[pm90]

I don’t believe its density as much as costs and impact on lifestyle.

Make daycare, child health services and great schools universally available and cheap/free. Make it feasible and safe to get kids around dense cities quickly (excellent transit options). I suspect under these circumstances more people would be open to the idea of children.

As it stands today, having children places an unbearably high social and financial strain on people. Suburbs have been just one solution to the problem but there are others.

[ertian]

This might be affecting the number of children a couple has (probably is, in fact), but I doubt people factor it in to their decision to have a kid or not. I had absolutely no idea what day care or diapers cost before I had a kid. It's hard for me to picture a young couple approaching it that way.

[bluGill]

> As it stands today, having children places an unbearably high social and financial strain on people. Suburbs have been just one solution to the problem but there are others.

Yet Suburbs are the only ones I see that work. If you are thinking about having kids in the US move to the suburbs soon. Cities are not setup for you. Schools in the city are considered bad for a reason. Even if you can afford private schools, the parks are more sculpre gardens instead of swing sets. Everyone talks about the theator scene in the cities, but most of the shows wouldn't interest a child (most are not X rated). Many cities lack cheap places to eat - $40/person isn't too bad for one person, but when you have a few kids with you that price is not affordable often. How many places don't allow kids at all - not many in the suburbs, but somewhat common in the city. In the suburb you just buy a bigger car and everyone gets around - the big car won't fit in the city well, and your other options is paying a lot more on public transit because odds are there isn't a family pass, so the big car is probably cheaper.

The above is US specific (probably Canada too). I know there are a number of people from not US reading this who will tell me how it works in their city. I hope city residents read those replies and make changes before they need them.

[UtopiaPunk]

North American style suburbs are artificially subsidized by cities and not sustainable for society. A series of policy decisions at all levels of government have artificially made the suburban lifestyle cheaper than it otherwise would be, but sooner or later, something has gotta give.

This is a good starting point on the subject, with many sources for more in-depth reading if one chooses: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/7/24/busting-4-comm...

[mensetmanusman]

Find a city that has above replacement levels of fertility, then define whether population sustainability is suitable for society. Thinking deeply about this may change opinions.

[bluGill]

Strongtowns is cooking the math. Suburbs have existed for more than 100 years, and most do not fall for issues they claim.

[medvezhenok]

Suburbs 100 years ago did not have roads to maintain, communal sewers, and other amenities that we expect today. Suburbs 100 years ago were more like the dachas/summer houses people have in Russia - no running water, no electricity, outhouse instead of a plumbed bathroom, no fire/medical services... etc.

Sure, under that model they are definitely sustainable.

[bluGill]

Over the last 100 years those suburbs have added all of your list, plus parks (which were not common 100 years ago), internet, cable tv, phone.

Which just goes road prove they are sustaining themselves.

[medvezhenok]

That doesn't prove anything.

I could buy many things for myself by putting them on my credit card - that doesn't make my spending habits sustainable.

The whole point of strong towns is that the Government financed the projects but not the maintenance, and that the suburbs can't afford the maintenance bills (at least some of them) under the current tax regime.

[unethical_ban]

> the big car won't fit in the city well, and your other options is paying a lot more on public transit because odds are there isn't a family pass, so the big car is probably cheaper.

The TCO for a car is thousands of dollars per year. Granted the US only has three or four cities that come close to facilitating carless society, but in those cities, I doubt public transit costs $5000 a year or more.

[bluGill]

If you are buying a new car every 3 years the $5000year price for a car is reasonable, but cars last for 15 years and so the total lifetime costs average out to less, and if you buy a used car you costs are much less. My cars are down to more like $2000/year now.

$100/month 12 month (2 parents + 3 kids). Of course it depends on where you live, but $100/month per person is a normal price for a monthly pass. If the kids are younger and riding with a parent the price is lower, but kids have places to go (particularity as teens!) without parents (which should be advantage of the city). When you consider the convenience of the car being ready to go when and where you want to go - unlike transit systems - it isn't hard to justify paying more (Read this as a rant about how useless most transit systems are in the US)

[dmm]

> Make daycare, child health services and great schools universally available and cheap/free.

That is probably a good idea but there are places where daycare is free and there's no evidence it makes a difference.

[ElevenLathe]

The childcare is free, but what about the rent?