I’m not sure who drew up these weird rules of what the ”ideal” place to raise a child is. I’m not saying every city is ideal, but not every suburban or rural place is exactly either. One thing I always hear over and over is safety. Unless someone believes what they here in Hollywood, they’d realize cities like NYC, Boston & Chicago are very safe. Someone doesn’t have to be a cop to know how to read crime indexes rather than newspaper blogs and let in sink. New York City is ranked the 136th safest city with populations of at least 100,000, tied with Boise, Idaho. I hope that’s not ”intimidating.” Brooklyn is tied with Hartford, CT, a college town. You could see the links and sources provide on Wikipedia.
You may not own real estate (you may rent) or own an apartment with little property (therefore, low property taxes). You’d be able to afford private school (if that’s your preference). You wouldn’t need to own a car (helping save on not paying car insurance, car loans, wear and tear, gas, ect.). If you were from a suburb in Northern Jersey, if you opt’ed for the city instead you wouldn’t have to pay ridiculous property taxes. You’d have a cheap commute to work. Even if people have less children because of expense, there’d be so many children living in such a close proximity that they’d meet other kid’s as opposed to setting up ”play dates” on a cul-de-sac.
There’s pros and cons to everything. Besides space though (if that’s what someone desires – although it’d be more costly), everything seems to be leaning into the favor of the city. They’d be able to get around as a teenager without you having to chauffeur around everywhere. Wouldn’t it be more ideal to be able to see lots of different cultures first hand? Now just people from all over the world, but all over your country too. 85 percent of people don’t look the same. Not everyone comes from the same background.