41–50 of 105 posts
Regurgitated content from more than half a decade ago. Here is the direct link with all you need to know: https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/sets/721576242091586... (Click "show more" for the description with is more verbose and honest than the aggregator spam submission).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Anti-natalists"? That's a real weird flex. Surely it isn't that areas that aim to bring in the young and the creative are taking into account that kids cost money nobody's got .
The issue is not the money, it's the 'stuff'. If they built decent residential areas where families could live, family homes would be more affordable. If they built more daycare facilities, daycare would be more affordable. Etc. etc. In London in particular, it is hard, if not impossible, to find a consistently decent area that would appear safe to bring up kids in within cycling commute of the City. There does not s…
Make no mistake: this sucks. But it isn't "anti-natalism". It's om-nom-nom capitalism. The fix is deeper than whether or not planners like families with kids or not: it's a rethinking of how we allocate resources. And that's a hard conversation to have.
Living in semi-touristic district, it’s funny to see how locals views differ from tourists. We have a special term for it: local resident syndrome. It’s when someone asks you if there is something interesting to look at here, but you don’t know, despite living here since forever. Well, I can show you where that expensive nightclub is on the map, does it count? I also see people making selfies with decorative street e…
Philadelphia Tourist: The Rocky steps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I grew up in an area that had a lot of tourism (Stratford, ON). I always thought it was strange that people would travel so far to visit. Now when I go home I see the city through new eyes and it really is a charming place. It feels like it would be a really nice place to live. When I did live there, I couldn't wait to leave.
I would assume one's age has a lot to do with this. As a younger person, the history of things is just not very high up on the list of things interested in. Especially if the community is perceived as "small town", where all the kids can't wait to leave. However, as one gets older, the history of something becomes much more appreciable. People then realize the "small town" is where they'd rather raise kids, and the c…
I still have almost no interest in history, but after living in a bunch of different places I appreciate how Stratford is very clean and well maintained, has no visible homelessness, it is pedestrian and bicycle friendly, and has lots of interesting shops and restaurants. The people that live and work there are shockingly friendly, even by Canadian standards. When I lived there I had nothing to compare it to. I had to leave to find out how nice it really is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is not the money, it's the 'stuff'. If they built decent residential areas where families could live, family homes would be more affordable. If they built more daycare facilities, daycare would be more affordable. Etc. etc. In London in particular, it is hard, if not impossible, to find a consistently decent area that would appear safe to bring up kids in within cycling commute of the City. There does not s…
If they built decent residential areas where families could live, DINKs and other childless folks would move there first. Families are and are permanently expensive in post-industrial society to the point where they're nearly a luxury if you want to also live in an urban (read: trendy, young, creative ) area because space, and therefore anything that depends on space, is at a premium. Make no mistake: this sucks. But…
I am not sure. If I want to live without a child, I would probably not spend money on a second bedroom. I would prefer the space below my building to be a gym rather than a daycare. I will care more about good bars than good schools and parks.
> Families are and are permanently expensive in post-industrial society
There is also a chicken and egg problem: the fact that new developments target childless people is one of the reasons raising a child is expensive. It might actually be one of the biggest reason in London considering how much people are spending on housing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they built decent residential areas where families could live, DINKs and other childless folks would move there first. Families are and are permanently expensive in post-industrial society to the point where they're nearly a luxury if you want to also live in an urban (read: trendy, young, creative ) area because space, and therefore anything that depends on space, is at a premium. Make no mistake: this sucks. But…
> If they built decent residential areas where families could live, DINKs and other childless folks would move there first I am not sure. If I want to live without a child, I would probably not spend money on a second bedroom. I would prefer the space below my building to be a gym rather than a daycare. I will care more about good bars than good schools and parks. > Families are and are permanently expensive in post-…
I would. I've rented 2BRs my entire adult life. I needed an office--that room's for work (even if that work is my side projects or whatever), the rest of the house is for living. We bought a 3BR and collapsed a wall to make it a 2BR. One bedroom and one (very large) office.
> There is also a chicken and egg problem: the fact that new developments target childless people is one of the reasons raising a child is expensive.
New developments mostly target people with disposable income. That rules out most families.
I am, to be clear, in favor of subsidies and policies to encourage urban families; I think having kids in neighborhoods is a good thing for the neighborhood as a whole. But you're ascribing intent where none seems to exist.
It says "The red dots indicate photographs taken by tourists, while the blue dots show images taken by local residents" but what is the orange?