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.
It's been a subject of debate to what degree the current generation of "urbanists" will stay in urban areas as they become parents. Certainly it seems that more middle-class white people stay in cities today to raise children than have in the past. And it seems like the current generation of "urbanists" as a whole is willing to stay in the city while their children are small. But it remains unclear if the majority will stay in urban areas as they hit kindergarten age.
I thought I'd make a brief run-down of the issues of urban life, compared to a sterotyped suburban life, and consider how things can be changed.
First, the issues which are mostly solved, or on the way to being solved.
Clean Air: One of the original reasons people moved to the suburbs in the 1950s (and, even earlier to streetcar suburbs) was to get out of heavily-polluted environments. One of the few bright spots of the massive deindustrialization of U.S. cities has been air quality has risen notably. Higher road traffic in most cities than most suburbs means air quality is usually nominally worse in urban areas, but the difference is not so stark these days, and with increased transit utilization and more movement to hybrid cars, one presumes smog issues will continue to lessen.
Crime: Cities still do have more crime than suburban areas overall. However, the amount of crime in urban areas has fallen dramatically over the last few decades. While gentrification does not stamp out all property crime, it does tend to eliminate the threat of violent crime from neighborhoods. Obviously crime in many areas is still unacceptably high, but this is a trend which is going in the right direction.
Now the issues which I think remain outstanding:
Schools:
I've said before that urban schools largely face a "chicken and the egg" problem. They don't perform worse because they have worse teachers, or lower funding, or any other reason. They perform worse because they have different demographics who attend them versus most suburban schools, which primes the students to not perform as well before they even put their foot in the door. There's zero evidence to suggest if you took the average yuppie spawn and put them in a "mediocre" city school (versus a "good" suburban school) there would be a significant difference in their college readiness or life outcome.
Still, you cannot realistically expect most upper-middle class white parents to willingly enroll their child in schools which are 90% "minority." There have been cases in highly gentrified neighborhoods (such as parts of San Francisco) where the upper-middle class has mass enrolled in an elementary school and flipped the test score results, but they are rare. Re-jiggering feeder lines to link gentrifying areas together would help with middle-class public school buy in, but would rightfully be seen as segregation. I think ultimately wider use of magnet-style systems - particularly those which allow bright students to test into top schools - are needed. Yes, it will result in a mostly segregated system (as is the case in New York City now, where the top high schools are almost all White/Asian), but it's become unclear to me if integration is the number one policy we need to push in urban schools.
Lack of Family Amenities/Cost of Living:
These two issues seem to go hand in hand, so I'll address them together.
Generally speaking, as neighborhoods gentrify, they become both more expensive, and cater more and more to the childless. The latter makes some sense, as generally speaking childless people have more disposable income to spend on things like fashion boutiques, expensive coffee drinks, and nights out at the bar. For the childless, this is fine. The neighborhood over time is getting better and better at providing the "play" part of live-work-play. The cost is going up over time in roughly equal proportion to the appeal of the neighborhood, and even if it morphs into something they don't like ultimately, it will still be highly desirable to someone else.
It's different if you have kids though. New businesses which open in your neighborhood increasingly don't do anything to appeal to you. They might explicitly ban anyone from under 18 from going into a bar/restaurant, or be upscale enough you'd never consider going there with a small child. At the same time, if you're a renter and not a homeowner, you're paying an increasingly high price per square foot to barely eke by - and spending your nights at home unless you have a babysitter. Functionally speaking, most parents of small children could do that anywhere, and in many metros, it's significantly cheaper to do so in the suburbs.
Finding the solution here is difficult. Unless parents form a critical mass in urban areas worth being catered to, the sort of businesses they would like to frequent (like say, informal cafes with kid-friendly food and lots of high chairs and booster seats) won't be very common. And until gentrification "peaks" (meaning the supply of safe walkable areas meets total demand) the cost equation is going to suck for most parents.
Anyway, I was just throwing some stuff out there. Feel free to add whatever.
I think you hit the nail on the head with most of your points. There are a few other points I can add that may apply mostly to mid sized cities but could also apply to larger and smaller ones as well.
Those of us that grew up in the 80s and before in city neighborhoods often have fond memories of playing in the streets, riding bicycles miles away from home when we were 8-9 years old, playing pick-up baseball games at a local ballfield, and otherwise exercising a high degree of autonomy. The world has changed a lot since then. Possibly we are more paranoid, more litigious, or maybe there really are more crazy people, but for whatever reason, working to middle class city neighborhoods are not seen as a safe place for kids to wander.
The suburbs seem to offer people of my generation an opportunity to give our children the best aspects of our childhood without the risks that we faced ourselves. They are constructed to minimize the most obvious threats to children's safety. Cul-de-sac or other deliberately reduced access streets have minimal traffic, and zoning restrictions on density, lot sizes, and maximum occupancy work to insure a more homogeneous slice of the socioeconomic strata, thus allowing children to avoid exposure to poverty.
I moved into NYC before a lot of parents considered that it was safe enough to raise a family here. That changed. Now a lot of parents try to stay.
I wish they wouldn't. Everything in Manhattan is crowded enough as it is, without adding kids to the mix. They should be out in the 'burbs where they can run around and not bother anyone.
I moved into NYC before a lot of parents considered that it was safe enough to raise a family here. That changed. Now a lot of parents try to stay.
I wish they wouldn't. Everything in Manhattan is crowded enough as it is, without adding kids to the mix. They should be out in the 'burbs where they can run around and not bother anyone.
Walking around in Park Slope in Brooklyn you are bound to be run over by a stroller or step on someone's kid.
One answer is to split up big city school districts so there can be good school districts. There will always be bottom of the barrel kids leading to bottom of the barrel schools. But they needn't drag down schools from decent neighborhoods.
One answer is to split up big city school districts so there can be good school districts. There will always be bottom of the barrel kids leading to bottom of the barrel schools. But they needn't drag down schools from decent neighborhoods.
But that cycle feeds on itself. Bad schools gain a reputation for being bad, and therefore only keep "bad" students; Good schools gain a rep for being good, and therefore see a net immigration of "good" students. Even if we accept the absurd idea that a great many students are inherently "good" and a great many others inherently "bad," the system fails because it doesn't have the fluidity to move all (or even most of) the "good" students out of "bad" schools and vice versa.
So I reject that idea as a way to get or keep parents in the city.
But that cycle feeds on itself. Bad schools gain a reputation for being bad, and therefore only keep "bad" students; Good schools gain a rep for being good, and therefore see a net immigration of "good" students. Even if we accept the absurd idea that a great many students are inherently "good" and a great many others inherently "bad," the system fails because it doesn't have the fluidity to move all (or even most of) the "good" students out of "bad" schools and vice versa.
So I reject that idea as a way to get or keep parents in the city.
Why not? If few if any city schools are trustworthy and now there are certain good schools, then parents have a sure place that they know to move to. This setup is the case for many suburbs. Parents, at least those who can pay the price of the right district, like this setup. If they care about education, they can choose to to move to a district with schools they believe are acceptable.
This is definitely true for a city that does school busing between neighborhoods. Parents don't know if their kids would end up in a bad school. Therefore, they have an incentive to move outside the city limits to a district they know for sure where their kid would end up.
Why not? If few if any city schools are trustworthy and now there are certain good schools, then parents have a sure place that they know to move to. This setup is the case for many suburbs. Parents, at least those who can pay the price of the right district, like this setup. If they care about education, they can choose to to move to a district with schools they believe are acceptable.
This is definitely true for a city that does school busing between neighborhoods. Parents don't know if their kids would end up in a bad school. Therefore, they have an incentive to move outside the city limits to a district they know for sure where their kid would end up.
I rejected his idea as an appropriate solution for the stated reasons; I didn't deny that it happens.
Obviously, any good parent will want the best for his or her child or children, and should get them in to the best school possible. But elected officials selecting which school or district wins or loses is a horrible idea and propagates educational and economic inequality. I mean, there is a mountain of economic papers about how policies which separate the good (areas, schools, etc.) from the bad propagate poverty across years and even across generations.
I rejected his idea as an appropriate solution for the stated reasons; I didn't deny that it happens.
Obviously, any good parent will want the best for his or her child or children, and should get them in to the best school possible. But elected officials selecting which school or district wins or loses is a horrible idea and propagates educational and economic inequality. I mean, there is a mountain of economic papers about how policies which separate the good (areas, schools, etc.) from the bad propagate poverty across years and even across generations.
I agree.
To answer the OP's question, I will paraphrase Bill Clinton and say, "It's the schools, stupid". Please note I am not referring to any particular person.
Another thing is if the parents are willing to consider other school options like private and/or charter schools, as well as homeschooling. Here in Syracuse, I've seen White kids graduate from the predominately minority public high schools within the city, that have struggled with graduation rates and these kids have gone on to Ivies, service academies and great state and private universities. Same for students of other backgrounds. So, it depends on the child's support system and value on education. There are parents of different backgrounds that live in a range of city neighborhoods that go to private or charter schools here as well. So, it may be a matter of weighing your options as a family. I think it can be done in just about any city depending on the options available.
Also here in Syracuse and a select amount of cities, you this program that could help parents stay within the public city SD: Recent News | Say Yes to Education
Personally, if I lived in Syracuse city limits, I would go the Ed Smith(k-8) and Nottingham or Institute of Technology at Central(magnet high) route, among maybe a couple of others. Perhaps try to get into the Syracuse Academy of Science charter system. For private schools, Blessed Sacrament or Most Holy Rosary to either Bishop Ludden or Bishop Grimes(Christian Brothers Academy if you want to spend more). Perhaps K-12 Faith Heritage too. For non religious private, Manlius-Pebble Hill, but that's if you really don't mind spending money on a K-12 education. I mention all of this to say that parents may have more options than they realize, if they are well equipped with the proper information about schools in their area.
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 10-16-2013 at 08:16 PM..
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.
