As Canadian cities continue to grow upward, filling skylines with towers and densifying neighborhoods, more families — and their teens — are calling high-rises home. But what does living in the vertical city mean for the health and happiness of adolescents? A new research study, led by experts from the University of Waterloo and Toronto, gives teens a chance to answer in their own words — and the findings offer both crucial warnings and hopeful insights for urban planners, parents, and the wider community.
Listening to Teens in Toronto and Kitchener-Waterloo
Researchers conducted in-depth, walk-along interviews with 22 adolescents, aged 13 to 18, living in high-rise apartments in Toronto and Kitchener-Waterloo. These diverse cities, with visible minority populations of 57% and 26% respectively, provided a rich urban tapestry. Teens were asked to show and discuss places around their buildings they saw as “good” or “bad” for their health. This approach, called community-based participatory research, ensured youth voices were front and center.
Why does it matter? As city populations swell and housing in the sky becomes increasingly common, the needs and experiences of children and teens are often overlooked in design and planning. Yet these years are formative: social circles, habits, and mental resilience are shaped by the places and communities young people move through every day.
Not All High-Rises Are Created Equal
The study found that high-rise living is far from a uniform experience. Using the Theory of Affordances, which focuses on how environments enable or hinder certain actions, researchers identified four positive and four negative “affordances” that either enrich or erode adolescent well-being.
Table 1: Positive and Negative Health Affordances in High-Rise Environments
| Type | Affordance | Impact on Teens | Examples Given by Teens |
|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | High Local Activity Density | More opportunities for exercise, friendship, variety | Recreation rooms, parks, shops, sports fields |
| Positive | Rich Pedestrian Social Spaces | Greater sense of belonging, social integration | Local markets, plazas, open gathering spaces |
| Positive | Access to Restorative Spaces | Improved stress relief, better mental health | Nature views, gardens, quiet parks |
| Positive | Built-Social Environment Link | Fosters autonomy, exploration, identity, safety | Playgrounds, inclusive events, safe routes |
| Negative | Social Discord, Poor Control | Isolation, insecurity, avoidance of space | Lack of hangouts, crime-prone areas |
| Negative | Risky Design Legibility | Confusion, stress, unsafe travel or gathering | No sidewalks, vague destinations, disorder |
| Negative | Signs of Decay, Hazards | Negative emotions, fear, poor health perceptions | Trash, broken lighting, pollution, graffiti |
| Negative | Passive or Dominant Design | Boredom, disengagement, limited activity | Concrete “blandness”, no playgrounds |
The Good: What Helps Teens Thrive?
- Activity Density: Teens thrived where community centers, parks, shops, and sporting fields were close by — allowing easy access to diverse, healthy activities. One 17-year-old boy called his local center “amazing […] there’s a football field, a soccer field. I played with some kids, like, two, three weeks ago.”
- Rich Social Spaces: Markets, squares, and inviting streets gave teens places to bond, make friends, and feel part of something bigger. “It’s a place where you can spend time with people you care about […] shopping, hanging out,” shared a 16-year-old girl.
- Restorative Nature: Even in dense neighborhoods, parks, community gardens, and green corridors helped release stress. Teens highlighted the value of “calming, relaxing, quiet spaces near the building” to escape daily pressures.
- Built and Social Linkages: The happiest teens lived in buildings and areas where social needs (like safety, fun, and belonging) were congruent with built amenities (like playgrounds, diverse restaurants, and welcoming events). Walkability and access extended hours were crucial: “I feel safe […] gone out until like 11:00 pm here.” Community events like local festivals made spaces particularly appealing.
Table 2: Summary of Sample Demographics
| City | Average Age | % Girls | % Boys | % Visible Minority | Average Subjective Social Status (SSS)* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kitchener-Waterloo | 13.6 | 60 | 40 | 60 | 7.0 |
| Toronto | 14.4 | 65 | 35 | 74 | 6.1 |
| Overall | 14.2 | 64 | 36 | 70 | 6.3 |
*Subjective Social Status (SSS) measured by students ranking their family’s perceived status/education/income on a 10-point scale.
The Bad: Barriers and Dangers Teens Face
Unfortunately, several design flaws can make high-rise life unpleasant — or even dangerous — for youth:
- Social Discord and Poor Control: When public gathering areas are missing, unsafe, or carry a criminal reputation, teens feel disconnected and unsafe. Areas with negative histories, social tension, or few social spaces discourage healthy engagement.
- Risky or Confusing Design: Lack of clear footpaths, poor lighting, or ambiguous spaces (like unmarked parks or crowded sidewalks) frequently led to reports of confusion, stress, and real danger, especially for cyclists or those navigating auto-centric streets.
- Signs of Decay: Piles of trash, broken infrastructure, graffiti, or recurring unpleasant odors all contributed to strong negative emotions. Adolescents avoid areas that feel “disgusting,” unsafe, or polluted.
- Passive or Dominant Designs: When areas lack engaging amenities — nature, benches, playgrounds, or color — teens report boredom, disengagement, and a sense of being “blocked in” by walls of concrete instead of inspired by vibrant urban life.
What Does This Mean for Planners, Families, and Cities?
The study’s key message is clear: cities must actively design with their youth in mind. Some recommendations to foster healthy, happy adolescents in vertical communities include:
- Create activity-rich environments in and around high-rises: recreation centers, sports fields, community gardens, and multi-use public spaces.
- Ensure streets are safe, inviting, and legible — with clear pedestrian paths, good lighting, and places to gather.
- Prioritize maintenance and cleanliness to avoid urban decay and ensure youth feel safe and proud of their neighborhoods.
- Design for inclusivity and social events, not just functional apartments, to foster the social capital and emotional well-being teens need to thrive.
Limitations and Looking Ahead
While this study focused on two Canadian metro areas, and participants were largely healthy with minimal mobility restrictions, the lessons speak broadly to any urbanizing region. The authors note that further research could look at more diverse populations, year-round conditions, and built forms beyond high-rises.
As more teens around the world gaze out over cities from their home towers, letting their perspectives shape our urban future is not just wise policy — it’s a necessity for shared well-being.
Refrerence: here
Other Interesting Articles:
