The Economist recently published an essay called, A Planet of Suburbs – The world is becoming ever more suburban, and the better for it. The argument is basically that the “great urbanization” that everyone loves to talk about these days is actually a misnomer. From Chicago to Chennai, it’s not the urban core that’s growing. It’s the suburbs. And so what we’re seeing should actually be called the great suburbanization.
The basis for this argument is that wealth fuels sprawl. As people become richer, they naturally consume more of everything – including space. It’s a natural market outcome.
Take for example, the path of many of Toronto’s ethnic groups. In the first half of the 20th century, College Street was the Little Italy. Then it shifted north and St. Clair Avenue West became the more authentic Little Italy. Today, many Italians now live north of the city in Woodbridge. In fact, last weekend I was on St. Clair West and was disappointed to learn that one of my favorite butchers had closed up shop and “moved to Woodbridge.”
However, there are also many supporters of the exact opposite outcome. From Edward Glaeser to Alan Ehrenhalt, many have argued that we’re in the midst of a “great inversion.” The suburbs are no longer a threat to urban centers. It’s the urban centers who are threatening the suburbs. The suburbs are dead. Long live the city.
So which is it?
Well, The Economist does cite two examples where true urbanization is actually taking place. It’s happening in Tokyo and London. In both cases, it’s the city center that is growing the fastest – not the suburbs. The explanation for Tokyo is its aging population. And the explanation for London is its restrictive greenbelt, which effectively stops the possibility of any further sprawl.
Here in Toronto – where there is also a greenbelt in place – we know that the population of the downtown core is growing at an incredible pace. A recent report by the city – called Comprehensive to the Core – revealed that the downtown core is growing at 4 times the rate of the rest of the city.
But what about the suburbs?
If we look at the province of Ontario’s growth projections, it is indeed the suburbs which are expected to grow the fastest up until 2036. Here is a diagram showing percentage growth rates:
In absolute numbers, the city of Toronto alone is expected to add about 0.66 million people between 2012 and 2036, and the suburbs are expected to add almost 1.9 million.
There are a number of potential explanations for this differential, but I think it’s largely because land is cheaper in the suburbs, it’s easier to add new housing supply, population densities are lower, and we’re talking about very different land areas.
The city of Toronto is 630 square kilometers. If you tack on the suburbs, the Greater Toronto Area is 7,124 square kilometers. That means Toronto makes up less than 9% of the total land area. And yet it is expected to contribute 25% of the region’s population growth.
Still, the suburbs are where the bulk of the population growth is expected to happen over the coming decades.
However, the “great inversion” that authors like Alan Ehrenhalt have been talking about should not really be interpreted as the death of the suburbs. What he’s instead talking about is a socioeconomic or demographic reversal: center cities used to be poor and now they’re becoming rich.
What we are seeing is a reversal in which the words “inner city,” which a generation ago connoted poverty and slums, [are going to mean] the home of wealthier people and people who have a choice about where they live, and the suburbs are going to be the home of immigrants and poorer people. And Census figures show that that’s taking place.
In this context, we are still living through the great urbanization. We’re seeing a shift in consumer preference and a shift in where wealth is choosing to locate. That’s a profound change.
And while we’re obviously still suburbanizing, I don’t agree that we’re better for it. In fact, left unchecked, this demographic inversion could actually prove to be quite damaging to our suburbs.
Image: Flickr
This Tuesday evening at 630pm, WORKSHOP – which is a design studio, gallery, and retail shop located in Yorkville, Toronto – will be hosting a panel discussion titled: What is Smart Now?
On the panel will be a building scientist, a computer scientist, and two architects. The moderator will be Larry Wayne Richards, who is Creative Director of WORKSHOP and the former dean of the Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design at the University of Toronto. He was dean when I was completing my undergraduate degree and is one of my favorite people in the world of Toronto architecture.
Here’s a bit more on the panel:
For more than half a century, visionaries and companies such as Monsanto, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, and Samsung have promoted the concept of technologically smart homes with highly integrated, interactive systems. However few of these homes have actually been realized, leaving us to wonder why.
Meanwhile, architects, builders, and home owners have become aware of the advantages of being smart in terms of energy efficiency and sustainability, from using common sense to selectively employing high-tech.
But now, with the digital realm and software advancing rapidly, will sophisticated smart home systems merge with recent advances in high performance materials and energy-efficient construction, making “totally smart” (and affordable) homes commonplace? Will we finally be living in the magical future that was imagined 50 years ago? And what are the implications for architects and architectural education?
And here are the panelists:
PAUL DOWSETT, Architect and Founding Principal, Sustainable TO
SRINIVASAN KESHAV, Professor of Computer Science, University of Waterloo
TED KESIK, Professor of Building Science, University of Toronto
JANNA LEVITT, Founding Partner, LGA Architects, Toronto
LARRY WAYNE RICHARDS (Moderator), Creative Director, WORKSHOP
Given the current “Internet of Things” trend and the fact that software is creeping into so many non-tech fields, such as housing, I think this is a really timely discussion to be having. I also think it’s critical for these kinds of conversations to be cross-disciplinary. There are infinite opportunities in the housing market for people who are able to think in that way.
If you’d like to attend, click here to sign up. It’s free and open to the public. WORKSHOP is located in the lower concourse level of 80 Bloor Street West.
Image: WORKSHOP
If you live in Toronto and only give serious thought to one thing today, it should be to this interactive transit map created by Metro.
The map shows all existing, planned, and proposed transit lines in the city, and then overlays population densities, commuting patterns, household income, and so on. It’s a super valuable map that I think reveals a lot about how we should be focusing our energies to get Toronto moving.
So what sorts of things does it tell us? I’ll give 2 examples.
If you look at commuting patterns across the Bloor-Danforth subway line, you’ll see that Runnymede station in the west is where people switch over from taking transit to driving. People west of that station tend to drive. Naturally, it also happens to coincide with where population densities start to fall off.
By contrast, if you look at the east side of the city along the Danforth and beyond, the entire stretch more or less relies on transit to get around. Part of this likely has to do with income levels, but it’s also because of the availability of the Gardiner Expressway. There’s no equivalent in the east end. Dylan Reid of Spacing Magazine believes this makes a case for some sort of road pricing along the Gardiner, and I would agree.
As a second example, look at the population densities along the proposed Downtown Relief Line, Finch LRT, and John Tory’s SmartTrack line. Outside of the core, the population densities are relatively low along the proposed SmartTrack line – which is never a good thing for rapid transit.
There’s also no Sherbourne station on the SmartTrack line, which happens to have the highest population density across the entire Relief Line – 22,131 people per square kilometre! That’s more than any other stop along the Yonge-University subway line except for Wellesley station.
I’ve written about this a lot before, but I think we need to do a better job of matching up transit investment with expected customer demand. Too often we let politics get in the way of rationale decision making. Maybe it’s time we did something like set minimum population densities. If you want a subway line in your area, you have to first bring the people.
What else does this map tell you?