Keep building these bike lanes and 15-minute neighborhoods. So that people don't even think about having children. Make sure people have no personal space and no personal time.
That's how we reduce the Earth's population!
That's how we reduce the Earth's population!
(a) non-walkable neighborhoods with big houses, big roads and cars everywhere, versus
(b) smaller houses or apartments but fewer cars, walkable neighborhoods, and bikes (and other small mobility devices that small kids can use)
I can tell you where being a kid seems more fun. And I’ve personally been to both sorts of places recently and observed how the kids behave.
Sure, with big lots, kids have lots of space in their own backyards. And big cars make soccer-momming easier. But, when kids can easily and safely get somewhere else approximately on their own, the whole situation seems better.
And yes, I really did recently observe a pretty big family in one of the latter types of places. How does one parent herd a pile of kids from their small (but not that small) apartment to some destination without a giant car? They tell the bigger kids where they’re going and they take the smaller kids, and maybe the bigger kids get their ahead, and everyone gets to experience an appropriate amount of independence for their age.
There’s also nothing new here. Until quite recently in human history, in most societies, kids were quite free to explore on their own or in groups without adults. I think it’s unfortunate that we’ve built so many places that are unsafe for small children and not easily navigable by older children.
> Sure, with big lots, kids have lots of space in their own backyards. And big cars make soccer-momming easier. But, when kids can easily and safely get somewhere else approximately on their own, the whole situation seems better.
It seems better, but it's actually not better.
Besides, suburbs can be improved quite a bit by adding local parks, mandating sidewalks, etc. We're also on the cusp of the self-driving revolution, and pretty soon children will be able to just get into a cab by themselves.
> and everyone gets to experience an appropriate amount of independence for their size.
And how do you get to that point from 0 children?
Palo Alto has a surprisingly large number of children under 18 and under 5, and Palo Alto is fairly walkable as California cities go. Fresno and Bakersfield (not so walkable) are higher. There seems to be a larger fraction of young children in Brooklyn than in less subway-covered areas of the NYC metro area.
In general I suspect that children in the US are mildly skewed toward more suburban areas, but not strongly. There are plenty of children in dense areas.
But my claim wasn’t about where the children are — it’s about where the children can have more fun on the basis of the structure of the neighborhood.
Both have approximately similar populations but completely different approaches to city design.
NYC is at 52 and Harris County (that contains Houston) is at 67 births per year per 1000. But NYC is also diverse, with relatively sparse parts in Brooklyn and Queens, where most children live.
> In general I suspect that children in the US are mildly skewed toward more suburban areas, but not strongly.
Compare the suburban US with dense European cities. The urban damage is cumulative, and Europe started over-urbanizing earlier.
You can see the breakpoint in the US happened in 2008, as the millennials started entering the workforce. They were the first modern generation that _had_ to move to large cities to get ahead economically.
> There are plenty of children in dense areas.
Yes, in desperately poor neighborhoods. That's called an "inverted J curve".
> Yes, in desperately poor neighborhoods. That's called an "inverted J curve".
Sorry, but this is just incorrect. There are plenty of people who are far from desperately poor, live in dense areas and/or highly transit-oriented areas, and have kids. Sadly, the US has spent many decades making it hard to build family oriented (>=2 bedroom) housing in these areas, so there are fewer such families than might otherwise live in such areas, but these families are far from absent.
Are you arguing with the reality?
> There are plenty of people who are far from desperately poor,
No, there aren't "plenty" of them _statistically_. Can you find individuals with 4 children in Manhattan? Of course. But there won't be _a_ _lot_ of them.
The total fertility rate is inversely correlated with the density. You can just check the Census age bracket data if you doubt me.
> Sadly, the US has spent many decades making it hard to build family oriented (>=2 bedroom) housing in these areas
No. The US made it possible to build dense housing that displaced family-oriented homes. And dense housing will ALWAYS be small.
I live in Seattle, and there are no regulations that prohibit real estate developers from building 3-bedroom apartments. They don't do it because it's far more profitable to build three 1-bedroom studios instead.
I also saw a whole lot of families and children.
As I'm getting older and looking in the coming years at having children, the value of a tight, walkable community has risen exponentially to me.
I think "make society more child-friendly" is a good idea, but one that doesn't seem to have increased fertility that much. To me it seems that educated people living comfortable lives with access to birth control simply don't want to have that many children. If you look at the country stats, the most proven way to increase fertility is to take away education, women's rights, or birth control. And imo, the western world should adapt to low birth rates, instead of trying to prop them up.
I personally think it’s just opportunity cost. Children seem like a big deal with unclear benefit and so as people get the chance to substitute with other things they do so. For my part, we put a lot of work into having kids and we live in SF. If we leave, it’ll be because my daughters don’t have mobility here because crime and cars impede their independent movement.
Nope. It's just time and personal living space. It's THAT simple.
Go on, try to plan your day with transit and no car if you have 3 children (with 2-3 year age gaps). You'll find that this really works only if everything is concentrated, or if it's a full-time job for you. That's why we hear so much about "15-minute neighborhoods".
But when everything is concentrated, it becomes EXPENSIVE and you also lose any semblance of choice. You will likely have only one school, one daycare, one community center. You become hemmed in within that "walkable" neighborhood. That park nearby? It surely can look nice, but what if it's the only park within reasonable walking distance? So you don't even have an _option_ to go somewhere else with kids, without making it a full-day trip?
People like to laugh at Texas, about how riding an SUV to a walkable park is ridiculous. But is it, really?
The way to fix all of it? Suburbs and cars. Cars provide personal freedom and personal space. That's also why the US had a higher birth rate for much longer than Europe, and it started cratering once young people were forced (by the economy) to move into dense city cores.
If you think most families who live in a city only have access to "one" park or "one" daycare you must be joking. Things are denser in cities. What do you think all that dense stuff is? It's parks and daycare and stuff.
Maintaining a car payment, gas, garage, oil changes, etc is not "freedom". Surely it's fine for many people, but cars do not equal "freedom" in any sense of the word. Their use is entirely dependent on government spending, just like transit.
Yup.
> And based on how you describe them, you actually never lived in a city with children.
Nope. I also grew up in a city.
> What do you think all that dense stuff is? It's parks and daycare and stuff.
Daycare and parks for other people who live closer to them. Not that you're forbidden to visit other parks, you just won't do that because it's going to take too much time.
> Maintaining a car payment, gas, garage, oil changes, etc is not "freedom".
Paying hundreds of thousands for transit is also not freedom. Cities are EXPENSIVE. Just one trip on a subway in NYC costs around $20!
Thanks for the jokes bud. Hilarious that there are serious people who say mostly the stuff you are saying (but actually believe it!)
Yes, it is. It's a part of how urbanists hide the true cost of that "transit freedom".
Divide the yearly budget of the MTA ($21.3 billion) by the number of rides (1.28 billion).
> Hilarious that there are serious people who say mostly the stuff you are saying (but actually believe it!)
Perhaps you should do a bit of self-reflection instead of just parroting things you've heard?
What about the wars we fight for oil? Tack that onto the cost of cars. Subsidies for parking? Same thing. I could go on and on, but you'll just be embarrassed more.
lol. Can't believe you are serious. Your lack of knowledge on this subject is only surpassed by your confidence.
We absolutely should. And hey, somebody did just that: https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-infrastructur... - in my state the drivers pay for 95% of road upkeep via direct user fees.
And I'm totally on-board with having drivers pay 100% of road maintenance. As long as transit riders pay 100% of fares.
> What about the wars we fight for oil?
The US is a net energy exporter. And of course, for urban planning purposes, we can just assume that all future cars will be EVs.
> lol. Can't believe you are serious. Your lack of knowledge on this subject is only surpassed by your confidence.
Can I send you a mirror?
Walk in Tokyo and try to find children there.
There might a few more things going on there than just density, perhaps operating on a national level.
Japan has a declining population, yet Tokyo prices are skyrocketing. Some people now live in "microapartments" where you can cook while sitting on a toilet.
Yet spacious houses are literally sold for nothing but transaction fees, just 2-3 hours away from Tokyo.
They're unfortunately not rare. And dense housing is ALWAYS pricey in the developed countries.