Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you're referring to an urban core with apartment buildings and condos, most teenagers don't drive, and if even they do they could get around easily without a car. The difference in one is car = mobility, the other car = convenience and usually some time savings.
This really only applies to Manhattan (and maybe San Fran). Cars are still ubiquitous among residents in the most dense portions of DC, Chicago, LA, Baltimore, Philly, Seattle, etc.
This really only applies to Manhattan (and maybe San Fran). Cars are still ubiquitous among residents in the most dense portions of DC, Chicago, LA, Baltimore, Philly, Seattle, etc.
Either way, in any of those cities listed, a teenager could not drive without much inconvenience. In some of the cities you listed, the dense portions have much lower rate of car ownership compared to further out. For New York City outside of Manhattan (can't say about others) those I knew who grew up there didn't drive as teenagers. One took driver's ed (when she was 20?) in Manhattan.
Either way, in any of those cities listed, a teenager could not drive without much inconvenience. In some of the cities you listed, the dense portions have much lower rate of car ownership compared to further out. For New York City outside of Manhattan (can't say about others) those I knew who grew up there didn't drive as teenagers. One took driver's ed (when she was 20?) in Manhattan.
Only three cities in the US have more than one-third of residents without cars. NYC, Newark and Jersey City. Even the dense portions of other major cities, car ownership is the norm, not the exception.
Last edited by Wilton2ParkAve; 02-21-2013 at 11:50 AM..
Only three cities in the US have more than one-third of residents without cars. Manhattan, Newark and Jersey City. Even the dense portions of other major cities, car ownership is the norm, not the exception.
DC, Philadelphia and Boston are above one-third. Manhattan is not a separate city; the majority of NYC households as a whole don't own a car, not just Manhattan, but Brooklyn and The Bronx car-owning households are in the minority. Queens is around one-third of households without a car, and Staten Island 20%. The numbers are per households, so many of the households with a car may only have one. Either way, teenage car use / ownership may be much lower, but numbers are hard to come by.
DC, Philadelphia and Boston are above one-third. Manhattan is not a separate city; the majority of NYC households as a whole don't own a car, not just Manhattan, but Brooklyn and The Bronx car-owning households are in the minority. Queens is around one-third of households without a car, and Staten Island 20%. The numbers are per households, so many of the households with a car may only have one. Either way, teenage car use / ownership may be much lower, but numbers are hard to come by.
DC, Philly and Boston are below one third per the 2010 census. My comment on Manhattan should read NYC. Thanks.
This argument for large yards in the suburbs is interesting. I suppose for a short period from the ages of 6-10, a larger yard may be a bit of a benefit. But our smaller yards here tend to be fine, especially with 5 park/playgrounds within a 15 minute walk. As the kids reach their teen years, the yard is hardly used, and proximity/walk-ability to friends homes and amenities becomes more important. The freedom and independence these young teens experience at a young age is an invaluable experience.
Oh and regarding cars - i would say more than 50% of resident here have a car, they just use them far less frequently. It's also much easier to tell your kids they can't drive even if they want to when they can walk to so much.
While I applaud the OP for having an insightful post, I think the way the title is worded is wrong.
As someone else stated, kids are adaptable, and for the most part, they will become accustomed to current locale as being "normal." This is doubly the case if they don't go to school with many kids who live in an appreciably different physical setting, and it's highly unlikely that "suburban" and "urban" kids will end up at the same school. So, for example, if almost none of their friends drive, and they all take mass transit, they won't clamor to drive either with the same fervor as a suburban kid when they hit 16. Or, to show a silly example, my daughter was initially scared to walk in fields when we took her on a trip to Vermont, because there were no sidewalks, and grownups tell you not to walk on the grass.
The better question isn't "what's best for your kids," because as long as you don't actually locate in a ghetto (urban or suburban), they'll likely be fine. The question should be what do you want? I think it's okay to be somewhat selfish in terms of this, because, as I stated above, children will think of their neighborhood as being absolutely typical, whereas adults have distinctive preferences in terms of where they want to live. Maybe they'll rebel as teenagers and want to move to the suburbs when they grow up in response, but that's their problem, not yours.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
