Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We're a married couple making less than $94,000. It's definitely doable, but I think that depends in large part on how you make that money. In our case, I dropped down to doing about 10 hours a week of work from home (writing, etc.), so I was essentially a SAHM. In other words, no daycare costs to worry about. If we had to pay for daycare out of that, in addition to rent at $2500/month plus all the assorted other higher costs of living in SF it would have been nearly impossible. People do it on less, I know, but they also give up most of the standard trappings of even non-luxury middle class life (or have family around to help out, or bought a house a long time, or have a great deal on rent, or some other benefit that you won't have as a newcomer without family in the city). It wore us down, so as I wasn't ready to go back to work FT (and there aren't that many jobs available, anyway, which made that decision easier) and we do want to save for retirement and be able to travel at least a little, and be able to afford another kid, so we made the decision to leave.
Makes sense. I was thinking 2 people working to bring in income, in which case there'd be daycare costs involved (unless you have family or friends helping out). Daycare is definitely the killer. Daycare cost in SF is more than cost of rent in most U.S. cities
To the parents who complain about San Francisco not being child-friendly, why not move out into the burbs?? I can think of several more child-friendly and less expensive areas (Alameda immediately comes to mind; also, Walnut Creek, Dublin, parts of Santa Clara county, etc). I don't understand parents who choose to have kids, try to hold onto their previous cosmopolitan lifestyles in an urban environment no matter what cost (whether they can afford it or not), and then complain about how nasty the "singles" and "childless" treat them, how inconsiderate they are to their current parent woes. Uhm, sorry, but it was your choice to bring children into your life/world and now you're complaining because an entire city doesn't revolve around that?
To the OP, check out Alameda. It is VERY family friendly, lots of kids of all ages everywhere, close to the water, and also very diverse. It is also a slower pace of life, and rent/housing prices are definitely cheaper. Alameda is also made up of mostly local businesses and mom-and-pop type establishments, so you don't have that strip-mall type atmosphere you might get in other suburban areas. There are several great restaurants, too, and is also quite close to San Francisco proper.
I'm sure I probably will offend some parents-- sorry, but I just get tired of parents treating non-parents as arrogant and mean just cuz we don't want to be inundated with sounds of screaming toddlers and revolve our entire lives around the fact that you had a kid and are tired all the time.
To the parents who complain about San Francisco not being child-friendly, why not move out into the burbs?? I can think of several more child-friendly and less expensive areas (Alameda immediately comes to mind; also, Walnut Creek, Dublin, parts of Santa Clara county, etc). I don't understand parents who choose to have kids, try to hold onto their previous cosmopolitan lifestyles in an urban environment no matter what cost (whether they can afford it or not), and then complain about how nasty the "singles" and "childless" treat them, how inconsiderate they are to their current parent woes. Uhm, sorry, but it was your choice to bring children into your life/world and now you're complaining because an entire city doesn't revolve around that?
To the OP, check out Alameda. It is VERY family friendly, lots of kids of all ages everywhere, close to the water, and also very diverse. It is also a slower pace of life, and rent/housing prices are definitely cheaper. Alameda is also made up of mostly local businesses and mom-and-pop type establishments, so you don't have that strip-mall type atmosphere you might get in other suburban areas. There are several great restaurants, too, and is also quite close to San Francisco proper.
I'm sure I probably will offend some parents-- sorry, but I just get tired of parents treating non-parents as arrogant and mean just cuz we don't want to be inundated with sounds of screaming toddlers and revolve our entire lives around the fact that you had a kid and are tired all the time.
I do live in the burbs now. As for my personal assessments of the City..well I grew up in there. It's my home and many of my family/friends are still there. My children were born there, I met my husband there. It USED to be family friendly.
Offended? You just blew in with your dog, rant against families/kids (many of which have been there for generations), call parents arrogant and mean (oh, please) have the nerve to offer your opinion? The proof is in the pudding as to who's taken over.
To the parents who complain about San Francisco not being child-friendly, why not move out into the burbs?? I can think of several more child-friendly and less expensive areas (Alameda immediately comes to mind; also, Walnut Creek, Dublin, parts of Santa Clara county, etc). I don't understand parents who choose to have kids, try to hold onto their previous cosmopolitan lifestyles in an urban environment no matter what cost (whether they can afford it or not), and then complain about how nasty the "singles" and "childless" treat them, how inconsiderate they are to their current parent woes. Uhm, sorry, but it was your choice to bring children into your life/world and now you're complaining because an entire city doesn't revolve around that?
To the OP, check out Alameda. It is VERY family friendly, lots of kids of all ages everywhere, close to the water, and also very diverse. It is also a slower pace of life, and rent/housing prices are definitely cheaper. Alameda is also made up of mostly local businesses and mom-and-pop type establishments, so you don't have that strip-mall type atmosphere you might get in other suburban areas. There are several great restaurants, too, and is also quite close to San Francisco proper.
I'm sure I probably will offend some parents-- sorry, but I just get tired of parents treating non-parents as arrogant and mean just cuz we don't want to be inundated with sounds of screaming toddlers and revolve our entire lives around the fact that you had a kid and are tired all the time.
Here's why: because parents and kids appreciate urban living for the same reasons that single, childless people do. Why should parents be expected to move to the suburbs? Cities aren't, or shouldn't be, just for one demographic of people. Most people aren't asking that cities revolve around kids, just that kids be considered part of the community, too. That's why certain neighborhoods are at risk of turning into hipster or yuppie theme parks, devoid of the characteristics that make up what I, at least, consider a "real" neighborhood.
There is absolutely no rule that says that cities and kids can't or shouldn't go together. I grew up in a city (although not San Francisco); why should I have to move just because some single person moves in and decides that they want to live in a segregated community? Diversity and cities should go together. That's part of the appeal, or at least it is to many of us. (I felt the same way before I had kids, by the way)
I suppose the same thing could be said about old people. All those senior citizens who walk slowly and take up room on the sidewalks with their walkers should just go move to some retirement home in the suburbs somewhere. Who do they think they are, trying to live a youthful life in the city at their age?
Here's why: because parents and kids appreciate urban living for the same reasons that single, childless people do. Why should parents be expected to move to the suburbs? Cities aren't, or shouldn't be, just for one demographic of people. Most people aren't asking that cities revolve around kids, just that kids be considered part of the community, too. That's why certain neighborhoods are at risk of turning into hipster or yuppie theme parks, devoid of the characteristics that make up what I, at least, consider a "real" neighborhood.
There is absolutely no rule that says that cities and kids can't or shouldn't go together. I grew up in a city (although not San Francisco); why should I have to move just because some single person moves in and decides that they want to live in a segregated community? Diversity and cities should go together. That's part of the appeal, or at least it is to many of us. (I felt the same way before I had kids, by the way)
I suppose the same thing could be said about old people. All those senior citizens who walk slowly and take up room on the sidewalks with their walkers should just go move to some retirement home in the suburbs somewhere. Who do they think they are, trying to live a youthful life in the city at their age?
Here's why: because parents and kids appreciate urban living for the same reasons that single, childless people do. Why should parents be expected to move to the suburbs? Cities aren't, or shouldn't be, just for one demographic of people. Most people aren't asking that cities revolve around kids, just that kids be considered part of the community, too. That's why certain neighborhoods are at risk of turning into hipster or yuppie theme parks, devoid of the characteristics that make up what I, at least, consider a "real" neighborhood.
There is a certain romantic notion to being an urban parent that doesn't necessarily play out in reality; I thought I was an urban parent until I actually had kids. I now realize that I am done with city life and will want nothing to do with living in the city when the next baby comes around.
The reality is that urban environments are, for the most part, unfriendly towards children. And I'm not talking about the restaurants or anything like that. The problems are much more mundane than that, like:
- graffiti-riddled and broken parks shared with the homeless, gangster, druggie, not to mention other, less sophisticated urban parents who may not share your view on appropriate parenting
- crowded streets, markets, and sidewalks which make it hard to move around with a slow-moving toddler.
- urban doctor's offices are often full of urban moms who are not necessarily the educated, urbane people you'd like them to be
- schools are often terrible
- A parent must engage in making pervasive and constant judgements about whether a given park, street, block, sidewalk is "safe".
- street noise, boom cars, sirens, late-night drunks are all elements out of your control that can interrupt precious nap and bed time.
- Urban housing is often inappropriate for the increasingly stay-at-home lifestyle that having kids creates
- Many urban amenities like restaurants and bars and concert venues are irrelevant to parents.
- many cultural amenities like museums are irrelevant to parents with infant and toddler children and are not necessary to live in close proximity to.
I don't think it's some consipiracy of demographics that cities are not attractive to parents, it's that the environment is not attractive.
I would disagree. Not on all counts, of course: some neighborhoods are better fits for parents with kids than others. But cultural venues are great for kids: I bring my toddler to museums all the time (knowing when to leave, of course; toddlers do have shorter attention spans) and many of them offer programs geared specifically for parents with young kids, urban parks like Golden Gate Park are great for kids, many San Francisco playgrounds are very nice, and urban doctor's offices, at least the ones I've been to, tend to be more filled with so-called helicopter parents (annoying in their own way) then the parents you're referring to. And even if they were filled with the "wrong" kind of parents, that doesn't matter as long as the doctor is good. I'm okay with my kid growing up around people of different socio-economic backgrounds, and think that can be a good thing. Kids can sleep through street noise just fine, and urban housing can be just as child-friendly as what you'd find in the suburbs. In SF we had two playgrounds within two blocks; you can't find that in most suburbs. There was no need for a car, we could walk to all sorts of exciting places yet still be close enough to get home for nap time, and there were tons of other parents within close proximity. Markets are croweded, and we do our shopping accordingly. That means a small stroller, and some stores are off-limits with a kid who likes to pull things off of shelves. But I'm not about to be worried if I might accidentally inconvenience someone because I might from time to time be slow. They'll just have to put up with that, while I'll put up with some things that they might do that I find inconvenient or annoying. Cities are about learning to live together in shared space.
I can understand why some parents prefer not to live in the city. That's their choice, and there are pros and cons to every living situation. But there are many parents who don't see themselves fitting into a suburban environment. The issue here is not that parents don't find cities attractive (many of us do); it's that there are people out there who don't have kids who don't want to live around kids (like the earlier poster), think that kids don't belong in the city, and seem quick to make that decision on behalf of others. If they don't think the city is good for kids then they can, if they have kids, move elsewhere, but it's presumptuous to make that decision on behalf of someone else. And if they really can't stand to be around people who don't have a similar lifestyle, well, then maybe city living is not for them.
My experience has been that one's experience as an urban parent largely is determined by income, i.e. it is fine in a really nice neighborhood and horrible if you are not. I think the majority has spoken on this for 30+ years consistently - the vast majorit parents don't want to live in cities and generally leave when they can. Although you may choose to buck that trend (and I have tried to), it's pretty simple to understand why parents leave. For whatever it's worth, SF seems particularly child-unfriendly to me - at least in NYC, if you have the money, you have access to a whole lot of private facilities and exclusive neighborhoods where there isn't an open-air crack market or porn district 5 blocks down the other direction.
The idea that "children are not welcome" in cities is not only insane but anti-human and somewhat psychotic, I love that the same people who say that are usually also big proponents of civil / gay / pet rights. I would seriously be very cautious around a person who would describe themselves as "hating children".
To the parents who complain about San Francisco not being child-friendly, why not move out into the burbs?? I can think of several more child-friendly and less expensive areas (Alameda immediately comes to mind; also, Walnut Creek, Dublin, parts of Santa Clara county, etc). I don't understand parents who choose to have kids, try to hold onto their previous cosmopolitan lifestyles in an urban environment no matter what cost (whether they can afford it or not), and then complain about how nasty the "singles" and "childless" treat them, how inconsiderate they are to their current parent woes. Uhm, sorry, but it was your choice to bring children into your life/world and now you're complaining because an entire city doesn't revolve around that?
To the OP, check out Alameda. It is VERY family friendly, lots of kids of all ages everywhere, close to the water, and also very diverse. It is also a slower pace of life, and rent/housing prices are definitely cheaper. Alameda is also made up of mostly local businesses and mom-and-pop type establishments, so you don't have that strip-mall type atmosphere you might get in other suburban areas. There are several great restaurants, too, and is also quite close to San Francisco proper.
I'm sure I probably will offend some parents-- sorry, but I just get tired of parents treating non-parents as arrogant and mean just cuz we don't want to be inundated with sounds of screaming toddlers and revolve our entire lives around the fact that you had a kid and are tired all the time.
Most of the families complaining about SF not being kid-friendly are not complaining because the "entire city doesn't revolve around" kids or because they're "tired all the time". They're complaining because services for families that are so readily available and affordable elsewhere are just so amazingly difficult to obtain in SF.
You're right though, there are a lot of great places outside of SF that are great for families and most of the people I know that were single in the city that had kids did move out to the surrounding cities.
Sadly, I know that there are many people in SF who share your sentiments, mainly single 20 and 30 somethings who've transplanted themselves into the city from elsewhere.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
