Why walkable places are good for children

Are walkable places bad for children and families? Joel Kotkin wrote a book based on this thesis, and the argument recently was made on The Federalist website. Professor Michael Lewyn then debunked this theory in a Planetizen post. Planners and urbanists will likely encounter the issue in land-use meetings and should be familiar with the arguments on both sides.

The Federalist makes the pro-family case for sprawl: “It’s frankly absurd that conservatives—who are pro-family—would entertain the idea of cramming kids into tiny apartments with no yards. How exactly are parents supposed to raise multiple children in a 600-square-foot box? Where are kids supposed to play? On a rooftop patio shared with strangers?”

This argument may be cartoonish, yet it could resonate because young adults tend to move to the suburbs when they start having children. Lewyn, Director of the Institute on Land Use and Sustainable Development at Touro Law Center in Central Islip, New York, calls out the false dichotomy of Federalist authors Jonathan and Paige Bronitsky. “Either you live in conventional suburbia, or you live in ‘tiny apartments.’ Obviously, there are plenty of walkable urban (or almost-urban) places that aren’t 600-square-foot boxes,” Lewyn says.

Lewyn offers a counterexample to the idea that urban places mean few children: Boro Park, a neighborhood in Brooklyn with 60,000 people per square mile that is home to many Orthodox Jews—is denser than almost any neighborhood in America. “And yet Boro Park has the New York City's highest birth rate, and in the neighborhood's major zip code (11219) 33 percent of residents are under 16,” Lewyn explains. “By contrast, in the zip code where I grew up (30327 in Atlanta), which is dominated by houses on two-acre lots, only 20 percent of residents are under 18. And in suburban Suffolk County, New York, where I work, only 17 percent are under 18. Even though Boro Park is hardly typical, it does appear that some urban neighborhoods are capable of generating high birth rates.”

Demographics are the most effective argument that sprawl is pro-children. While the Baby Boom, which ended in the mid-1960s, coincided with suburban growth for 20 years after World War II, declining birth rates have accompanied suburbanization for the last 60 years. As Lewyn writes:

“In 1960, the U.S. had 23 births per 1000 people.  Over the next two decades, central cities declined rapidly and so did birth rates — to 15 per 1000 in 1980. Since then, birth rates have continued to decline at a slower pace, to their current level of 12 per 1000. In other words, birth rates have plummeted as suburbia has grown.” (The emphasis is mine).

The Federalist argues that to combat declining birth rates, we should promote more single-family houses. “In other words, the authors seem to believe that if you wipe out alternatives to single-family houses, people will a) start moving into single-family homes and b) start making babies,” Lewyn says.

“But this of course makes no sense. Let us imagine that a city bans everything that is not a single-family house: no more condos, no more apartments. This means that everyone who is not currently living in a single-family house will compete for those houses, thus increasing demand for single-family houses. Thus, single-family houses will become more expensive, and more families will be priced out of those houses. In other words, exclusionary zoning reduces, rather than increases, homeownership.”

If sprawl does not raise birth rates, some dense urban neighborhoods have high birth rates, and generations of fertile American families lived in walkable neighborhoods before World War II, why do young families move to drive-only suburbs? Part of it has to do with an undersupply of walkable neighborhoods. 

The National Association of Realtors conducts a regular survey of consumer preference, finding that 56 percent of Americans prefer houses with small yards where it is easy to walk places, versus 44 percent preferring houses with large yards where you need to drive to places (2023). But the supply of walkable neighborhoods, accounting for less than 10 percent of land in every metro region, is far below that of drive-only sprawl.

Add to that many of walkable neighborhoods have below-average schools. The lack of walkable neighborhoods, especially those with good schools, drives the prices up for young families—who might otherwise prefer a community where their children could walk to school, the playground, or the corner store (see “the popsicle test.”) 

We should build more housing in walkable neighborhoods with decent schools for the sake of children and families for many reasons:

• Children increasingly suffer from chronic diseases, especially those related to obesity. While there are many causes for overweight children, walkable neighborhoods provide mobility choices (walking, cycling), that promote physical activity in everyday life, benefiting people of all ages (including parents and children.)
• Children living on mixed-use blocks (which are generally more urban and walkable) are 1.74 times more likely to have good conduct grades than children living on entirely residential blocks, according to the American Journal of Community Psychology. These better outcomes may be linked to more neighborhood social interaction.
• Walking to school has plummeted over the last three generations. That’s because we stopped building walkable mixed-use neighborhoods with schools. Walking to school is healthy because it provides exercise twice a day and gives children independence. It’s a great way to start and end the school day. If children can walk to school, they can also ride their bikes. Cycling to school reduces the risk of obesity, according to the Journal of Physical Activity and Health. 
• What is the most significant danger to children? Automobiles, by far, according to the CDC. Automobile collisions result in double the fatalities of any other cause for people under 21 years. Living in a walkable neighborhood not only provides mobility choices for those who don’t drive but also reduces the risk of automobile-related deaths because cars tend to move slower in walkable places.
• Sadly, children have become more socially isolated and lonely in recent years. While there are multiple causes, walkable neighborhoods can be part of the solution. Compared with car-dependent areas, people living in walkable areas are 24-47 percent more likely to have a strong sense of community, as reported in Todd Litman’s Planning for Quality of Life. Those who walk, instead of being driven, are twice as likely to have friendly interactions on their trip. Also, residents of walkable neighborhoods have higher levels of social capital. As a parent (of grown children now), I have always wanted my kids to experience a strong sense of community.
• It’s good for children to live in neighborhoods with multiple generations, and a place that helps grandparents may indirectly benefit the kids. Elders who live on blocks with active front-entry features, like stoops, porches, and balconies, are 2.7 times less likely to have poor physical and mental functioning, according to a University of Miami study.

Cities and towns have many housing options. Single-family homes make up the majority of housing in many walkable places. Although the lots tend to be smaller than in conventional suburbs, the compensation is a more accessible neighborhood, with play spaces that can be reached on foot or bicycle. Missing middle housing like cottage courts, duplexes, and townhouses are suitable options for families. 

Given our current built environment, parents may find that a drive-only suburb is the only practical and/or economically preferred option. But when walkable neighborhoods are available and affordable, they offer many rewards for families. With a massive oversupply of conventional, single-family housing, it won’t help families to build more of the same. Instead, developing housing in walkable neighborhoods gives families with children a time-tested, healthier option.