I think there’s something to the notion that one of the great advantages of a strong city core is that it attracts young people as they are just getting started with their careers. That then makes it more likely that they end up staying in that region as they start to raise families, whether it’s in the city itself or the suburbs.

I’ve observed a lot more young affluent couples start to raise families in my hometown of Chicago as compared to a decade ago. That being said, the underlying detriment for young families in a number of large cities is the quality of public education. While Chicago, for example, has some fine public magnet schools along with an array of top notch private schools, it doesn’t take much to see that the average public school in the city is far behind in terms of resources as compared to the average suburban public school. That’s the number one reason as to why my wife and I decided to move from the city to the suburbs when we wanted to purchase a house to put down roots. The quality of education for our future children is of paramount importance to us, as I would think would be the case with other knowledge workers or members of the creative class.

While those with large financial resources can be satisfied with the educational component in the city since they can afford the tuition for the top private schools, most people have to perform a cost/benefit analysis on how much a city lifesyle is worth versus what is the best possible educational environment is for their children. Attracting knowledge workers when they are fresh out of college with diverse and lively neighborhoods is one matter, but being able to retain those knowledge workers as they start to raise families is going to largely depend upon how well large cities improve their public education systems.

My experience in DC’s Capitol Hill over the past two years is that there are new babies everywhere. (in fact there seem to be babies all over this city).

We have had one of our own, two members of my dog park crew have also had kiddies in the last couple of months and the playgrounds seem to be more full each time i pass it. We are still a few years from the decision point, but we are already working hard to figure out how to make it work — that is staying in the city as our baby grows and needs to be educated. My wife has denied my request to homeskool our boy!

I’m certainly not knocking city life, or raising kids in Manhattan; I think it’s great. I wish normal middle class people could afford to do it, though.

My point, delivered somewhat sarcastically, is that when these parents slap themselves on the back for raising kids in such a diverse setting, it’s nonsense; there’s more diversity in my central Houston neighborhood than where most of these folks live.

And, given that a house in this diverse, thriving, gay friendly, artist friendly neighborhood costs about what a parking space in Manhattan will run you, I wonder if there’s a point at which the trends you identify that increase the real estate prices in places like NY short-circuit and people flee. I’m struck by just how many people I know have left places like Los Angeles and the Bay Area in the last decade, because – creative energy and all – life just got far too challenging.

Does a creative city work if it’s a group of super-affluent creative elites, but economic conditions drive others out?

Vancouver’s politicians and planners have certainly tried and continue to try to keep some diversity of income in most neighbourhoods, but market forces are hard to fight. The city itself (as opposed to the metro region), is gradually becoming like San Francisco — the desired locale of the wealthier from the region, or those with some inherited cash they can invest in housing. It’s not there yet — there are neighbourhoods and new housing styles that are more affordable — but give the area 20-30 years, and this may not be the case.

There are obvious consequences for diversity of these trends:

Downtown Vancouver’s condo dwelling population is not as ethnically diverse as the region generally — and given the escalating housing costs, it’s rapidly becoming less socio-economically diverse–just like Manhattan. For the least expensive 2 bedroom condos on the market right now, you’d need a household income of over $100K to afford it unless you had a huge down payment. A couple of experienced video game developers can afford it — but not necessarily the people pouring lattes.

This has become even clearer to me in the research I’m doing with Charlotta Mellander. Our housing paper shows how housing prices are “disconnected” from wages, the creative class or productivity. Housing prices reflect income and wealth (often made elsewhere) plus this huge premium for amenity and openness. We have another paper coming on regional development and are now starting one on inequality and housing affordability.

The bottom line is that more and more urban outcomes are divorced from regional productivity and work. Income and amenity are driving a lot in the system.

My question is why won’t policy-makers, leaders talk about this. They still see cities as filled with poor people, while the middle class and business are in the suburbs. We are living through powerful migration and geographic sorting trends, that we all need to get a grip on.

Take that Kotkin — dense urban areas work really well for families: lots of kids = lots of amenities and activities for them close by, making parenting easier.