Because everyone travels by car, children in suburbs are completely dependent on adults. There are few things to do, and many kids are end up stuck at home or carted from one over-scripted activity to another by overwhelmed parents. Their social lives are strongly circumscribed, with little chance to make cross-age connections. Kids have a much better time in real walkable cities, where they can be more independent and there are more available resources and activities relevant to every kind of interest and hobby.
Those suburbs are optimized for wealthy able-bodied adults age 35-60 who like driving their cars. Everyone else is a second-class citizen. Yuppie parents of school-aged children say they are moving to the suburbs for the sake of their kids, but it is more about their own convenience and biases/preconceptions.
You are right that San Francisco is expensive, and this causes many families to leave. But it is not any more dangerous than suburbs or other cities (and significantly safer than rural areas), it is dense enough that there are many other kids around (many parts of the city have more kids within walk distance than a typical suburb), and kids will not be harmed if they see weirdly dressed (or weird undressed) people sometimes.
The biggest mortal danger kids face in the USA is cars. Followed by guns and various kinds of home accidents (drowning in pools and spas is a big one).
Not sure how recently you may have been to San Francisco but it is not a place I'd take my kid (I live in the bay area) let alone live there with kids. The level of filth, crime and sadly mentally ill on the streets is not something I'd want to subject any child to.
> Kids have a much better time in real walkable cities
What makes the walkability "real"? I'm curious what has led to the HN meme that one can only walk places in Manhattan or comparably dense cities?
We live way out in nearly-rural suburbs. This is as walkable as it gets. The kid can walk to big parks nearby, libraries and movie theathers, shopping, etc. I walk to my office and just about everything is a short walk or bike ride away.
> Those suburbs are optimized for wealthy able-bodied adults age 35-60 who like driving their cars.
I'm in that demographic and feel exactly the opposite. These suburbs are for kids. It's a picture perfect place of safe independence for growing up. They can walk to each other's houses and play in the parks etc independently.
I am raising 2 small kids in San Francisco. It seems fine.
Smashed car windows are frustrating and disappointing (there are clearly some organized groups fencing laptops or whatever, and the police should get off their butts and do some more serious investigatory work). But the city does not feel at all physically unsafe, relative to other places in the USA. Cars are the biggest danger by far, just like everywhere else in the USA.
We have some mentally ill homeless neighbors. When (rarely) someone is shouting obscenities into thin air we cross the street and stay out of their way. The rest are harmless, though still sad to see. I don't chat with them as much as I used to, because they aren't the best at wearing masks or respecting social distancing during the pandemic, and we haven't been walking around the neighborhood nearly as much.
> picture perfect place
Yeah, this is the problem. People care about things being picture perfect way more than they care about where their kids will enjoy living, or where they will grow into the most kind, resilient, and capable adults.
Yuppies often have a pathological fear of dirt and poverty, and have conditioned themselves to feel discomfort or even nausea when thinking about it. If your kid steps on dog poop sometime, or has to sit near a smelly person on the bus, or has a weird conversation with a homeless guy at the park, it isn't going to do them any serious or permanent damage.
Hopefully this doesn't sound rude -- I just mean to say that a college campus's child-unfriendliness isn't a reason not to copy the model, since it's easily fixed.