The Economist has a pretty sharp piece this week on wealthy families staying in American cities rather than fleeing to suburbs. White children in Washington DC up 62% since 2010. Two zip codes in Wicker Park up 39% and 94%. Brooklyn's share of white children now over two-fifths, up from a third in 2010.

The article's framing: "financial flex." Urbanist parenting as conspicuous consumption. The cargo bike, the UPPAbaby, eight children in Logan Square to prove you can afford it.

That framing feels accurate, but I would argue that it stops one layer short.

What the data actually seems to describe is selective access to public infrastructure. These families love public schools the way they love farmers markets, enthusiastically in principle, with strong views about which ones in practice. San Francisco private school enrollment up 47% in the same period. Brooklyn families earning over $200,000 now outnumber families earning under $10,000 nearly two to one.

Working-class and non-white families didn't leave because they stopped valuing city amenities. They left because the city became unlivably expensive and the public goods became more competitive. Those are governance outcomes, not migration patterns.

The article notes that non-white children are shrinking in ungentrified neighborhoods too. So displacement isn't purely neighborhood-level. This is citywide resource architecture.

The real policy question isn't whether wealthy urbanists are good parents. It's whether the infrastructure being marketed as public is functioning as a private amenity for those who can supplement it when it falls short. And who gets to decide the answer to that question.

Available through PressReader via your library system - hopefully, otherwise: archive.ph/Zk9OP