Frances Bula header image 2

Vancouver gets a high-rise school downtown to serve the baby boom there

July 29th, 2013 · 32 Comments

It’s strange to see where the children are and aren’t these days. In my Mount Pleasant hood, you could be knocked down any minute by strollers. They’re everywhere. Other places numbers of children are up: Fairview, Riley Park, the West End, Kits, Renfrew-Collingwood. (I’m looking at numbers of 0-4 yrs in the last census, compared to age groups higher up.)

Where they’re down: Kerrisdale, which has 1,200 teens but only 530 little ones in that 0-4 range, Arbutus, Dunbar, Shaughnessy, Marpole, West Point Grey.

That means kids, or rather, their parents, are moving into the denser areas of the city. And now the school board is having to figure out how to build schools that aren’t the typical suburban one-storey numbers, but schools that can fit in next to condo towers.

The first effort will be down by International Village, across from the Rogers Arena. My story about it here.

Published Friday, Jul. 26, 2013 10:33PM EDT

Last updated Friday, Jul. 26, 2013 11:44PM EDT

Jennifer Ball and her three-year-old, Zoe, walk through the paved lot next to their home, hopeful but anxious.

This lot is going to be the home of Zoe’s future school, if all goes well – the first hyper-urban school Vancouver has ever built, four storeys high, shoehorned in next to the condo tower where the Balls live and across the street from the arena that is home to Canucks games.

The school is due to open in 2015, and will be cantilevered over a nearby park to get more space to accommodate the 200 extra students it is expecting beyond the original estimate of 300 – an indication of how much the downtown family population has grown. The city approved the unusual architectural feature this week, and a community open house was held a week ago.

“I was so excited as soon as I see the posting in our elevator, oh my God,” says Ms. Ball, a pre-op assistant at Vancouver General Hospital, where her husband, Jacob, also works as a nurse. “It would be perfect for us to have that convenient school for her.”

She’s a little worried, because if it is over-subscribed, admission will be determined by a lottery.

The Balls and hundreds of other families are choosing to stay in downtown Vancouver after they have children instead of fleeing to the suburbs as previous generations have.

Ms. Ball said she cannot imagine moving to a place like Surrey and commuting a couple of hours each day. The Balls – she is from Manila, her husband is from Petawawa, Ont. – do not own a car and have no plans to get one. The most they want to expand, for the next baby, is moving from their two-bedroom condo to a three-bedroom in the same building or nearby.

Her time with her daughter is important. Today, she and Zoe are taking an after-work walk near the condo, picking blackberries that grow wild in the park, and watching out for needles that drug users occasionally leave in the bushes. Then the two will head to Costco for groceries.

The life the Balls are choosing is a result of years of city efforts. Planners have insisted that a quarter of all new developments downtown be two bedrooms or larger to accommodate families, and that they have child-friendly amenities.

It’s been an unqualified success.

According to the 2011 census, the number of children under five doubled in the previous five years. There were 1,840 children counted downtown in the zero to four category, compared to 875 in the five to nine bracket – an unmistakable baby boom.

That makes the downtown one of the city’s most heavily toddler-populated neighbourhoods, in the same league with single-family areas in the East side, and a stark contrast to the West side, which is seeing a decline in child numbers.

But for the Vancouver School Board, it has meant a new approach to school building.

“This particular school is going to be all about flexibility,” says Kelly Isford-Saxon, the board’s project manager. “And it is different. It’s going up four floors. That was one of the hard things, to think about how to create a community going up, not going out.”

The last time the board built a downtown school to accommodate the baby boom, Elsie Roy Elementary School in nearby Yaletown, it used the traditional architecture. It is two storeys high, although the school did capitalize on having the park next door for school activities.

This is the first one built on such a small site – but not the last.

“What we do here is going to signal what happens in the rest of the downtown core and other areas that are densifying,” Ms. Isford-Saxon said. With City of Vancouver and University of B.C. planners both figuring out where to layer in new density to their territories, the board envisions similar schools in many other places – another elementary and possibly a high school downtown, schools at the university, along Kingsway, at the Olympic Village, in the development along the Fraser River in the city’s far southeast corner, and more.

The school board sent five people to New York City, where they combed through nine different schools from P.S. 246 in Manhattan’s Battery Place to P.S. 210 in Harlem, as well as the Bronx and Brooklyn, to see what works (and does not) for ultra-urban schools.

Things school planners have to think about: noise (from elsewhere and from their students); how to move children around and keep them connected vertically, rather than horizontally; how to mesh with the neighbourhood outside the doors.

“It’s a question of how do you manage that deliberate balance of inserting a school into an existing neighbourhood,” Ms. Isford-Saxon says.

That research has led to the idea of a rooftop deck on the school for quieter outdoor activities, while the park will be the area for running around and shrieking kinds of activities, as well as having ground-floor rooms available for after-school care and community use.

A few people around the planned school have scoffed at the idea that families will stay downtown.

Charles Wong, who also lives in the Firenze Tower next to the site, is not one of them.

“I actually like it. It provides for people nearby to have a school,” says Mr. Wong, a retiree who spent his working years in West Vancouver. He said his floor alone has one family with four children and another with an eight-year-old.

The one question school officials have not answered: What will happen when this new baby boom reaches high-school age?

“Ten years ago, people didn’t expect families. But they came,” school board chair Patti Bacchus said. “Now we don’t know, do people move away when their kids become teenagers? That’s kind of the next chapter we haven’t written yet about this whole moving-downtown thing.”

 

Categories: Uncategorized

  • IanS

    Our kids started up in Elsie Roy the year it opened and it made a real difference having that school available nearby. I think it’s a great idea to have more schools in the area.

  • Brian

    “Where they’re down: Kerrisdale, which has 1,200 teens but only 530 little ones in that 0-4 range, Arbutus, Dunbar, Shaughnessy, Marpole, West Point Grey.”

    A possible interpretation of this is that these neighbourhoods are too expensive for young families. The question then is whether these young families will move to these neighbourhoods later when they move up the ‘housing ladder’ or stay put.

  • Roger Kemble

    High-rise schools!

    But there is much more to school than the building. There are the playing fields“, (base ball, soccer etc and all require insitu equipment), “the school yard“, (where the kids let off steam in morning break) and, I suppose “the parking lot” for even in this brave new world of bickering over bike lanes, parents, staff and services, still drive.

    That means kids, or rather, their parents, are moving into the denser areas of the city.

    More likely the parents are already located there, they choose to have kids later, and cannot move because in the intervening time they have become priced out of the market.

    Anyway most areas have parks, Charleston, George Wainborne, David Lam in False Creek, so I suppose it is just a matter of administrative coordination to assign time for school use.

    The two story school was the norm in Vancouver, do a couple more stories make much difference: another academic course, elevator etiquette?

    But what happens when the kids grow up? Way back they would stay in the neighbourhood, have their own kids and send them to the same school. But staying in the neighbourhood is no longer an option. Mum and Dad cannot afford to move. The kids cannot find jobs that pay that kind of mortgage. The unit is too small for parents and their grown up off-spring.

    So the problem is more than hi-rise schools. And besides Vancouver population is experiencing slower growth: 4% 2011!

    In the past larger cities have deal with the inner city school without making it a cause célèbre. So why Vancouver and why now?

    Maybe the issue is why has it become the priciest city in the world?

  • Silly Season

    @Roger Kemble. Indeed.

    Frances, a few q’s. I live in Kerrisdale, in a rental (BTW, Kerrisdale and Oakridge—where I grew up– had the foresight to include multi family up to 10 stories, over 40 years ago. It all works. Even now, there are 6 story buildings going in along Arbutus, and I don’t think anyone is blinking. But, I digress…).

    Anecdotally, I see a LOT of elementary school age kids in the area. Where does that 540 number come from?? And I remember seeing media stories that West Side schools are oversubscribed as parents on the East Side send their kids to grade school here.

    I like the idea of schools built into downtown areas—hello, Paris—but also agree with Roger that kids need green space to romp in. Are School Board and Park Board working together on this? Or do they think there is already enough green space downtown?

    I also wonder if School Board and the City are ‘looking’ at all the lovely verdant spaces next to schools on the West and East Sides. Those really are the last of the green spaces and they serve the neighbourhoods…

  • IanS

    @ Silly Season #4:

    “Or do they think there is already enough green space downtown?”

    Our experience, living downtown and raising two kids, is that there’s plenty of green space, at least where we lived.

    When the kids were younger, and we lived in the West End, we used to take them to Nelson Park all the time. The park got a bit dodgy, with needles etc after the “Dawn to Dusk” drop in center was built at the nearby St. Paul’s, but it’s since recovered nicely.

    Once we moved to Yaletown, and the kids started attending Elsie Roy, there was David Lam Park and the green space along False Creek generally.

    Yeah, it’s not like I had it, growing up in wild North Vancouver way back when, but lack of park space or green space downtown wasn’t an issue for us.

  • Frank Ducote

    IanS@5 +1.

    As a nearby neighbour of the new school at Andy Livingston Park, I look forward to seeing school children use this most beautiful park, which is a real gift to the Chinatown and surrounding community of International Village.

  • Kirk

    This hits close to home. We’ve got a couple of kids (8 & 3) in a 1 bdrm apt. I’d like to hear what other families are doing when they become teenagers. I imagine that they leave for the burbs. We’re really feeling the need for more space.

    I feel really bad for my kids when we visit friends and family. Their kids have their own rooms. The kids all run out to the yard to play. Or, they go down to the basement and play hockey or video games. Even playing with Star Wars light sabres was liberating.

    In our place, our kids can only watch TV or read. And, we’re constantly telling them not to make noise because of the neighbours.

    We even limit crafts. My daughter wanted a sewing machine because grandma was teaching her. I’d love to have a room with a workbench and some tools to just toodle around and fix things. “Back in the day”, my neighbour and I used to build go-karts. I remember kids used to build big volcanos as school projects. I’m worried my kids will just hand in reports. There’s just no space for anything beyond book-smart academics. Someone jokingly told me that’s the “Asian way”.

    Love to hear from other families.

  • IanS

    @Kirk #7,

    We got a three bedroom condo, so each kid got their own room. I can’t imagine teenagers without their own room. (Mind you, we have a boy and a girl; it might be possible to share if they are the same gender.)

    As for the rest, our experience is that there’s lots of green space and parks downtown. When the kids were younger, we would take them to a park, or a community centre (such as the Acquatic Centre, for swimming) or for a bike ride along the seawall. Of course, now that they’re teenagers, they don’t much want to hang around with us, but that’s what we did back when they were younger.

    That’s our experience, anyway. I never felt any lack raising kids downtown.

  • Bill Lee

    What is the data link for the Cenus numbers for pre-teens?

    I can see
    http://vancouver.ca/your-government/2001—2011-census-local-area-profiles.aspx

    “The data is available in CSV and XLS formats.
    •View the 2001 Census local area profiles
    •View the 2006 Census local area profiles
    •View the 2011 Census local area profiles ”

    CSV formats might be easier. For some reason the Excel XLS formats have space for 2000 lines but only 1255 lines of data.

    “Data set details
    1.Census local area profiles 2011 (CSV) 239 Mbytes
    2.Census local area profiles 2011 (XLS) 310 Mbytes.”

    The census doesn’t by itself show the City’s “districts”, but the City does because they bought the block data.
    “The data shown here is provided by Statistics Canada from the 2011 Census as a custom data order for the City of Vancouver, using the City’s 22 local planning areas in a custom order for City of Vancouver Local Areas.”

    Does lack of young children in city districts show any correlation to #people/residence?

    We can’t easily determine who are alone in large basically empty Kerrisdale bungalows. though some people might mash data and voters lists and directory listings and the like.

    What we do find is 56% of census homes in Kerrisdale have 1 or 2 people in them. [ Check census definitions for classes and terms for each decennial census ]
    While Renfrew Collingwood has 50 percent having 1 or 2 people.

    But district boundaries are rigid, cross-boundary schooling means they can be very porous.
    And besides school attendance might mean the
    the closest school is in another district.
    Could we compare to Toronto which is not graying as much?
    Certainly going to Statististics Canada Open Data files and seeing the age pyramid of Toronto overlaid with that of Vancouver, shows that Vancouver is doomed! 😉

  • CTS

    The values for school age kids (5-17) as a % of the total population is highest in the West Side areas. The ratio of little kids (ages 0-4) to school age is dramatically higher in the downtown, Fairview is closer runner up

  • MB

    An interesting and significant trend. The Balls, Ian S and Kirk chose to live in Vancouver condos and raise kids in the city instead of moving to Langley. Perhaps this was a preference, but it’s becoming increasingly recognized that affordability is relative to disposable income, which again is relative to the cost of commuting and car ownership added to housing costs. Lower one of these costs and your family income is alleviated from certain pressure.

    Perhaps architects, developers and the city need to respond and build flexible three-bedroom suites in high-density environments that can be reconfigured later to suit changing needs. Place these near urban parks which in essence act as backyards.

    The other trend is emtpy-nesters selling the Surrey rancher, buying a condo in higher density areas. Some, though, sell their large family home in Port Coquitlam and move to … Kemble Town, as did some of our relatives. Basically they exchanged a more valuable, larger lot with a big 60s bungalow (not to mention an adjacent salmon stream) with a newer but smaller house on a cheaper lot in north Nanaimo. Of course, they only followed their kids and grandkids who found work and inner city housing there; I suspect the retired parents would have otherwise ended up in a condo in False Creek or the West End.

  • Kirk

    @IanS #8.
    Thanks for the ancedote. Wish there were more. My guess is that families with kids is a very, very small demographic on Frances’s site.

    @MB #10.
    Developers make money on 1 bdrms and studios, so I doubt they’ll build more 3 bdrm units. I just took a peak at real estate listings downtown. There’s a small handful of 3 bdrms under $800k, which is expensive. But, it looks like the median is about $1.5M, which is way out of reach.

    Time for us to vacate the city like everyone else.

  • IanS

    @MB #10:

    “Perhaps this was a preference, but it’s becoming increasingly recognized that affordability is relative to disposable income…”

    It’s true that savings realized through the lack of a commute can be (and were, in our case) factored into determining how much was available to buy a condo. However, I’m not convinced this will lead to more affordability. The savings realized through the lack of a commute were put towards paying more for the condo.

    For me, personally, it was never really a choice, though. When I was first going to UBC, I lived in North Van and spent a good 3 to 3 1/2 hours a day on the bus. After that experience, I promised myself I would never rely on transit to commute and, as a result, chose to live downtown when I moved back to Vancouver.

    We really like living downtown and I wouldn’t chose to live elsewhere, at least for now, although we may be vacating the City when we downsize and retire.

    I do agree that more 3 bedroom options would be a good step if developers wish to encourage families to live downtown.

    @Kirk #11:

    Sorry to hear that the downtown living won’t work out for you. Three bedroom places are relatively rare and, hence, more pricey, which is a shame.

  • MB

    @ Kirk + Ian, thanks for iterating your situations. I think the city should recognize the kids-in-the-inner-city trend and help create three-bedroom, family-oriented condos, at least in the rental market.

    It’s totally unfortunate that the perception that the low-density suburbs offer more is reinforced by focusing on one demographic segment. Life after kids presents much different needs and preferences, including proximity to medical services which can very quickly become the most important location-oriented and life-wrenching factor to contend with.

    In my view both the city and suburbs need to look seriously at fostering more complete communities for all ages.

  • jenables

    Mb, you don’t seem to see that it’s just not possible to build what is affordable to most. Eight hundred thousand is a sick amount to have to pay for a three bedroom apt when you could buy a house! Kirk, have you looked into renting a house on the eastside? You could probably get a decent main floor for under 2000 a month, and your kids may not have to switch schools… what you said really struck a chord with me, I understand what you mean. If it’s any consolation I sew in my apartment in a very small corner of my 10x10bedroom… it’s not ideal. I feel proud to live in one of the only neighborhoods in Vancouver where a lower income family can raise their kids…just another reason to say NO to this hideous plan the city had come up with for gw.

  • Roger Kemble

    Some, though, sell their large family home in Port Coquitlam and move to … Kemble Town, as did some of our relatives.” Well thanqxz for the mention MB @ #10. I thought Nanaimo (Anglo-ized bastardization of First Nations Snuneymuxw?) had slipped off the map.

    Nanaimo is essentially a retirement home for prairie pensioners who care not a fig about what goes on around them: there are a few kids, their needs are not an issue. (Wot, me on a bicycle? How vulgar!). Last I head 25% of families were on some kind of social assistance.

    At just over one tenth Vancouver city’s pop it sprawls big time: it gives meaning to the phrase. With expectations exceeding it’s ability to support more it, nevertheless, keeps zoning for it anyway.

    The cities administration doesn’t have nearly the intellectual capacity (now, now cool down) of Vancouver’s. Needless to say it is in rapid decline, with a minor on-line contingent of inconsequential oblivious gossips, just the same . . .

    I arrived here fourteen years ago from a two-year out of country sojourn with absolutely no intentions of staying.

    But I did and I’m very happy!

  • IanS

    @jenables #14:

    “Eight hundred thousand is a sick amount to have to pay for a three bedroom apt when you could buy a house!”

    That’s a lot to pay, and more than I could ever afford. However, given a choice, I would prefer a condo downtown for a similarly priced house in the burbs. I like living downtown and I like living in a condo.

  • Bill Lee

    and from Povnet.org for Nanaimo 2012

    Here’s what we know about Nanaimo: more than 5,000 residents used food banks in Nanaimo this Christmas; there were 695 shelter “stays” in Nanaimo just between Jan. 1 and Oct. 31; there are seven (of 16) census areas in Nanaimo where more than 10% of families have members living in poverty (two areas have more than 20%); and the majority of other residents struggling under the weight of poverty tend to fly under the public radar, but are suffering nonetheless and falling farther and farther behind.

    I will leave it to others to examine child poverty rates downtown.

    School nurses, by the way, have all those number and case files at hand. I was somewhat surprised when travelling with Vancouver Public Health Nurses on their school liaison rounds how good and ongoing their records were. Teachers are watching

  • MB

    @ jen, on another thread I mentioned the need for affordable multi-family rental housing, i.e. not necessarily subsidized, but perhaps designed as public or non-profit housing.

    There are alternatives to $800,000 condos, as you mentioned.

  • MB

    @ Roger

    I am aware of Nanaimo’s seemingly higher poverty rates but haven’t seen any stats until now.

    I do believe Nanaimo and other Van Isle towns (Ladysmith — at least the heritage core seems really nice) have a lot of potential. Sprawl – yes, that needs to be countered with new policy.

    The foundation for a decent transportation system is already there with a potentially revived and improved passenger and freight service with the E&N railway, and it could become quite dynamic if it was connected to a decent passenger ferry service to the mainland run by BC Ferries to keep the ticket prices reasonable.

    We went over there last Sunday and there had to be nearly 2,000 people on the Coastal Rennaisance. If half could get by without their cars due to a good rail service on both sides, well the imagination has few limits.

    Any improvement to these services, especially if a revamped RR stimulates development, should include First Nations who had 80 km2 of their territory confiscated for the E&N land grant without any compensation. Jobs, training, development … these are what can improve the Island economy and the economic status of FNs.

    I’d also tie any investment into the RR with compact and denser development.

    Just some random thoughts about your little piece of paradise. It is a very generous landscape, you have to admit.

  • jenables

    Mb, I’m just not convinced affordable housing can be built these days. Certainly not affordable rental housing which is why I find it so tragic when older but perfectly serviceable buildings and houses are bulldozed.. I just really feel some people in this city have lost sight of what affordable actually is, perhaps they are receiving cola wages whereas most definitely are not.

  • MB

    Jen, good point about demolition. It’s worse in Burnaby, Coquitlam and a few other cities here that have older housing stock, primarily ’cause the majority of houses, even those on large lots, are replaced one to one with no net increase in density ( just a humongous new house taking the place of nice old bungalows). The houses knocked down in my Vancouver neighbourhood were usually replaced by two via lot subdivision, but the demolished houses I’m familiar with still had lots of character and life left in them.

    Dealing with demolition is problematic. A house without heritage designation can be landfilled ever so easily and cheaply. To take apart and recycle the studs and other materials would result in much higher housing costs as builders transfer these extras to the asking price.

    The high prices where density isn’t as high is mostly in the land. The assessments for the structures is pretty reasonable (usually only a quarter or a third of the value of the land. I suggest this is simply supply & demand. The only way to drive the land radically lower in value is to “create” new land by stupid acts like filling in the ocean or, as is now contemplated by the Clark government, to review the Agricultural Land Reserve for development potential. Of course once it is gone via temporary fixes like these you’rd back to the same problem: a limited supply.

    With land being so expensive it makes a lot of sense to use it more efficiently. To me part of the solution rests in land planning. A $1.3 million house on a standard lot is unaffordable. But four rowhouses on the same lot priced for the sake of argument at $800,000 are a half million less per unit even though the lot increased in overall value.

    The value of land in this town is holding quite firm, even through a major economic downturn. Therefore, having to live with less house and land becomes a reality. To me the standard large lot and detached housing subdivisions I grew up in are not a sustainable land use. There are just too many vulnerabilities there that remove affordability, one of the increasingly important ones is transportation costs, both in time and money.

    Non-market housing is another option. I’m uncomfortable in suggesting that the city should build rental housing on city-owned land given its performance in pumping land lease charges very high very quickly in South False Creek when the original leases expired. However, if a more stable and reasonable long term lease transition and structure can be worked out, then I believe this could be a workable solution to affordable rental housing.

  • Roger Kemble

    MB @ #19 I don’t thinq the E&N is functional: the Nanaimo station has been converted into a restaurant! The tracks are unsafe for passengers, at least up from Duncan.

    Mayor and council . . .

    http://members.shaw.ca/rogerkemblesnr/curitiba/curitiba.html

    . . . just don’t have the jam to make Nanaimo work anymore.

    As for Commercial Street, it has to be the prettiest streets in Canada with Water Street St. John’s a close runner-up because of the Duke of Duckworth steps.

    CIP honoured the street with a well-deserved award last year.

    Then @ #21 Affordable housing has to do with Lord Rothschild in London and until we do something about him house prices worldwide will continue to escalate.

    And then when we have dealt with him we’ll have to deal with off-shore speculators, bad planning and land use habits.

    What is this I hear about Premier Clark doing away with the ALR?

    PS I thought we were talking about hi-rise schools?

  • Chris Keam

    Permit me the ongoing derail (pun intended) to offer a couple of comments about the E&N.

    – It used to roll right by my elementary school in Royston. It was never very full, but it carried fewer and fewer passengers over the time I watched it go by (little kids running to the edge of the schoolyard every lunchtime to wave to the passengers being a tradition at Royston Elem.)

    The solution (IMO) was always to reverse the schedule so that it left Courtenay in the morning and returned in the late afternoon. That would have made it possible for multi-modal trips such as MB suggests, commuter travel to Nanaimo and Victoria, and would have been a great way to boost up-Island tourism by having visitors stay over in Courtenay or other nearby municipalities, rather than forcing locals to overnight in Victoria if they wanted to go down-Island for business or pleasure. Why that strategy was never attempted still befuddles me, and Islanders have plenty of theories, such as VIA’s obligation to provide the service being a reason why it kept running, while their desire to not spend any more money than necessary being the reason why they never made any real effort to provide or market a service that would have met the needs of Island residents rather than a tiny number of tourist rail fans.

    It was a golden opportunity to build for the future with a useful mass transit solution… that was obvious years before the Island Highway was turned into a largely empty stretch of four lane roadway. Now the rail service is too far gone and the ship has sailed, to end on a mixed-metaphor.

  • Stephen X

    Although Vancouver’s population has been on a steady incline the inverse is true of school enrollment form K – 12. The Vancouver School Board data shows the decline beginning around 1997. http://www.vsb.bc.ca/population-and-enrolment-trends

    The City, School Broad and Province, seems to have some major issues to overcome with regards to managing schools. As the city is preparing to construct this new school it also has a glut of schools that are underutilized and in need of major infrastructure improvements (seismic). Many of these schools should have these issues addressed, but I understand the funding is difficult / limited. This issue is exacerbated when I see the city taking steps to protect its staff (which it should) by demolishing the East Wing of City Hall while bypassing schools that also require seismic upgrades. I assume there is a lot more to funding school maintenance, upgrading and construction and I’m not trying to oversimplify the issue. But there seems to be a number of questions about how we should maintain existing school infrastructure and when we should build new schools in a city with a declining school age population.

  • jenables

    Stephen, I wondered about that myself.. if schools are being closed, why is this one being built? Mind you, it probably should have been built years ago when they decided to yaletown it up..really it is insanity to add that many people to a neighborhood with no regard to these things. .It’s not too much of a stretch to imagine how many young professionals left the neighborhood so their kids could be close to a school, and know other kids who live close by. If it had been done correctly in the first place I guess we wouldn’t be having this conversation. However, the thought of a school with no fields or playground outside is REALLY depressing when you consider people felt profiting off said land was far more pressing. (A field?? There could be “density”(empty units) there.) The kids can go to school in the bottom three stories of a tower, it’ll prepare them for working in an office tower. They can play in a small cement yard with cement planters with trees stuck in them. The gym will be on p4, helmets will be mandatory as it will have a beautiful concrete patina floor. If I had children and lived downtown, I’d find a way to take them to admiral Seymour elementary as it has history, actual fields, plants, flowers, a playground, gym with wood floors and windows that open. There used to be School buses that served this purpose. I went to Carson Graham and there was a bus for all of the norgate kids, though looking at the map I lived further away than they did. Mind you we were in high school..

  • Dave

    Jenables, look at Manhattan. No playgrounds and kids survive. Also there was a longitudinal study done a few years back (sorry I can’t recall the reference) that states it is healthier to raise your kids in the city vs the suburbs, especially once they become teenagers. Apparently the suburbs are boring for teenagers and this causes vandalism and other minor crimes.

  • MB

    Chris & Roger, I think there is s lot of potential for the E&N especially as it may relate to shaping growth on Van Isle over the next century, but this isn’t the place to really get into it.

    Some other time.

  • MB

    @ Stephen X, it’s my understanding that the province holds the purse strings on seismic upgrading of schools. Perhaps the city provides partial funding from its mandate to manage the system to a degree locally, but it is obvious the province treats a lot of school boards the same way it treats TransLink …. shortchange them then blame them for financial mismanagment.

  • jenables

    Dave – I thought that was small towns vs big towns. Less to do in small towns = more drinking. Call me out if I’m not right but it seems kids start families a lot sooner as well. The suburbs are still close enough to the city…at least where I grew up was. I don’t think somehow it was making a case for schools without fields and playground, with all due respect. Are there really no playgrounds in Manhattan?

  • Waltyss

    Dave@26, schools in NYC have playgrounds but necessarily or usually green fields but then that is true in most of the world. I would expect that nearby parks and community centres will be utilized as well.

  • Waltyss

    That should be “not necessarily or usually green fields”