Space for families in condos?

[Dan416]

The suburbs are already paying more taxes than the 416 (just look at our tax increases versus Toronto's). So advocating the suburbs pay even more isn't going to win you any love.

The carrot always trumps the stick.

 

[TOBoy]

I agree that it is a choice, and I totally respect that. Everyone's entitled to their own choices and opinions, and I am not the type of person that smirks just because they do not agree with mine. In the case of our little debate, I can understand why people choose to live in the suburbs in large houses. I have nothing against it. But it's a two-way street. What ticks me off is that people look down on those who choose to live in small spaces downtown. It fumes me when others refer to the units as "birdcages", "tiny lifeless apartments"(see above), "shoeboxes", etc. Whenever I hear this, I can't help but feel like they are demeaning those of us that lives in condos. Only idiots choose to live in a tiny lifeless birdcage like this and not in a spacious house. The argument can go on forever, and there is no right or wrong. Hopefully we can show some respect to each other's choices.

 

[RC8]

Is smoking indoors in public spaces a matter of choice?

How is it that different? Again, I have no problem with suburban dwellers so long as they pay for the pollution they produce and the extra costs required to support their lifestyle 'choice', and so long as those of us choosing an alternative lifestyle don't end up without bike lanes because they 'obstruct traffic' and such.

Fortunately, as more people live in condos downtown (and 'midtown'), more people will come to appreciate that the needs of a relatively sustainable city are not being serviced as well as they should, and will demand this changes. Some of the people you see 'walking home' downtown from the financial district are the type that 30 years ago wouldn't have ever ever ever walked anywhere.

 

[AHK]

The suburbs are already paying more taxes than the 416 (just look at our tax increases versus Toronto's). So advocating the suburbs pay even more isn't going to win you any love.

Coruscanti Cognoscente - a grand and simple statement, but does leave me a little confused. Do you intend to mean that the 905 region, in aggregate across all the GTA municipalities, pays more in taxes - residential and commercial - than the comparable tax base in Toronto itself? If so, what would be the relevance of that particular fact? The area encompassed by the 905 municipalities is large, as is its population base, and while I do not know whether or not the 905 pays a greater total amount in taxes, if so it could very well be justified by the area and population being served.

If you are referring to tax rates - the rate of tax assessed to the property valuation - my understanding is that the rates are higher in at least some of the 905 - however for comparable houses, the valuations are so different, that the actual amount of taxes paid in the 905, property for comparable property, is much lower in the 905 than in the 416.

If the absolute level of taxation were higher in the 905 areas than in Toronto itself - why was there so much growth in corporate office space in the 905 over the past years from companies looking to avoid the Toronto commercial tax rates?

Mississauga had a greater increase in its tax rate this year - 7.4% increase compared to Toronto's 2.5% - primarily due to reduction in development charge revenues which the municipality had previously been applying to its operating costs. The recent increase in rate probably still leaves Mississauga taxes, on a comparable home basis, or comparable office space basis, below those in Toronto.

Or were you intending some other meaning that I have missed?

 

[Edward Skira]

I live in an 80's building downtown with two kids one in KG and one soon to be in JK. There's at least 10 kids now in our building under 5 which is more than ever. Does it cost more than the burbs? Yes. Does the fact we don't own a car make up for it? Yes! It most certainly can be done but you certainly need more than 500 sq ft.

 

[taal]

Coruscanti Cognoscente - a grand and simple statement, but does leave me a little confused. Do you intend to mean that the 905 region, in aggregate across all the GTA municipalities, pays more in taxes - residential and commercial - than the comparable tax base in Toronto itself? If so, what would be the relevance of that particular fact? The area encompassed by the 905 municipalities is large, as is its population base, and while I do not know whether or not the 905 pays a greater total amount in taxes, if so it could very well be justified by the area and population being served.

If you are referring to tax rates - the rate of tax assessed to the property valuation - my understanding is that the rates are higher in at least some of the 905 - however for comparable houses, the valuations are so different, that the actual amount of taxes paid in the 905, property for comparable property, is much lower in the 905 than in the 416.

If the absolute level of taxation were higher in the 905 areas than in Toronto itself - why was there so much growth in corporate office space in the 905 over the past years from companies looking to avoid the Toronto commercial tax rates?

Mississauga had a greater increase in its tax rate this year - 7.4% increase compared to Toronto's 2.5% - primarily due to reduction in development charge revenues which the municipality had previously been applying to its operating costs. The recent increase in rate probably still leaves Mississauga taxes, on a comparable home basis, or comparable office space basis, below those in Toronto.

Or were you intending some other meaning that I have missed?

Toronto's commercial rates are still 1.5/2X higher.

The 'absolute' value argument isn't very accurate considering average home prices in Toronto are just about 500K, and the rest of the 905 around 460/70K, so very comparable. There are many areas in Toronto you can buy a large house for the 500K range.

 

[Tewder]

Is smoking indoors in public spaces a matter of choice?

How is it that different? Again, I have no problem with suburban dwellers so long as they pay for the pollution they produce and the extra costs required to support their lifestyle 'choice', and so long as those of us choosing an alternative lifestyle don't end up without bike lanes because they 'obstruct traffic' and such.

Fortunately, as more people live in condos downtown (and 'midtown'), more people will come to appreciate that the needs of a relatively sustainable city are not being serviced as well as they should, and will demand this changes. Some of the people you see 'walking home' downtown from the financial district are the type that 30 years ago wouldn't have ever ever ever walked anywhere.

Choosing to drive is not the same as choosing to smoke. Let's just be clear on that.

Again, condo living simply isn't the right option for most families, and until we have a better network of tranist most people will opt for their car... and it isn't simply a Toronto issue alone, it's an issue for the entire region.

... and it's not about 'punishing' people per se but I do agree that we need to start finding creative ways to finance transit infrastructure, bike lanes etc. Road tolls, gas taxes and car registry fees etc should all be used, providing the funds raised are earmarked for city and regional transit.

 

[kkgg7]

Choosing to drive is not the same as choosing to smoke. Let's just be clear on that.

If polluting by driving every day is not as bad as choosing to smoke, because "families need to drive", I guess we should have no problem building more coal plants since coal is the cheapest source of energy, despite its heavy pollution.

Living in the suburbs where transit is scarce IS a choice, whether you admit it or not. They could live in more urban areas by sacrificing 1/3 of the space they have but reply less on cars, but they choose their own comfort over everything else. It is a selfish choice and don't try to deny that.
No families NEED those big houses. They WANT them, as someone correctly pointed out earlier, despite the corresponding social cost that is burdened by everyone else, not just themselves.

 

[Tewder]

Mods, could this be a new separate thread? I feel like I've hijacked this away from those who just want updates on INDX.

If polluting by driving every day is not as bad as choosing to smoke, because "families need to drive", I guess we should have no problem building more coal plants since coal is the cheapest source of energy, despite its heavy pollution.

Except where do we place responsibility? I would blame our governments for developing and investing in coal plants, not the people who need to heat their homes affordably. Similarly, I would blame our governments for not investing in and developing our transit infrastructure in a responsible way, rather than the people who want family-sized spaces and an effective way to be mobile.

Living in the suburbs where transit is scarce IS a choice, whether you admit it or not. They could live in more urban areas by sacrificing 1/3 of the space they have but reply less on cars, but they choose their own comfort over everything else. It is a selfish choice and don't try to deny that.
No families NEED those big houses. They WANT them, as someone correctly pointed out earlier, despite the corresponding social cost that is burdened by everyone else, not just themselves.

I agree these things are choices but they are driven by perceived needs, whether you approve of those needs are not. The building of all these cool and expensive condos with tiny floorplans is not doing anything to attract families in any real way... and just how realistic is it to expect that the millions of families in 'suburbia' are all going to pick up and downsize - giving up their neighbourhoods, communities and social support networks - given the current lack of family-friendly development and inadequate network of infrastructure? As you yourself said, this isn't NYC.

 

[RC8]

Government don't elect themselves. If there is no public transit it's because people don't prioritise it due to their selfish fearful and ignorant outlook on life.

People elect politicians and demand they build highways (so long as no tolls are involved of course, so that even those that don't drive have to pay for that infrastructure).

Try walking downtown at rush hour and tell me the air isn't made poisonous by all the cars stuck in traffic. Those cars are effectively hurting your health, much like indoor smokers would at a restaurant.

 

[SunriseChampion]

The point being missed here: subdivision houses are shoddily-built, ugly, have small backyards anyway, and have standard-sized living rooms and bedrooms. I can understand the idea of buying there because of the price but the pros pretty much end there as far as I can tell. Just sayin'.

And yes, I have direct knowledge of just how shoddily-built suburban wasteland housing is. I work in home construction and there's a running joke amongst most workers about how shoddily-built subdivision housing is.

And just an anecdote: a friend of mine lives in a subdivision monster built five years ago in Oakville...Bronte..... *ahem*....the backyard fits a tent shelter and not much else and the house is "settling" in a way that would normally be called (and he's said this himself) "falling apart". You know....doors not closing properly, drywall coming off in chunks, etc. Settling for serious, in other words. I will never understand the draw of the suburbs.