How Suburbia Happened in Toronto
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center Scholarly Works Faculty Scholarship 2011 How Suburbia Happened In Toronto Michael Lewyn Touro Law Center, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/scholarlyworks Part of the Land Use Law Commons, Transportation Law Commons, and the Water Law Commons Recommended Citation 6 Fla. A & M U. L. Rev. 299 (2010-2011) This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Works by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center. For more information, please contact [email protected]. How SUBURBIA HAPPENED IN TORONTO by Michael Lewyn* Review, John Sewell, The Shape of the Suburbs: Understanding To- ronto's Sprawl (University of Toronto Press 2009) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................ 299 II. SPRAWL IN TORONTO ...................................... 301 A. Highways and Transit ................................ 301 1. Creating Sprawl Through Highways .............. 301 2. Transit Responds to Sprawl....................... 303 B. Sewer and Water ..................................... 304 C. Not Just Sprawl, But Low-Density Sprawl............ 305 D. The Future of Sprawl................................. 308 III. A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE ............................. 309 IV . SuMMARY ................................................. 311 I. INTRODUCTION From an American perspective, Toronto may seem like the kind of walkable, transit-oriented city beloved by critics of automobile-de- pendent suburbia. Toronto has extensive subways- and commuter train 2 services, and therefore higher transit ridership than most other Canadian and American cities. 3 While some North American down- * Associate Professor, Florida Coastal School of Law. B.A., Wesleyan University; J.D., University of Pennsylvania; L.L.M., University of Toronto. 1. See JoN SEWELL, THE SHAPE OF THE SUBURBS: UNDERSTANDING TOROlrO's SPRAWL 86 (Univ. of Toronto Press 2009). (Showing map of existing and planned subway lines). 2. Id. at 79 (map of commuter train lines). 3. See JOHN LORINC, THE NEW CITY 100, 231 (The Penguin Group 2008) (breaking down ridership by distance from downtown. In five of the six categories listed, Toronto had highest ridership of eight Canadian cities listed; for example, 53.3 percent of commuters living within five kilometers of work used public transit while in other cities listed, transit "market share" ranged from 14.8 percent to 44.7 percent; transit "market share" of commuters more than twice as high in Canada as in the United States). 299 HeinOnline -- 6 Fla. A & M U. L. Rev. 299 2010-2011 300 FLORIDA A & M UNIV. LAW REVIEW Vol. 6:2:299 towns have languished in recent decades,4 some of Toronto's downtown neighborhoods are more prosperous than the rest of the city.5 Yet Toronto has experienced considerable sprawl (that is, auto- mobile-dependent suburban development). 6 The population of metropolitan Toronto doubled in the second half of the 20th century7 , but the amount of land consumed by metropolitan Toronto more than tripled, increasing from 193 square miles in the 1950s to 656 in the 1990s.8 Because newer suburbs are far less dense than the old city of Toronto, suburbanites are far more likely than urbanites to drive to most destinations, arguably increasing traffic congestion and air pollu- tion. 9 In addition, low-density development arguably increases the costs of some public services- because where lots are large, service ve- hicles have to travel further to reach the same number of houses.10 Why did Toronto sprawl? Some commentators argue "urban sprawl merely represents the results of the free market economy."" However, in The Shape of the Suburbs, former Toronto Mayor John Sewelll 2 explains that Toronto has sprawled at least partially because of a series of sprawl-inducing policy decisions. This review essay ad- dresses the issues that Sewell focuses on: transportation, water/sewer infrastructure, and (to a lesser extent) land use regulation.' 3 This re- 4. See Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, 23 Cal. 3d 899, 907, 592 P.2d 341, 345 (1979), affd, 447 U.S. 74 (1980). ("central business districts apparently have continued to yield their functions more and more to suburban centers."). 5. See Coming By-Elections, GLOBE AND MAIL, January 30, 2008, at 10A, 2008 WLNR 1720655. (in downtown Toronto parliamentary district, "the average family income of $124,082 is the third highest in Canada."). 6. See Michael Lewyn, You Can Have It All: Less Sprawl And PropertyRights Too, 80 TEMPLE L. REV. 1093, 1093 (2007) (defining sprawl as development that is both automobile- oriented and far from urban cores). 7. SEWELL, supra note 1, at 159. 8. Id. 9. Id. at 160-62. See also LoINC, supra note 3, at 107 (in core of Toronto, 49 percent of households owned one or more cars, as opposed to 87 percent in inner suburbs and 96 percent in outer suburbs). But see OLIVER GILLHAM, THE LIMITLESS CITY 93-94, 113-15 (Island Press 2002) (noting that there is some dispute over whether negative effects of increased car travel are outweighed by positive effects of lower density, since densely populated urban centers tend to be more congested than suburbs; author concludes, however, that even dense areas would be less congested if suburbanites drove less). 10. SEWELI, supra note 1, at 163. But see Amy Helling, Advocate For A Modern Devil: Can Sprawl Be Defended?, 17 GA. ST. U. L. REV. 1063, 1068-69 (2001) (utility expenditures in low-density areas may be lower than in more compact neighborhoods since low-density areas sometimes have fewer public services). 11. Gregory V. Jolivette, Ja., Kelo v. City of New London: A Reduction of Property Rights But A Tool To Combat Urban Sprawl, 55 CLEVE. ST. L. REV. 103, 107 (2007). 12. SEWELL, supra note 1, at ix (noting author's background). 13. I note [in] passing that Sewell does not address every government policy favoring suburbanization: for example, he does not focus on federal housing subsidies favoring HeinOnline -- 6 Fla. A & M U. L. Rev. 300 2010-2011 2011 HOW SUBURBIA HAPPENED IN TORONTO 301 view also discusses Sewell's critique of current regional attempts to control sprawl. Finally, it compares Toronto's policies to those of American cities. II. SPRWL IN TORONTO Sewell asserts that the provincial government of Ontario (the Canadian province that includes Toronto)14 and Toronto-area munici- pal governments have facilitated sprawl by supporting the construction of highways and sewers in suburbia.15 In addition, local land use regulation has favored low-density development. 16 A. Highways and Transit 1. Creating Sprawl Through Highways Toronto's local and provincial planners have generally favored highway construction. In 1927, the province of Ontario began to subsi- dize suburban road construction; the province paid 40 percent of the cost of road construction and 20 percent of the cost of road mainte- nance.1 7 In addition, the province required the city of Toronto to help pay for suburban roads, on the ground that city-generated traffic led to suburbia.18 In 1942, the city created the Toronto City Planning Board19 which adopted a plan proposing six new expressways. 20 The Toronto City Council formally endorsed the plan in 1944,21 and many of these highways were, in fact, built. For example, the Toronto-Barrie High- way, also known as Highway 40022, was open by 195923 as was the sprawl. Cf RICHARD HARRIS, CREEPING CONFORMITY 132-33 (2004) (Canadian federal government favored suburban sprawl by financing construction of new housing which tended to be suburban). 14. Cf Ron Levi & Mariana Valverde, Freedom of the City: Canadian Cities and the Quest for Governmental Status, 44 OSGOODE HALL L.J. 409, 429-39 (2006) (describing Ontario legislation limiting powers of Toronto and other cities). 15. See infra Parts II-A, I-B. 16. See infra Part I-C. 17. SEWELL, supra note 1, at 14. 18. Id. 19. Id. at 30. 20. Id. at 33. 21. Id. at 34. 22. Id. at 63. 23. Id. at 64 (highway "recently opened" by 1959). HeinOnline -- 6 Fla. A & M U. L. Rev. 301 2010-2011 302 FLORIDA A & M UNIV. LAW REVIEW Vol. 6:2:299 Toronto Bypass 24, also known as Highway 401.25 These new highways made it easier for suburban commuters to access downtown, thus en- couraging additional suburban development. 26 As a result, the new highways soon became crammed with suburban commuters. For ex- ample, the Toronto Bypass was planned to accommodate 35,000 vehicles per day but by 1961 it was used by 70,000 vehicles per day.2 7 Nevertheless, Ontario's provincial government 28 continued to build highways into the hinterlands beyond Toronto. Don Valley Park- way, opened in the 1960s, 29 was extended into Toronto's northern suburbs as Highway 404 a decade later.30 Highway 427, west of the city,8 1 opened in 1972.32 During the 1980s,33 the province built High- way 410 to Brampton, a city northwest of Toronto, 3 4 as well as Highway 407, also north of the city.3 5 Ontario built these highways in order to relieve congestion 36 but their impact on congestion was, at best, unclear. Sewell notes that by the 1990s, 70 percent of the Toronto-area highway system was con- gested at peak periods.3 7 As government built expressways to suburbia, those suburbs and their roads filled up with cars.38 It could be argued that the relationship between highways and sprawl is purely coincidental because commuters would naturally pre- fer the extra living space and cheaper land of suburbia, regardless of 24. Id. 25. Id. at 63. 26. Id. at 64 ("New highways signaled that the fringes could now easily access downtown, and development proceeded accordingly.").