Designing Cities for the Family
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — Given how often I've criticized Joel Kotkin, it's worth noting when he writes something reasonable. Yesterday Kotkin had a piece in the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal talking about how urban cores needed to be planned for the family, not the single young professional.
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.
It's a smart point, and I wrote in my "Five Steps" piece that we need to create a Downtown where young professionals can remain comfortable as their station in life changes.
I do take issue with one point, though.
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.
...
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.
What gets glossed in this treatment is that it may well be that luring the singles is still the way that urban revival must begin. The young professional is much more likely to move into a not-yet-arrived neighborhood than is the family. The singles that pioneer the neighborhood create the market that can support the retail and nightlife, which then in turn can make the neighborhood viable for families. That's a sort of step two in urban revitalization.
Is figuring out how to keep families in the urban core vital? Absolutely. Should Downtown have been renewed as a family spot from the get-go? Somehow I don't see how that would have worked out.
Jeremy R on November 28, 2007, at 07:35PM – #1
this is one of the rare moments he has said something REMOTELY intelligent, however, let me say the following
SOME parts of the urban core should cater to families. Not most parts.
Urban cores should be cleaner, have a better balance between night life and quiet life, have nice grocery stores, parks, and good schools, but lets be honest here, most families still prefer the space, affordability, peacefullness, stability, safety, and privacy of a suburb, and that is where they belong. I dont mind suburbs incorporating smart density, and I dont mind the urban core making a few concessions to be a bit more well rounded, but at the end of the day, 80% of the urban core caters to young couples, high octance business professionals, bohemians, singles, temps, etc. 80% of the suburbs cater to traditional families.
As Joel noted, families offer stability. That's true in general but remember that chicago, NYC, Paris, London, Tokyo are world famous world economies and cultural centers. There is NEVER a shortage of young people who flock from all over the world's bland suburbs to experience the city lifestyle and add to its freshness. After 10 years, many people move on and make room for the enxt crop.
What's wrong with that?
Karin Liljegren on December 05, 2007, at 10:23PM – #2
Absolutely cities should be for families too! How sad to think that most families belong in the suburbs. Before the 1950's families lived in the cities or in rural areas. I personally abhore the suburbs and that is why I moved to downtown LA with my 5 year old son. I was raised in the suburbs and I raised my son in the walkable, friendly Culver City for his first 5 years. But I craved the city and felt the calling to be urban. Granted it is difficult because downtown is defnitiely not family friendly, but, we've been having so much fun and he loves it here.
As for process, I'm a firm believer that with downtown LA, we had to jumpstart this revitalization with the urban singles. I disagree with both the article and with Jeremy R in that cities should be formed for ALL stages of ones life and ALL types of people. The one thing in common with everyone who wants to live downtown is that they love urbanity. This love is something that people either have or they don't.
David Kennedy on December 06, 2007, at 03:51PM – #3
Jeremy, the issue is for policy makers in downtown and greater Los Angeles. Kotkin's point is that family-friendly economies generate higher levels of economic growth. The question for policymakers are simple -- how do we maximize economic growth? Do we settle for middling economic growth or maximum economic growth? Hmm, decisions, decisions. That's a hard one. (Jeremy, this is called Darwinian selection.)
Mr. Kotkin comes in for a lot of derision around here. I suspect as much because of his haughty manner and not just his opinions. However, his theories are driven by economic data and demography. As he noted a day earlier in the WSJ (http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110010895), suburbans are still beating urban areas hands down in so many indicators of quality of life. They've been doing this for decades and the trends shows no signs of abating. His dismissive attitude towards urban renewal is due to the paltry economic returns they generate compared to suburban mileaus. He is not arguing which places are more cool. Obviously, downtown L.A. is way more interesting than Irvine. But, which place attracts those go-getter families and their dollars?
I also think Jeremy's position is based upon the notion that downtown's coolness is only attainable by catering to the non-family set. I believe this is incorrect. I think the downtown is a wonderful place for young families to start. Just like Karen, I believe the appeal of urbanity applies just as much to families as it does to singles. But, the harsh truth is that unless urban areas can compete with suburbs on key quality of life indicators like affordable homes, good schools, nice parks and public safety, ambitious people like me will take our dynamism and dollars elsewhere.
Will downtown's policymakers clue in and step up? Time will tell. Then again, how many of them live downtown with their kids?
Whitman Lam on December 06, 2007, at 11:43PM – #4
Improve schools with charter programs, active parent involvement. Build more parks with developer fees. Make the streets safe again with a community watch. Schools, parks, and public safety aren't the biggest worries. It's AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
Affordable Housing is.... by far the biggest obstacle to populating the central city.
It's not just rent control, or inclusive zoning. We need to produce, in much greater volume, the supply of affordable housing to sustain our workforce.
How can we compete against places like Houston, Atlanta, Memphis, places that build out at a 1,000+ acre - a - week clip ? City Hall is barely helping anyone. Require the developers to Build One affordable unit... for every Twenty $ 800,000 lofts ?? Not only is this insufficient, it is driving developers away from the area. Families are being priced out of the neighborhood, Downtown is fast becoming that fortress of opulence that San Francisco and Manhattan have already realized.
The solution for a more livable downtown is Affordable Housing.
David Kennedy on December 07, 2007, at 10:04AM – #5
Whitman, it is interesting you focus on affordable housing. The issue is really larger than downtown. Fundamentally, the problem lies with the difficulty in constructing new housing in the city and, arguably, the state of California. Here is an instructive article in The Atlantic from last summer. The core problem is that in Los Angeles and California policymakers have made it very difficult to build housing. Thus, supply is limited and yet demand is high. Of course, the price of housing goes up.
The author of the article is from Los Angeles and moved to Dallas. She found there is a remarkable difference in the price of housing between the two markets. Moreover, this difference is rooted in the ease of building new housing. This, of course, is driven by decisions of policymakers.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200711/housing
Should housing be affordable or unaffordable? Hmm, decisions, decisions. Again, that's a hard one. The question really becomes are policymakers paying attention and civic leaders showing leadership?