The Canadian Dream? Comparing the Densities of Modernist and New Urbanist Suburban Development – A Comparative Case Study of Don Mills, Toronto and Cornell, Markham
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This report compares the developments of Modernist Don Mills, Toronto and New Urbanist Cornell, Markham across various built form indicators, specifically gross and net residential density, housing mix, land use mix, and street design and circulation. This report assesses the similarities and differences between the developments, which were influenced by their respective suburban planning theories. These built form indicators represent key characteristics which contribute to urban design and morphology. Given that both sites were developed on greenfield, or undeveloped, lands on the urban fringe with a comparable area (835 hectares in Don Mills and 973 hectares in Cornell), the sites are suitable for comparison. \n \nDevelopment in Don Mills began in 1953, following the completion of the master plan in 1952. It followed the concepts of Modernism to separate land uses, support residential areas with recreational spaces, employ the Neighbourhood Unit concept, and provide residents with commercial and employment opportunities located in strategic areas. \n \nCornell was first conceived in 1988, with the master plan being completed in 1994 by Duany Plater-Zyberk Co., leading New Urbanist designers. They planned a walkable community based on the New Urbanist principles of mixing housing types, pedestrian scaled streetscapes, and enhancing a sense of community. The Cornell Centre area is the future core area of the project. A secondary plan was released in 2008 which planned for 10,000 residents and 5,000 units in the 240-hectare area. The secondary plan was last revised in 2015 and planned for 18,000 residents in 9,000 new units. \n \nThis report found that Cornell currently has a gross residential density that is 29% greater than 1965 Don Mills, with the 2015 plan supporting a residential density that will be 76% greater than the original Don Mills development. The current build-out of Cornell has a net residential density that is 71% greater than that of the original Don Mills. \n \nThis report also found that today’s Cornell has a comparable supply of single detached units compared to 1965 Don Mills, although Don Mills has a significantly higher proportion of high-density units and Cornell has a greater mix of medium density housing. Although the primary land use in both Don Mills and Cornell is residential, 1965 Don Mills had a greater supply and mix of non-residential land uses. Also, both developments utilized a street hierarchy system to reduce the amount of traffic on local roads to improve health, pedestrian safety, and reduce interactions with the neighbourhood interior and heavy traffic. Ultimately, both developments are successful in creating a sense of community for residents while efficiently planning for the allocation of land uses throughout the neighbourhood, despite Don Mills separating land uses and Cornell mixing compatible land uses.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».