City
Save the Planet: Move to the Suburbs
Blame it on downtown snobbery or suburban guilt but for a long time now the suburbs have gotten a bad rap. We've been told that big-box stores and SUVs are to blame for all the world's woes and they are the reason why we have smog days and why oil costs nearly $100 a barrel. But now there are some who are making the case that life in the suburbs is actually good for the planet.
The argument is basically that large urban centres like Toronto create a massive heat island whose effects are felt far beyond the city's political borders. And the solution to global warming and climate change is not to abolish the suburbs by forced urbanization, but to create sustainable suburbs and work on greening the ones we already have.
The heat island effect can be described in scientific terms but is best understood by this often heard weather forecast at this time of year: "5-10 centimetres of snow in Mississauga, rain downtown." The difference in weather patterns we experience downtown versus the rest of the GTA is sometimes staggering and the impact that all this densely concentrated concrete and asphalt has on our planet is undeniable.
The facts suggest that the suburbs are here to stay. Historically, most of the growth in urban areas has taken place in the suburbs and this trend is not expected to change. More and more new immigrants to the GTA are settling in the 905 region. Low-density living in suburbia offers an alternative to the problems associated with an urban heat island, but is sustainable suburb just an oxy-moron?
Maybe it's the new land transfer tax. Maybe it's the ever-increasing traffic congestion. Or maybe it's the promise of twice the square footage for half the price, but I'm starting to look at the suburbs in a whole new light.
Photo by fermata.daily from the blogTO Flickr Pool.
Andrew la Fleur is a registered real estate agent and regular contributor at blogTO.
Discussion
28 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
"registered real estate agent" eh? objective much?
how about you cite some sources so we can read more about it? Maybe give us some facts?
The notion that we could have sustainable, sensible, sane suburbs should not in any way be confused with the ones we have now being anything but a gigantic environmental disaster.
In much of the GTA, even with a vehicle, it can take forever to get from the residential areas to something as simple as a grocery store, school, or library. Without one, it's nothing but extremely obvious that they're in no way designed for actual human beings to do anything but be stranded in.
The layout of suburbs as we know them today is most definitely responsible for a very significant amount of the waste and pollution produced by our culture, and that will remain true until people stop moving to row after endless row of LegoHouses and actually apply some kind of pressure to developers to create real communities, not SUV-oriented dormitories that exist solely because they are "only" 40 km from a workplace in Toronto.
So, no, don't move to the suburbs, not until they rip them all out and start over properly. How about green rooftops instead?
I typically take Andrew's posts with a grain of salt, but this by far the biggest load of crap I've ever heard.
Way to go Andrew.
YES! the sustainable suburb is an oxymoron. They are disconnected parcels that do not focus on any green initiatives.
This is a sad post. The heat Island effect contributes to only a few degrees of difference, which is not reason enough to condone suburban living. Suburban living enforces practices we humans have already established as detrimental: excessive driving, poor commercial developments, and no public transport.
Suburban or urban, we humans must demand more from developers who build terribly to turn profits.
Andrew, go educate yourself on the atrocities that developers create before preaching that dense, transit-oriented downtowns are bad. Real estate knowledge does not qualify you to speak on such matters.
And what does this mean? : "Historically, most of the growth in urban areas has taken place in the suburbs..."?????
sustainability does not equal reducing heat. There are so so so many more aspects to environmentally-friendly development. Sadly, real estate agents just require singular sound bites to qualify as a sound knowledge.
besides, an urban city houses far more activities and people than any suburbia does, so it is unfair to equate the two and state "urban centres generate more heat than suburbia."
I don't think Andrew is trying to suggest that any of this is true, nor is he condoning the development of suburban wasteland sprawls.
I read this post as intentional speculation, a "Hmmm, have you guys heard about this alternative theory? Could it actually have some merit?" tone. I think Andrew was trying to draw attention to the fact that this kind of thinking exists out there, and get us all thinking and talking about it.
The obviously tongue-in-cheek title grabbed my attention, that's for sure. Well done if these were your intentions. Head check if they weren't ;)
why dont we compare the amount of material, area, energy, and infrastructure it takes per person in both urban and suburban areas? Then we'll see a really messed up balance, far more alarming than the 'heat island effect'
go to school andrew, before you condone any sort of supposed green living.
Couple things to remember before you bring out the flaming swords people.
First of all, writing a blog post about an article does not mean I endorse what the article is saying. The idea of saving the planet by moving to the suburbs sounds ridiculous, right? That's because it is. The holes in the author's argument are so obvious that I didn't bother to point them out because I assumed that's what you would do (thank you Chris and Jerrold). What I didn't foresee is that you would take me literally and proceed to rip me a new one!
Secondly, this is a blog. Everybody just chill.
im sorry drew. you, jerrold et al. are correct.
Its sad to see articles like this, affirming the unenlightened of their way of life...
I just hate the suburbs so much its hard to direct my anger...... RRRRR.
i think Im gonna go slash an explorer's tires.
So many vehicles moving back and forth between the city and the suburbs every day.
'Nuff said.
I can't believe how Andrew gets jumped on every time he posts an article (which are often great, by the way).
He clearly states his occupation in every post for a reason. How many times have you read a BlogTO post about a zine launch, art show or hip band that was written by a zinester, artist or hipster in said hip band?
If BlogTO was written by third party journalists who are removed from the items they're posting on, this blog wouldn't be exciting at all (Posted Toronto, anyone? CTV.ca?).
Andrew gets blasted for "promoting" 'burb living when he posts a satire on a crackpot green suburb theory. Then he gets blasted for simply commenting on the fact that there's a huge demand for condos downtown Toronto.
Personally, I think Andrew should buy all the units of 1 Bloor and turn it into a rent free housing co-op for the Ramen-eating OCAD kids which flame him every week. That'd be fair. He could easily pay for it on the $300K a year he earns for doing nothing. Yeah.
Rajo, Chris Orbz, sad (how apropos?)...thanks for contributing nothing, or possibly less than nothing, to all of us.
I agree with Rajio, Chris, and j. The suburbs are evil. Anyone who talks about them without sneering is evil. Furthermore, Andrew is a real estate agent.
I mean, come on, folks! The only sensible -- and, for that matter, environmentally sound -- way to deal with the suburbs is to Root Them Out. Like, Hulk smash kind of action.
What are the 416 and 905 suburbs anyway, a million people, two? Point is, we cannot green the suburbs, nor should we talk of environmentally sustainable retrofitting. We need to get these people out of there, pronto.
Anyone who says otherwise is just not being, like, realistic.
To remove tongue from cheek for a moment, what you do about suburbs is a pretty knotty problem. The NDP government made a good move, albeit a small drop in the bucket, when it switched basement apartments over to being default allowed.
From the marketplace, I think there is a real opportunity for developers with bold ideas about plazas and strip malls. A great many of them could very easily be replaced with underground parking, ground-level retail, and mixed housing and offices above -- including in street-facing configurations that could anchor suburban change. A developer who did that while buying into property in the surrounding area would even capture some of the value that these anchors brought to the community, too.
From the municipal side, there has got to be a loosening of zoning for those who want to densify or incorporate commercial uses.
One big problem here is poor governance and lack of transparency -- it's bloody difficult to understand one's local zoning, much less affect it. The fact that developers apparently contribute massive proportions of municipal counsellors' election campaign bills is certainly related to that.
But another big problem is simply that many oppose densification. The province really needs to become involved at some level and require municipalities to allow, say, basement apartments and a far wider range of uses on street corners.
That, though, would require the provincial government to actually do something, rather than yelling at the feds to help out the municipalities. Which is a slim prospect at best. I mean, you'd think basic common sense would lead them to tie subway extension and other transit funding to minimum density formulas on the surrounding land, right?
Nope.
(Sorry: talking about 905 counsellors above -- referring to this study Municipal governance in the 905 is really a major problem, and the sunlight being shined on counsellors in the 416 suburbs is one of the major benefits of having amalgamated the 416, in my opinion.)
"I'm starting to look at the suburbs in a whole new light."
That's the point where you're not actually endorsing an idea but complicitly offering an "alternative" point of view. You didn't list all the holes in the authors' arguments, on the belief that readers here would be too gumptious to fall for it, yet you seem to have some spark lit under yourself in any case.
Let's just forget all the minutiae of comparing the benefits of living inside a city versus a suburb, and focus instead on what your article was trying to say. From what I can glean: people are more likely and will be settling in suburban areas because of the convenience, cost & space available. Fair enough. It's the cards we've been dealt with, and we have to make do in the best way possible. This could mean better planning, responsible consumption, more trees etc etc.
What your post fails to highlight is the very nature, the framework, of suburban living that flies in the face of everything green and sustainable.
I acknowledgement you for presenting something different, however unsubstantial or dubiously selective. But there is more to be said for the absence of clarity and even keel, and less about the need to post something just because it is there.
Mr. Beerad,
I actually reread Raj and Chris Orbz responses and could find nothing particularly ignorant or mean-spirited.
You, however, are all over the place. Do yourself a favor and stop generalizing. Andrew's post is not satire.
His tone was hard to decipher so perhaps he should've expressed more of an opinion but it was definitely not satirical.
I feel the need to jump back in to this with a follow up;
I was not bashing the original poster, but simply asking for clarification and citation. There is some merit to the concept of a sustainable suburb but none of the actual thinking around it has really been linked to in this post. Some of the jumps in logic also need explanation. I wasn't bashing the post but actually requesting that it be more in depth and robust with information so as to open up some discourse.
Discussion is good.
Disparishun writes:
"The suburbs are evil. Anyone who talks about them without sneering is evil." ... "The only sensible -- and, for that matter, environmentally sound -- way to deal with the suburbs is to Root Them Out. Like, Hulk smash kind of action."
J writes:
"I just hate the suburbs so much it's hard to direct my anger...... RRRRR. i think I'm gonna go slash an explorer's tires. "
Wow. Let me guess: You both grew up in the suburbs but are now slumming it up in Parkdale, right? (Are mommy and daddy going to buy you a downtown condo soon?)
Suburbs are no more evil than cities are. If you're open to differing viewpoints, I highly suggest reading "Sprawl" by Robert Bruegmann.
http://www.amazon.com/Sprawl-Compact-History-Robert-Bruegmann/dp/0226076903
Mr beerad
"thanks for contributing nothing, or possibly less than nothing, to all of us."
Uh it appears the topic is the environmental aspect of the burbs (NOT ANDREW). We were discussing exactly that. I also believe providing a counter-argument is considered a contribution to said discussion, while trying to mediate a blog comment post is not.
And Disparishun: A condo in toronto?! please.
i actually live in the wonderful area of the plateau in montr?al, where we enjoy our separated bike lanes, our density, our thorough public transit- service, our lack of SUVs, and general better quality of life. Mmmmmmmm quality of life.....
Disparishun writes:
"What are the 416 and 905 suburbs anyway, a million people, two? Point is, we cannot green the suburbs, nor should we talk of environmentally sustainable retrofitting. We need to get these people out of there, pronto.
Anyone who says otherwise is just not being, like, realistic."
I'm not sure if this is supposed to be tongue in cheek or what, but it's a reprehensible position. Where would two million people go? Also stating that the suburbs are categorically evil, as well as suggesting that the people in them should disappear is precisely the tactic the Nazis used to disappear the people currently celebrating Hanukkah. My point is that using the word evil is loaded and not to be done lightly. It's the type of thing that leads to the dehumanization that makes atrocities possible. And while I'm not seriously concerned that these are your intentions, I feel I should at least point out that there are better ways for you to express your discontent without resorting to such statements.
The suburbs offer homes - actual houses from which people can start families. To expect everyone to live in downtown is ridiculous. Granted, as they are currently constructed they favour cars but this need not be the case into the future. That fault lies with the contracted architects and development companies. Lobbying against suburban development is both stupid (again, where would be live alternatively?) and futile. Lobbying development companies to build better, greener, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods with a mix of retail/commercial/light industrial (like a workshop rather than a factory) would probably be more productive.
As for the idea that the suburbs are somehow worse environmentally than a city is also ridiculous: cities are extremely well managed ecological disasters. What parks there are don't make up for the loss of greenspace every road, sidewalk, and building represents. Suburbs offer (albeit pathetic) backyards and I'd hazard a guess to say this adds up to more square hectares of greenspace than what the downtown offers.
Besides, a place like Parkdale was a suburb 100 years ago. When the roads were taken up by horses, it probably took about a half-hour or more commute to get into the city centre. The fact that cars came along resulted in what we have today, and I agree that what we have isn't pretty. But suburbs are not evil, they're just a currently mismanaged attempt to house people who want to live near a city's culture. The urban core is a concrete jungle, and I sympathize with anyone who wants to escape it at 5pm. The type of hipster snobbery which privileges this existence and assumes that everyone should live in Parkdale or some other similar neighborhood is quite simply narrow minded.
"The suburbs are not evil", since you oh-so-deftly outwitted Disparishun and j by pulling that rich-kid-poser accusation out of your, ahem, hat, have you got one for me? Probably, so I'll say right off the bat:
I'm born, raised & live 416 and the times I've lived in low income areas it's been strictly due to lack of a high income. No one is about to buy me a condo, least of all me, and I can't picture myself doing anything with a condo but trying to sell it.
I'm not the first person to say it, but nowadays how much you drive a vehicle for personal reasons can be interpreted directly as a reading of how out of balance your lifestyle is outside of "balancing" your various errands while still finding enough time to watch 5 hours of bad television.
Anyone who could live in the suburbs and not pick up on how out of balance their lifestyle is has become WAY too desensitized to automobile use and is unable to realize that they're driving hours a day while pondering which brand of garbage bag equals the greenest purchase. You don't even need to be commuting to Toronto to be locked into a gas-guzzling lifestyle, and very few people in very few places are able to and choose to use alternative forms of transportation to get around the messes they call towns these days.
greenspace does not equal environmentally friendly development. The greenspaces in our developed areas, both suburban and urban are usually used to grow grass. grass is cut before it can self-propogate, and before it can produce oxygen. Not to mention the pesticides and fertilizers that are applied seep into our water table.
Whats important is that developers design holistically, tying the built environment into natural, self-sustaining systems. sounds like a pie in the sky, but i dream it is possible.
Is a rural sustainable? yes. can suburbia and urbanity be sustainable? yes.
we just have to demand more, and try harder. But as it stands, Id never live in the suburbs we have now, which are highly under-serviced in terms of transit, do not properly use their greenspaces, and waste the opportunity to integrate into the environment.
I believe that both the urban and suburban conditions are rather spoiled by developers making a quick return. Sustainable suburban developments can occur as easily as an urban ones can- its simply that people do not demand it, and developers are not willing to invest the extra buck.
Sigh. Suburbs-are-not-evil, Timothy, dudes! It was, indeed, tongue in cheek. You can tell from the following post, where I got more serious, and referred to the previous one as "tongue in cheek". Suggested new sequence for future posting: read, then attack.
(I am a bit dismayed that anyone could actually take such a dogmatic posting seriously. But, then, I am also dismayed that noone bothered considering any of the ideas in the serious-followup part seriously, either. Call it ... dismayhem.)
So. Deregulating basement apartments to increase suburban disentity. Better scrutiny of municipal meetings. Strip malls into dense redevelopment anchors. What do you think?
Wow. This comment thread has pretty much become a lesson in how NOT to comment on a blog.
Of particular note: the guy who made a sarcastic post, and the guy who then took him seriously and compared him to the Nazis (just for future reference, you NEVER drop the N bomb, unless you're actually talking about WWII, or skinheads).
Way to go, humanity. I am so proud of you today. *single tear*
re: beth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Sustainability is not simply about heat island effects and open green space. The entire purpose of the suburb, as we know it, since its inception by Ebenezer Howard, oh so long ago in England, has been to take the best aspects of the city and put it into a park like setting. However, that idea has been bastardized and corrupted like so many others into what we currently know today (thank you Don Mills).
Census data has proven that newly landed immigrants do in fact choose to settle in the suburbs like Mississauga for many reasons (lower costs, existing ethnic enclaves, etc) so they do have their part in current city building. However (and thats a big however, with about 7 exclamation marks after it), the current design of suburbs is what is really the issue. Developers have begun to realize (albeit slowly and poorly) that alternative, more dense developments following the theory of new urbanism can be succesful. They're are still not perfect but they are better than the traditional design.
I say traditional design because if you really look at it, all suburbs follow a commong scheme: 4 arterial roads bordering it, one windy, snakelike collector street running through it, and then a bunch of crescents and cul-de-sacs sprouting off of the collector. The reasoning for the curvy roads (and the houses all facing inwards, away from the collector roads) is to deter outsiders from coming into the development. Essentially, the point is to make sure one gets lost and/or can't get through the development quickly to ensure they dont get in. If you don't live there, you won't know where to go. Also, traditional suburbs are designed from the roads up, as opposed to from the houses down.
As a result, there is more "open space" which does lower the heat island effect, yet creates an unwalkable, unsafe and in most cases unusable community. There is no way to get around without a car, and there is drastically increased runoff from roads and driveways. The houses are built to low standards to maximize profits and so energy efficiency goes out the window. Etc. Etc. Etc.
That being said, cities are not much better. At least, Toronto sure isn't. The city has plenty of opportunities to take the initiative and do something truly innovative...but the mayor is more interested in saying the city is green as opposed to actually studying and enforcing ways of MAKING it green. Oh and in turning Yonge and Dundas Square (shudder) into Times Square Jr.
I initially ignored this post for one fundamental reason: I am currently a student in the school of Urban Planning at UW. The main thing we are taught in our first year is that yes, suburbs are in fact the spawn of satan (I may have paraphrased a little bit there). However, while sitting at work bored I decided to give it another look to see what the post was all about, and honestly, the comments are more interesting to me than the actual post. I moved away from Toronto to a so called '15-minute suburb' for school and have studied planning for 4 years now, so I believe I have a pretty well rounded view on the topic. Im not trying to sound pretentious or snobbish or anything, but I have focused on planning (and as a result suburbs and their effects on cities and people) for a while now.
oh...and I am in no way affiliated and/or related to Jack Layton
If Jane Jacobs were still alive...I'm pretty sure I know what she would say...
I agreed with her then...and I still do....