[Pfloyd]

Reading a lot of these negative comments in regards to Vaughan's proposed 10% family size condo units requirement, I come to the sad realization that most people in Toronto (if in fact those forumers are in Toronto) really are very suburban in that particular North American mindset. Although, many people claim that economics is what drives people to the periphery, I do believe that a large part of it is something embedded in the psyque of many people since the 1950's in this part of the world.

In most major cities around the world (outside NA, of course), families do live in (or very close to) the urban core of the city: London. Paris, Madrid, Tokio, Buenos Aires, etc, etc.

It's all a function of density and proximity to services and public transit, just like European cities. This whole notion that kids must have a private backyard when growing up is very American/North American. I guess although we can claim that Toronto is in the urban major leagues in North America (competition being very minimal: NYC, downtown Chicago, San Francisco), with this kind of mentality family=suburbs/single professionals=downtown, we'll never reach that next level of a truly cosmopolitan urban environment.

 

[Whoaccio]

But if it were made into a rule (i.e. mandatory), politicians/bureaucrats wouldn't be able to use it as a tool to extort. Have I missed something?

A law is only as good as your lawyer, and that is especially true for zoning bylaws which have about the same legal standing as a fortune cookie. Think about it, how many times have developers applied to somehow bypass density bylaws in exchange for providing something like a park or community center? I can't imagine some kind of municipal warlord not allowing exceptions to the so called "family unit" quota in exchange for a Jane Jacobs Parkette or Tommy Douglas Community Center.

In most major cities around the world (outside NA, of course), families do live in (or very close to) the urban core of the city: London. Paris, Madrid, Tokio, Buenos Aires, etc, etc.

That's not entirely true. Half my family lives in London, and from everything I've seen they are more or less the same as us. The percent of population in both cities under 19 are roughly identical (22-25%), but our median age is slightly older (38 vs. 35). You get all the same patterns of people having children in the City, but moving out when they reach school age, a concentration of children in disadvantaged households and a greater concentration of children in the outer parts of the City. I know the people who can afford it buy a family house somewhere outside London plus a small crashpad in The City for the breadwinner to stay during the week.

I don't know enough about your other examples, but I suspect they aren't very different. I know with Japan families in general are rare. As a percent of population, I'm quite sure there are substantially fewer youth in Tokyo than Toronto. Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan are pretty much the world record holders for least children.

 

[Pfloyd]

That's not entirely true. Half my family lives in London, and from everything I've seen they are more or less the same as us. The percent of population in both cities under 19 are roughly identical (22-25%), but our median age is slightly older (38 vs. 35). You get all the same patterns of people having children in the City, but moving out when they reach school age, a concentration of children in disadvantaged households and a greater concentration of children in the outer parts of the City. I know the people who can afford it buy a family house somewhere outside London plus a small crashpad in The City for the breadwinner to stay during the week.

I don't know enough about your other examples, but I suspect they aren't very different. I know with Japan families in general are rare. As a percent of population, I'm quite sure there are substantially fewer youth in Tokyo than Toronto. Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan are pretty much the world record holders for least children.

Since you brough up Hong Kong, my co-worker who is from there and sits behind me just told me that the suburbs in the city are very small, and that the vast majority of families live in highrises, either small or large depending on your wealth.
That Japan has a low birth rate, is a different issue. Families do live in the city in large percentages. I don't know Singapore, but I suspect is similar to HK. In South America, I know of lots of people whose families live in 2,000 to 3,000 sq ft 3-4 bedroom condos complete with a separate bedroom for a maid.
My point is that family living in the city either in townhome or condos is very common outside North America-it is a fact. I am in favour of Adam Vaughan's proposal, and don't see anything wrong with it. Period.

 

[Whoaccio]

^
It's not really a fact, though. Most of them have no higher, or often lower, number of youth in their cities than we do (coincidentally, that is a fact). They are significantly denser, so generally the families they do have live in denser arrangements. That's not very controversial, and they simply cope by having less children. I don't think we want that. Immigrants are in all cases the most fecund portion of society and many East Asian countries specifically limit the ability to immigrate for that reason. In Singapore, pregnancy is grounds for deporting foreign workers, a policy which most here would think is barbarous.

EDIT: All of this is to say that the conception that downtowns elsewhere on Earth are family utopias is a bit deranged. There is no city I am aware of* that has a higher or even equal concentration of children living downtown than in the periphery. Families simply don't put enough of a premium on location, on average, to justify premium rents. That doesn't mean they live in sprawling cul de sacs, built form usually reflects local economic conditions and zoning regulations.

*The one exception I can think of are in some cases of extreme inner city poverty. I know St. James town has a quite noticeable concentration of youth relative to it's surroundings and I suspect you could find parallels elsewhere. I don't think this is a healthy development, though.

 

[Pfloyd]

^
It is a fact that families do live in the urban parts of cities elsewhere outside North America in larger percentages than they do in downtown Toronto. You need to get out of Toronto and travel a little bit, you know. Your "family utopia" comment are your own words and your own flawed interpretation of my statements. In any case, my argument is not that in most international cities most families live in the core than out of the core, but that urban living for families is quite common elsewhere, and that we should have the option of familiy size condominiums in downtown Toronto.
I hope I'm making myself clear now.

 

[TOareaFan]

To me this issue is about how much of a role we want/need governments and legislation to play in determining the housing stock....and, consequently, how much we are all willing to pay for that.

There are very few subsets of our species who spend as much time thinking/talking/acting-on "market demands" than real estate developers.....and they would happily tell you that they only deliver the product that the market wants/will pay for.

If, in the advancement of some desirable social change, we are willing to force them to build something that, to this point, the market has not exhibited a demand for, then we will (I bet) have to accept other trade offs and those would likely be higher profit margins on the 90% of the units that they are pretty sure they can sell to offset any additional risk associated with the 10% that they are forced to build but they are not sure will sell ('cause if they were sure they'd sell...they'd be building them now!).

 

[BobBob]

The way I see it, the government already distorts all sorts of markets (taxing some things, subsidizing others, investing in capital projects, etc), and that's fine, if we as a society agree that it's in the interest of a desirable goal. In this case, I would have to agree with Vaughan that there is a benefit to society in avoiding a completely polarized city in which all children grow up in the burbs and the city is a singles' playground. That is a matter of opinion to some degree, but within the context of some of our other efforts toward a greener and more sustainable society, it definitely seems like a step in the right direction.

 

[Pfloyd]

To me this issue is about how much of a role we want/need governments and legislation to play in determining the housing stock....and, consequently, how much we are all willing to pay for that.

There are very few subsets of our species who spend as much time thinking/talking/acting-on "market demands" than real estate developers.....and they would happily tell you that they only deliver the product that the market wants/will pay for.

If, in the advancement of some desirable social change, we are willing to force them to build something that, to this point, the market has not exhibited a demand for, then we will (I bet) have to accept other trade offs and those would likely be higher profit margins on the 90% of the units that they are pretty sure they can sell to offset any additional risk associated with the 10% that they are forced to build but they are not sure will sell ('cause if they were sure they'd sell...they'd be building them now!).

You bring a very important point, supply and demand. Obviously 99% of developers are there to make money, and they respond to demand. However, in a capitalist democracy like ours, there is also government legislation that regulates pretty much every human activity. In the particular case of urban issues there many regulations that "mold" the built environment. So not everything is the result of supply/demand interplay. Vancouver is an example closer to home where the urban envelope is highly regulated. On the opposite end you got Houston where ther are no zoning laws. The results are quite telling of the priorities of either society.
In any case, yes, if city regulations are necessary to be introduced to force developers to provide 10% family size units, so be it. It's done all the time.

 

[Pfloyd]

The way I see it, the government already distorts all sorts of markets (taxing some things, subsidizing others, investing in capital projects, etc), and that's fine, if we as a society agree that it's in the interest of a desirable goal. In this case, I would have to agree with Vaughan that there is a benefit to society in avoiding a completely polarized city in which all children grow up in the burbs and the city is a singles' playground. That is a matter of opinion to some degree, but within the context of some of our other efforts toward a greener and more sustainable society, it definitely seems like a step in the right direction.

Well said. I agree.

 

[Whoaccio]

^
It is a fact that families do live in the urban parts of cities elsewhere outside North America in larger percentages than they do in downtown Toronto. You need to get out of Toronto and travel a little bit, you know. Your "family utopia" comment are your own words and your own flawed interpretation of my statements. In any case, my argument is not that in most international cities most families live in the core than out of the core, but that urban living for families is quite common elsewhere, and that we should have the option of familiy size condominiums in downtown Toronto.
I hope I'm making myself clear now.

Uhh... I'm half Londoner and am telling you categorically there isn't any difference between the two. I've already provided you with relevant statistics which show Toronto is well within global norms, and actually above, East Asian norms, in terms of the number of children living in the city, the best measure of family-ness. You don't see many toddlers living in Shoreditch or Canary Wharf, just like you don't see many toddlers in at King/Bay or in Clubland.

In any case, we do have the option of "family sized" condos in Toronto. Three bedroom condos do exist and developers can build more without any kind of penalty. The issue is affordability, not supply which, in this case, is quite elastic. A three bedroom condo in the core isn't generally going for under 500k, which is simply unaffordable for most Torontonians, on top of ongoing maintenance costs.

The way I see it, the government already distorts all sorts of markets (taxing some things, subsidizing others, investing in capital projects, etc), and that's fine, if we as a society agree that it's in the interest of a desirable goal. In this case, I would have to agree with Vaughan that there is a benefit to society in avoiding a completely polarized city in which all children grow up in the burbs and the city is a singles' playground. That is a matter of opinion to some degree, but within the context of some of our other efforts toward a greener and more sustainable society, it definitely seems like a step in the right direction.

It's fine to for the government to intervene periodically, but if these interventions aren't developed properly they will just waste money and fail to accomplish their stated goal. The history of idiotic government intervention in the housing market to fulfill generally agreeable goals is surprisingly long (think rent control...). In this case the issue is not our ability to build family condos. Any developer who wants to can build them. In general, then, we can say that "family condos" are elastic, or at least as elastic as the rest of the housing market. The main reason then for a lack of 3bdr condos is not any structural factor, but low demand, which in turn is a function of high costs and low earnings.

If you mandate x% of a building is 3bdr units, none of that will change. A better solution then would be to try to lower costs in general. In broad strokes I would suggest ending the effective ban on redevelopment across most of downtown. All we get is grossly overvalued semi-detached shacks which can never be redeveloped, obviously raising prices. Allowing laneway houses, changing the building codes to allow larger (6 storey) wood frame residences, lighten up on parking requirements, stop requiring high rise buildings to build architectural frills (i.e. the crown) and do as much to discourage expensive features like floor to ceiling windows or massive lobbies as possible.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Family-size condos urged for downtown
But developers argue bigger units too costly to compete with homesPaul Moloney

Downtown Toronto will turn into a child-free zone if apartment and condominium builders don't start including family-friendly units in their developments, says a downtown councillor.

But developers who turned up at City Hall last week attacked a proposal that would require 10 per cent of all units in large developments to have three or more bedrooms.

Councillor Adam Vaughan (Ward 20, Trinity-Spadina), who is leading the charge for more family housing, says downtown schools are emptying out as a wave of new development suited only to singles and couples is built.

Vaughan said it's healthy to have more children downtown, to make use of existing schools, community centres and libraries.

While the downtown core's population has increased, the number of children could decline over time unless policy changes are made.

"The issue is in 25 years, if you don't build family housing now, I can guarantee you there'll be no children living in the downtown core," he said in an interview.

But developers say the 10 per cent family-unit proposal flies in the face of market forces.

Alan Vihant, of Concord Adex, told the planning and growth committee that the kind of unit proposed would have to sell for about $650,000 – and for that price, families will opt to buy a house.

"There are many housing choices at this cost level, and there is little demand for families to live in a 1,200-square-foot condo unit that costs $650,000," he said.

Developers who include those units in their buildings today find they're the last to sell, he said. And including hard-to-sell units in buildings makes it harder to get financing.

Steve Deveaux, of the Building Industry and Land Development Association, said changing that equation would require government help: "We can't bear the burden of reducing prices on these units."

At Vaughan's suggestion, the committee instructed planning staff to fine-tune a draft policy by April 21, after further discussions with developers, board of education staff and families currently in condos.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/723491--family-size-condos-urged-for-downtown

 

[emma23miller]

I actually enjoy the fact there are not a lot of kids in downtown Toronto. For me the whole point of living here is to be among other couples and singles, not among strollers and diapers and crying kids...

I would also make sure not to live next to or beneath a large unit that is likely to attract a family. I don’t want to hear constant crying form babies or wake up at 7 on a weekend because the toddler in the unit above decided to run around. Neighbors are unpredictable enough as it is, so if I can reasonably expect a noisy neighbor, I would make sure to avoid that unit. Also family-friendly amenities in a condo will be paid for by all the residents, and I would rather pay for a gym and a media room than kid stuff.

I totally understand parents that want to live close to the action, but I don’t see what benefits they bring to the area to justify government interference.

 

[kEiThZ]

Vaughan's goal is a good one but that's not the way to go about it. Make downtown more kid friendly first (parkettes, schools, etc.) and the demand will follow. Otherwise, this is just an attack on developers. Mandating that developers build 10% of units as family friendly when there's no demand for it, means their largest units will give them the lowest psf return.

And the purchase cost is not the only reason families avoid downtown, as mentioned earlier it's things like maintenance fees. Even families that can afford a half million dollar condo would find 700 bucks on condo fees expensive. Sure, you don't have to shovel snow or mow the lawn. But in reality, very few people who live in a house pay someone else to do it. I know some people who love to shovel snow purely for fresh air and exercise! Until, they can do something about condo fees for larger units, they are going to have a tough time attracting families to the core....especially when neighbourhoods like Riverdale or even The Beaches are only a 15-20 minute subway or streetcar ride away and have many of the advantages and very few of the disadvantages of downtown living.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Personally, I don't see the downside to having mostly singles, couples and empty nesters. Don't kids add to the fiscal burden of providing city services?

 

[lead82]

I think the issue of condo fees is something that is a ticking time bomb. They keep going up and up, and large condos or older buildings are approaching $700-$1000 a month fees just for maintenance. With that, the cost of condos becomes very unaffordable, and most people opt to live in a house or a freehold town home.

I think part of the problem is that many new condos have too many amenities and use inefficient materials in construction. There needs to be more back to basics buildings without security, without pools, and just have a party room, gym and other a low cost amenities. Low maintenance buildings can help make it more affordable for families to live downtown.