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

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

Like I said, your perspective changes when you have kids - I have two - and you'll find that out if or when you do....There really is no argument about this...I want you to think about this discussion when you have a child. It will all seem different then (if you're a responsible parent) - I promise.

We might not be parents...but we have parents. And we were kids once (some of us not all that long ago). And in the case of most of the people responding, it certainly sounds like they didn't mind us going out unsupervised.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

Good God...you're the only talking about "locking them up" and "being held prisoner". I never suggested any such thing. Don't put words in my mouth.

I have two kids, ages 9 and 13. I am a teacher and a parent. There is a big difference in perspective, and I'm sorry you don't yet realize that. This started with a simple comment, and as usual, someone like you comes along and blows it out of the water. It isn't all that important, and I don't care if you believe it or not. You will one day.

Now, talk amongst yourselves. I don't feel like arguing with you.

So is the 13 year old allowed to leave the house or not? Because that is what you wrote, noone is putting words in your mouth. Maybe he or she chooses not to leave the house, so it's their own choice (there's also a problem with that), but you specifically said you don't allow it. So which is it?

I find it hard to believe that a 13 year old (who doesn't have a condition like autism or something) would not start to explore the boundries of independence and self expression. Hell, we start to do that when we're 2! You forbidding things will only make them more attractive, so how does this "keeping them in the house" thing work so that it not amounts to keeping them under lock and key (literally or otherwise). Do you bribe them to stay in?

[Doady]

It is hard to judge if it is appropriate for children aged 6 to go to store alone because I don't remember what it is was like when i was 6 and I don't know any child that is currently 6. It does seem a little young, maybe by 8 years it might be okay.

Not allowing children to go out alone until they are 13 years old is simply ridiculous though. That is not normal. Like at all. That is just bad parenting. For example, most children (at least where I live) already to walk to school alone by the time they are 9 years old. I personally started walking to school alone in grade 3 (8 years old).

[SHiRO]

Keeping your 12 year old locked up in the house most certainly will get you in trouble with Child Services faster than letting your 6 year old play in the park. At least that's how it works in most sane countries.

TarheelJ, you're saying some pretty outlandish things and you seem to think it's the norm. It's probably not even the norm in your own country. At least I'm aware that letting 13 year olds boozing it up in a bar is not the norm.

[llamaorama]

It seems like the debate going on here is about two extremes? How typical is Shiro or TarHeel's experience? What does it even have to do with the thread?

Anyways, I stand by my argument that while maybe it's not abnormal if kids play outside unaccompanied in safe, functional urban neighborhoods, even high rise ones, downtown is a different thing. What are kids going to do downtown anyways? Ride their bikes on the sidewalk in front of Nordstrom's and eat at Chipotle

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

Agreed. Making inmates of your children is not good parenting.


There's nothing wrong with letting your 6 year old play in the park or playground down the street or let him/her walk to school or the cornerstore. In fact, I'm pretty sure that more accidents happen in the home to kids anyway.
It's especially OK if they're with friends or a slightly older sibling. And if it's not OK for a 6 year old (all kids are different), then it certainly is OK for a 8 year old or a 10 years old. What's not OK is to keep your 12 year old locked up in the house because that most certainly will cause problems.


No the problem is that you can't accept that there are other cultures and other viewpoints. You probably don't even realize you are a very small minority that agrees that it's a good idea to rob 12 year olds from basic freedom.

Dude - I'm done. Move on...it's not serious enough to write 3-4 very similar essays on the subject.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

It seems like the debate going on here is about two extremes?

Yes, and I never was on the extreme side...but a couple of people keep trying to put me there. You can't have a decent discussion with some people.

[TarHeelJ]

Anyway...

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

Yes, and I never was on the extreme side...but a couple of people keep trying to put me there.

Then explain what you mean by "not letting them out of the house untill they're 12-13" because that's literally what you wrote. How do you enforce this?

Confrontation can be hard, but if you really believe in this, defend it!



There's nothing extreme about letting a 6 year old play in the park. I even have a hunch they build parks and playgrounds specifically for kids to play in, but maybe I'm wrong, maybe they're just there because it looks good...
And I fully recognise some 6 year olds are not suited to be left unsupervised, I'm generalizing here though, most 6 year olds should be able to handle that. And if not 6 year olds (yes it is pretty young) then certainly 8 year olds. Taking it to the extreme would be extending that to 12-13 years old.

[TarHeelJ]

Shiro, I believe I made my point and I don't need to keep repeating it. I have answered your questions and you continue to ask the same things and post things that I did not say. At this point it's more of an attack than a discussion. You keep going if you like.

[J. Will]

I'd think a parent and a teacher would understand how irresponsible it is to wait until a kid is 12 to teach them the basics:

-look both ways before crossing the street
-don't talk to or take things from strangers
-don't touch needles on the ground
-stay away from wild/stray animals

I don't see how waiting until a child is 12 to starting using these basics is responsible parenting.

[Jelly Roll]

Originally Posted by J. Will

I'd think a parent and a teacher would understand how irresponsible it is to wait until a kid is 12 to teach them the basics:

-look both ways before crossing the street
-don't talk to or take things from strangers
-don't touch needles on the ground
-stay away from wild/stray animals

I don't see how waiting until a child is 12 to starting using these basics is responsible parenting.

Nobody said it was. I also do not understand why this thread has been divided into either letting a 7 year old run wild in a city or locking a 12 year old in their room. Clearly there is some sort of middle ground. I would think a parent would want to know where the kids planned on going and with whom before they left.

[Don B.]

I don't think any government should have the right to dictate to a developer the particular types of units that should be built in a given building. It inhibits the free market and I think, after generally zoning a part of the city (for high density/medium density/low density), they are done. Let the market determine what gets built where.

Then again, Canadians are willing to put up with a whole lot of nanny state stuff that many Americans would not. This is one of the reasons why Calgary has a spectacular skyline and Phoenix does not, even though Phoenix is four times the size of Calgary in population. In Phoenix, the governments are fairly weak and lack the ability to force developers to build high rises only downtown, so you have them scattered all over the metro area and a lot of it is lower density stuff. In Calgary, the downtown is purely an artificial construct, contrived by forcing all developers who wish to build a high rise into a small downtown area. I shudder to think of the effects on land costs all of this statism creates there.

--don

[Copes]

I started walking to school, to the playground, to the local swimming pool, to the corner store, and to my friend's houses in the neighborhood when I was 7 or 8. I never felt unsafe, my parents always gave me a run down of when I needed to be home by / what rules I needed to follow before I left, and I feel I had a very good childhood.

I grew up to be responsible, I never got kidnapped, I never got involved with drugs or gangs, and overall I think I'm better because of it.

The things I resent most about my entire upbringing was stupid restrictions my parents put on me that made no sense, and I still make fun of them for. I wasn't allowed to chew gum until I was six? Power Rangers and Ninja Turtles were deemed "too violent" and I couldn't watch those until I was old enough that I didn't care anymore? Silly things, but as I said, if that's all I have to complain about its no big deal. I'll poke fun at them for it now, and they just laugh and say "hey, you were the first, we were over-protective".

Now, I will recognize that I lived in a small town of a few thousand people, and not in downtown Toronto. I can't comment on what it would be like to be in downtown Toronto as a child. I like to think that you have to make this decision on a case by case basis too, really looking at how responsible your child is. Going back to the topic, the bottom line is that the blanket statement by the deputy-mayor is irritating, and downtown should be the kind of place that children can walk to the park, or over a few blocks to a store to buy a chocolate bar.

If its not, than that's a failing of the city's politicians and police force in my opinion, not a bad decision by the families who wish to raise their children there.

[WilliamTheArtist]

Was just looking at a little "art deco" style story book from the 1930s I bought a while back to go with my art deco collection. It was about city life and country life. It showed little children in the city walking to school and all the different things they might see on the way (tall buildings with street level shop windows having all kinds of store displays) showed the kids playing on the sidewalks, stickball in an alley, taking a bus or trolley to the park or zoo, going to the corner soda shop, showed where one little kid lived in a tall building and how he took the elevator to get to his home way up high, and so on.... just as normally as the country kid going about their daily routines in their world.

Sounds a lot like some of the stories my mom would tell of her childhood when they lived in Sand Springs, an "urban village" streetcar suburb of Tulsa.

I read an article the other day that basically said, contrary to what the daily news might seem to portray, crime is less now than at any time since record keeping has been kept in the US, and possibly less than at any time in our nations history.

Not all cities or areas are the same, but in general it's as safe for kids to get out on their own in the city as it ever was.

As our downtown continues to revitalize I see more and more kids. Just about every time I leave from working late at the Art Deco museum to get my car at the nearby parking garage in the evening there are kids on skateboards looping their way down from the top floors. The building the museum is in has a candy store out front and a gelato place across from that with seating outside, there are usually kids out there. In our museum we have a tiny art deco movie theater mock-up that you can go inside, have started just playing old cartoons like Betty Boop because of all the kids that come in. There is a park down the way with a fountain where you can often see kids and families. Was speaking to someone who opened a new restaurant downtown a while back and he mentioned how suprised he was by all the families and kids that came to his place (has lots of old vintage video games and live music ) and has started gearing his place to cater more to them, but that wasn't his original idea at all of who he thought would be in downtown or coming to downtown. Though he is just a few blocks away from the new ballpark. Also our downtown may be unique in that the large, beautiful old churches didn't empty out but are bustling and growing, playgrounds and daycares full of kids, some even have opened their own coffee shops, gyms and youth centers in nearby buildings.

One of our local Form Based Code gurus is fond of saying... if you make a place (streets, sidewalks, urban neighborhood) thats safe and enjoyable for kids first, keeping them in mind first... everything else will follow and it will be safe and enjoyable place for everyone.

Urban living in a city core can be a wonderful place for kids to grow up in and explore.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by Don B.

Then again, Canadians are willing to put up with a whole lot of nanny state stuff that many Americans would not.

Not really. There's a tonne of nanny state stuff that goes on in the U.S. (or parts of the U.S.) that Canadians would never tolerate. From "stop and frisk", to arrests for frivolous things such as dancing on a subway platform or a woman being topless in public (even in a State where it's legal) or a girl getting arrested for holding up a sign warning motorists of an upcoming speed trap, to public parks that are surrounded by ugly fences and locked gates at night instead of being open to the sidewalk, to an upcoming ban on sugary drinks over 16 oz. in restaurants and movie theatres in one city, to youth curfews (which no major Canadian city has EVER had), to people being asked for their "papers" miles from the Mexican border.

Even more related to your point, "affordable housing" requirements.

Overall I find the United States to be far more of a nanny state than Canada.

In Calgary, the downtown is purely an artificial construct, contrived by forcing all developers who wish to build a high rise into a small downtown area.

No. Calgary has numerous highrises miles from downtown. And if you look at cities like Vancouver or Toronto, they have hundreds of highrises miles (in some cases over 10 miles) from downtown. When it comes to highrise development, in Canada it is generally much easier to build highrises in non-downtown areas than it is in most American cities.

[flar]

I think my small town childhood was a lot better than growing up in the burbs, but it would have been so much more awesome to grow up in a city.

That said, I would not raise my kids in a highrise. But I would definitely love to live near downtown in a rowhouse/townhouse/brownstone type of thing.

[niwell]

I'm really not buying this "let the market decide" argument, at least in the very specific case of requiring 3 bedroom units in central Toronto. Fact of the matter is the condo market here is strongly influenced by external investors who simply rent out units - and it's much easier to market multiple small units if this is the case. The 3 bedroom ones are more difficult to sell yes, but they certainly aren't sitting empty after construction.

Also the claim that government shouldn't dictate whats built and so on.... this is one of the core concepts of zoning. It's not like sim-city where you designate high/medium/low and watch things get built - the number of units etc has concrete and measurable impacts on municipal services and must be taken into account. Also in Toronto's case many of these condo projects are granted extra density under provisions in the Planning Act provided they provide funding or the like to other municipal projects.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by J. Will

Not really. There's a tonne of nanny state stuff that goes on in the U.S. (or parts of the U.S.) that Canadians would never tolerate. From "stop and frisk", to arrests for frivolous things such as dancing on a subway platform or a woman being topless in public (even in a State where it's legal) or a girl getting arrested for holding up a sign warning motorists of an upcoming speed trap, to public parks that are surrounded by ugly fences and locked gates at night instead of being open to the sidewalk, to an upcoming ban on sugary drinks over 16 oz. in restaurants and movie theatres in one city, to youth curfews (which no major Canadian city has EVER had), to people being asked for their "papers" miles from the Mexican border.

Even more related to your point, "affordable housing" requirements.

Overall I find the United States to be far more of a nanny state than Canada.




No. Calgary has numerous highrises miles from downtown. And if you look at cities like Vancouver or Toronto, they have hundreds of highrises miles (in some cases over 10 miles) from downtown. When it comes to highrise development, in Canada it is generally much easier to build highrises in non-downtown areas than it is in most American cities.

Ottawa had a curfew in the 80s and may even still have one today (too lazy to look it up). I got picked up by the cops there when I was 16 (pushing 17) after going to a late night movie. I didn't have any ID on me so they didn't believe I was 16, which was rather hilarious as I was a unversity student.

[Doug]

I used to walk to the store by myself when I was 5 to buy cigarettes for my parents. The 70s were a very different time.