[RC8]

You don't have to convince me of that lifestyle. I went from living on Blue Jays way before condos were so 'hip' to facing Trinity-Bellwoods Park to Riverdale. I just think it's a little pompous for people to discount a completely different way of life. I don't think people 'plan' on commuting, but you just get more 'bang' for your buck. Wait until you have other dependants... being single in a bachelor pad is very different than raising childern and needing more space.

When a 'completely different way of life' is environmentally unsustainable, socially segregating, and fails to deliver adequate levels of well-being and happiness while requiring enormous amounts of government subsidies... it should be criticised.

It's not as if our big box suburbs happened organically because communities or the market dictated them - they were designed and master-planned to a much greater extent than denser urban areas. They are the ugly dysfunctional marriage of corporate interests and a socialist framework that is used to support centralised franchises over people's needs. When the parts of the city that were purposely designed to have the best traffic flow are the most gridlocked, you know it's not just a 'different' type of place, it's a poorly designed type of place.

 

[Ex-Montreal Girl]

You don't have to convince me of that lifestyle. I went from living on Blue Jays way before condos were so 'hip' to facing Trinity-Bellwoods Park to Riverdale. I just think it's a little pompous for people to discount a completely different way of life. I don't think people 'plan' on commuting, but you just get more 'bang' for your buck. Wait until you have other dependants... being single in a bachelor pad is very different than raising children and needing more space.

I raised two boys, and had as many as four cats and dogs at once, in a Riverdale semi. Our Subaru station wagon, bought in Montreal before our 1985 move here, sat in the driveway for days and days at a time. Both my husband and I relied on the TTC for getting to work in under 30 minutes. Bang for the buck to me is about quality of life, family time, getting home to help the kids with the homework and ensuring they are not goggle-eyed from TV-watching or video games. It's about picking up dinner (or the fixings for) on the way home and not spending time cruising mall parking lots on Saturdays looking for a spot just to get toilet paper. It's an evening stroll window-shopping or maybe a post-prandial coffee on a patio.

It is not about having a pool-sized lot to mow, killer car maintenance expenses and insurance rates and sitting on the 401 sending carbon emissions into the atmosphere just so I don't have to ever share a bathroom.

I grew up in a five bedroom home, fortunately in central Montreal, where I could walk or bike to my friends' houses, take transit to piano lessons and the movies and, later, the Metro to Expo 67 every night. Because I had four siblings plus a live-in grandmother, I shared my room with a sister. I don't think it harmed me in any way -- indeed, it taught me how to fight fair -- and I don't think kids need their own rooms at the price of growing up in a relatively sterile environment with parents who are stressed and tired from commuting.

This is why, when you say "bang for your buck" I hear you talking about square footage. I don't hear "quality of life."

 

[prosperegal]

When a 'completely different way of life' is environmentally unsustainable, socially segregating, and fails to deliver adequate levels of well-being and happiness while requiring enormous amounts of government subsidies... it should be criticised.

It's not as if our big box suburbs happened organically because communities or the market dictated them - they were designed and master-planned to a much greater extent than denser urban areas. They are the ugly dysfunctional marriage of corporate interests and a socialist framework that is used to support centralised franchises over people's needs. When the parts of the city that were purposely designed to have the best traffic flow are the most gridlocked, you know it's not just a 'different' type of place, it's a poorly designed type of place.

Living in the city can be socially segregating too. Not all condo-dwelling, city families are sending their children to the local (English) public elementary school. Many opt for French Immersion or private school. I mean, it IS true that most public schools south of Bloor score worse on EQAO than those in, say, Lawrence Park or Willowdale (and I think Willowdale area kids are almost as likely to come from homes that speak languages other than English).

 

[dlam]

I raised two boys, and had as many as four cats and dogs at once, in a Riverdale semi. Our Subaru station wagon, bought in Montreal before our 1985 move here, sat in the driveway for days and days at a time. Both my husband and I relied on the TTC for getting to work in under 30 minutes. Bang for the buck to me is about quality of life, family time, getting home to help the kids with the homework and ensuring they are not goggle-eyed from TV-watching or video games. It's about picking up dinner (or the fixings for) on the way home and not spending time cruising mall parking lots on Saturdays looking for a spot just to get toilet paper. It's an evening stroll window-shopping or maybe a post-prandial coffee on a patio.

It is not about having a pool-sized lot to mow, killer car maintenance expenses and insurance rates and sitting on the 401 sending carbon emissions into the atmosphere just so I don't have to ever share a bathroom.

I grew up in a five bedroom home, fortunately in central Montreal, where I could walk or bike to my friends' houses, take transit to piano lessons and the movies and, later, the Metro to Expo 67 every night. Because I had four siblings plus a live-in grandmother, I shared my room with a sister. I don't think it harmed me in any way -- indeed, it taught me how to fight fair -- and I don't think kids need their own rooms at the price of growing up in a relatively sterile environment with parents who are stressed and tired from commuting.

This is why, when you say "bang for your buck" I hear you talking about square footage. I don't hear "quality of life."

+1! Wonderful post. Great pointing out how people these days think kids should have their own room. I grew up sharing with my brother. And when I went to university, I shared a double room with a roommate. I think kids would develop good characteristics being considerate of other people when sharing same living/sleeping space.

 

[js97]

When a 'completely different way of life' is environmentally unsustainable, socially segregating, and fails to deliver adequate levels of well-being and happiness while requiring enormous amounts of government subsidies... it should be criticised.

Large populations in general are not 'environmentally' sustainable. Socially segragating - seems like it. Between City place (the vast football field) and the TCHC home that was 'planned', or Yorkville vs Jamestown, Cabbage town vs regent park (we'll see where those mixed used buildings land in 10 yrs), it's simply a matter of degree of separation.

Heck, Social housing and Public transit also require an enormous amounts of government subsidies. Is there definitive data to show the current nominal costs?

I'm just saying you're obviously extremely biased towards one 'way of life', doesn't necessarily mean others see it your way. Heck, it might as well be a debate about different religious and how 'pious' your way of life is compared to someone elses.

 

[js97]

This is why, when you say "bang for your buck" I hear you talking about square footage. I don't hear "quality of life."

I Agree, that's what I'm trying to say.

'Quality of life' in itself is a subjective measurement. Some people feel that they get more value from more square footage vs a shorter commute. If given the option of a bigger space and more privacy, and all things being equal, I bet most UT posters would choose the bigger more private space.
It's all about how individuals allocate their resources and what they value as 'quality of life'. I have friends that put up with their commute so they can live in a 3000+ square ft home in the burbs. I personally don't think anyone needs that much space, but that's their choice. Who am I to say that's wrong? Am I more enlightened because I mostly lived in an urban setting? Maybe it's because I'm christian that I'm more enlightened?

P.S. Riverdale is itself a bubble of Toronto (and formerly considered a suburb of TO.)

Would that model work everywhere? Probably yes, but it would require over-reaching government intervention on residential and commercial planning/limitation - and I don't think any UT'ers actually want to be told where to live/work (at leats most of us)

 

[Ex-Montreal Girl]

I Agree, that's what I'm trying to say.

'Quality of life' in itself is a subjective measurement. Some people feel that they get more value from more square footage vs a shorter commute. If given the option of a bigger space and more privacy, and all things being equal, I bet most UT posters would choose the bigger more private space.
It's all about how individuals allocate their resources and what they value as 'quality of life'. I have friends that put up with their commute so they can live in a 3000+ square ft home in the burbs. I personally don't think anyone needs that much space, but that's their choice. Who am I to say that's wrong?

I feel free to say it's wrong when I am being taxed to maintain roads for suburban commuters who spew carbon into the air, who contribute to gridlock, whose desire for large private lots eats up farmland and displaces wildlife, who demand more horizontal infrastructure while Toronto's is crumbling, etc.

I thought most people on UT are pro-density. So I don't understand how you can say that most UT posters would opt the bigger, more private space.

 

[pignchick]

I feel free to say it's wrong when I am being taxed to maintain roads for suburban commuters who spew carbon into the air, who contribute to gridlock, whose desire for large private lots eats up farmland and displaces wildlife, who demand more horizontal infrastructure while Toronto's is crumbling, etc.

I thought most people on UT are pro-density. So I don't understand how you can say that most UT posters would opt the bigger, more private space.

The problem is that Toronto is already way too expensive. You want density, great, but explain how people are going to afford to pay their mortgage and send their kids to a great school and feel that their children are safe?

Not to mention that Toronto does not even have the infrastructure as it is for the amount of density that is being built.

 

[Admiral Beez]

None of this will change when these young people start having families and find that a house in the core is neither available nor affordable.

There are lots of semi and row houses for sale in the old city of Toronto, and affordability is a relative term. Where I live in Cabbagetown there are tons of young families, obviously with sufficient income to afford the houses, plus the nearly requisite Filipino nanny.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I feel free to say it's wrong when I am being taxed to maintain roads for suburban commuters who spew carbon into the air.

We all spew carbon into the air, unless you're a tree.

 

[Glen]

I feel free to say it's wrong when I am being taxed to maintain roads for suburban commuters who spew carbon into the air, who contribute to gridlock, whose desire for large private lots eats up farmland and displaces wildlife, who demand more horizontal infrastructure while Toronto's is crumbling, etc.

I thought most people on UT are pro-density. So I don't understand how you can say that most UT posters would opt the bigger, more private space.

I feel free to say that it is tiresome for you, RC8 and others to continue to insist that you somehow are subsidizing the suburbs. Have either of you ever actually looked at the budgets? I am sure that neither of you have. For your convenience I will give you the following to chew on. The TTC consumes 42% (618 million per year) vs. Transportation's 14% (216 million per year) of the capital budget. On the operating side the TTC requires a yearly operating subsidy of 400 million vis 284 million for Transportation. As for emissions, drivers would be able to purchase carbon offsets from companies such as planetair for less than $100 per year which would more than compensate.

http://www.toronto.ca/budget2012/pdf/2012_capbudg_presentation.pdf (page 22)
http://www.toronto.ca/budget2012/pdf/2012_opbudg_presentation.pdf (page 29)
http://www.toronto.ca/budget2012/pdf/op12_an_ttc.pdf (page 3)

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Well, you haven't taken into account the capital cost of new roadways that would be needed if public transit doesn't exist - I have a feeling the cost of that would be quite a bit higher.

AoD

 

[RC8]

The TTC is self-sufficient in the old city of Toronto, it would require next to no subsidies to run there. Maybe you should take a less superficial look at the budgets yourself, Glen. The TTC itself is a classic example of the city subsidising service in the suburbs.

 

[Glen]

The TTC is self-sufficient in the old city of Toronto,

Prove it.

 

[RC8]

Well, you haven't taken into account the capital cost of new roadways that would be needed if public transit doesn't exist - I have a feeling the cost of that would be quite a bit higher.

AoD

Estimated number of cars that a TTC vehicle replaces during a typical morning rush hour:
- Bus: 45
- CLRV streetcar: 65
- ALRV streetcar: 95
- SRT train (4 cars): 195
- Subway train (6 cars): 890
- Toronto Rocket train (6 cars): 960

Guess who benefits from that the most?

Information on TTC lines and ridership is readily available Glen, just take a look. There's several bus routes in the old city of Toronto that have ridership levels equivalent or higher to those of the Sheppard subway at operating costs orders of magnitude lower. Most TTC routes pay for themselves, and routes in the old city - which is grossly under-served by transit - usually produce revenue for the system. Still, the TTC is arguably more important to people in the periphery of the old city and the old suburbs than to downtowners. Well over 50% of downtown residents don't drive or use the TTC to commute - cycling or walking instead.

The TTC currently pays 70% of its operating costs, though. It is a very efficiently run system all in all, and a pretty neat service. We run empty buses in Rosedale and Etobicoke more as a social service than anything, but there's nothing wrong with that.

I for one, as most people who live downtown, pay an exorbitant amount of property taxes per metre squared, and I rarely if ever use the TTC or our extensive suburban road system. If you look at which parts of the city contribute the most to our municipal budget, it's the parts of the city that have a combination of higher commercial and residential density and higher property values.

Finally, let me point out that our transportation budget is as low as it is because we are doing a horrible job at servicing our streets. The streets I ride on every day downtown are worse than any others I've had to put up with - and I've lived in third world countries! Suburban folk get hundreds of times more metres of asphault per person than downtowners do, and yet their streets are in the same or better shape... what does that tell you?