Sg, Ezra Klein is some guy I don't know, and here he is making a point I enjoy making, and he is making it just about as well as I make it. Because my eloquence is surpassed only by my laziness, I will quote him in full:
A lot of discussions about urbanism run into a sort of odd bias that assumes it somehow unnatural to raise your kids in an urban setting. Child development, we're told, require garages, yards, parking lots, strip malls, and economic homogeneity, just as surely as it requires Baby Einstein videos and Omega 3 fats. I've never been exactly sure why that is: Being 15 in an urban center with a subway sure seems like it would beat being 15 in the suburbs when you have to rely on your parents for rides. Growing up amidst the broad social network that parents often sacrifice when they move to outer-ring communities for better schools and more space seems like it would have some real advantages, particularly in contrast to the social atomization that often afflicts suburban life.
Of course, there are also disadvantages. Crime, for instance. And no families with options will stay in DC so long as the public schools are so awful. But as Ryan Avent says, the unquestioned assumption that suburbs are preferable and cities need to apologize for all that makes them cities is a bit odd. There are advantages and disadvantages to most all living situations, and kids can prosper and develop in a variety of settings. Moving to the suburbs is a choice, not a prerequisite for responsible parenting.
