Where do children live? School Openings and closings respond to clear demographics.

[Replacement]

The Edmonton Journal with some good features on where students live.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...140/story.html

An interactive map:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...784/story.html


I read quite a lot of criticism here about central school closings and the School boards opening new schools in outlying areas but realistically what else should they be doing? Is this not the school boards simply responding to need in the most accommodating manner in a democracy where family consumer want is clearly being demonstrated?

Families it seems are quite clear in expressing a want to raise families, and have children attend school, in outlying areas and suburbs. Possibly feeling more comfortable with that environment and its suitability to child rearing.
This is seemingly a continuing and abject refutation of what central communities in this City have to offer in comparison. Not saying I agree as theres some solid central communities in Edmonton to raise Children in but young families it seems are not choosing that. Its interesting that all the most dense child populated regions are in outlying areas.

[nobleea]

The Edmonton Journal with some good features on where students live.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...140/story.html

An interactive map:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...784/story.html


I read quite a lot of criticism here about central school closings and the School boards opening new schools in outlying areas but realistically what else should they be doing? Is this not the school boards simply responding to need in the most accommodating manner in a democracy where family consumer want is clearly being demonstrated?

Families it seems are quite clear in expressing a want to raise families, and have children attend school, in outlying areas and suburbs. Possibly feeling more comfortable with that environment and its suitability to child rearing.
This is seemingly a continuing and abject refutation of what central communities in this City have to offer in comparison. Not saying I agree as theres some solid central communities in Edmonton to raise Children in but young families it seems are not choosing that. Its interesting that all the most dense child populated regions are in outlying areas.

Developers and their marketers can help drive demand. The city needs to guide them to help create demand in mature areas. The school board needs to work with them. They can't be cutting supply while the city works to increase demand.

Everyone benefits by rejuvinating and growing mature neighbourhoods. Our roads get less busy, commutes get shorter, taxes don't go up as much, schools don't have to be closed, etc etc.

[MrOilers]

I still think it's more economically prudent and better for the city's tax base if kids in these outlying areas are bussed to existing central schools, instead of closing them and building new ones on the outskirts.

[IanO]

^concur to a degree.

My biggest concern is that we are not doing enough to retain families in central areas/mature neighbourhoods. We need those pieces of infrastructure there to keep people from moving out and taking their potential or realized families with them.

[nobleea]

^concur to a degree.

My biggest concern is that we are not doing enough to retain families in central areas/mature neighbourhoods. We need those pieces of infrastructure there to keep people from moving out and taking their potential or realized families with them.

Yup. chicken and the egg.
Families move to the suburbs, worried about the sustainability of schools in mature neighbourhoods, schools in mature neighbourhoods close due to lack of kids. A self-fulfilling prophecy.

Perhaps the city can start by taking out adverts in newspapers showcasing some of the mature neighbourhoods, showing the benefits, price range, lots sizes, photos, amenities, and some photos of renovated or attractive infill housing stock. Maybe include some MLS listings for the area. Next week do another one, etc etc. It would be a nice contrast to the large ads taken out by the suburb developers.

[Komrade]

I think greed has led a lot of new families out to the burbs. The fact is you can get a lot nicer (subjective I know, but granite countertops are a selling point!) property for 300K in a new development then you can in a mature area.

That being said we cant force people to live in mature areas. We allowed open boundaries. We continued to drive little Johnny half way across the city for his 'science/art/whatever specialization' school. We continued to move out into the burbs so we could have those granite countertops, room for 3 SUV's, 7 bedrooms and neighbours we never talk too.

We have only ourselves to blame.

[IanO]

"I think greed has led a lot of new families out to the burbs. The fact is you can get a lot nicer (subjective I know, but granite countertops are a selling point!) property for 300K in a new development then you can in a mature area. "

if you think a vinyl sided, mdf millworked, 33x70 are nicer.

[Thomas Hinderks]

My opinion

You are only looking from your point of view and not considering the other side.

I live in a mature neighborhood close to ECCA, 1200 sq ft...40'by 100' yard.

Many people I know started downtown when they were single...stayed after co habitation or marriage, but then kids.

Kids need a Turtle pool, swing set with slide, fully fenced yard...takes room.
Parents want to be able to have the children secure playing in the yard where they are surrounded by a 6' fence and safe at home...takes room.

Family wants to go to the parks, enjoy nature...mom ain't tenting it, need a camper...takes room.

Family changes everything and while some will make choices to stay in the "core" most are going where they feel safe, secure and have room for living.

Tom

[IanO]

^agreed Tom, but in many cities round our super big world, much of those things are supplied by public parks (with wadding pools and swing sets and fences or not).


Our river valley is our natural reserve for those wanting to do that without going afar.

safe, secure, room for living... all things this city needs to improve upon in central neighbourhoods and the downtown rather than just saying "you want that, you go there"

that is my argument and concern

[Thomas Hinderks]

IanO

As a parent of a new adult and a 5 year old I guess I understand the view a little better from the other side.

Yes there are public parks and playgrounds...and many parents after a few experiences that I have seen don't want to go back. We still do, but I have a different attitude towards my children learning to deal with the world.

Yes other cities in the world have children playing on busy sidewalks, in fire hydrants etc. But I don't want to live there with kids.

Yes I agree our river valley is beautiful, but most younger folks I know with families want "out" of the city when they get the chance...no hustle no bustle etc.

Real or perceived these are attitudes that are not easily changed and definitely not by nagging...just entrenches it.

I guess in short I feel you cannot plan or force people to move to the inner part of any city...they have to want to and condos and row houses are not what people (for the largest part) want.

A smaller well designed home with room for a workshop, couple cars, boat or other toy and even a smaller yard for the lil ones would go a long way to shaping a trend toward moving closer to the centre. Something I'm seeing in my area BTW, older neglected homes being replaced by 1200-1500 sq ft homes on a 40' by 100' yard with a good sized 2 car garage...and I notice they don't last long on the market.

My two bits

Tom

[nobleea]

My opinion

You are only looking from your point of view and not considering the other side.

I live in a mature neighborhood close to ECCA, 1200 sq ft...40'by 100' yard.

Many people I know started downtown when they were single...stayed after co habitation or marriage, but then kids.

Kids need a Turtle pool, swing set with slide, fully fenced yard...takes room.
Parents want to be able to have the children secure playing in the yard where they are surrounded by a 6' fence and safe at home...takes room.

Family wants to go to the parks, enjoy nature...mom ain't tenting it, need a camper...takes room.

Family changes everything and while some will make choices to stay in the "core" most are going where they feel safe, secure and have room for living.

Tom

Tom,

The point I have been trying to make is that a 40x100 lot is pretty standard in new subdivisions, but would be considered pretty small in most mature neighbourhoods. 50x120 is pretty standard and 65x150 is not unheard of in mature neighbourhoods. That size of lot in a new suburb would have a 3000 sq ft, million dollar home on it.
If you want more space, they should be moving to older neighbourhoods, not newer.
And with the standard home design in the burbs (two storey with bonus room over garage), it would take roughly a 1700 sq ft floor plan to give the same amount of living space as a 1200 sq ft bungalow in a mature neighbourhood (once you factor in the basement area).

[Thomas Hinderks]

Nobleea

Forgot to make part of my point...

For $$$$ competitive with the new developments.

We are not really disagreeing but the areas that are competitive generally don't provide the amenities and value, perceived or real, the market is looking for.

A row house at 300+k in the central areas vs a bizillion sq ft house in the Hamptons for the same of less money, the Hamptons win.

A 1200-1500 sq ft home like I described above with a smaller yard in the more central areas for the price of one in the Hamptons and you likely have a winner.

Apartment condos won't cut it least of all at the prices I've seen advertised.

Another factor often missed that my brother in law from Toronto pointed out to me on the weekend.

We have had alot of folks move in from down east...TO a 1-1 1/2 hour commute is normal...so a commute from outlying areas to downtown that takes the same or less time, a bigger house, bigger yard (or acreage/hobby farm) is a dream to many as they don't see a disadvantage to where they came from.

This is likely why I noticed a while ago that house prices are pretty stable till you get 150km from Edmonton...then they drop like a stone. It's more than the commute times from eastern Canada.

But again, you can't force density etc...it will happen on its own or not at all.
Someone else noted on another thread...Vancouver is walled in by the mountains and water and has no choice...as with NY (water), as with most areas of Europe (its just flat small with a huge population).

Tough to do that here when 1 1/2 hours out its all bush as far as you can see.

Tom

[kcantor]

...Someone else noted on another thread...Vancouver is walled in by the mountains and water and has no choice...as with NY (water), as with most areas of Europe (its just flat small with a huge population).

Tough to do that here when 1 1/2 hours out its all bush as far as you can see.

Tom

and the other thing worth noting is that "vancouver" - which is what most people think of when you say vancouver - is far from typical for "greater vancouver" which for all intents and purposes now stretches pretty much all the way to chilliwack. and if you included all of the agricultural reserve land in greater vancouver the same way we include the river valley and ravines and the northeast etc. in edmonton, i'm not sure our densities aren't a lot more comparable than we give ourselves credit for.

[nobleea]

But again, you can't force density etc...it will happen on its own or not at all.

Tom

You're right, you can't force it. But you can certainly guide it and encourage it. Both directly and indirectly.
As an example, the original home lottery show homes were in mckernan. Nice infill houses. Over time they got bigger and bigger and the only way they could differentiate from each other was to get these obscene, ridiculous home decors. Build 2 or 3 nice infill homes in mature neighbourhoods every year (moving to a new neighbourhood every year). Gets people in to the area who likely weren't even aware of it. etc etc.

[Thomas Hinderks]

Oh my thundrin lord

Ken we agreed!!!! What happened?

Nobleea

I agree you can try and influence...but it will in the end be driven "naturally" (???) or not at all. But influence never hurts...unless you nag)

Tom

[moahunter]

But again, you can't force density etc...it will happen on its own or not at all.
Someone else noted on another thread...Vancouver is walled in by the mountains and water and has no choice...as with NY (water), as with most areas of Europe (its just flat small with a huge population).

We can't force density perhaps, but existing taxpayers of Edmonton city don't have to keep subsidizing sprawl that hurts their property values. Simple actions can be taken to stop the subsidy, like:

- not approving new land for new neighborhoods that will require costly to maintain sewers and streets, and fire stations, etc. - use the serviced land in the city first (i.e. a green or brown belt)

- not building new schools until all schools in the city are full (to do otherwise is a total waste of money)

- not building new interchanges and freeways and facilities on the edge.

If the huge public works sprawl subsidies stopped, much of the sprawl would too. Other cities like London England, that don't have geographical feature boundaries, figured it out long ago.

[Hilman]

^ Unfortunately I think that will just push people out to St. Albert, Sherwood Park et al which would be worse for the City as it would mean even less property taxes coming in.

[moahunter]

^no, it wouldn't make it worse, for we know that sprawl costs more than it is worth in terms of the health of our city - it is a long term maintenance cost plague that creeps up. Those who choose other cities are like tourists to Edmonton city, coming to work and spend their money here. Let St Albert, Sherwood Park, and other cities pay for their unsustainable infrastructure, we don't have to race them to the bottom of the barrel.

[Komrade]

^no, it wouldn't make it worse, for we know that sprawl costs more than it is worth in terms of the health of our city - it is a long term maintenance cost plague that creeps up. Those who choose other cities are like tourists to Edmonton city, coming to work and spend their money here. Let St Albert, Sherwood Park, and other cities pay for their unsustainable infrastructure, we don't have to race them to the bottom of the barrel.

Nailed it on the head here

[Hilman]

Unfortunately a lot of people that live in those places are starting to shop/eat and spend their money in their own city/towns which provides minimal money towards Edmonton. The power centres in St. Albert and Sherwood Park have most of the same stores and restaurants as Edmonton so how does that help us Edmontonians when their $3000+ property taxes do not go into the City coffers?

If we put those kinds of restrictions in Edmonton, families looking to buy a house will not choose the smaller older house closer to the core over a large shiny new one out in St. Albert or Sherwood Park. I would guess a large majority of families would choose the shiny new house. Case in point, that is exactly what I did. I bought a large new house in north central Edmonton because I got much more for my money but did not go to St. Albert or Sherwood Park as I wanted my tax dollars to go to the City of Edmonton.

I understand that sprawl is not a good thing for the city but the downtown dwellers need to understand that not everyone is the same and we all have individual needs and wants. You want a smaller place, close to downtown amenities like bars, pubs, shopping, etc but I do not want those things.

I want a large, new house for my wife and I (and future children), plenty of room to grow and live, a place with a back yard to play, entertain friends and family by sitting around the fire and having a few drinks, planting a garden, flowers, smelling the roses and freshly cut grass whilst I BBQ that is a block from my parents and best friend and is a 10 minute drive to work (news flash, we don't all work downtown).

I respect the choices you made and wish you would respect mine. A lot of the downtown dwellers come across as elitists, constantly putting down suburbanites and it is getting extremely nauseating. I pay $4500+ a year in property taxes and choose to live where I live for my reasons, please don't look down at me for wanting what I want.

[moahunter]

^I'm not looking down on you, I live in what was once, back in 1949, a suburb. If I worked outside the city in say Leduc, I would live on the edge also. But note, your land will also decline in value or at least not go up as much as it could, over the next few decades, your neighborhood will decline as kids leave, as the next best and greatest gets built. By puting a curb now on Edmonton city subsidizing the cost of sprawl and encouraging instead the recylcling of neighborhoods and creation of new housing forms in empty land we already have inside the ring road, there is more potential for your land to go up in value more, just like mine will.

[Green Grovenor]

Beth Sanders of Populus Community Planning published an item on her blog inspired by the map. I quite like her take:

It seems that having oodles of space - in our yards and homes - drives Edmonton’s design. Why are we afraid of being close to other people? Or sharing park space instead of large private yards? What is behind this? What makes neighbours bad, especially if there are a lot of them? Perhaps the devil is not in the density, but in the design of how we build the buildings and the space around them. What if we built exciting spaces and ensured the services were on hand - like schools, LRT - to create viable neighbourhoods. Viable from a social, environmental and fiscal perspective. We have yet to really pay for all this space we are enjoying.

Ken mentioned the Vancouver experience. There, the population of children living downtown has doubled in the last decade. Part of that growth can be attributed to design policies which require that 25 per cent of infill units suit the needs of families with kids, a standard which has been adopted in Edmonton's new municipal development plan. The Urban Land Institute forecasts that the next generation of parents will make eco-friendly housing in established communities their first choice when deciding where to live.

Is our school planning anticipating the future or responding to the past?

[Thomas Hinderks]

^I'm not looking down on you, I live in what was once, back in 1949, a suburb. If I worked outside the city in say Leduc, I would live on the edge also. But note, your land will also decline in value or at least not go up as much as it could, over the next few decades, your neighborhood will decline as kids leave, as the next best and greatest gets built. By puting a curb now on Edmonton city subsidizing the cost of sprawl and encouraging instead the recylcling of neighborhoods and creation of new housing forms in empty land we already have inside the ring road, there is more potential for your land to go up in value more, just like mine will.

We will disagree here Moa:

The outlying communities are becoming towns within cities with all the day to day services needed in the community, the bedroom communities are growing and will continue to with their own economy, jobs etc.

Artificially trying to change that will not get the result you are looking for, throw up walls...they will still go where theya re most comforatable and perceive getting the best value.

Your London example shows this as does Vancouver as Ken pointed out.

Not to say we shouldn't try to influence things...but don't hold your breath.

Green Grovenor

"Ken mentioned the Vancouver experience. There, the population of children living downtown has doubled in the last decade. Part of that growth can be attributed to design policies which require that 25 per cent of infill units suit the needs of families with kids, a standard which has been adopted in Edmonton's new municipal development plan. The Urban Land Institute forecasts that the next generation of parents will make eco-friendly housing in established communities their first choice when deciding where to live."

As a counter point...
Vancouver also has one of the fastest growing immigrant communities (not a bad thing) and from friends that are in Vancouver it seems most immigrating there are from countries that already have large downtown family populations (Asia, Eastern Europe etc.).

Compared to what they had its (Monty Python reference) Luxury (sheer luxury...ok joke over).

Seriously these folks don't need educating on living downtown in Condo/Apts, they are adapted to it. Alberta on the other hand (and most of Canada) not so much.

Does not mean it won't change over time, just not by force or quickly.

" Is our school planning anticipating the future or responding to the past?"

Darn good question...I feel still responding to a large extent to the past and not helping the cause.

Tom

[moahunter]

Your London example shows this as does Vancouver as Ken pointed out.

How does London show it? Thanks to a greenbelt, they have protected some farm land, and have become the most desirable city to live in, in the UK (per the recent top places to live poll). It doesn't matter that other cities and towns grew in other ways, what matters to their residents is that the greenbelt improved their lives.

My point is that right now, people who live in existing neighborhoods, are subsidizing the cost of building infrastructure that will support the creation of new neighborhoods that are costly to maintain long term (freeways, schools, fire stations, etc.), while at the same time, there is nowhere near as much subsidy going into mature neighborhoods. AHD is a classic example, if those billions had spent on a subsidy for the quarters, muni lands, fort road, or south campus, I bet people would then be choosing to live there. We have decided to give hand outs to support a lifestyle. It is time to stop it, and create a more netural free market instead of a distroted "edge comes first" market.

[Sonic Death Monkey]

I suppose the question is, what costs more? The property tax by the new homeowner in Sprawly Sprawinghood? Or providing infrastructure to Sprawly Sprawlinghood?

[Thomas Hinderks]

Moa

London developed past the green belt, sure it protected some farm land and I think the intent was great but the sprawl went past the artificial boundary and continued to grow.

Just as it did in Vancouver, Ken's example, just as it would here.

"My point is that right now, people who live in existing neighborhoods, are subsidizing the cost of building infrastructure that will support the creation of new neighborhoods that are costly to maintain long term (freeways, schools, fire stations, etc.), while at the same time, there is nowhere near as much subsidy going into mature neighborhoods. AHD is a classic example, if those billions had spent on a subsidy for the quarters, muni lands, fort road, or south campus, I bet people would then be choosing to live there. We have decided to give hand outs to support a lifestyle. It is time to stop it, and create a more netural free market instead of a distroted "edge comes first" market."

Other than your comment to lack of investment in mature neighborhoods I'm afraid we see things differently and are not going to agree.

Point being the Muni lands...
If developed as row housing and high density instead of what you see in the burbs I think it is going to be rejected by the largest part of the market...its not what they want.
And if its developed as the suburbs have been it will have been a terrible waste.

But peoples desires, per "Hilman's case" above drive where the development is going to trend and you are not going to legislate a change in peoples desires.

Tom

[Thomas Hinderks]

I suppose the question is, what costs more? The property tax by the new homeowner in Sprawly Sprawinghood? Or providing infrastructure to Sprawly Sprawlinghood?

SDM
You've got a good point...if people can't get what "they want" towards the centre of the city at a price thats competitive they will eat the taxes. The city challenge is to provide the service within the $$$...tough one.

Moa
Don't think I am being disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable.

If you go back over some old threads you'll find I used to think you could force the change by limiting outward development.

I bean learned dif ernt now, from talking to and meeting people from the outer edges and asking "why?" I've come to understand why my previous thoughts won't work.

Tom

[moahunter]

I suppose the question is, what costs more? The property tax by the new homeowner in Sprawly Sprawinghood? Or providing infrastructure to Sprawly Sprawlinghood?

It is more of an opportunity cost. What is better:

1. A new single family home in a sprawly sprawlinghood, or
2. A new family dwelling in an existing neighborhood (e.g. duplex replacing single family home, or row houses in quarters replacing gravel lots).

2. gives a lot better bang for buck for the city (no new school, roads, infrastructure upgrades that are needed anyway, etc.). As to people not wanting 2, well, they can:

1. Pay the cost of an old home in mature neighborhood, knock it down, and build (in which case they are really paying the full cost - i.e. what it should cost), or
2. Recycle a sprawly house in a sprawly sprawlinghood (we have many for sale, even in brand new places like the Hamptons), or
3. Go to a bedroom city and pay a higher property tax than they would in Edmonton (rates are higher in say St Albert, as they don't have as many mature neighborhoods / commercial and inner city subsidizing the cost).

[Replacement]

Really pleased with the participation on this topic. Lots of interesting feedback and discussion. I'll wade back in with some responses when I have more time.

In the meantime I'd like to share some thoughts and theories on perception and the choice in housing.

I think we've become in North America an almost superstitious society. We evaluate things in odd ways and are very subject to subconscious impact in our decision making.

For instance people look at brand new communities illogically imo. They possibly contrast with other areas where theres been reports of crime, homicide, problems, traffic congestion, neighbor disagreement etc. That occur in established neighborhoods. The whole feel of new developments usually starts out as storybook stuff. New families, very young kids, few if any angst driven teens, no vandalism, no excessive noisy neighbors, few resales yet. Very homogeneous family driven consensual dynamic. New developments symbolize for many people fresh starts, fresh lives, and new beginnings. I don't know if its a settler ethos still alive in our genepool or what but theres some unconscious driven preference at work in the burbs vs established neighborhood preference imo. Clearly a want for everything new in a new location.
Maybe even generational preference. Wanting a new community for a new generation of homebuyer.

Finally, for now, new is always clean, shiny, sparkling and no matter how poor the construction, building materials, etc, people still tend to judge books by covers imo when first home shopping. Many older neighborhoods would offer houses that were constructed better, bigger yards, more amenities, convenience, and that might be a much better buy. But the old fence and need of paint, and look of any required maintenance in the area seems to turn people away. The cookie cutter neighborhoods, especially the poorly built, are an illusion re: ongoing requirement for maintenance. A snapshot in time where everything worked and seemed perfect.

That never lasts, no longer where you buy.

Logically one would think the devil you know is the better buy. But housing sales in NA rarely portray that.

[Thomas Hinderks]

Replacement

Can't really disagree with anything in the above post.

Even when we bought nearly 20 years ago most thought we were crazy.
Older home, mature neighborhood, relatively high number of rentals in the area and a fair number of homes for sale.

The kicker of course for not much more we could have bought new.

But I wanted real wood construction, I hate landscaping, I love brick (not much of that in any developments). My wife loves trees, park nearby for the eventual kidlets (ok that part didn't work out due to the types that still hang there).

Still waiting for my big 2 car garage mind you (stuck with a single).

But most don't understand construction, or want to. Most like shiny and new and want to have things the way they want. As a result they buy new.

Much like the auto industry.

And why I now don't see it changing in my lifetime.

Tom

[ChrisD]

Beth Sanders of Populus Community Planning published an item on her blog inspired by the map. I quite like her take:

It seems that having oodles of space - in our yards and homes - drives Edmonton’s design. Why are we afraid of being close to other people? Or sharing park space instead of large private yards? What is behind this? What makes neighbours bad, especially if there are a lot of them? Perhaps the devil is not in the density, but in the design of how we build the buildings and the space around them. What if we built exciting spaces and ensured the services were on hand - like schools, LRT - to create viable neighbourhoods. Viable from a social, environmental and fiscal perspective. We have yet to really pay for all this space we are enjoying.

Ken mentioned the Vancouver experience. There, the population of children living downtown has doubled in the last decade. Part of that growth can be attributed to design policies which require that 25 per cent of infill units suit the needs of families with kids, a standard which has been adopted in Edmonton's new municipal development plan. The Urban Land Institute forecasts that the next generation of parents will make eco-friendly housing in established communities their first choice when deciding where to live.

Is our school planning anticipating the future or responding to the past?

^The regeneration of students and families in downtown Vancouver is partly due to the foresight planners had over 30-years ago when they were deciding what to do with the False Creek lands. It was a struggle between the politicians of the day, city and provincial administrators as the perspectives on what the downtown should be varied. But thankfully, over the decades they remained dedicated to this vision and now here they are. A downtown with a growing number of children.

The lifecycle of a neighbourhood is very similar most communities. They start out with a high proportion of young families moving in who eventually have children. The children attend elementary, junior high and high school together, some move out to attend college / university and then eventually when the kids are gone the parents move away. However, there are some neighbourhoods that continue to be attractive for families and maintain a lifecycle that is relatively stable over time. There are also some older communities that are becoming attractive again and resetting the lifecycle. Some of this is due to location, access to services, personal preferences, housing types, etc.

The issue with closing schools is that it typically spells an end to that lifecycle. As a result that community has a limited chance of becoming attractive again to families.

[moahunter]

^I think our City needs to look at the neighborhoods that are rejuvenating, and figure out how to template that to more mature neighborhoods. If need be, consider incentives. Something I have noticed just in the last couple of years in my community, is that a few builders (especially the slightly smaller ones) who used to exclusively build homes in new communities are starting to enter the market in mature neighborhoods on rebuild projects. We are starting to see the affordable cookie cutter 2000 sq foot homes showing up in Glenora, Crestwood, and similar, and they look great in this setting (much better than the 1940/50s post war bungalows and splits they are replacing, and more energy efficient). I think that is a sign of the demographics you are hinting at, and I hope it accelerates.

[IanO]

I respect the choices you made and wish you would respect mine. A lot of the downtown dwellers come across as elitists, constantly putting down suburbanites and it is getting extremely nauseating. I pay $4500+ a year in property taxes and choose to live where I live for my reasons, please don't look down at me for wanting what I want.

To each their own and I respect personal choice, but there needs to be a better balance and more reasons (ie. schools, housing options, pricing, and infrastructure) to stay in or move back to mature/central areas. We need to stop thinking of closing places like Scona pool and perhaps not build $250,000,000 rec centres on the edges. I would kill for a renovation to Oliver pool and Hockey rink, but i am not holding my breath.

There will always be a choice but I do hope more people shift the current imbalance into a more palatable ratio.

that's all

[IanO]

"The issue with closing schools is that it typically spells an end to that lifecycle. As a result that community has a limited chance of becoming attractive again to families."

BINGO

[ChrisD]

^I think our City needs to look at the neighborhoods that are rejuvenating, and figure out how to template that to more mature neighborhoods. If need be, consider incentives. Something I have noticed just in the last couple of years in my community, is that a few builders (especially the slightly smaller ones) who used to exclusively build homes in new communities are starting to enter the market in mature neighborhoods on rebuild projects. We are starting to see the affordable cookie cutter 2000 sq foot homes showing up in Glenora, Crestwood, and similar, and they look great in this setting (much better than the 1940/50s post war bungalows and splits they are replacing, and more energy efficient). I think that is a sign of the demographics you are hinting at, and I hope it accelerates.

You're absolutely correct. Burke Perry is an example of a highend suburban home builder now building in mature communities but there are others. Plex Developments, which is a Terry Paranych company is another that builds new homes in mature communities that are comparable to the price you'd pay in suburban neighbourhoods ($500-600k range).