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.
Fantastic article from the Atlantic Monthly by Richard Florida.
It kinda dove-tails nicely with a prior Atlantic Monthly article about the relative decline of suburbia.
Summary: Economic crises have a way of permanently altering economic systems. The current economic crisis will ultimately leave some places stronger and others weaker. He predicts the future is brightest for dense urban, diversified metro areas which are attractive to "knowledge workers". Additionally, there will, or at least should be, a de-emphasis on real estate/home ownership in our economy.
Interesting thesis which sounds fairly plasuble to me. The biggest question mark to me, is will government policies attempt to prevent/slow-down these economic trends?
Agree, homes will be increasingly valued as shelter, not as an investment...but rather as a depreciating entity, like a car...homes will depreciate down to land value
Suspect many families will still opt to buy (not rent) new houses to reside in safer, more spacious areas near competent schools; unfortunately, most rentals tend to be in weak locations and/or poorly built...and cities tend to be far more costly than suburbs for families w/kids
And many affluent yuppies w/o kids will choose to live in new condo towers in cities for better nearby restaurants/bars and to meet other yuppies
But would argue suburbia is more powerful than ever for the highest-paid "knowledge workers"
Arguably most of world's wealthiest, <40yo "knowledge workers" live and/or work in suburbia....e.g., Greenwich's many major hedge funds and SiliconValley's many tech cos and private equity funds/VCs, etc....and some of these yuppie workers in those ultra-high-income industries choose to live in Manhattan or City of SF and drive daily to offices in Greenwich and SV, respectively...but housing choices often change for those who choose to later have kids
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,354,025 times
Reputation: 12186
There is one problem with the article: it fails to tackle the issue that people in suburban/ rural areas have a much higher birth rate than mostly single/ bare branch people who live in urban areas. There will be very few granola people in 50 years because so few of them have any children - compare that with suburban evangelicals who typically have 3, or 4 children
There is one problem with the article: it fails to tackle the issue that people in suburban/ rural areas have a much higher birth rate than mostly single/ bare branch people who live in urban areas. There will be very few granola people in 50 years because so few of them have any children - compare that with suburban evangelicals who typically have 3, or 4 children
That is not really true. Average family size continues to fall overall. Show me the statistics regarding the percentage of the population that are single or those married that don't have kids.
Also, I am sure those from larger families could grow up and become more granolaesque. No one is stopping them.
Also, most rural areas have been seeing population declines for decades due to massive levels of out-migration to urban centers.
That article is old, and I think the US is becoming LESS socially conservative over time, especially the younger generations. Many people right now are just trying to hold on to decent jobs. Also, minorities tend to have more children and lean heavily Democratic. The Republican party in its present state is old and mostly white.
There is one problem with the article: it fails to tackle the issue that people in suburban/ rural areas have a much higher birth rate than mostly single/ bare branch people who live in urban areas. There will be very few granola people in 50 years because so few of them have any children - compare that with suburban evangelicals who typically have 3, or 4 children
There are many problems with the article, but I don't think you've hit upon one of them. I'm sure you'll agree that many liberal urbanites were born and raised in rural and suburban areas.
Furthermore, I don't even think your objection is even germane to the thesis of the article which is that regions of the country which are "knowledge-worker friendly" (primarily metro areas) will disproportionately prosper in the future. These "winners" will include suburbs of NYC as well as Manhattan. Sugarland as well as inner ring Houston. The best metro areas will offer a reasonable balance of options (suburban and urban) giving the most flexibility to employees and employers.
There are many problems with the article, but I don't think you've hit upon one of them. I'm sure you'll agree that many liberal urbanites were born and raised in rural and suburban areas.
Furthermore, I don't even think your objection is even germane to the thesis of the article which is that regions of the country which are "knowledge-worker friendly" (primarily metro areas) will disproportionately prosper in the future. These "winners" will include suburbs of NYC as well as Manhattan. Sugarland as well as inner ring Houston. The best metro areas will offer a reasonable balance of options (suburban and urban) giving the most flexibility to employees and employers.
Exactly. The suburbs aren't going anywhere and long as people have some sort of transportation between their suburban home and their jobs. Suburbia has been engraved into American culture. Rural areas on the otherhand....
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.