U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-25-2012, 08:00 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 18 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,000 posts, read 102,581,357 times
Reputation: 33059

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nykiddo718718 View Post
This is international.

Millennials largely see more value in experiences over material objects.

Why have a car and live in the suburbs when you can experience more living in a big city. Walkabilty, more interaction with potential friends or more. Access to entertainment and culture enhance the chance exponentially. Cars isolate, you miss out on possible connections. The whole concept the suburbs is largely isolationist. My car, my house, my yard; instead of my community (everyone and everything in it).
Oh, please! That is what we Boomers were saying in the 60s! Now you millenials revile us!

Believe it or not, and I think you will choose to not, the burbs have a great sense of community, moreso in some cases than "the city" where so many are temporary renters. And believe it or not, again, there are things to do outside "the city", e.g. hiking, biking (for fun, not transportation), camping, enjoying the outdoors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-25-2012, 08:45 AM
 
2,493 posts, read 2,194,181 times
Reputation: 3351
I don't qualify as young and I like the options owning a car gives me, BUT, I have structured my life so a car is only one of many transportation options. I live in the downtown of a small city, 20 miles from a big city. Walking and biking take care of most trips with the bus to get to the big city and the car to get into the mountains. My car is 8 years old, paid for and I'm old enough for cheap insurance. Tires and maintenace are cheap because of limited miles driven. For me its all about having options.

I see the trend of moving to more walkable locations as more than just for the young. My generation has always been about bigger, newer homes and cars and it is refreshing to see the trend away from possessions and toward the enjoyment of everyday life. As a teenager, a car represented freedom, now it represents maintenace$ and hours stuck in traffic. Oddly enough, my bikes and skis are worth far more than my car. I'm off for a Christmas walk with my daughter. We got 4-5 inches of snow overnight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2012, 10:47 AM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,827,437 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlite View Post
What's interesting about this thread is how much fervor some folks have in denying this trend among the young. I posted an article from The Economist, which is a conservative, pro-free market publication which almost always endorses the Conservative Party in Britain.
The Economist is not conservative by American standards. But if you take a look at that article, you see that miles driven are NOT dropping in the US -- rather, after having dropped, they're recovering now. I rather suspect the difference in licensed drivers among the young is because of insurance-company inspired regulation and costs rather than any wishes on their part; anecdotally, everyone I know at work (in Manhattan, and most of my co-workers are in their 20s and 30s) has a license, even those without a car.

Cities are making a comeback because many of them (particularly including New York, but many others as well) are no longer the crime-filled pits of despair they were from the 60s through early 90s. But I expect the phenomenon to plateau, as cities get more expensive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2012, 11:01 AM
 
1,015 posts, read 1,541,980 times
Reputation: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
The Economist is not conservative by American standards. But if you take a look at that article, you see that miles driven are NOT dropping in the US -- rather, after having dropped, they're recovering now. I rather suspect the difference in licensed drivers among the young is because of insurance-company inspired regulation and costs rather than any wishes on their part; anecdotally, everyone I know at work (in Manhattan, and most of my co-workers are in their 20s and 30s) has a license, even those without a car.

Cities are making a comeback because many of them (particularly including New York, but many others as well) are no longer the crime-filled pits of despair they were from the 60s through early 90s. But I expect the phenomenon to plateau, as cities get more expensive.
Predicting is hard, especially about the future (LOL), but cost doesn't necessarily seem to lead to a plateauing of city growth. At least in the Bay Area, the place where housing construction has recovered the fastest is central San Francisco, a very expensive place indeed. Groups like Reconnecting America have done analyses indicating that there is a very large pent up demand for transit-oriented development, which would say that it would be a while before the market is saturated.

Yes, it makes sense that people without cars have licenses. Most Americans who are able to get a license do so. Having a license without a car allows you to access a car sometimes, when you need one. That could be a trip to the country, it could be a big run to Home Depot when you want a big pickup truck. But you don't have to have the burden of owning and maintaining a car all the time. To some on this list that's a gotcha that proves car-free living is a fake. To me, it's a welcome step away from the all or nothing model of car ownership. It shows that in the right circumstances you can do your day to day traveling without a car, but not forego trips that are (at least now) difficult to do without one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2012, 12:40 PM
 
Location: Ypsilanti
389 posts, read 400,534 times
Reputation: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
The Economist is not conservative by American standards. But if you take a look at that article, you see that miles driven are NOT dropping in the US -- rather, after having dropped, they're recovering now. I rather suspect the difference in licensed drivers among the young is because of insurance-company inspired regulation and costs rather than any wishes on their part; anecdotally, everyone I know at work (in Manhattan, and most of my co-workers are in their 20s and 30s) has a license, even those without a car.

Cities are making a comeback because many of them (particularly including New York, but many others as well) are no longer the crime-filled pits of despair they were from the 60s through early 90s. But I expect the phenomenon to plateau, as cities get more expensive.
What if the suburbs are already more expensive? I was comparing the northside of Chicago rent to the rent of Ann Arbor, I searched for housing right in the core of the city or part of the cities.

Now keep in mind i thought Chicago would for sure be more expensive, but me ditching a car would make it cheaper to live there... WRONG!! I looked at online housing sites, ranging from craigslist and to the actual realtor sites of the cities. Single bedroom apartments even in one of the best neighborhoods in Chicago, started around 800 a month, compare that to 1100 for Ann Arbor.

I spent time in those neighborhoods in Chicago, the apartments that were 600-800 a month, I thought would be 1500-2000 lol. Obviously I spend time in Ann Arbor but for the life of me couldn't figure out why Ann Arbor was more expensive and this not mentioning a car is needed here as opposed to Chicago.

A car will add at least another 600 dollars a month, so if I was limited to those two it'd be a no brainer to go to Chicago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2012, 12:55 PM
 
10,630 posts, read 23,415,082 times
Reputation: 6702
I think that car-sharing programs have the potential to be truly revolutionary. In most American cities life would be easier if you sometimes have access to a car for some errands, yet the costs of buying, maintaining, insuring, and potentially parking that car is significant. For the many people out there who just want a car to run errands on the weekend and other similar occasional use, car-shares are really an ideal option. The costs typically even include gas and insurance. These are presumably especially attractive to young people who may not already own a car, and who are likely on tighter budgets as they begin their careers and pay off school debt (and who may already have grown used to car-share programs, as they are heavily promoted on many college campuses across the country), but they certainly work for people of all ages. My parents (in their mid-60s) do own a car, a car that they rarely use, and when it dies they will likely just join the local car-share program, an option not available when they bought their last car. They're not going to go out and get rid of a car that they already own, however. I don't know what kind of research has been done on that, but I would guess that they are not alone. Perhaps as more people who own cars and who live in locations that now have car-share options will make similar decisions once their current cars die.

Car-share programs make it much easier for individuals to go without a car (as they still have easy, 24/7 access to cars if they need it, no waiting for Hertz required), or for households to cut back to one car. Obviously the concept doesn't work for everyone, but I do think that if the options continue to expand it could really make a big difference to people of all ages living (or who would like to live) in urban neighborhoods. And not just heart-of-downtown neighborhoods, either. They completely transform the conversation of car ownership away from that all-or-nothing mentality of years past.

As far the original question and why the aversion to unwalkable neighborhoods, I'm not young (or at least not young enough to count as a Millennial), but you couldn't pay me enough to live in such a place. I understand that they appeal to others, but I would find them to be limiting. I enjoy visiting rural areas on vacation, for example, but I would find it boring to live there. I don't dislike rural areas, however. Now if you're talking auto-dependent suburban locations (note that I am NOT suggesting that all suburban neighborhoods fit this category!), I do strongly dislike those because I think any settlement of people where it's necessary to depend on a car to live life is an example of poor planning, and doesn't make economic or environmental sense. I would go stir-crazy having to get into a car just for the basics. The housing might be cheaper and/or bigger, but that would not be enough to lure me to live in such a location.

Last edited by uptown_urbanist; 12-25-2012 at 01:06 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2012, 01:08 PM
 
Location: Ypsilanti
389 posts, read 400,534 times
Reputation: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Oh, please! That is what we Boomers were saying in the 60s! Now you millenials revile us!

Believe it or not, and I think you will choose to not, the burbs have a great sense of community, moreso in some cases than "the city" where so many are temporary renters. And believe it or not, again, there are things to do outside "the city", e.g. hiking, biking (for fun, not transportation), camping, enjoying the outdoors.
Gonna have to disagree with you on that, a sense of community can be anywhere, but it's hard to feel sense of community when nobody is walking outside, secluded, less people to meet etc.

I'll mention my week long getaway trip to Chicago in the summer. People I believe will help you anywhere, but a big rumor is city folk are rude don't talk to strangers etc. Well I went around Chicago playing my guitar in bars. Each and every night people were very friendly. The people would take me in as a friend asking if I'd wanna hangout with their group of friends afterwards.

So easy to meet people, at the hotel I was in, there were a lot of Europeans. There was a hangout area in the hotel, I had pretty much made friends with the people from London. They went to see me one night and then they were spreading throughout the hotel I was some epic guitarist haha.

I was near overwhelmed by the sense of community in Chicago, things do not happen that quick here or the suburbs here, I've tried both lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2012, 01:21 PM
 
1,015 posts, read 1,541,980 times
Reputation: 746
As Weteath's post shows, one has to look at housing plus transportation costs. If by moving to the suburbs, one has to buy a car, or buy more cars, a lot of the apparent cost advantage evaporates. It takes an individual calculation, location by location, but this is a general phenomenon. This is another problem that's coming as more poor/low income people live in the suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2012, 04:05 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,827,437 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by weteath View Post
What if the suburbs are already more expensive? I was comparing the northside of Chicago rent to the rent of Ann Arbor, I searched for housing right in the core of the city or part of the cities.

Now keep in mind i thought Chicago would for sure be more expensive, but me ditching a car would make it cheaper to live there... WRONG!! I looked at online housing sites, ranging from craigslist and to the actual realtor sites of the cities. Single bedroom apartments even in one of the best neighborhoods in Chicago, started around 800 a month, compare that to 1100 for Ann Arbor.
Well, Chicago still is a crime-ridden pit of despair -- it's not desirable, therefore it's cheaper.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2012, 05:09 PM
 
20,976 posts, read 16,263,511 times
Reputation: 10270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948 View Post
they are not part of the american dream. they are the disenfranchised. there is no golden years waiting for them. the car the house the boat, kids and a yard, gone with the wind.
The American dream is a mindset, not something tangible which someone can give you.

Those of us who have labored and toiled for it understand what it means to us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top