I love their design philosophy. It is centered around “fewer but better products” and around lasting function over ephemeral trends.

But equally interesting is what they are doing with their Vipp Hotels. Instead of large hotels, they offer individual rooms in unique locations, such as this 55 square meter design object in the Swedish wilderness (pictured above).

The rooms they have crafted are, not surprisingly, stunning. And that’s because they are deliberately designed as a tool to showcase their kitchens, bathrooms, bins, and other products. 

Here is a quote from their CEO taken from a recent Surface article:

“Traditional retail seems to be losing its power, but what is not losing power is our desire to see or do something interesting. I see our hotels as the experience economy coming alive,” says Kasper Egelund, CEO of Denmark-based Vipp.

Clever.

Image: Vipp

It turns out that city builders have an important role to play in solving this problem. Because where you live – and in particular where you grow up as a kid – matters.

The Freakeconomics episode examines a study that was done by Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, and Lawrence Katz, called: The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children. And their findings were exactly that. Place matters. The study reexamines the findings of a program that was administered in the mid 1990′s in the US called Moving to Opportunity (MTO). This program randomly offered families living in high-poverty neighborhoods the opportunity to move to neighborhoods with far less poverty. 

Upon initial review, the program was seen as a failure. There were some positive health outcomes, but no meaningful changes in income. But when Chetty and company took another look at the data – now with more time and IRS data on their side – they discovered that the impact was in fact dramatic. Relocated families raised children that earned 30% more, were 27% more likely to go to college, and 30% less likely to be a single parent. The key, however, was that the children had to relocate when they were young (< 13 year olds). The older they got, the less benefit they received from moving, eventually reaching a plateau where there was basically no benefit at all.

Here are the 5 things that ended up having significance in their findings:

1. Residential segregation by income and race is bad. Mixed neighborhoods are good. The southeast is filled with segregated cities and that’s one of the reasons why they underperform in this exercise. San Francisco, on the other hand, was far more mixed in the 80′s and 90′s when the kids belonging to this study were growing up. One could debate whether that’s still the case. I guess we’ll find out in a few decades.
   

2. Income inequality negatively impacts upward mobility. See The Great Gatsby Curve.
   

3. Single parent households seem to have an impact on upward mobility. However, the data suggests that it’s not just about whether the child in question grew up with married parents. The percentage of single parent households in the neighborhood also matters. Because even children in dual parent households in a neighborhood with lots of single parent households, showed muted upward mobility.
   

4. Social fabric. Connections to family and friends matter. It’s about having a support network. (Freakeconomics mentions a book called Bowling Alone that is now on my reading list.)
   

5. Not surprisingly, the quality of public schools matters.

All of the stats for this post were taken from this Freakeconomics Radio episode. For me, it is such an important reminder that the way we plan and build our cities can have meaningful and longstanding impacts on the kinds of children we raise.

If anyone has any insights on some of these points, I’d love to hear from you in the comment section below.

Share Dialog

Share Dialog

Share Dialog