5 ms·

A lot of people grow up in an Urban environment, I don't really see any disadvantage to it. We get to meet a lot of people and there is always stuff to do. Duri

A lot of people grow up in an Urban environment, I don't really see any disadvantage to it. We get to meet a lot of people and there is always stuff to do. During COVID I am seeing a lot of talk about moving into the countryside with their children, as if their children are sheep which need a lot of open spaces in which to graze. But the will probably get bored and miss their friends, and probably force them to pack up and move back.

dagw 5y ago
I raised a child in the middle of a city from age 0-8 and it was great. So much to do! Parks, botanical gardens, playgrounds, museums, swimming pools, fun fares, concerts and so on, all within walking distance or at worst a short bus ride.
- bluGill 5y ago
  The things you can do in a city are different from the things you can do in the suburbs, are different from the things you can do in rural areas. There are pros and cons of each. Sadly in the US many dense cities have abandoned the things that kids like to do, leaving those who like city things to the suburbs as the best compromise. I know someone who started a children's museum, when she started the city tried to get her downtown with some nice incentives. She didn't though because there are zero kids who live downtown, and the next ring (in city limits) is either rich no kids, or too poor to afford a to visit. That means everyone who might go is going to drive from the suburbs and so a location with free parking in the suburbs was better able to attract visitors, even though it means half the potential customers will find it too far to drive, the other half will find it more convenient and thus come more often. I don't know how cities can solve that, but it is a problem repeated in most cities. It didn't used to be that way, cities used to have a lot of people with kids. In general cities have abandoned families as families moved out (you can find lots of people pointing blame as to causes here - I'm not going to speculate), and it will be hard to bring them back. Not all cities have done this as much as others.
  - leetcrew 5y ago
    in my social circle, the number one reason why families leave the city is the abysmal public school system. it's not a big deal to the wealthier families, since they can just send their children to private schools. middle income families usually can't afford that, but they can afford to hop over the county line and send their children to the very good public schools out there. at least in my area, I wouldn't say the city has "abandoned" families. rather, it has focused mainly on improving public education for children from poor families. this is a noble goal, but it imposes tradeoffs that the middle class families are mostly unwilling to accept. since they have the ability to leave, they do.
    - dagw 5y ago
      in my social circle, the number one reason why families leave the city is the abysmal public school system. That is true. If my daughter hadn't gotten into a good charter school in the city, I wonder if we hadn't looked a lot harder at moving. However after we did eventually hop over the county line my daughter still 'commutes' back into the city because she doesn't want to change schools.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      It’s not the school system that is abysmal, it’s people not wanting their kids to mingle with kids from lower income/less wealthy families. Cities might have various socioeconomic classes living near each other, and so the schools have a more mixed population. Suburbs can restrict their schools to those that can afford to live there, so those public schools can have very few kids from lower socioeconomic classes, and a greater proportion of kids from people who are in higher earning professions.
      - leetcrew 5y ago
        the city school system is indeed abysmal by pretty much any metric you could choose to evaluate (test scores, high school graduation rate, violent incidents, odds of imprisonment, etc). I'm familiar with the argument that the cohort of students matters more than the quality of instruction. in fact, that is what I'm getting at here. the city has an explicit policy of mixing students from different backgrounds across the school system, the goal being to break the cycle of poor students going to poor schools and staying poor. it's a good goal, but it seems kinda pointless when all the students they are trying to mix them with are fleeing to the county.
giantg2 5y ago
Or they make friends in the new place.
dcolkitt 5y ago
I agree that kids in an urban environment can be very rewarding. I disagree that the urban environment found in the Bay Area is conducive to kids. Visiting the local park is great. Visiting the local park when the walk is littered with human excrement and discarded needles, not so much. No parent in their right mind would ever go on the BART with a child.
- digikazi 5y ago
  Why wouldn't you take your child on BART? I'm not looking for an argument, I'm genuinely curious. I live in the UK but I've never visited the SF area.
  - dcolkitt 5y ago
    Even 5 years ago I would. But the level of mayhem, filth, and danger on San Francisco public transit is out of control. The BART makes the Tube look like Tokyo Metro.
    - bobthechef 5y ago
      You can thank Californian and SF officials.
  - aiisjustanif 5y ago
    I’m not the poster, but personally I would. I go to London quite regularly and usually stop by San Fran once a year (not 2020). I personally find the BART similar to the MARTA (Atlanta) and DART (Dallas). I don’t know if you live in London, but I would say they compare to the Northern Line it terms of quality. But at the end of the day the real difference is about riders. I would say you do notice more issues like littering (including dangerous litter like needles) and robbery in the US train lines though. However, just like most public train lines, you have to learn to mind your business, be aware and don’t lallygag. Also, stick to using it during the day.
    - lostlogin 5y ago

dagw 5y ago

I raised a child in the middle of a city from age 0-8 and it was great. So much to do! Parks, botanical gardens, playgrounds, museums, swimming pools, fun fares, concerts and so on, all within walking distance or at worst a short bus ride.

bluGill 5y ago
The things you can do in a city are different from the things you can do in the suburbs, are different from the things you can do in rural areas. There are pros and cons of each. Sadly in the US many dense cities have abandoned the things that kids like to do, leaving those who like city things to the suburbs as the best compromise. I know someone who started a children's museum, when she started the city tried to get her downtown with some nice incentives. She didn't though because there are zero kids who live downtown, and the next ring (in city limits) is either rich no kids, or too poor to afford a to visit. That means everyone who might go is going to drive from the suburbs and so a location with free parking in the suburbs was better able to attract visitors, even though it means half the potential customers will find it too far to drive, the other half will find it more convenient and thus come more often. I don't know how cities can solve that, but it is a problem repeated in most cities. It didn't used to be that way, cities used to have a lot of people with kids. In general cities have abandoned families as families moved out (you can find lots of people pointing blame as to causes here - I'm not going to speculate), and it will be hard to bring them back. Not all cities have done this as much as others.
- leetcrew 5y ago
  in my social circle, the number one reason why families leave the city is the abysmal public school system. it's not a big deal to the wealthier families, since they can just send their children to private schools. middle income families usually can't afford that, but they can afford to hop over the county line and send their children to the very good public schools out there. at least in my area, I wouldn't say the city has "abandoned" families. rather, it has focused mainly on improving public education for children from poor families. this is a noble goal, but it imposes tradeoffs that the middle class families are mostly unwilling to accept. since they have the ability to leave, they do.
  - dagw 5y ago
    in my social circle, the number one reason why families leave the city is the abysmal public school system. That is true. If my daughter hadn't gotten into a good charter school in the city, I wonder if we hadn't looked a lot harder at moving. However after we did eventually hop over the county line my daughter still 'commutes' back into the city because she doesn't want to change schools.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    It’s not the school system that is abysmal, it’s people not wanting their kids to mingle with kids from lower income/less wealthy families. Cities might have various socioeconomic classes living near each other, and so the schools have a more mixed population. Suburbs can restrict their schools to those that can afford to live there, so those public schools can have very few kids from lower socioeconomic classes, and a greater proportion of kids from people who are in higher earning professions.
    - leetcrew 5y ago
      the city school system is indeed abysmal by pretty much any metric you could choose to evaluate (test scores, high school graduation rate, violent incidents, odds of imprisonment, etc). I'm familiar with the argument that the cohort of students matters more than the quality of instruction. in fact, that is what I'm getting at here. the city has an explicit policy of mixing students from different backgrounds across the school system, the goal being to break the cycle of poor students going to poor schools and staying poor. it's a good goal, but it seems kinda pointless when all the students they are trying to mix them with are fleeing to the county.

giantg2 5y ago

Or they make friends in the new place.

dcolkitt 5y ago

I agree that kids in an urban environment can be very rewarding. I disagree that the urban environment found in the Bay Area is conducive to kids. Visiting the local park is great. Visiting the local park when the walk is littered with human excrement and discarded needles, not so much. No parent in their right mind would ever go on the BART with a child.

digikazi 5y ago
Why wouldn't you take your child on BART? I'm not looking for an argument, I'm genuinely curious. I live in the UK but I've never visited the SF area.
- dcolkitt 5y ago
  Even 5 years ago I would. But the level of mayhem, filth, and danger on San Francisco public transit is out of control. The BART makes the Tube look like Tokyo Metro.
  - bobthechef 5y ago
    You can thank Californian and SF officials.
- aiisjustanif 5y ago
  I’m not the poster, but personally I would. I go to London quite regularly and usually stop by San Fran once a year (not 2020). I personally find the BART similar to the MARTA (Atlanta) and DART (Dallas). I don’t know if you live in London, but I would say they compare to the Northern Line it terms of quality. But at the end of the day the real difference is about riders. I would say you do notice more issues like littering (including dangerous litter like needles) and robbery in the US train lines though. However, just like most public train lines, you have to learn to mind your business, be aware and don’t lallygag. Also, stick to using it during the day.
  - lostlogin 5y ago