The March of the Millennial Generation to the Cities is Real (Philadelphia: 2015, homes)

[Evergrey]

Most of us should know by now that today's generation of young adults (20-35ish) have very different lifestyle experiences and priorities than previous generations. One notable divergence is a preference for urban living over the American suburban experiment that dominated the latter half of the 20th century. While certain cities like Boston have long been known as hubs of the young and educated, many formerly struggling cities across the US have joined in on the trend. Pittsburgh is one notable example of a previously struggling city that now features a large population of young, college-educated residents... making impressive strides over the past 10 years.

Not all cities have enjoyed this demographic trend, however. Neighboring Cleveland has seen its population of young, college-educated residents shrink.


The March of the Millennial Generation to the Cities is Real -- Rooflines

Look at the next graph, which compares the relative share of total population and 25-34 year old college graduates for the same five cities (1.00 means that the city has the same statewide share of total population as it has of 25-34 year old college graduates, higher than 1.00 means that its share of 25-34 year old college graduates is higher than its total population share).



...

Some cities, like Cleveland and Detroit, are not attracting, or holding college-educated millennials. Both have fewer than their share of this demographic, and have lost more than they gained since 2000.

[ElijahAstin]

A trend is beginning. The use of terms like "march" is premature and represents wishful thinking more than anything else.

I'm going to check the ACS margins of error later. I don't doubt there has been a significant increase in city-dwelling millenials (I'm one of them). I just want to take a closer look at the stats and see what they really entail (year-to-year increases beyond the margin of error are the ones to watch out for).

[zman63]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

Most of us should know by now that today's generation of young adults (20-35ish) have very different lifestyle experiences and priorities than previous generations. One notable divergence is a preference for urban living over the American suburban experiment that dominated the latter half of the 20th century. While certain cities like Boston have long been known as hubs of the young and educated, many formerly struggling cities across the US have joined in on the trend. Pittsburgh is one notable example of a previously struggling city that now features a large population of young, college-educated residents... making impressive strides over the past 10 years.

Not all cities have enjoyed this demographic trend, however. Neighboring Cleveland has seen its population of young, college-educated residents shrink.


The March of the Millennial Generation to the Cities is Real -- Rooflines

Clevelands population of young people is doing just as good if not better than pittsburgh. I go to cleveland often and I see it changing for the better. There are a lot of young people in their downtown, western inner city neighborhoods and little italy. Also, Detroit's downtown is definitely coming back. There is a lot of people out in their downtown, 15,000 more jobs added in their downtown, more investment and cleanup. I agree the Detroit's other neighborhoods need help, but downtown detroit has a slight edge over downtown Pittsburgh right now. Of the three cities cleveland probably has the best downtown, where pittsburgh may have a slight edge in the overall city neighborhoods.

Here are some things I see that most of you choose not to see or do not have the ability to see....

The thing that is going to hurt pittsburgh long term for development is its topography and roads. It is just not an easy city to redevelop as a cleveland or detroit.

I see equal opportunity in all three cities. Most of the problems in all three are identical. However, none of them will be what they once were.

A lot of you on here like to bash our peer cities. Yet very few of you travel to these places to see what is really going on for yourself.

You take these articles and graphs as gospel and that they actually mean something. Just like the Steelers having 6 super bowls.

Also, the Pittsburgh suburbs have peaked and some will remain stable while most will decline. This is due to the aging population with no evidence of enough young people to repopulate. IMO certain areas of the city of Pittsburgh are growing. There are pockets of the east end and north side where new people are moving and repopulating, however there are good sized dead/dying zones still around them. There is much more work to be done before you can call pittsburgh a true success story of revitalization. Pittsburgh's attractiveness for future generations will hinge on both economic opportunity and the public school district. Right now it is not looking too good for the school district. If the school district fails the city fails.

Finally, If this audit of the school district results in a huge tax increase then what? Pittsburgh is in a fragile situation right now. It could get better slowly or cave in completely.

[selltheburgh]

cleveland and detroit are too flat and spread out. pittsburgh's hills and rivers cause it to be a bit more dense. it also gives more character - vistas, different types of architecture, and topography.

[ElijahAstin]

Here's the data for Pittsburgh (note that the ACS surveys correspond to the mid-range year--e.g., 2008-2012 = 2010, 2007-2011 = 2009, and so on and so forth):

///

2008-2012

28,226 +/- 2,182 (26,044 - 30,408) / 306,430* = (8.5, 9.2, 9.9)

***

2007-2011

26,537 +/- 1,913 (24,624 - 28,450) / 307,532* = (8.0, 8.6, 9.3)

***

2006-2010

25,155 +/- 1,937 (23,218 - 27,092) / 308,003* = (7.5, 8.2, 8.8)

***

2005-2009

26,609 +/- 2,252 (24,357 - 28,861) / 313,118* = (7.8, 8.5, 9.2)

***

2000

20,358 (no margin of error available) / 334,563 = 6.1

///

*Margin of error is trivial (ex, in 2008-2012, it was 53)

///

Accounting for margins of error, while there was a sizeable jump in absolute population between 2000 and 2007-2010, in more recent years, the growth appears to have steadied somewhat, though it is definitely both significant and positive. Nonetheless, I stand by my previous assessment that "march" is still too strong a word, at least in Pittsburgh. Proportionately speaking, things are most definitely on the up and up. It will be interesting to see if that continues into 2011, given that it's the first estimated positive growth year.

I can also examine this data using the 1-year ACS (which would allow me to go as far back as 2005 and as far forward as 2015), though the margin of error will go up acordingly.

[wpipkins2]

Downtown Pittsburgh>Downtown Cleveland>Downtown Detroit

Downtown Detroit has made great strides over the past ten years. The newly renovated Book Cadillac building is awsome but downtown detroit is no where near Pittsburgh or Cleveland. The amount of large abandoned buildings coupled with the wide streets makes it feel desolate during the weekday.

[PreservationPioneer]

I agree that march is too strong of a word. And we should also add that by "cities" we mean "large cities." I don't know that Erie and Youngstown and Allentown and Reading are seeing the same growth or appeal to younger people that the larger cities are, but I wish they were.

[LIRefugee]

My assumption looking at those basic graphs and the mention of Cleveland and Detroit as not following the same trend led me to assume that the presence of major research institutions had a lot to do with the difference. It doesn't completely like up like I expected, though (except for Detroit).

Members of the Association of American Universities:

Baltimore - Johns Hopkins
Boston area - Boston U, Brandeis, Harvard, MIT
Philadelphia - Penn
Pittsburgh - Pitt, CMU
St. Louis - Wash U
Cleveland - Case Western
Detroit - None

Universities with "Very High" or "High" research activity according to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching:

Baltimore area - Johns Hopkins (VH) Maryland-Baltimore County (H)
Boston area - Boston U, Brandeis, Harvard, Tufts (VH) Boston College, Northeastern, UMass-Boston (H)
Philadelphia - Penn (VH) Drexel, Temple (H)
Pittsburgh - CMU, Pitt (VH) Duquesne (H)
St. Louis - Wash U (VH) St. Louis U, Missouri-St. Louis (H)
Cleveland - Case Western (VH) Cleveland St (H)
Detroit - Wayne St (VH)

Based on the above, the level of research activity for each city and its immediate vicinity would be roughly ranked as:

Boston
Pittsburgh
Philadelphia, St. Louis
Baltimore, Cleveland
Detroit

If the presence of significant research institutions does result in a high ratio of young adults against the total population, what would explain the difference between Baltimore and Cleveland?

[zman63]

Originally Posted by selltheburgh

cleveland and detroit are too flat and spread out. pittsburgh's hills and rivers cause it to be a bit more dense. it also gives more character - vistas, different types of architecture, and topography.

Again, what does this have to do with economic opportunity or a successful school district? Those two things are key to Pittsburgh's growth. Having more character means very little if you do not have the opportunity or school district.

The fact that cleveland and detroit are flat give both a distinct topography advantage over Pittsburgh. People on here may like the hills and such, but business likes the quickest and easiest way to develop i.e. flat lands.

[Caladium]

Sure hope the March is real, although the February was a little bit too real this year...

OK OK bad joke, I know. So getting to the topic, I think this is a very encouraging trend. Cities are great places to live, especially when you're in your 20s. And lots of people who try out city in their 20s end up living there all their lives. There's a lot to be said for the urban life. I agree that issues such as the quality of public schools in most cities, crime, and the higher taxes cities often have are still a big problem. But here's the thing--the battle is halfway won just by having people try it for a few years. Sure beats the days when people were afraid to even consider moving into a city. The trick is getting people to buy homes and settle in, because those who settle in will then be more likely to stay the rest of their lives, and find ways to solve the challenges.