Cities with No Children

[Anonymous]

What is the source for the 15% decline in birth rates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I spent time in San Francisco from about 2008-2010 on and off and was always struck by how few children I saw. I didn’t even see many teens. It was all post-college 20s and up. On one of my trips, I took my grandmother, who was born and grew up in San Francisco and she noticed it too compared to her youth.

Still seems like there are a lot of kids and families in DC in comparison, but once you get out of preschool age, they seem to be mostly concentrated in the less desirable areas.

Not sure this is true in many WOTP areas—these neighborhoods seem to have a good amount of kids and the elementary schools are packed to capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are going to dispute objective data, because at the end of the day they like living in cities that have become playgrounds for single white adults, rather than cities that have playgrounds for kids of all backgrounds.

I would not object to the data, but I think there is a major logical flaw. Birth rate has steadily declined in the US over the past 10 or so years, this isn't a cities phenomenon. I would like to see a comparison on how cities are fairing relative to rural areas, today vs. in the past.

You can't possibly make an argument that birth rates in Manhattan have declined by 15% in what, ten years?

If you think birth rates have declined over the past ten years, that would explain the dwindling number of babies but not children aged 10+.

Birth rates in US have declined by 15% over last 10 years, so Manhattan decline is average and NYC (at 9%) is significantly better than average. Brooklyn has been en vogue the past decade and many families migrated there.

I have no idea where you got the stats for the dwindling number of kids 10+. Anecdotally, I just visited NYC 3 weeks ago with my kids and was amazed at the number of playgrounds and how cool (read high end) many were.

Well, not anecdotally:

"According to a study in 2012 by the Trust for Public Lands, the most playground-friendly city in America is Madison, Wis., with a total of 7.1 playgrounds for every 10,000 residents. Cincinnati is second, with 5.1. By this yardstick, some of the more successfully gentrifying cities in America in recent years have abysmal numbers. New York City stands at 2.1 playgrounds per 10,000 residents; Chicago, at 1.9; Washington, D.C., at 1.7; San Francisco at 1.6 and Los Angeles close to the bottom at 1. If you plot the percentage of children in a big city against the number of playgrounds, you nearly always get a correlation. This is not to say what causes what, but it does make clear that quite a few cities desiring a reputation for family friendliness have failed to address a simple problem that is limiting their attractiveness to young families."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I spent time in San Francisco from about 2008-2010 on and off and was always struck by how few children I saw. I didn’t even see many teens. It was all post-college 20s and up. On one of my trips, I took my grandmother, who was born and grew up in San Francisco and she noticed it too compared to her youth.

Still seems like there are a lot of kids and families in DC in comparison, but once you get out of preschool age, they seem to be mostly concentrated in the less desirable areas.

Not sure this is true in many WOTP areas—these neighborhoods seem to have a good amount of kids and the elementary schools are packed to capacity.

Logically, if DC is losing kids overall, that gap has to be made up somewhere outside of WOTP.

[Anonymous]

Funny, the first thing I thought of when I read the title of this thread was how I experienced Capitol Hill when we first bought there (1996).

I remember telling my ILs (who lived in NoVa) that the only time I see children is when I come to visit them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More educated people ( that have fewer kids) means fewer kids. Got it.

Many educated people move out of cities when they have kids. Things are not set up well for young families.

[Anonymous]

I can assure you that NYC is not emptying out at any rate, it's as crowded as always and the infrastructure is crumbling unable to support all the residents and especially their need for transportation, recreation, jobs, education, etc. There are lines everywhere, subways are as crowded as ever, highways are clogged and need work, getting to and from airports is just as much PITA as it was a decade ago, city streets are packed to the brim with cars and people, classes are overcrowded and there are still tons of kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are going to dispute objective data, because at the end of the day they like living in cities that have become playgrounds for single white adults, rather than cities that have playgrounds for kids of all backgrounds.

I would not object to the data, but I think there is a major logical flaw. Birth rate has steadily declined in the US over the past 10 or so years, this isn't a cities phenomenon. I would like to see a comparison on how cities are fairing relative to rural areas, today vs. in the past.

You can't possibly make an argument that birth rates in Manhattan have declined by 15% in what, ten years?

If you think birth rates have declined over the past ten years, that would explain the dwindling number of babies but not children aged 10+.

Birth rates in US have declined by 15% over last 10 years, so Manhattan decline is average and NYC (at 9%) is significantly better than average. Brooklyn has been en vogue the past decade and many families migrated there.

I have no idea where you got the stats for the dwindling number of kids 10+. Anecdotally, I just visited NYC 3 weeks ago with my kids and was amazed at the number of playgrounds and how cool (read high end) many were.

Well, not anecdotally:

"According to a study in 2012 by the Trust for Public Lands, the most playground-friendly city in America is Madison, Wis., with a total of 7.1 playgrounds for every 10,000 residents. Cincinnati is second, with 5.1. By this yardstick, some of the more successfully gentrifying cities in America in recent years have abysmal numbers. New York City stands at 2.1 playgrounds per 10,000 residents; Chicago, at 1.9; Washington, D.C., at 1.7; San Francisco at 1.6 and Los Angeles close to the bottom at 1. If you plot the percentage of children in a big city against the number of playgrounds, you nearly always get a correlation. This is not to say what causes what, but it does make clear that quite a few cities desiring a reputation for family friendliness have failed to address a simple problem that is limiting their attractiveness to young families."

This is a dumb way to measure playgrounds. I live in DC and quickly can walk to 7 playgrounds. I doubt anyone in Wisconsin can say that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are going to dispute objective data, because at the end of the day they like living in cities that have become playgrounds for single white adults, rather than cities that have playgrounds for kids of all backgrounds.

I would not object to the data, but I think there is a major logical flaw. Birth rate has steadily declined in the US over the past 10 or so years, this isn't a cities phenomenon. I would like to see a comparison on how cities are fairing relative to rural areas, today vs. in the past.

You can't possibly make an argument that birth rates in Manhattan have declined by 15% in what, ten years?

If you think birth rates have declined over the past ten years, that would explain the dwindling number of babies but not children aged 10+.

Birth rates in US have declined by 15% over last 10 years, so Manhattan decline is average and NYC (at 9%) is significantly better than average. Brooklyn has been en vogue the past decade and many families migrated there.

I have no idea where you got the stats for the dwindling number of kids 10+. Anecdotally, I just visited NYC 3 weeks ago with my kids and was amazed at the number of playgrounds and how cool (read high end) many were.

Well, not anecdotally:

"According to a study in 2012 by the Trust for Public Lands, the most playground-friendly city in America is Madison, Wis., with a total of 7.1 playgrounds for every 10,000 residents. Cincinnati is second, with 5.1. By this yardstick, some of the more successfully gentrifying cities in America in recent years have abysmal numbers. New York City stands at 2.1 playgrounds per 10,000 residents; Chicago, at 1.9; Washington, D.C., at 1.7; San Francisco at 1.6 and Los Angeles close to the bottom at 1. If you plot the percentage of children in a big city against the number of playgrounds, you nearly always get a correlation. This is not to say what causes what, but it does make clear that quite a few cities desiring a reputation for family friendliness have failed to address a simple problem that is limiting their attractiveness to young families."

This is a dumb way to measure playgrounds. I live in DC and quickly can walk to 7 playgrounds. I doubt anyone in Wisconsin can say that.

Yeah...you need more playgrounds because the distances are greater.

My suburban neighborhood has about 175 or so households and maybe 900 people total. But there's 3 playgrounds...because each house sits on 1/4th - 1/3rd an acre. You need to get in a car or be prepared to walk a 2-3 miles in blazing unshaded paths with a stroller to get to the subdivision's playgrounds if you live near them.

Pretty much the same all across sub-divisions outside of cities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eventually those college educated whites will.have children. Some may be able to stay. Most lower income people will not.

How can they afford children when they’re saddled with outrageous college debt and housing costs?

[Anonymous]

Knowing what we know now about the burden of overpopulation on natural resources, destruction of the environment, and climate change, what is the continued obsession with increasing the birth rate? If anything, we should be strongly, strongly discouraging anyone from ever having children, regardless of race or socioeconomic status. I don't get the hand-wringing about omg we'll have to allow immigrants to provide essential services in the future if we don't birth our own. The modern nation-state with strict borders is such a small blip in the history of how humans organized societies. There's no reason to assume that will continue in perpetuity. I bet that in several hundred years, the current world order of self-interested countries striving to consume the most resources would looks just as strange and inefficient to the (hopefully much reduced) population as medieval feudal kingdoms look to us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are going to dispute objective data, because at the end of the day they like living in cities that have become playgrounds for single white adults, rather than cities that have playgrounds for kids of all backgrounds.

I would not object to the data, but I think there is a major logical flaw. Birth rate has steadily declined in the US over the past 10 or so years, this isn't a cities phenomenon. I would like to see a comparison on how cities are fairing relative to rural areas, today vs. in the past.

You can't possibly make an argument that birth rates in Manhattan have declined by 15% in what, ten years?

If you think birth rates have declined over the past ten years, that would explain the dwindling number of babies but not children aged 10+.

Birth rates in US have declined by 15% over last 10 years, so Manhattan decline is average and NYC (at 9%) is significantly better than average. Brooklyn has been en vogue the past decade and many families migrated there.

I have no idea where you got the stats for the dwindling number of kids 10+. Anecdotally, I just visited NYC 3 weeks ago with my kids and was amazed at the number of playgrounds and how cool (read high end) many were.

Well, not anecdotally:

"According to a study in 2012 by the Trust for Public Lands, the most playground-friendly city in America is Madison, Wis., with a total of 7.1 playgrounds for every 10,000 residents. Cincinnati is second, with 5.1. By this yardstick, some of the more successfully gentrifying cities in America in recent years have abysmal numbers. New York City stands at 2.1 playgrounds per 10,000 residents; Chicago, at 1.9; Washington, D.C., at 1.7; San Francisco at 1.6 and Los Angeles close to the bottom at 1. If you plot the percentage of children in a big city against the number of playgrounds, you nearly always get a correlation. This is not to say what causes what, but it does make clear that quite a few cities desiring a reputation for family friendliness have failed to address a simple problem that is limiting their attractiveness to young families."

This is a dumb way to measure playgrounds. I live in DC and quickly can walk to 7 playgrounds. I doubt anyone in Wisconsin can say that.

Do you think EVERYONE in DC can walk to 7 playgrounds?

It's Madison. Not the entire state of Wisconsin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah...you need more playgrounds because the distances are greater.

My suburban neighborhood has about 175 or so households and maybe 900 people total. But there's 3 playgrounds...because each house sits on 1/4th - 1/3rd an acre. You need to get in a car or be prepared to walk a 2-3 miles in blazing unshaded paths with a stroller to get to the subdivision's playgrounds if you live near them.

Pretty much the same all across sub-divisions outside of cities.

The study looked at cities. It did not concern itself with suburban subdivisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are going to dispute objective data, because at the end of the day they like living in cities that have become playgrounds for single white adults, rather than cities that have playgrounds for kids of all backgrounds.

I would not object to the data, but I think there is a major logical flaw. Birth rate has steadily declined in the US over the past 10 or so years, this isn't a cities phenomenon. I would like to see a comparison on how cities are fairing relative to rural areas, today vs. in the past.

You can't possibly make an argument that birth rates in Manhattan have declined by 15% in what, ten years?

If you think birth rates have declined over the past ten years, that would explain the dwindling number of babies but not children aged 10+.

Birth rates in US have declined by 15% over last 10 years, so Manhattan decline is average and NYC (at 9%) is significantly better than average. Brooklyn has been en vogue the past decade and many families migrated there.

I have no idea where you got the stats for the dwindling number of kids 10+. Anecdotally, I just visited NYC 3 weeks ago with my kids and was amazed at the number of playgrounds and how cool (read high end) many were.

Well, not anecdotally:

"According to a study in 2012 by the Trust for Public Lands, the most playground-friendly city in America is Madison, Wis., with a total of 7.1 playgrounds for every 10,000 residents. Cincinnati is second, with 5.1. By this yardstick, some of the more successfully gentrifying cities in America in recent years have abysmal numbers. New York City stands at 2.1 playgrounds per 10,000 residents; Chicago, at 1.9; Washington, D.C., at 1.7; San Francisco at 1.6 and Los Angeles close to the bottom at 1. If you plot the percentage of children in a big city against the number of playgrounds, you nearly always get a correlation. This is not to say what causes what, but it does make clear that quite a few cities desiring a reputation for family friendliness have failed to address a simple problem that is limiting their attractiveness to young families."

This is a dumb way to measure playgrounds. I live in DC and quickly can walk to 7 playgrounds. I doubt anyone in Wisconsin can say that.

Do you think EVERYONE in DC can walk to 7 playgrounds?

It's Madison. Not the entire state of Wisconsin.

Yes, everyone in DC can probably walk to multiple playgrounds. Unless by “DC” you mean Fairfax.

[Anonymous]

Of major real cities (places like Detroit/Baltimore/New Orleans/etc of terrible places to live) San Fran and nyc would be at the bottom to live with kids.
They are literally the worst of humanity situations.

To prevent school districts in San Fran every kid is randomly assigned a school in the city. That means 5 kids living in same apartment building could go to 5 different elementary schools across the city.
In nyc exact opposite- it is pat crazy cash to be in the right schools or ship kids off to boarding school.