Cities with No Children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

We should absolutely NOT be discouraging everyone for ever having children.

Because, you know, extinction.

As for nation states, I'll bet that you're wrong. Considering that something roughly analogous has existed for the entirety of recorded history.

Climate change is of course very real and very dangerous. But your silly and facile "solutions" just distract from serious conversations.

I think it's perfectly fine to encourage people from having fewer children. Not everyone will listen, but a few will, and hopefully that will have a measurable effect on the planet.

[Anonymous]

The wrong people are having kids not that their are too many kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The wrong people are having kids not that their are too many kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, we love those anecdotal exceptions that somehow invalidate actual studies using hardcore data.

Let me guess, out of 10 babies on the Hill, maybe 1-2 will still be a teenager living on the Hill. Most of the rest will be in the burbs or perhaps now also in other parts of DC, namely NW.

That's the same thing with Manhattan.

But what some of you smug college educated liberals are also wholly ignoring in your biases is that the number of poor families is rapidly declining in the high cost big cities. But since you never see those families or that demographics beyond as service workers or cleaners in your house and you don't care about them or their kids, they obviously don't count as real people in your mind, so your personal experience of seeing more yuppies pushing strollers around the Hill is much more valid and real than the overall decline in numbers of youths across all of DC or NYC, which is likely driven by the rapid gentrification pushing out poorer households and their kids to be replaced by childless single professionals and dinks. That's why the average household size is shrinking, even if the total number of households increases.

Average household size is shrinking EVERYWHERE in the US.

PP here (the “smug college educated liberal”) - I was disputing that DC is a city the “no children”. Yes, I understand that the a,punt and socioeconomic background of the children in DC is shifting, I just don’t think DC is uninhabitable for children, period.

[Anonymous]

PP, no one is saying that DC is uninhabitable for children. The study is saying that the trend is pointing toward fewer children staying in the city. Not zero. Just fewer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Amen.
When I was born there were about 4 billion of us, now we are almost to 8.
The handwringing over birthdate decline is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

You can see this with housing. Tearing down single-family homes and replacing them with luxury condos is reducing the available stock of homes for people with children. It's basically saying we cater to childless adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can see this with housing. Tearing down single-family homes and replacing them with luxury condos is reducing the available stock of homes for people with children. It's basically saying we cater to childless adults.

In terms of revenue, people without kids provide more revenue for the city, and so DC is catering to them. Kids are a drain on resources (and I am a parent).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Amen.
When I was born there were about 4 billion of us, now we are almost to 8.
The handwringing over birthdate decline is ridiculous.

Thanks, Thomas Malthus. What other crazy, discredited theories from the 18th century do you have? I'm guessing you hate vaccines too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see this with housing. Tearing down single-family homes and replacing them with luxury condos is reducing the available stock of homes for people with children. It's basically saying we cater to childless adults.

In terms of revenue, people without kids provide more revenue for the city, and so DC is catering to them. Kids are a drain on resources (and I am a parent).

I don't the DC government is that sophisticated. I think it's more that real estate developers give tons of campaign contributions to our elected representatives and, in return, our elected representatives let real estate developers do what they please. In other countries, we'd call this bribery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see this with housing. Tearing down single-family homes and replacing them with luxury condos is reducing the available stock of homes for people with children. It's basically saying we cater to childless adults.

In terms of revenue, people without kids provide more revenue for the city, and so DC is catering to them. Kids are a drain on resources (and I am a parent).

I don't the DC government is that sophisticated. I think it's more that real estate developers give tons of campaign contributions to our elected representatives and, in return, our elected representatives let real estate developers do what they please. In other countries, we'd call this bribery.

PP here, and you're right. I should have said DC is indirectly catering to them (via developers). I wish the city would require a certain number of 3+brs in new developments, but I don't think they have any reason to require that.

[Anonymous]

Small apartments, bars and restaurants over playgrounds, scarcity of good childcare options.

In DC I see quite a few playgrounds, including these really wonderful water features for kids, like the ones at the Wharf and Yards Park. And a lot of great new playgrounds in "urbanist' Arlington.

Apts are small because A. Inadequate supply means a high price per sq ft B. A lot of the older apts are much bigger - that many older apts are divided among roommates, suggests at least as much of a shortage of small units than of family sized housing.

Can't really speak to childcare options.

But the main answer is more housing supply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see this with housing. Tearing down single-family homes and replacing them with luxury condos is reducing the available stock of homes for people with children. It's basically saying we cater to childless adults.

In terms of revenue, people without kids provide more revenue for the city, and so DC is catering to them. Kids are a drain on resources (and I am a parent).

I don't the DC government is that sophisticated. I think it's more that real estate developers give tons of campaign contributions to our elected representatives and, in return, our elected representatives let real estate developers do what they please. In other countries, we'd call this bribery.

PP here, and you're right. I should have said DC is indirectly catering to them (via developers). I wish the city would require a certain number of 3+brs in new developments, but I don't think they have any reason to require that.

DC is not catering to them - if developers are building a particular size unit its because that is where the demand is. There are a LOT of houses and large condos and apts in DC and the closer suburbs that have roommates living in them. While some of those are folks who LIKE having roommates, some are doing so because its more affordable than living along in a small unit. That suggests that the high prices of small units help cause the shortage of family sized units. When a developer builds 1BR units, that pulls some roommates out of the 3BR apts and THs, and so makes more family sized units available. The real problem is that development, though it looks like there is a lot, is not enough to meet growing demand (esp because we have had years in the recent past when there was much less new supply). Any regulations that slow that supply will make the situation worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can see this with housing. Tearing down single-family homes and replacing them with luxury condos is reducing the available stock of homes for people with children. It's basically saying we cater to childless adults.

You mean the popups, which typically involved a 3 BR TH going to two or three 2 BR condos?

Well, yeah - if we built more midrise/hirise condos, enough supply to lower the price for condos, there would be less incentive to do those kinds of flips. They would still become luxury though - old unrenovated 3BR houses are going to become renovated luxury 3BR houses. Only real way to make housing for families affordable close to a desired central city is to get (even UMC) families used to living in condos/apts, as they do in NYC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, no one is saying that DC is uninhabitable for children. The study is saying that the trend is pointing toward fewer children staying in the city. Not zero. Just fewer.

But to what extent was the continued larger number of families in DC, even after it became the cultural norm for families to live with more space than they did in the first of the 20th century, an artifact of low demand for housing in the District, driven in part by white flight, riots, and govt dysfunction?