4 ms·

Out of all the places that are deliberately kid- and family-friendly, I don’t see a concern with some places being more adult friendly. If it was “kids are a ra

Out of all the places that are deliberately kid- and family-friendly, I don’t see a concern with some places being more adult friendly. If it was “kids are a rare sight in California” or event “a rare sight in the US”, sure. But one city, with a ton of family-friendly towns nearby? Not that dark.

jjeaff 7y ago
An entire city with no children seems like a plenty large space to be concerning. Not that San Francisco needs any more stuff to make it seem even more distopian.
- freehunter 7y ago
  How many non-tourist children do you see in the Chicago Loop? How many in Manhattan? How many in downtown LA? Cities inherently are not family friendly and not places many people want to raise their children. That's why the suburbs exist. It's not a San Fransisco problem, it's a city problem. Parents tend to want large private fenced-in green places for their children to grow up in, which don't exist and cannot exist in cities. Again, there are enough family-friendly places that exist that you don't need to fret for the future generations not spending their childhood playing street hockey on Broadway.
  - ardit33 7y ago
    Manhattan has plenty..... especially Upper West Side, and UES, and Kips Bay area (I have a school nearby, so see them everyday) and there is a high-school right next to Madison Park, and the East Village is dotted with schools. I know this as I play rec. Volleyball during the winter, and they are always held at local school's gyms. While I agree the west side of midtown doesn't have many though... (Hells Kitchen/Chelsea/West Village) as they are not necessary family friendly areas. Same for Brooklyn, While you maybe not see any in Williamsburg, If you go to Park Slope, it is stroller nation..... you'd be out of place if you are young and single... just saying...
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    > Parents tend to want large private fenced-in green places for their children to grow up in, which don't exist and cannot exist in cities. These do exist in cities - for example even in central London.

jjeaff 7y ago

An entire city with no children seems like a plenty large space to be concerning. Not that San Francisco needs any more stuff to make it seem even more distopian.

freehunter 7y ago
How many non-tourist children do you see in the Chicago Loop? How many in Manhattan? How many in downtown LA? Cities inherently are not family friendly and not places many people want to raise their children. That's why the suburbs exist. It's not a San Fransisco problem, it's a city problem. Parents tend to want large private fenced-in green places for their children to grow up in, which don't exist and cannot exist in cities. Again, there are enough family-friendly places that exist that you don't need to fret for the future generations not spending their childhood playing street hockey on Broadway.
- ardit33 7y ago
  Manhattan has plenty..... especially Upper West Side, and UES, and Kips Bay area (I have a school nearby, so see them everyday) and there is a high-school right next to Madison Park, and the East Village is dotted with schools. I know this as I play rec. Volleyball during the winter, and they are always held at local school's gyms. While I agree the west side of midtown doesn't have many though... (Hells Kitchen/Chelsea/West Village) as they are not necessary family friendly areas. Same for Brooklyn, While you maybe not see any in Williamsburg, If you go to Park Slope, it is stroller nation..... you'd be out of place if you are young and single... just saying...
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > Parents tend to want large private fenced-in green places for their children to grow up in, which don't exist and cannot exist in cities. These do exist in cities - for example even in central London.