Urban planning and unintended consequences

From Baby Boomtowns: The U.S. Cities Attracting the Most Families by Joel Kotkin. An interesting observation on policy priorities based on demographics. Talking about cities where there are growing numbers of families versus those that are shrinking.

So why are otherwise thriving areas losing families? One possible explanation may come from cultural and political factors. As Austrian demographer Wolfgang Lutz has pointed out, an increasingly childless society creates “self reinforcing mechanisms” that make childlessness, singleness and one-child families increasingly predominant. In this process, which is further advanced in Japan, much of East Asia and throughout large parts of Europe, civic priorities often favor adult cultural amenities over things like parks and schools that are more important to families. Many areas that are increasingly child-free also often embrace density-oriented land use policies that lead to less affordable housing.

Emphasis added.

Likely this extends into smaller details. For example, Atlanta has a major public policy push going on to expand connected trails across the city, primarily off the back of a significant rails-to-trails conversion. Well and good. It does appear to be attracting young singles in from the suburbs though it also appears to not be financially viable; or at least not yet. The expected increase in taxes intended to fund further development have yet to eventuate.

But at an even more detailed level you have impacts that might not have been anticipated. In our area there is a public infrastructure development advocacy group which has been lobbying to develop connecting trails through established neighborhoods and well preserved nature preserves. This has been resisted locally primarily because of conservation concerns (destruction of habitat and loss of animal and bird wildlife), ecosystem concerns (increased creek erosion) and quality of life issues.

But to Lutz's point, much of the intended connected trail development favors young singles and disadvantages children and the elderly. The connected trails favor running and biking whereas the existing contained trails favor the slower elderly and young families.

So if you are a city doing forward planning perhaps the consideration is

More connected trails - More Single Hipsters and DINKS (dual income no kids)
More contained trails - More families with children

Which is an interesting question. If you are a city do you want the more ephemeral population or the more permanent population? Do you want to entertain adults or do you want to entertain kids. And yes, in some cases (such as connected trails) it is an either/or decision. Your actions speak to your priorities, even if they are unintentional priorities.