[notauser]

Yes, but fewer people are having children, which reduces the demand for suburban living.

The suburbs also have less attraction for me as a parent. In the old days you could let your kids roam a suburb freely - now you can't. So why not live in a city? You have the same restrictions, but also a lot more distractions such as free museums.

[chrissnell]

My kids roam freely every day in our suburb. They are 6 and 3 years old. Suburbs like mine are awesome: most residential streets here have no outlets and don't have a lot of car traffic as a result. My boys have friends up and down the block and we know everybody in every house on the street. It's a fantastic way for kids to grow up.

[TylerE]

Statistically, it is much safer to let your kids roam today than it was 30 years ago. Violent crimes are down quite a lot across the board.

[clavalle]

Why can't you let your kids roam in a suburb?

[village-idiot]

There’s an increasing social pressure since the 1980s to supervise children at all times because of “stranger danger”. Parents have had the cops called on them for letting their kids play in the yard.

Nothing structural has changed about letting kids roam, but the social side has.

[Steltek]

I suppose my kids could technically "roam" but they won't have anywhere to go that's interesting. Most kids can't even walk or bike to school in the suburbs.

[brightball]

Interesting is also very different for a kid. Kids get interested in bugs, the woods, forts, climbing on trees.

[vkou]

In the suburbs I've lived in, there are no forts, woods, or trees that you can climb, without being told off by whomever owns the property the tree is on.

[clavalle]

Ahh. I'm lucky enough that my kids have some trails, two parks, a lake, a water park etc. within walking/biking distance to roam to. Not to mention friends' yards. And roam they do.

[SauciestGNU]

Busybodies who call the cops when they see children without a nearby supervising adult?