Downtown not the place to raise kids, says Toronto Deputy Mayor

[M II A II R II K]

Downtown not the place to raise kids, says Toronto Deputy Mayor


July 12, 2012

By Daniel Dale



Read More: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/city...r-doug-holyday

.....

Holyday, a former Etobicoke mayor who lives doors down from his grandchildren in a house on a “very quiet” suburban street, made the comments as he passionately argued against forcing a condo developer to include family-friendly three-bedroom units in a proposed 47-storey building at King St. W. and John St. Councillor Adam Vaughan has always insisted that developers looking to build in his Trinity-Spadina ward set aside 10 per cent of their buildings for three-bedroom units. “Where will these children play — on King St.?” Holyday asked skeptically.

- The city’s acting chief planner, Gregg Lintern, told Holyday that the area in question is “a neighbourhood, an emerging neighbourhood.” Lintern added that “it just makes for a healthier city” to have families living downtown. Holyday, dubious, said, “It makes for a healthier city to have children out on a street like King St. where it’s bumper-to-bumper traffic and people galore at all times of night and day? I just think of raising my own family there. That’s not the place I’d choose.”

- Lintern told Holyday that there are parks in the area. “In general, it might help to think about Manhattan or living in a European city where people live everywhere no matter what area of the city,” Lintern said. “They have families, they raise families the same way they would in other areas of the city, they go to school, they go to work, everything happens in the same fashion, it’s just that it’s in an urban form.”

- Josh Matlow, a midtown councillor, began his subsequent speech as follows: “To Councillor Holyday: Are you — are you serious? Do you really believe that there is some danger to children by living in the downtown area?” Holyday responded: “Well, I certainly think it’s really not the ideal place that people might want to raise their families. But on the other hand, if they do, I’m willing to leave the choice up to them, councillor. I’m not going to dictate to a developer that they must provide 10 per cent of their units in the three-bedroom form when there may or may not be a market for it.”

- Holyday, whose proposal was defeated 27-4, was unrepentant in comments to reporters during the meeting’s lunch break. “There are healthier places to raise children,” he said. “Some people might, and I don’t dispute — if they wish to do it, they can do it. Who am I to say that? I’m saying I personally wouldn’t want to be on the 47th floor of a condominium building at the corner of King and John with three kids.”

- In an interview, Vaughan said, “Sometimes you hear comments like that coming out of people like Doug Holyday and you wonder what decade they’re living in. I was walking through Rome with my son, and he turned to me and said, ‘Papa, how come they have no houses in Rome?’ In urban centres to Paris to Hong Kong to Johannesburg, people live in highrises and raise families in highrises and succeed in highrises.”

- “I can tell you,” he said, “as a kid who was born and raised in downtown Toronto and who has a family that’s being raised in downtown Toronto, the parks, the amenities, the cultural wonders of the city, the museums, even just being close to a baseball game or to take part in Caribana (now the Caribbean Carnival) — all the greatest parts of Toronto are at our doorstep. It’s a wonderful place to raise a kid.” The city has been without a chief planner since Gary Wright retired in March. City officials have been searching since last fall without success; at least two candidates have turned down the job in part because of concerns about working for the Ford administration.

.....

[Copes]

Its upsetting that people in public office are so unaware (or opposed, perhaps) to the basics of urban planning, neighbourhood development, and the development of vibrant and successful downtowns.

[mhays]

Downtowns are certainly places for kids. But I certainly question the intelligence of subsidizing three-bedroom units.

They don't call it a subsidy of course. But since three-bedroom units apparently don't sell well (given "downtown" prices for a large floor area), the developer would sell these at a loss, paid for by higher prices on the other units.

(Speaking generally without reading about Toronto's specifics)

[MolsonExport]

I am sure Mayor Blob Ford disagrees, because there are plenty of Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets in downtown Toronto.

[pesto]

I get it; there aren't enough swimmers downtown so let's force every place to build swimming pools to attract them.

But I would go with Mercedes dealers; that would encourage rich people to move downtown.

[Crawford]

This guy sounds like a moron, but he isn't totally wrong. By and large, traditional families tend to live on the outskirts, even in Europe. Granted, this is changing somewhat, in some cities.

I don't think you'll see tons of nuclear families living in the middle of Rome, or really anywhere in Europe.

[hammersklavier]

The phrase professional idiot comes to mind.

[llamaorama]

I dunno, I agree with him given the context. Should the city really enact some policy to force or subsidize the development of family sized apartments in skyscrapers?

This is something that I never liked about contemporary urban theory. Have urbanists forgot what the term "downtown" even means? There is more to a city than just freaking downtown. Should the regional central business district really be family friendly, or friendly to anyone really? Should downtown be a "neighborhood" at all?

It's a thing I notice in sunbelt cities. In places where there's really very little traditional urban fabric and what old neighborhoods do exist aren't friendly to new infill, dead downtowns become the target of confused urban revival.

[Double L]

Both are wrong for trying to tell people what to do.

[M II A II R II K]

Townhouse duplexes on newly created sidestreets and mews are better for families than condos and are still close parks and stuff.

[MostlyHarmless]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

I dunno, I agree with him given the context.

This is something that I never liked about contemporary urban theory. Have urbanists forgot what the term "downtown" even means? There is more to a city than just freaking downtown. Should the regional central business district really be family friendly, or friendly to anyone really? Should downtown be a "neighborhood" at all?

I'm with you on that. I can't fathom living in a high rise in the middle of a business district without kids, let alone with them. It's just not for me. I prefer more typical neighborhoods (not to mention not having to take an elevator to my home). I guess more power to people who make it work, but that's got to be an awkward living situation.

I mean, even in the be all end all urban Europe paradigm you don't really have families living in the central core. It's mostly yuppies and retirees just like in the USA/Can. If they do, they're hella rich and certainly it's not the norm.

[Doug]

I tried to raise 4 kids in a Hong Kong condo and it was challening to say the least. They could not go anywhere unescorted and the cramped quarters definately increased irritability. I gave up after a year and moved to a development called Discovery Bay, which is an almost beach resort style area on Lantau Island.

[someone123]

Often you'll hear an extreme version of this where somebody thinks kids need their own backyard to play in or whatever. I don't think that's true. I live in a condo development with lots of kids. We have a park next door and a courtyard with a swimming pool, clubhouse type area, etc. The amenities are nicer than what most people could afford for their own household. This isn't in a downtown setting, but it's the kind of condo development that could exist in most parts of Toronto. The downtown setting of King and John Street is a very small part of the Toronto area -- there are leafy residential neighbourhooods you can walk to in 15 minutes from the middle of the city. It is not really like Manhattan or Hong Kong.

Like other people have pointed out, it's not a good idea for anybody to proclaim how other people should live. Different families have different needs or wants, different financial means, and they will choose different trade-offs. They don't need city councillors or officials telling them how to live.

[RC14]

If the demand is there the 3+ bedroom condos will be built. The fact that the city has to force developers into building them proves there is little demand.
I would love to see cities become more family friendly but I don't think packing kids into condominiums like sardines is the way to do it. There needs to be some kind of open space for kids to play and these 'family oriented developments' need to be away from elements that most people don't want to raise their kids arround like bars and clubs. If not, most people won't risk living there, people are very protective when it comes to their children.

[McBane]

Downtown (in general, don't know much about Toronto) can be a great place to raise children. Unfortunately, it's a luxury that few can afford.

Downtown real estate tends to be expensive - and the family friendly neighborhoods (quieter, more parks, less bars/commercial activity) are even more expensive. Now since we're talking about raising a family, a 1 or 2 bedroom unit isn't going to cut it, and that nudges the costs even higher. Add in the general costs of raising children and the possibility of private school (most US urban school districts are terrible), and you've eliminated 99% of the population (1 percenter joke!).

With so few families being able to afford to raise their children downtown, even the most urban minded families, have to ask themselves - do I want to raise my children in a neighborhood where there aren't any other children to play with?

*Note: When I say "raise a family", I mean raising children through high school. Most "families" who stay downtown, usually end up moving out by the time the second child is on the way and/or when the first child begins school (because the cost of private school is too expensive). So while, Center City Philly for example, has lots of young, toddler toting parents mixing it up at neighborhood playgrounds, most of these families end up leaving as their children grow up.

[Gerrard]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I am sure Mayor Blob Ford disagrees, because there are plenty of Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets in downtown Toronto.

KFC? It's all about Popeye's and Church's now.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by someone123

Often you'll hear an extreme version of this where somebody thinks kids need their own backyard to play in or whatever. I don't think that's true.

Agreed. Cities offer parks, where children can play with other children and develop their social skills better than running around the backyard. The only advantage of the backyard is that, for post toddler children (5-8) is that they can play outback with minimal supervision, whereas, even in the safest city, no sane parent will let such a child that age play in the park by themselves.

The other thing is that children need outdoor space for only so long. Pre-teens who want to play outside, are probably bored by their backyard and usually want a big ball field to play in. By the time they are teenagers, they want to be able to "hang out" and city parents have the advantage that they don't have to chauffeur their children from A to B.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by McBane

Agreed. Cities offer parks, where children can play with other children and develop their social skills better than running around the backyard. The only advantage of the backyard is that, for post toddler children (5-8) is that they can play outback with minimal supervision, whereas, even in the safest city, no sane parent will let such a child that age play in the park by themselves.

The other thing is that children need outdoor space for only so long. Pre-teens who want to play outside, are probably bored by their backyard and usually want a big ball field to play in. By the time they are teenagers, they want to be able to "hang out" and city parents have the advantage that they don't have to chauffeur their children from A to B.

I think the point is that it's nice to have a yard right outside your door for children to play in, not that it's necessary. It's also not necessary to have your own bathroom when you can easily share one right down the hallway - but most prefer to have their own.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by RC14

If the demand is there the 3+ bedroom condos will be built. The fact that the city has to force developers into building them proves there is little demand.

Just to play devil's advocate, "market demand" isn't the only consideration.

The govt. has the obligation to do things that may not be dictated by market demand. Perhaps some folks in Toronto think that the downtown core needs more children, and the city should subsidize this need.

Or, to use a more common example, there is no "market demand" for subsidized housing, but it doesn't mean it's a bad idea to provide non-market housing. Much of Hong Kong is non-market housing (essentially "projects").

[mhays]

Cost is a big factor. People might pay $500/sf x 700 sf for one or two people, but they won't pay $500/sf x 1,500 sf for four people. Lots of singles and DINKs can do the small unit but most families can't do the bigger one. When cities require those 1,500 sf units, maybe they end up going for $400 x 1,500 with the neighbors de facto subsidizing the rest. The demand will be there but it won't pay for itself.