Your city's best-looking suburbs

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Docere

Yes, people pay a premium price to places like Scarsdale and Chappaqua because of their highly regarded public schools.

The "school catchment area" question has become more prevalent here in Toronto because of the Fraser Institute rankings, which all the realtors use. And that's why certain pockets, like Withrow Park (Riverdale) have a price premium.

The TDSB justifies its "optional attendance" policy - to keep the affluent in the system, but the effect is the further class segregation of students. Hence people fight to have their kids go to Forest Hill CI over Vaughan Road Academy, or Lawrence Park CI over John Polanyi CI.

Originally Posted by Acajack

In the U.S. which school district you are in often has a significant impact on how much money your school has per pupil. As a bigger part of their funding comes from local taxes. In Canada all schools in a given province get basically the same amount of funding from the government. (And in some cases, schools with poorer demographics actually get MORE funding. I know it's like that in Quebec for example.)

What's interesting is that here in Ontario, anyway, the school system used to be more like the American one. Back in say in the 1960s, school districts were much smaller and school districts got much of their funding from local taxes, meaning poorer areas had less money to work with. But over time, province-wide per-capita grants replaced property taxes as the main source of school revenue, school boards were amalgamated into larger units, and more and more power (funding, curriculum, policy, etc.) was taken away from school boards and given over to provincial bureaucrats. What's ironic is that while this sort of thing would in the US be seen as a very liberal cause due to the equality it creates, it was actually one of Ontario's most hard-right premiers, Mike Harris, who made the biggest contributions to this push. His motivation was to reduce administrative spending.. but one of the biggest side effects it had was to dramatically reduce the differences between schools. While there are still good schools and bad schools the difference is far less pronounced than it was in the past.

School boards as a level of government are almost powerless in Ontario. School board trustee elections have extremely low turnout and no one cares about them, as the province basically controls everything they do anyway. While they still do levy property taxes, the province has fixed the rates to be the same for every school board, and if one school board makes more than another in taxes, they'll get less government funding as a result, so how valuable of a tax base they have is now completely irrelevant. Honestly, I'm not sure why Ontario even has school boards anymore.. they might as well just abolish them and put schools directly under the Ministry of Education.

[Docere]

That's not quite accurate. The first round school of mergers in the 1960s, when Bill Davis was the education minister was progressive, as prior to that every village etc. had a school board and there was a very balkanized system. It basically moved from the municipality level to the county level, with the exception of the largest cities. Robarts/Davis set up the modern education system in Ontario.

By the time it got to Harris it was just merging a few rural counties together and amalgamating Toronto, Ottawa and Hamilton. Abolishing the old borough of York was a good thing though.

[Docere]

Come to think of it, until the 1960s the suburbs of Toronto still followed a township model not that different from US cities. So there was Toronto Township, Trafalgar Township, Vaughan Township, Markham Township, plus towns and villages like Brampton, Richmond Hill, Port Credit, Streetsville, Woodbridge and the like. It was only the two-tier system in Metropolitan Toronto that was a departure from this system.

My guess is if the system held out, you'd have some of the villages incorporating parts of the surrounding townships. So you'd have a Streetsville, maybe a Thornhill etc.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Docere

That's not quite accurate. The first round school of mergers in the 1960s, when Bill Davis was the education minister was progressive, as prior to that every village etc. had a school board and there was a very balkanized system. It basically moved from the municipality level to the county level, with the exception of the largest cities. Robarts/Davis set up the modern education system in Ontario.

By the time it got to Harris it was just merging a few rural counties together and amalgamating Toronto, Ottawa and Hamilton. Abolishing the old borough of York was a good thing though.

Harris was the one who effectively eliminated local funding of school boards with the fixed school tax rate and the use of provincial funds that offset property tax revenues.. he was also the one who took away much of the school boards' policy and curriculum powers.

[VivaPhysicality]

Originally Posted by Docere

Seems to be a lot of love for West Van here.

Would people here given the choice - money being no object - opt for West Van over the tony west side neighborhoods like Dunbar, Point Grey or Shaughnessy?

West Vancouver vs. the west side of Vancouver? Those are probably the two most desirable neighbourhoods in Canada, or at least Western Canada. If I'm a multi-millionaire, that's a tough call.

The west side is more "charming" with its tree-lined streets, heritage houses, and the "university vibe" coming off UBC. Most of it is on an "upper class urban" street grid, but there are even some semi-rural areas where people have monster estates with horses on them. It's gorgeous in the fall when the leaves are falling.

West Vancouver is more "exclusive" feeling with private waterfront and mountainside properties. Narrow, unwalkable roads bob and weave along the cliffside to some gated house you can barely see from the street. The palm trees sometimes trick you into thinking you're somewhere further south.

Both have quick access to beaches and a lot of wilderness, and quick access to urban Vancouver of course.

I think you'd decide based on how you value privacy. On the west side, you'd be sharing gorgeous public areas with both friends and strangers. But in West Vancouver, you could have your own private oasis on the water or overlooking the city.

I'd choose a house on the west side within a few blocks of the water. Forget the lonely view. Get to know your neighbours and hang out on the beach every day.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I still think there's a major psychological difference between Americans and Canadians.

The rates of decline in the Annex or Parkdale suggest just the economic circumstances of the 1950s and 1960s: most people were renters; there was not much value in property as a place to build wealth; there were few economic incentives to buy old properties and renovate them; there were economic incentives to buy new build homes in the suburbs. What you get is some decline in the inner city, and growth in suburbia, but not a tremendous sea change. If a middle class family moved out, a working class family moved in.

What happened in the US can't be ascribed purely to what I described above. You don't empty out St. Louis to the tune of 175,000 people every decade (27.1% loss from 1970-1980 alone!) just with economic carrots and sticks. There had to be something deeply psychological and endemic to lead so many people to cut and run like that. As I said, racism and the Great Migration was a response, not a cause, because other cultures have dealt with an influx of unwanted outsiders by forcing those outsiders to literally live "on the outside" (i.e. outskirts).

You're off by a generation in terms of the decline of these areas. But yeah, Toronto did not have white flight and full scale abandonment akin to US cities like St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland etc.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Docere

You're off by a generation in terms of the decline of these areas. But yeah, Toronto did not have white flight and full scale abandonment akin to US cities like St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland etc.

Sure, the decline began earlier. What I meant was that the macroeconomic circumstances of the 1950s and 1960s did not allow places like the Annex or Parkdale to reverse their decline.

I also maintain that property abandonment is really an American thing. Sure, there's property abandonment in other cities in other countries, but not on the scale of what exists in the US.

Brazil and South Africa have the same race problems, but it's not like inner city Johannesburg or Salvador lost half their population, and that the poor black residents who were left behind lack basic businesses.

Southwestern Ontario went through the same economic upheavals, but it's not like Hamilton or Windsor collapsed to the same level as Youngstown, OH or Detroit.

[samne]

For Toronto:
Old Richmond Hill
Old Markham
Unionville
Port Credit
Downtown Oakville
Downtown Burlington(not sure if this is Hamilton's burb)

*Durham Region has nothing to offer.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by samne

*Durham Region has nothing to offer.

Durham Region seems to be the "black sheep" of the GTA, in but not of it in some respects. Kind of like NW Indiana to Chicagoland maybe (though admittedly Oshawa is not Gary!)

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Docere

Seems to be a lot of love for West Van here.

Would people here given the choice - money being no object - opt for West Van over the tony west side neighborhoods like Dunbar, Point Grey or Shaughnessy?

West Van is preferable to me, no question. West Van has an amazing geographical location and palpable benefits whereas the other areas you mentioned are wealthy areas mostly because wealthy people live there, unless they have a great view. I don't like all the traffic of Vancouver proper, and being close to Park Royal is nicer than being near Dunbar st or wherever. Plus West Van hasn't been completely turned into an offshore piggy bank, despite the prices.

Although of course I'd happily live in any of the areas.

[TownGuy]

Originally Posted by Docere

Durham Region seems to be the "black sheep" of the GTA, in but not of it in some respects. Kind of like NW Indiana to Chicagoland maybe (though admittedly Oshawa is not Gary!)

Durham holds its own in terms of amenities since Oshawa is technically its own CMA. Yeah sure its pretty much just a suburb of Toronto now but it still has some CMA pull.

Unfortunately for Durham the lakefront is a disaster, 2 nuclear plants, an incinerator and industrial build-up like the massive GM plant all straddle the lake.

[shappy]

Whitby in Durham Region has a decently attractive core:
https://goo.gl/maps/Butxna3RBe62

Port Perry isn't bad either:
https://goo.gl/maps/NYQ4hEnXzKv

[Docere]

Port Perry isn't a suburb though.

[TownGuy]

Bowmanville has a decent enough downtown. Newcastle is quite quaint as well. I would consider both suburbs, Bowmanville definitely is, Newcastle becoming one.

Bowmanville
https://goo.gl/maps/t8ZBGbhNFmp

Newcastle
https://goo.gl/maps/fC5ozxQCDXk

[Hali87]

Eastern Passage


Fisherman's Cove - Eastern Passage, Nova Scotia - HDR by Joe Pellacore, on Flickr

Mill Cove (Bedford waterfront)


Source


Source


Source


Jollimore-Fleming Heights


Source


Source


Source


Source


Regatta Point


Source

[niwell]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Brazil and South Africa have the same race problems, but it's not like inner city Johannesburg or Salvador lost half their population, and that the poor black residents who were left behind lack basic businesses.

Post 1994 downtown Johannesburg was actually a bit of a no-go zone for pretty much everyone. Including the police. But yeah it never really lost population - if anything it got more crowded as people moved into hijacked buildings. The boom in construction in the 70s was never sustainable when the area was designated as "white only". It's actually a pretty fascinating history.

Despite the squalor some people live in, the CBD is not lacking for services. Even chain grocery stores have locations there.

[Hali87]

These are more exurbs but still within the commutershed each are about 30-45 min drive from downtown Halifax):

Chester


Source


Source


Hubbards


Source


Sambro




Source


Source


Source


Source

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Sure, the decline began earlier. What I meant was that the macroeconomic circumstances of the 1950s and 1960s did not allow places like the Annex or Parkdale to reverse their decline.

I also maintain that property abandonment is really an American thing. Sure, there's property abandonment in other cities in other countries, but not on the scale of what exists in the US.

Brazil and South Africa have the same race problems, but it's not like inner city Johannesburg or Salvador lost half their population, and that the poor black residents who were left behind lack basic businesses.

Southwestern Ontario went through the same economic upheavals, but it's not like Hamilton or Windsor collapsed to the same level as Youngstown, OH or Detroit.

Good luck finding a Brazilian who agrees that their country has U.S.-style race issues, as colour-coded as their society may be.

[Docere]

Speaking of white flight and abandonment in US cities, have a look at the Chicago neighborhood of North Lawndale.

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohisto...pages/901.html

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Many of the first post-war suburbs actually had restrictive covenants that explicitly prevented Blacks and/or Jews from buying properties in the neighbourhood. And in much of America, driving to work from the suburbs was seen/promoted as an exciting privilege one should aspire to, not an inconvenience like it is today. A love of cars might not have been the sole driver of suburbaniztion, but it was part and parcel with the "new, modern way of life" along with detached bungalows, modernist design, the "white picket fence", etc. I think there was also more incentive for car manufactures and related industries to promote car ownership more aggressively in America than Canada because it generated so much wealth for so many (including much of the working class). This didn't really happen the same way in Canada since there weren't any major car manufacturers headquartered here and (AFAIK) only a small handful of cities in a single province had any significant car manufacturing/related sector.

Inner cities by that time (actually several decades earlier) were also generally cramped and polluted and had high rates of crime/disease/fires etc. and were "stale" at best - the suburbs were the new, clean, spacious neighbourhoods where one (in theory) didn't have to deal with all that.

That's all true, but we had restrictive covenants in new Canadian suburbs too. And regardless, restrictive covenants do not force people to flee their neighbourhoods en masse and move there. The auto industry certainly may have played a role as you mentioned. But also, our inner cities didn't quite experience the same level of crowding and crime, though they still did. Could our larger social safety net thus have prevented the same amount of suburban flight?

Originally Posted by SpongeG

also if you use hgtv shows as a gude for home buyers in the states, a main or a big issue for the home hunters is the school district because suburban areas have better schools than those in the city apparently, even moving a few blocks can screw up their ideal district

Yes, but I imagine these inner city school districts were just fine before the relatively wealthy packed up and left them. Also a symptom, not a cause.

Originally Posted by Docere

Seems to be a lot of love for West Van here.

Would people here given the choice - money being no object - opt for West Van over the tony west side neighborhoods like Dunbar, Point Grey or Shaughnessy?

Definitely west side over West Van. West Van is rainy as hell and very car dependant. The west side has the charming narrow tree lined streets and quaint looking—but not priced—houses, and great walking, cycling and transit options to many urban destinations. It's what an ideal "suburb" should look like to me. The answer to your question really depends on the priorities of the one answering it.