In fact if I'm not mistaken there are a fair number of quality of life measures that are worse in cities (for one thing they exacerbate wealth inequality). While they have a lot of conveniences, most people move to them primarily because they need a job.
But if I had to commute daily. Hell no.
The reason why this has changed relatively recently is because of the monopolization of the urban core by rentseeking corporations and landlords that simply sit on empty property and price out everyone else. The people that can afford to live in the urban core therefore can't afford to raise a family.
Never heard of that ever being the case, especially if you take into account living space, which is at a premium in cities.
Recent example from a friend of mine: he's selling his 62m2, two bedroom apartment in a city of 650k to buy an absolute castle of 200m2 in the suburbs that also has a separate garage.
He's got two children, but could give each one a room even if he had five.
They can’t do that in the suburbs, because the suburbs are deliberately constructed without the infrastructure that enables cheap living in the city.
They can't do that in the suburbs because there's hardly anything for rent there and they don't have the credit score to buy anything.
My reasoning is as follows:
-Real estate per unit area is more expensive in the city - that's a given.
-Groceries are 30-50% more expensive because again - real estate is as well and that pushes up the price of everything. On top of that you have logistics to deal with, as you need that truck to reach the store somehow.
Sure, in the suburbs you have to drive everywhere and maintain your property, but there's financial flexibility in that - you don't need the newest, most gas guzzling car or to renovate the whole place every 7 years or so.
All the fathers of 4+ children that I know are in agreement that they wouldn't be able to afford having such a huge family in the city.
Whoever thought it's cheaper to live in the city must be childless.
Often? Where is it cheaper, for equivalent lifestyle, to live in a city?
Never heard of that. Cities (unless decrepit) are always very expensive compared to the alternatives.
It's a classic experiment with mice.[1] But downtowns are nowhere near the density for that to appear.
I doubt this is just dense urbanization<>low rates, it's mostly just modern urbanization where everyone wants to live in the city but governments/NIMBYs refuse to build any housing parents or retail/services businesses supporting children can afford. So costs are artificially exorbitant. Which brings down the birth rates, so immigration is increased who also want to live in cities, and need housing and want kids...etc. So there is both artificial downward pressures on birth rates in (modern) cities and naturally via the general chaos of cities.
It’s a western thing likely because we have priced out families and couples can no longer afford to have kids/the large apartments needed. Need to build more two and three bedroom apartments you can actually afford and raise a family in
But this is precisely the issue. The issue is not cities, it's housing scarcity. Housing scarcity just tends to be correlated with cities because demand there is typically high and then land owners capture the local government to constrain supply.
The problem isn't housing in cities, it's the lack of housing in and around cities. What would happen if there was enough for it to be cheap?
Part of it may be the cost, housing available, society expectations (having 3 kids is at the top of expectations). Career, starting later and perhaps too much (or too little) choice in the dating pool.