General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours

[tomh009]

There should be more three bedroom units being built in new developments. But it's not really the case in a city like KW that housing nearer to the centre is more scarce than housing away from it, and definitely not the case that it's not designed for larger families. There are few larger families, anyway- families with three or more children are getting to be quite rare in Canada.

As backed up by statcan data: Ontario private household sizes in 2024; note that this includes multi-generational households, not just parents and children.

• 1 person: 29%
  
• 2 people: 32%
  
• 3 people: 16%
  
• 4 people: 14%
  
• 5 people: 6%
  
• 6 or more people: 4%
  

76% of households have three or fewer members. Most of those (at least the ones that consist of a couple and one other member) would be OK with a two-bedroom dwelling, which are in plentiful supply in urban areas.

[dtkvictim]

76% of households have three or fewer members. Most of those (at least the ones that consist of a couple and one other member) would be OK with a two-bedroom dwelling, which are in plentiful supply in urban areas.

Bit of a chicken and egg problem, isn't it?

[tomh009]

76% of households have three or fewer members. Most of those (at least the ones that consist of a couple and one other member) would be OK with a two-bedroom dwelling, which are in plentiful supply in urban areas.

Bit of a chicken and egg problem, isn't it?

Which part? Birth rates have been dropping for something like half a century, in all of the developed countries, so you can't really argue that it's the apartment sizes in DTK that are causing smaller households.

[danbrotherston]

There should be more three bedroom units being built in new developments. But it's not really the case in a city like KW that housing nearer to the centre is more scarce than housing away from it, and definitely not the case that it's not designed for larger families. There are few larger families, anyway- families with three or more children are getting to be quite rare in Canada.

As backed up by statcan data: Ontario private household sizes in 2024; note that this includes multi-generational households, not just parents and children.

• 1 person: 29%
  
• 2 people: 32%
  
• 3 people: 16%
  
• 4 people: 14%
  
• 5 people: 6%
  
• 6 or more people: 4%
  

76% of households have three or fewer members. Most of those (at least the ones that consist of a couple and one other member) would be OK with a two-bedroom dwelling, which are in plentiful supply in urban areas.

Are they. I agree there are more than larger dwellings. But everything I’ve heard suggests there’s a shortage of smaller housing too.

[danbrotherston]

Bit of a chicken and egg problem, isn't it?

Which part? Birth rates have been dropping for something like half a century, in all of the developed countries, so you can't really argue that it's the apartment sizes in DTK that are causing smaller households.

lol. I literally listened to a podcast this morning arguing the reverse.

I didn’t necessarily agree but I certainly think there’s merit to the argument that housing insufficiency and housing insecurity could depress the birth rate. Certainly the resulting economic challenges is known to play a role.

[tomh009]

76% of households have three or fewer members. Most of those (at least the ones that consist of a couple and one other member) would be OK with a two-bedroom dwelling, which are in plentiful supply in urban areas.

Are they. I agree there are more than larger dwellings. But everything I’ve heard suggests there’s a shortage of smaller housing too.

There is indeed a shortage of most types of housing, but two-bedroom apartments and townhomes are certainly available in the urban area, and more are being built, particularly in purpose-built rental buildings. More are needed, but there are places for families to live in the DTK urban area.

[tomh009]

Which part? Birth rates have been dropping for something like half a century, in all of the developed countries, so you can't really argue that it's the apartment sizes in DTK that are causing smaller households.

lol. I literally listened to a podcast this morning arguing the reverse.

I didn’t necessarily agree but I certainly think there’s merit to the argument that housing insufficiency and housing insecurity could depress the birth rate. Certainly the resulting economic challenges is known to play a role.

It could exacerbate the birth rate decline, sure. But the rate has been dropping for a far, far longer time, so the housing shortage is surely not the original cause.

[dtkvictim]

Bit of a chicken and egg problem, isn't it?

Which part? Birth rates have been dropping for something like half a century, in all of the developed countries, so you can't really argue that it's the apartment sizes in DTK that are causing smaller households.

I don't suggest it's completely responsible, but still a big factor. You also mentioned plentiful supply of two bedroom units, but to me that would imply enough supply that prices are affordable (especially for a household with at least one child) which simply isn't the case. Regardless, I don't personally consider most two bedroom apartments to be adequate for a household with kids. Most of the recently built ones are small enough that the second bedroom becomes an office, computer room, exercise space, or even a living room as some places are so small that the intended "living room" is basically just space for a dining table.

Anecdotally I don't know a single person with children who had them before moving out of an apartment and into a house. In fact, all of them that I can think of right now had children immediately after moving out of apartments and into houses, which would suggest it's a major factor in their decision.

You can argue that such people are being unreasonable, and they could make it work with less space, but where do you draw the line? You could have kids in a bachelor unit if you really wanted, but I think you would agree that's unreasonable. It's a matter of perspective, and needs to be considered if you care to put a dent in the birth rate issue.

The emphasis on indoor space is discussed plenty, but I think outdoor space should also be considered. It's definitely a factor in me not being willing to have children in my current living arrangement downtown. I mean both private outdoor space (at least a small garden/yard I consider important for a child to have ready access to), and public outdoor space. I partly grew up on a cul-de-sac with a large grass oval/circle in the center where all the kids on the street would play together and it could be assumed there were enough houses with eyes on it that they could be relatively unsupervised. I think downtown lacks either of those kinds of places for most people. Even if it has some nice parks, those are more of a dedicated trip you need to make with a child.

[Kodra24]

Feminism and the demonization of the nuclear family certainly play a part in the low birth rates, it's quite sad to witness

[tomh009]

Feminism and the demonization of the nuclear family certainly play a part in the low birth rates, it's quite sad to witness

Feminism in the sense of women looking to have careers and not be consigned to being homemakers? Absolutely, yes, especially since most countries do not provide effective child-care options. So, many women choose to work. Would you not give them that choice?

I have no idea who is demonizing the nuclear family or what impact that person has. Is there maybe a Nuclear Family Demonization Party in the Parliament (or in other countries' parliaments) that I have not noticed?

[danbrotherston]

Feminism and the demonization of the nuclear family certainly play a part in the low birth rates, it's quite sad to witness

The demonization of the nuclear family would be sad to watch. You should probably lay off the right wing extremist propaganda. Because back here in reality, that isn't a thing that is happening.

Feminism on the other hand, if you find giving women freedom to choose when and if to start a family, the freedom to leave partners when they choose, the freedom to have a career, the freedom to vote, the freedom to have a credit card. Well, if you find that sad...I think you'll be pretty alone in that.

[bravado]

Feminism and the demonization of the nuclear family certainly play a part in the low birth rates, it's quite sad to witness

Utter nonsense. This is a law of demographics:

If you give women economic freedom and personal freedom to choose the size of their families, they will tend to choose less kids over time.

This happens everywhere on earth, across cultures. Women haven’t had either of those 2 conditions until the modern era and it shows in every birth rate statistic across every country that has both types of freedom.

Even countries that throw money at parents and families, like the Nordics, have not been able to reverse this trend. They certainly don’t demonize “nuclear families” there.

[ac3r]

Considering we opened the floodgates to the outside world to come in to raise our birthrates, I think it's fair to say that yes the demonization of the nuclear family is actually a real thing. That upsets a lot of people, but it's true because our leaders understand what an existential threat it is for a nation to experience rapidly declining birthrates.

How do I know? Well, that same government(s) spent centuries trying to cull us Indigenous folk - even going as far as to breed us out of existence through rape and forcing women to give birth to half white children - and now we barely exist as a distinct ethnic and linguistic groups. It's not much different, only it's a problem of their own creation this time around.

The kneejerk reaction to such truths is to demonize those who actually point out the problem, but it doesn't change reality.

[bravado]

Or, our birth rate is declining because every society with economic and bodily freedom has a declining birth rate, and we brought in people from a region that doesn’t have those freedoms and by extension, propped up our birth rate for a while.

Only for a while until the assimilated kids of those new immigrants attain our freedoms and yet again choose to have fewer kids.

You guys really think declining birth rate is a solvable problem. It isn’t. It’s the choice of women all over the globe, living in places with a wide range of different government policies and incentives that all fail equally.

The “solution” is to deliberately take away those freedoms from women, which we do see in some places on earth with stable and growing birthrates, but that’s not exactly a policy that sane people should support.

[tomh009]

Countless governments (including ours) have tried to bribe families with various types of child tax credits (or maybe this is demonizing, too?) to have larger families, and it really does not significantly move the needle. Some individuals, yes, but not enough.

What does work, at least somewhat? Enabling women to have children AND continue their careers. And how do you do that? With $10/day child care.