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.
I definitely think that Murals could be the right price point for some people, but you definitely need to have a decent amount of money. I imagine if I am able to reach a middle-to-upper income and I am single or married with a small family, I'd definitely be looking into a place like Murals that has nice amenities. It's in a prime location (Lyn-Lake, access to the Chain of Lakes, and the Greenway) and is quite nice. But these places do sort of place artificial limits on family size and such (and at some point, it's going to probably be cheaper to head to the suburbs, whether that's a good or bad thing), so it will always only appeal to certain people...
True, but houses in the suburbs will only ever appeal to certain people, too. I'd like to see more of the Murals-like developments offer 3-BRs (gives a little more room for families to spread out), but I think there's room for a variety of housing options for Minneapolis families. Two kid families are pretty typical around here, and they'd easily fit into a 2-BR.
And when running the numbers, families also need to factor in the cost of transportation. I doubt anyone is moving into an $1800/month 2-BR apartment because it's a bargain, but at least it's possible to live somewhere like Murals without owning a car. Granted, I am highly unusual in the Twin Cities because I don't drive, but at least a family could live there easily with only one car, which would itself save a huge amount of money.
It would be nice to see more places like the Greenleaf targeting lower to middle-class families. And I do wish there were more options for families of all income levels looking for a more urban living experience, especially in Uptown/Lyn-Lake. In Minneapolis there seems to be this expectation that all families want a single-family house with a yard, and yes, many do, but there may be many more who would be open to other options if they were more readily available.
I disagree with your comments on Minneapolis. You really think that Minneapolis' image since the '70s is a crime ridden area with crappy homes? There's definitely some areas of the city where that may be true, but the majority of the city has good quality housing stock, with strong amenities such as good proximity to lakes, the river or creek parkways. The Park system in Minneapolis is amazing. As a recent transplant to Columbus, I can attest further to the quality of the Minneapolis park system relative to other cities. Also, even though Columbus has annexed significant land area since WWII, the school system is inferior to the Minneapolis Public Schools.
I think both Minneapolis and St Paul have lots of very livable neighborhoods comprising huge portions of each city.
Sorry, I was meaning "the city" in general, not specifically Minneapolis or St. Paul. I was reffering to any city in America, that has been stereotyped, for the most part, as crime ridden and old. Since the 70's people have really had that image of the major urban center in their area, and they have pushed outward into the suburbs since. Sorry for the confusion.
True, but houses in the suburbs will only ever appeal to certain people, too. I'd like to see more of the Murals-like developments offer 3-BRs (gives a little more room for families to spread out), but I think there's room for a variety of housing options for Minneapolis families. Two kid families are pretty typical around here, and they'd easily fit into a 2-BR.
And when running the numbers, families also need to factor in the cost of transportation. I doubt anyone is moving into an $1800/month 2-BR apartment because it's a bargain, but at least it's possible to live somewhere like Murals without owning a car. Granted, I am highly unusual in the Twin Cities because I don't drive, but at least a family could live there easily with only one car, which would itself save a huge amount of money.
It would be nice to see more places like the Greenleaf targeting lower to middle-class families. And I do wish there were more options for families of all income levels looking for a more urban living experience, especially in Uptown/Lyn-Lake. In Minneapolis there seems to be this expectation that all families want a single-family house with a yard, and yes, many do, but there may be many more who would be open to other options if they were more readily available.
I agree. Most suburbs certainly don't appeal to me. But I do think there is a limit really on a three-bedroom apartment. That's when people will need to move a little further out to a SFH (thought it could still be in the city, naturally!) But we really aren't seeing 3-bedrooms for whatever reason. I'm guessing that really it's a demand thing. People are used to moving into SFHs once they they have kids (or even earlier...I know a girl I graduated with who got married this last year and has now moved into a 3 bedroom...I'm not sure what she's going to do with all the space!)
It is good to point out transportation. This consumes a lot of a family's budget. While you can certainly live in Minneapolis (and specifically the Murals/Lyn-Lake area) without a car, so many people do that at this point, the savings are likely to be moot just now until further density makes it easier to live without a car. I know if I end up staying in Minneapolis, I'll likely have a bus pass to get around as much as possible, but keep my car. Getting out of town or running some errands at this point are just too tedious. I think HourCar can help with this, especially with some further expansion. People will be less afraid to live without a car and live in a dense area.
True, but houses in the suburbs will only ever appeal to certain people, too. I'd like to see more of the Murals-like developments offer 3-BRs (gives a little more room for families to spread out), but I think there's room for a variety of housing options for Minneapolis families. Two kid families are pretty typical around here, and they'd easily fit into a 2-BR.
And when running the numbers, families also need to factor in the cost of transportation. I doubt anyone is moving into an $1800/month 2-BR apartment because it's a bargain, but at least it's possible to live somewhere like Murals without owning a car. Granted, I am highly unusual in the Twin Cities because I don't drive, but at least a family could live there easily with only one car, which would itself save a huge amount of money.
It would be nice to see more places like the Greenleaf targeting lower to middle-class families. And I do wish there were more options for families of all income levels looking for a more urban living experience, especially in Uptown/Lyn-Lake. In Minneapolis there seems to be this expectation that all families want a single-family house with a yard, and yes, many do, but there may be many more who would be open to other options if they were more readily available.
Lets see....metro area is about 5,000,000, 350,000 of those people live in Minneapolis, most of whom live in your self proclaimed "suburban like" south Minneapolis, another 250,000 live in St. Paul, most mostly in the "suburban" St. Paul areas, East St. Paul, Highland, etc.....where do the rest of those 4,500,000 live---the suburbs??
Lets see....metro area is about 5,000,000, 350,000 of those people live in Minneapolis, most of whom live in your self proclaimed "suburban like" south Minneapolis, another 250,000 live in St. Paul, most mostly in the "suburban" St. Paul areas, East St. Paul, Highland, etc.....where do the rest of those 4,500,000 live---the suburbs??
Golfgal, you can spin it however you like, but not everyone WANTS to live in a suburban, single-family house; as you should well know, many of the new suburban developments are, in fact, NOT single family homes. Just take a look at all the town houses out there! Granted, I don't consider most of those to be very urban, but it's certainly clear that, even in the suburbs, not everyone is living in a stereotypical single house on single lot.
Or, if you want evidence that there ARE people -- shocking! -- who prefer to live in a different style home than you do, check out the rapidly increasing number of families with kids moving into the condos downtown. We thought about that, but think that downtown still lacks the amenities and street life that you find in Uptown or Lyn-Lake. One nice thing about Minneapolis is that it does offer so many urban neighborhoods with lots of duplexes and single family homes (so no need to trek out to Eagan if you really do want a SFH), but the truly urban neighborhoods are still pretty small, and there aren't many very family-friendly apartments in those areas. I think there's a potential market there, but of course it's only going to appeal to some people, just as only some people would ever consider living in Rosemount (I certainly would never willingly move to Rosemount, just as I'm sure you probably would never willingly move to a Lyn-Lake apartment or house. Different people, different tastes.).
Not everyone wants to live in a single family house in a more suburban style neighborhood. Tastes are changing, and I'm not suggesting there that EVERY or even MOST families prefer to live in the heart of Lyn-Lake or Uptown; that doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of families out there who do, however, or at least enough to fill new developments in neighborhoods that DO appeal to those of us with kids who DO prefer to live in urban environments.
And, of course, the options in the suburbs vary drastically. There are the stereotypical subdivisions, there are neighborhoods like that around Centennial Lakes in Edina, there are the 1950s blocks in Richfield, there are older homes in Robbinsdale, the upscale 1920s homes in upscale Edina neighborhoods around 50th and France, etc. etc. WAY too many to be lumped into one category. And some of those (some of the new developments in SLP, etc.) are more urban in form.
It's nice to have choices. No one is going to force you or your kids to move to Lyn-Lake, but increased options for those who actually enjoy urban living may help attract families to Minneapolis. Not in a Minneapolis versus Rosemount competition, but in a "do we want to live in Minneapolis or do we want to move to a 'real' city" kind of way. And, of course, along the way some of those who grew up in the outer 'burbs like Rosemount could decide that they prefer city living, and that's okay too. Options are good. We have plenty of suburban living (of all kinds) and single family houses to go around.
I guess I'm just having a tough time seeing why suggesting that suburban single family homes will only ever appeal to some people is debatable? It's very clear that not every family out there wants to live like that. What's more to say?
Last edited by uptown_urbanist; 11-30-2011 at 07:26 AM..
Lets see....metro area is about 5,000,000, 350,000 of those people live in Minneapolis, most of whom live in your self proclaimed "suburban like" south Minneapolis, another 250,000 live in St. Paul, most mostly in the "suburban" St. Paul areas, East St. Paul, Highland, etc.....where do the rest of those 4,500,000 live---the suburbs??
Per the 2010 US census the metro population is only 3.6 million if you include St Cloud or about 3.28 million of you only include the immediate metro. Granted this data is a little old but, from where I live I just don't see a 1.5 million population spike...perhaps the view is different in Rosemount, though....
Or perhaps you are making up facts again. What gives, golfgal? FYI the 2010 US census put the total Minnesota population at 5.3 million. Perhaps you should be worried about what they're putting in the water supply in fabulous, er fabulist Rosemount.
Per the 2010 US census the metro population is only 3.6 million if you include St Cloud or about 3.28 million of you only include the immediate metro. Granted this data is a little old but, from where I live I just don't see a 1.5 million population spike...perhaps the view is different in Rosemount, though....
Or perhaps you are making up facts again. What gives, golfgal? FYI the 2010 US census put the total Minnesota population at 5.3 million. Perhaps you should be worried about what they're putting in the water supply in fabulous, er fabulist Rosemount.
Oh, give it a rest, change the 5 million to 3.28 million then...the point being, if the urban lifestyle is so "popular" why do the vast majority of people in the US live in suburbs....
Oh, give it a rest, change the 5 million to 3.28 million then...the point being, if the urban lifestyle is so "popular" why do the vast majority of people in the US live in suburbs....
Hmmm.... lots of reasons, including cost. Not everyone can afford to live in a nice neighborhood in the city. Many people prioritize space or want new construction, and buying a big new house is going to be cheaper out in the exurbs. Some people actively prefer suburban living, others choose it because it makes the most financial sense.
All that said, times are also changing. More and more people DO prefer to live in more urban areas. Tastes change, metropolitan areas evolve. There's a clear uptick in the interest in walkable neighborhoods. It no longer has much to do with city limits -- suburbs can certainly be very walkable and have an "urban" form -- and if you're looking at the national numbers, many "suburbs" are far more urban in form than what you find in the Twin Cities. Forget about artificial city versus suburb splits, and just focus on the fact that more and more people prefer communities that are walkable and that have good public transportation. In the Twin Cities those areas are still mostly (but by no means exclusively) found within the core city limits, but that, too, is changing, and will presumably continue to change as more and more people seek out those types of neighborhoods. Neighborhoods within Minneapolis obviously still have room to grow, and most already have decent public transportation in place, and to varying degrees are walkable. (all are "walkable," but to what extend depends on your working definition.) The inner-ring suburbs also generally have the public transportation thing going for them, and ideally new developments and upgrades can help fill in the gaps. No need to go build over cornfields these days.
And besides, we're not talking about forcing everyone to move from Rosemount into the inner city; we're talking about increasing the options available and increasing the density in our urban core. I think that means providing increased housing options for people with different needs and tastes, and at different price points.
Providing affordable housing opportunities is also going to be important. And that goes for both core cities and suburbs, especially given that the majority of poor residents in the Twin Cities now live in the suburbs.
Location: Mableton, GA USA (NW Atlanta suburb, 4 miles OTP)
11,334 posts, read 26,086,242 times
Reputation: 3995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewcifer
Over the last 5 years 20% of the housing starts have been in the core cities. That is a new phenomenon and it points to a change in what people want.
That could be a good thing, but iy also means that 80% of the housing starts were in the suburbs.
What were the numbers for the previous five years?
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.
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.
