Enduring Features of the North American Suburb: Built Form, Automobile Orientation, Suburban Culture and Political Mobilization

Abstract

As any social phenomenon, the evolution of suburbs can be seen as at the confluence of two contradictory sets of forces. There are first forces of change, which propel suburbs in new directions. Much of the present literature on suburbs highlights suburban transitions in the form of social and economic diversification, and of new forms of development. The article attempts to rebalance the discourse on suburbs by emphasizing forces of durability. It does not deny the importance of observed suburban transitions, but argues that there is, at the heart of North American suburbs, an enduring automobility-induced transportation dynamic, which reverberates on most aspects of suburbs. The article explores the mechanisms undergirding suburban durability by linking the suburban transportation dynamic to the self-reproductive effects of a suburban lifestyle and culture and their political manifestations. These forces impede planning attempts to transform suburbs in ways that make them more environmentally sustainable. To empirically ground its argument, the article draws on two Toronto region case studies illustrating processes assuring the persistence of the durable features of North American suburbs: the layout of large suburban multifunctional centres and the themes raised by Rob Ford during his successful 2010 mayoralty electoral campaign.

Does New Urbanism “Just Show Up”? Deliberate Process and the Evolving Plan for Markham Centre

“…The Growth Plan mainstreamed new urbanist principles as 'best practice' across the region (Moore, 2013). Mandating principles and plans, however, has not necessarily guaranteed successful implementation in the region where entrenched infrastructures of car dependence, weak political commitment, and market pressures have limited their success (Filion, 2018;Grant, 2009). The Growth Plan repackages the principles of new urbanism, and the related concepts of smart growth and sustainability, in the language of 'compact built form' that makes efficient use of infrastructure, and 'complete communities,' which are mixed-use neighbourhoods with convenient access to necessities for daily living and a full range of housing, transportation, public services, and recreation options (Government of Ontario, 2019).…”

“…Since those observations, there have been continued developments in these nodes, improvements in their connections to local and regional transit systems, and a lifting of height restrictions in Mississauga City Centre. Filion's (2018) study of Toronto-area suburban downtowns built out through the 1970s and 1980s (not including Markham Centre) finds that car-oriented design and shopping malls with large lots for free parking and minimal transit service has prevented a transformation in suburban transportation patterns and ways of life. The more successful of the older Urban Growth Centres concentrate high density mixed land uses, have streets conducive to walking, and are served by high-order transit that connects dense clusters to many destinations in the region (Filion, 2018;Filion, McSpurren, & Appleby, 2006).…”

Populists and planners: ‘We are the people. Who are you?’*

“…It is important to the analysis of the relation between populism and planning to know in which segment authoritarian populists place the planners. A well-documented answer is lacking, although a few papers indicate tension between planners and populists (Filion, 2011, 2018; Trapenberg Frick, 2013; Trapenberg Frick et al, 2015). Lower level elites earn their position by having expert knowledge in fields acknowledged as relevant by the top echelon.…”

“…Most of the papers lack appeal to authoritarian populists, as the texts convey the need of marginalized groups for recognition and fair treatment. However, counter-conduct means struggle against processes designed to control others (Huxley, 2018), which is relevant for resistance of ‘the people’ against governing elites, including opposition to the discipline and surveillance embedded in planning regulations (Filion, 2011, 2018; Trapenberg Frick, 2016). A dilemma haunts populist activism though.…”

“…Few contributions to recent planning literature deal with populist ideology and political practice. Filion (2011, 2018) tells how a populist mayor reversed the city planning agenda by ending densification and making Toronto more automobile friendly. Griggs and Howarth (2008) link populism to planning via the concept of localism and a popular campaign against expanded transport infrastructure in the South-East of England.…”