rely on cars.

if we want to encourage more transit ridership, then better transit options than currently available need to be in place for residents before they move in, regardless of the density of what they're moving in to.

lastly, it's not enough for those better transit options to be in place where people live if it won't reasonably conveniently and reasonably efficiently take them where they want to go when they need to get there. if you work in nisku or most of refinery row or in the nw industrial area or other areas where there is no transit (or no transit that is available during the hours you need to arrive at work or the hours in which you finish work), then you're going to drive regardless of the transit options or frequency where you live.

 

[archited]

Oh there are lots of alternatives from a design perspective -- Edmonton's condo scene has been too one-sided so far but that is changing rapidly with the advent of new thinking and it is going to be best felt in Edmonton because of the experimental attitude ingrained in development companies here.

 

[kcantor]

There are a lot of reasons to discourage private vehicle usage, but for me a lot of it comes down to the financial aspect of operating a city that is designed for cars. It's just not financially viable in the long term. It's incredibly expensive to build, maintain, and replace roads, and for some reason it hardly ever gets talked about. For example, the yellowhead freeway upgrades are going to cost over $1 billion, and what do we get for that? It's not even a new road, but instead a few new interchanges and the elimination of the traffic lights. And this kind of expansion/upgrading of roads will continue as long as we keep building the city in a way that encourages people to drive places.

As we build out into suburbia in a car-centric fashion, we build more roads, encourage more car commuting, and the cycle never ends. The problem is that as a city, we can't financially sustain this growth model long term. Eventually we won't be able to keep up, and the roads will fall into disrepair, or they'll start cutting other services to pay for fixing or upgrading the roads. If municipal roads were provincial responsibility, they'd just take on debt forever and fund it that way, but municipalities are very constrained in how they can raise revenue and in their ability to take on debt. So basically what I'm trying to say is that there will be a day of financial reckoning if we don't start to change how the city grows - of which how we get around is a key part.

Honestly I understand the attraction of commuting everywhere by car in Edmonton. It's so easy - the whole city was designed for it. Unfortunately, it's going to come back to bite us in the long term.

you could eliminate private cars entirely but you still won't eliminate roads. they might be less congested at some times of the day but you still need them for deliveries, for construction, for police, for ambulances, for fire protection, for buses, for taxis, for rideshare, for dats, for garbage and compostable and recyclable pickup etc.

as for yellowhead, it's not being upgraded for commuter traffice, it's being upgraded primarily for commercial and truck traffic, so probably not the best example for you to have picked in terms of what not to do to reduce private car movements in the city.

 

[archited]

It's not about discouraging cars, it is about encouraging people.

Ian has it right (this time). If you want a people-place you need to put in place elements that attract people -- Old Strathcona is working on that with doubled up alley functions, ERRS, and soon-to-be Gondola Stations. Other areas of the City encourage that with wider sidewalks that enable alternate uses, plazas (Ice District), and non-functioning road closures (102nd Ave., for example). A fool's errand would be to try and eliminate roads and cars altogether -- a deep breath is in order -- cars are here to stay. They may get smaller and become more function-purposed, but they are never going away -- in fact at some not too distant future time you may see them zooming around the sky.

 

[Guy 1]

you could eliminate private cars entirely but you still won't eliminate roads. they might be less congested at some times of the day but you still need them for deliveries, for construction, for police, for ambulances, for fire protection, for buses, for taxis, for rideshare, for dats, for garbage and compostable and recyclable pickup etc.

as for yellowhead, it's not being upgraded for commuter traffice, it's being upgraded primarily for commercial and truck traffic, so probably not the best example for you to have picked in terms of what not to do to reduce private car movements in the city.

Sure, perhaps not the best example, but the point of that example was to illustrate how expensive roads are compared to what we get.

More broadly, I am not sure what point you are trying to make? Obviously we would still need roads even if we eliminated private vehicles. But a huge proportion of our roads are currently catering to private vehicle use. We have 6593 km of local and collector roads vs 3500km of arterial roads. Now there is a cost difference between the two (about $700k per km/lane for local vs closer to $1mil per km/lane for collector and arterial), but the point still stands. If (in your hypothetical situation) we eliminated private vehicles, people would turn to alternate modes - bus, train, etc. The space difference between one bus carrying 30 people and 30 people in private cars is huge. So we could absolutely reduce the amount of road we have in the city by a significant margin.

We have $9.6 billion worth of roads - or over 63% of the entire transportation infrastructure network owned by the CIty (in terms of replacement cost). This is a massive liability. Speaking of replacement value, a lot of our roads need replacing. The average age of our roads are 38 years old - the expected life is under 25 years old. Now, some of these lifespans have been extended through good maintenance (which itself is expensive), but still, nearly 40% of them are considered to not be in good condition. We clearly can't keep up with the existing road network as it is. We should be looking at reducing, not expanding our network of roads.

Anyway, the point I was making was that building more and more suburbs with private vehicles as the primary (and only reasonable) method of transportation is a financial mistake in the long term and will come back to bite us.

 

[EtoV]

The easiest way to reduce the amount of road per capita is to densify.