SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//index.php)
-   City Discussions (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   The Future of the City Is Childless (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//showthread.php?t=239790)

jmecklenborg Jul 24, 2019 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8638633)
I don't think young people have changed one bit, in America.

The Clean Air Act, the phasing out of leaded gas, and the steady removal of lead from the built environment has resulted in a dramatic drop in violent crime and teenage pregnancies. So yes, young people have changed a lot.

mhays Jul 24, 2019 12:33 AM

The reduction in murder etc. has also been pinned on other factors like policing style (which I doubt) and the availability of legal abortions (which seems like a likely factor).

Steely Dan Jul 24, 2019 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by llamaorama (Post 8639929)

I imagine the bigger trend is money. Rich areas probably have fewer kids. I think that's the big picture trend, the correlation with the built environment is a weak one and probably just a spurious claim.

And that relates back to eschaton's point about children being "roommates who don't pay rent". In a really expensive city like SF, a 3 bed place that rents for $5,000/month is simply going to be out of reach for most middle class families with multiple children, but for the DINKs who don't have daycare payments, college savings account payments, food/clothes, or the 8 billion other expenses that come with children, it becomes more possible. Likewise for the 3 tech bros who rent the place together for $1,700 per man.

Comparing like for like AGIs, the non-kid household will almost always be able to pay more for housing.

jtown,man Jul 24, 2019 2:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 8640010)
The Clean Air Act, the phasing out of leaded gas, and the steady removal of lead from the built environment has resulted in a dramatic drop in violent crime and teenage pregnancies. So yes, young people have changed a lot.

You're kidding, right?

Crime rates before the 1960s and out of wedlock births were MUCH lower than what we saw in the 60s 70s 80s and 90s. Somehow lead and air didn't impact crime until the 1960s...?

jtown,man Jul 24, 2019 2:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 8640018)
The reduction in murder etc. has also been pinned on other factors like policing style (which I doubt) and the availability of legal abortions (which seems like a likely factor).

Poor people still have a lot of kids. Out of wedlock children exploded in the 1970s right when abortion became legal. Crime also exploded at about the right time.

Abortion
Unleaded gas
Lead
Clean Air Act


You guys are basically saying anything liberals love is good and causes good things lol

jmecklenborg Jul 24, 2019 4:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8640096)
You're kidding, right?

Crime rates before the 1960s and out of wedlock births were MUCH lower than what we saw in the 60s 70s 80s and 90s. Somehow lead and air didn't impact crime until the 1960s...?

Miles driven in the United States increased dramatically soon after lead was introduced to gasoline in the mid-1940s. So kids who were raised near expressways and along busy city streets in the 1950s and 60s were exposed to huge amounts of lead as compared to kids in those same areas just 10-20 years earlier.

Here is one recent article that explains the issue:
https://www.motherjones.com/environm...ildren-health/

mhays Jul 24, 2019 4:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8640096)
You're kidding, right?

Crime rates before the 1960s and out of wedlock births were MUCH lower than what we saw in the 60s 70s 80s and 90s. Somehow lead and air didn't impact crime until the 1960s...?

Quite a false leap you're making. Nothing in your sentence was claimed by anyone.

A few other things changed in the 60s...do you suppose any of that impacted crime? Social mores and drug availability for example.

I wish basic logic was taught more often.

Crawford Jul 24, 2019 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8640098)
Poor people still have a lot of kids.

This isn't true. Birthrates tied to income tiers have converged. Poor households aren't more likely to have more kids than wealthy households.
Quote:

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8640098)
Out of wedlock children exploded in the 1970s right when abortion became legal. Crime also exploded at about the right time.

Also not true. Crime exploded in the 1960's, not 70's. Abortion rates have nothing to do with out of wedlock children, obviously, and wouldn't have any immediate affect on crime, as if 1-year-olds commit felonies.
Quote:

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8640098)
You guys are basically saying anything liberals love is good and causes good things lol

Liberals love crime, abortion and out of wedlock children? Absurd and sad.

eschaton Jul 24, 2019 1:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8640098)
Poor people still have a lot of kids.

Poor people still have more kids than everyone else. IIRC only the bottom 25% and the top 1% in the U.S. actually are reproducing at above the replacement rate. But they don't have "a lot" of kids any longer.

Looking at the most recent census data, here are the average number of children per family household with kids under 18 by education level:

Less than HS: 2.23
HS Grad: 1.96
Some college: 1.92
Bachelors or higher: 1.86

Further, the average number of children per family for TANF recipients - though it varies from year to year - is typically less than 2. For example, this study from 2012 found an average of 1.8 per household.

SIGSEGV Jul 24, 2019 2:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eschaton (Post 8640340)
Poor people still have more kids than everyone else. IIRC only the bottom 25% and the top 1% in the U.S. actually are reproducing at above the replacement rate. But they don't have "a lot" of kids any longer.

Looking at the most recent census data, here are the average number of children per family household with kids under 18 by education level:

Less than HS: 2.23
HS Grad: 1.96
Some college: 1.92
Bachelors or higher: 1.86

Further, the average number of children per family for TANF recipients - though it varies from year to year - is typically less than 2. For example, this study from 2012 found an average of 1.8 per household.

I wonder what fraction of people who drop out of high school due so because of kids...

jtown,man Jul 24, 2019 6:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 8640166)
Quite a false leap you're making. Nothing in your sentence was claimed by anyone.

A few other things changed in the 60s...do you suppose any of that impacted crime? Social mores and drug availability for example.

I wish basic logic was taught more often.

I was responding to this sentence:

"The Clean Air Act, the phasing out of leaded gas, and the steady removal of lead from the built environment has resulted in a dramatic drop in violent crime and teenage pregnancies."

There were no qualifiers in that statement. My basic logic is that of course this person probably thinks there were other reasons, but none were stated in the only qoute I saw.

Don't Be That Guy Jul 24, 2019 7:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8640659)
I was responding to this sentence:

"The Clean Air Act, the phasing out of leaded gas, and the steady removal of lead from the built environment has resulted in a dramatic drop in violent crime and teenage pregnancies."

There were no qualifiers in that statement. My basic logic is that of course this person probably thinks there were other reasons, but none were stated in the only qoute I saw.

The person you're responding to probably made that statement without qualifiers because the link between lead exposure and cognitive behavior has been extensively studied over the several years. To quote the linked article "high lead concentrations correlate so well that you can overlay maps of crime rates over maps of lead concentrations and get an almost perfect fit."

mhays Jul 24, 2019 7:04 PM

Glad you're coming around jtown.

Reverberation Jul 25, 2019 1:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8638589)
Here's how Sun Belt sees it:

1] Cities are becoming more child-less than they have in the past
Why?
A] Cities are becoming more expensive.
B] Cities are growing older and less diverse.
C] Some parts of some cities are emptying out and therefore the overall student population appears to be dropping, despite some other successful/desireable outliers -- [Steely's situation].

2] Today's young people put off marriage and have kids much later into their mid 30s.
A] They got a whole lot of F'n to do in their 20s.
B] They want to be able to postpone adulthood, drink beer, play corn hole at the local watering hole until 2 am.
C] They have a huge debt burden and can't afford kids, even though they love to point out how successful they are.
D] Some don't want kids -- to SAVE THE EARTH!!! Kids breathe oxygen and produce carbon while consuming natural resources.

3] Those that want kids, have already grown up and left for the suburbs in their mid 20s, where life is more affordable.

I’d like to add:
When you have kids and realize that day care costs $750-$1,500 per month, after one kid you don’t have as much time to enjoy the city lifestyle as you did before kids and after two kids in day care, living a “downtown” urban lifestyle is like owning a convertible in Fairbanks.

Steely Dan Jul 25, 2019 1:27 AM

^ I will reiterate my lament for those living in places where the choice is either "living a downtown urban lifestyle" or a tract home on the cul-de-sac.

Our best cities offer a GIGANTIC range of urban options between those two extremes.

The city neighborhood: life's creamiest middle.

dave8721 Jul 25, 2019 2:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8639857)
informative read on the topic from citylab:


full article: https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/01...ldfree/580372/

First of all, the City of Miami is a retirement destination?...No.

A better characterization of those top 10 cities of fewest children is that they are geographically small. Miami, SF, Seattle, DC..etc. Cities with big borders will have higher % if children because those big borders will include those inner ring neighborhood areas that tend to have more kids than city centers.

jtown,man Jul 25, 2019 2:49 AM

I must be one of their weird urbanist who really doesn't take advantage of being in the city...that often anyways. I don't really drink, eat at a few restaurants I know I like(boring...I know) and really don't leave the house much besides to a few downtown festivals(harbor fest, NATO festival etc.).

Honestly, when I think about it I live a pretty suburban docile lifestyle. I just like having the option to take the train(station one block away) or bike around and walk to shop and eat(when I actually leave the house).

However, I know if I lived in a suburban-style apartment I would be depressed about my surroundings because I would know I was a slave to my car and traffic.

SHOFEAR Jul 25, 2019 1:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8639136)
Schools are certainly an important part of the location equation when you have kids. That said, a TREMENDOUS amount of "school quality" is really just a measure of the socio-economic status of the students who happen to attend the school.

Our neighborhood city school garners a middling rating from the major school ratings agencies, but 30% of the students are from low-income families. When you control for that low-income student population, test results aren't all that radically different from a typical suburban elementary school.

My kids will also be provided with a far more realistic picture of the way the world really is than I was ever afforded growing up in Wilmette (wealthy upper middle class northshore burb). There is real value in socio-economic mixing, but that will never be quantified by a fucking Great Schools algorithm.

.

Very noble of you, but my priority is what's best for my kids, not others people kids.

Steely Dan Jul 25, 2019 1:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave8721 (Post 8641131)
A better characterization of those top 10 cities of fewest children is that they are geographically small. Miami, SF, Seattle, DC..etc. Cities with big borders will have higher % if children because those big borders will include those inner ring neighborhood areas that tend to have more kids than city centers.

smallness is part of it, but COL is probably the bigger factor at play here. 3 of those 4 cities are EXTREMELY expensive from a COL standpoint, and miami ain't exactly a bargain city either.

in contrast, other cities with similar land sizes like baltimore, st. louis, pittsburgh, and buffalo don't show up on the "childless city" list because they are an order of magnitude more affordable than cities like SF or DC.

Steely Dan Jul 25, 2019 1:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR (Post 8641405)
my priority is what's best for my kids

my priority is EXACTLY the same as yours, we just have different opinions on what's best for our respective kids.


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.