4 ms·

I would not call it creative these days, because I don’t find those hipster beards, soul-crushingly loud factory-feeling restaurants and bars, and new shinny un

I would not call it creative these days, because I don’t find those hipster beards, soul-crushingly loud factory-feeling restaurants and bars, and new shinny unaffordable residential developments designed by anti-natalists (hence no space for families) creative at all. It should be purple on the map if the data is more recent.

eropple 7y ago
"Anti-natalists"? That's a real weird flex. Surely it isn't that areas that aim to bring in the young and the creative are taking into account that kids cost money nobody's got.
- agent008t 7y ago
  The issue is not the money, it's the 'stuff'. If they built decent residential areas where families could live, family homes would be more affordable. If they built more daycare facilities, daycare would be more affordable. Etc. etc. In London in particular, it is hard, if not impossible, to find a consistently decent area that would appear safe to bring up kids in within cycling commute of the City. There does not seem to be any objective reason for that, so it seems to be a policy decision.
  - eropple 7y ago
    If they built decent residential areas where families could live, DINKs and other childless folks would move there first. Families are and are permanently expensive in post-industrial society to the point where they're nearly a luxury if you want to also live in an urban (read: trendy, young, creative) area because space, and therefore anything that depends on space, is at a premium. Make no mistake: this sucks. But it isn't "anti-natalism". It's om-nom-nom capitalism. The fix is deeper than whether or not planners like families with kids or not: it's a rethinking of how we allocate resources. And that's a hard conversation to have.
    - llamathrowaway 7y ago
      > If they built decent residential areas where families could live, DINKs and other childless folks would move there first I am not sure. If I want to live without a child, I would probably not spend money on a second bedroom. I would prefer the space below my building to be a gym rather than a daycare. I will care more about good bars than good schools and parks. > Families are and are permanently expensive in post-industrial society There is also a chicken and egg problem: the fact that new developments target childless people is one of the reasons raising a child is expensive. It might actually be one of the biggest reason in London considering how much people are spending on housing.
      - eropple 7y ago
        > I am not sure. If I want to live without a child, I would probably not spend money on a second bedroom. I would. I've rented 2BRs my entire adult life. I needed an office--that room's for work (even if that work is my side projects or whatever), the rest of the house is for living. We bought a 3BR and collapsed a wall to make it a 2BR. One bedroom and one (very large) office. > There is also a chicken and egg problem: the fact that new developments target childless people is one of the reasons raising a child is expensive. New developments mostly target people with disposable income. That rules out most families. I am, to be clear, in favor of subsidies and policies to encourage urban families; I think having kids in neighborhoods is a good thing for the neighborhood as a whole. But you're ascribing intent where none seems to exist.

eropple 7y ago

"Anti-natalists"? That's a real weird flex. Surely it isn't that areas that aim to bring in the young and the creative are taking into account that kids cost money nobody's got.

agent008t 7y ago
The issue is not the money, it's the 'stuff'. If they built decent residential areas where families could live, family homes would be more affordable. If they built more daycare facilities, daycare would be more affordable. Etc. etc. In London in particular, it is hard, if not impossible, to find a consistently decent area that would appear safe to bring up kids in within cycling commute of the City. There does not seem to be any objective reason for that, so it seems to be a policy decision.
- eropple 7y ago
  If they built decent residential areas where families could live, DINKs and other childless folks would move there first. Families are and are permanently expensive in post-industrial society to the point where they're nearly a luxury if you want to also live in an urban (read: trendy, young, creative) area because space, and therefore anything that depends on space, is at a premium. Make no mistake: this sucks. But it isn't "anti-natalism". It's om-nom-nom capitalism. The fix is deeper than whether or not planners like families with kids or not: it's a rethinking of how we allocate resources. And that's a hard conversation to have.
  - llamathrowaway 7y ago
    > If they built decent residential areas where families could live, DINKs and other childless folks would move there first I am not sure. If I want to live without a child, I would probably not spend money on a second bedroom. I would prefer the space below my building to be a gym rather than a daycare. I will care more about good bars than good schools and parks. > Families are and are permanently expensive in post-industrial society There is also a chicken and egg problem: the fact that new developments target childless people is one of the reasons raising a child is expensive. It might actually be one of the biggest reason in London considering how much people are spending on housing.
    - eropple 7y ago
      > I am not sure. If I want to live without a child, I would probably not spend money on a second bedroom. I would. I've rented 2BRs my entire adult life. I needed an office--that room's for work (even if that work is my side projects or whatever), the rest of the house is for living. We bought a 3BR and collapsed a wall to make it a 2BR. One bedroom and one (very large) office. > There is also a chicken and egg problem: the fact that new developments target childless people is one of the reasons raising a child is expensive. New developments mostly target people with disposable income. That rules out most families. I am, to be clear, in favor of subsidies and policies to encourage urban families; I think having kids in neighborhoods is a good thing for the neighborhood as a whole. But you're ascribing intent where none seems to exist.