Families in Toronto

[Johnny Au]

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.

Let me use my old middle school for example. Arlington Middle School is now a Hebrew Day school; neighbouring elementary schools (J.R. Wilcox, Cedarvale, West Prep, and Humewood) go to Grade 8; Briar Hill closed. Note that the former city of York's population is rapidly aging and is losing population (the only former municipality that is losing population).

 

[RC8]

I don't think there is anything you can do about it, especially in DT, I grew up in suburb and I loved it! So did my siblings we were very fortunate that we grew up there, it's very quiet and peaceful.

Large swaths of Downtown can be much more peaceful and family friendly than any other part of the city if planned correctly into the future. They can do this while retaining substantial night-life and entertainment options, too.

 

[Ex-Montreal Girl]

Large swaths of Downtown can be much more peaceful and family friendly than any other part of the city if planned correctly into the future. They can do this while retaining substantial night-life and entertainment options, too.

Hear, hear!

Kids don't always want "peaceful and quiet." Sometimes it leads to boredom and trouble. (Drinking, drugs, break-ins etc.) Hanging out at the mall is hardly a cultural experience. Being driven everywhere doesn't teach you about the world.

My two nieces who grew up in Oakville don't have half the sophistication, independence, culture etc. that my two nieces who grew up in Riverdale do, and they are the exact same age with almost identical parents politically and culturally. The differences started with walking or taking the TTC to school, finding places to meet friends on the Danforth, and so on. The former two know chain stores, the latter two know cool little indie and vintage places on Queen E. and W. And on it goes.

 

[AnnetteMeetsJane]

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.

As Johnny Au explained, current TDSB policy is consistent with Glen's hunch. There are not many Jr. Highs left in the system now. However, creation of JK-8 schools and 9+ high schools is driven by current educational research which shows that gr. 7 and 8 kids do better in terms of academic achievement when they remain with a school that knows them rather than transitioning at gr. 7. The board is doing as you suggest, but not for the reason you suggest it and if/when educational fashion changes, so will TDSB policy.
AND - one size solutions are rarely optimal. In our community, the JK-8 schools are over-capacity and currently struggling to accommodate full day kindergarten, but the Tech. building is under-utilized. There is a pragmatic argument to create a Jr. High in the Tech building (which has a swimming pool, theatre, workshops etc.) and change the local JK-8's to JK-6's to relieve serious over-crowding - but that isn't going to happen because it is against TDSB policy. Instead they are going to put 4 yr. olds in the basement of a 100 yr. old school, where the basement floods on a fairly regular basis and there is very limited natural daylight...

However, all this is a distraction from the fundamental problem of too many not-fit-for-purpose buildings, that are not necessarily where they need to be, either now or in the future. Retaining the status quo 'just in case' is not workable, optimal or perhaps even desirable - but that point of view is a tough sell for a trustee who wants to be re-elected.

 

[prosperegal]

As Johnny Au explained, current TDSB policy is consistent with Glen's hunch. There are not many Jr. Highs left in the system now. However, creation of JK-8 schools and 9+ high schools is driven by current educational research which shows that gr. 7 and 8 kids do better in terms of academic achievement when they remain with a school that knows them rather than transitioning at gr. 7. The board is doing as you suggest, but not for the reason you suggest it and if/when educational fashion changes, so will TDSB policy.
AND - one size solutions are rarely optimal. In our community, the JK-8 schools are over-capacity and currently struggling to accommodate full day kindergarten, but the Tech. building is under-utilized. There is a pragmatic argument to create a Jr. High in the Tech building (which has a swimming pool, theatre, workshops etc.) and change the local JK-8's to JK-6's to relieve serious over-crowding - but that isn't going to happen because it is against TDSB policy. Instead they are going to put 4 yr. olds in the basement of a 100 yr. old school, where the basement floods on a fairly regular basis and there is very limited natural daylight...

However, all this is a distraction from the fundamental problem of too many not-fit-for-purpose buildings, that are not necessarily where they need to be, either now or in the future. Retaining the status quo 'just in case' is not workable, optimal or perhaps even desirable - but that point of view is a tough sell for a trustee who wants to be re-elected.

I think most of the middle schools/junior highs are what used to be called North York. Lat I checked, most are still there. Another option is to elementary schools and then middle/high schools. This is common in the private/independent school world (think BSS, Havergal, etc...) where kids "graduate" from the junior/lower school in Grade 6 and go on to the "senior school" for Grade 7 (even if they're part of the "middle" division). As a graduate of such a school (BSS '98), I can attest that there aren't any more (or fewer) weirdos/kids who don't transition well than in schools where kids graduate in Grade 8.

ETA: I think the TDSB has approximately 50 middle schools (this includes schools (usually with specialized programs) starting as early Grade 4 as well as the small handful of "junior high schools" in North York that range from Grade 7 to Grade 9). I spent a year in a North York middle school that ran from Grade 6 to Grade 8.

 

[js97]

Hear, hear!

Kids don't always want "peaceful and quiet." Sometimes it leads to boredom and trouble. (Drinking, drugs, break-ins etc.) Hanging out at the mall is hardly a cultural experience. Being driven everywhere doesn't teach you about the world.

My two nieces who grew up in Oakville don't have half the sophistication, independence, culture etc. that my two nieces who grew up in Riverdale do, and they are the exact same age with almost identical parents politically and culturally. The differences started with walking or taking the TTC to school, finding places to meet friends on the Danforth, and so on. The former two know chain stores, the latter two know cool little indie and vintage places on Queen E. and W. And on it goes.

Now that's just personal prejudice. What's wrong with big box stores vs 'cool indie'? I grew up on College st, when it was actually Italian, but I also moved to the burbs after highschool. It's just different way of life and culture, it doesn't necessary mean less 'sophistication' or culture (culture itself is subjective). One could say downtowners are barbaric traveling on human peddle power vs a cutting edge hybrid motor vehicle.

 

[Ex-Montreal Girl]

You mean human feet power, shurely. LOL.

Oh and I note that no recommendations in the eatery thread include a Jack Astor's or a Keg.

 

[TrickyRicky]

One of the interesting things about families in the city in my part of the city (the old city of Toronto) is the rise in high income household (in other words the competitive elite) and what this says about how we define status in our culture and how that status differentiation is evolving.

Having a family in the city is not just about convenience or principles, it's a significant status indicator. For example, in our grand parents generation having a car was a status indicator, in our parents generation having two cars or even three cars was a status indicator. I feel for many now, having no car is now an indicator of status because car ownership is possible even among the poor and walkable neighbourhoods are at a premium. In the same fashion having a family in the city is hard, and so by definition a statement of status. Increasingly raising your family in the suburbs will be associated with low status because it is easier and common place. Suburban living offers more space and so, in the same way 3 cars is higher status than 1 car, suburban living was attractive to the competitive elite. However, I think the relationship between that kind of material conspicuous consumption and status is erroding, or at least becoming more complicated.

 

[prosperegal]

Now that's just personal prejudice. What's wrong with big box stores vs 'cool indie'? I grew up on College st, when it was actually Italian, but I also moved to the burbs after highschool. It's just different way of life and culture, it doesn't necessary mean less 'sophistication' or culture (culture itself is subjective). One could say downtowners are barbaric traveling on human peddle power vs a cutting edge hybrid motor vehicle.

Big box stores can be accessed just about anywhere, where as "cool indie" is just that. There are people I know who are so suburban that when they travel elsewhere in the country, they prefer to eat at places like, say, Milestones than something that is more local.

 

[Ex-Montreal Girl]

One of the interesting things about families in the city in my part of the city (the old city of Toronto) is the rise in high income household (in other words the competitive elite) and what this says about how we define status in our culture and how that status differentiation is evolving.

Having a family in the city is not just about convenience or principles, it's a significant status indicator. For example, in our grand parents generation having a car was a status indicator, in our parents generation having two cars or even three cars was a status indicator. I feel for many now, having no car is now an indicator of status because car ownership is possible even among the poor and walkable neighbourhoods are at a premium. In the same fashion having a family in the city is hard, and so by definition a statement of status. Increasingly raising your family in the suburbs will be associated with low status because it is easier and common place. Suburban living offers more space and so, in the same way 3 cars is higher status than 1 car, suburban living was attractive to the competitive elite. However, I think the relationship between that kind of material conspicuous consumption and status is erroding, or at least becoming more complicated.

Brilliant.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Brilliant.

+1

A couple of status-seeking LawPark friends of mine had a 3rd or 4th kid for the same reason, IMHO. They could afford it, so they had an extra kid. Do they love them? Absolutely. But 20 years ago, they'd have stopped at 1 as that was the fashion then.

 

[RC8]

What's wrong with big box stores vs 'cool indie'?

For the most part it's a matter of quality. The big store predominantly suburban lifestyle facilitates owning great quantities of things: a big house (made out of cardboard), big meals (made by disinterested clinically depressed teenagers, and designed by some corporate guru in L.A.), many pairs of (sweatshop) shoes, cheap beer (made with high fructose corn syrup), and a massive car (that comes with a massive commute), etc.

It's not that the big box mentality isn't alive and well in the city, but the urban landscape allows for alternatives. If you so wish, you can have smaller and fresher meals made by someone who cares, live in a small house or apartment that is convenient and requires little maintenance, you can get a smaller amount of clothes but have them made by local designers, and you can move around on a bicycle and - like me - have an enjoyable 15 minute commute that is also a healthy workout. Beer selection tends to be huge in urban cores, too

It is insanely difficult to live prioritising quality in big box suburbia. It is structured to encourage consumption and economic centralisation on the back of the perceived benefits of economies of scale. I know, I tried!

 

[Ex-Montreal Girl]

Thanks for that. Couldn't have said it better.

But the other thing, as this is an urban forum, is that it is important to note that big box is about car-centered culture. Bix box demands huge parking lots. Big box depletes small town cores, of life, commerce and money. True there are 'power centers' in central Toronto. I am often up in Leaside, at the Home Depot mostly. But I only go when I can't find what I want locally. For example, I recently bought B&W speakers which i could have sourced at Best Buy or Future Shop. But, instead, I went to Brentwood Electronics on Mt. Pleasant where I also got a deal on a ginormous LG plasma TV. Personal service matters to me.

 

[js97]

For the most part it's a matter of quality. The big store predominantly suburban lifestyle facilitates owning great quantities of things: a big house (made out of cardboard), big meals (made by disinterested clinically depressed teenagers, and designed by some corporate guru in L.A.), many pairs of (sweatshop) shoes, cheap beer (made with high fructose corn syrup), and a massive car (that comes with a massive commute), etc.

It's not that the big box mentality isn't alive and well in the city, but the urban landscape allows for alternatives. If you so wish, you can have smaller and fresher meals made by someone who cares, live in a small house or apartment that is convenient and requires little maintenance, you can get a smaller amount of clothes but have them made by local designers, and you can move around on a bicycle and - like me - have an enjoyable 15 minute commute that is also a healthy workout. Beer selection tends to be huge in urban cores, too

It is insanely difficult to live prioritising quality in big box suburbia. It is structured to encourage consumption and economic centralisation on the back of the perceived benefits of economies of scale. I know, I tried!

You don't have to convince me of that lifestyle. I went from living on Blue Jays way before condos were so 'hip' to facing Trinity-Bellwoods Park to Riverdale. I just think it's a little pompous for people to discount a completely different way of life. I don't think people 'plan' on commuting, but you just get more 'bang' for your buck. Wait until you have other dependants... being single in a bachelor pad is very different than raising childern and needing more space.

 

[prosperegal]

You don't have to convince me of that lifestyle. I went from living on Blue Jays way before condos were so 'hip' to facing Trinity-Bellwoods Park to Riverdale. I just think it's a little pompous for people to discount a completely different way of life. I don't think people 'plan' on commuting, but you just get more 'bang' for your buck. Wait until you have other dependants... being single in a bachelor pad is very different than raising childern and needing more space.

Families in Europe and Asia live in smaller spaces and manage to survive, so it's not about really about dependents, just personal choice. And since I consider cars a necessary evil, we will probably sacrifice space and live in a pedestrian and transit-friendly area (which is mostly in town) than going up to the 905.