West Coast Apparently

January 23, 2008 6:36 AM

Best Cities to have a BabyPortland Oregon tops the list. Not surprisingly Detroit didn't fair so well
posted by Tablecrumbs (49 comments total)

Brrrrrrrrr! Wrong.

The answer is Copenhagen.
posted by chuckdarwin at 6:56 AM on January 23, 2008

"Detroit babies are 54 percent more likely than average to be born with low birth weight."

I don't like this sensationalism. What this article DOESN'T tell you is that by the time they are 30, they'll be way heavier than the average person. Yay Detroit!
posted by fusinski at 7:13 AM on January 23, 2008 [1 favorite]

The Best Cities {In America} to have a Baby... As the article, but not the OP says.
posted by benzo8 at 7:20 AM on January 23, 2008

aw man. another article singing Portland's praises. There's already a f_kton of dippy Californians up here, raising real estate prices, and failing to parallel park. Now a bunch of breeders are going to move out here and start demanding wet nursing seats in the coffee shops.

It's time to start a "the weather in Portland sucks" disinformation campaign to keep these yahhoos out.

/portland_transplant_with_a_sense_of_entitlement
posted by device55 at 7:26 AM on January 23, 2008

Thanks, now I know where not to move, thereby avoiding said screeching hoards.
posted by wowbobwow at 7:41 AM on January 23, 2008 [1 favorite]

I said I needed to know the best city to sell a baby. God, you are useless.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:43 AM on January 23, 2008 [8 favorites]

Detroit fairs well. It just doesn't fare well.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 7:45 AM on January 23, 2008 [1 favorite]

Austin TX, 9th on the list, gets an F+ on Child Care, but there is no explanation of why. Poor.
posted by dirtdirt at 7:46 AM on January 23, 2008

The Best Cities {In America} to have a Baby... As the article, but not the OP says.

Yeah, I gathered that. I just wanted to point out that all these cities SUCK compared to places like Stockholm, Oslo, Helsinki and Reykjavik.
posted by chuckdarwin at 7:51 AM on January 23, 2008

I just wanted to point out that all these cities SUCK compared to places like Stockholm, Oslo, Helsinki and Reykjavik.

Let's just take it as a given that Scandinavia is the best place ever for anything always and move on from there, yes?
posted by kittyprecious at 7:56 AM on January 23, 2008 [1 favorite]

Detroit fairs well. It just doesn't fare well

I realized shortly after posting I had used the wrong spelling for "fare". I was certain it would be pointed out in record time...Thanks, for getting that out of the way.
posted by Tablecrumbs at 7:59 AM on January 23, 2008

Best Cities to have a Baby

Quite literally. Doesn't say anything about what it's like to live there. And although Portland and San Fran are tops on my list for cities in the US, they both get an F for affordability.

And they put freakin' Omaha on the list? Yeah, great place to have a kid, if you want them to grow up having fuckall to do.
posted by Afroblanco at 8:04 AM on January 23, 2008

I said I needed to know the best city to sell a baby. God, you are useless.

I'll bet you can use the exact same list, in reverse.
posted by fusinski at 8:04 AM on January 23, 2008

Let's just take it as a given that Scandinavia is the best place ever for anything always and move on from there, yes?

If only we could :-)
posted by chuckdarwin at 8:05 AM on January 23, 2008

Afroblanco writes "Best Cities to have a Baby"

"Quite literally."

Not even literally. Some of the reasons it gives why Detroit is a bad place to have a baby:

•13 percent of pregnant women in Detroit admit to smoking during pregnancy, the 7th highest rate in our survey. Nationwide, 8 percent of pregnant women smoke.
•8 percent of pregnant women here receive late or inadequate prenatal care. That's the 8th worst score in our survey, compared to an average of 5 percent.
•Just 44 percent of Detroit mothers attempt breastfeeding. That's the lowest percentage of any city in our report. The average for cities in our survey is 75 percent.
•By six months of age, 81 percent of Detroit babies aren't being breastfed at all. That's the 1st poorest percentage of any city in our report. The average for cities in our survey is 57 percent.
•4.9 percent of Detroit mothers breastfeed their babies exclusively (meaning no solids, formula or other liquids) for 6 months or longer as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. That's the lowest percentage among cities in our survey. The average for our survey is 12 percent.
•Once Detroit mothers begin breastfeeding, they are 21 percent less likely than average to continue through 6 months. That's the 3rd lowest level of follow-through of any city in our report.

Somehow, the logic is that because Detroit has smoking moms who don't breast feed, it's a bad place to have a baby, because...if you have a baby there you're going to start smoking and stop breastfeeding??

The feature shouldn't be called "Best Cities to Have a Baby", but "Best Cities in Which to be Born". In that case, the smoking statistics and breastfeeding statistics actually make sense.
posted by Bugbread at 8:10 AM on January 23, 2008 [3 favorites]

is there an echo in here?
posted by WCityMike at 8:12 AM on January 23, 2008

Michael Lewis doesn't care.
posted by stargell at 8:14 AM on January 23, 2008 [1 favorite]

I keep thinking about moving to Portland, a friend of mine just got a vacation house up there. I'll have to go a bunch this summer and check it out and see what jobs I can find up there.
posted by SirOmega at 8:29 AM on January 23, 2008

And although Portland and San Fran are tops on my list for cities in the US, they both get an F for affordability.

Portland is one of the most affordable cities on the west coast, but don't move here because it rains all the time and the suicide rate for babies is really, really high. Also, the high instances of drug use here causes a lot of babies to be eaten accidentally.

And they put freakin' Omaha on the list?

I can think of much worse places in the midwest (Topeka!). Omaha isn't bad at all, but I'm guessing you've never been. I could be wrong, of course.
posted by sleepy pete at 8:33 AM on January 23, 2008 [1 favorite]

The feature shouldn't be called "Best Cities to Have a Baby", but "Best Cities in Which to be Born".

On a related note, I recently read that a baby born today in Shanghai has a higher life expectancy than one born in New York (which ranks average US in that link). I think it had to do something with universal health care.
Goddamn commies.
posted by sour cream at 8:37 AM on January 23, 2008

Dude, don't move to Portland, the weather totally sucks.

(mwa ha ha ha)
posted by device55 at 8:41 AM on January 23, 2008

That wont work on me, device55. I know several people who have moved to Portland in the last few years and love it.
posted by SirOmega at 8:49 AM on January 23, 2008

Relative to population, Seattle has more specialty retailers of healthy/organic foods and vitamins than most places in our survey.

Woo. Yay. We have lots of Vitamin Shoppes.

Plus, how the hell did Seattle get an A- in childcare? I'd hate to see what it's like it cities with lower grades.
posted by The corpse in the library at 8:49 AM on January 23, 2008

well, i guess that was good foresight or something that we got pregnant. HypnoBirthing midwives, represent!

everyone loves our town, we're becoming so spoiled. i also heard there's also another bit in Bon Appetit about our wonderful restaurants.

i mean, our terrible, terrible holes in the wall that serve tastless, lukewarm bowls of gruel. and it rains here. so much rain. it's terrible. don't even think about moving here, you'll just get wet. YOU DON'T WANT THAT.

also hippies. you don't like hippies. i'm a hippie, and i'm here to tell you WE OWN THIS TOWN, dammit. you'll never wash off the stink.

so, uh, in sum: yay us. yay portland. yay hippies. stay away!
posted by acid freaking on the kitty at 9:22 AM on January 23, 2008 [1 favorite]

How the fuck did Detroit get an F in affordablity? It's got its problems, but it's goddamned cheap. Especially if you move to Hamtown.
posted by klangklangston at 10:20 AM on January 23, 2008

Man, looks like Portland has a a terrible case of Vancouver Syndrome.
posted by eurasian at 10:25 AM on January 23, 2008

So is Detroit the best place to Not have a baby? Does it work like that?
posted by Lord_Pall at 10:27 AM on January 23, 2008

I guess the best place to have a baby isn't necessarily the best place to raise said child. Otherwise, SF would be nowhere near the top of that list.
posted by gyc at 10:42 AM on January 23, 2008

As a Portland native, here are the rules: You can move to Portland if and only if you give back and participate in your neighborhood community, recycle, use multi-modal or alternative transportation every day and you don't bitch about the weather. We already have enough soccer moms, 'k'thanks.

And, for the love of all that is good, if I catch you paying $50/lane to bowl at some yuppy bowling place, or making reservations at a restaurant in frickin' NE frickin' Portland and paying more than $15 per entree at said restaurant, you're out. Also, good luck finding a job. I hear they're hiring white, trendy waiters at that new place on MLK. Maybe your master's degree will help you deconstruct the social narrative of busing tables.
posted by Skwirl at 10:47 AM on January 23, 2008 [2 favorites]

Yuppies bowl?
posted by sleepy pete at 11:04 AM on January 23, 2008 [1 favorite]

Don't worry, portlanders. The FP-demographic parents will all head for the suburbs when it's time to send baby to school.
Interesting that city school ratings weren't taken into consideration, btw.
posted by pernoctalian at 11:21 AM on January 23, 2008

As someone who had a baby in Portland less than two years ago, I can attest that things are going quite smoothly. Portland (and Oregon, for that matter) might not be the best place to educate your child, however.
posted by joseph_elmhurst at 11:31 AM on January 23, 2008

In all seriousness, tell me how great Portland is after you've had your third car stereo stolen by meth addicts. One of my classmates put himself through college (and paid for a home) with his job, renovating homes and hotel rooms in the Portland metro area which had been used to manufacture meth.
posted by mullingitover at 11:37 AM on January 23, 2008

The SF Gate responds. An older article is here.
posted by drstein at 11:46 AM on January 23, 2008

mullingitover, I've lived here for almost 14 years and have had my car broken into once - in 1997. I have never had a garage, either. This is not to say that Portland doesn't have a meth problem, but it's not the all-pervasive problem it's made out to be. Your classmate's experience could probably be replicated in any mid-size-and-larger metropolitan area.
posted by joseph_elmhurst at 11:49 AM on January 23, 2008

i had a baby in tuscon. it was way too dry.

but the baby i had in chicago? moist and tender. and, with a little hecky's barbaque sauce...delightful!!!
posted by CitizenD at 11:49 AM on January 23, 2008 [1 favorite]

Portland may be the best place to have a baby. But don't count on the child's chances of receiving a good education with the state of the public school system. Unless you can afford one of the private schools. In which case, you'll probably have to sell your house. If you haven't already to afford another mouth to feed.

And Omaha isn't that bad. They have a great zoo. And plenty of sprawl. And the college world series. And they qualify as a real city because they have gangs, and mall shootings. And Topeka is worse.
posted by asfuller at 11:58 AM on January 23, 2008

Hrm. Yeah, I have to say that this was a really bizarre list. They said Dallas, TX had an F for safety, and went on to say "Pedestrians have an 8 percent higher than average risk of being killed by a motor vehicle here-among the most dangerous in our survey."

Now tell me what pedestrians (usually jaywalking) getting killed by cars has to do with having a baby? I'm having trouble thinking of anything..

I looked at a few other cities, and I'm starting to think that they're pulling a lot of things out of their ass. They seem to be against c-sections too, based on some of the data points. Albuquerque, NM gets an A- in "Maternal & Infant Health Risk" and then says "According to data from the CDC, maternal mortality in New Mexico is especially high."

Huh?

Fort Worth, TX gets an F in access to hospitals. I transported 2 kids to the Cook Children's Hospital in downtown Fort Worth the other night. What are they considering 'access' anyway? Other kids would be moved over to Children's Hospital (a beautiful and HUGE hospital that specializes in nothing but pediatric care) in Dallas, TX anyway.

What a confusing list.
posted by drstein at 12:02 PM on January 23, 2008 [1 favorite]

In all seriousness, tell me how great Portland is after you've had your third car stereo stolen by meth addicts. One of my classmates put himself through college (and paid for a home) with his job, renovating homes and hotel rooms in the Portland metro area which had been used to manufacture meth.

I just wanted to reiterate that.

Although meth addicts eat fewer babies, the hippies might get them. The toothless, scratching hordes will steal your blaupunkt, though, bro.
posted by sleepy pete at 12:21 PM on January 23, 2008

"So is Detroit the best place to Not have a baby? Does it work like that?"

Kinda sucks to get an abortion in Detroit too, from what I've heard.

But nobody seems to want to have Best Abortion City on their tourist bureau, so I don't know where it ranks nationally.
posted by klangklangston at 12:27 PM on January 23, 2008

I took one look at that site...

Brother's walking a little dog.

Shiiiiit.
posted by Bathtub Bobsled at 12:37 PM on January 23, 2008

Woo hoo! Cleveland sucks! Now I'm totally not gonna have a baby. Or something. But we're number #1 in smoking moms! YEAH!

20 percent of pregnant women in Cleveland admit to smoking during pregnancy, the highest rate in our survey. Nationwide, 8 percent of pregnant women smoke.

That's because smoking helps with the depression stemming from the fact that you live in Cleveland.

(I'm allowed to say that, I'm a native).
posted by bitter-girl.com at 1:18 PM on January 23, 2008

I think by Portland they really mean Lake Oswego... or Beaverton.
posted by asterisk at 1:28 PM on January 23, 2008

mullingitover: something something about data being the plural of anecdotes... but in my 12 years here, the most crime i've experienced was when my license plates were taken off when i parked next to the bagdad for 10 minutes. were your experiences in a certain neighborhood or something? of course, there's always the crime mapper on portlandmaps, which always makes me do a double take when my quiet little street is covered in incidents.

yeah, the schools here in the actual city are terrible, but hey, killer weed.

hmm, i may have undercut my point here.
posted by acid freaking on the kitty at 2:16 PM on January 23, 2008

If one of the worst things they could manage to say about us is our weather, I'd say we're doing pretty good.

I think Minneapolis is a great place to raise kids. Lots of space, low cost of living, lots of nice folks, enough city and cultural life to keep it interesting.
posted by streetdreams at 11:03 PM on January 23, 2008

Every place in this country is the worst place to have a baby if you're trying to not struggle in BushAmerica and give the child good healthcare, schooling, a safe environment, and a well-rounded local community.

That having been said, I also take issue with some of their data points RE : Los Angeles.

In the "negative" column they wrote :

According to our survey of park departments, for every 10,000 residents, Los Angeles has 92 miles of public trails and pathways for hiking and stroller use, the 7th lowest in our survey. The average city in our survey has 79 trail miles for every 10,000 residents.

So, we've got 13 extra trail miles per 10k residents when compared w/the national average...... and that's a bad thing?

31 percent of babies in California are born via Cesarean section, among the highest in our survey. The average is 27 percent.

We're a busy populace. Have you seen the traffic? We've gotta get in, get out. Sheesh.

California devotes less money relative to population than most states to child car-seat-check stations.

Keep that in mind, parents trying to maybe-kill-their-kid-via-poor-childseat-safety. This is the place to do it. But don't have your baby here if you're a good parent, cause..... wait, why does this statistic matter again?


And taking these two in tandem :

According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Los Angeles is 46 percent less affordable than average for cities in our survey.

and..

According to the Urban Mobility Report from Texas A&M University, Los Angeles has one of the worst commutes of any city in our survey. It takes 75 percent longer to drive the same route during rush hour than in free-flowing traffic. That puts a lot more pressure on parents rushing to day care at the end of the day.

You see that? We've got too many people here. Take your kids someplace safe. Like Topeka. Or Hippy-infested Portland. Leave all us driving, smoking heathens to our glitz-and-glamour west coast Los Angeles. Maybe we can merge with Vegas and just be "crazy-no-baby-heathen-land" or something.
posted by revmitcz at 11:19 PM on January 24, 2008

revmitcz writes "Every place in this country is the worst place to have a baby if you're trying to not struggle in BushAmerica and give the child good healthcare, schooling, a safe environment, and a well-rounded local community."

So, for example, a place where you receive inadequate prenatal care, inadequate post-natal care, and with a 50% infant mortality rate is equally bad as a place where you receive no prenatal care, no post-natal care, and with a 99% infant mortality rate?

This word "worst". I don't think it means what you think it means.
posted by Bugbread at 7:26 AM on January 25, 2008

PDX is number one, huh? Not surprised. Now if only I could actually *get* pregnant.... where's the best place for that?
posted by HerOdyssey at 1:29 PM on January 25, 2008

Well, HerOdyssey, if you can imagine a long canoe...
posted by The corpse in the library at 6:47 PM on January 25, 2008