Family Sized Condos

[hbl33]

Downtown is not really ideal for large families, are they?

Then again, there is Cherry Beach, The Ex, Toronto Island...

 

[Dugmor]

Children aren't gazelles.

That's arbitrary.

 

[Dugmor]

Downtown is not really ideal for large families, are they?

Then again, there is Cherry Beach, The Ex, Toronto Island...

What's there to do at The Ex? It's only busy a couple of weeks a year.

 

[hbl33]

I meant the Exhibition Place (and Ontario Place across Lakeshore).

It is not only busy during The Ex, but also Toronto FC matches and other various events, not to mention Caribana, marathon and various exhibitions.
Most of them are seasonal events, but does not mean it is less frequently visited.

 

[WillC]

Previously Vaughan seemed like a dilettante, since he's annoying the self-indulgent set he must be doing something right. If people have to chose to have a child does that mean they can only live in suburbs?

There is much more to do in a city for parents, and any child over the age of 5. I would hate to contemplate living in Don Mills without a car, but kids can TTC to so many activities in the city. All I ever hear from teenage relatives outside the central city is how boring it is, getting a drive to the nearest mall, and hanging around there.

Thanks Vaughan. Let children have the vibrant life in a city.

 

[taal]

Shut up Adam Vaughan
From the man who wanted to tax night clubs for using sidewalks, comes this brilliant piece of policy: telling developers what kind of homes they can build.

Toronto Councillor Adam Vaughan wants to ensure that 10% of condos built are "family friendly." He is concerned that downtown will become a "Child free zone." Has Mr. Vaughan given any thought to the possibility that most people with children don't want to live downtown? And if they did the developers would build homes for them to capture that market.

This is just pure idiotic micromanagement by a dimwitted political hack.

Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on November 7, 2009 | Permalink

I'm curios, what is your problem with this specifically?

From a business point of view? This will limit the incentive and possibly # of new condos in the district?

Or having families live downtown?

I think the solution lies in knock out panels - if customer wants a 3+ bedroom the developer should be able to accommodate.

 

[hbl33]

I'm curios, what is your problem with this specifically?

From a business point of view? This will limit the incentive and possibly # of new condos in the district?

Or having families live downtown?

I think the solution lies in knock out panels - if customer wants a 3+ bedroom the developer should be able to accommodate.

But who in the city wants a 3+ bedroom in the downtown?
It would make sense in Sauga, Thornhill, North York and Scarboro, but downtown is catered not specifically for large families. Plus, 3+ bedrooms suites are not really designed for large families in T.O.

So far, the largest can be above 2000 sq. ft around T.O. which it looks feasible for a family, but the designs are not in mind for them.

 

[Whoaccio]

I think wanting families to live downtown is a noble enough goal, but Adam Vaughan should still shut up. Mandating x% of "family friendly" units in a building isn't going to make people want to live downtown more. Those "family friendly" units will still be expensive as all hell. More likely, this will just be a tool to extort developers for concessions (i.e. build a park here, I will endorse this...) and make councilors even more like little warlords.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

I think wanting families to live downtown is a noble enough goal, but Adam Vaughan should still shut up. Mandating x% of "family friendly" units in a building isn't going to make people want to live downtown more. Those "family friendly" units will still be expensive as all hell. More likely, this will just be a tool to extort developers for concessions (i.e. build a park here, I will endorse this...) and make councilors even more like little warlords.

But if it were made into a rule (i.e. mandatory), politicians/bureaucrats wouldn't be able to use it as a tool to extort. Have I missed something?

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

I'm curios, what is your problem with this specifically?

From a business point of view? This will limit the incentive and possibly # of new condos in the district?

Or having families live downtown?

I think the solution lies in knock out panels - if customer wants a 3+ bedroom the developer should be able to accommodate.

I assumed the OP was quoting some comments-section post, and doing so to make fun of said post. I thought Hugh McIntyre was someone's idea of a Toronto-version of Stephen Colbert.

 

[adma]

I assumed the OP was quoting some comments-section post, and doing so to make fun of said post. I thought Hugh McIntyre was someone's idea of a Toronto-version of Stephen Colbert.

Or he just forgot to include the link. But again, consider the source. The inadvertent Colbertianism speaks for itself.

 

[adma]

I wasn't necessarily insinuating for the kids to use the ravines. But living outside of the core offers more for children. There's more open space for them to use.

Funny. The setting for Sesame Street is as hemmed-in urban-core as it gets, and it doesn't feel like children are any poorer for it.

When it comes to stimulating children, it isn't all about space, it's all about life. And besides, raw immediate availability of open space hasn't necessarily made those growing up outside the core any less "dysfunctional"--it ain't the setting, it's the way you grow up in it...

 

[Automation Gallery]

I'm curios, what is your problem with this specifically?

If your directing me, i have no problem. i grew up as a downtown kid and would not trade it for anything in the world.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

Or he just forgot to include the link. But again, consider the source. The inadvertent Colbertianism speaks for itself.

Now I'm even more confused. The source is as wingnutty as can be, yet in this thread there is apparently significant opposition to Vaughan's push for a 10% minimum of family-sized units, and the arguments against Vaughan's position rely on the real-world equivalent of a Jim Lahey rant as their foundational document.

I need to go back to bed.

 

[greenleaf]

But who in the city wants a 3+ bedroom in the downtown?
It would make sense in Sauga, Thornhill, North York and Scarboro, but downtown is catered not specifically for large families. Plus, 3+ bedrooms suites are not really designed for large families in T.O.

So far, the largest can be above 2000 sq. ft around T.O. which it looks feasible for a family, but the designs are not in mind for them.

I want to live downtown with my family.

If you work downtown, it makes less sense to live in the suburbs because you're spending your time commuting instead of spending time with your family! The city is your playground, not some little backyard that kids will outgrow by the time they're 5 years old anyway.