Just a somewhat related anecdote: What shocked me when I moved to NY in the 80's was seeing all the teens hanging around their local junky pizza joint in the boroughs when just for the cost of subway fare, they could be hanging out in a center of the world, Manhattan. What the heck, I thought, as a bored teen being raised in a lower middle class suburban type Midwestern landscape, I would have given my right arm to be able to do that and get away from that Big Boy parking lot! And here they are staying 'in the hood.' (To get 'downtown,' back in those days, we even risked hitchhiking.) I guess I am warning you as a parent in NYC: the driving culture is dangerous, but you can at least control it by taking the keys away. (Also, back in my old home city, they did have a under 16 curfew for a very long time; all the TV stations ran this announcement every night: "it's 11:00pm, do you know where your children are?")

City dwellers are very lucky that they have no traffic accidents. You must be excellent drivers.

Generally people who live in cities are closer to things so they probably drive less, hence they have fewer chances to get into accidents.

The toll that auto accidents takes in the suburbs is frightful. Every year in our child's suburban school parents and siblings would be killed and maimed in car wrecks. There were memorials (tree plantings) all around the school grounds.

Yep same here. Terrifying.

Sometimes I wonder if handing out driver's licenses to teenagers is not like passing around suicide notes.

A tad...personally, I think everything is a trade off. I've seen bad traffic accidents everywhere, and while city dwelling has its wonders, so does suburban living.

During my time in high school I remember 5 people being killed in car crashes and 3 suicides.

One thing that always bothered me was the grief counselors who showed up after each incident,They seemed to make it worse by insisting that people were only healthy if they grieved a certain way, when in reality if you didn't know the deceased it was probably not that big of deal to you. Sometimes I think overreacting to the situation can make it worse.

I wonder if anyone has studies drug usage amongst suburban kids, once you control for income I wonder if it isn't higher in the burbs as the kids generally have a lot more unsupervised time while their parents are on their long commutes.

Drug use is very prevalent in the burbs. Kids have more discretionary income is one reason often cited. But the 'drugs and sex hours' tend to be 3-5...seems kids have it all planned out which house to meet at, which home has the best (unlocked) liquor cabinet and they can get into quite a bit of trouble before the 'bewitching' hour when parents arrive in from work.

The 3-5 hour though is common to both the burbs and urban communities...the truth is most families have two working parents in the burbs and far more single parent homes in the urban areas...either way....lots of predictable unsupervised time to get in loads of trouble.

Smart parents place their kids in planned programmed activities just so they are NOT home during those hours.

Oprah did a show on this and how the boys  had 'rainbow parties'

It was startling to many parents. 

For example, my impression is that suburban kids a deficient in developing the kind of negotiating skills which urban life requires--especially skills for sharing space with persons who are different ethnically, religiously, racially, or economically.

My experience is that suburban kids on the East Coast are not as ethnically segregated as the burbs are pretty diverse, despite the economic class being narrow. The community had asians, indians, jews, blacks, italians, polish and arabs.  On the West Coast there was also considerably ethnic diversity int he suburbs with more hispanics, hmongs, vietnamese, italians, indians and jews.

The Midwest suburbs are not ethnically diverse and was one of the first thing that my son noted. They are much more economically segregated.

I hate to try to put the choice of city vs suburb in safety terms. Partly it's so hard to measure. Who's at risk from crime? Can parents control a kid's amount of driving? Should I count the lifelong health habits of walking that cities may breed or the quality of city schools that have had to downgrade phys ed? Should I count the risk of putting a guy like me, bred in the city, behind the wheel now? But mostly because it's subordinate to the other reasons that people make these life choices. I've my doubts Nathan chose the city over the suburbs or Harlem over an relatively inexpensive area of Queens for safety reasons, and I don't blame him for it one bit. He's entitled. Still, perhaps a trifle silly as a post?

I do hate that cities stand for so many bad things in the national mindset. The GOP has exploited images of welfare queens, for example, whipping up enough hatred so that one forgets which communities and which states benefit from more revenue than they pay in taxes. There's also the natural human tendency to overstate the dangers of, say, planes relative to driving because in the latter one feels responsible for one's own fate. I'm also pleased to press for cities and inner suburbs as models for future communities, because of their far lower ecololgic "footprint" per person. Density and mass transit mean lower heating and cooling costs, as well as less driving. One can argue that cities breed tolerance, too, since you can't demonize those you see every day. For so many reasons, no wonder New York voted strongly against Bush.

But mostly I just feel lucky I did have the experience of growing up in New York. I took mass transit and my own feet to school or to parks. While at first I most definitely hung out in the neighborhood, with whatever kids lived nearby (board games, though, not pizza), eventually the habits of independence got me sooner into ok learning experiences, like finding cheap student tix to theaters. Times change, and risks and opportunities change, however, so I have no intention of judging parents and kids today, unless they vote for Republican policies, of course.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

Baz says:

 

Remember, too, that urbanism is about small towns as well as large cities. One thing being lost is the integrity and livability of small towns which are being swallowed by suburb.

I couldn't agree more.  You're about 200% right.  Maybe 300%.  The best cities are really composed of neighborhoods which are like small towns in themselves.  The central business district of a major city (even a smaller major city like Minneapolis or Providence) is largely irrelevant when it comes to the daily life of residents in the city proper--unless one works there.  The neighborhood commercial district provides all the necessities for daily life, groceries, entertainment, "semi-fast" tasty food--(the cook at the local diner can turn out a lunch or breakfast pretty fast, and what's the hurry anyhow?), sundries, and all that sort of thing.  I live in a fairly small town (26,000) now, because I'm not a driver and the place where I work is here.  We have, get this sidewalks!  How about that?  I can walk to the closest super market (six blocks) in fifteen minutes--less if I'm in a rush.  The medical center is three blocks away.  My  office four miles (on the other side of town with the CBD in the middle, so if I want to stop for a coffee or a bagel on the way I can).  If I'm really feeling lazy, a chauffeur driven, 54 passenger limousine drops by my door once every 45 minutes or so just to see if I need a ride.  If I do, I tip the driver $1.50 and I can get a ride.  :-) 

Chicago, where I went to undergraduate school was like that, too.  I could go downtown for something special:  The Chicago symphony, free concerts in Grant Park, a shopping spree, or a stop at Flo's, where they sold fruit pizza, believe it or not.  But I  didn't have to leave my neighborhood to get a pepperoni pizza, or see a movie. 

Urbanity is more about diversity than size:  Of course, the larger the complex is the more diversity it can support.  But as long as a place allows a person to do everything to sustain life "on foot".  Then I'd call it part of the urban world.  The English have a simple definition of city:  A city has a Cathedral.  The smallest English City, as I recollect, is Wells, at about 10,000 people.  The Largest city in the colonies at the time of the American Revolution was Philadelphia at 25,000.  London was the largest English speaking city, of course....it had about half a million.  Westminster was a separate city altogether.  Westminster was smaller than Philadelphia.  In fact, so was any English-speaking city outside of London itself. 

People are going to rediscover, reshape, and renew small cities like Bridgeport CT or New Bedford, Fall River and Fair haven CT.  Once we remember how to connect all these by high-speed (I mean really high speed rail service, like the French (what those guys?) Germans (yup, them too) and Japanese have, not pokey ol' acela, we'll have a very different, and more civil America, mho.  After all, to be civilized meant to be a city dweller.  And I'd include, given the population of places like Boston, Philadelphia, New York, Baltimore, and Charleston in 1776, that would include what we now call small towns, as well.  Thanks for putting that idea on the table.  I enjoyed the post.  

Mike

"Actually, we chose Harlem for cost and transit access." I admire you for it and for your "love of living in the city," too. Cheers! 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

No disagreement here.  The suburbs have become more diverse since the Supreme Court Declared Restrictive Covenants Unenforceable back in 1948, and Civil Rights Legislation and Civil Rights Litigation curtailed the mortgage banking industry's and real estate industry's practice of redlining.  But the practice still exists:  the courts have had to intervene to change banking behavior even in the 21st century. But as you say, economic segregation is much greater in suburbs.  This has been the case since the first suburb, Llewellyn Park, was created in the 19th century.  The biggest factor however, mho, was the rise of the practice of zoning in the first decade of the 20th century.  Two things happened, each of which made suburbs less diverse and, again mho, less interesting places.  The first was zoning by use, and the second was establishing minimum lot sizes.  The former created suburbs with large swaths of single occupancy dwellings and a restricted number of civic or cultural amenities (churches, schools, structures housing fire and safety agencies, etc.).  The latter set a floor price for build-able lots, excluding persons who didn't measure up to the economic image the suburb wished to create.

There's one other factor which probably could be discussed.  The less dense an area is the less people one encounters in the course of daily living.  Kids' mobility is more limited than adults.  I wonder how many people Nathan's kids encounter just walking from their residence the "couple of blocks" to the Express train stop.  Layer that distance over a map of the kind of suburb about which I'm writing and speculate about the difference.  There's something to be said for peace and quiet, of course.  Like Nathan, I don't want to denigrate suburban living...well not entirely.  (insert grin here).  At the same time, if the peak oil people are anywhere near right, maybe if they're only 50% right, we're going to have to rethink urban sprawl and devote energy and imagination to recreate livable cities. 

Mike

Well, when I was twelve I roamed the city all day long with my friends and no one thought anything of it. Heck, we roamed Chinatown and went to the movies by ourselves when we were eight and nine. Perhaps Whiterose Buddy is being ironic.

e: Were there sidewalks?

Yes, in my neighborhood (some other subdivisions in the town did not have them). However we kids spent plenty of time playing various ball games in the street, and of course bicycles rode there. The drivers in the subdivision pretty much knew they did not have the streets to themselves. (These were residential streets, not busy thoroughfares). Also, there were a lot more kids in those days and in the daytime in summer we pretty much ruled the streets.

Re: Was there public transportation to "downtown"?

Define downtown in this context. There were buses to my hometown's "downtown" district, though it wasn't much of a main destination; it served mainly as a nightlife venue for the university students (who lived within walking distance.) The buses also went out to the neighboring city (Ann Arbor) and its large shopping mall. As far as Detroit goes, no, there was no public transportation to there-- but rather few people went there as even in my childhood the city has ceased to be draw for anything besides the occasional sports game.

Are you far from State College? (Here we think that good schools in central PA means State College.) Be careful about those bears when you bike!

Re: Ann Arbor is considered a neighbor of Detroit now? I'm feeling really old.

Downtown Ann Arbor is just 30 miles from downtown Detroit. And though there used to be some rural land separating them, I believe it is now solid suburbia between the two.

Re: I take it that the RenCen didn't revive the central area as people hoped.

Nope. More recently attempts have been made to revive Detroit with new stadiums for the Tigers and Lions, casinos, and a nightlife district. But last time I was down there (2002) large portiosn o fthe city still look like the set for a Mad Max movie.

I find this just a bit too much. Yes, suburbs are segregated both financially and ethnically. But so are city neighborhoods and city neighborhoods are restricted to use also. How many rich city kids go to school with poor kids? Do suburban kids meet fewer people during the day? I don't know, I see kids walking, running, playing, calling at each other's houses all the time, they may be deprived of the joys of the great patchwork quilt of urban diversity, but they all seem to be as nice as city kids. Are some suburbs nothing more than sleeping arrangements on a 1/4 acre? Of course, but then so are many city apartment buildings where people come in at night to their 800 sq. ft., shut their doors and do pretty much what suburban dwellers are doing - getting the rest to do it all over the next day.

We haven't had a murder in our village for over 60 years, but yes every few years kids get killed in car accidents and it's always a great tragedy because there are always three or four kids in one car.

I find this irritating, that suburban dwellers or city dwellers think that life is "better" than their opposite. I see it as an extension of the "mommy wars" with the "stay at homers" vs. the "go to workers" at odds with each other, when what we really should be doing is acknowledging that everything in life is a trade-off, that sometimes we give some things up in order to gain other things, and that what we need to be doing is helping each other attain the lifestyle that is fulfilling to them.

Yep, you're right, except for Penns Valley and Bellefonte, the quality of schools does go down as you get very far from State College.

But remember we are comparing central PA with Oakland California. In 2003 the Oakland School district was discovered to be $65-100 million in the red, was bailed out with a state loan, and was therefore placed under state trusteeship. The teachers were forced to accept a 4% pay cut, and lots of other reductions in benefits and quality of work-life. The morale of the district -- teachers, parents, etc. -- is very low; teachers union is possibly preparing to strike; elected school board has been reduced to an advisory body. I don't know that much about outlying local districts here such as Tyrone, which I've heard is not very good, but in comparison to Oakland, where the library, music, art and phys ed programs, if they existed at all, were funded by the PTAs?

We moved here mostly for other reasons besides the schools, but the schools were part of it. NOT for safety, just to bring this post back to the topic.

We live in Lemont. What about you?

I do like the idea of a new urbanism. Living in DC proper for 17 years or so, there were some places where I could walk to most things, and others where a car was needed, principally to bring things back home. I suspect that one of the prerequisites for a new urbanism will be extensive delivery services.

When I moved to Northern Virginia, it was an odd mix. I had even more ethnic and cultural diversity, but typically a short car ride. Walking two miles in Washington summer, especially with health concerns, is not wise. There were bike trails, but they were oriented to recreation rather than shopping.

I'm now carless in a far suburban/semirural area, and hate it. It's pretty clear, when circumstances permit, that I'll want to move back to a definitely urban area.

This isn't to say that I don't enjoy camping and other wilderness activities -- I just don't want to live there. I say this from the perspective of having mostly telecommuted for close to two decades.

For some rural areas, there is concern about the right to arm bears.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Re: suburbs do not. They are actually just the border areas of the city.

Suburbs are really just part of the city, though due to aaccidents of history they are not politically part and parcel of their metropolis. But it's a mistake to regard them as anything other than cityscape. (This applies only to true suburbs not to the far exurban fringe which really are separate worlds from the core cities.)

My basic point is that regardless of whether they share the schools with them, they share the streets with them.  The apartment building may have a doorman, but that's not quite the same thing a a community with a gate.  In urban areas (remember, I'm defining urban not by size, but by a level of public amenities within walking distance)  the spatial distance between social classes is measured in blocks or less:  in suburbs, it is measured in miles or more.  My town has 26,000 people residing in it, more or less. At one end of the social spectrum are mill houses: tenements and triple deckers. At the other, the homes of the mill owners and the lawyers, doctors and other learned elites which associated with and worked for them. The distance, quite literally, between the manse and the cottage is less than 500 yards. The Main Street is common ground, shared by all.

I'm not arguing that suburban life is without advantages.  I'm arguing that economic segregation at the suburban scale has some serious consequences to the social fabric.  It is easier to dismiss persons who are abstractions and stereotypes.  The importance of books like Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed or David Shipler's The Working Poor lies in the fact these books help to make social neighbors of geographic strangers: if we lived among them we'd need to be reminded of their existence less often.  I think this is one of the reasons progressive political movements have a historical association with cities--why Jane Addams' first great step was to move into Hull House, becoming a neighbor in the most literal sense of the world.  From that position she was able to speak with authority about a host of things, including the predations of child labor practices.  She knew first, because of her geographic intimacy, and then did on the basis of her knowledge. 

Mike