Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Montclair, how many families can afford to live in the cores of New York, Boston and San Francisco?
The only families who can afford to do so are rich.
The median price for a 3 bedroom condominium
New York $3,600,000
San Francisco $1,700,000
Boston: $942,000
Even in my suburban city neighborhood in Oakland, we hardly have any kids....most are either rich singles or wealthy empty nesters or 40-ish couples who don't have kids but really need a 5,000 sq ft house. Er, I dunno why Im pointing them out when I dont need to be in a huge house by myself either...
Funny that the article showed that Houston's grew by 62% while that NY times map of census tracts showed that Houston's core shrank by 29%. I am more inclined to believe this article with all the new residential hi rises that went up in the last few years Like Park Place with 350 units
Funny that the article showed that Houston's grew by 62% while that NY times map of census tracts showed that Houston's core shrank by 29%. I am more inclined to believe this article with all the new residential hi rises that went up in the last few years Like Park Place with 350 units
This is only one demographic (25-34 yo's with college degrees); the area they used here for the study would be slightly larger in footprint than a pure DT. But overall nearly accross the board there were more younger and educated folks moving into the cores all over the country; probably a good thing and a big change in most cities over 25 years ago.
In Philly the 16K is only 30% of the population growth in the area; the other groups that drove growth were empty nesters and the 35-44 segment. Families with children also increased in the Philly DT but at a much smaller rate.
Funny that the article showed that Houston's grew by 62% while that NY times map of census tracts showed that Houston's core shrank by 29%. I am more inclined to believe this article with all the new residential hi rises that went up in the last few years Like Park Place with 350 units
Its probably both. It means that poorer uneducated people are leaving and middle/upper class higher educated people are coming (albeit not at as high a rate).
To come up with our list of the smartest cities of the future, we took the 52 metropolitan areas with more than 1,000,000 population and ranked them by percentage gains in people with college educations compared with the population over 25 years of age between 2007 and 2009, using the latest data from the American Community Survey provided by demographer Wendell Cox.
No. 1: New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, La.
Grad Gain: 36,666
Share of 25+ Population, 2007: 5.42%
No. 2: Raleigh-Cary, N.C.
Grad gain: 28,748
Share of 25+ Population, 2007: 4.27%
No. 3: Austin-Round Rock, Texas
Grad gain: 42,117
Share of 25+ Population, 2007: 4.23%
No. 4: Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, Tenn.
Grad gain: 36,975
Share of 25+ Population, 2007: 3.68%
No. 5: Kansas City, Mo./Kan.
Grad gain: 38,398
Share of 25+ Population, 2007: 2.96%
No. 6: Birmingham-Hoover, Ala.
Grad gain: 21,111
Share of 25+ Population, 2007: 2.86%
No. 7: San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, Calif.
Grad gain: 51,151
Share of 25+ Population, 2007: 2.71%
No. 8: Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, Colo.
Grad gain: 43,853
Share of 25+ Population, 2007: 2.69%
No. 9: Columbus, Ohio
Grad gain: 29,515
Share of 25+ Population, 2007: 2.6%
No. 10: Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, Wash.
Grad gain: 53,869
Share of 25+ pop: 2007: 2.39%
Good to see the growth there. I think a lot of people keep saying that the "Return to the City" is elusive, but they fail to understand that it's going to take time to turn things around. Just like with Philly, where the tougher areas finally bled slower than the growth in the good areas. It's going to take time for the cores of many US cities to gain enough traction to allow the true growth to be seen. I believe it will keep going and bad neighborhoods will continue to be swallowed up by the good.
Btw - Did you see the comments below that article? Good lord, it's like a bunch of suburban housing developers bickering about the article in a nursing home.
I agree. I also think that developers are learning what to provide the market for the renaissance of urban cores. In the 2000s, it was all about condos. There was a lot of interest in these condos but a lot of it was speculative as investors were looking for a place to put their money after the dot-com crash. Now that the RE markets have crashed, developers are realiziing that the product that needed to be built included a very healthy mix of apartments too. I see this in both my cities (Miami Beach and Raleigh). Both saw condo booms of their own in the last decade and both are turning to apartments now. In Raleigh in particular, the young professional isn't ready to make a mortgage commitment but they still want to live downtown. No new condos are proposed but new urban midrise projects are still successful and more are coming. This is what should have been done in the first place. Build apartments to bring people downtown. Let the demand drive more retail and services and THEN follow up with Condos for those looking to make a longer term investment. Unfortunately, most emerging cities led the market with condos instead. In places like Miami, the developers were left holding the bank on tens of thousands of unsold units.
Nonetheless, as these condos are converted to rentals, they are filling up. People do want to live in urban areas. Most who do are just not in the position to buy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.