Kids in the City

To echo what Ezra Klein says here obviously the low quality of the public schools in some cities makes them a not-so-hot place to raise children, but there's nothing in general about urban areas that makes them bad places for kids. I grew up in a big city and I think it was great. Among other advantages, my parents didn't need to spend my early teen years acting as my chauffeur and throughout high school they were able to rest assured that I wasn't driving drunk.

Just as for non-children, in other words, there are pluses and minuses to having a smaller home in a denser area versus a larger home in a less-dense one. I imagine that many people, both with and without children, will have a strong preference for houses with substantial yards and there's nothing wrong with that. But there's also nothing wrong with raising kids in a city if that's what you like. From a policy perspective, this is just one more reason why it's important to improve educational opportunities in troubled urban school systems but some suburbs have problematic school systems too -- it's not as if proximity to strip malls guarantees educational excellence.

Beyond all that, one important factor keeping people -- but especially families -- out of a lot of pleasant urban neighborhoods is the "no one wants to live there, it's too expensive" phenomenon. To buy a multiple bedroom apartment in the neighborhood where I grew up would, these days, cost about a zillion dollars real estate crash notwithstanding. Sky-high prices in fashionable central cities are going to push people further out who might, were the prices the same, prefer to live in the central cities. That, in my view, is a good reason to try to alleviate some of the regulatory restrictions on building more housing in desirable areas but, again, it doesn't point to some metaphysical problem with the concept of raising children in the city.

Comments

Very good point. My wife and I would have preferred to live further in the city in our area (which is relatively inexpensive), but prices as you approach the city or university centers escalate dramatically. In the end, moving to a suburb was a financial decision as much as a life-style choice.

Posted by eric | July 11, 2008 2:04 PM

Isn't car accidents the #1 cause of death of teens in America? That right there tells you something. Parents fret about kids being shot in the cities, but the real danger is in putting kids behind the wheel. While idiots like Mixner talk of pie in the sky ideas like cars that drive themselves - which we have been waiting for at least since Knight Rider - kids continue to waste money on cars that end up killing them. I call that cognitive dissonance.

Posted by freddiemac | July 11, 2008 2:09 PM

If parents teach their children to walk with a mean grill, it won't even matter if they can only afford to live in the high crime areas.

Posted by blah | July 11, 2008 2:10 PM

Here in NYC, where you grew up and where I struggle to pay the bills, it is the pernicious effects of decades of rent control that have totally distorted the residential market.

Posted by Mark | July 11, 2008 2:12 PM

I just finished a great book called 'The Option of Urbanism" by Christopher B. Leinberger. It talks a lot about how the decks are stacked against mixed-use urban development in favor of the suburbs - everything from wall street to sewer pipes. The end result being that now there's a housing shortage in many urban areas. It's a great read for anybody interested in the current urban/suburb situations and how to fix them.

Note - I'm not in any way related to the author or publisher. I'm just interested in cities and urban planning and having fled the Philly suburbs for Boston I realized my mistake of wasting 1.5 decades in the inner ring 'burbs.

Posted by Morgan | July 11, 2008 2:15 PM

One of the things that Ezra's commenters pointed out, which I had forgotten since I crossed the threshold decades ago, is that a sidewalkless, residential suburb/exurb is perfectly fine when you're under the age of 12. I remember biking down to my grammar school, walking in the woods, and doing all sorts of stupid things. Once I got over the age of 12, however, my grammar school friends dispersed to other schools, people I was close with lived further away than walking or biking distance, and I wanted to do things that were more interesting and stimulating than tree-climbing and having superficial friendships with people you play in the leaves with. Without a car, the kids are stuck in these environments.

Posted by Tyro | July 11, 2008 2:17 PM

Interesting post. But I have a question: if the price of urban real-estate is going to continue to skyrocket in places like DC and San Francisco, and the trend towards gentrification and displacement of low-income (low-achieving) students continues apace, then what does the urban school system look like in another 5-10 years?

My initial impulse is to say urban school systems may start looking better than the suburban districts into which the displaced are distributed. Could we see a situation in the future where things have completely flip-flopped, and parents make the tough decision to give up the extra space, and cheap housing and make the sacrifice to move into the urban environment *because* the schools are so much better?

Posted by ibc | July 11, 2008 2:17 PM

Hmmm, you obviously don't have a 5-year-old boy who needs to run and throw a ball every 27 seconds. What about outdoor space?

What about being able to find a ballfield that isn't overrun with rocks and glass?

And while I'm thinking about it, what about being able to buy more than 2 bags of groceries at a time?

Look, I'm torn. I grew up about 20 blocks from where Matt did, and I'm sad that my children won't have quite the cultural opportunities I did. But I also think that growing up urban stunted my physical development as much as it enhanced my intellectual development.

Posted by BA | July 11, 2008 2:23 PM

This is all true and reasonable. Ezra's post, though, seems to imply that there's some shortage of children in cities. I could see there being more children per household in the suburbs, but the population of urban school districts would seem to refute Ezra's implication that nobody with kids wants to live in cities.

Posted by mike | July 11, 2008 2:27 PM

Hmmm, you obviously don't have a 5-year-old boy who needs to run and throw a ball every 27 seconds. What about outdoor space?

Guess it all depends on which city you're living in. Don't know where you and Matt grew up (NYC?), but I'm guessing you didn't grow up in DC.

I'm 3 blocks from a giant rock and glass free park, and a short bike ride on residential streets from the National Mall. (12 blocks down East Capitol).

Cities differ, just as suburbs differ.

Posted by ibc | July 11, 2008 2:38 PM

BA, I grew up in Manhattan and Brooklyn, and I was incredibly active. We cycled everywhere, ran around, and played handball against every flat surface there was. I see my friends' kids now pretty much doing the same. (Only with helmets.)

Living in the 'burbs wouldn't have changed that. You might have been inactive as a kid, but unless you grew up in a neighborhood where drug violence made you /afraid/ to go out, it wasn't city living what caused to be relatively sedentary.

And it's easier to be active now, because the parks and playgrounds are much better kept. I offer Jefferson Park (around East 115th Street) circa 1985 and today as Exhibit A.

Posted by Noel Maurer | July 11, 2008 2:39 PM

BA, I grew up in Manhattan and Brooklyn, and I was incredibly active. We cycled everywhere, ran around, and played handball against every flat surface there was. I see my friends' kids now pretty much doing the same. (Only with helmets.)

Living in the 'burbs wouldn't have changed that. You might have been inactive as a kid, but unless you grew up in a neighborhood where drug violence made you /afraid/ to go out, it wasn't city living what caused to be relatively sedentary.

And it's easier to be active now, because the parks and playgrounds are much better kept. I offer Jefferson Park (around East 115th Street) circa 1985 and today as Exhibit A.

Posted by Noel Maurer | July 11, 2008 2:42 PM

And I should add:

Saying everything's great about urban life except the schools suck...that's like saying everything was great about Jesse Helms excet the racism and gay-bashing.

Posted by BA | July 11, 2008 2:46 PM

Hmmm, you obviously don't have a 5-year-old boy who needs to run and throw a ball every 27 seconds. What about outdoor space?

What about being able to find a ballfield that isn't overrun with rocks and glass?

And while I'm thinking about it, what about being able to buy more than 2 bags of groceries at a time?

You beat me to it -- schools are just one reason many families like mine live in the burbs (although I live in KC, where the urban schools are especially crappy compared to other cities its size, so KC is more of an outlier on the school issue).

The simple fact is, if we lived in the city, I couldn't let our soon-to-be-four year old just go play in the backyard because there wouldn't be one -- at least not one big enough. Houses close in with big yards sell for $300K+, twice what we have now in the burbs for 1800 sq ft, 3BR/3BA.

Going out front wouldn't be an option, either, since it'd be a sidewalk and street, not a driveway and cul-de-sac where all 20+ kids in our neighborhood run around like over-caffeinated devil spawn.

Yes, as they got older, the city wouldn't be as boring as the burbs. But if given the choice between 12 - 14 years where being the burbs is a benefit, and just 4 - 6 where it's a hassle, I'll take the former.

Until urban planners take into account the needs of families (e.g. clean and safe open areas for kids to run free and play to their hearts' content), it will be another factor that keeps families away. There just isn't enough room the way it's set up now, and not sure how they can make neighborhoods more dense while still allowing for the type of space kids need for physical activity.

Posted by Mark D | July 11, 2008 2:47 PM

I love raising my son in Brooklyn. He walks to the school that's the next block over--so close, in fact, that we can hear the first bell at home and can still make it to the schoolyard before the second bell.

Indeed, because we don't own a car, he probably walks more than 99 percent of American seven-year-olds. There's a richness to a life lived on foot that I find missing from the automobile-centric world we visit in the suburbs. We interact with people on the street and can even talk or play as we go from place to place. When we're in a car, it's all about other cars and traffic signals and whether I want to hear the song on the radio. A suburb doesn't have to be this isolating and alienating, but most of the ones we've constructed in the past 50 years just are.

Of course, much as I value the ability to raise children in the city, there's not enough city (or enough of the right sort of city) to go around so that everyone can do it. What we actually need in this country is better suburbs--ones that are as compact and walkable as small towns circa 1900. Better suburbs would solve a whole host of problems.

Posted by jlw | July 11, 2008 2:47 PM

BA, I grew up in Manhattan and Brooklyn, and I was incredibly active. We cycled everywhere, ran around, and played handball against every flat surface there was. I see my friends' kids now pretty much doing the same. (Only with helmets.)

Living in the 'burbs wouldn't have changed that. You might have been inactive as a kid, but unless you grew up in a neighborhood where drug violence made you /afraid/ to go out, it wasn't city living what caused to be relatively sedentary.

And it's easier to be active now, because the parks and playgrounds are much better kept. I offer Jefferson Park (around East 115th Street) circa 1985 and today as Exhibit A.

Posted by Noel Maurer | July 11, 2008 2:47 PM

Urban school districts also have some advantages. They can offer specialized magnet schools that give urban students options not available in the suburbs. The housing price is a real issue in some cities (DC, New York, San Fran....the usual suspects), but I think it's overstated for the majority of urban settings. Besides, most of these cities have lost good chunks of their populations, so it's not like there is no room to grow.

Posted by Roman | July 11, 2008 2:55 PM

BA, I grew up in Manhattan and Brooklyn, and I was incredibly active. We cycled everywhere, ran around, and played handball against every flat surface there was. I see my friends' kids now pretty much doing the same. (Only with helmets.)

Living in the 'burbs wouldn't have changed that. You might have been inactive as a kid, but unless you grew up in a neighborhood where drug violence made you /afraid/ to go out, it wasn't city living what caused to be relatively sedentary.

And it's easier to be active now, because the parks and playgrounds are much better kept. I offer Jefferson Park (around East 115th Street) circa 1985 and today as Exhibit A.

Posted by Noel Maurer | July 11, 2008 3:00 PM

Isn't car accidents the #1 cause of death of teens in America? That right there tells you something. Parents fret about kids being shot in the cities, but the real danger is in putting kids behind the wheel.

In my limited and anecdotal experience this is certainly true. I went to a smallish high school in a rural area, and I had plenty of schoolmates who were dead by their early 20s, if not earlier. There were a couple of suicides, but by and large they died in car accidents. There was another who went to prison for vehicular manslaughter, too.

Look, I'm torn. I grew up about 20 blocks from where Matt did, and I'm sad that my children won't have quite the cultural opportunities I did. But I also think that growing up urban stunted my physical development as much as it enhanced my intellectual development.

BA, I'm fascinated by this because I'm the complete opposite. I grew up in a rural area and loved having a big yard and woods to play in, but I was often lonely and I was limited both in the things I could do and the things I was exposed to. After about 10 years in the DC area, the more I think about it, the more I hope I can raise my (hypothetical, currently) children in a metropolitan area (either a city or a city-like suburb like the one where I live now).

Posted by Jake H. | July 11, 2008 3:02 PM

"Sky-high prices in fashionable central cities are going to push people further out who might, were the prices the same, prefer to live in the central cities. That, in my view, is a good reason to try to alleviate some of the regulatory restrictions on building more housing in desirable areas"

That doesn't seem right. If you mean by "fashionable central cities", say, NYC, SF, DC, Boston, CHI-town, you're gonna see the same thing that's happened keep happening. More housing, that's more expensive, and more people in line to get coffee in the morning. Building more housing does not make housing more affordable.

Posted by craig mcgillivray | July 11, 2008 3:02 PM

Of course, much as I value the ability to raise children in the city, there's not enough city (or enough of the right sort of city) to go around so that everyone can do it. What we actually need in this country is better suburbs--ones that are as compact and walkable as small towns circa 1900. Better suburbs would solve a whole host of problems.

If they made the burbs just a touch more dense, and then provided decent public transportation, it'd go a long way. Not perfect, perhaps, but better.

I would like to ask something of Matt while we're on the topic: Why so anti-suburb?

I mean, I understand the environmental issues (e.g. commuting), but those can be mitigated via telecommuting or public transportation.

So other than that, what makes cities so much more wonderful?

Not trying to be snide or anything. I agree that cities can be exciting places and all (I have lived in them), but when it comes to raising a family, I just don't see many advantages to living in the city.

Of course, it could be my experiences with the particular city/cities I live/lived in, rather than cities in general, but still -- I'm having a hard time being sold on the idea.

Posted by Mark D | July 11, 2008 3:03 PM

I suspect my kids would say that the best thing about growing up in Palo Alto was that we could get on the train and be in San Francisco in an hour and walk around all day and collapse back onto the train at night.

It certainly wouldn't have been the suburban schools, about which their feelings were (deservedly) mixed.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | July 11, 2008 3:07 PM

It is important to emphasize the distinction between the city being a great place for kids and the city being a not-so-great place for parents raising kids.

Sure, kids can go to the park to play, most cities provide that option, and it doesn't matter so much to the kid that he's at a park and not in his backyard (in fact, our daughter prefers the park for obvious reasons). But here's the deal -- do you know how big of a pain it is to have to drag your kid to the park every time they want to pick grass for 20 minutes? You've got to pack snacks and changes of clothes and clean-up supplies etc. etc. etc. Not to mention that it's not nearly as comfortable as sitting back on your own patio chair with a G&T handy.

Same with shopping. I've got a two year-old. Going to the store with her is a hassle. She is good for about 10 minutes in the grocery cart, maybe about 5 minutes of walk-along shopping, and then it's a nightmare. A lack of parking lots close to the store would make the experience essentially impossible.

Bottom line: I'm sure that living in the city is great for kids. But if it multiplies parents' difficulties by a factor of three, then they're probably going to pick the burbs -- and they're the ones approved for the mortgage.

Posted by Joe | July 11, 2008 3:12 PM

What we actually need in this country is better suburbs--ones that are as compact and walkable as small towns circa 1900. Better suburbs would solve a whole host of problems.

This is a great point. My wife and I were basically forced to move from our apartment in the Van Ness / Cleveland Park area in DC due to exorbitant rent increases. I think we both sort of turned up our noses at the word "suburb," but we didn't have many better options, so we looked and were pleasantly surprised. We've settled down in Silver Spring in essentially the same sized apartment for way less money, and we've loved it so far. It has a walkable downtown, tons of retail, restaurants and bars (much of it tacky and corporate, to be fair), and easy access to the Metro and major bus lines--plus it's about a 10-minute jog from Rock Creek Park, which allows me to run on Beach Drive on the weekends just like I did when living on Connecticut Ave.

Presumably, "downtowns" in most cities are always going to be too expensive for a lot of folks, but it's clear that people desire a downtown-type experience. Fortunately, that's something that can be simulated.

Posted by Jake H. | July 11, 2008 3:14 PM

When I was 11 we moved to Vienna (Austria, not Virginia) from the most vanilla of suburbs of MY's beloved chocolate city. We were there for three years, and despite having to start from scratch on a foreign language, I was out and about on my own in a matter of weeks. I took buses, streetcars and/or the subway to school, to friends' houses, to the movies, to swim practice or basketball practice, to go Christmas shopping, to the Prater, pretty much whereever I pleased. It was an absolutely invaluable experience in teaching a budding adolescent to handle himself as an adult would and to explore his new city.

Then we moved back to the vsocc and I lived 95% indoors or in cars for two years and begged my parents for rides until I turned sixteen. This was, I now believe, the main trigger of my slightly excessive early high school depressed funk. It's one thing to always live that way, but it's another to see how things could be different, and then have it taken away from you. So I would argue that living in a city as an adolescent, good public transportation and a rich urban culture aren't just plusses; they're infintely more valuable than the opportunity to occasionally play whiffle ball in your back yard. And wouldn't you rather go to a nice well-kept park, anyways? I played more baseball, basketball, tennis and soccer in Vienna than at any other time in my life.

I suppose the main block for people here is a fear of urban crime. And it's true that Vienna is an unfair comparison in that regard. The last year we were there a guy got murdered and they were all freaking out because it was the first time it had happened in something like 10 years. I suppose when you total up the costs of building all this new transport infrastructure, fixing the schools, reviving the urban economy and fighting crime, it's hard to make a case with the support of a cost-benefit analysis. But I'm not sure tax dllars come anywhere close to quanitying the psychic and psychological costs associated with the alternative, let alone concerns about climate change or peak oil.

The one bright spot of our return to the suburbs was that I did manage to memorize virtually every Simpsons episode, along with watching hours and hours of MST3K and the formerly interesting MTV programming (Beavis, Liquid TV, the early 90s 120 Minutesocracy, etc.) I frequently thank God for the fact that Network TV execs didn't get the jones for reality TV until five years later, or else I definitely might have killed myself in 10th grade.

Posted by MSB | July 11, 2008 3:15 PM

it's not nearly as comfortable as sitting back on your own patio chair with a G&T handy

this is a good reason that we, as a society, should be more tolerant of drinking in public parks.

Posted by Tyro | July 11, 2008 3:21 PM

Noel, I did my share of running around and handball-playing. Mom thought riding the bike was too dangerous.

It's just not the same as what I have. Mind you, I'm very lucky to be able to afford -- barely -- a home that literally abuts a multiacre park with ballfields, playground, basketball court, etc.

You can certainly find the opportunities for physical activity in NYC, but I recall -- this was the late 70s/early-to-mid 80s, maybe stuff's changed -- that access to organized sports was sorely limited. I resent it to this day. Even as I resent that my kids will not go to Lincoln Center as often as I did and will struggle to acquire the city-savvy that I did. Like I said, I'm torn.

Interesting what you say Jake, I can certainly see how a rural upbringing would be isolating. It wasn't clear whether you still live in the DC area, but I do...and what I like about it is that I can live in the suburbs with the park, etc. and be just a mile from the metro and and be downtown in 20-30 minutes.

It is hard to enjoy the benefits of suburban life in NY-area without leaving the 5 boroughs and removing yourself further from the urban core.

I should add...I recall that the suburban kids I met in college were shockingly provincial on matters of cultural diversity. They weren't racist, they just never encountered many black or brown people. Demographics shifting as they are, I doubt that my kids, despite growing up suburban, will be sheltered thus.

Posted by BA | July 11, 2008 3:24 PM

this is a good reason that we, as a society, should be more tolerant of drinking in public parks.

Your lips to god's ears.

I've always thought that cities should open up concession stands that serve alcohol at parks. They'd make a killing.

Posted by Joe | July 11, 2008 3:25 PM

DC's Lincoln Park has a great sign prohibiting alcohol: it's got a full Martini glass, complete with olive, with the ubiquitous red circle and slash superimposed over it. Really seems more apropos now that the hipster population there is increasing than it was, say, 15-20 years ago when it was posted.

Posted by ibc | July 11, 2008 3:27 PM

Bah, Ezra's stupid captcha doesn't show up on my work network, which means I can't comment there.

Anyway, I tend to think that the 'burbs have a slight advantage over cities for raising a family. It's not that uban settings to have perks, but I don't think the situation is one where the benefits of each are a wash. If the 'burbs were just slightly more dense with better public transit I don't think things would be much more lopsided.

Posted by MosBen | July 11, 2008 3:34 PM

Joe, haven't you learn this about parenting by now? It's not about you. : )

Posted by BA | July 11, 2008 3:36 PM

I'm a city girl born and bred, and would love to raise my kids in a city, but as a single parent, it's too cost prohibitive: I teach in an urban school -- there's no way I'd send my kids to one; and I can't afford the rent. So I live in a rural area (can't stand the suburbs), and commute over an hour to work.

Posted by maria | July 11, 2008 3:37 PM

I suppose the main block for people here is a fear of urban crime. And it's true that Vienna is an unfair comparison in that regard.

You're right. I lived in Graz for awhile and those people just don't understand criminality. Must be something in the Schnitzel.

Posted by DDP | July 11, 2008 3:42 PM

I don't know Manhattan, but Chicago is as urban as it gets otherwise. When we bought groceries in Chicago (neighborhood: Ukrainian Village), we always bought a car full. Surely, "city" doesn't need to mean "Manhattan".

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 11, 2008 3:45 PM

I have and 8 yr old and a 5yr in Queens. Most of the folks in our "baby group" split to NJ or LI or farther afield when their kids got to school age. All of them were raised suburbanites and had the powerful urge to raise their kids as they were raised. I felt it, too, but resisted. The other day I told my 8yr old how much cooler he was than me because he was FROM NYC.

In respect to schools, yes NY has a lot of problems, but what many overlook is the wealth of options a huge and varied system like this affords. If you're willing to do the leg work, the possibilities for your kids are fantastic. In the medium-sized Mich town I grew up in the schools had a great rep, but there was very little flexibility. If you wanted different, it was religous or fancy private.

Posted by JSG | July 11, 2008 3:53 PM

Children don't necessarily need cities. They need suburban towns. You need a central business district that's a bike ride from home and school and a train or bus station that will take you into the big city in 45 minutes. Many northeastern cities have old suburbs like this. The post-WWII suburb - no public transportation and no shopping that can be walked to from anywhere - is the real problem for kids.

Posted by Bloix | July 11, 2008 4:01 PM

I wonder if the urban schools don't end up being more segregated than the suburban and rural ones. In the town where I grew up, everybody went to the same school - rich and poor, black and white, smart and stupid. In the city where I live now, it seems like everybody who can afford to sends their kids to private schools.

Posted by blah | July 11, 2008 4:01 PM

Children don't necessarily need cities. They need suburban towns.

Don't have any idea what this is supposed to mean. Could you expand on this? Thanks.

Posted by ibc | July 11, 2008 4:05 PM

I think JLW hits the nail on the head. Everyone is not goign to be able ti live in the cities, we need better suburbs. It seems to me that other than the occasioanl lunatic like Mixner noone actually likes the auburbs, given the choices available to them it is the best option available. Sure most of them would love to live on 5 acres, but not many can afford that what people have are 5-10K lots. What most people who leave the city want is a small town, what they get is a strip mall hell. It seems to me you could have the same density, same sized yards and same mix of business, retail and residntial covering the same area by building suburbs that are really just a whole bunch of small towns next to each other rather than the current model of a bunch of isolated self contained housing developments divided by strip malls. Seems like the reason they have developed that way is becasue that is they way dveelopers want to build them, cheaper and easier for them.

There is a great example of this riught across the river from me in Vancouver, WA. the downtown area is almost entirely single family homes, on 5000 sq ft yards, straight streets with sidewalks on so on, as you go to the center of downtown there are city style apartments mixed in. The east side of Vancouver is recent housing developments, the yards are no bigger, but each one is on a bunch of curved streets with only one entrance and no through access to the one next door. Their are probably even more apartments, but they are the newer suburban style where a bunch of buildings are spread amongst a parking lot. I would bet the overall density of downtown vs the burbs are the same.

Posted by eric k | July 11, 2008 4:11 PM

I spent the first 12 years of my life in rural, beautiful upstate New York. I climbed trees, hiked hills, learned to work in our neighbor's dairy, built forts in the bushes, rode my bike for hours over country roads. When it rained, I lay in my bed reading books from the nearby city library we visited every other week, or made furniture out of paper cups and popsicle sticks for my Barbies. We didn't have a lot of organized activities, or friends dropping by without a formal arrangement, which meant we were sometimes lonely. But it was wonderful, full of natural delights, and taught me how to occupy myself creatively when alone. I wouldn't trade it for the world.

My kids, however, have grown up in a suburban-ish part of a small, somewhat isolated, area of New Mexico. We still do a lot of driving to cross town activities, and the teen driving issue is an absolute concern--I really wish we had more of a walkable community like major urban areas. We are too far away from museums, the city pool, the mall, the soccer/sports fields for them to safely walk or ride a bike. However, the joys of them having lifetime neighborhood friends to walk to school or hang out with afterwards and eventually graduated from high school has been a delight for me and my husband to watch. As has the enhanced ability for them to find natural, open spaces in which to use their imaginations and bodies.

I think my perfect place to raise kids would have the urban advantages of being able to walk or ride a bus easily to cultural or other activites, combined with open, natural safe spaces for kids to come and go.

Posted by Ella in NM | July 11, 2008 4:17 PM

If I ventured a guess, the whole "suburban towns" thing would have to do with the central business district of outlying suburbs-like in the South Bay, being near the downtowns of Campbell, Mountain View, Los Gatos, Cupertino, etc. Or a cozy college town like Palo Alto, where there is a Caltrain stop to SF downtown.

Posted by Amanda in San Jose | July 11, 2008 4:33 PM

My kids live two lives -- in the summer, they mostly live in a small beach town, where housing is dense, and small grocery stores, ice cream stands, restaurants and a movie theatre are all within walking distance. The rest of the year, they live in a suburban house with a big back yard, no sidewalks, and no where to walk to.

My 7 year old has said a few times this year that she'd like to move to a town where there were sidewalks and "places to walk around."

Posted by pj | July 11, 2008 4:41 PM

Small towns are great until you're about 12. Then you go nuts with boredom, unless you are a local sports star.

Everybody seems to want a city, or at least a largish college town, from roughly the beginning of adolescence until some kind of tipping point around age 30 or 35. Don't know why the tipping point occurs, but it seems to happen even to people who don't have children. For me, the lure of suburbia was a combination of the green space and the privacy. But I didn't go all that far from the city, just far enough to feel less crowded.

People from 18 to 30 or 35 can generally live where they want, and it's no surprise that many choose urban apartments. It's the ones from 12 to 18 that tend to end up stranded in suburbia, in homes that probably also include people under 12 and over 35 who are happy to be where they are. There really should be more options for this stranded group -- transit options to get them into the city, but also more cultural activities in the suburbs themselves.

Art and music programs that go beyond the standard school offerings are a good start, and fortunately there are a lot of them in some areas. But it seems to me that many people don't take advantage of them, and so they think the suburbs are more barren than they actually are.

I agree on suburban diversity. It wasn't bad when I was growing up, perhaps because of a nearby military base, but there's a lot more of it now. The most seems to be in those horrid strip developments that everyone hates on aesthetic grounds, but where new immigrants from all over the world run some pretty interesting small businesses. I suppose aesthetics come after you've accumulated a bit of cash.

Posted by M.C. | July 11, 2008 4:48 PM

'Suburban towns' can also mean areas that have been enveloped by outward expansion, which retain a small-town or village core. That's often the case in England, and you also get more attentive planning in the newer areas of mixed public and private housing.

Picking up on what eric k said, a lot of this really comes down to zoning, and the provision of paths, mixed-use building, recreation space, etc. But when you have a development strategy that's based upon building flat and cheap, getting as much out of each lot as possible, and linking residential areas by wide, fast roads with limited sidewalks or crossing points, you create isolated pockets of living, and paradoxically, encourage a car-driven lifestyle that is less conducive to building community in those pockets than if you were living in an actual village.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 11, 2008 5:04 PM

Throughout this entire discussion it's been reiterated numerous times as though it is an indisputable fact fact that suburban schools are always far and away superior to urban schools.

Although it is true that there are a few urban districts that have truly terrible schools (DC stands out in this category), I think the superiority of suburban schools is greatly exaggerated and often incorrect. I think is true for three primary reasons:

First, I think the big thing that drives this belief is the fact that suburban schools have higher average test scores. However, this reflects more the fact that people who live in the suburbs (on average) have higher incomes, are more educated, and have more resources, which is something that we already know. As the Superintendent of Chicago Public Schools once said "You give me New Trier (a wealthy suburb of Chicago) students and parents I'll give you New Trier test scores". Matt pointed this out a few weeks or so ago that when you look at the scores of similar groups of students (i.e. SES) many urban districts such as Boston and NYC actually meet or in some cases exceed the national average. Another example, which I'll discuss below is my own school district, which although having low average test scores, had the highest high school test scores in the state of Michigan for several groups of high SES students. High test scores does NOT necessarily equal good schools. It more likely equals students with wealthy parents.

Second, as many people have mentioned, urban districts have a much more varied set of programs and opportunities than suburban districts. There are more magnet schools with specialized programs, more vocational programs (which can be great for some kids), and more diverse after school opportunities.

Third, going to urban public schools can give kids opportunities to meet and make friends with people who aren't like them (again this isn't true of all urban districts--some urban districts are really segregated, just as some suburban areas are diverse, but on average I think this holds). We often neglect the non-subject matter elements of schooling which I think are so important. One of the biggest things that a child can get out of schools is a true understanding that not everyone is like her or him, not everyone comes from the same background, and people have different histories.

My strong belief in these three features of public schools comes out of my own experience. I went to a public school in a small city in the Midwest (Kalamazoo, MI if you're wondering). Many of my parents co-workers lived in the suburbs or sent their kids to school in the suburbs, but my parents thankfully did not. In many ways Kalamazoo Public Schools is a smaller version of the school systems in larger cities. 66% of students qualify free and reduced price lunch, the student body is about 55% African American and 45% White. Graduation rates hover around 60 or 70% (this depends on how you count--which can be complicated). The test scores often look low and at any given time a large percentage of the schools are not making AYP. However, I still think I received an excellent education and attended a very good college. The teachers were generally very good (although I did experience the occasional completely out of control and chaotic classroom) and I the schools were run well (although there were definitely exceptions and some horror stories). Additionally, I had the opportunity to do specialized programs in math and science and make friends whose parents weren't all white professionals with post-graduate degrees.

Overall, I just don't think it's in general true that suburban schools are above and beyond better then urban schools academically. Furthermore, I believe that there are other advantages (going to school with a more diverse student group) that going to public, urban schools confer.

Thus, when evaluating whether to attend urban or suburban schools "school quality" should NOT always be a plus in the suburban schools column. Your (or my) kids may have just as good if not better schooling experiences in urban school districts.

Posted by Alex | July 11, 2008 5:09 PM

Somebody should lend Matt some kids for a week and have him shlep them around D.C. by public transportation while he buys enough groceries for a family of four.

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 11, 2008 5:21 PM

I think too many people equate urban with Manhattan. Most middle class families in most citie own at least one car. It's not like everyone uses the subway or buses for everything. It's just that there are options to do some things by transit (commute, go to restaurants) and some things by car (grocery shopping, Ikea). Cities have these things called neighborhoods and that's where the vast majority of urban inhabittants live, not downtowns. I'm amazed by the ignorance of city life in some of these posts, it's not like everyone who live in the city is living some version of Seinfeld/Friends.

Posted by Roman | July 11, 2008 5:33 PM

Interesting thing about small towns. I think a lot of whats going on back and forth here is a comparison of "the suburbs" with Manhattan. But the description folks have given here actually seems to describe many urban environments such as Capitol Hill, DC, and parts of Denver, Portland, etc..

Many of these places *were* the suburbs around the turn of the century.

Oh, and as for public schools: even the DC public schools are perfectly serviceable until junior high school.

Posted by ibc | July 11, 2008 5:34 PM

Somebody should lend Matt some kids for a week and have him schlep them around D.C. by public transportation while he buys enough groceries for a family of four.

Heck, we usually just walk over to Eastern Market. Or the Safeway. Or the new Harris Teeter. What's the problem?

Have you ever lived in a city? Or did you just watch a lot of "Sex in the City?"

Posted by ibc | July 11, 2008 5:37 PM

Kids who live in the cities in winter need to get to the country in summer. That's how it used to be and still is in Europe.

Posted by harold | July 11, 2008 5:41 PM

I declined from expressing this sentiment during the recent "MY is an Imperialist 4th of July Spectacular," but now I must:

YOU ARE INCREDIBLY SHORT-SIGHTED, KIDDO!!

...Most cities are not Manhattan, Matt.

Posted by MR | July 11, 2008 5:41 PM

Kids who live in the cities in winter need to get to the country in summer. That's how it used to be and still is in Europe.
I grew up in Kiev and we had a dacha in the country. It'd be great if this concept caught on in the US, but I think it might be just too expensive for most middle class families. Mind you, living on a dacha meant raising crops to eat during the winter, so it wasn't just frollicking in the grass. It would do a great deal to bridge the urban/rural divide in this country.

Posted by Roman | July 11, 2008 5:58 PM

> If they made the burbs just a touch more
> dense, and then provided decent public
> transportation, it'd go a long way. Not perfect,
> perhaps, but better.

Such neighborhoods were built from 1880-1920. At that time they were called "the suburbs" or "railroad suburbs". Today they are called "mid-city neighborhoods".

Cranky

Oh yeah, I forgot: Mixner has never seen such a place, so they don't actually exist.

Posted by Cranky Observer | July 11, 2008 7:29 PM

And while I'm thinking about it, what about being able to buy more than 2 bags of groceries at a time?

Bring a kid along and you can carry at least three...

Somebody should lend Matt some kids for a week and have him shlep them around D.C. by public transportation while he buys enough groceries for a family of four.

While your are busy getting from the public transportation to the house you stop in the grocery store. Every day or so. You buy enough to carry home. Kids love going to the grocery store. Until a certain age they love helping carry the stuff home. I've had to deal with toddlers in both the city, suburbs and rural areas. Much easier in the city. They go in the stroller at home and stay there - more or less - until you get back home. In a car they go into the car seat, then into the stroller and then back into the car seat....

Posted by Adirondacker | July 11, 2008 7:43 PM

Props to Alex for giving a shout out to the Kalamazoo Public Schools! I attended KPS schools from K-12 and wholly agree with many of your observations. While I've met folks in my life who were products of strong primary education settings (e.g., Boston, DC or NYC suburbs), few of my white friends or colleagues were as prepared as me to live and work in diverse settings. And I remain amused that their primary focus is test scores when they talk about school options for their children. School should mean much more to them than test scores. And the irony is that many of these folks used to complain bitterly to me about suburban homogeneity....

Posted by BEmama | July 11, 2008 9:54 PM

Props to Alex for giving a shout out to the Kalamazoo Public Schools! I attended KPS schools from K-12 and wholly agree with many of your observations. While I've met folks in my life who were products of strong primary education settings (e.g., Boston, DC or NYC suburbs), few of my white friends or colleagues were as prepared as me to live and work in diverse settings. And I remain amused that their primary focus is test scores when they talk about school options for their children. School should mean much more to them than test scores. And the irony is that many of these folks used to complain bitterly to me about suburban homogeneity....

Posted by BEmama | July 11, 2008 9:55 PM

We live in a former streetcar suburb, now well within the urbanized zone of my city, and we are finding it a great place to raise our young son. We've got small yards on the houses for casual play and garages (on alleys) for the cars, but also walkable restaurants, great parks full of kids on playsets and in the ballfields, neighbors walking with their dogs and/or kids on the sidewalks and waving to other neighbors sitting on their front porches, and so on. Incidentally, it is also a relatively diverse community (by age, ethnicity, income, and so on), which I personally like for my son's sake.

And one of the most important things is that it is an easy commute to our local employment centers (including by public transit, which during rush hours is faster than driving). I personally think the one thing it is almost impossible to overvalue as a working parent is simply more time at home with your kids, as opposed to commuting.

But I'll admit it has started getting a bit pricey around here in the last ten years or so. Not crazily so (I don't live in a coastal city), but now solidly above the median for my metropolitan area thanks to above-average appreciation. Fortunately with a good mix of housing available we haven't lost all the aforementioned diversity quite yet, but if the above-average appreciation continues, I suppose true "gentrification" will be somewhat inevitable.

But as others have noted, I see no reason in principle why there can't be more new developments like this, both infilling the city and in the suburbs. In fact there are some farther out former streetcar suburbs pretty much like this already (many also served by reasonable public transit). Those places have also gotten a bit pricey lately, however, which to me suggests there is indeed a current failure in the markets to supply as much of this sort of neighborhood as the demand would support.

Posted by DTM | July 11, 2008 10:26 PM

I forgot to address schools. I am personally of the belief that if enough relatively prosperous and well-educated parents are strongly interested in moving to an area, they will eventually find a way to get schools to serve their needs. And to give a specific anecdotal example, judging from the sheer number of strollers being pushed around, we are obviously not the only parents of young children to have selected our area recently. So, it is not much of a surprise that the City just issued a charter for a new elementary school to serve our area.

Posted by DTM | July 11, 2008 10:35 PM