News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.8K     0 

junior43, my intention is not to be disrespectful but I think there is a certain irony to your post that is worth pointing out. You wish to have people respect and understand your rational for living where you do by transcending the stereotypes while at the same time painting the "others" (in this case residents of the central city) with the same broad stereotypes. There is actually nothing you pointed out about where you live, including access to nature, a backyard etc. that is not also part of the everyday experience of people in every corner of the city-region including downtown.

This thread I feel is primarly about trends. And there is a clear trend, a back to the city trend, occuring in peoples ideas of family formation. The real questions I have is: to what degree is this a niche or general trend, and how does the ideal of raising a family in city mesh with the reality of the true cost pressures and competition generated by the desire to meet this ideal?
 
junior43, my intention is not to be disrespectful but I think there is a certain irony to your post that is worth pointing out. You wish to have people respect and understand your rational for living where you do by transcending the stereotypes while at the same time painting the "others" (in this case residents of the central city) with the same broad stereotypes. There is actually nothing you pointed out about where you live, including access to nature, a backyard etc. that is not also part of the everyday experience of people in every corner of the city-region including downtown.

This thread I feel is primarly about trends. And there is a clear trend, a back to the city trend, occuring in peoples ideas of family formation. The real questions I have is: to what degree is this a niche or general trend, and how does the ideal of raising a family in city mesh with the reality of the true cost pressures and competition generated by the desire to meet this ideal?

I think the real trend in 416 for families is that they are being pushed further out of the core. The highest concentration of under 24 age group lies in the north east and north west (34% of the population in Malvern in under 24 and 38% of the population in Jamestown (etobicoke). The census income info hasn't come out yet but based off the current home prices it's fairly obvious that these are lower income areas, these are also designated priorty neighbourhoods.

Trendy areas such as Riverdale and Trinity Bellwoods are hovering 22-26% and have a combined population that compares to Malvern alone.
 
You need to come back to reality...
Toronto Island residents represent the 0.00004% (what is it, 100 residents in 2.5M), that model is not scalable. And Islanders would be the first ones to oppose further 'densification' or further development.

Face it, as a previous poster pointed it out, it's not an economic or reality based argument you're putting forward, but simply a culture prejudice you have.

What sort of incoherent nonsense response is this?

This is why inevitably it comes down to arguing for de-amalgamation for me. Let Etobicoke and Scarborough pay their own bills and crash back into the economic reality they blissfully choose to ignore.

Maybe then they'll give a damn about ensuring the well-being of their citizens and fostering social and economic activity. Right now being poor in either of these places is a miserable experience already for Canadian standards.
 
I think the real trend in 416 for families is that they are being pushed further out of the core. The highest concentration of under 24 age group lies in the north east and north west (34% of the population in Malvern in under 24 and 38% of the population in Jamestown (etobicoke). The census income info hasn't come out yet but based off the current home prices it's fairly obvious that these are lower income areas, these are also designated priorty neighbourhoods.

Trendy areas such as Riverdale and Trinity Bellwoods are hovering 22-26% and have a combined population that compares to Malvern alone.

But the families displaced from downtown are mostly low-income families. They matter less.

Low income families pushed to Etobicoke and Scarborough - where they need to deal with winter walking distance to nowhere and without a car - are completely irrelevant, don't you see?
 
scar_resident, In terms of absolute numbers your point is well taken. Perhaps in central Toronto neigbhourhoods it just feel like families are taking over because the families are affluent. What I mean is that on the ground there is a boom in the number of daycares, stores catering to kids, people pushing baby strollers around, participation in children's rec activities etc. In otherwords there is a boom in families with means and they project their influence into the community in ways that lower income families do not. I guess this is what I am describing when I say a "back to the city" trend. Many people are moving their families into the city center by choice. Tenanted triplexes are converting into single family homes with kids. These triplexes aren't full of marginal tenants but the coveted young urban professional class, even they are getting the boot.
 
Actually there is a limited amount of new available semi detached and semi-attached homes being built in the City of Toronto but with people buying and selling pre-owned homes in the city, the market remains hopeful. I agree affordability is relative and there will always beat least one person who can afford to buy, on the other hand, there is certainly a growing number of low to middle income young people who may not be able to afford a home in the core and might end up buying in Brampton, Scarborough, or Further out in the suburbs. This is not necessarily a good or bad thing. It depends on where you work, if you enjoy the city, if you enjoy the suburbs, etc. etc. I mean I can sit here and argue that Leaside is the ideal place to live in Toronto and some might agree but everyone is going to have their own opinion based on their personal needs.
 
Actually there is a limited amount of new available semi detached and semi-attached homes being built in the City of Toronto but with people buying and selling pre-owned homes in the city, the market remains hopeful. I agree affordability is relative and there will always beat least one person who can afford to buy, on the other hand, there is certainly a growing number of low to middle income young people who may not be able to afford a home in the core and might end up buying in Brampton, Scarborough, or Further out in the suburbs. This is not necessarily a good or bad thing. It depends on where you work, if you enjoy the city, if you enjoy the suburbs, etc. etc. I mean I can sit here and argue that Leaside is the ideal place to live in Toronto and some might agree but everyone is going to have their own opinion based on their personal needs.

I think it is bad when the number of families with children in toronto is declining, from census 2011. 905 is growing families with children. 70.% of residences created in 416 since 2007 were condos and most of these were 1 bedroom and bachelors. Enrollment in our schools, tdsb,are declining, for the last decade. 905 is attracting middle class families. More families in 416 are low income than high income. More children living in poverty. What does that say about the city our politicians, planners and developers created. Doesn't matter what our perception or anecdotal stories suggest, middle class families with children have moved out of 416 into 905. Is this what toronto wants? If not how do we move forward. If we become a city with wealthy childless couples and poor families with children where will we be in the next decade.
 
Your concern is two-fold. One, you are addressing the declining number of wealthy families living in the cities. Two, you are identifying a trend, that these familes are moving to suburban (905) area code places outside of Toronto. As for point one, I cannot verify this trend because I have not seen the figures/facts. As for two, it seems that if school enrollment is declining, single family homes or multi-room condominimiums are in short supply in the City of Toronto that families would have to live outside the city. How can we be positive that the families that are moving outside the city are wealthy ones? A look at the census I suppose would tell us if there are more low or high income families in the city. If you are correct that the City of Toronto inhabits more low income families than high income families than it is a good question to ask why would developers, planners, and politicians want to build 1 bedroom condos... Is it more lucrative to sell single homes to individuals than it is to sell larger homes to families? What is the long-term plan for Toronto - will it be a conrete over-developed jungle? A slum? I for one would like to have more confidence in both my city and the people of all income levels. Let's focus on the low income families in the city. They may be in "poverty" as you suggested, but chances are if each low-income family has two children, at least one of them will likely go on to make a decent living. Even if the other one uses up more city resources than they contribute, I see potential for city so long as there are innovators. There are so many other factors to consider as well, like the business sector for instance. Are those wealthy 905 residents still investing in Toronto businesses? So where will we be in the next decade... I dunno, but I don't think we'll be in too much trouble.
 
With so many new areas of Toronto gentrifying and the "blue chip" areas of the city continuing to be in demand, I'm not sure that the number of wealthy families in Toronto proper are indeed declining.
 
Heard about this on the radio this morning and came across the Globe and Mail article today.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...es/the-real-cost-of-suburbia/article14733912/

Think living in suburbia's cheaper? Think again
ROB CARRICK

The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Oct. 07 2013, 6:10 PM EDT
Last updated Tuesday, Oct. 08 2013, 9:14 AM EDT

There’s no refuge in the suburbs from Canada’s housing affordability problem.

You can buy a house for less money in the suburbs than you can in a big city, but the cost of commuting may kill almost all your savings. Some number-crunching by a public-spirited mortgage broker in the Toronto area makes this point quite clearly.

David Hughes, with the Mortgage Group Ontario Inc., divides his clients into a couple of groups with respect to attitudes toward living in suburbia: One group wants to live in the suburbs and is fine with the idea of commuting, and then there are those who want to live downtown, but can’t afford the prices. “They either buy a fixer-upper, or they run screaming to the suburbs and living with the two cars.”

Now, he finds people talking more about the cost of two working parents commuting by car every day. He explains this shift as being a result of the bigger mortgages people are taking on, and the considerable cost of buying and owning a car. “Gas at $1.30 a litre will do that to you,” he said.

No question, you’ll find house prices are cheaper outside big cities. Toronto Real Estate Board numbers suggest a spread of almost $250,000 between city homes and those in the neighbouring suburbs. But as shown in a spreadsheet created by Mr. Hughes, suburban living loses its cost advantage if you have two adults commuting by car each day. Add the effect of stress and time spent in gridlock, and suburbia looks even more costly.

Mr. Hughes uses some contentious assumptions, but his spreadsheet is a great conversation starter and a must-read for home buyers who are searching for affordability in the suburbs.

Imagine you’re part of a couple that has $50,000 for a down payment and must decide between a $500,000 house in the suburbs and a $720,000 house downtown. The suburban lifestyle comes with two cars in this example; the city dwellers get by with public transportation, taxis and car sharing or rentals. To keep things simple, we’ll assume here that your mortgage rate will be a constant 3.5 per cent and that you’ll take 25 years to pay it down.

Suburban living costs less in this example, but by only $63 per month if you add mortgage and transportation costs. And that’s with some conservative estimates by Mr. Hughes on car costs.

Using the 2013 edition of the Canadian Automobile Association’s Driving Costs publication (pdf) as a guide, he set the annual cost of commuting at $9,500 a vehicle, or $19,000 for a pair. Included in these costs are variable factors such as fuel and maintenance, and fixed expenses such as insurance, licence and registration, depreciation and financing.

Your actual car ownership costs could be lower if you drive a reliable older vehicle that has been paid off. But you may well pay more. Mr. Hughes’s CAA numbers were based on owning two Honda Civics – many families are driving at least one fancier vehicle. The estimated total number of kilometres driven each year was in the low 20,000 range – you could easily drive further in a year if you have a long commute.

The downtown household pays $6,000 annually for a pair of monthly transit passes and occasional use of taxis, car rentals or car sharing. Maybe it’s not realistic to believe a family with kids can live downtown and not own a car. But while owning a car for periodic use makes city living more expensive, it doesn’t do a thing to mitigate the high cost of commuting from the suburbs.

The case for cheaper suburban houses is undermined most when you take a long view that factors in your transportation needs both before and after your mortgage is paid off. Mr. Hughes figured on the suburban household moving to just one car after the mortgage is done, while the downtowners stay car-less.

Let’s add up what happens over 40 years – 25 with a mortgage and 15 afterward. The suburban household pays a total of $1.3-million on mortgage principal and interest and transportation. The downtown household pays just a little bit less – $33,865, to exact.

If you plan to live outside the city where you work, commuting costs must be part of your housing affordability analysis. Mr. Hughes said he delicately makes this point to clients that come in with thoughts of suburban living. “I don’t want to see anyone impoverished by their choice.”
 
Heard about this on the radio this morning and came across the Globe and Mail article today.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...es/the-real-cost-of-suburbia/article14733912/

Think living in suburbia's cheaper? Think again
ROB CARRICK

The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Oct. 07 2013, 6:10 PM EDT
Last updated Tuesday, Oct. 08 2013, 9:14 AM EDT

There’s no refuge in the suburbs from Canada’s housing affordability problem.

You can buy a house for less money in the suburbs than you can in a big city, but the cost of commuting may kill almost all your savings. Some number-crunching by a public-spirited mortgage broker in the Toronto area makes this point quite clearly.
....

I would have gone a lot of further. Theoretically, in town, parents and children can walk or bike to school or work, saving even more. Nobody has to drive to a mall, ever. There are more entertainment/cultural options for less cost, instead of a minimum $15-20 per person at the MegaPlex with popcorn and a soda.

Yeah, we've had a lot of debates about these points on UT but no pool-sized lot of extra 1000sf house will make up for the lost quality time with the kids every night after school. The weekends are not enough.

Which brings me to one of my original hobby horses when I joined UT. More family-sized condos please. If not for young and growing families, then maybe for downsizing boomers who want easy access to restaurants, culture and health care and don't care to live in a glass box on King W. with the young party hearty crowd.
 
Maybe it’s not realistic to believe a family with kids can live downtown and not own a car.

How can the mainstream media be so immensely detached from Toronto's working class families?
 
But the families displaced from downtown are mostly low-income families. They matter less.

Low income families pushed to Etobicoke and Scarborough - where they need to deal with winter walking distance to nowhere and without a car - are completely irrelevant, don't you see?


Exact reason why they should be relegated to LRTs, and us downtowners should get a DRL. It make sense!
 
Exact reason why they should be relegated to LRTs, and us downtowners should get a DRL. It make sense!

'Us downtowners' don't need transit to get anywhere else within downtown, the DRL would serve everyone else. 'Them vulnerable families' in the suburbs would have been much better served by a 7+stop grade-separated LRT with covered/heated stations than with a 3-stop subway that runs far from where they live. They'll be walking to the bus, now.
 
'Us downtowners' don't need transit to get anywhere else within downtown, the DRL would serve everyone else. 'Them vulnerable families' in the suburbs would have been much better served by a 7+stop grade-separated LRT with covered/heated stations than with a 3-stop subway that runs far from where they live. They'll be walking to the bus, now.

I guess that will make their neighborhoods more "walkable."

You know, I just don't understand the mindset of the "subways subways subways" crowd.
 

Back
Top