Subscribe
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:
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.
There's an interesting debate happening online right now. A recent article by Derek Thompson (of the Atlantic) made the claim that today's urban renaissance is great for young college graduates, but not so good for kids.
Here’s a quick synopsis:
Cities have effectively traded away their children, swapping capital for kids. College graduates descend into cities, inhale fast-casual meals, emit the fumes of overwork, get washed, and bounce to smaller cities or the suburbs by the time their kids are old enough to spell.
Raising a family in the city [New York City] is just too hard. And the same could be said of pretty much every other dense and expensive urban area in the country.
Michael Lewyn (of the Touro Law Center) responded to this argument with a post titled "the myth of the childless city." While it is true that the US fertility rate is at an all-time low, the numbers -- at least some of them -- suggest that cities aren't all that childless:
Furthermore, not all urban cores are doing poorly in retaining children. Washington, D.C. had just under 32,000 children under 5 in 2010, and has over 45,000 today. In Philadelphia, the number of children under 5 increased from just over 101,000 in 2010 to 104,152 in 2018. Even in San Francisco (which, according to The Atlantic article, “has the lowest share of children of any of the largest 100 cities in the U.S.”), the number of under-5 children increased from 35,203 in 2010 to 39,722 in 2018.
What I would be curious to see is a more granular look at where children are being raised within specific cities, and how that may, or may not, be changing over time. City boundaries can be broad.
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:
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.
There's an interesting debate happening online right now. A recent article by Derek Thompson (of the Atlantic) made the claim that today's urban renaissance is great for young college graduates, but not so good for kids.
Here’s a quick synopsis:
Cities have effectively traded away their children, swapping capital for kids. College graduates descend into cities, inhale fast-casual meals, emit the fumes of overwork, get washed, and bounce to smaller cities or the suburbs by the time their kids are old enough to spell.
Raising a family in the city [New York City] is just too hard. And the same could be said of pretty much every other dense and expensive urban area in the country.
Michael Lewyn (of the Touro Law Center) responded to this argument with a post titled "the myth of the childless city." While it is true that the US fertility rate is at an all-time low, the numbers -- at least some of them -- suggest that cities aren't all that childless:
Furthermore, not all urban cores are doing poorly in retaining children. Washington, D.C. had just under 32,000 children under 5 in 2010, and has over 45,000 today. In Philadelphia, the number of children under 5 increased from just over 101,000 in 2010 to 104,152 in 2018. Even in San Francisco (which, according to The Atlantic article, “has the lowest share of children of any of the largest 100 cities in the U.S.”), the number of under-5 children increased from 35,203 in 2010 to 39,722 in 2018.
What I would be curious to see is a more granular look at where children are being raised within specific cities, and how that may, or may not, be changing over time. City boundaries can be broad.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog