Published: Thursday, Aug. 1 2013 2:15 p.m. MDT
Big cities are not made for kids and families. They are made for adults who
need easy access to clubs, bars, resturants and other adults for their
metrosexual entertainment. Kids don't fit well. Most affordable
appartments don't even have a usable kitchen, and it's too expensive
to eat all your meals out if you have kids.I can see why people
leave the cities when having kids is considered a priority (not an accident).
When it comes to 1) cost of living and 2) having enough space to raise a family,
cities simply can't compete with the 'burbs. I don't see how the
'childless city' trend will change unless those factors are mitigated.
The authors of the article should have done themselves a favor and studied
sociology and history - they would have saved themselves an erroneous
conclusion.When families lived in cities, they lived in
multi-generational homes - grandma and grandpa, mom and dad, the kids (sometimes
great-grandparents). After WWII, the soldiers had money from fighting in the
war, but no jobs. In an effort to get the money circulating and to create jobs,
single-family homes were pushed as the American Dream Ideal. This is also where
the idea of mom at home and the nuclear family came in. The popularity and
inexpensiveness of automobiles made it possible to live in the suburbs and still
visit extended family. As long as the American Dream is based on
the 1950's ideal, people won't move back into the cities.
What a horrible example of reasoning. The article completely contradict itself.
If crimes rtes are so high and schools so bad then why has the price of housing
risen so high that only childless couples and the well healed can live in them?
I lived in New York City's Greenwich Village for several years not long
ago. the price of housing throughout the city is high, that is true, however
other cost of living are actually greatly reduced by living in a place with high
urban density. I also notice the authors give no evidence that large cities are
becoming childless which I find suspicious seeing as there were many families in
the city and children abound. It is true people do make the more sustainable
choice of having only two or three kids instead of the foolish six to eight that
many in the suburbs want to burden our resources with but that is not bad
Kids are like farming. It's a lifestyle choice that you really have to want
to take on to do it successfully, you need some land to do it, and it
doesn't work without a lot of government subsidy. Not having them can lead
to a far better life for a lot of people, and they're making that choice.
Our cities haven't been designed for families for decades, so we need more
childless singles and couples to populate them.
I fail to see the point of the article.Kalindra,prior to WWII
and Rosie the Riveter, few women were in the work force, and it was extremely
rare for a married women, especially ones with children, to be employed outside
the home. I do not understand where you come up with the idea that mom
wasn't at home prior to the suburbanization following WWWII.
I used to go to NYC freequently on business, and when walking the streets in the
mornings you would occacsionally see a kid or 2 being walked to school (this was
the business district so other neighborhoods may be different). I kinda felt
sorry for the few kids I saw. From the way they were dressed I'm sure
they were from wealthy families, but still, where could they play? Could they
go outside with their friends? Did they know any other kids? I saw people
attempting to walk their dogs, a patch of grass around a street light was the
only grass in sight and served as the dog walker's pit-stop. Central Park
provides an oasis, but the situation in the urban canyons was pretty bleak for
kids.Inner-cities are not a good environment for kids. It's
GREAT For adults, but not so much for kids.
@ KalindraDon't forget that it was the GI Bill that gave WWII
veterans an education so that our greatest generation could have a chance at
comfortable middle class life with homes in the suburbs. In our era
of hating government, history provides some lessons on how good government
programs can create wealth and opportunity for the little guys!
@ lost in DC: Women in poverty have always worked. But yes, you are correct -
many middle-class women stayed home with their children, once they were married
and had them. However, Rosie the Riveter changed that and effort had to be made
to get women back in the home.Additionally, if the family owned a
business in the city, the wife usually worked alongside her husband while the
grandparents watched the kids.@ 2bits: Stickball in the street.
Very common. And you must have missed all the parks in NYC while you were
KalindraDidn't see any stick ball in all the time I spent in
Manhattan. They would have got squashed in the area I was in (Midtown and
Lower Manhattan). I didn't make it to Queens or the Bronks (but I consider
those to be suburbs). I assume things are quite different there. . I did see
some parks. Some were pretty small (5 people could fit in them). Some were
awsome, but not many kids compared to the number of adults.
Kalindra,thank you for the clarification
@ 2bits: There are more than 1 billion children attending 1,700 public schools
in NYC (NYC encompasses Manhattan, The Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten
Island - you may consider them suburbs, but by definition they are NYC). The
population in NYC is just over 8 million - meaning approximately 1/8 of the NYC
population is school age children - add in the number of kids too young to
attend school or those who attend private schools, and the number is higher.That may not be a vast number of children, but it is more than a few.And when you add in two parents and one or two sets of grandparents, as
much as 3/4 of NYC's population is family or extended family. That
doesn't really sound like it is being abandoned.Yes, as the
authors of the original article state, there is a place in NYC for single
individuals. But taking the few quotes that point this out and claiming they
represent everyone is poor scholarship.
Try walking the few blocks to soho or noho, maybe take a Hirt subway ride the
the village, Chelsea, midtown, go up to Harlem there are. Many kids if you
actually go to where the housing is . People miss so much that New
York has to offer by staying in the business district and tourist traps. Come
spend some time at one of the parks in the village or go sit at one of the many
outside eating establishments in any of the neighborhoods or just go for a walk
upThrough the neighborhoods listed above. Spend some time in the real New
York it is well worth the time.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments