“Family friendly cities”
Joel Kotkin, author of “The City” (a great read) has an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal called “The Rise of Family Friendly Cities.” To set the stage, here’s a bit from that book:
“Cities are humanity’s greatest creation,” Kotkin writes. And, “[t]o be successful today, urban areas must resonate with the ancient fundamentals — they must be sacred, safe, and busy.” Kotkin suggests that one of the new “urban renewal” strategies — i.e., fading cities re-inventing themselves as hip, edgy congregating points for so-called “young creatives” — is not likely to succeed because it departs so markedly from these “ancient fundamentals” in failing to appreciate the role that the sacred, and the religious, long played in the developing and sustaining of cities: “Almost everywhere, the great classical city was suffused with religion and instructed by it. ‘Cities did not ask if the institutions which they adopted were useful . . . . These institutions were adopted because religion had wished it thus.’ In contemporary discussions of the urban condition [including, I'm afraid, many "new urbanist" discussions], this sacred role has too often been ignored.”
And, here is an essay by Kotkin on the importance of religion, and of the “sacred”, to the city.
Kotkin has become known for, among other things, deflating the recently-big-buzz idea that the way for cities to thrive is to attract young “creative class” types to hip, coffee-shop-populated urban fun-zones. (See, e.g., Richard Florida’s “Rise of the Creative Class.” In today’s essay, Kotkin returns to this theme:
For much of the past decade, business recruiters, cities and urban developers have focused on the “young and restless,” the “creative class,” and the so-called “yuspie”–the young urban single professional. Cities, they’ve said, should capture this so-called “dream demographic” if they wish to inhabit the top tiers of the economic food chain and enjoy the fastest and most sustained growth. . . .
There is a basic truth about the geography of young, educated people. They may first migrate to cities like New York, Los Angeles, Boston or San Francisco. But they tend to flee when they enter their child-rearing years. Family-friendly metropolitan regions have seen the biggest net gains of professionals, largely because they not only attract workers, but they also retain them through their 30s and 40s. . . .
The evidence thus suggests that the obsession with luring singles to cities is misplaced. Instead, suggests Paul Levy, president of Philadelphia’s Center City district association, the emphasis should be on retaining young people as they grow up, marry, start families and continue to raise them. . . .
Only 14% of Center City residents have children, Mr. Levy says, and roughly half its young people depart once they enter their mid-30s. “If you want to sustain the revival you have to deal with the fact that people with six year olds keep moving to the suburbs,” Mr. Levy suggests. “Empty nesters and singles are not enough.”
. . . Boosters such as Mr. Levy look increasing towards reviving the traditional family neighborhoods which surround Center City. His organization has worked closely with local public and private schools, church and civic organizations to build up the support structures that might convince today’s youthful inner city urbanites to remain as they start families. “Our agenda,” Mr. Levy says, “has to change. We have to look at the parks, the playgrounds and the schools.”
Such a shift in emphasis could mark a new beginning for many long-neglected urban neighborhoods across the country. It’s time to recognize that today, as has been the case for millennia, families provide the most reliable foundation for successful economies.
Comments are closed.
I’m not convinced there is a trade-off here; rather, a good case could be made that these two groups are complements, not substitutes. The young, single, professionals are the people behind the restoration of cities to what they should be. What seems to keep the families away is cost and space– I know lots of people who would love to live in Manhattan with their kids, but simply cannot afford it. Sp maybe the trade-off is financial, not cultural: the singles drive up costs so much that families cannot move in. On the other hand, without the cultural aspects brought in by the singles, others might not even be attracted to live in cities, even without the cost. How can we square this circle? This is important, as I believe it is far healthier to raise a child in a vibrant, multi-cultural city, than a conformist surburban wasteland.
I’m basically with you, MM, but I think it is fair to say that the “creative class” thesis is one that leads to more than just financial barriers to families. If, for example, you think that the way to save cities is to attract club-hopping web-site-designers, you are not going to worry about things like schools. A real city — the kind, I suspect, we both value — needs to be integrated generationally; it needs to be a place where people can be safe, and can thrive, at all stages of life.
As a practicing Community Planner, I am always interested in how people gloss over how they plan on luring people of any stripe to live in a city.
The public sector basically has three tools at its disposal:
1. Land use regulation – allowing a mix of uses and densities (NYC) vs. segregated uses dominated by single family zoning districts (“suburbs”)
2. Capital Improvement timing/financing – Roads, water/sewer extensions, schools, etc. – things growing communities need
3. Provide incentives – Other than tax holidays/cash incentives, they usually consist of some combination of #’s 1 and 2 above.
The rest is up to the private sector (not to mention that the private sector generally must accept incentives and develop as new infrastructure is provided.
I agree with the idea that catering to families is a good idea. However, I think there is a lot of potential for focusing on the central issues that singles and families both value. I think that the Creative Class adherents have already done so, and that partially explains some of their success. They call for better parks, more cultural activities, and diversity. I prefer the term “Place-based development”. I know that sustainability is an overused term, but I think it’s the right term when we talk about making social, environmental, and economic concerns mutually reinforcing. A sustainable city looks for common ground and makes a conscious effort to accomodate all ages, cultures, and income levels.
I’m with you on cities’ value as a place to raise kids, MM – and I think cost is, in fact, the largest barrier to families living in cities.
To rent a 2 bedroom apartment in downtown San Francisco would take probably 4 grand a month – one without a view, next to the garbage shaft, etc.
To actually buy a place equal in square feet to a typical ugly suburban house would cost many, many millions of dollars.
MM: “This is important, as I believe it is far healthier to raise a child in a vibrant, multi-cultural city, than a conformist surburban wasteland.”
Our suburban community doesn’t have needles and condoms lying around on the sidewalk nor pimps and drug peddlers patroling the streets like the vibrant, multi-cultural wasteland up the road. Which is healthier? We report, you decide.
My city doesn’t have those things in it, either, Pauli. You distort, I deride…