The account of the evolution of nodal policies shows that to modify travel behaviour, nodes must be planned in a fashion that is coherent at three levels:
* the macro level, which pertains to their sought-after impact at a metropolitan scale;
* the meso level, which concerns the relationships between nodes and their environment (the city in which they are located, their catchment area, and nearby neighbourhoods);
* the micro level, which means their layout and design and the spatial interconnections between their activities.
Given the current attention paid to transportation goals -- the need to promote transit use, cycling and walking, and ensure shorter journeys -- at the macro scale, we could expect that at a meso scale, equal attention would be paid to the quality of walking, cycling, and public transit connections with the catchment area of a node, and at the micro scale to the creation within nodes of an environment that is stimulating to pedestrians and that ensures that they can easily reach all activities.
Table 1 summarizes the historical narrative and shows how different levels of government are responsible for the formulation of policies at different scales. Table 2 shows the evolution of institutional structures over time. Local governments have been for the most part responsible for the adoption of micro- and meso-scale objectives, whereas Metro Toronto and, more recently, the provincial government have largely defined macro-scale goals. This situation accounts for the uneven attention paid to the different scales. For example, since the provincial government has recently driven the planning agenda at the scale of the GGH, attention has focused on metropolitan-wide purposes and features of nodes. The meso- and micro-scale dimensions of nodes have received little consideration by comparison. At other times, the focus was on the meso rather than the macro scale; for example, when Mississauga adopted its city centre policy, the objective was to provide a centre for the city, not to contribute to an overall form of metropolitan development.
The most damaging consequences of inter-scalar coordination problems have arisen when planning taking place at one scale has been inconsistent with the goals formulated at another scale. This was notably the case with the Scarborough Town Centre and Mississauga City Centre, whose largely automobile-oriented environments contradict the function of nodes propounded by Metro Toronto, the OGTA, and present Provincial planning initiatives.
Even more serious than coordination problems is the difficulty of bringing planned nodes into existence. Despite 25 years of planning for nodes and the identification of 47 potential nodes in GTA planning documents, only three large suburban mixed-use nodes have been created. Other than Markham Centre, whose core is now under development thirteen years after planning for it began, no new large suburban node has emerged since the 1980s.
This observation suggests that the favourable conditions for nodal development that were present in the 1980s -- the availability of sites close to rail-based transit and interest on the part of office developers in such sites -- have waned. Nevertheless, planning interest at all levels of government in this form of development has remained as intense as ever. In consequence, over the last 15 years, the gap between node-related planning proposals and prevailing development patterns has only widened.
Table 1: The evolution of the nodal concept in the Greater Toronto Area
|
Planning exercise |
Period |
Macro scale: impacts at the metropolitan level |
Meso scale: relation to the municipality in which the node is located, to catchment areas and surrounding neighbourhoods |
Micro scale: layout and design of the node |
Implementation/impact |
|
Antecedents |
|||||
|
Juxtaposition of high-density residential developments and retail areas in the suburbs |
From the late 1950s onwards |
No concern for macro scale issues |
Provide a market for close-by stores; convenience for apartment dwellers; reduce reliance on the car locally |
Little consideration for design; poor integration of residential and retail areas apart from some pathways |
Major influence on the form of suburban development in the Toronto metropolitan region; ensures a mixture of residential densities |
|
Centres of master planned communities |
From the late 1950s to 1970s |
No concern for macro scale issues |
At the top of planned retail hierarchy; help structure master planned communities |
Pathway connections; but large surface parking lots around shopping malls |
Centres still in existence and functional today: Don Mills, Bramalea, Erin Mills, Meadowvale |
|
High-density mixed-use developments around subway stations |
1960s onwards |
Favour subway use |
Little concern for meso scale, i.e. relation with surrounding neighbourhoods |
Inserted within the existing grid; mixture of street orientation and landscaped setbacks |
Two such centres have developed at a high density and adopted a mixed-use pattern: Yonge-St. Clair and Yonge-Eglinton |
|
MTARTS (Metropolitan Toronto and Region Transportation Study) Subregional Centres |
1967 |
Defined as a metropolitan planning tool; decentralization of services meant to reduce the need for transportation |
Reduction of need for transportation is based on the relation between subregional centres and their catchment areas (portions of the metropolitan region) |
No consideration of the design of subregional centres or of the integration of activities within them |
Proposals had little influence on urban development, except perhaps as an inspiration for further plans |
|
The Metro Toronto Plan for the Urban Structure, and Mississauga City Centre |
|||||
|
Scarborough Official Plan amendment designates town centre |
1968 |
Little expression of macro-scale concerns |
Centre for the municipality |
Multi-functionality but no housing; automobile orientation |
Attracts mall, offices and public-sector activities |
|
North York Council approves the concept of centre along Yonge Street |
1977 |
Little expression of macro-scale concerns |
Centre for the municipality |
Multi-functional including housing. Doubts about the possibility of achieving pedestrian orientation |
Attracts public and private offices, housing and some retailing |
|
The Metro Toronto Sub-centre policy: Identifies two major centres (North York Centre and Scarborough Town Centre) and four intermediate centres (Eglinton, St. Clair, Islington/Kipling, Kennedy) |
1980 onwards |
Metropolitan goals: prevent over-concentration of downtown Toronto jobs and proliferation of auto-oriented suburban office parks; structure suburban areas; provide transit hubs |
Little concern for meso scale, i.e. relation with surrounding neighbourhoods |
Sub-centres defined as compact and pedestrian-oriented, but little attention paid to their actual layout and design |
Two major sub-centres take off; two intermediate sub-centres were already developed; and the two other intermediate sub-centres experience limited growth |
|
City of Mississauga reports and official plan: proposal of a Mississauga city centre |
1976-1981 onwards |
Little expression of macro-scale concern |
Key element of a strategy to become a complete city; attract high-order jobs and become civic, commercial and cultural centre for the city; contribute to encouraging transit use |
Little concern expressed about layout and design |
Successful in attracting activities |
|
IBI Group/OGTA (Office for the Greater Toronto Area) |
|||||
|
Introduction of the term "nodes"; identify 29 actual or possible nodes identified |
1990-1992 onwards |
No longer concern about downtown Toronto congestion; sustainable development perspective; limit sprawl; shorter journeys; encourage transit use and walking |
Little concern for relation to surrounding areas and catchment areas |
Little attention paid to layout and design, apart from the mention that nodes must be transit- and pedestrian-oriented |
Enthusiasm on the part of regional and municipal planning agencies for nodes; by 1997, 47 nodes are identified in official plans within the GTA, but relatively few of them materialize; all regional plans give predominance to the creation of nodes |
|
Local plans for nodes with a design emphasis |
|||||
|
North York Centre, Mississauga City Centre, Markham Central Area Planning District |
All three plans date from 1994 |
Little concern for the macro scale on the part of these documents |
Little concern for the meso scale, except for measures taken by North York to prevent encroachment on surrounding neighbourhoods |
Street orientation; retail facades lining sidewalks; do away with surface parking |
North York Centre achieves street orientation objectives largely because it consists of a redevelopment within an existing street network; little evidence of street orientation in Mississauga Centre; Markham City Centre still has to be launched |
|
Smart Growth and Places to Grow |
|||||
|
Between 24 and 26 nodes; renamed UGCs (Urban Growth Centres); include traditional downtowns and existing or planned suburban mixed-use centres |
2002- |
Part of smart growth strategy; reduce sprawl by accommodating a share of the growth to be directed towards the built-up area; reduce trip length and encourage walking, cycling and transit ridership, thus reducing congestion; hubs for public transit systems |
Acknowledges the existence of different types of UGCs; little in terms of meso-scale planning at this time |
Acknowledges the existence of different types of UGCs; little in terms of micro-scale planning at this time |
Planning process still in progress |