Richard Florida (Rise of the Creative Class) Moving to Toronto

[Hipster Duck]

Hipster, thanks for spelling it out. I disagree though.

It is a convenient argument to say that we all want our cake and to eat it too. I would be great for everyone to be able to live close to work and family, in the neighbourhood of their liking with all the benefits of having close by amenities and live in an affordable detached house with a yard. It is impossible for everyone to do so.

Glen, I get the sense that you don't really understand what I'm talking about. I have, in my 6 or 7 posts on this thread, made this very clear: 1)people are motivated to "choose" a place to live based on much more personal and deep reasons than an implied preference for detached housing with a yard or urban amenities. 2) It doesn't matter what people want, there are so many limitations placed upon people that, in the end, their "choice" is a rather futile decision between 2 or 3 houses that really don't differ all that much in what they offer.

Care to point out where public transit is not, at minimum, as equally subsidised? Furthermore explain how Canada and Australia also produced similar urban/suburban environments in absence of a 'new deal' interstate network. Also missing from your analysis is the compounding influence of land supply.

It is easier to be critical of public transit subsidies because the costs are directly taken out of the public purse, but Reid Ewing has calculated that to fully capture the cost of driving, gas should be priced at $6.60 a gallon in the United States. That is in 1997 dollars. The external costs of driving include not only building roads, but maintaining and building private parking lots (a lot of which were, ironically, built by suburban municipalities as part of development schemes and incentives), the associated healthcare and lost productivity costs of motorist fatalities, keeping a permanent military presence in the Gulf (remember, this was in 1997), cost to the environment, lost productivity due to congestion, etc. Public transit subsidies pale in comparison with this figure. Now, I will admit that public transit subsidies have risen with diminishing rates of return, but that is more a statement on how difficult providing public transit has become in our decentralized cities. Public transit planning in North America is like swimming against a current: you are fighting an entrenched, 70 year-old legacy of automobile planning. Even if a city invests no money in automobile-related infrastructure while spending (or planning to spend) oodles on public transit (as is the case in the City of Toronto under David Miller), automobiles are such an entrenched system that it is hard to make a dent.

re: Australia and Canada. I don't know much about Australia, but in Canada there was simply no way that we couldn't follow the American lead. When the most powerful country in the world, and our greatest trading partner by several orders of magnitude completely overhauls their transportation infrastructure to one of automobile-dominance, what are we to do? The United States is, for better or worse, also where we get a lot of our ideas and where we naturally draw inspiration from. This affected city planning even if it didn't square with Canadian ideals. Despite the hegemony of the automobile, the fact that we never went quite as far as the Americans is reflected in the marginally denser character of our cities, our slightly higher public transit ridership, etc. For example, it's funny to see how the first generation strip malls in Toronto were built with apartments on top of them, as if they were a continuation of Toronto's commercial avenues with parking out front. I have never seen this in America.

 

[Glen]

Glen, I get the sense that you don't really understand what I'm talking about. I have, in my 6 or 7 posts on this thread, made this very clear: 1)people are motivated to "choose" a place to live based on much more personal and deep reasons than an implied preference for detached housing with a yard or urban amenities. 2) It doesn't matter what people want, there are so many limitations placed upon people that, in the end, their "choice" is a rather futile decision between 2 or 3 houses that really don't differ all that much in what they offer.

I appreciate that. What I disagree with is your contention that free from these concerns, a sizable percentage would not choose to live in the in the suburbs. Recall you said....

There are people out there that fit this description, whose primary motivation for moving to suburbia is to enjoy the creature comforts of a single family, detached house with a yard and a garage, but they represent a minority of the people who live in suburbia

I guess it just comes down to a difference of opinion into the number of people who like what the suburbs offer. I really you are underestimating here.


As far as transportation goes, it is really not that easy to put a price on it. I have read some estimates like Reid Ewing's before. They may even be his, I will have to look. Unfortunately such research is so heavily biased that it is hard to accept. Things like road cost being attributed only to vehicles, energy efficiency comparisons of peak transit use vs. single occupancy vehicles, the societal benefits are also frequently ignored.

 

[waterloowarrior]

I think most people would ultimately like their own single detached house and property, even urbanists like Richard Florida. I don't think the suburbs are the number one choice for everyone, but they are the best and most realistic option for people who want their own house, unless they are fairly wealthy or can stand a commute from a rural area to downtown.

If single detached housing wasn't in such high demand, you wouldn't see people moving all the way out to Milton/Cambridge/Brooklin/Barrie and commuting in, when there are plenty of more affordable townhome or apartment units available much closer to where they work.

I agree with Glen that there is plenty of choice involved. It's all about tradeoffs, weighing your priorities, and evaluating different options. If you want your own home, close to friends, and less than $250,000 yeah you might have only 2 or 3 options. But you've already made a lot of choices about what is important to you at that point.

Governments can influence the attractiveness of these housing choices through policy and infrastructure. Greenbelts with minimum housing densities may increase the cost of single detached homes and make townhomes and apartments more attractive for buyers. A highway could open up a new area for development and make single detached suburban living more attractive. Each society makes these kinds of choices - we are somewhere between the US and the UK.

If we didn't subsidize highways so much we'd probably have a much more compact, walkable, and transit-friendly urban form. But those who could afford it (especially families) would likely still generally prefer their own house and land.

Of course with more and more one-person households all of this may be less likely to be true (too much of a hassle)... but we are still have fewer one-person households than the United States, and single people still own single detached homes (may live alone, with a gf, be a widow or rent room to a friend)

 

[Disparishun]

I think most people would ultimately like their own single detached house and property, even urbanists like Richard Florida. I don't think the suburbs are the number one choice for everyone, but they are the best and most realistic option for people who want their own house, unless they are fairly wealthy or can stand a commute from a rural area to downtown.

I think that's true for people with kids. I don't think that's true for people without kids. For many the condo or downtown lifestyle is appealing, and for adults in a post-education, no-kids stage of life, it is realistic.

1)people are motivated to "choose" a place to live based on much more personal and deep reasons than an implied preference for detached housing with a yard or urban amenities.

Right. Making decisions is all about trade-offs. Suburban housing offers features that you take into account in those trade-offs.

I doubt anyone would take issue with this, though. The real discussion is what comes next. What those features are, the extent to which they will outweigh the features that you don't get in suburban housing, and to whom these features are attractive.

Here is an example. When we ultimately opted to live in the 905, what we were choosing was proximity to family, proximity to ethnic community and institutions, detached housing, affordable price, and relative walkability. (It's a fairly dense area and we walk to groceries, cafe, all that, in nearby strip mall.) There were trade-offs here and, begin different pricing, it might not have been our first choice -- greater walkability to various urban stuff, and better proximity to jobs, in particular.

But that's the way we went and, obviously, price was the major deciding factor. We do not regret our choice. Were single detached housing and a yard important? Yes, although we could have had that in a variety of areas. Were urban amenities important, too? Yes, although we have many of them at hand here in our corner of the 905. What was more important was price, ethnic, and family ties.

(Obviously, an attraction to cars or driving everywhere was not something we "voted for" in moving to 905 -- it was the major detractor, and the biggest minus in the plus-minus column.)

2) It doesn't matter what people want, there are so many limitations placed upon people that, in the end, their "choice" is a rather futile decision between 2 or 3 houses that really don't differ all that much in what they offer.

No, that doesn't sound right at all.

We had some pretty big choices to make in figuring out where to live when we moved to Toronto (for me, back to Toronto) from Montreal. These choices differed enormously in what they had to offer.

The houses were different; the communities in which they were located were different; the consequent cost, debt load, and employment decisions these required were very different; the impact on immediate and extended family would have been significantly different; and onwards.

 

[adma]

I think most people would ultimately like their own single detached house and property, even urbanists like Richard Florida.

For those of you squirming at that statement, you gotta keep in mind: "single detached house and property" also defines the Annex, Riverdale, the Junction, etc.

Heck, it even describes this.

 

[kEiThZ]

There are a lot of issues to be addressed by our society if we are make the transition to urban and denser living possible. Ever tried buying furniture for a tiny condo? It's really hard to get furniture that is stylish yet not bulky and not from Ikea in our Lazy Boy society. And what about condo fees. Older buildings in the GTA are starting to charge fees that approach that of a small rent payment elsewhere. The common refrain I hear from all my friends and family who are now getting married and settled down is why would I pay 400-500 bucks a month on condo fees for half the space. Either those fees gotta come down or the spaces have to go up I think to make condo living more attractive. And then as I have raised before are the way we build condos in the GTA...convenient for travel but rarely ever near family friendly parks, and sometimes not even near schools, etc.

And these issues add up....it's hard to compete with the sense of having a small plot of land and a detached house that's all yours which affords an unparalleled sense of privacy, security and independence. I am a condo guy through and through but even I find some of these issues difficult to challenge.

 

[taal]

There are a lot of issues to be addressed by our society if we are make the transition to urban and denser living possible. Ever tried buying furniture for a tiny condo? It's really hard to get furniture that is stylish yet not bulky and not from Ikea in our Lazy Boy society. And what about condo fees. Older buildings in the GTA are starting to charge fees that approach that of a small rent payment elsewhere. The common refrain I hear from all my friends and family who are now getting married and settled down is why would I pay 400-500 bucks a month on condo fees for half the space. Either those fees gotta come down or the spaces have to go up I think to make condo living more attractive. And then as I have raised before are the way we build condos in the GTA...convenient for travel but rarely ever near family friendly parks, and sometimes not even near schools, etc.

And these issues add up....it's hard to compete with the sense of having a small plot of land and a detached house that's all yours which affords an unparalleled sense of privacy, security and independence. I am a condo guy through and through but even I find some of these issues difficult to challenge.

Some good points overall but there are definitely some objections I have:
"... convenient for travel but rarely ever near family friendly parks, and sometimes not even near schools, etc."

Not really sure where your getting this from ... I'd argue the opposite if anything. Moreover, I'm sure there are just as many houses that are not beside parks or houses.

Now if your looking at other American cities I can make some sense of your logic, particularly, we usually only see condos downtown. That's not the case at all in the GTA.

Regarding owning your own land that's an issue society it self needs to address and unfortunately there is no easy answer. If you've ever lived in Europe in central cities you'd realize that mentality isn't shared across the world. Considering that even today way more subdivisions are built compared to condos in North America I don't think we'll see an solution for many many decades. The simple fact is that the American / Canadian dream per say is to own your own house / land.

 

[waterloowarrior]

Regarding owning your own land that's an issue society it self needs to address and unfortunately there is no easy answer. If you've ever lived in Europe in central cities you'd realize that mentality isn't shared across the world. Considering that even today way more subdivisions are built compared to condos in North America I don't think we'll see an solution for many many decades. The simple fact is that the American / Canadian dream per say is to own your own house / land.

I believe the same is also true in Australia, New Zealand

Looks like there are some wikipedia article about it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_dream
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Dream


Is the same true in the UK?

 

[Tewder]

Glen, I get the sense that you don't really understand what I'm talking about. I have, in my 6 or 7 posts on this thread, made this very clear: 1)people are motivated to "choose" a place to live based on much more personal and deep reasons than an implied preference for detached housing with a yard or urban amenities. 2) It doesn't matter what people want, there are so many limitations placed upon people that, in the end, their "choice" is a rather futile decision between 2 or 3 houses that really don't differ all that much in what they offer.

I'm agreeing with Glen here.

Hipster, your point is not just relevent to suburbia. People also 'choose' the city for reasons other than the implied preferences for galleries, coffee shops, experimental theatre etc. Many groups feel a 'need' or lack of choice to live in the city. Immigrants may feel comfortable in certain inner-city nabes because they are near others who share language and customs even if they find those same areas to be dirty, crowded and undesireable as described in the article referenced. Gay people may feel more at home in a 'safety in numbers' way in the city even if their life dream is for a suburban home with a partner and children etc. We are all limited by choices but the fact remains in an 'all things being equal' way there are those who do 'choose' suburbia simply because it is what they prefer.

 

[Whoaccio]

This is one of the more major flaws with the "creative class" thing. More educate immigrants overwhelmingly seem to choose the suburbs.

Nicholas Keung
Lesley Ciarula Taylor
Immigration Reporters

Recent immigrants in smaller suburban communities are faring better than those setting roots in big cities when it comes to jobs, incomes and homeownership, says a new study that measures newcomers' life quality across Canada.

The report shows immigrants to the Greater Toronto Area are increasingly choosing the 905 regions as their destination over Toronto. Even those initially settling in the city are then moving on to the suburbs.

The study, conducted by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, compared how newcomers who have been in the country for five years or more and living in the suburbs fared against their counterparts in the city. It found those living outside big cities were less likely to be living off social assistance, less likely to be unemployed, twice as likely to have a university degree and more likely to own homes.

Jyoti Shukla, her lawyer husband, Kamen, and their 12-year-old daughter, Vishwa, were drawn to Mississauga to live their suburban dream – and for its relatively lower costs of living when the family moved here from India in 2004.

"There are actually plenty of job opportunities for newcomers in the suburbs," said Shukla, 42, who has a master's degree in marketing and 18 years of business experience. "The city's job market is pretty saturated and it is too competitive. We are close enough to the city but out of the city. There is more stability and we feel more safe here."

The suburbanization trends, partially a result of Ottawa's push to spread immigrants evenly across the country, have led to a lose-lose situation for large and small communities alike: While big cities are finding it harder to meet their labour needs with the exodus of well-educated and highly skilled immigrants, their smaller counterparts struggle to accommodate the influx.

"While most immigrants continue to live in large urban centres, a growing number of our most educated and highly skilled immigrants are settling in suburban and smaller communities," said the municipal federation's president, Jean Perrault, mayor of Sherbrooke, Que.

"Those who remain in large centres face greater socio-economic challenges.

"Large cities are losing the skilled immigrants their labour markets need while (they are) bearing a disproportionate share of the cost of assisting immigrants with special challenges such as language and skills training needs.

"Municipal governments are where immigrants go first for help, but we are not consulted on immigration policies or programs and we do not have the resources to provide the needed services. It's time for a change," he said.

The federation, which represents 1,775 communities covering 90 per cent of the population, said municipalities need federal funding to provide culturally sensitive services, such as translating garbage pickup schedules, more affordable housing, recreational programs, public health services and new ways to deliver services to newcomers.

According to the study:

• The proportion of recent immigrants living off social assistance in big cities was more than twice the rest of Canada.

• While the percentage of unemployed immigrants outnumbered non-immigrants in big cities, the gap was significantly smaller in the suburbs.

• The proportion of recent immigrants with university degrees was twice as high as that of Canadians, yet their unemployment rate was four times greater.

• Recent immigrants earned about 60 per cent of what native-born Canadians did in 2001, which dropped further to 51 per cent by 2006. The widest income gaps were generally found in larger municipalities.

• Forty-three per cent of newcomer families lived under Statistics Canada's low-income cut-off, three times the proportion among all Canadian households.

• Recent immigrants in small communities were more likely to own homes than their counterparts in the city.

Evelyn Myrie, director of the Peel Newcomer Strategy Group, said while newcomers in smaller communities may fare better than those in big cities, they still have settlement needs, such as language upgrading and employment counselling, to be met. Issues such as poverty and homelessness are also slowly emerging in the suburbs, too, she added.

"Some smaller communities like Caledon just don't have the resources in place to serve those needs," said Myrie, whose group was formed four years ago by the United Way of Peel to involve community players in immigration and settlement planning.

Alykhan Velshi, a spokesperson for Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, said the department will review the report.

Toronto city councillor Janet Davis, chair of the city's now-defunct immigration and settlement working group, said Toronto is still the No. 1 recipient of new immigrants, despite its dwindling share.

 

[Glen]

Jeffrey Immelt (G.E. chairman) cast doubt's on a Floridian type future.....


http://www.ge.com/ar2008/letter_5.html

I have also learned something about my country. I run a global company, but I am a citizen of the U.S. I believe that a popular, thirty-year notion that the U.S. can evolve from being a technology and manufacturing leader to a service leader is just wrong. In the end, this philosophy transformed the financial services industry from one that supported commerce to a complex trading market that operated outside the economy. Real engineering was traded for financial engineering. In the end, our businesses, our government, and many local leaders lost sight of what makes a nation great: a passion for innovation.

To this end, we need an educational system that inspires hard work, discipline, and creative thinking. The ability to innovate must be valued again. We must discover new technologies and develop a productive manufacturing base. Our trade deficit is a sign of real weakness and we must reduce our debt to the world. GE will always invest to win globally, but this should include a preeminent position in a strong U.S.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Glen:

Not really - considering the innovation part (R&D and the like) is exactly what is being called for. The Floridian thesis might be extreme, but the CEO is more or less stating that the future of manufacturing reside in high value-added products - along more European or Japanese lines, I suppose?

AoD

 

[Glen]

Glen:

Not really - considering the innovation part (R&D and the like) is exactly what is being called for. The Floridian thesis might be extreme, but the CEO is more or less stating that the future of manufacturing reside in high value-added products - along more European or Japanese lines, I suppose?

AoD

He is calling for both, hence the reference to technology and manufacturing. Keep in mind, for the most part there is no more low tech manufacturing.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Glen:

But that's exactly what I am saying - the Floridian thesis is just a more extreme expression of what's more or less a common theme - that whatever manufacturing capacity there is must be of a high-value added nature.

Beyond that - considering the centrality of innovation as a theme and what it implies, I wouldn't say it cast doubt into anything at all. Technology is in many ways "service oriented".

AoD

 

[fiendishlibrarian]

University of Toronto FLORIDA RICHARD Professor Business Economics/Director, Martin Prosperity Institute $346,041.48 $566.64

Linky