Suburban Development and Sprawl

[archited]

There aren't many "million-dollar houses" in Mill Woods or Castle Downs/Griesbach or the areas north of Stony Plain Road. The generalizations are flying here and, guess what?... all of you are right. There is nothing else to say.

 

[Platinum107]

Besides the economic and environmental arguments which have already been discussed, I also want to mention that suburban development and auto-oriented cities have their creation rooted in the idea of economic and racial segregation and "urban renewal" (a.k.a the gentrification and destruction of older inner-city areas). While the element of race is considerably less prevalent today (but still present), the physical form of low-density, Euclidian, car-based areas and the mindset they create sow beliefs around the undesirability of the inner-city and a fear of the unknown when it comes to urban living. Many nowadays just don't see the value of the good and bad aspects of an urban lifestyle as being over the good and bad aspects of a suburban one, and I believe that is one of the huge reasons why most of our older neighborhoods are in decline.

Please don't misunderstand this as me criticizing the average person living in the suburbs, rather I'm going after the government and private industries that crafted this "experiment" in city-building, the experiment which is failing our great cities.

 

[archited]

^^^^ The "experiment" as you say was crafted by the hands of Urban Planners and not by government and private industry per se. Moving away from the grid with cul-de-sacs and curvilinear streets were supposed to have been a way of promoting community self-identity and making them safe from marauding externalities that did "not belong". And that is one of the reasons that I have such an itch to scratch when it comes to "Planning Standards" and why I again say that Planning should be reactive to ideas, concepts, and proposals and not prescriptive -- the brain power never seems to be there for good outcomes. That is also one of the reasons I began to wince when Edmonton Planners began to water down the original concept for Blatchford Field.

 

[Platinum107]

The "experiment" as you say was crafted by the hands of Urban Planners and not by government and private industry per se.

Sure, the neighborhood zoning maps weren't handed down from the feds or General Motors, however the money and general support given for the "average" suburban design compared to something more radical in the America sphere paints a picture of the influences at play through things like lobbying imo.

 

[thommyjo]

Thank you for pointing out that you grew up in multi-million dollar homes in Windermere. The new subdivisions that meet the city's density requirements are catering to that type of product. Nonetheless, you obviously have some serious anger toward the suburbs. I am not trying to change your mind, I was pointing out the fact that the disdain for those that live there is strange.

I don't see it as a flex to say i grew up somewhere when I contributed nothing to "earning" the wealth for the home... My point is that you're very assuredly claiming something that I'm objecting to because it's simply not true. You can't say something is fact when it's not. Many suburbs are still building incredibly expensive, luxury homes. If you compare the average price points of detached homes in communities around our city, suburbs outside the henday are more expensive the majority of the time. Yes they feature some more diverse housing types thanks to density requirements. Condos and townhouses are great, although most are still completely car dependent and far from employment centres.

It’s not about hating on suburbs, it’s about recognizing their challenges and desiring to improve upon them. You can critique without hating. I’ve lived in a number of areas now in Edmonton, Toronto and Vancouver and experienced diverse neighbourhood forms, which has convinced me the way we build suburbs in Edmonton is detrimental to health, community, safety, the environment, our capital and operating budgets, and anyone who is lower income.

Cars cost on average 8-12k. Build suburbs that force car ownership is forcing a 10k dollar tax on someone, whether they make 35k or 135k a year. That’s unjust and will not lead to a prosperous city.

 

[thommyjo]

Here are the prices of our 10 most valuable neighbourhoods by overall stock. Obviously size of area is part of it, but some clear higher priced areas here.

Also, below are the median prices by neighbourhood. Many of the highest are outside the henday or quite close to it (very much car dependent suburb style nonetheless). ALL of the lowest are more core/central ones

 

[archited]

Sure, the neighborhood zoning maps weren't handed down from the feds or General Motors, however the money and general support given for the "average" suburban design compared to something more radical in the America sphere paints a picture of the influences at play through things like lobbying imo.

There are opinions and there are facts. In this case your opinion is entirely wrong.

 

[Platinum107]

There are opinions and there are facts. In this case your opinion is entirely wrong.

How could these private industries not have had an influence on the development patterns of our cities? Sure maybe I got the method wrong but it the central idea is still there.

 

[Oilers99]

Here are the prices of our 10 most valuable neighbourhoods by overall stock. Obviously size of area is part of it, but some clear higher priced areas here.

Also, below are the median prices by neighbourhood. Many of the highest are outside the henday or quite close to it (very much car dependent suburb style nonetheless). ALL of the lowest are more core/central ones


View attachment 380440

View attachment 380439View attachment 380436

Rutherford, Hamptons, Twin Brooks, South Terwillegar and Walker are all finished subdivisions, there is no longer any development occurring in these subdivisions. Summerside is down to its last few lots and Windermere still has a number of years left in development.

New subdivisions such as Maple, Aster, Edgemont, Cy Becker, etc. actually have zero to virtually zero luxury development. They are primilarily catered at average Edmontonian income.That is what I am trying to point out to you, you are referring to older subdivisions that had luxury product, the subdivisions of the last ~3-5 years are no longer that. It is not just condominiums and townhouses that are serving the first time buyer market, it is zero lot line single family homes that prior to the recent price uptick were sub $400k. This is not something that is possible to be replicated in the inner city unfortunately. You also bring up the example of Toronto, Toronto has hopped over its greenbelt into surrounding communities such as Brampton, Milton, Burlington, Ajax, etc. which would presumably occur here if the City of Edmonton does not maintain its balanced growth.

 

[archited]

How could these private industries not have had an influence on the development patterns of our cities?

Oh, they did -- just not in the way that you have suggested.

 

[thommyjo]

Rutherford, Hamptons, Twin Brooks, South Terwillegar and Walker are all finished subdivisions, there is no longer any development occurring in these subdivisions. Summerside is down to its last few lots and Windermere still has a number of years left in development.

New subdivisions such as Maple, Aster, Edgemont, Cy Becker, etc. actually have zero to virtually zero luxury development. They are primilarily catered at average Edmontonian income.That is what I am trying to point out to you, you are referring to older subdivisions that had luxury product, the subdivisions of the last ~3-5 years are no longer that. It is not just condominiums and townhouses that are serving the first time buyer market, it is zero lot line single family homes that prior to the recent price uptick were sub $400k. This is not something that is possible to be replicated in the inner city unfortunately. You also bring up the example of Toronto, Toronto has hopped over its greenbelt into surrounding communities such as Brampton, Milton, Burlington, Ajax, etc. which would presumably occur here if the City of Edmonton does not maintain its balanced growth.

I wasn’t speaking to only developing suburbs. Sorry if there was confusion on that. I’m speaking to all newer suburbs from the 000s onwards. 23ave and south. West of henday, etc.

Again, they are building a decent amount of affordable stuff, sure, but a simple look on real estate sites shows dozens of homes in the 700k+ range in all of these suburbs. Edgemont, chapelle, keswick, etc. brand new areas, with very obviously luxury homes. The average sale point, again, is still higher in these new areas than in central neighbourhoods (excluding the glenoras and windsor parks).

Every single home in these pics are over 600k. The avg home price in Edmonton is about 450k.

 

[archited]

...and your point is?

 

[EdmTrekker]

Here are the prices of our 10 most valuable neighbourhoods by overall stock. Obviously size of area is part of it, but some clear higher priced areas here.

Also, below are the median prices by neighbourhood. Many of the highest are outside the henday or quite close to it (very much car dependent suburb style nonetheless). ALL of the lowest are more core/central ones


View attachment 380440

View attachment 380439View attachment 380436

What is the website for this data?

 

[thommyjo]

...and your point is?

They were claiming the suburbs are no longer selling luxury homes and that they are more affordable than less sprawled areas. I don’t believe that’s true to the data. And that matters cause it shows demand, trends, and where young people are buying. Unlike places like Vancouver where you go farther away to afford a home, Edmonton is still seeing affluent buyers buying in the suburbs and that’s why central areas aren’t redeveloping faster.

 

[archited]

^^^^ That's a wildly unsupported claim.