Abstract
Falling birth rates threaten population sustainability of our nations and care structures for vulnerable populations but are not an isolated challenge. Our failing social infrastructure impedes a functioning system of care, which can be transformed through our urban environments. Challenging traditional practices of urban renewal, we can engineer supportive care networks through a systems-level understanding and targeted interventions in our cities. Collaboration among government, finance, design, and stewardship will strategically reactivate our social villages through our built environment, creating better communities for all ages.
Key Words
Social networks, urban renewal, systems thinking
From the peak in the 1960s, global birth rates have fallen globally from about 5.3 births per woman in 1963 to roughly 2.1 births per woman in 2024 (UN, 2026). This birth rate decline of over 60% has been identified as a primary concern among several nations because of the implications for population sustainability (UN, 2026): How will a country prosper and who will care for dependent citizens from the very young to the very old? In an attempt to address this challenge, countries around the world are implementing interventions, from free IVF in Hungary to an end of the “one-child” policy in China, but with minimal success (Carney, 2025; McCarthy et al., 2026). It is convenient to point the finger at women and the childbearing population as the root of the problem, and as the target for interventions focused on mitigating unsustainable population aging. However, this approach has consistently fallen flat (Carney, 2025; McCarthy et al., 2026; Wilt, 2019).
Our current system of social care is failing, and it is time to rebuild our village.
Birth rates are not a siloed problem, but rather a symptom exacerbated by larger societal challenges encompassing loneliness and the currently failing “social architecture of care” (Passarelli-Araujo, 2026). As the saying goes, it takes a village to raise a family; in other words, the rearing of children has been historically dependent on large complex intergenerational social networks. This village is not only necessary for the rearing of young people but is equally important for the care of older adults and vulnerable people of all ages. Our current system of social care is failing and it is time to rebuild our village. Reframing our population aging problem from birth rates to systemic social infrastructure is critical because it shapes how we engineer interventions. Shifting the population of interest within our social interventions from those of childbearing age to all of society, exploring how we connect, support, and live, shifts our focus towards interventions that bring us all together (Passarelli-Araujo, 2026).
Focusing on Urban Spaces
Our cities and urban areas are ripe with opportunity to foster this village revival due to their current underutilization. In Q2 2024, 20.4% of commercial real estate in United States metro areas were vacant (Moody’s, 2024). Of the office spaces that are used, office occupancy has averaged 55% over the past 3 years (Ginsac, 2026). Urban real estate is underutilized and should be repurposed to better serve the needs of our communities.
Historically, underused urban developments have been repurposed to primarily serve affluent communities (Kirszbaum, 2019; Shertzer et al., 2022). In the original development of urban spaces, zoning and land development laws throughout U.S. history were engineered to disenfranchise socially and financially disadvantaged populations, directly or by proxy (Shertzer et al., 2022). From redlining to environmental racism, cities and urban areas were built with isolation in mind, and these practices are perpetuated as spaces are redeveloped (Squires et al., 1979; Swanson, 2024). Urban renewal efforts traditionally result in the displacement of long-time residents of working-class neighborhoods in favor of maximizing profitability during gentrification (Kirszbaum, 2019; Tach & Emory, 2017). Zoning regulation, a crucial legal tool for shaping cities, has historically been weaponized to promote racism, economic disparities, and gatekeeping of the natural environment (Bronin, 2024). The U.S.’s practice of urban development and renewal repeats unjust patterns of expelling vulnerable populations, washing cultural diversity from spaces, and impeding the variety required for socially rich and supportive networks.
Systems-Level Solutions Focused on the Built Urban Environment
Rather than prolonging these patterns, we should engineer supportive care networks through systems-level understanding and targeted interventions in the built environments of our cities. We can and should develop urban spaces to foster supportive care networks in the following ways.
The U.S.’s practice of urban development and renewal repeats unjust patterns of expelling vulnerable populations, washing cultural diversity from spaces, and impeding the variety required for socially rich and supportive networks.
Challenge the system by rethinking the urban redevelopment process. Gentrification is the process of transforming urban spaces previously in economic decline via an infusion of capital that attracts middle- and upper-class populations while displacing low-income and long-term residents (Tach & Emory, 2017). Efforts to augment or disrupt gentrification challenge the traditional urban renewal process. Across California, Guerrilla Urbanist Interventions serve as local temporary communities working to fight for the rights of residents and shine light on the complex political and economic repercussions of gentrification, neighborhood by neighborhood (Sarimento, 2021). Community Land Trusts in California, Texas, and New York buy land and lease parcels to individuals, “separating the cost of land from the cost of housing,” which helps reinforce housing security for vulnerable populations at risk of displacement due to gentrification (Broad, 2021, para. 5). In efforts to rebuild our social infrastructure, it is crucial to explore opportunities to challenge traditional urban redevelopment practices.
| Making a difference if you’re in… | |||
| Policy & Government | Finance & Development | Design & Architecture | Operations & Stewardship |
| e.g. elected officials or government staffers | e.g. commercial real estate developers or financiers | e.g. urban planners or architects | e.g. facility managers or community organizers |
| Identify the overlooked. Your role as a government representative of the people is to support, protect, and/or enact legislation on behalf of your constituents and community members. Using your power to purposefully amplify the voices of those traditionally unheard will build trust amongst your voter base and improve the community you represent. | Diversify your portfolio. Just as diversity in your investment portfolio shields you from economic turbulence, investing in developing intentionally diverse community offers rich returns. Prioritize building and investing in communities with diverse cultural, financial, and demographic backgrounds to ensure long-term sustainability and profitability from your capital. | Think local. You decide who your solutions are designed for. Regardless of formally recognized stakeholders within a contract, your expertise offers you a geographic and contextual understanding of any project. Intentionally seek insight from broad and diverse sources, including voices from local populations, to ensure maximum impact of your work. | Build community. It’s hardest to ignore forces you can see, feel, and engage with. Leverage your spaces to actively encourage and build community engagement. Fostering relationships to strengthen social bonds can transform local voices into local movements. |
Test new systems by piloting interdisciplinary solutions. Empty shopping malls, warehouses, factories, and other underutilized infrastructure can be used to rapidly prototype development solutions before they are implemented on a larger scale. As an example, determining the best location for a new hospital is a complex decision with serious repercussions on access to care and community well-being. Conflicting research has suggested that building the facility near hospitality centers or near physical activity centers results in better patient outcomes and public health (Ylitalo et al., 2020; Zhong et al., 2025), which makes it difficult to decide where to position the hospital. Building out physical simulations in a warehouse or mall to test logistics and user experiences regarding optimal placement of this new facility affords low-stakes experimentation, failure, and analysis bespoke to local needs before breaking ground. This piloting and prototyping approach allows developers and key decision makers to test interdisciplinary solutions, which when implemented on an urban scale, can breed more-optimal innovative community engagement and connection.
| Making a difference if you’re in… | |||
| Policy & Government | Finance & Development | Design & Architecture | Operations & Stewardship |
| e.g. elected officials or government staffers | e.g. commercial real estate developers or financiers | e.g. urban planners or architects | e.g. facility managers or community organizers |
| Share your knowledge. Your understanding of local and regional leadership and policy can provide structure in pilot testing that transforms it from an interesting theoretical exercise to an impactful realistic effort. | Invest in research. Consider the return on investment of low-stakes experimentation. Taking time to learn what works and what doesn’t on a small scale can help save money and time during actual-scale implementation. | Watch and learn. Take note and make incremental changes to design solutions in order to understand the impact of nuanced parts of your work. Use feedback to refine your designs for a better final state. | Live it out. Operate the pilot as you would living day-to-day. Sharing what works and what doesn’t work in a pilot test helps makes sure problems are solved before they arise in the real world. |
Revolutionize the system by innovating building policy. Zoning laws that shape urban landscapes have historically been motivated by racial segregation and class inequality, with its echoes continuing to perpetrate multifaced injustice to this day (Shertzer et al., 2022). Despite best efforts and good intentions, blanket zoning policies such as deregulation and upzoning tend to lead to greater inequality and less cultural diversity (Rodríguez-Pose & Storper, 2020). Instead, policies aimed at creating diverse sustainable communities necessitate systems-level thinking for targeted interventions.
By creating strong social connections within communities, we can improve quality of life and well-being for all.
Understanding the relationship between living, working, and playing, Rodríguez-Pose and Storper (2020) proposed employment and wage policy to address spatial inequality. Similarly, Shertzer and colleagues (2022) advocated for transportation reform, considering the implications on housing and employment opportunities across economic classes. Exploring the power of Home Owner Associations (HOAs) in the United States as private organizations with governmental power, Dhuman and Germain (2026) advocated for greater exploration of meso-level institutions’ influence in housing policy shifts. Building and zoning legislation aimed at reducing disparities between groups and promoting social cohesion should not be limited to streets, bricks, and maps. Capturing a broad understanding of the multidisciplinary influences shaping zoning and building policy in urban areas can offer opportunities for innovation and impact.
| Making a difference if you’re in… | |||
| Policy & Government | Finance & Development | Design & Architecture | Operations & Stewardship |
| e.g. elected officials or government staffers | e.g. commercial real estate developers or financiers | e.g. urban planners or architects | e.g. facility managers or community organizers |
| Flex your expertise. Your understanding of legislation, policy, and governing best positions you to innovate on ways we shape future cities built for all. Because one-size-fits-all solutions often fall flat, consider the unique qualities of your local communities to build solutions that best fit its bespoke needs. | Mobilize constituents. There is power in community and capital. Strategically empowering locals to lobby for policies tackling zoning, development, housing, employment, and environmental regulations can make future real estate projects more profitable and equitable. | Actualize and innovate. Develop deep understanding about the laws and policies that provide boundaries to your work. Design solutions that test these boundaries and offer opportunities for policy reform through action. | Share your experience. Provide detailed insight on the lived experiences resulting from policy implications. Creating this feedback loop with legislators and leaders can provide tangible guidance on how to best shape future policy or governance that works in practice. |
Conclusion
Reimagining urban landscapes by intentionally repurposing underutilized urban footprints and introducing systems-altering solutions can strengthen our social villages. By creating strong social connections within communities, we can improve quality of life and well-being for all (Seppala et al., 2013). Activating our built environment to strengthen our supportive care networks can bolster communities to best support older adults, welcome new lives, and promote thriving at every age in between.
Cameron M. Contreras is a researcher, teaching fellow, and doctoral candidate at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design in Innovation and Technology. She was previously a Design Research Consultant at CannonDesign. She completed a Master of Science degree in Environmental Psychology from Cornell University, and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology and Environmental Policy from Illinois Wesleyan University. She can be reached at cameron.m.contreras@gmail.com.
Photo credit: Shutterstock/Refat Mamutov
References
Broad, J. (2021). Fighting gentrification and displacement: Emerging best practices. Right 2 the City.
Bronin, S. C. (2024). Key to the city: How zoning shapes our world. WW Norton & Company.
Carney, T. (2025, April 11). Hungary’s government is trying to make more babies — it’s not going so great. AEI. https://www.aei.org/op-eds/hungarys-government-is-trying-to-make-more-babies-its-not-going-so-great/
Dhuman, S. A., & Germain, T. I. (2026). “So what chance, what opportunities do we have?” Homeowners Associations as Racialized Organizations. Sociology Compass, 20(2), e70165.
Ginsac, I. (2026, April 20). U.S. office market report February 2026. Commercial Cafe. https://www.commercialcafe.com/blog/national-office-report
Kirszbaum, T. (2019). Urban renewal in the USA: A neoliberal policy? (Trans. O. Wayne). HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe). https://metropolitics.org/Urban-Renewal-in-the-USA-A-Neoliberal-Policy.html
McCarthy, S., Acosta, R. de, & Jiang, J. (2026, January 1). Ten years after it ended its “one-child” policy, China’s push for more babies isn’t winning its citizens over. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/01/china/china-one-child-anniversary-intl-hnk-vis-dst
Moody’s. (2024, September 10). A new working order: Reimagining offices in a hybrid world. https://www.moodys.com/web/en/us/insights/data-stories/us-commercial-real-estate-vacancies-downtown-vs-suburbs.html
Passarelli-Araujo, H. (2026). The demography of loneliness: Rethinking social connections in population research. Demographic Research, 54, 133–158.
Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Storper, M. (2020). Housing, urban growth and inequalities: The limits to deregulation and upzoning in reducing economic and spatial inequality. Urban Studies, 57(2), 223–248.
Sarmiento, C. S. (2021). Defend, disrupt, and build: Guerrilla urbanist interventions and fighting gentrification in the barrio. Journal of Community Psychology, 49(8), 3178–3193.
Seppala, E., Rossomando, T., & Doty, J. R. (2013). Social connection and compassion: Important predictors of health and well-being. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 80(2), 411–430.
Shertzer, A., Twinam, T., & Walsh, R. P. (2022). Zoning and segregation in urban economic history. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 94, 103652.
Squires, G. D., DeWolfe, R., & DeWolfe, A. S. (1979). Urban decline or disinvestment: uneven development, redlining and the role of the insurance industry. Social Problems, 27(1), 79–95.
Swanson, S. J. (2024). The metamorphoses of racial discrimination in American real estate. Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality, 42, 183.
Tach, L., & Emory, A. D. (2017). Public housing redevelopment, neighborhood change, and the restructuring of urban inequality. American Journal of Sociology, 123(3), 686–739.
UN. (2026). World population prospects. United Nations. https://population.un.org/wpp/
Wilt, C. (2019, October 28). The government will pay you to have babies in these countries. Money.
https://money.com/government-pays-have-a-baby-low-birth-rate
Ylitalo, K. R., Cox, W., Gutierrez, M., Benavidez, G., Umstattd Meyer, M. R., Niceler, B., & Griggs, J. O.
(2020). A prescription for wellness: Exercise referrals at a federally qualified health center. Journal of Primary Care & Community Health, 11, 2150132720942396.
Zhong, Y., Bottorff, T., Li, J., Thiamwong, L., & Beltran, S. J. (2025). Viewing hospitality from an interdisciplinary lens: A systematic review of 30-year research on hospitality in health care. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 37(2), 333–357.
