Space for families in condos?

[Big Daddy]

I don't have a problem with people "wanting" largest space. It is a personal choice. However, I do have a problem with them complaining that 2000sf houses with large lots are too expensive in Toronto. To me, it is like complaining about a Chanel bag is not affordable.

If families settle with what they "need", they will find housing price in Toronto completely affordable.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Did you read that in a text book somewhere? The condo boom in T.O. has nothing to do with "families". You can't raise a family in one of these dinky apartments that's why people having children are moving to the suburbs. Are they building any schools amidst all these condos? are they building any soccer fields? Could you tell your kids to go out and play?

 

[taal]

You have no idea what you are talking about. Did you read that in a text book somewhere? The condo boom in T.O. has nothing to do with "families". You can't raise a family in one of these dinky apartments that's why people having children are moving to the suburbs. Are they building any schools amidst all these condos? are they building any soccer fields? Could you tell your kids to go out and play?

hmm, lets use cityplace here:
soccer field - check.
school - check (coming soon).
day care - check (coming soon).

 

[gristle]

You have no idea what you are talking about. Did you read that in a text book somewhere? The condo boom in T.O. has nothing to do with "families". You can't raise a family in one of these dinky apartments that's why people having children are moving to the suburbs. Are they building any schools amidst all these condos? are they building any soccer fields? Could you tell your kids to go out and play?

The reason why the condo boom has nothing to do with "families" is because developers don't want to build suites appropriate for families. They claim that these suites cost a lot and take too long to sell. Developers want to build, get their profit and leave. They're not as interested in building sustainable housing for the city as they are in making maximum profit. That's why there is such competition for the limited quality housing stock suitable for people with children in the city - and with the price to match.

You don't have to go too far to find people with kids who want to live downtown. The place isn't reserved as the exclusive domain of 20 to 30 year old singles.

 

[taal]

The reason why the condo boom has nothing to do with "families" is because developers don't want to build suites appropriate for families. They claim that these suites cost a lot and take too long to sell. Developers want to build, get their profit and leave. They're not as interested in building sustainable housing for the city as they are in making maximum profit. That's why there is such competition for the limited quality housing stock suitable for people with children in the city - and with the price to match.

You don't have to go too far to find people with kids who want to live downtown. The place isn't reserved as the exclusive domain of 20 to 30 year old singles.

Many families already do live downtown, and in apartments / condos. Generally speaking it is the older condos, namely in the St. Lawrence market area, I know many families who live in 1000-1500 square feet condos in said area.

 

[Big Daddy]

hmm, lets use cityplace here:
soccer field - check.
school - check (coming soon).
day care - check (coming soon).

Is that an elementary school, a middle school or a high school? French immersion, Catholic?

I suppose one future day care should be sufficient for 8,000 apartments since there won't be more than a few children there.

8,000 units – Let’s assume 20% house single people without children, leaving 6,400 units for couples. According to statscan, 43% of couples are childless, at the time of the 2006 census, leaving us with 3,650 units potentially housing “families” with at least one child. If we assume only one child, thats 3,650 children. So what super school are they building that can accomodate 3,650 children? or what soccer field could handle that many children?

Well neither can, can they? But that’s OK because as we all know, there won't be many children crammed into these tiny lifeless apartments - thank God - because it isn't designed for families. The little school you smugly speak about is a token to prove they have the "intent" of providing for families and everyone sheepishly smiles and looks away. Ten years from now this will be a very scary place where it is no longer the newest cool place to be and the poorly built, poorly maintained buildings will become our next St. James Town. You'd think we would have learned from our mistakes from the 60's but apparently not.





I should add, I believe these buildings could be designed to accomodate families - I believe the future of our city depends on families living downtown - but no one is requiring developers to accomodate families. In fact many even on this thread will ignore this issue because all they really want to see is more high rises at any cost.

 

[Tewder]

Many families already do live downtown, and in apartments / condos. Generally speaking it is the older condos, namely in the St. Lawrence market area, I know many families who live in 1000-1500 square feet condos in said area.

I don't think anybody is arguing that it can't or shouldn't be done, only that most families will opt not to, and largely because of cost and feasibility. Whatever your perspective is, it should be of concern that we are not developing the city with families in mind (City Place notwithstanding).

 

[urbandreamer]

There are plenty of 2-3 child families living in my high rise apartment neighbourhood. Some even live in one bedroom units. I would argue it's not unit size that's forcing people to leave their condos but rather peer pressure--"my co-workers etc are moving to ---- therefore we should too!"

The only room a child needs these days is a room for a small bed, some toys and an ipad. That's about 60-100SF tops.

With the new see-through Samsung TV's coming--if you insist on the TV lifestyle--you'll be able to mount the TV directly on your window, so even less space will be required.

Kitchens--do you really need 100 different pots and pans? Five are enough.

Now to argue in favour of raising children in houses--it's a cultural thing. Those of us that have roots in NA for centuries recall a time when our ancestors came here because they wanted space. It's engrained in our blood.

Back OT, I'd be shorting INDX Condos, don't have too much confidence in the design.

 

[Tuscani01]

There are plenty of 2-3 child families living in my high rise apartment neighbourhood. Some even live in one bedroom units. I would argue it's not unit size that's forcing people to leave their condos but rather peer pressure--"my co-workers etc are moving to ---- therefore we should too!"

blah

Yea, I have never really bought that argument either. My building has lots of kids (Yes, it is in Cityplace) and there are lots of kids getting onto the school bus that comes into the neighbourhood every morning. There are also plenty of 2 and 3 bedroom units available, moreseo in Parade. With the TCHC building going up, even more families will be moving into the neighbourhood. People can and do live in small spaces, and many are happy doing so. Its the neighbourhoods themselves that are family unfriendly.

 

[kkgg7]

There are plenty of 2-3 child families living in my high rise apartment neighbourhood. Some even live in one bedroom units. I would argue it's not unit size that's forcing people to leave their condos but rather peer pressure--"my co-workers etc are moving to ---- therefore we should too!"

The only room a child needs these days is a room for a small bed, some toys and an ipad. That's about 60-100SF tops.

With the new see-through Samsung TV's coming--if you insist on the TV lifestyle--you'll be able to mount the TV directly on your window, so even less space will be required.

Kitchens--do you really need 100 different pots and pans? Five are enough.

Now to argue in favour of raising children in houses--it's a cultural thing. Those of us that have roots in NA for centuries recall a time when our ancestors came here because they wanted space. It's engrained in our blood.

Back OT, I'd be shorting INDX Condos, don't have too much confidence in the design.

You are exactly right. particularly on the 5 pots vs 100, as well as kids need 60-100sf space part.
Psychology plays a big part in it. Many think it looks bad/poor if they live in city condos with kids. Families around the world do this, Canadians can do.

 

[Tewder]

You are exactly right. particularly on the 5 pots vs 100, as well as kids need 60-100sf space part.
Psychology plays a big part in it. Many think it looks bad/poor if they live in city condos with kids. Families around the world do this, Canadians can do.

Families around the world do it because they have no choice (lack of space, lack of single family homes, cost), but do they 'choose' to live this way? Is this what they aspire to? When Canadian families live 'urban' in a downtown highrise it is more likely a deliberate lifestyle choice/philosophy, and one that comes at a significantly higher cost than other choices. A family that is willing and wanting to make this choice is likely not that concerned about space because they value other things over it.

It's not right or wrong, it's just a choice. Although I'm sure most parents would have an opinion.

 

[RC8]

Families around the world do it because they have no choice (lack of space, lack of single family homes, cost), but do they 'choose' to live this way? Is this what they aspire to? When Canadian families live 'urban' in a downtown highrise it is more likely a deliberate lifestyle choice/philosophy, and one that comes at a significantly higher cost than other choices. A family that is willing and wanting to make this choice is likely not that concerned about space because they value other things over it.

It's not right or wrong, it's just a choice. Although I'm sure most parents would have an opinion.

It's a choice driven by fear, selfishness, and ignorance, though. I'm sure you are well aware that if all families in the world lived in car-oriented suburbs we would run out of land and energy in a couple of decades, and the lifestyle of all of us would become prohibitively expensive - throwing most of the world population into poverty.

North Americans just continue to take advantage of the head-start they got during WWII to bully the rest of the world into selling them their natural resources to maintain an utterly unsustainable lifestyle.

If you turned half of Ontario's suburban population into a properly urban population, the spending power of families would increase, taxes could be lowered, social equity would be higher, and pollution + greenhouse gases and energy usage would be significantly reduced.

Studies also show that kids who grow up in suburbs are more depression-bound, have less independence, more insecurities, and tend to be less open-minded. People who grow up in a suburban environment tend to be more scared of their neighbours than urban dwellers.

Some choices are more intelligent than others. If families elsewhere can't afford a suburban house it's because governments internalise some of their costs and don't subsidise such lifestyles.

 

[Tewder]

It's a choice driven by fear, selfishness, and ignorance, though.

You are overstating your case. Most people make choices that they feel are right for their family. You may think their choices are wrong or ignorant but that's highly judgemental. If families had better urban options more families would choose them.

I'm sure you are well aware that if all families in the world lived in car-oriented suburbs we would run out of land and energy in a couple of decades, and the lifestyle of all of us would become prohibitively expensive - throwing most of the world population into poverty.

... which is why in a previous posting I mentioned that many families that choose to live urban are doing so because it is a lifestyle choice they prefer or because they are driven by a particular philosophy/belief system.

North Americans just continue to take advantage of the head-start they got during WWII to bully the rest of the world into selling them their natural resources to maintain an utterly unsustainable lifestyle.

... well I guess we earned that head start so too bad.

If you turned half of Ontario's suburban population into a properly urban population, the spending power of families would increase, taxes could be lowered, social equity would be higher, and pollution + greenhouse gases and energy usage would be significantly reduced.

I don't disagree but there are alternatives to living urban than highrise condos.

Shaming people is never a very good way to effectuate change. We need creative people who can offer creative, attainable and realistic options. Over time this will convince people that there are viable alternatives to prevailing Norman Rockwell-type cultural ideals.

Studies also show that kids who grow up in suburbs are more depression-bound, have less independence, more insecurities, and tend to be less open-minded. People who grow up in a suburban environment tend to be more scared of their neighbours than urban dwellers.

Kids will grow up happy and adjusted in just about the most horrific of circumstances, as long as they have a loving and supportive family around them, and of course the opposite is true. Again, you're overstating your case.

 

[kkgg7]

It's not right or wrong, it's just a choice. Although I'm sure most parents would have an opinion.

This might be just a choice, yet such personal choice has consequences on everyone else around the world. When so many live far away in large space, they need to drive more, cause more pollution, push up oil demand, and their house consumes a lot of energy just to stay warm in the winter.

Just imagine this: if everyone on this planet has the same lifestyle and consumes the same energy as a surburban Canadian does, the world's energy will be exchausted in a matter of 20-30 years. So in "choosing" the more confortable lifestyle families in other countries don't have luxury to, these people are essentially exhausting the world energy a lot faster than it should.

Additionally, by living far from urban centres, these people created a demand for infrastructure (roads, transits, libaries etc) to reach farther and farther away in more and more sparsely populated areas, and people in denser areas will be subsidizing them, right? In denser area, a lot more people use the same infrastructure making it a lot cheaper to build.

The desire to own large space is a personal choice, yet it is not like it affects nobody but yourself. It is unsustainable and people should realize that.

 

[Tewder]

I don't disagree with your points at all Kkgg7, but lecturing people and shaming them into opting for things they don't want won't work. Again, we need ceative options that are affordable, we need commitments to (and progress) with mass transit, we need improved public spaces and alternative options to condo highrises. We need urban spaces that will accommodate families in a more realistic way that will be acceptible to North Americans and respectful of our values, not Asian or European ones. Wishing that people we were crammed into tiny spaces like in Japan and admonishing people that they should be ok with it is just not going to work.

It's the same with the whole 'war against the car' issue. Hating people and blaming them for wanting to drive a car won't work. We have to be serious about our commitment to get people out of their cars by putting our money where our mouth is and offering better mass transit. If you make it easy for them people will make the right choice.

 

[RC8]

I don't disagree with your points at all Kkgg7, but lecturing people and shaming them into opting for things they don't want won't work. Again, we need ceative options that are affordable, we need commitments to (and progress) with mass transit, we need improved public spaces and alternative options to condo highrises. We need urban spaces that will accommodate families in a more realistic way that will be acceptible to North Americans and respectful of our values, not Asian or European ones. Wishing that people we were crammed into tiny spaces like in Japan and admonishing people that they should be ok with it is just not going to work.It's the same with the whole 'war against the car' issue. Hating people and blaming them for wanting to drive a car won't work. We have to be serious about our commitment to get people out of their cars by putting our money where our mouth is and offering better mass transit. If you make it easy for them people will make the right choice.

Except what happens in North America is that when governments begin to charge drivers what it costs to drive, and charge suburbs what they cost to maintain, they just go ahead and vote for someone like Rob Ford to keep the status quo.

They do this out of fear, selfishness, and ignorance.

I don't think we should be forcing anyone into anything, but we need to educate people so that they are no longer ignorant regarding the consequences of suburban living, we need to show them that the whole paranoia they are always subjected to is more about the media having a field day than anything, and we need as a society to look down at someone who selfishly votes for someone to subsidise his unsustainable lifestyle at the expense of others.

Hundreds of thousands in this city will grow old with a vulnerable respiratory system because they had to inhale fumes coming out of motor vehicles when they were walking on the street (and saving the planet while at it). I take it that's fine, because they made the choice to walk among cars while they could have instead been inside of one and protected themselves, right? Or we could reduce the number of lanes and create more bike and pedestrian-friendly streets... but that'd be gravy and suburban voters wouldn't fall for it.

All I'm asking for is: internalise the costs of suburban living so that people living in the suburbs have to pay for the pollution they produce, for their costlier to deliver services, for repairing the roads they need and which only they use, etc. Let us all pay for what we are responsible for - and trust me, creative solutions and higher quality urban living will ensue.