Cities have more children than the suburbs? (suburban, downtown, Boston)
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.
Do you feel like your suburbs have more children than your cities, or is it the other way around? From what I can see here in Boston it depends how you measure it. As a percentage of total population, our urban areas here in Boston have a slightly lower percentage of children. However - I decided to calculate the children per square mile for some urban and suburban areas, and it tells a very different story. Once you consider the density, the number of children 14 and under per square mile is far higher in the more urban areas.
So, while some may have this dreamy idea that all the kids are playing in the yards of suburbia, the number of kids living close to you in the more urban areas is far higher. Which explains why the playgrounds are more vibrant, and why its so much easier to walk to more of your friends houses without being chauffeured by parents.
Anyways, just sharing the findings because even I was surprised by how drastically different the numbers are.
City Children per sq mile Type of Area
Lexington 405 Suburban
Newton 816 Suburban
Arlington 1220 Dense Suburban
Cambridge 1780 Semi-Urban
Boston 2031 Urban
Somerville 2359 Semi-Urban
Semiurbanite, this is very useful, because people always assert that there are "no" children in cities (by which they usually mean no middle/upper class children). I realized this density relationship when I went with my daughter to Abingdon Square in Greenwich Village (we were visiting) and the (terrific) park was just crawling with children. So Manhattan has a density of 66,940 people per square mile, 16.8% of which are under 18, for a child/teenager density of 11,246 people per square mile, more than the total density of most places. Manhattan is the limiting case of course, but it still makes the point.
So Manhattan has a density of 66,940 people per square mile, 16.8% of which are under 18, for a child/teenager density of 11,246 people per square mile, more than the total density of most places. Manhattan is the limiting case of course, but it still makes the point.
an overall number for Manhattan might be misleading. Part of the island is gentrified, mostly white, well-off white collar types. But almost a third is poor minority areas (Harlem, Washington Heights, maybe parts of Chinatown and sections of Lower East Side and Alphabet City lined with projects). The first part on average has fewer children the second.
Shocking revelation: Dense place has more people than non-dense place.
Second shocking revelation: There's more houses for you to walk to in dense areas than non-dense ones.
Fortunately, there's Houston to prove that cities also have a higher percentage of kids... 27.5% of the population there is under 18! Big cities like Houston make up for suburban-like Manhattan's small number of children?
an overall number for Manhattan might be misleading. Part of the island is gentrified, mostly white, well-off white collar types. But almost a third is poor minority areas (Harlem, Washington Heights, maybe parts of Chinatown and sections of Lower East Side and Alphabet City lined with projects). The first part on average has fewer children the second.
Nei, this is a valid point. So I looked up the statistics for the Community Planning Board 2 area in Manhattan. It goes from the Bowery to the River, Canal St. to 14th St., incorporating Greenwich Village and SoHo. It's 75% non-Hispanic White, has no major minority or low income communities.
The 2010 Census showed 7,936 people under 18 living there, a number that's been going up. It's a 1.4 square mile area, so the density of children/teenagers is 5,669 per square mile. That's only about half of my overall Manhattan total, so it probably was pulled up by places like Harlem, but it's still way more than most places. Most suburbs don't have a total density that high.
I never though about it, nor do I think it matters. What matters is quality of life for the children. The suburbs win hands-down. The number of children probably has more to do with race, ethnicity, religion, etc. of the parents than where they live.
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.
