Compact modern residential development - Why?

[nec209]

When was this built and why did they build it like that? Was this a built to mimic suburb built on both for car and food traffic?

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

Take a look at the map .That area seem to be not old like old cities but not new like the 60' to now.

Why does it look like ( time on hold ) not before car or after but doing.Would the proper year be 40's and 50's?

Was this a suburb built on how the cities look like before than now to try look urban? Has to support both car and food traffic?Why does cities in Canada not like this ?The cities in Canada look old or new and no in between.

[jsk1983]

I'm guessing that the land values are high and thus developers need to build densely to make a profit.

[anf]

I concur with jsk. This looks like the result of the almighty dollar - someone trying to squeeze as many lots as they could out of a parcel of land. This development pattern is common in areas with high property values and/or a limited supply of land - 2nd-3rd ring suburbs of big cities, coastal areas, and other "geographically challenged" areas.

All of these examples look like Florida, but they could easily be in New Jersey, Atlanta, L.A., etc.

[Linda_D]

I agree with the previous two posters.

This is Hialeah Gardens in Florida -- I saw it on one of the maps. I looked up the city. It has a higher density than many big cities (7,000 persons per sq mile) with most dwellings being single story except for the apartment buildings and condos (many probably converted from rentals). To get that, you've got to really pack in the dwelling units.
I"m not sure why you would want this kind of single-story super-dense development. Look at the lots. There's virtually no green space, paved driveways instead of front laws, and no back yards. No community spaces like parks or anything much in the way of walkable destinations.

The reason that Canadian cities don't look like this is because Canada, at least Ontario, has zoning laws that are enforced. Florida has been notorious for allowing developers to build whatever they want. I would nominate this place as a leading candidate for "from suburb to slum in 25 years or less" -- unless a hurricane comes along and wipes it out. I really doubt that most of these homes are built to stand up to a Cat II hurricane.

[mgk920]

Agreed here as well.

IIRC, the Miami-Fort Lauderdale metro area (where your images were flown) is pretty much built out - its urbanized area is bumping into the Everglades (heavy swamp and NPS land) and there is little developable vacant land left. Thus land costs are much higher and developers must built more units for the given land area than they have to elsewhere in order to be able to operate at a profit.

Closer 'in', high-rise residential development is going NUTS as Miami itself densifies to meet its continuing demand for more residential units - the only direction that they can go there is up.

You can see the same trend in other metros as well, such as the Los Angeles 'Basin' area.

There is just no room for the stereotypical multi-hectare lot suburban sprawl subdivisions there.

Also, you *DO* see developments like that in Canada, at least in Ontario. IIRC, the province prohibits its munis from dictating unit density limits in their residential zones. Check the Google Earth aerial images of the developing parts of any city in Ontario to see the results.

Mike

[Linda_D]

Agreed here as well.

IIRC, the Miami-Fort Lauderdale metro area (where your images were flown) is pretty much built out - its urbanized area is bumping into the Everglades (heavy swamp and NPS land) and there is little developable vacant land left. Thus land costs are much higher and developers must built more units for the given land area than they have to elsewhere in order to be able to operate at a profit.

Closer 'in', high-rise residential development is going NUTS as Miami itself densifies to meet its continuing demand for more residential units - the only direction that they can go there is up.

You can see the same trend in other metros as well, such as the Los Angeles 'Basin' area.

There is just no room for the stereotypical multi-hectare lot suburban sprawl subdivisions there.

Also, you *DO* see developments like that in Canada, at least in Ontario. IIRC, the province prohibits its munis from dictating unit density limits in their residential zones. Check the Google Earth aerial images of the developing parts of any city in Ontario to see the results.

Mike

While I've seen dense development around Toronto, I've never seen anything quite like this -- with houses nearly touching along the side yards and virtually no back yards -- that were built post WW II, much less in the 1980s.

These super-dense single story homes remind me of the neighborhoods on Buffalo's Eastsides built around 1900 to WW I. These were sometimes called "shotgun" or "telescope" doubles because additions going back into the yard would always be just a tad smaller than the part of the building it was attached to (with front and back apartments). Many of these frame houses have been repeatedly flipped and left to rot, abandoned, or burned by vandals or transients..

[nec209]

IIRC, the Miami-Fort Lauderdale metro area (where your images were flown) is pretty much built out - its urbanized area is bumping into the Everglades (heavy swamp and NPS land) and there is little developable vacant land left. Thus land costs are much higher and developers must built more units for the given land area than they have to elsewhere in order to be able to operate at a profit.

Why is there alot of one story homes and lots of apartments under 6 stories ?But Toronto 2 story homes and apartments 12 story and up .

Closer 'in', high-rise residential development is going NUTS as Miami itself densifies to meet its continuing demand for more residential units - the only direction that they can go there is up.

In Toronto ,Calgary ,Vancouver ,Miami-Fort Lauderdale Metro and alot of other cities in the US and Canada it is the fashion for yuppies and preppies to live down-town than the suburbs in nice condos !! I know alot of IT guys and white-collar business guys living down-town Toronto in nice condos .

There is condo boom in Canada and US.That has really only been going on for past 10 years.With guys like Donald trump getting city to go for it and saying they make lots money for the city.

You can see the same trend in other metros as well, such as the Los Angeles 'Basin' area.

There is just no room for the stereotypical multi-hectare lot suburban sprawl subdivisions there.

Even Calgary is building dense almost like Miami-Fort Lauderdale metro

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

Also, you *DO* see developments like that in Canada, at least in Ontario. IIRC, the province prohibits its munis from dictating unit density limits in their residential zones. Check the Google Earth aerial images of the developing parts of any city in Ontario to see the results.

Mike

Yes most developments in the late 90's in the Toronto area suburbs are almost dense like this but big Superblocks 1.6KM or 2KM .But every thing is mostly 2 story homes with garage.

Has the Miami-Fort Lauderdale metro area lots of bungalow homes and smaller superblocks for some strange reason.


Almost dense like Miami-Fort Lauderdale Metro .
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1

I'm guessing that the land values are high and thus developers need to build densely to make a profit.

What are the things that lead to high land value?

I concur with jsk. This looks like the result of the almighty dollar - someone trying to squeeze as many lots as they could out of a parcel of land. This development pattern is common in areas with high property values and/or a limited supply of land - 2nd-3rd ring suburbs of big cities, coastal areas, and other "geographically challenged" areas.

All of these examples look like Florida, but they could easily be in New Jersey, Atlanta, L.A., etc.

I don't know what you mean by 2nd-3rd ring suburbs but Las Vegas is very dense but very car centric other than down town or the Vegas strip.

The reason that Canadian cities don't look like this is because Canada, at least Ontario, has zoning laws that are enforced. Florida has been notorious for allowing developers to build whatever they want.

Most homes in the 50, 60's , 70' s have alot of property here and the 80's and 90's less property and the late 90's even less.We are slowing getting more and more dense.And the price of homes slowing going up.

The city of Mississauga is almost out of land other than small section here there ,Toronto, Etobicoke , North York , Scarborouhgn are out of land. Vaughan ,Richmond hill , Markham are built from steeles ave past Major Mackenzie Dr .So they are building into Farm land now so yes they slowing getting more and more dense.Toronto Metro is 5,000,000 people.

But what is strange like Calgary and Edmonton is the city is building very sprawling but the homes very little property and almost touching .Not like Miami-Fort Lauderdale Metro area but it is slowing getting there .The government must subsidize the city or Calgary and Edmonton or the city would be build like Toronto Metro area.

[Seana]

The government must subsidize the city or Calgary and Edmonton or the city would be build like Toronto Metro area.

Would you please give a few more details on the sprawl and associated problems in the Toronto Metro area? An insider's view would be interesting. (I may be moving to Toronto.) Thank you in advance.

[nec209]

Would you please give a few more details on the sprawl and associated problems in the Toronto Metro area? An insider's view would be interesting. (I may be moving to Toronto.) Thank you in advance.

I would say Toronto has average density like most cities in Canada and US other than the sunbelt cities that are more one story homes and apartments 6 story and down.

Where Toronto is 2 story homes and 12 story and up apartments The big problem is high traffic problems and very hostile to food traffic do to 1.6KM and 2KM Superblocks .


Even Etobicoke , North York and Scarborouhgn are mostly post WW II suburb other than small section in south end of Etobicoke and some section in Scarborouhgn .

Brampton and Mississauga like Vaughan ,Richmond hill , Markham are all post WW II suburb all car cetric and hostile to food traffic .

The only true walkable section in Toronto is south of of ST. Clair AVE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto

Take look at year and population for Toronto.

1861------------------65,085 population
1901-------------------- 238,080 population
1951------------------1,117,470 population
2006-------------- ---2,503,281 population

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles,_California

Take look at year and population Los_Angeles.

1870------------- --5,728 population
1900 --------------- --- 102,479 population
1950--------------- ---1,970,358 population
Est. 2006------------ -----3,849,378 population


Los Angeles - High density .
Toronto average density other than the down-town area in the core.

Los Angeles - lots of small 1 story homes
Toronto lots of 2 story homes

Los Angeles - 4 - 6 story apartments
Toronto - 12 -15 story apartments

Los Angeles - back ally and grid system
Toronto - only some small section here and there with back alley and grid system

Los Angeles - non street hierarchy and NO Superblocks in the east ,south and central and downtown area of LA other than San Fernando Valley on a street hierarchy but even still smaller Superblocks than Toronto
Toronto - street hierarchy and 1.6 and 2KM Superblocks

Los Angeles - just some small park land here there.
Toronto - green belts and green space

Los Angeles - 1 store store front and small store with tight parking
Toronto - 2 story store front ie.. shop owner store below a shop owner apartment above and malls yes lots of malls.

In way Toronto down -town core looks old and out of the down-town core looks new .Los Angeles it looks in between like it was built not before WW II or after WW II. Very stange but Miami and Fort Lauderdale almost looks like this too.LA looks like a suburb built on compact and walkable streets with 1 story homes and 4 - 6 story apartments on a grid system with small stores with very tight parking and 1 story store-fronts .

It looks like time was on hold.Toronto and most cities in Canada are really not like this it is car centric or not .Not 50% car cenric and 50% not like LA or Miami -Fort Lauderdale

My guess the government subsidize cities in Canada and Los Angeles,Miami and Fort Lauderdale where not and time was on hold.That was why it does not look old or new but in between.