The Canadian Dream? Comparing the Densities of Modernist and New Urbanist Suburban Development – A Comparative Case Study of Don Mills, Toronto and Cornell, Markham
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".