4 ms·

Keep building these bike lanes and 15-minute neighborhoods. So that people don't even think about having children. Make sure people have no personal space and n

by cyberax 2mo ago

Keep building these bike lanes and 15-minute neighborhoods. So that people don't even think about having children. Make sure people have no personal space and no personal time. That's how we reduce the Earth's population!

btmiller 2mo ago
What an odd thing to say. Have you traveled internationally much?
- cyberax 2mo ago
  I speak 5 languages, lived in several countries, and got my first car at the age of 30.
BigTTYGothGF 2mo ago
15-minute neighborhoods with bike lanes are exactly the kinds of places good for raising kids in.
- cyberax 2mo ago
  No, they're not. They are places where cities go to die. Walk in Tokyo and try to find children there.
  - trgn 2mo ago
    there's a new urbanist community, walkable, bikelanes, etc.. in my part of the midwest and it's teeming with children.
  - BigTTYGothGF 2mo ago
    > Walk in Tokyo and try to find children there There might a few more things going on there than just density, perhaps operating on a national level.
    - cyberax 2mo ago
      There really, really are not. Tokyo is the prime example of the urban density runaway spiral. Japan has a declining population, yet Tokyo prices are skyrocketing. Some people now live in "microapartments" where you can cook while sitting on a toilet. Yet spacious houses are literally sold for nothing but transaction fees, just 2-3 hours away from Tokyo.
- phainopepla2 2mo ago
  In theory. In practice, dense urban neighborhoods have very low birthrates, and always have. Cities are population sinks
- missedthecue 2mo ago
  This is what the policy wonk idealists say, but the undeniable evidence going back hundreds of years is that dense cities are fertility shredders.
  - littlexsparkee 2mo ago
    They're talking about raising kids already born, not conditions for having one in the first place. We should separate discussion of the environment from the cost which is the really the main factor for why parents decamp for the suburbs. Causality goes the other way - it's not the compact nature that reduced fertility but the fact that dense neighborhoods are rare and pricey in the US.
    - cyberax 2mo ago
      > Causality goes the other way - it's not the compact nature that reduced fertility but the fact that dense neighborhoods are rare and pricey in the US. They're unfortunately not rare. And dense housing is ALWAYS pricey in the developed countries.
arjie 2mo ago
Well personal space and personal time were not in abundant supply in our times of growth. It is true that urban areas have far fewer children than rural areas and that this is a worldwide property. It’s a pity since I like the ability for kids to walk to places and take the bus or train and I’ve grown up in a rural place (pythons and peacocks, cows and birds, scorpions and cobras!) and in a highly urbanized environment and they both have their advantages. I personally think it’s just opportunity cost. Children seem like a big deal with unclear benefit and so as people get the chance to substitute with other things they do so. For my part, we put a lot of work into having kids and we live in SF. If we leave, it’ll be because my daughters don’t have mobility here because crime and cars impede their independent movement.
- cyberax 2mo ago
  > I personally think it’s just opportunity cost. Nope. It's just time and personal living space. It's THAT simple. Go on, try to plan your day with transit and no car if you have 3 children (with 2-3 year age gaps). You'll find that this really works only if everything is concentrated, or if it's a full-time job for you. That's why we hear so much about "15-minute neighborhoods". But when everything is concentrated, it becomes EXPENSIVE and you also lose any semblance of choice. You will likely have only one school, one daycare, one community center. You become hemmed in within that "walkable" neighborhood. That park nearby? It surely can look nice, but what if it's the only park within reasonable walking distance? So you don't even have an _option_ to go somewhere else with kids, without making it a full-day trip? People like to laugh at Texas, about how riding an SUV to a walkable park is ridiculous. But is it, really? The way to fix all of it? Suburbs and cars. Cars provide personal freedom and personal space. That's also why the US had a higher birth rate for much longer than Europe, and it started cratering once young people were forced (by the economy) to move into dense city cores.
  - arjie 2mo ago
    That's how I grew up in a family of four in India and my parents are surgeons so we didn't really have them able to take us places for the majority of time. TFR at the time was 4.0 and we had access to contraception etc. and the majority of our trips here in SF are on foot as well. There are therefore some hidden assumptions here. We do take the car to the paediatrician etc. but I should soon have an Urban Arrow / R&M bike and will see how it performs.
kvuj 2mo ago
As the others have said, to me it seems to be the opposite. I went to Switzerland recently and was shocked at how kid friendly it was (very walkable, kid section in trains, parks with fun toys instead of shitty plastic statues). I also saw a whole lot of families and children. As I'm getting older and looking in the coming years at having children, the value of a tight, walkable community has risen exponentially to me.
- sheepolog 2mo ago
  For what it's worth, Switzerland's fertility rate (1.59 births per woman) is still well below the replacement rate, and has been for decades. I think "make society more child-friendly" is a good idea, but one that doesn't seem to have increased fertility that much. To me it seems that educated people living comfortable lives with access to birth control simply don't want to have that many children. If you look at the country stats, the most proven way to increase fertility is to take away education, women's rights, or birth control. And imo, the western world should adapt to low birth rates, instead of trying to prop them up.
amluto 2mo ago
Given a choice between: (a) non-walkable neighborhoods with big houses, big roads and cars everywhere, versus (b) smaller houses or apartments but fewer cars, walkable neighborhoods, and bikes (and other small mobility devices that small kids can use) I can tell you where being a kid seems more fun. And I’ve personally been to both sorts of places recently and observed how the kids behave. Sure, with big lots, kids have lots of space in their own backyards. And big cars make soccer-momming easier. But, when kids can easily and safely get somewhere else approximately on their own, the whole situation seems better. And yes, I really did recently observe a pretty big family in one of the latter types of places. How does one parent herd a pile of kids from their small (but not that small) apartment to some destination without a giant car? They tell the bigger kids where they’re going and they take the smaller kids, and maybe the bigger kids get their ahead, and everyone gets to experience an appropriate amount of independence for their age. There’s also nothing new here. Until quite recently in human history, in most societies, kids were quite free to explore on their own or in groups without adults. I think it’s unfortunate that we’ve built so many places that are unsafe for small children and not easily navigable by older children.
- cyberax 2mo ago
  And I can tell you that (a) is actually where the children _are_. And (b) is where the people go to die. > Sure, with big lots, kids have lots of space in their own backyards. And big cars make soccer-momming easier. But, when kids can easily and safely get somewhere else approximately on their own, the whole situation seems better. It seems better, but it's actually not better. Besides, suburbs can be improved quite a bit by adding local parks, mandating sidewalks, etc. We're also on the cusp of the self-driving revolution, and pretty soon children will be able to just get into a cab by themselves. > and everyone gets to experience an appropriate amount of independence for their size. And how do you get to that point from 0 children?
  - amluto 2mo ago
    Got data? I think any even remotely serious attempt will discover a very mixed bag. I had an LLM pull data from various places in California and New York (because doing it by hand is a pain), and there isn’t really a clear trend either way as to where the children are. Palo Alto has a surprisingly large number of children under 18 and under 5, and Palo Alto is fairly walkable as California cities go. Fresno and Bakersfield (not so walkable) are higher. There seems to be a larger fraction of young children in Brooklyn than in less subway-covered areas of the NYC metro area. In general I suspect that children in the US are mildly skewed toward more suburban areas, but not strongly. There are plenty of children in dense areas. But my claim wasn’t about where the children are — it’s about where the children can have more fun on the basis of the structure of the neighborhood.
beej71 2mo ago
Sorry, I'm still trying to follow how bike lanes make me less likely to think about having children...?

by cyberax 2mo ago

btmiller 2mo ago

What an odd thing to say. Have you traveled internationally much?

cyberax 2mo ago
I speak 5 languages, lived in several countries, and got my first car at the age of 30.

BigTTYGothGF 2mo ago

15-minute neighborhoods with bike lanes are exactly the kinds of places good for raising kids in.

cyberax 2mo ago
No, they're not. They are places where cities go to die. Walk in Tokyo and try to find children there.
- trgn 2mo ago
  there's a new urbanist community, walkable, bikelanes, etc.. in my part of the midwest and it's teeming with children.
- BigTTYGothGF 2mo ago
  > Walk in Tokyo and try to find children there There might a few more things going on there than just density, perhaps operating on a national level.
  - cyberax 2mo ago
    There really, really are not. Tokyo is the prime example of the urban density runaway spiral. Japan has a declining population, yet Tokyo prices are skyrocketing. Some people now live in "microapartments" where you can cook while sitting on a toilet. Yet spacious houses are literally sold for nothing but transaction fees, just 2-3 hours away from Tokyo.
phainopepla2 2mo ago
In theory. In practice, dense urban neighborhoods have very low birthrates, and always have. Cities are population sinks
missedthecue 2mo ago
This is what the policy wonk idealists say, but the undeniable evidence going back hundreds of years is that dense cities are fertility shredders.
- littlexsparkee 2mo ago
  They're talking about raising kids already born, not conditions for having one in the first place. We should separate discussion of the environment from the cost which is the really the main factor for why parents decamp for the suburbs. Causality goes the other way - it's not the compact nature that reduced fertility but the fact that dense neighborhoods are rare and pricey in the US.
  - cyberax 2mo ago
    > Causality goes the other way - it's not the compact nature that reduced fertility but the fact that dense neighborhoods are rare and pricey in the US. They're unfortunately not rare. And dense housing is ALWAYS pricey in the developed countries.

arjie 2mo ago

Well personal space and personal time were not in abundant supply in our times of growth. It is true that urban areas have far fewer children than rural areas and that this is a worldwide property. It’s a pity since I like the ability for kids to walk to places and take the bus or train and I’ve grown up in a rural place (pythons and peacocks, cows and birds, scorpions and cobras!) and in a highly urbanized environment and they both have their advantages. I personally think it’s just opportunity cost. Children seem like a big deal with unclear benefit and so as people get the chance to substitute with other things they do so. For my part, we put a lot of work into having kids and we live in SF. If we leave, it’ll be because my daughters don’t have mobility here because crime and cars impede their independent movement.

cyberax 2mo ago
> I personally think it’s just opportunity cost. Nope. It's just time and personal living space. It's THAT simple. Go on, try to plan your day with transit and no car if you have 3 children (with 2-3 year age gaps). You'll find that this really works only if everything is concentrated, or if it's a full-time job for you. That's why we hear so much about "15-minute neighborhoods". But when everything is concentrated, it becomes EXPENSIVE and you also lose any semblance of choice. You will likely have only one school, one daycare, one community center. You become hemmed in within that "walkable" neighborhood. That park nearby? It surely can look nice, but what if it's the only park within reasonable walking distance? So you don't even have an _option_ to go somewhere else with kids, without making it a full-day trip? People like to laugh at Texas, about how riding an SUV to a walkable park is ridiculous. But is it, really? The way to fix all of it? Suburbs and cars. Cars provide personal freedom and personal space. That's also why the US had a higher birth rate for much longer than Europe, and it started cratering once young people were forced (by the economy) to move into dense city cores.
- arjie 2mo ago
  That's how I grew up in a family of four in India and my parents are surgeons so we didn't really have them able to take us places for the majority of time. TFR at the time was 4.0 and we had access to contraception etc. and the majority of our trips here in SF are on foot as well. There are therefore some hidden assumptions here. We do take the car to the paediatrician etc. but I should soon have an Urban Arrow / R&M bike and will see how it performs.

kvuj 2mo ago

As the others have said, to me it seems to be the opposite. I went to Switzerland recently and was shocked at how kid friendly it was (very walkable, kid section in trains, parks with fun toys instead of shitty plastic statues). I also saw a whole lot of families and children. As I'm getting older and looking in the coming years at having children, the value of a tight, walkable community has risen exponentially to me.

sheepolog 2mo ago
For what it's worth, Switzerland's fertility rate (1.59 births per woman) is still well below the replacement rate, and has been for decades. I think "make society more child-friendly" is a good idea, but one that doesn't seem to have increased fertility that much. To me it seems that educated people living comfortable lives with access to birth control simply don't want to have that many children. If you look at the country stats, the most proven way to increase fertility is to take away education, women's rights, or birth control. And imo, the western world should adapt to low birth rates, instead of trying to prop them up.

amluto 2mo ago

Given a choice between: (a) non-walkable neighborhoods with big houses, big roads and cars everywhere, versus (b) smaller houses or apartments but fewer cars, walkable neighborhoods, and bikes (and other small mobility devices that small kids can use) I can tell you where being a kid seems more fun. And I’ve personally been to both sorts of places recently and observed how the kids behave. Sure, with big lots, kids have lots of space in their own backyards. And big cars make soccer-momming easier. But, when kids can easily and safely get somewhere else approximately on their own, the whole situation seems better. And yes, I really did recently observe a pretty big family in one of the latter types of places. How does one parent herd a pile of kids from their small (but not that small) apartment to some destination without a giant car? They tell the bigger kids where they’re going and they take the smaller kids, and maybe the bigger kids get their ahead, and everyone gets to experience an appropriate amount of independence for their age. There’s also nothing new here. Until quite recently in human history, in most societies, kids were quite free to explore on their own or in groups without adults. I think it’s unfortunate that we’ve built so many places that are unsafe for small children and not easily navigable by older children.

cyberax 2mo ago
And I can tell you that (a) is actually where the children _are_. And (b) is where the people go to die. > Sure, with big lots, kids have lots of space in their own backyards. And big cars make soccer-momming easier. But, when kids can easily and safely get somewhere else approximately on their own, the whole situation seems better. It seems better, but it's actually not better. Besides, suburbs can be improved quite a bit by adding local parks, mandating sidewalks, etc. We're also on the cusp of the self-driving revolution, and pretty soon children will be able to just get into a cab by themselves. > and everyone gets to experience an appropriate amount of independence for their size. And how do you get to that point from 0 children?
- amluto 2mo ago
  Got data? I think any even remotely serious attempt will discover a very mixed bag. I had an LLM pull data from various places in California and New York (because doing it by hand is a pain), and there isn’t really a clear trend either way as to where the children are. Palo Alto has a surprisingly large number of children under 18 and under 5, and Palo Alto is fairly walkable as California cities go. Fresno and Bakersfield (not so walkable) are higher. There seems to be a larger fraction of young children in Brooklyn than in less subway-covered areas of the NYC metro area. In general I suspect that children in the US are mildly skewed toward more suburban areas, but not strongly. There are plenty of children in dense areas. But my claim wasn’t about where the children are — it’s about where the children can have more fun on the basis of the structure of the neighborhood.

beej71 2mo ago

Sorry, I'm still trying to follow how bike lanes make me less likely to think about having children...?