[silencio]

I am raising a 2.5 year old in SF and my experience is very similar to yours. We're looking at moving out to the East Bay soon to be closer to my parents, but SF - outside of housing - is not a bad place to be raising a child.

So I have to tell my kid to ignore a syringe on the ground at a muni stop once in a while - like dangers don't also exist in suburban and rural areas - but poop barely phases us... it's like some of these folx have never woken up to their kid having taken a diaper off and smearing poop all over the crib

[pmart123]

Exposure isn’t a bad thing. Eventually, kids have to learn. Growing up first in the city and then in the adjacent suburb, I would say kids who grew up solely in the city were much more mature by the time they were 18. Many kids who grew up in the suburbs were “looking for the thrill” versus being cognizant of reality. Too often in the US, parents seems to try and shelter kids form near-term dangers at all costs versus giving them exposure to situations, and letting them learn from it and grow.

[bad_user]

Children have to be children. Yes, you have to make them responsible, to have chores, to start treating them like adults early.

But the necessity for exposure to "near-term dangers" is a very American thing to say and I believe that it is wrong.

Yes, children growing up in big cities are more mature. And cynical. And depressed.

The irony of the situation is that big cities are so dangerous nowadays that parents no longer allow their children to play outside unsupervised or to go anywhere by themselves until adolescence.

I grew up in a small city in the eighties and nineties (not in the US) and was walking home or to school, by myself, since I was 7 years old. The mentality back then for raising children was basically "make sure they do their homework and feed them once in a while". I now live in a big city and I couldn't do that with my son, because the environment is not the same. We live in a big city, but I still have to drive him everywhere, even though he's 9 years old.

[bildung]

I think you two are not talking about the exact same thing. In my understanding GP isn't at all opposed at kids being kids. Their point sounded more like being about autonomy.

Due to the mobility restrictions of the suburbs (everything can only reached by car) you as a parent are automatically managing more of the time of your kids: Picking them up at school, driving them to organized event 1 or 2 (sports for example) etc.

In the city it's easier for kids to do those things themselves: My kids went to school by themselves after a few weeks in first grade (school is only a few hundred meters away from home, though). This has a bunch of other consequences: They can autonomously meet peers earlier, so they have more free and unstructured time together etc. All in all less parental involvement, and the kids have to (and want to!) organize more by themselves.

[jacobolus]

Anecdotally the people I know who grew up in cities have less psychiatric problems then people I knew who grew up in suburbs. They also don’t seem more cynical, just more competent.

Do you have any evidence? Or just a personal hunch?

> big cities are so dangerous nowadays

Big cities nowadays are dramatically safer than they were a few decades ago.

> parents no longer allow their children to play outside unsupervised

This is due to the parents’ paranoid fears, not the inherent danger involved.

[bad_user]

> but SF - outside of housing - is not a bad place to be raising a child

You can't discount housing, because it's what gets you to live in a really small space, possibly in a dangerous neighborhood and with so much street noise that you can't sleep with your window open.

So yes, if you can't afford a nice place with plenty of room in a nice neighborhood, then SF is a terrible place to be raising a child.