Families in Toronto

[UserNameToronto]

I'm guessing you live in East London then? I used to live Bethnal Green.

The big issue here is that I'm not sure what people mean by "the core."

Relative to Union Station, Hackney would be somewhere out in the Beaches or Leslieville, areas which do have large family populations.

I like East London, but I'm in N1, Zone 1. It's a 30 minute walk to the City (financial district), through Hoxton which is literally a 15 minute walk to the financial district. These places are much closer to the centre than, say, the Beaches is to King & Bay.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I like East London, but I'm in N1, Zone 1. It's a 30 minute walk to the City (financial district), through Hoxton which is literally a 15 minute walk to the financial district. These places are much closer to the centre than, say, the Beaches is to King & Bay.

I was born in Lewisham, and lived in Catford before emigrating to Canada in 1976. Whenever I go back and drive through my old South-East London neighbourhood I don't see any attempt at gentrification, but instead the area has surrendered to low income and neglect.

 

[UserNameToronto]

I was born in Lewisham, and lived in Catford before emigrating to Canada in 1976. Whenever I go back and drive through my old South-East London neighbourhood I don't see any attempt at gentrification, but instead the area has surrendered to low income and neglect.

Ah, right on. Sarf Lonnon. SE London is a bit nicer due to the Overground now (Peckham, Brockley & Sydenham).

I came to the UK with the intent to buy but decided not to. In Toronto, it's easy to see which neighbourhoods will gentrify. Places like Leslieville can turn from blue-collar to white-collar within a decade. But bits of London can stay dodgy for what seems like forever, in part because the state plays such a large role in subsidizing housing costs for low income folks (the same folks who, in Toronto, would be just squeezed out to the inner suburbs or further). Very different systems, yielding very different results.

 

[Admiral Beez]

But bits of London can stay dodgy for what seems like forever, in part because the state plays such a large role in subsidizing housing costs for low income folks

Don't forget all the council houses the gov't sold off in the 1970s and 1980s for far less than market, which have become today's squalid rentals.

I'm going to the UK this summer, flight to Edinburgh, touring Scotland, then drive to England to visit family, then a few days shopping in London.

 

[UserNameToronto]

Don't forget all the council houses the gov't sold off in the 1970s and 1980s for far less than market, which have become today's squalid rentals.

I'm going to the UK this summer, flight to Edinburgh, touring Scotland, then drive to England to visit family, then a few days shopping in London.

Indeed - UK ex council houses are so weird. They were built by the state en masse after WWII. At the peak in 1979, 32% of all housing in the UK was state owned. But then these flats were sold off under Thatcher in the 1980s, and many made their way into the hands of private buy-to-let landlords.

The state will pay money directly to private landlords in order to house people on benefits (something that would seem weird to a Canadian). More oddly, this rent amount is based on the average flat rental for an area...up to gbp285/week for a 1-bedroom, which is about $1,960/month. It's expensive for the state to fund, and bad for the tenants, and also serves to entrench poverty in certain areas. At least crappy housing in Toronto - Parkdale, St Jamestown - is cheap!

Sources: http://www.economist.com/node/17465301?story_id=E1_TSQGVPDT , http://www.psi.org.uk/publications/archivepdfs/Changing role/HOUS1.pdf

 

[RC8]

The result? The public school system is unusable. Very few private homeowners send their children to these awful schools. Either you can afford private school, or you move out to the burbs. The result is loads of lower income kids living one existence (social housing, terrible schools) and higher class kids living a very different one (lovely housing, private schools). Nothing in between.

I wonder if the % mix of social housing in the area, perhaps a reduction from 64% to 10%, would lower competition for housing. This would lower prices and make room for a middle class element. If middle class parents sent their kids to public schools, perhaps they would improve as well.

The other byproduct is that there are a lot of disaffected youths in the area. They can be dangerous and muggings are not uncommon.

I've experienced that reality myself, and share your concerns. But that's what social inequality does. It's not the low-income families per se, it's the massive gap between the upper middle-class and low income types.

 

[nfitz]

Is that a question?

Yes, it's a question. I'm sorry the lack of a question mark lead to your confusion.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Yes, it's a question. I'm sorry the lack of a question mark lead to your confusion.

Apology accepted. However, what led you to a soft and malleable metal?

 

[nfitz]

Apology accepted. However, what led you to a soft and malleable metal?

Ah ... you mistook my verb for a noun, and assumed I was talking in the past tense.

However, I was using the present tense, as I assumed you confusion wasn't only in the past.

I wasn't entirely grammatically correct though ... I should have said "I'm sorry the lack of question marks leads to your confusion".

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Ah ... you mistook my verb for a noun, and assumed I was talking in the past tense.

However, I was using the present tense, as I assumed you confusion wasn't only in the past.

I wasn't entirely grammatically correct though ... I should have said "I'm sorry the lack of question marks leads to your confusion".

Nfitz I though you lived in Stouffville??, maybe I am wrong.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I think all families are neglected and under represented in the core and its surroundings. There's very few families moving into the city compared to the number of families moving out of it. Some people think this is a good thing, whereas I personally think it's terrible.

Measures to bring families back into the core should offer incentives to all social classes.

Agreed,

 

[James]

Interesting article in Toronto Life..."Stuck in Condoland" about families in the downtown Toronto core, raising their families in condos.



Stuck in Condoland

In a city where space is at a premium, tiny condos are the new family home. Learning to survive in 700 square feet

Full article: http://www.torontolife.com/informer...in-condoland/?page=all#tlb_multipage_anchor_1

 

[Ex-Montreal Girl]

Interesting article in Toronto Life..."Stuck in Condoland" about families in the downtown Toronto core, raising their families in condos.



Stuck in Condoland

In a city where space is at a premium, tiny condos are the new family home. Learning to survive in 700 square feet

Full article: http://www.torontolife.com/informer...in-condoland/?page=all#tlb_multipage_anchor_1

Not to keep beating my drum but, as I have posted in this thread and others, developers are doing this all wrong. Now, with Keesmaat's plan for avenues, we're going to see a lot of opportunities for for high-end midrises, 90-plus square feet in desirable neighbourhoods. My prediction is that there will be much demand, from downsizing boomers (such as ourselves who bought two years ago) and upsizing condo yuppies who don't want the mowing, raking, shovelling, commuting etc. They're used to the condo lifestyle and have come up with strategies, as have Montrealers, new Yorkers, Parisians etc., to raise families and have dogs in larger flats.

Next week there's a community meeting at Eastminster United regarding the plan for Broadview, between Pottery Rd and Danforth and, while I am sure some Playter Estates folks will protest, I say bring them on. Just stick to the plan: no taller than the street is wide, five hours of sunshine minimum, setbacks, street life. No exceptions, no running to the OMB, no messing with the valley/ravine the way the Minto Skyy did.

Those condos on Queen E. between Woodbine and Pleasantville are just great in my books.

I think too many developers lack imagination.

 

[James]

I, too, agree that it can work. It just needs to be designed from the forefront and not an afterthought. In our ever changing city, I find more and more Torontonians have no interest in mowing, raking, shovelling, etc. I'm talking about families here, not just single people. I know many families living in detached homes who hire lawn keepers, gardeners, snow removal, etc. The condo lifestyle is sought-after, or more specifically, it's the lifestyle that is sought-after. The condo is a means to attain that. As with all things luxury, it's going to trickle down. There are luxury condo units selling in the multi-million dollar range. One could buy a detached home in the city for that price but instead, the buyers are choosing the condo unit. If it's properly designed, stylish, functional and it makes financial sense, people will want to move into these types of homes.

 

[Ex-Montreal Girl]

I, too, agree that it can work. It just needs to be designed from the forefront and not an afterthought. In our ever changing city, I find more and more Torontonians have no interest in mowing, raking, shovelling, etc. I'm talking about families here, not just single people. I know many families living in detached homes who hire lawn keepers, gardeners, snow removal, etc. The condo lifestyle is sought-after, or more specifically, it's the lifestyle that is sought-after. The condo is a means to attain that. As with all things luxury, it's going to trickle down. There are luxury condo units selling in the multi-million dollar range. One could buy a detached home in the city for that price but instead, the buyers are choosing the condo unit. If it's properly designed, stylish, functional and it makes financial sense, people will want to move into these types of homes.

The other thing about condo living which people rarely mention is -- as long as you are in the right place, of course -- the amenities.
I never have to schlep to the post office to pick up a package. The concierges accept that stuff.
I used to pay $100 a month in gym fees. No longer. True,our gym is not gigantic and we don't have spin classes but we have top-of-the-line equipment, a newly-refurbished pool and new saunas. Just an elevator ride away.
I never have to clean off the car after a blizzard. (Plus lots of indoor visitor parking.)
If I would rather not entertain in my place, I have access to a party room which gives onto a beautiful patio.
We also have a games room and a library where residents leave the latest bestsellers and two retired librarians do the Dewey.
Monday night is Bridge night. Beginners are welcome.
There's a book club.
Twice weekly Tai Chi in the pool. Water aerobics too.
We have a newsletter and website which are great for community building and communication. (I used to know most of my neighbours on my Riverdale street but this is much better.)
Last, but not least, the security is great.

My maintenance fees give me all this. I tell my friends that we are living in a resort.

I doubt mid-priced ($750K+) mid-rise buildings with larger suites can manage a pool and some of the other benefits but, if a building extends along a block, it's possible I think.