Did you grow up in and/or are you raising a family in urban multi-family housing?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

I grew up in Manhattan (Washington Heights) in a multi unit building. As a young kid (up until 12 or so) I found myself to be quite board. I grew up on this block: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8347...7i16384!8i8192

We didn't have many options for stuff to do right outside our building, play time was essentially on the stoop.

yeah, manhattan is a total density outlier in the US.

very, VERY, VERY few urban places in the US have densities over 150,000m ppsm like where you grew up in washington heights.

and i would agree that level of extreme density is a different sort of animal when it comes to child-rearing than america's regular old city neighborhood like lincoln square where i live.

in most of the US outside of NYC, an urban city neighborhood is MUCH more likely to fall into the 20,000 - 50,000 ppsm range. a FAR cry from manhattan, to be sure, but also a far cry (an order of magnitude, in fact) from the schaumburgs and the planos of typical american sprawl-burbia, where 2,000 - 5,000 ppsm is the norm.

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

While I certainly agree that surrounding Children with others that are not like them, will pay off later in life, I sort of have an issue with the mindset of "I want my kid to go to school with lower income kids"; I was the "lower income kid" in my high school "went to high school in Westchester County (commuted an hour everyday from Wash Heights) with a bunch of kids from Rye, NY because NYC HS in my area were complete shit.

15 year old me doesn't like the idea of being a life lesson from some upper middle class kid.

i agree that busing poor kids dozen of miles away from their homes to be some wealthy suburb's "token disadvantaged children" is generally a bad idea.

but, i'm not talking about that. i'm talking about a regular old K-8 neighborhood school where everyone lives within a 1/2 mile of school and you have real-deal economic diversity at the neighborhood level where some kids are rich, most are middle class, and some are working class/poor.

no one is anyone else's token anything. it's just a bunch of different kids who come from different economic backgrounds, but who all live in the same neighborhood together and therefore go to school together.

that's the way it should be, IMO. and my wife and i were very intentional in seeking that out because our own childhood schooling experiences were 95%+ upper middle class white.

that kind of neighborhood-level economic diversity is light years harder to find in the burbs because many burbs are specifically designed through exclusionary zoning and other means to maintain a certain economic class of people and to exclude others.

in my city neighborhood, you can have a $2M SFH next to an upper middle class bungalow, next to a middle class 3-flat, next to a working class section 8 apartment building.

generally speaking, america's burbs simply do not allow that kind of housing type diversity all mixed-up and on top of each other like that, and the schools tend to be much more economically monolithic because of that.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by shappy

Until I turned 16, we were always in apartments. All my friends lived in apartments and it felt completely normal. Some of my parent's friends lived in houses and I remember thinking it was nice to live like that but I never felt a lack. When you're young, that societal pressure just isn't there.

I would say to the OP if all your kids' friends live in houses, then they might start to have some questions but otherwise I certainly wouldn't worry about it. I honestly think city living is good for children (of course this depends on the neighbourhood/city).

cool. thanks for your perspective.

exactly the kind of first-hand experience i was looking for.

as for our neighborhood, it's only 15% SFH, so most of my kids' peers live in small-scale multi-family (2-12 units) just like we do.

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

very, VERY, VERY few urban places in the US have densities over 150,000m ppsm like where you grew up in washington heights.

Wait, you must've made a typo out of crazy passion or something, 'cause I don't even get what that figure means.

Manhattan density ~equals 70k/sq mi.

Probably by far the highest anywhere in the US indeed. It even beats Central Paris that lacks skyscrapers.

Also, you guys should finally move on to the metric system someday. Have mercy on yourselves! That would be more convenient and avoid such funny mistakes.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mousquet

Wait, you must've made a typo out of crazy passion or something, 'cause I don't even get what that figure means.

Manhattan density ~equals 70k/sq mi.

manhattan's overall density is ~70,000 ppsm.

but the neighborhood of washinton heights specifically is nearly double that.

and the census tract that "investing in chicago" grew up in is ~190,000 ppsm!

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yeah, manhattan is a total density outlier in the US.

very, VERY, VERY few urban places in the US have densities over 150,000m ppsm like where you grew up in washington heights.

and i would agree that level of extreme density is a different sort of animal when it comes to child-rearing than america's regular old city neighborhood like lincoln square where i live.

in most of the US outside of NYC, an urban city neighborhood is MUCH more likely to fall into the 20,000 - 50,000 ppsm range. a FAR cry from manhattan, to be sure, but also a far cry (an order of magnitude, in fact) from the schaumburgs and the planos of typical american sprawl-burbia, where 2,000 - 5,000 ppsm is the norm.






i agree that busing poor kids dozen of miles away from their homes to be some wealthy suburb's "token disadvantaged children" is generally a bad idea.

but, i'm not talking about that. i'm talking about a regular old K-8 neighborhood school where everyone lives within a 1/2 mile of school and you have real-deal economic diversity at the neighborhood level where some kids are rich, most are middle class, and some are working class/poor.

no one is anyone else's token anything. it's just a bunch of different kids who come from different economic backgrounds, but who all live in the same neighborhood together and therefore go to school together.

that's the way it should be, IMO. and my wife and i were very intentional in seeking that out because our own childhood schooling experiences were 95%+ upper middle class white.

that kind of neighborhood-level economic diversity is light years harder to find in the burbs because many burbs are specifically designed through exclusionary zoning and other means to maintain a certain economic class of people and to exclude others.

in my city neighborhood, you can have a $2M SFH next to an upper middle class bungalow, next to a middle class 3-flat, next to a working class section 8 apartment building.

generally speaking, america's burbs simply do not allow that kind of housing type diversity all mixed-up and on top of each other like that, and the schools tend to be much more economically monolithic because of that.

Completely agree with you - neighborhoods like Lincoln square/North Cemter are the perfect level of density to raise a family in my opinion.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

manhattan's overall density is ~70,000 ppsm.[/B]

If you take out undeveloped areas like Central Park and Randall's Island, the average is closer to 80k ppsm.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

I grew up in Manhattan (Washington Heights) in a multi unit building. As a young kid (up until 12 or so) I found myself to be quite board. I grew up on this block: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8347...7i16384!8i8192

We didn't have many options for stuff to do right outside our building, play time was essentially on the stoop. My parents would take us to Uncle Lou's house in the Country, which we looked forward to, because we could explore in the yard and run around freely...Uncle Lou's "Country House" was on Staten Island, on this block: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6184...7i16384!8i8192
which doesn't look all that different than the 3-flat steely posted in what looks to be Lincoln Square or Ravenswood or somewhere up that way.

IMO, it's not so much the multi family part that is an issue for kids, its the lack of places to run around and be kids.

This is the building where I grew up in Washington DC until age 5 and, as I said, my experience was the same as yours. I simply didn't get outside except with an accompanying adult, usually my grandfather who lived in the same building.


https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lo...4!4d-77.032196

[The North One]

Hot take but I think I definitely prefer Midwest style pre-war urbanism to the stuff on the East Coast.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i agree that busing poor kids dozen of miles away from their homes to be some wealthy suburb's "token disadvantaged children" is generally a bad idea.

but, i'm not talking about that. i'm talking about a regular old K-8 neighborhood school where everyone lives within a 1/2 mile of school and you have real-deal economic diversity at the neighborhood level where some kids are rich, most are middle class, and some are working class/poor.

no one is anyone else's token anything. it's just a bunch of different kids who come from different economic backgrounds, but who all live in the same neighborhood together and therefore go to school together.

that's the way it should be, IMO. and my wife and i were very intentional in seeking that out because our own childhood schooling experiences were 95%+ upper middle class white.

that kind of neighborhood-level economic diversity is light years harder to find in the burbs because many burbs are specifically designed through exclusionary zoning and other means to maintain a certain economic class of people and to exclude others.

in my city neighborhood, you can have a $2M SFH next to an upper middle class bungalow, next to a middle class 3-flat, next to a working class section 8 apartment building.

generally speaking, america's burbs simply do not allow that kind of housing type diversity all mixed-up and on top of each other like that, and the schools tend to be much more economically monolithic because of that.

From my personal experience, it is a bit of a mixed bag - K-8 is one thing, but wait until High School when kids are of the age where they can no longer be controlled by teachers. That economic diversity becomes a liability for many families, hence why they leave the city for burbs, or opt for Private School, or like I did, commute an hour each way for HS to avoid the shitty HS's in Manhattan.

I think we are just fundamentally different, I have no interest in living next to section 8 housing, nor do I want my children going to High School with any significant percentage of section 8 families. Also, I HIGHLY doubt there are many upper middle class families raising in bungalows in Lincoln Square.

[JManc]

^ I live in a middle/ upper middle class area and for my property value's sake, glad the housing type is not very diverse. Bad enough I have a redneck next door neighbor whose dog won't shut the fuck up.

Originally Posted by The North One

Hot take but I think I definitely prefer Midwest style pre-war urbanism to the stuff on the East Coast.

Same here. I would hate to have been a kid growing up in NYC and when I was a kid, NYC was a cesspool. So bad there were tons of programs for kids in NYC to spend their summers upstate. Chicago does hit the sweet spot for urban living and livability.

[samne]

I grew up in a SFH in the inner suburbs and loved it. Minutes from downtown.
Lived in various apartments as an adult.
Started a family in a townhouse.
Moved into a SFH in the inner suburbs with still youngish children and got a dog.

Id say the move to a SFH was great for the kids. Alot more space for them with yard. Less busy streets for biking. Just an overall more sense of security an openess.

If I didnt have kids I dont think Id be as motivated to a move.

[Crawford]

Public schools in NYC, after K-5, are entirely open to anyone in the city, provided they meet the entrance criteria. So there are no such things as "neighborhood schools" anymore. Your kid could attend fantastic public schools or terrible public schools, but it's entirely a function of meeting the entrance requirements.

And even at the K-5 level, parents can rank order their school choices within the regional district, so "neighborhood schools" is something of a misnomer.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by samne

I grew up in a SFH in the inner suburbs and loved it. Minutes from downtown.
Lived in various apartments as an adult.
Started a family in a townhouse.
Moved into a SFH in the inner suburbs with still youngish children and got a dog.

Id say the move to a SFH was great for the kids. Alot more space for them with yard. Less busy streets for biking. Just an overall more sense of security an openess.

If I didnt have kids I dont think Id be as motivated to a move.

Inner ring suburbia (prewar suburbs, streetcar suburbs, dense suburbs, whatever you want to call it) is probably the ideal environment (in the US) to raise a family. You have your typical tree lined streets with small-lot SFHs and backyards, but you're always within walking distance to a major commercial strip and city transit. High density of parks, schools, libraries, hospitals. Easy access to big city urban attractions and amenities like museums, concerts and government services. It's the best of both worlds. Not every suburb is in the exurban fringe with miles of cookie cutter subdivisions. That stuff was mostly built from the 90s onward.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

This is the building where I grew up in Washington DC until age 5 and, as I said, my experience was the same as yours. I simply didn't get outside except with an accompanying adult, usually my grandfather who lived in the same building.

i think what this thread is distilling is that not all urban multi-family housing is the same when it comes to child-rearing. not by a long shot.

a zero lot-line manhattan tenement with no attached outside space (other than the public sidewalk in front of the building) is a very different prospect for a family with young children than a chicago 3-flat with small shared yards/patios.

we don't have a 1/4 acre lot for our kids to play football on, but we do at least have some dedicated outdoor space that we can send the kids out to ("go outside and play for a bit") when my wife and i need a little break.




their favorite spot is the "secret hidden light court" of the neighboring building to our east that can only be accessed from our property by squeezing through a narrow little 12" gap between the two building walls (i can just barely fit through there).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Inner ring suburbia (prewar suburbs, streetcar suburbs, dense suburbs, whatever you want to call it) is probably the ideal environment (in the US) to raise a family. You have your typical tree lined streets with small-lot SFHs and backyards, but you're always within walking distance to a major commercial strip and city transit. High density of parks, schools, libraries, hospitals.

i grew up in narrow lot SFH pre-war suburbia and there is certainly nothing wrong with that environment for raising kids if that's what you like, and many people certainly do, which is why so much of it is so expensive these days.

my wife and i even very seriously contemplated moving to such an environment when we were looking for our "forever home" 3 years ago.

however, the density increase that comes from small-scale multi-family in lieu of exclusively detached SFH is significant.

the neighborhood i grew up in in suburban wilmette is ~6,500 ppsm.

the city neighborhood we live in now is ~25,500 ppsm.

and the increase in levels of functional urbanism & amenities to actually walk to is commensurate with that density increase.

lincon square sure as hell would NEVER be confused with washington heights, but it also ain't exactly wilmette either. it's a creamy middle.

even though i grew up in a walkable pre-war suburban area, i still spent A LOT more time in cars as a child than my kids do.

to me, small-scale multi-family is the real sweet spot between full-blown urban density and SFH-dominated suburbia.

YMMV.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i think what this thread is distilling is that not all urban multi-family housing is the same when it comes to child-rearing. not by a long shot.

a manhattan tenement with zero attached outside space (other than the public sidewalk in front of the building) is a very different prospect for a family with young children than a chicago 3-flat with small shared yards/patios.

we don't have a 1/4 acre lot for our kids to run around on, but we do have dedicated outdoor space that we send the kids out to ("go outside and play for a bit") when my wife and i need a little break.




their favorite spot is the "secret hidden light court" of the neighboring building to our east that can only be accessed from our property by squeezing through a narrow little 12" gap between the two building walls (i can just barely fit through there).

I personally, find nothing wrong with raising children in a duplex-down condo on a leafy Lincoln Square block on a (presumably) standard 25x125 lot (though the pic you posted looks like it may be a 30' lot). That is VASTLY different than how I grew up, and in the NYC universe, would be closer to Hudson or Essex County, NJ in terms of built environment. Which, from a built environment perspective is very ideal.

Originally Posted by The North One

Hot take but I think I definitely prefer Midwest style pre-war urbanism to the stuff on the East Coast.

same here. while architecturally lovely, i often find historic east coast urbanism oppressive.

[Omaharocks]

^ I mostly agree, but I find the greenery/density ratio gets more to my liking the further south you go on the east coast, to where DC rowhome neighborhoods are basically my ideal. But this is also very similar in feel to what you get in much of Chicago, esp Lincoln Park.

^ agreed. i was thinking more northeast—specifically places like Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, etc... places with relentless, unbroken 6+ story street-walls on either side of narrow streets. i like it to an extent but it feels claustrophobic to me after a while. Boston has some of this (e.g. North End, Back Bay) but overall I love the scale and foliage of Boston. and, yeah, DC is an absolute pleasure. you get similar ratios of greenery to density throughout much of the Midwest but generally urban areas in the lower Mid-Atlantic feel a bit more tree-full to me.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by IWant2BeInSTL

^ agreed. i was thinking more northeast—specifically places like Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, etc... places with relentless, unbroken 6+ story street-walls on either side of narrow streets. i like it to an extent but it feels claustrophobic to me after a while. Boston has some of this (e.g. North End, Back Bay) but overall I love the scale and foliage of Boston. and, yeah, DC is an absolute pleasure. you get similar ratios of greenery to density throughout much of the Midwest but generally urban areas in the lower Mid-Atlantic feel a bit more tree-full to me.

Where do you get a lot of that outside of Manhattan and the Bronx?