You’re the one moving the goal posts. We were not talking about whether the population of families was significant “enough to support a large number of businesses.” I was replying to a post that suggested New York was an example of “a living, breathing, functional and healthy” urban community. By my reckoning, middle class households with kids are underrepresented by a factor of six in Manhattan. That’s is a hugely distorted demographic statistic that suggests New York City is inhospitable to families. Yes, 3% of Manhattan households is like tens of thousands of households. But it’s a small minority. “Almost none” isn’t all that hyperbolic.
Given that 85% of people will have kids at some point, I think that disqualifies New York City from being deemed “functional” and “healthy.” If we are looking for cues as to how to design urban environments, we should be looking at places that serve the needs of normal people. New York City is not one of those places.
I'm responding directly to your claim using your own words. Again you want to change the subject, which is fine.
> I think that disqualifies New York City from being deemed “functional” and “healthy.”
I made no claim for or against that point. I responded to your claim "almost no middle class families" which I believe to be false. Feel free to walk back that hyperbole if it isn't a true representation of your beliefs. If you want to make a point about how functional or healthy NYC is you should do so without making grossly exaggerated claims to support your argument.
I'm normally in line with many of your arguments rayiner, (they're usually well supported by data which I like), but in reading through this particular thread in its entirety, it does appear that you've done a little goal post moving.
Just as a matter of full disclosure, I feel that the absence of middle class families does not make an area any more unhealthy than the absence of, say, poor black families makes an area unhealthy. This is very much just a personal opinion here, but every demographic in a nation does not have to be proportionately represented in a community for that community to be "healthy".
> Just as a matter of full disclosure, I feel that the absence of middle class families does not make an area any more unhealthy than the absence of, say, poor black families makes an area unhealthy. This is very much just a personal opinion here, but every demographic in a nation does not have to be proportionately represented in a community for that community to be "healthy".
I think for a community to be healthy, it must be designed to accommodate a normal person’s life cycle. For 90% of people, that means raising kids, and, eventually, grand kids. Current and future parents aren’t just any random demographic, they’re almost everybody. They’re up there with “people who use the bathroom at work.” A place that isn’t a good place for people to raise kids is literally unsustainable, and that’s not healthy.
The absence of middle class people in New York City, and the tendency of lower income families to leave when their incomes improve, is a strong signal that it’s not a good place for non-wealthy people to raise kids. I don’t think you can call a place that fails to accommodate such a basic life function “healthy.” New York City is literally unsustainable—it would cease to exist if it weren’t for continuous international immigration. Suburbia might be ugly and car dependent, but at least it’s a place where normal people can meet all of their life needs. (Note I’m not advocating for suburbia. I’m criticizing urbanists for failing to offer any solutions that speak to the 90% of people who have or want kids. They’re selling beautiful office buildings without bathrooms.)
Given that 85% of people will have kids at some point, I think that disqualifies New York City from being deemed “functional” and “healthy.” If we are looking for cues as to how to design urban environments, we should be looking at places that serve the needs of normal people. New York City is not one of those places.