3 ms·

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,

by 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.
  - cyberax 2mo ago
    Look at Houston vs. NYC. Both have approximately similar populations but completely different approaches to city design. NYC is at 52 and Harris County (that contains Houston) is at 67 births per year per 1000. But NYC is also diverse, with relatively sparse parts in Brooklyn and Queens, where most children live. > In general I suspect that children in the US are mildly skewed toward more suburban areas, but not strongly. Compare the suburban US with dense European cities. The urban damage is cumulative, and Europe started over-urbanizing earlier. You can see the breakpoint in the US happened in 2008, as the millennials started entering the workforce. They were the first modern generation that _had_ to move to large cities to get ahead economically. > There are plenty of children in dense areas. Yes, in desperately poor neighborhoods. That's called an "inverted J curve".
    - amluto 2mo ago
      > > There are plenty of children in dense areas. > Yes, in desperately poor neighborhoods. That's called an "inverted J curve". Sorry, but this is just incorrect. There are plenty of people who are far from desperately poor, live in dense areas and/or highly transit-oriented areas, and have kids. Sadly, the US has spent many decades making it hard to build family oriented (>=2 bedroom) housing in these areas, so there are fewer such families than might otherwise live in such areas, but these families are far from absent.
      - cyberax 2mo ago
        > Sorry, but this is just incorrect. Are you arguing with the reality? > There are plenty of people who are far from desperately poor, No, there aren't "plenty" of them _statistically_. Can you find individuals with 4 children in Manhattan? Of course. But there won't be _a_ _lot_ of them. The total fertility rate is inversely correlated with the density. You can just check the Census age bracket data if you doubt me. > Sadly, the US has spent many decades making it hard to build family oriented (>=2 bedroom) housing in these areas No. The US made it possible to build dense housing that displaced family-oriented homes. And dense housing will ALWAYS be small. I live in Seattle, and there are no regulations that prohibit real estate developers from building 3-bedroom apartments. They don't do it because it's far more profitable to build three 1-bedroom studios instead.

by amluto 2mo ago

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.
- cyberax 2mo ago
  Look at Houston vs. NYC. Both have approximately similar populations but completely different approaches to city design. NYC is at 52 and Harris County (that contains Houston) is at 67 births per year per 1000. But NYC is also diverse, with relatively sparse parts in Brooklyn and Queens, where most children live. > In general I suspect that children in the US are mildly skewed toward more suburban areas, but not strongly. Compare the suburban US with dense European cities. The urban damage is cumulative, and Europe started over-urbanizing earlier. You can see the breakpoint in the US happened in 2008, as the millennials started entering the workforce. They were the first modern generation that _had_ to move to large cities to get ahead economically. > There are plenty of children in dense areas. Yes, in desperately poor neighborhoods. That's called an "inverted J curve".
  - amluto 2mo ago
    > > There are plenty of children in dense areas. > Yes, in desperately poor neighborhoods. That's called an "inverted J curve". Sorry, but this is just incorrect. There are plenty of people who are far from desperately poor, live in dense areas and/or highly transit-oriented areas, and have kids. Sadly, the US has spent many decades making it hard to build family oriented (>=2 bedroom) housing in these areas, so there are fewer such families than might otherwise live in such areas, but these families are far from absent.
    - cyberax 2mo ago
      > Sorry, but this is just incorrect. Are you arguing with the reality? > There are plenty of people who are far from desperately poor, No, there aren't "plenty" of them _statistically_. Can you find individuals with 4 children in Manhattan? Of course. But there won't be _a_ _lot_ of them. The total fertility rate is inversely correlated with the density. You can just check the Census age bracket data if you doubt me. > Sadly, the US has spent many decades making it hard to build family oriented (>=2 bedroom) housing in these areas No. The US made it possible to build dense housing that displaced family-oriented homes. And dense housing will ALWAYS be small. I live in Seattle, and there are no regulations that prohibit real estate developers from building 3-bedroom apartments. They don't do it because it's far more profitable to build three 1-bedroom studios instead.