Is it Even Possible to Turn Tide of Migration Towards Cities for Young Families?
by Kenny Luna, North Babylon, NY on 11.14.07
Based around the simple concept that cities incubate new businesses, connect people, ideas, money and markets while their ports and airports connect us to the world, a non-profit group called CEO’s for Cities seeks to help augment and revive cities by helping them to throw off the negative connotations so often associated with them.
And now it seems they’re working to find ways to encourage young families to stay in cities and raise their children in a more sustainable atmosphere than your average suburban neighborhood.
Part of that means recognizing that for 50 years having a first child often meant heading out of the city in search of a more “family-friendly” lifestyle. But they point out that currently young adults are 33 percent more likely than other Americans to live in close-in neighborhoods, and that progressive urban leaders are asking if they can break the traditional pattern of family migration to the suburbs.
As a lifelong suburbanite myself, I have to admit I wonder if it’s even possible...
But they seem optimistic, turning to the Institute of Design and asking teams of designers to help shed some light on how young families might be moved to alter the behavior that has so long been commonplace, and the course of history in the process.
Not surprisingly, the approach has been to study urban parents. And rather than asking them what they might do in hypothetical situations, they studied what people choosing to raise their children in cities are actually doing already. They also made sure to interview urban and suburban parents who found their current living situations in the city or the suburbs to be far from ideal.
And while they found that the top concerns of parents about city living are safety, space and schools, they also discovered that satisfied urban parents had ways to address each of those issues in a positive way. To the happy urban parent the very nature of the city alleviated their safety concerns with its density and “eyes on the street.” They also supplemented their lack of private space by using the city’s public spaces, such as parks and sidewalks. And they augmented their children’s education with the city’s diversity and cultural and other assets.
Currently, the folks at CEOs for Cities are working with urban leaders from New York, Chicago, Portland and Akron to develop and test a wide range of strategies to support and scale the behaviors of urban families as part of their first-ever Learning Network. Efforts that will be documented over the next 18 months and hopefully provide general insights for urban leaders from all cities to help turn the tide of migration from cities towards them.
I confess that I’m genuinely interested to see what they come up with, especially as recent research shows a lack of free time in open spaces is stifling creativity among kids across America.
See also:: Toyboxes Overflow as Playgrounds, Wallets Empty
via:: Ash Boopathy
I wish someone would tell my city. Were being forced to move now since they decided to put some government subsidized crack houses in our neighborhood. After a while you get tired of the police cars and sirens going by your front door and decide its time to get out.
City living has its advantages as you point out, but what about the concentrated pollution? Developing children are more susceptible, so hopefully we'll see plans for reducing it.
Um... it's the money, Stupid. Cities, especially on the coast have become prohibitively expensive to live in. I personally don't think young families hike out to the exurbs by choice anymore; it's the only way to lead a halfway civilized life. All of the brainwashing/greenwashing in the world is not going to convince parents that it's better for a family of four to be crammed into a studio apartment in the city vs. a 4-bedroom house in the 'burbs for the same cost.
As a city-dweller, I say keep 'em out! It's already too crowded here, and I don't need even more competition for scarce resources.
I'd say the tide is already turning, at least in my neighborhood in Lancaster, PA.
My wife and I had our first child on October 7th, and we're planning on living in the city or the very close suburbs for most of our child's life. We feel that the diversity of the city, combined with the convenience to many facilities will improve our lives and the life of our daughter. (Imagine getting your teenager a bus pass and letting her take the bus to the mall instead of driving her!) We will be paying to put her in private school, but the cost savings of living in the city and near just about everything more than make up for that cost.
And I know we're not alone. On our block alone there are five families with young children ranging in age from one month to ten years old.
That really depends on the city. My wife and I paid $117,000 for our four-bedroom, one bath, 1200 square foot townhome with a nice sized backyard.
And as another city dweller, I welcome people to look at homes in the city. I always stay aware of houses for sale in my area so that I can tell people who are looking for a home about them. The more people we can turn into homeowners, the better.
government subsidized crack houses
Nice euphemism.
I think of myself who supports dense cities, but ... people like greenery. I think it's natural. How can we accomodate that without depending on cars?
In Indianapolis, there are major pushes to bring people infrom the suburbs. Currently the only ones taking the expensive condos and cute house are empty nesters, singles, or gay couples.
Inner city schools are horrible and that will have to change for anything to happen.
"... people like greenery."
I agree. I always thought of myself as a city person but I doubt I'll start a family in my city (New York), nor can I really afford to.
And despite the efficiency of cities, I'm finding that some of the stuff that frequently accompanies high-density environments--pollution, lack of public space (elbow-to-elbow crowds not just on public transportation but in grocery stores, libraries, etc.), the incessant noise and distractions--take a psychological toll. The only relief I have is getting out of the city to see friends in places with more greenery. (Ever wonder why New Yorkers are in such a hurry to get out of the city on summer weekends?)
10 acres of wooded land adjacent to public land with the bare minimum of trees felled for the house construction for me please. I'm from Chicago and can't wait to get away from the crowds. I love the city (cities) but can't stand always being surrounded by all the people. I'd much rather live in the midst of nature and occasionally visit the city instead of the other way round.
As for cities, it seems the new urbanists are on to something when they suggest a 5-story limit. That's a lot denser than sprawl, but not a prison either.
The picture above looks like Central Park (?), but I like the idea of smaller, more scattered parks better. If I lived in NYC I couldn't imagine hiking 50 blocks to the park every day.
Actually, some of the declining cities (like Buffalo, NY) could probably benefit from such a program.
For a city like mine, with declining population and a surplus of housing stock, reversing the flight to the suburbs would be a very good thing.
I currently live in Pittsburgh. As someone who thrives in the outdoors, I'm kept sane here by the beautiful parks. Frick park is 600 acres and Schenley park is 300. Both are safe and within a mile of each other. I can walk to either of them in 10 minutes and get lost for a whole day. I also live walking distance from a couple thriving business districts and it's cheap to live here! Sounds perfect except the air pollution is gross during a temperature inversion and you always hear those city sounds. Guess you can't have everything though. It would be nice if people looked towards urban green living in some of the smaller and more affordable cities rather than always thinking the options are NYC versus the burbs.