Suburb Hating is Anti-Child


Sure, suburbs have big problems. Their designs force their inhabitants to drive in cars, instead of walking and bicycling. This diminishes face-to-face interactions, physical health, and the quality of the environment. Aesthetically, many of them, particularly those dreaded “planned communities,” are quite boring. People who live there tend not to have much contact with people who aren’t like them, so suburbs reinforce racial, religious, and class segregation.

A large proportion of intellectuals and politicians, including President Obama, decry these problems with suburbs as reason to hate them and advocate for their elimination, in favor of dense, big cities.

Yeah, I get it. I agree that all these problems exist, and they bother me a lot.

There’s just one big problem with suburb hating. The alternative to suburbs in metropolitan areas, cities, are much worse for children. Sure, adults can have a great time in hip, dense city centers like Manhattan or San Francisco. In fact, if my wife and I never had kids, we’d still be living in San Francisco, going out practically every night.

However, it’s clear that cities are worse for kids than suburbs.

Why do I say this?

First, just look at where newly married urbanites choose to live once they have children. They leave cities in droves. The hipper and denser the city, the more likely are parents to flee to the suburbs.


Richard Florida made his name over a decade ago writing about how cities should attract the “creative class” – a code name for childless urban hipsters. In his book, Who’s Your City?: How the Creative Economy Is Making Where to Live the Most Important Decision of Your Life, he lists cities he thinks are best for different groups of people. The table here shows the percentage of total population in the United States that is school-aged children (age 5-17) versus that for large cities that Florida lists as best for 20-29 year-olds.

The only two cities that are even close to the national average of 17.5% are Los Angeles and New York. Los Angeles covers an awful lot of land area, and I suspect that if I could get data for what Florida really means by “Los Angeles,” the percentage would be much lower.


New York is also quite large and diverse, but there, fortunately, I have data for what Florida really means by “New York.” I’m sure he’s thinking of Manhattan when he thinks of “creative class.” There, as you can see on the table here, Manhattan’s percentage of the population that is school-aged is 11.8%, far below the national average.

In her suburb-hating book, The End of the Suburbs: Where the American Dream Is Moving, Leigh Gallagher gushes that Manhattan “has become overloaded with families.” To back up this assertion, she points to US Census data that there were 2,600 more married families with children 0-18 in 2010 than in 2000. Actually, that’s unimpressive for two reasons. First, the census data show that Manhattan’s total population actually increased by more than the population of children, so children as a percentage of the total population actually dropped. Second, even if the percentage of children had increased, the 11.8% figure for school-aged children is horrifically low.

The New York Times contributed to this gushing sentiment for children in Manhattan in a 2005 article. It pointed to a small surge in children under 5 in Manhattan’ census data between 2000 and 2004. Unfortunately, this trend did not extend to school-aged kids.

This disparity hints at the major reason why families leave big cities: public schools in large cities are, by and large, awful. So, for the most part, families that have the means to move out of cities when their children reach school age flee to the ‘burbs. Most middle and upper-middle class families that do stay send their children to private schools. 30% of San Francisco children go to private schools, and my guess is that the figure for Manhattan and other dense, hip urban centers is close to that.

So, to some extent, when you hear people complain that cities are too expensive for families, they are calculating private school into the cost of living there.

But private schools not only cost a lot of money. They also destroy neighborhood life for children. In big city neighborhoods where many or most children go to private schools, children who live on the same street hardly know each other because they tend to go to different schools that their parents choose.

Beyond running bad schools that force families with the means to go to private school, some big city school systems put the final dagger into neighborhoods by forcing or enticing children to go to a school outside their neighborhoods.

For example, San Francisco has done this for decades in an effort to forcibly integrate students of different races and backgrounds, but instead, what it’s done is destroy neighborhoods and push more families into private schools than any other city in America. In the last year or two, that city has made a small change in its policy in an apparent effort to make it more possible for children to go to school in their own neighborhood, but this change hasn’t gone nearly far enough to pull neighborhoods together.

So, big cities are left with neighborhoods where children spray out to all parts of the city to go to school every day. When school’s over at the end of the day, playing in their neighborhoods isn’t an option because children there don’t know one another.

The families that do flee for the suburbs leave a diverse place where parents like them have a small amount of political power and huge teachers’ unions dominate, to a more homogeneous place where most residents are like them, in terms of socio-economic status, and parents wield great power over schools. Left behind are the less fortunate kids, with their families.

The other primary problem that families have with cities is space. Yes, while it’s trendy these days for urban planners to advocate for dense development, families with children flee from density. Every large city in the United States that has high density – including those in the Richard Florida list above and other dense cities like Miami and Philadelphia – have very low percentages of school-aged children.

To put it simply, play requires space. If all kids have outside their crowded apartment building is a sidewalk, they can’t play a game of soccer, nor can they play even less formal games like hide and seek or tag. Also, sidewalks are a lot less complex, and therefore they’re a lot more boring for kids, than yards that have grass and bushes with hiding spaces.

As Richard Louv writes so eloquently in his book Last Child in the Woods, children really do love being in nature. They’re drawn to play among trees, bushes, grass, and creeks rather than sidewalks and brick walls.

Those who tout the attractiveness of city life for children always cite the importance of public parks. Parks are great for families that live right next to them, but unfortunately, we’re never going to put a park in every other block. The fact is that children don’t roam very far on their own these days. In fact, most preteen children don’t roam on their own more than a few feet from their front doors, whether those front doors are to their single family homes or to their apartment buildings. So, parks are of very limited use, even to most city dwellers. While kids and caregivers go there together, kids hardly every go there on their own to play freely.

Clearly, children can get a great deal of value from a yard outside a single family home, which is one important reason why so many families aim to move to the suburbs. Yes, most families don’t exploit their yards nearly enough once they move there, but that’s a problem with how families live in suburbs. It’s not a blanket condemnation of suburbs.

So, we need to fix suburbs and the way families utilize them. They should be far more pedestrian friendly, and not favor cars so much. Residential yards should be used as social hangouts, not merely admired from afar for their manicured shrubs and flower beds. I’ve written a great deal about these fixes on my blog and in my book Playborhood.

But what we shouldn’t do is try to force families to live in dense city centers. Most families don’t like it there, with good reason.

Suburb hating hurts children. Politicians who advocate anti-suburb policies are hurting children. They are, dare I say, anti-child.

Mike Lanza is author of the parenting book Playborhood: Turn Your Neighborhood Into a Place For Play, and blogs at

Suburbs photo by Bigstock.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Price of land makes major differences, unnoticed by many

Bill, what you are leaving out, is the price of land. Paying the cost of "subsidies of sprawl" is far cheaper than paying a whole lot more for an artificially rationed supply of urban land.

The "Costs of Sprawl 2000" paper suggested that the cost of sprawl is about $50 per household per year.

The cost of housing everywhere that urban growth is "contained" by planning, is always at least double that of the free-to-sprawl cities even as space is sacrificed (look at the UK's cities). The median multiple is always 6+ versus around 3. The result of this is thousands of dollars per year more cost to households in payment of PRINCIPAL (the price of the house itself) without even calculating the extra interest paid.

The alleged savings on transport costs cannot possibly make up for this, and in fact the "causative" mechanism is certainly the lower discretionary income left after housing costs, rather than any actual "efficiency" of the more compact urban form. The "Costs of Sprawl 2000" report even had a chapter that showed that the higher the median multiple, the more households are "priced out" into longer commutes - the increased transport costs always being less than the savings in housing costs - Real Estate markets simply work this way. And congestion is always worse in denser cities.

It is not "subsidies" that drive "sprawl", it is economic realities. You could eliminate the subsidies, and RE markets would still function to "price out" people from the most efficient central and TOD locations. That is not to say that subsidies do not cause an even higher level of sprawl than economic realities, but it is not an on/off switch for sprawl.

Everywhere that has LESS sprawl always has much higher urban land prices, and it is necessary to look for the reasons STOPPING people from spreading out onto lower cost land and bringing all the prices down. It is forced growth containment that is a damaging aberration, not "sprawl".

I agree about the poor design of many suburbs, but this is a matter to be addressed by good design, not growth containment and forced centralisation to where the amenities are claimed to be superior. In fact mini-CBD's can be anywhere, and walkability can be anywhere. It is "TOD" that cannot be everywhere. We must not ban suburbs, we must make them better.

An important note: it is far easier to sacrifice land to "public amenity" purposes if its cost is as low as possible - many urban areas with a UGB have land inside the UGB that costs $2,000,000 per hectare; compared to fringe land in affordable non-growth-contained cities being $40,000 per hectare or less. In which scenario are developers going to be happier about sacrificing space to parks, playgrounds, schools, community halls and facilities, "walkability", bike paths, etc etc? It is "suburbs" built on inflated-price land that are truly diabolical. Postage stamp lots crammed into cul-de-sacs in patterns that have been mathematically designed to maximise the number of saleable properties; narrow streets; minimal number of intersections (waste of valuable space); minimal amount of public, green space; no bike paths or walking tracks; etc etc.

Left behind are the less fortunate kids, with their families.

The conclusion should read:

"Suburb hating hurts fortunate children. Politicians who advocate anti-suburb policies are hurting fortunate children. They are, dare I say, anti-fortunate-child."

Which leaves us with the conclusion that unfortunate kids are worthless to those who advocate for a "new geography" of suburbs as the preferred public policy.

Or does the "new geography" include some means of providing the same mobility to the unfortunate as to the fortunate? Housing and car vouchers for the poor and working poor so they can living in the suburbs?

The historical norm is not the trend

The trend for decades now, and indeed this is the norm as economies develop, is for core cities to "gentrify", and lower income earners to be forced out. This has led to certain types of advocates lamenting the poor being "forced to live in automobile dependent suburbs", and "the suburbs becoming the new slums". You just can't please some people.

Of course planning and zoning in some urban areas make everything unaffordable, so the poor presumably have to leave the entire urban area altogether, and go to Texas or Georgia where affordable suburban homes are the norm.

But the jobs for lower income earners mostly suburbanised long since, and access via transit is unworkable. Transit suits concentrated, not dispersed, destinations. I recommend:

"Transport and Social Exclusion - A United States View" by Lori G. Kennedy

Google search it; it is online as a Word Document.


No place is ever designed to treat its less well-off decently, by definition - they aren't in charge of anything. In my opinion, zoning ought to be entirely abolished. There is no reason to protect anyone's property VALUES, only their property.

Also I think all property owners ought to be charged for the maintenance of public infrastructure serving their property, particularly roads and transit. All new development ought to be assessed the full net cost of road and transit construction, beyond whatever might be recovered by the constructing agencies from future increases in taxes collected due to the development.

If that halts new development until rents and sales prices that people will pay rise, so what.

The poor need to work out who their real friends are

".....No place is ever designed to treat its less well-off decently, by definition....."

I kind of agree, but just note that freedom of fringe growth leads to stable house price median multiples of around 3 even as houses attributes improve like most consumer goods; but when there is regional fringe growth constraint (UGB or zoning) the opposite happens - land prices inflate faster than people downsize. The UK's cities have median multiples of 6+ even though the housing space is many times less than a median multiple 3 city.

I argue that the consequences of this, which can be seen in just a few minutes research on RE sites, is that the bottom quartile in Houston or any of the dozens of median multiple 3 cities in the USA, will enjoy superior attributes of housing than everyone in the UK except the very top few percent.

So the absence of planned constraint DOES lead to the less well off being "treated more decently".

I strongly disagree with upfront levies to pay for infrastructure. Land taxes and proper pricing of infrastructure use are a far superior way of assuring that the costs and benefits are accurately matched. I strongly recommend "Containment Policies for Urban Sprawl" by Mason Gaffney.

The inherent injustice of upfront levies, is that the prices of new housing are inflated thereby, and the prices of new housing set the prices of all existing housing. If 150,000 miles of "road user charges" were included in the price of new cars, used cars would be a lot more expensive too. The result of this is that anyone buying their first car - or house - pays the equivalent of the charge as a windfall gain to the seller of the property, that they themselves do not recover until they or their estate disposes of their last home decades later.

It is an exposure of the kind of vested interests that drive urban planning these days, that growth containment is "popular" (it drives up the value of all existing property investors portfolios), upfront levies are "popular" (same reason), yet every new "public" investment that benefits incumbent property owners (especially, for example, light rail lines in CBD's) is never paid for by levies on those incumbent property owners. Hmmmmm.....