For the core of a city to be revitalized, the base assumption is that the residential component must be one of the first aspects of the areas land use that must be strengthened.This is a great place to start, because without people you have no business nor culture. People are at the centre of everything the notion of "city" stands for. it is the obvious place to begin. However, is the city the place for children?
People move to the suburbs (or so they say) because they feel it is in the best interest of the children. More green space to play ball as opposed to asphalt, hopscotch without worrying about cars, and clean, fresh, country-esque air. Since the rise of Levittown, NY, the first modern "subdivision", this was a major draw for young families. With the ever-increasing flow of families from the core to the suburbs, the school system has reactively moved their operations to reflect this trend.
Schools make 'burbs' place to beThe Ottawa Citizen
Monday, February 04, 2008
Communities need basic amenities to survive. A successful neighbourhood must have such things as grocery stores,churches, restaurants, hardware stores, medical facilities and schools to prosper.
More and more, our downtown neighbourhoods are being hollowed out of the basic necessities. And increasingly to live downtown, one must drive to the suburbs to get a plant, a stick of wood or a bolt. Living downtown is supposed to be a more pedestrian-oriented, environmental way of living. However, core dwellers appearto need cars to survive as vital businesses depart to the suburbs. The necessities of downtown are becoming caffeine and sushi rather than hammers and nails.
So too are demographics changing our urban landscape. The dominant post-war baby-boom generation has had its children so, in older neighbourhoods, schools are emptying. It is beginning at the elementary level now and will follow a relentless path through high school and university.
In fact, suburban schools are weathering the demographic onslaught best. That's because families, looking for inexpensive housing and a bit of green in which children can play, opted for the suburbs. That said, the decision to live in suburbs in not the most environmentally sensitive one. Suburbs create long commutes and promote sprawl -- the ultimate desecration of the land by paving it.
Ottawa's official plan is trying to contain growth within an urban boundary beyond which development cannot pass. The city is actively encouraging intensive development in the core areas to piggyback on existing services inexpensively and to cut environmentally unfriendly long commutes. But for intensification to succeed, to encourage families to live and work in the core, there must be the basic amenities of life -- including schools.
Our school boards are not in the urban-planning business. No, they need to educate young people well and efficiently. There is no money to maintain mostly empty schools downtown. Schools must remain open where they are needed and those institutions appear to be in the suburbs. It would be nice to keep a school or two open downtown for community purposes if that is possible. However, neither school boards nor cities are exactly flush with cash so this might be impossible.
The upside to this is that closing schools and decreasing enrolment is likely to make education less expensive. That will free funds for more pressing requirements in society. All this sad news about downtown schools comes as Statistics Canada released a report showing that car ridership continues to increase in Canada.
So at a time when the city would like people to move downtown, the future of our society, children, are being raised inthe suburbs. And with few schools to attend downtown, they are likely to stay there. Is it fair to say that we will not be attracting families to our core in the foreseeable future? With childhood obesity rates attributed to a sedentary lifestyle that has been linked to suburban sprawl and over reliance on the automobile, could it not be considered "child abuse" for Windsor to not plan for attracting families to our core.
Just as the community has supported the University in their decision not to build their engineering campus downtown by stating that it is not within the mandate of that institution to revitalize a district, it is also not within the mandate of the other educational institutions either. Yet, with our school boards following the people out to the suburbs they have profoundly affected the health of of our communities as well as their students. While they may not have the responsibility of resurrecting a district, they have a responsibility to their students.
At what point do we determine that the school boards must play a proactive role in determining the physical layout of our community by cooperating in master plans as developed by our planning department? At what point do we transfer more of the control in determining the success of our communities from the school board trustees who merely follow the real estate developers over to our trained professionals who knows how to guide them?
24 comments:
Although I obviously agree with Chris's post, I disagree with someo of the assertions in the article he quoted.
Lack of schools are not as big as an obstacle to downtown revitalization as people might think.
You just have to look at demographics of our population
The proportion of people with small children to the rest of us is decreasing rapidly.
Fastest growing demographics are
1. Aging population,
2. amount of people choosing not to remain single
3. Married couples choosing not to have children
4. People (post graduates) waiting until they are much older to marry and/or have children.
All of these groups are growing and none of them require schools.
Thats why residential recruitment needs to focus on these groups first.
Those are some of the questions that we need to answer as a city. Is it important to us to get back to raising "families" in an urban environment (The argument is focused on the "core" areas of the city and not just the downtown) as opposed to children being raised in the sub-urbs that grow up believing that is the only choice? That was how I was brought up and luckily for my family I was exposed to different ideas that made an urban lifestyle a more appropriate choice for me.
Once again, this is not mearly about servicing the existing demographics. That is precisely why the school boards have focused on building monster-schools in the middle of farm fields. That is where the developers have decided to build and make the biggest bang for their bucks in building cookie-cutter raised ranch houses that require little thought and effort on their part.
This is about guiding the development of our built environment towards a culture that we collectively deem is important to us. It is about raising a new generation in the "core" areas of the city so that they can learn firsthand the benefits of that lifestyle and pass it along to their children.
Granted, it is a smaller demographic than it used to be, but focusing solely on a demographic that chooses not to have children is unsustainable. Retired folks and "DINKS" will eventually die off, leaving the core areas in the same shape as it currently sits. Now, I realize that you said we need to focus on these groups "first", and I agree with you. We can only do so much at a time and we don't want to spread ourselves too thin. But we cannot forget that we will need to plan for families in the near future and we should always keep that notion in the back of our mind when we're investing in infrastructure that could last 100+ years. We don't want to have to rebuild things 20 years from now due to lack of foresight.
Our goal should be to get people "in" and stem the flow "out". This will be an economic choice that will be made externally for a lot of lower income people in the near future, so we should start planning for it now.
Thats probably the best solution, not necessarily to act on schools but to ensure tat plan for the future include them.
You will unlikely be able to recruit families from outside of downtown.
What happens is that years after the success of attracting post graduate singles and newly married couples you can recruit new families from this group who are already downtown and like the lifestyle and amenities that it provides
Mark,
You know that I have to disagree. Your plans for downtown are based on recent growth and demographic trends that I feel, will not continue and in fact are even now reversing in this region. (See last weeks article in the Star, referenced by Henderson today, about the 10 to 1 ratio of those leaving the area to those coming in.)
I will be continuing on my post about re-localization later this week.
Windsor cannot and will not continue as it has in the past. We are not experiencing a downturn we are IMO in the middle of a major shift.
People, singles, mingles, jingles, families, everyone will be looking at major lifestyle changes. The system of centralized schools and busing is not going to work in a future of oil shocks and shortages. Every area of the city and region will have to look at ways of doing things within a much smaller area. Every area of the city and region will have to be able to come together as functioning communities.
In my observation safety is a major issue. A recent letter to the editor by a west side resident punctuated that. The writer was upset about being victimized six times, blown off by the police, while a south Windsor resident was profiled in an article after being victimized for the first time. Not that it *never* happens, but in sprawlsville, they just don't know what it's like going to bed every night and wondering if it will be your garage that gets broken into while you sleep. Thus, fighting drugs and poverty in core areas should be a priority for the city.
Ditto for the scourge of tagging and vandalism that is becoming so common in core areas, we just accept it as normal - but we shouldn't accept it. It *isn't* art. It devalues the area makes people want to leave.
Staying with the "kids" them, there is also the snob element - "I don't want MY kid in a comp. ed. school" - so off they go to sprawlsville so junior can spend the next eight years with other well-off kids in the homogenized environment of a sprawlsville school. We need to promote our core area schools for what they are - great places to learn among children from a diverse ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds.
The battle to reduce/eliminate rub and tugs is another good bet. Who wants to raise their kids around the corner from Windsor's own Reeperbahn? Even here in South Walkerville we have 2-3 such places, although they keep a much lower profile than their competitors on places like Ouellette and Pelissier street.
So I don't agree with Mark on focusing on the "aging population" or "dinks" (like myself). As much as they may be the fastest growing demographics according to some study, children are still the future of the core. It only stands to reason. If we want to think about the core thirty years from now - not just RIGHT now - we need families with kids in the core. We need to promote a cycle of raising kids in the core who grow up and get married and raise THEIR kids in the core, and so on, not making the big move to South Windsor as soon as you have saved up a down payment to "get the hell out". I'm with Chris on this one, who correctly states that retirees and dinks will die off eventually, leaving us right where we started, except with more cemeteries.
As Chris also correctly pointed out, the school board is building monster schools out in farm fields while core schools are seeing declining enrolment. That needs to turn around. We can do it by bringing families back to the core. We HAVE the buildings and the staff to service these kids in the core. There is no need to build monster schools in farm fields.
Part of that can be proofed by old St. Clare School which died from declining enrolment. When I attended there in the '70s it was packed to the rafters. It was one of the first R.C. schools in the city and would have celebrated a 100 year anniversary soon had it not been closed and sold to a private interest.
The core was a place for families to grow up and live in before, why can't it happen again?
It isn't just schools that have abandoned the core of cities, it has been churches and the city themselves for the ever "greener" pastures of the sub-burbs (notice that every one says the sub-burbs are much more greener than downtown but the impact on our environment is so much worse than living in a built up environment?).
Cities and school boards need to realize that the continuing abandonment of the core of city does everyone more harm than good. There certainly are people who want to bring up families in core areas but it is going to take time for the current mindest to change. We need the "pioneers" to set up first, but in order to do that the "pioneers" need incentives to move into the core areas.
Why is it that the first thing Windsor cuts from it's budget are things that actually keep people from living in core areas and is what people actually gravitate to the 'burbs. Things such as libraries, park budgets to name a few. If our parks were expanded for our children to play in or at the least kept up, families wouldn't feel the need to move or feel that they are being pushed out. The same can be said for libraries.
Why does the city continue to placate the movement of people to the fringes while stating that their hands are tied?
I truly believe (and I can count numerous areas in many other cities) that if teh city was to reverse their decision making people wouldn't have the need to flock to what they believe it the better life of suburbia.
John, I have read and heard of many break-ins in south Windsor (can be considered suburban) but where I live we have had ZERO break-ins in 3 years.
I believe it is the perception of crime that is hindering people (case in point. The west side is considered bad but there are some outstanding communities that have little to no crime compared with areas on the east side and some newer subruban areas recently built. Even some of the new subdivisions on the west side are very nice to live in). Not to mention the look of many of our core neighbourhoods. If it looks like hell people believe it is hell regardless if it is true or not. Granted there are areas in the core that are infested with crime but there are areas in suburbia that high crime as well.
Yep. Anecdotally I can say as well that I have not been a victim of crime in five years either, but I live in a relatively safe "pocket" within the city. Previous to that I lived on the so-called "near east side" (Howard/Tecumseh dist.) and had stuff stolen out of my backyard, neighbours were broken into while they slept, and the variety store owner was badly beaten in what was not the first robbery there. When I moved I stayed in the city. My neighbours with children however moved to South Windsor and Tecumseh about the same time.
Anyway, your expected response is why I added the disclaimer that one can't say crime never happens in the 'burbs - of course it does - but there is no doubting for a minute that the crime rates are higher across the board as you get into the core. Let's not kid ourselves about that.
James, I can only base my opinions on available information and evidence and even trending. None of that info exists to support your beliefs.
As far as safety goes its a bit of a chicken and the egg.
Currently even with our existing population Downtown WIndsor is the largest downtown in North America without an organized residential association.
These associations form neighborhood watch groups and lobby for safety changes.
By concentrating on bringing in the residents from the demographics I discuss we can do more to form one of these associations to get the safety changes we need such as family friendly signage restrictions and zoning out massage parlors, panhandling restrictions etc...
Other than that the police will tell you other than the corner of Pelissier and Wyandotte after 3 am. Downtown is already a pretty safe place
Hey Mark,
I refer you to this CIBC document which clearly shows that economic activity is trending downward and has been for sometime in Windsor.
http://research.cibcwm.com/economic_public/download/cma-windsor.pdf
Also two manufacturers announced closure yesterday putting 683 more regional people out of work.
Oil supply crunches coming?
http://research.cibcwm.com/economic_public/download/feature1.pdf
and, very scary...
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/subscriber/columnists/top3/story/4120383p-4715400c.html
See, the world is changing and we need to think forward. I pointed out three bogeymen on my last post. As much as we want to believe that everything is "normal" we should really consider the possiblility that our future will be very different.
I agree with you James, there is a huge shift afoot. Only those communiites that have arranged themselves correctly will survive. bigboxes, big hwys, big houses and big cars is not the correct direction. ScaleDown is raising the flag. Hopefully the critical mass here in Windsor will figure things out soon. Sooner the better.
I want to caution everyone as to why we must do what we are doing with ScaleDown. We want to offer solutions to problems (either experienced or predicted) rather than take the decades-old "environmentalist" approach of crying about a falling sky. Fatalistic and guilt ridden approaches do not work, and I would like for us to us accept that as fact and move on from here.
We will never guilt people into accepting a different reality. We will only get the masses to change direction by offering up a superior product. I know, you know, and that gal over there at the bus stop knows, that this urban lifestyle choice can be FANTASTIC & FULFILLING!
I don't drink and drive - I drink and stumble home from the neighbourhood pub. I don't chauffeur my kids around everywhere - they have legs, a bus schedule and they know how to use them. They also know how to deal with different and sometimes uncomfortable social exchanges, rather than the same-old, same-old of the sub-urbs. They're not shielded from every-day life and they know how to handle pretty much anything that comes their way. Try and tell me that won't benefit them for the rest of their lives.
Urbanity is a wonderful thing and I KNOW that once we make that cultural breakthrough, many of my fellow Windsorites will be able to live the same high-quality of life that I currently enjoy. (and I'm unemployed! Can you imagine how great my life would be if I actually had a job?)
So, while I agree with many of the assumptions about what the future holds for our fossil-fueled, easy-credit society, I don't want to dwell on it. If people perceive urbanity as "doing without" something, they will only join us kicking and screaming when they absolutely, possitively have no other choice.
"We need to promote a cycle of raising kids in the core who grow up and get married and raise THEIR kids in the core, and so on, not making the big move to South Windsor as soon as you have saved up a down payment to "get the hell out"."
Amen to that, Brother John!!!! We've got some brilliant people on this website!
I'm sorry...
My passion/fear takes over sometimes.
It is our raison d'etre to raise awareness that there is a better way to live.
I will write that out on a chalk board 10 times :-)
James - make it 15 and you've bought yourself forgiveness ;)
I guess James, you could look at it as not that I'm disagreeing with you but just that I feel that there's a certain order to things.
I'm looking to do A then B then C first, while you want to go directly to D and E
I read somewhere that they have studies show that it will take $4.00 per litre oil before the masses will accept the changes that need to take place.
I think that this will take 10 years to happen, even if you think it will happen sooner, I'm talking about short term actions and you're talking about long term actions.
"I don't chauffeur my kids around everywhere - they have legs, a bus schedule and they know how to use them."
Amen. I lived about 1/2 KM away from my grade school, 1 KM from Junior High and 2KM from my high school. Rain or shine, I walked every day. If I wanted to take the city bus once I was in High School, it was up to me to earn the money required. With one car and six kids, getting a ride to school was a once in a blue moon luxury.
In defence of school boards, most of their decisions regarding school closures is driven by a Provincial funding formula that favours closing smaller, older schools and consolidating students in larger, newer locations - typically in the suburbs. Closing two schools with 300 students each, distributing those students amongst other nearby schools allows the board money to build a new school in the growth areas.
BBS, you are correct but the harm it does to a community is devestating. Do you think School Boards have a responsibility to their community and their students? Money isn't everything and they should realize this.
You are correct, BBS, for my part in this discussion I did not mean to lay the blame at the feet of the school boards. They are responding to population and subsequent funding shifts that are out of their control.
These are very interesting comments and I agree totally with what ScaleDown Windsor is doing and attempting to as a child and now an adult of the core.
My parents were children of the core as my mother's parents before them and on and on for five generations. I don't own a car, walk to work every day and rely on public transportation for the other times I have to travel aboard in this city. My sister and her husband live in the core and also walk to work everyday, although they do own a car.
Safety of a child in the core shouldn't be an issue, with more eyes on the streets and in the neighbourhoods, a child when old enough should be able to travel on foot to main street and school and back again. Numbers is what we want on the streets, people walking to and from work, shopping, and generally going about their business, more eyes less crime.
Back in the days of the first oil and gasoline crisis, in the 1970's and Americans were afraid to travel on the Fourth of July and other national holidays, because gas was scarce and expensive...something was noticed that hasn't happen since.
People stayed in their cities, occupied the streets and parks, sat on their porches and stoops to early hours, while their children played on the sidewalks...Crime dropped to nothing for those few days, it happened all over the U.S.
Our Kids are smarter people than we give them credit for, they can as I and others did as we moved around this city on our bikes and buses became pretty savy on who to trust and not trust. If we were up to what appeared as mischievious behaviour, a neighbour would either yell at us or call home, as a kid I could never out run the telephone! But if you were injured or needed a safe haven those same neighbours wourld be there to help you. That doesn't happen in the sub-urbs and never will.
Mu grandmother lived on Bruce not far from Elliot, when visiting I was downtown all the time, running chores for her or playing with the kids that I had gotten to know. Down to the armouries to watch the soldiers drill, to the riverfront to get an ice cream from the old British American hotel was, over to the railway station and watch the trains coming and going, along with rail barges. Never once did I think that it was unsafe. But there was always adults around to keep us in line or to aid us.
We lived on Olive road, and once my mother took me on my premier outing to Walkerville highschool for swimming lessons, the only indoor swimming pool in the city at that time and waited for me, we took the bus to grandparents for lunch. After that I took the bus myself to the swimming lessons and then after either home or to grandparents downtown..I was eight at the time and never felt unsafe of what I was doing.
Cities can offer that again, we need families, dinks, sinks (single no kids..me), we need everyone . But I'm afraid that those retired autoworkers hoping to sell their homes to their kids is a fading dream as their kids leave for the west and them moving to a condo downtown are almost lost.
I was a teenager in Toronto, and the TTC red rockets and subway became me mode of exploring the city during the day time and the night time..Friday night movies with a date. After six months of moving to Toronto, my dad sold our car, we didn't need it.
There is so much I like about cities and what they can be...again!
PS: I also remember the last time that Barnum and Bailey, Ringling Brothers Circus set up the big tent at the Ford test track for the last time in Windsor, I was taken out of school to experience that. I got one of the last rides on a steam locomotive going in and out of the Roundhouse on the river front.
I can remember going with my grandfather to the O'Keefe's brewery outlet across from the brewery to get his 2-4, and touring the brewery when it was on Riverside drive, across from Canada cement.
I remember a lot of what this city was once.
Urbanrat,
And there you have it. What this city "once was".
But there was another time when everybody was mingly about and being very kind...the blackout of 2003.
Hey Dave, I take it you didn't have to drive home in that blackout with your fellow mingly kindly Windsorites sharing the road, with those non-functioning traffic lights at major intersections? ;)
But yeah. It was cool actually sitting out on the front porch and not hearing a single car stereo, or see a single light - especially after dark. Everyone sorta reprioritized their routines.
It was interesting too seeing how difficult it was for merchants to function, and customers with no cash in pocket and the ATMs out of service.
Post a Comment