How much greener are condos?

[SunriseChampion]

Hey, I've done it. Keep in mind, you can spend your free time outside the unit... in the common areas, the library, the cafe, the community centre, or whatever. It's not like a suburban home where you stay in your home all day.

Try four people in a 600 sq ft one bedroom unit. Those were the days. It's not the end of the world and makes living easier (read:cheaper) for everyone.

We weren't even family, which I would think would produce greater strain on our inter-personal relationships than if we had been family.

It's not as if everyone is home all the time. You've got school, work, socialising. When we were all at home at the same time, we were usually asleep or enjoying each others company.

Four people in a 3 bedroom or "2bed + den" at 900sq ft? Shit, I'll take that any day. We would have loved to have our own rooms.

 

[West End Boy]

It's not a suburban mindset, it's just practicality. What, exactly, are you going to take your seven year old to do on a daily basis in clubland? The entire downtown is designed, logically in my opinion, around young, childless professionals with high disposable incomes.

Don't forget that there are lots of condos outside of the downtown/CBD, including the inner and outer burbs. If I was going to move my family to a condo, I could imagine something close to High Park or Trinity Bellwoods Park.

 

[West End Boy]

I don't think you can answer this question in a general sense. You'd have to compare one particular condo unit to one particular house to get a useful answer.

Good point. I guess I'm still interested in hearing about the general issues involved. Anyone know how all that concrete, elevators and common spaces, and glazing factor into the issue?

 

[Whoaccio]

Don't forget that there are lots of condos outside of the downtown/CBD, including the inner and outer burbs. If I was going to move my family to a condo, I could imagine something close to High Park or Trinity Bellwoods Park.

Yea, that's sort of my point. That even if you want to raise the family in an "urban setting" it doesn't make any particular load of sense to locate right in the CBD or Clubland. That's why I don't get why Adam Vauhan et al find it so unbelievable that families with kids don't want to move into his ward. It's not like families are lining up to move into Lower Manhattan or La Defense. Not one family lives on the Champs Elysee. Why is it such a big deal if the immediate downtown is more popular with young, childless residents?

I think the primary drive to raise children in a low-rise detached house is an emotional and financial argument, not a pragmatic one. For the record I don't have children but would also chose to raise them in a low-rise detached house as well. What this built form allows is slight isolation and individual control over your personal space. This is an important emotional desire.

Don't you sort of contradict yourself there? I agree that families don't move downtown because of financial reasons, and I consider that to be quite pragmatic. Practically, the economics of raising a family favors areas away from the CBD. Families are only being pragmatic to seek out the most cost effective living arrangements. I'd suggest it's an emotional desire some people have to raise their kids downtown trumping more pragmatic concerns like cost of housing, access to quality education and ease of transport.

I'd also point out that every family is different. If both parents work downtown, need to be in the office from 6am-7pm and they can afford it, it may well make sense for them to shell out the extra money and compromise on space a bit. Especially if they can afford to send their kids to a private school or get them out of district. That's not really an average family, though, and I also don't see the point in the government somehow subsidizing such a rich family.

 

[West End Boy]

Families are only being pragmatic to seek out the most cost effective living arrangements. I'd suggest it's an emotional desire some people have to raise their kids downtown trumping more pragmatic concerns like cost of housing, access to quality education and ease of transport.

Of course people's emotions influence their decision on where to live in a huge way, but I wouldn't agree that living in the suburbs means better schools or ease of transport (obviously you are assuming that driving is the main form of transportation, and that downtown schools are of inferior quality).

I also think that implicit in your argument is the suburban desire to have a larger home on a large lot, which you can argue is simply "practical" unless you think about carbon footprint, maintenance and upkeep time and costs, traffic congestion and lack of efficient public transit caused by low-density sprawl, inefficient infrastructure due to the same, etc.

As an example, my brother also has a partner and one child, and lives in a large home in a new subdivision in Milton. His house cost twice what mine does, so obviously they could afford to live in Toronto in a decent-sized condo or even a smaller house, but have chosen the suburbs because they want the big house and yard. That's their right to choose, but please don't tell me that they are just being "practical" about it. It's simply a choice. They actually commute to work in Toronto and spend a lot of time and money driving.

 

[Whoaccio]

Of course people's emotions influence their decision on where to live in a huge way, but I wouldn't agree that living in the suburbs means better schools or ease of transport (obviously you are assuming that driving is the main form of transportation, and that downtown schools are of inferior quality).

If you work downtown, commuting is quite easy along the subway network. Travel times from, say, NYCC to King Station are competitive and the cost is very low. Even if you do live in the 905, you can locate fairly close to a GO Station and be downtown without too much trouble. Sure, it's not as convenient as living next to work, but it's easy to see why some people would make the trade off.

I also think that implicit in your argument is the suburban desire to have a larger home on a large lot, which you can argue is simply "practical" unless you think about carbon footprint, maintenance and upkeep time and costs, traffic congestion and lack of efficient public transit caused by low-density sprawl, inefficient infrastructure due to the same, etc.

Ugghh. I'm not advocating everyone moves to a McMansion in Milton. My point is CBDs are by their nature impractical for most families. Where is practical? Depends on the family in question. If you can afford it, near-downtown areas like High Park are nice. Just about anywhere along the Yonge line is practical enough. So on and so forth. But there is no real advantage for families locating in areas like Clubland or the CBD. This isn't a Toronto thing, either.

 

[lead82]

NYCC is a high density neighbourhood, a mini downtown if you will, but there are many kids living in this area. Some live in the houses, but many more live with their parents in the condos. I think the main difference between NYCC and downtown is that NYCC prices are a lot cheaper and include parking. Also, there is more green space and parks in this area (within 4km), vs. downtown which actually lacks any decent sized parks. I'd say North York is quite blessed with huge parks (G Ross, Earl Bales) and 2-3 large ravines. These are good for taking kids skiing, toboganning, hiking, biking, etc.. It's safer to do this here in the multitude of parks than to teach kids to ride a bike on busy downtown streets.

My point is that downtown was not really built to accommodate the needs of the modern family. Its not just about space and building amenities.

 

[kettal]

I reckon Dufferin Grove, Riverdale, and Runnymede-High Park are great neighbourhoods for families.

 

[adma]

Ugghh. I'm not advocating everyone moves to a McMansion in Milton. My point is CBDs are by their nature impractical for most families. Where is practical? Depends on the family in question. If you can afford it, near-downtown areas like High Park are nice. Just about anywhere along the Yonge line is practical enough. So on and so forth. But there is no real advantage for families locating in areas like Clubland or the CBD. This isn't a Toronto thing, either.

So? Who says Adam Vaughan's advocating for this ambiguous entity known as "most" families? Maybe what he's stating is that for those of a certain disposition, even Clubland/CBD et al can be "practical enough"--and moreover, it can counterbalance a certain family-free sterility to such places.

"Most" is a tricky and easily-abused concept, you know.

 

[Whoaccio]

So? Who says Adam Vaughan's advocating for this ambiguous entity known as "most" families? Maybe what he's stating is that for those of a certain disposition, even Clubland/CBD et al can be "practical enough"--and moreover, it can counterbalance a certain family-free sterility to such places.

"Most" is a tricky and easily-abused concept, you know.

I must have missed the Adam Vaughan editorial about creating "those who earn 3-4x the median household income while both parents employed in the nearby environs friendly condos." He said "family friendly," not "friendly to 1% of the population friendly." It's implied that he is advocating friendly to a hypothetically family representative of most Torontonians.

Obviously anything is convenient for Bill Gates. I thought it was obvious to most people that social policy is based around abstractions of demographics, not individuals or small cliques.

 

[West End Boy]

I must have missed the Adam Vaughan editorial about creating "those who earn 3-4x the median household income while both parents employed in the nearby environs friendly condos." He said "family friendly," not "friendly to 1% of the population friendly." It's implied that he is advocating friendly to a hypothetically family representative of most Torontonians.

How is that implied? I don't really understand where you're coming from Whoaccio. Do you have a thing against Adam Vaughan? Do you have something against people who choose to raise kids in an urban environment? Do you really think buying a house in the suburbs is a more valid or "practical" choice than living in Toronto? If so, you haven't made a very effective argument for that, IMO.

You make extreme statements, like suggesting that to live in a condo downtown with kids you therefore need to earn crazy amounts of money. As I was trying to say earlier in mentioning my brother in Milton, there are many many people living in the suburbs whose homes cost much more than a 3-BR condo would cost in Toronto. They weren't excluded from living in a condo downtown because they couldn't afford it. They made a choice based on their priorities. Fair enough, it's a free country. But what Adam Vaughan is trying to do is provide choices for people. I think there is a market of buyers who would bite, especially immigrants from the many places in the world where families routinely live in condos.

And no, not every policy has to or should be aimed only at the bulky middle of the demographics continuum. That would be boring, mean, and inequitable.

Moving on...

 

[hbl33]

I think this is an attempt to downplay T.O. own position from Canada's largest megacity, to a 905's huge-ass bedroom city. More condos should be built, but outside the historic neighbourhoods in downtown Toronto, and especially not too close to Financial District. What Adam Vaughan seems to be demanding is more than just "family-friendly" district. He seems overemphasizing the idea, and trying to turn his own ward upside down. I would hate to see some of popular landmarks in this ward turn into a tasteless chain retails with historically-void condos.

Anyways, to the thread, how green are old condos that are worn out and inefficient? There's gotta be more than just re-installing new heating/electrical system and adding glass panels. Demolish and rebuild won't bode well either in T.O...

 

[kettal]

and especially not too close to Financial District.

I totally disagree. The Financial District needs more life to it. It's creepy how quiet it gets on the weekend. I can't think of a single thing wrong with adding more residential towers there.

 

[sjc]

I don't know if it is fair to include the impact of the work and upkeep of a home including watering the gardens, clearing the driveway, etc??

I would think you would need to consider this. Condos have driveways that need clearing and gardens that need watering. The carbon footprint of those activities would be divided up among the residents.

The important thing is to look at the overall impact of the lifestyle, including how much emissions come from daily activities (driving to work, etc).

I live in an apartment but travel regularly to Ottawa by airplane. Is that better than someone in a house that doesn't fly anywhere? Is that better than someone that drives to Ottawa by themselves? (I don't have a car).

Is someone who drives a small car better for the environment than a family that drives around in an SUV? If you calculate emissions per person, does that disadvantage people without kids?

My concern is that any comparison can make one side or the other look better depending what you include and don't include.

One area to consider -- do you include construction costs? Since most emission-reduction schemes use a baseline year (such as 1990 or 2006), anything constructed before that would not be included. A new building would have construction emissions that would need to be considered in overall emission levels. Is it better to live in an existing house or live in a new house/condo that would need construction emissions to create?

As an aside, I personally don't think I would spend $100,000s on a condo that didn't have a kitchen.

 

[adma]

How is that implied? I don't really understand where you're coming from Whoaccio. Do you have a thing against Adam Vaughan? Do you have something against people who choose to raise kids in an urban environment? Do you really think buying a house in the suburbs is a more valid or "practical" choice than living in Toronto? If so, you haven't made a very effective argument for that, IMO.

If you want to know where he's coming from, he'd probably sneer at the idea of this being deemed some sort of "cultural treasure"

http://www.urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?t=10707