There is a common narrative that, when it comes time to start a family and have kids, you should probably consider moving to the suburbs. Sure, you'll have a painful commute, but you'll get more space for your money, and maybe you'll end up with better kids.
I don't know, obviously not everyone agrees with this. I certainly don't.
But it is something that commonly happens and, in many cities, it is now happening more often. Here is a map from the Centre for London showing the change in the proportion of households with at least one dependent child from 2001 to 2021:
The Centre for London has just published an interesting report called,
A darker borough means that it lost households with at least one child. And a lighter borough means that it gained more kids. Why this is concerning is that it means the trendline is toward more, and not less, childless cities. Here's an excerpt from a recent FT article:
A future with dwindling numbers of children is one many cities, including San Francisco, Seattle and Washington DC, are grappling with. In Hong Kong, for every adult over 65 there are, to put it crudely, 0.7 children, and in Tokyo it is even fewer (0.5).
Of course, this is not a new phenomenon. And we know the main drivers:
Randal Cremer is one of several planned primary school closures and mergers in inner London triggered by low birth rates, families moving away because of expensive childcare, Brexit, and parents re-evaluating their lives during the pandemic. The biggest factor, says Riley, is that “housing is just becoming unaffordable”. Philip Glanville, mayor of Hackney, calls it “the acute affordability crisis”.
So how do we start to solve this? Here are a few ideas that we recently talked about on the blog, but it is by no means an exhaustive list. In my opinion, this is a problematic trend that deserves a lot more attention. Because cities are at their best when they work for everyone -- from the young to the old.
Core Values: The Future of Central London
. Like most city centers, Central London (or the Central Activities Zone as the report calls it) punches well above its geographic weight.
Central London occupies about 0.01% of the UK's total landmass, but is responsible for about 10% of its economic output. It represents about 2% of London's total footprint, but is responsible for about 40% of total employment and about 45% of economic output.
Here's another interesting stat:
From 1961 to 1983, the residential population of CAZ boroughs in London fell from about 2.5 to 1.7 million. And things really didn't begin to turnaround until the late 1980s. It took until 2018 for the population to return to 2.5 million. Makes me wonder: How concerned do you think people were in the late 1970s about housing affordability in Central London?
