According to a report from the Seattle Times, children make up less than 20% of the population in a few of the largest cities in the US.

Using 2017 data from the US Census Bureau, the Seattle Times has put together a visualization that shows the cities with the largest and smallest percentage of kids:







San Francisco has the lowest percentage of children amongst the 50 biggest cities in the US — only 13.4% of San Franciscans are under the age of 18 — while Boston follows closely with 15.5%. By contrast, Fresno, which ranks first, boasts a high 28.2%.

Is there a reason why cities such as San Francisco, Boston, Seattle, Miami and Washington DC have so few children? Miami's status as a prime location for retirement may be a reason why its under-18 population is small, and for the other four cities, the low percentage of children might be explained by the high cost of living. San Francisco and Washington DC are, for instance, some of the most expensive cities to live in, and the average size of rental apartments in Seattle is the smallest among the largest US cities.

High living and housing costs, however, as CityLab writer Richard Florida has explained, may not be the only explanation for why certain cities have more children and some have less. Florida argues that cities with higher influxes of immigration are more likely to have more children and that certain pricey cities such as New York City, Los Angeles and San Jose, contrary to what people might think, actually have comparatively high percentages of children.

In the case of San Jose, its relative affordability, at least compared to cities such as San Francisco, and its prominent immigrant presence, Florida points out, could be two of the reasons why the city ranks third among big cities with the highest share of households with kids.

[Seattle Times via Mike Rosenberg]