Families in Toronto

[Whoaccio]

I would say that downtown home ownership is affordable to anyone making $80K or more for smallish condos, $100K or more for semis and single detached houses. I just ran a MLS search and found 20 detached, semis or single houses south of Bloor for between $400 and $500K. If your income isn't $100K or more then I'd say you will find home ownership outside of condos to be unaffordable. I imagine you can do it, but it'll be a stretch, especially if you have a couple of kids, and some vehicles.

That's a pretty high income group. If you are talking about a dual-income family, it is more manageable. Even there though, it's fairly common for one spouse to either stop working or switch to part-time employment after having a few kids, which can make living downtown very hard.

I find this concept really interesting. The need to have "space" and a "backyard" is a very American concept.

Well, Markham has no shortage of Chinese and South Asian immigrants looking for "space", which would seem to disprove that.

There are only so many ways to say this, but: all things being equal, people will live where it the best value. Period. If you can get an extra 1,000 sq ft by moving farther out, most people will do it. Or maybe they will just pay less for equivalent space. It doesn't matter whether they are American or Taiwanese.

 

[prosperegal]

That's a pretty high income group. If you are talking about a dual-income family, it is more manageable. Even there though, it's fairly common for one spouse to either stop working or switch to part-time employment after having a few kids, which can make living downtown very hard.



Well, Markham has no shortage of Chinese and South Asian immigrants looking for "space", which would seem to disprove that.

There are only so many ways to say this, but: all things being equal, people will live where it the best value. Period. If you can get an extra 1,000 sq ft by moving farther out, most people will do it. Or maybe they will just pay less for equivalent space. It doesn't matter whether they are American or Taiwanese.

They want that because it's very, very different from what they got in the old country. In Hong Kong, for example, the typical middle class family of four probably lives in a 800 sq ft unit with two bedroom. When they come here, they don't necessarily want the same thing, but something bigger, with more space. That's why, in the early 90s, many smaller post, WWII homes were torn down for McMansions.

 

[greenleaf]

There are only so many ways to say this, but: all things being equal, people will live where it the best value. Period. If you can get an extra 1,000 sq ft by moving farther out, most people will do it. Or maybe they will just pay less for equivalent space.

For me, my time is way more valuable than the amount of space I have.

I don't understand the notion of people moving so far away from the city centre just for another bedroom or two and a small plot of grass when they are spending hours commuting. What's the point point of a toddler having their own play space and bathroom if they don't get to see their parents?

I think the 21st century trend will be to live where you work because in these situations, an individual has more time and thus more freedom.

If you work in the suburbs, then I can imagine living in the suburbs (with the added space).

 

[Whoaccio]

^
Well, notice I said "all things being equal", which of course is rarely the case. Proximity to work/school is one of the most common reasons for urban living. It just doesn't apply to enough people.

In any case, I'm not exactly sure there is always a time-benefit to living downtown, at least on the downtown-periphery. How long is the streetcar in from Parkdale or the Beaches to the CBD? My guess is a typical suburban commute, within reason (~30km) isn't really that much longer, at least not long enough to justify the pretty serious price premium on urban living.

My point was less that it always makes sense to live in one place over another, just that people are fairly rational about where they live. Families don't move to the 'burbs because they have been brainwashed into doing so by the omnipresent North American Suburberati and some irrational desire for backyards. It's mainly because their lower disposable incomes predispose them to cheaper suburban housing. Fortunately, we can change that. Just focus on making housing cheaper, or work on raising median incomes. If we get the balance right on those, people will start moving into the City by themselves. The anthropological explanations of suburbanization are counter-productive. though. Most people do like living in the City, they just can't afford it. Explaining their behavior as some kind of philistine nature just makes some people feel special.

 

[kettal]

It's mainly because their lower disposable incomes predispose them to cheaper suburban housing. Fortunately, we can change that. Just focus on making housing cheaper, or work on raising median incomes. If we get the balance right on those, people will start moving into the City by themselves. The anthropological explanations of suburbanization are counter-productive. though. Most people do like living in the City, they just can't afford it. Explaining their behavior as some kind of philistine nature just makes some people feel special.

The desire for urbanism is really something that applies to todays young generation, but not the generations that preceded us. It wasn't too long ago when most of downtown was considered a slum, and an apartment on Queen street was cheaper, and considered less desirable, than a similar sized unit in Scarborough.

The suburban mentality was built on a lot more than just price, but we are seeing a shift in perceptions.

 

[Ex-Montreal Girl]

The Millennials are Coming

The desire for urbanism is really something that applies to todays young generation, but not the generations that preceded us. It wasn't too long ago when most of downtown was considered a slum, and an apartment on Queen street was cheaper, and considered less desirable, than a similar sized unit in Scarborough.

The suburban mentality was built on a lot more than just price, but we are seeing a shift in perceptions.

This from the Globe's Lisa Rochon, which is hardly surprising:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/why-the-cities-of-the-future-belong-to-the-millennial-generation/article11154532/

None of this will change when these young people start having families and find that a house in the core is neither available nor affordable. These people will be seeking family-sized condos, close to parks and schools and daycares. Who says you can't put a school in a podium? It's been done elsewhere.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

None of this will change when these young people start having families and find that a house in the core is neither available nor affordable. These people will be seeking family-sized condos, close to parks and schools and daycares. Who says you can't put a school in a podium? It's been done elsewhere.

It's been done in Toronto. St. Lawrence's schools are below the apartments.

 

[Southcore]

It's been done in Toronto. St. Lawrence's schools are below the apartments.

I think she was referring to something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_Spruce_Street

 

[TrickyRicky]

Whoaccio, people act in what they perceive is their best interest.

The key component of that sentence is not the "best interest" part, it's the "perceive" or perception part. That is why I can't agree with your analysis. People are only rational actors in so far as they are driven by their self perception.

 

[AnnetteMeetsJane]

I think she was referring to something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_Spruce_Street

I agree and that obviously is the way of the future in a rapidly densifying city. However, persuade the trustees of the TDSB that an elementary school doesn't have to be a two or three-storey building surrounded by a large playing field... They get themselves confused with Parks & Rec.

Many rue the North Toronto CI experience as it ran over budget - but when does a TDSB project not run over budget?

 

[Admiral Beez]

What can be done to get more families living in City of Toronto?

When I moved into Cabbagetown in 1998 there were few kids. Now I see dozens of families with young kids, including my own. It's a cyclical thing, which is why you have to be careful in closing schools, as you may well need them in 10 years time.

 

[Johnny Au]

There is a reason why Cabbagetown is a popular place for trick-or-treating.

Old Victorian-style houses + childless residents with time and money to decorate their houses and provide candy + many children from neighbouring areas who are new to the custom = FUN HALLOWEEN!

 

[wopchop]

When I moved into Cabbagetown in 1998 there were few kids. Now I see dozens of families with young kids, including my own. It's a cyclical thing, which is why you have to be careful in closing schools, as you may well need them in 10 years time.

Yeah, exactly. St. Clair West is in a similar phase. Lots of families.

 

[AnnetteMeetsJane]

When I moved into Cabbagetown in 1998 there were few kids. Now I see dozens of families with young kids, including my own. It's a cyclical thing, which is why you have to be careful in closing schools, as you may well need them in 10 years time.

Which is the main argument for keeping them moth-balled BUT many school buildings across the city are already old (50-100 yrs) and coming to the end of their lifespan. There is a major maintenance backlog problem (like 100's of millions across the TDSB system and growing) and the operational budget is being siphoned off to keep up with urgent day-to-day maintenance. Queen's Park funds the school boards to provide education, on a per student basis, and small schools cost far more per head than QP pays and empty schools attract no funding at all. It is impossible going forward to simply moth-ball under-utilised buildings on the school boards dime, keeping on skeleton maintenance staff and keeping the roof intact, just in case a building may be needed in 10 years time. Every penny spent on an under-utilized school this year (a) takes money out of the budget for educational services to the kids we have now and (b) incurs a financial penalty in the following year's allocation from QP.

Right now the elementary school population is beginning to rise across the city but the growth is very patchy, and the projections do not necessarily match the spaces that exist and won't fill all the seats in classrooms. Parents increasingly demand specialist programs, which necessitates larger (consolidated) school populations to have sufficient numbers to make them viable. At the high school level the TDSB is losing (I believe) 7,000 per year and the projections say that there will never again be enough students in the system to fill the high schools we already have. The TDSB simply can't afford to keep all the school sites that it currently has.

Fundamentally, the population of this city needs to face up to the fact that the boards have to make some strategic decisions about the buildings and sites they can afford to keep, and let the rest go. Demanding that kids shouldn't have to travel more than 1.3 km to school is not realistic, and crazy when the majority are driven to school anyway. In other cities across the world, both elementary and high school kids use public transit to get to school when it is beyond walking distance.The expectation of having school buildings in everyone's backyard, just in case kids move in in 10 years time is not realistic - I am sorry, it is always going to be more pragmatic to move kids to buildings than buildings to kids. Education boards have to focus on education and not real estate management.

AmJ

 

[Glen]

While I have not had a good look at the TDSB's data, off the top of my head I would think that the best course of action would be for them to close all the middle schools. Go up to grade 8 in P/J, 9+ in high school.