Why do growing families leave cities for suburbs?

Household sizes are larger in the suburbs than in the core municipalities—hardly a revelation. But there is one apparent reason for it: dwelling sizes are also larger in the suburbs. Hence, growing families gravitate to larger houses, which are more affordable in the suburbs than in the core city.

Recent commentaries in the blogosphere have raised alarms about core municipalities losing population to the suburbs. Suburbanization shouldn't come as a surprise. It has been happening for decades, in fact, for much longer. What will be surprising is if single-person, younger households start leaving the cities for the suburbs.

To understand the locational choices of families, you must unlearn what you have been taught in the planning books, which state that households searching for dwellings choose a house to live in. It is the other way around. A dwelling unit chooses the household that occupies it. How is that possible? Because a dwelling unit's attributes are usually fixed in time. A one-bedroom apartment doesn't grow into two bedrooms ten years later. But a couple could end up growing into a family of four during the same time. Hence, dwellings have time-invariant characteristics that they also impose on the neighbourhoods they are located in. Larger dwellings are located in the suburbs, where land is relatively cheaper, and these dwellings choose larger-sized families to occupy them. As household demographics change over time, they move, and dwellings don't.

Families and Suburbia: Why Average Household Size Tells an Important Story

The map of Southern Ontario illustrates a self-evident yet often overlooked trend in urban planning discussions: average household sizes are notably larger in suburban areas than in the urban core, such as Toronto. While this trend might appear unsurprising to many, it raises critical questions about how we understand family dynamics, housing preferences, and urban migration.

Unpacking the Map: Household Size and Geography

The map shows a pronounced gradient in average household size, with smaller households (green) concentrated in urban centres like Toronto or out in the boonies, while larger households (red and orange) dominate the surrounding "inner" suburbs and even some rural areas. At first glance, this may seem intuitive—urban cores tend to attract smaller households, such as singles, young couples, or empty nesters, while suburban and rural areas become magnets for larger families.

But how large is the difference in household sizes? The average household size in Toronto is 20 percent smaller than that in suburban Markham. The difference is even more pronounced when downtown-centric neighbourhoods are compared with suburban neighbourhoods.

The connection is straightforward: families with children often desire more space, a yard, and affordability—all elements typically more available in suburban or rural settings than in dense, high-cost urban cores. But despite this, many urban planners and commentators still hold onto the narrative that the city is as much a place for larger families as the suburbs. This disconnect between data and discourse is a puzzle that needs unravelling.

Why Are Larger Families Drawn to Suburbs?

The "flight to the suburbs" phenomenon is not just a post-war historical curiosity but a vibrant and ongoing process. But why is this the case? Here are a few key factors driving this trend:

1. Affordability and Space: The cost of housing per square foot is often significantly lower in the suburbs than in the city centre. This makes suburban housing much more attainable for growing families. A detached home in the suburbs offers more bedrooms, outdoor space, and amenities for a price that may only afford a medium-sized apartment downtown. This additional space allows for comfortable living with children, enabling family-oriented lifestyles often constrained in dense urban settings.
2. Amenities and Quality of Life: Many suburban areas are designed with families in mind. Parks, schools, sports fields, and community centres are often more accessible and ample in suburban neighbourhoods. Additionally, a quieter environment with lower crime rates (not always) can be important for families prioritizing safety and community-oriented living. Consider that downtown Toronto hardly has any green space for children compared to such amenities found in abundance in the outer and outer suburbs of the city. Even the cows in downtown Toronto are fake!
3. Transportation and Commuting: While commuting can be a downside of suburban living, advances in transportation infrastructure, telecommuting, and the rise of hybrid work arrangements have made suburban life more viable. The trade-off between a longer commute and better living conditions is often worthwhile for families. And who says suburban commuters have more congested commutes than city residents?

Why Do Urban Planners Resist This Reality?

One might wonder why some urbanists need to recognize this clear family migration pattern to the suburbs. Several factors contribute to this resistance:

• The Vision of a "Mixed" City: Planners and urbanists have long believed in creating mixed-use, diverse communities where families, singles, and seniors coexist within the urban core. This vision often leads to efforts to densify downtown areas and make them more family-friendly. However, economic and social realities often make such mixed communities hard to achieve without significant trade-offs.
• Policy and Housing Preferences: Efforts to densify cities, encourage public transit, and limit sprawl are often in direct tension with the desires of families who prefer space and affordability over urban convenience. Planning policies may thus be more oriented towards environmental sustainability and urban density than the immediate needs of growing families.
• Misinterpretation of Trends: Some planners may see an increasing number of families choosing urban cores in some instances, but these families are often smaller (only one child, maybe two) and tend to be higher-income, opting for specific downtown neighbourhoods that provide amenities similar to suburban living. This niche population can sometimes be mistaken for a broader family movement towards urban living, while the overall trend still points toward a suburban preference for most families.

The Larger Implications for Housing and Urban Policy

Understanding the dynamics between household size and geography is essential for developing housing and urban policies that meet the needs of all residents. Recognizing that families with children are more likely to choose the suburbs leads to different planning priorities: ensuring accessible transit to connect these areas to employment hubs, providing family-friendly infrastructure like schools and parks, and maintaining a range of housing options that allow families to grow without being financially overburdened.

Urban cores like Toronto will continue to attract smaller households, and this is not inherently a problem—it reflects the diverse needs and preferences of different life stages and economic groups. However, denying or minimizing the preference of families for suburban living fails to acknowledge an essential aspect of housing demand and the natural lifecycle of household formation.

Embrace the Realities of Family Housing Choices

The data does not lie: families continue to flock to suburbs for affordability, space, and quality of life. It’s time for the planning discourse to reflect this reality and create policies that support balanced growth. We must recognize that different household types have varying needs and preferences—and that's not just okay; it's fundamental to building thriving, diverse regions.

So, let’s embrace these patterns, accept that the flight to the suburbs is not an anomaly, and develop thoughtful policies that cater to families where they choose to live, whether in the bustle of the city core or the quieter expanse of the suburbs. Doing so can create more family-friendly communities that support diverse lifestyles across the entire urban and suburban spectrum.