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.
We have a situation in America where virtually all the jobs that college grads get are located in the same few trendy cities (San Francisco, Boston, Seattle, NYC, Chicago). This wasn't a problem a decade ago because the city limits themselves were affordable and the suburbs were commutable. Now the cities and suburbs have become unlivable due to the population growth. This is fine with the 20-somethings for now since they like living where all the "action" is and don't mind a 380-sqft studio apt. But I wonder what will happen when they get married and want to have kids in their 30s or 40s. I guess it's possible that by that time their companies will push them out to make room for the next generation of 20-somethings who want the urban lifestyle. Another possibility is they just accept a downgraded lifestyle and live in expensive, small condos like families do in Tokyo and Seoul. Yet another possibility is that companies start building offices in non-trendy areas where their workers can have a traditional middle-class lifestyle.
What do you think?
As a 20-30 something living in a big city, I like my middle class lifestyle in the city. I'm young, single, make a decent income, and own a 900sf 1 bedroom condo in downtown. I can move and buy a $500,000 4,000sf home in a nice suburb and not have to pay the $500/month HOA I do now, but I don't. My company can't push me out and since I'm on year one of my pay scale my income wont go down. I will be conscious of lifestyle creep and may only invest in a nicer vehicle once I pay off my student loans. If it all hits the fan, I will sell and downgrade.
Some of these people will move back to the inner suburbs after they inherit their deceased parents house. What the younger brothers and sisters do is anyone's guess.
We live in an outer suburb of Boston that has tripled in population in the last 20 years. I would like to move out of here but my wife does not want to leave her friends. So I'll just put up with the insane drivers and the heavy traffic. At least I do not have to take the bus to Boston any more.
It really depends on the city. In Chicago, young people who live in the suburbs want to experience city life and they move there following college. Then they settle down and when it's time to start a family, most of them leave because the Chicago Public Schools are dreadful compared to suburban schools. Those staying in the city who want to give their children a very good education pay hefty private school tuition - but the cost is prohibitive for most.
I agree with the overall rant however people need to be smarter and realize the system is working against you, not for you. Land, housing, real estate, etc., it's all controlled by the big dogs with deep pockets. You can't beat them. They want a housing crisis because it raises the value of property.
The more people that keep trying to cram into the same 5 cities, the more they laugh all the way to the bank.
Most high cost of living cities aren't worth it for most people because your disposable income after bills won't be enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm1982
Here is an example in Colombus Ohio
"
A Stateline analysis of census data showed the Columbus metro area at the top of a list of cities that have attracted young, educated people from out of state, yet are still relatively affordable.
Columbus is among areas whose young, educated populations are growing nearly as fast as some of the most famous youth magnets such as Silicon Valley; Austin, Texas; and Nashville, Tennessee.
In Columbus, the number of people ages 25 to 34 with a college degree has increased 62 percent since 2010, yet less than 20 percent of a typical household’s income goes to housing." Columbus attracting young professionals
I know Columbus very well it's a city people should consider instead of one of these higher priced trendy cities. One of the problems with Columbus is the public transportation sucks and it has that urban sprawl thing going on and doesn't really feel like a bigger city with connected neighborhoods.
Last edited by wanderlust76; 11-14-2017 at 04:52 PM..
I agree with the overall rant however people need to be smarter and realize the system is working against you, not for you. Land, housing, real estate, etc., it's all controlled by the big dogs with deep pockets. You can't beat them. They want a housing crisis because it raises the value of property.
The more people that keep trying to cram into the same 5 cities, the more they laugh all the way to the bank.
Most high cost of living cities aren't worth it for most people because your disposable income after bills won't be enough.
I know Columbus very well it's a city people should consider instead of one of these higher priced trendy cities. One of the problems with Columbus is the public transportation sucks and it has that urban sprawl thing going on and doesn't really feel like a bigger city with connected neighborhoods.
Plus you end up spending more for almost everything else in a city like L.A because they know they can get away with it .
Might seem like a little more here and there but it does add up .
If you are in a city where there aren't a bunch of super rich people they can't get away with that .
It's surprising how few people do actually move . But it seems some are willing to do anything from moving . The homeless population has skyrocketed in L.A.
I've never seen a walkable suburb...sure they may have sidewalks in their cookie cutter neighborhoods to go around all their cul-de-sacs...that's not walkable living though...
I've never seen a suburb where you can walk to the grocery store, walk to multiple bars, restaurants (that aren't chains), walk to parks, etc.
Save for a few cities like SF, LA, NYC, DC...most cities are very affordable to live in...yes even big ones like Chicago and Atlanta are.
The subdivision I live in was originally designed to be very walkable, back in the 1950s. I've researched my subdivisions history quite extensively (because I'm a dork like that) and listened to my neighbors (original residents) stories with great interest.
The developer who built this subdivision was also responsible for the two elementary schools, 2 of the 3 churches, the former country club (now gone, sadly), and 3 sets of shopping centers which between them included 2 grocery stores, a post office and a cinema in addition to bars and restaurants.
All 3 churches remain, as do the schools and the post office. The original grocery stores have moved on, the cinema is gone and there's a bit of a hodge podge of things in the strip malls that were designed for the subdivision now... but a lot of things are still walkable which has been wonderful.
I know that this subdivision wasn't unique in it's inclusion of walkable shops and amenities built by the original developer... but I also know that at least two other subdivisions nearby that I've researched (who originally had an array of walkable amenities) no longer have them. Quite sad.
11-14-2017, 05:47 PM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by peequi
You might love San Francisco. I am sure there are other cities that can meet your requirements, but I can't think of anywhere else better than SF for you. NYC could be a contender.
Yep, SF (live there now) and NYC are pretty much the only places with that level of educational opportunity. A few other very large cities might be okay.
I've never seen a walkable suburb...sure they may have sidewalks in their cookie cutter neighborhoods to go around all their cul-de-sacs...that's not walkable living though...
I've never seen a suburb where you can walk to the grocery store, walk to multiple bars, restaurants (that aren't chains), walk to parks, etc.
Save for a few cities like SF, LA, NYC, DC...most cities are very affordable to live in...yes even big ones like Chicago and Atlanta are.
Older cities (pre-car) have some dense inner-core suburbs that are pretty dense and walkable. For major cities, think: inner suburbs of Boston, NYC, Chicago, Philly, and SF (I live in an inner suburb in the Bay Area, and I walk/bike/take transit FAR more than I drive).
But there are other large cities that have that, too. Generally since these cities aren't as trendy, though, the inner suburbs might lack some of the amenities found in inner suburbs of more major cities (listed above).
I started my career in Dallas, but had to move to Manhattan to rise in the field. It was a trade-off...leaving life-long family and friends and a comfortable lifestyle for the career I wanted in the city. I chose the later and was glad I did.
Lifestyle is a choice. Some are very content to make a reasonable living and stay in their hometown. Others are more ambitious and willing to sacrifice to achieve their career goals. Neither choice is right or wrong. I do resent it when people think that sacrifice is easy, however.
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.
