Captain Plan→it
About
For most of human history, the family — defined by parents, children and extended kin — has stood as the central unit of society. In Europe, Asia, Africa and, later, the Americas and Oceania, people lived, and frequently worked, as family units.
Today, in the high-income world1 and even in some developing countries, we are witnessing a shift to a new social model. Increasingly, family no longer serves as the central organizing feature of society. An unprecedented number of individuals — approaching upwards of 30% in some Asian countries — are choosing to eschew child bearing altogether and, often, marriage as well.
The post-familial phenomena has been most evident in the high income world, notably in Europe, North America and, most particularly, wealthier parts of East Asia. Yet it has bloomed as well in many key emerging countries, including Brazil, Iran and a host of other Islamic countries.
The reasons for this shift are complex, and vary significantly in different countries and cultures. In some countries, particularly in East Asia, the nature of modern competitive capitalism often forces individuals to choose between career advancement and family formation. As a result, these economies are unwittingly setting into motion forces destructive to their future workforce, consumer base and long-term prosperity.
Click through for the rest of the summary and the full pdf report. Very interesting!
In the U.S., U.K., and Australia, years of cumulative public decision making have resulted in the absence of kids from urban public space. Fewer kids walk or cycle to school, play in parks unaccompanied by adults, run errands for their families, and so forth.
The absence of kids from public urban life has become so common, that we are often shocked, concerned, or suspicious if we see them out and about by themselves. This situation impoverishes the lives of more than 20 percent of our population — children between 5 and 19 years of age.
It is a detriment to our society as a whole.
A quick perusal of commercial media underscores the issue. Children’s and young people’s rights are de-politicized by moral imperatives to protect them from danger, or society from kids. In the U.S. and Australia, parents who seek to invest their children with independence, and trust them to negotiate their urban environments may be investigated and penalized for “child neglect.” In the U.K., children have been DNA tested for climbing trees they were not supposed to, based on the assumption that disobeying rules leads to criminal behavior in future.
I heard it recently on a tour of Seattle’s downtown. Do downtowns really need families to be successful neighbourhoods, they asked? What’s wrong with mostly singles and seniors, and lots of ‘em?
Having considered this issue in dozens of downtowns I’ve worked in, I keep coming back to an old saying amongst urbanists: “Kids are the indicator species of a great neighbourhood.”
The truth is that many downtowns are currently not great places to raise families, because they aren’t designed to be. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. A city and building industry gives up on kids downtown, so no one designs and plans for them. No schools. Little daycare. No playgrounds, facilities or basic public environment to make downtown kid or teenager-friendly. Most importantly, no homes built to actually fit a family. Perhaps a couple, but as soon as baby comes, they start planning the move. This perpetuates the myth that families would never want to live downtown.
My good friend Peter Rees, the chief planner for London, England, once proclaimed to a New York audience we were jointly presenting to, that “kids kill downtowns,” referring to the NIMBY that can result when families complain about noise from nightlife and such. Although his point is valid, the success we’ve had in our Vancouver downtown in mixing families, nightlife and urban energy by artful design says otherwise. Is it perfect? Far from it, and there are indeed tensions, but what it is, is urban, vital, and diverse - what downtowns should be.
“Multigenerational Communities or Bust
Sarah Goodyear. August 30, 2012
I’m raising a New Yorker. A city kid through and through. It’s not by accident that this is happening: I grew up in the city myself (Manhattan), and so it has always seemed to me like an obvious place to raise my own child. He was born, 10-plus years ago, in a downtown Manhattan hospital, and came home to the house in Brooklyn where he has lived ever since.
I expected my son to be loyal to his city, the way that I have always been, but sometimes he surprises even me with his hometown pride. Like the time he returned from a trip to a leafy Massachusetts suburb, re-entering his native burg at perhaps its lowest point – the grim streets around Penn Station. On a hot and humid night, he strode past the piles of garbage and the fluorescent fast-food outlets, breathed in the fetid air, and declared, “It’s good to be home. I love New York.”
That’s a little bit extreme, I admit. But the benefits he’s getting from growing up here are undeniable. He is constantly meeting and interacting with all kinds of people from all over the world, and loves to guess which languages he is overhearing on the street or subway. When he walks down the street, the shopkeepers know his name. He plays with kids on the block and in pickup games at our local park. He regularly visits some of the world’s best museums, although he probably takes in almost as much art on the streets around him. He has seen first-hand the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich, and that has given him plenty to think about.
Maybe most important, he has learned how to navigate this world on foot, transit, and bike. He has a detailed mental map of our surroundings, something that is much harder for children to acquire if they get chauffeured everywhere. By the time he’s a teenager, the whole city will be his oyster, thanks to the bus and subway.
So to me, at least, it makes all the sense in the world to raise a kid in the city. In the end, of course, it’s a profoundly personal choice, and it’s obviously not the right decision for every family. One thing is clear, though: The city benefits as much from having children as children do from having the city.
A city that is filled with children is a happier, more lively place than one that isn’t. More than that, it’s a place that is clearly headed toward the future, not stagnating in the past. A city that can keep its children engaged and stimulated is building a resource that will pay off big-time in years to come.”
Via: The Atlantic Cities
Photo: Shutterstock
Dear Councillor Holyday,
I am a downtown resident and the mother of a happy one-year-old boy. My friend and neighbour came up with the wonderful idea to write to you with “a little snapshot of family life downtown,” to enlighten you on why and how families love living in downtown Toronto. I’ve decided to send you some actual snapshots! Please find attached photos of our family enjoying Riverdale Farm, Harbourfront and a bike ride through Trinity-Bellwoods park in our neighbourhood on Queen St. W.
As a resident of Trinity-Spadina, we have access to a perfect little playground 5 minutes away at Dovercourt and Argyle Streets, as well as the expansive, vibrant Trinity-Bellwoods park, about 10 minutes away by foot. I ride my son around on my bicycle (we take the residential streets!) and get around by TTC and Autoshare. We do not own a car - by choice. We consider that a perk of downtown life.
There are many ways to raise a happy, healthy family in Toronto. Please don’t denigrate the choices of Toronto citizens by making sweeping, uninformed statements about our downtown, family-friendly neighbourhoods. We love our city and we love our children.Yours truly,Hannah Sung
(sent Friday, July 13 to Councillor Doug Holyday and cc’ed to Councillor Adam Vaughan)
