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.
@ Kohmet: Yeah, my kids both ended up living under a bridge, after they got out of jail! (Heavy sarcasm)
I can only assume their jail time was directly linked with the high percentage of gang activities in the suburbs. They were lucky they just went to jail, I hear tales of drive bys involving gang bangers in the 'burbs all the time.
Hmm, PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK AND NOT TO SOME DUMB BLOG!
You can look up the stats on deaths of teens, they're readily available on-line since I'm sure you won't trust a link coming from me. I would start with the letters C - D - C if I were you.
I haven't (yet! Will look later) seen statistics for teens driving based down by specific location, but I think common sense suggests that teens living in neighborhoods where a car is unnecessary are going to be less interested in driving than do the teens living in areas where if they don't have regular access to a car then they'll be dependent on either parents or other friends to get around. A kid growing up in or around Cambridge doesn't need a car. A kid living in, say, a typical American subdivision where the high school (let alone entertainment, work options, etc.) is not easily, safely, or conviently accessible via foot is going to have a lot more incentive to drive.
From a parental perspective, anyway, a neighborhood where people can walk, bike, or take public transit to most of what they need means that there's the potential for fewer miles traveled in a car. And what's more, even though individual rates can vary -- and clearly there's nothing stopping from someone in Boston from spending all day driving, should they so wish -- the overall odds of being injured or killed in an auto accident in more urban areas is lower than it is in more auto-centric areas. (see Jeff Speck's Walkable City for more on that -- pretty interesting stuff.)
You can look up the stats on deaths of teens, they're readily available on-line since I'm sure you won't trust a link coming from me. I would start with the letters C - D - C if I were you.
Oh, I'd believe the CDC. They're the ones I'm always quoting in these anti-immunization threads that are so popular on parenting and P&OC. I just don't believe that there are any links that can show that city kids
"kids grow up much more independent and capable, far less bored, far less likely to get into the kind of trouble you get into when you're a bored kid, far more cultured, far more aware, and far more interested."
If suburbs were so bad for kids, then why would those kids, who eventually grow up and have kids of their own...raise their kids in the suburbs?
[]
I don't think suburbs are so bad -- or at least not universally so bad -- but for what it's worth, there's been boatloads of data lately to suggest that many young people (who were raised in suburbs) are choosing NOT to raise their kids there. Not everyone can afford to move into the city (especially if they have kids and either need to pay the premium to live in a neighborhood with good public schools or have to pay for private), but people these days are paying a premium for walkability and other "urban" amenities. City/suburb lines can sometimes get blurred, but young families today often don't prefer the suburbs they grew up in.
Yes, kids grow up much more independent and capable, far less bored, far less likely to get into the kind of trouble you get into when you're a bored kid, far more cultured, far more aware, and far more interested. And as for safety, there is no more dangerous place in American for a teen than an auto dependent suburb - very deadly. Parents don't do their kids any favors by raising them in the suburbs for safety reasons - absolutely the worst possible place.
They also grow up far less likely to succeed. Should we look at HS dropout rates for affluent neighborhoods in major cities vs. affluent suburbs? Also, removing Manhattan and San Fran from the equation, driving rates are identical for the 16-18 age bracket urban vs. suburb.
I also find the city kids to be helpless and never prepared for a "rainy day" (Nemo storm comes to mind). Completely dependent on the "state". Stuck until a snowplow comes by, no generator, just helpless. Since we are speaking in broad strokes, the urban group is also much less athletic.
Last edited by Wilton2ParkAve; 02-20-2013 at 02:05 PM..
I don't think suburbs are so bad -- or at least not universally so bad -- but for what it's worth, there's been boatloads of data lately to suggest that many young people (who were raised in suburbs) are choosing NOT to raise their kids there. Not everyone can afford to move into the city (especially if they have kids and either need to pay the premium to live in a neighborhood with good public schools or have to pay for private), but people these days are paying a premium for walkability and other "urban" amenities. City/suburb lines can sometimes get blurred, but young families today often don't prefer the suburbs they grew up in.
They prefer new ones. If the demand for suburban living is diminishing then somebody better tell all those people moving into them.
[and the developers making money building them, too]
I don't think suburbs are so bad -- or at least not universally so bad -- but for what it's worth, there's been boatloads of data lately to suggest that many young people (who were raised in suburbs) are choosing NOT to raise their kids there. Not everyone can afford to move into the city (especially if they have kids and either need to pay the premium to live in a neighborhood with good public schools or have to pay for private), but people these days are paying a premium for walkability and other "urban" amenities. City/suburb lines can sometimes get blurred, but young families today often don't prefer the suburbs they grew up in.
Show us a boat, then, e.g. links. I know young adults like to live in "the city", but are they staying there to raise kids? The birth rate is at an all-time low. Maybe they're just not having kids.
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.
]
