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've found that a lot of my peers may necessarily want to live in Manhatten, but want to live "near the action" and stay around the metro area when possible. So when they hit their late 20s or 30s they might decamp and cross the city line, but they're not really going far. I feel like its the exurbs and small towns that are suffering most. At least in Philadelphia, and this is totally anecdotal, but it seems that the metro has gotten a lot stronger and the demand to live in and around the city has stayed pretty strong. I think you can see this play out in housing prices which have continued to appreciate in and around the city. It's the further out areas that are seeing less investment, and in a sense this isn't so much a bad thing. The metro should be dense, and the rural areas should be rural.
I've found that a lot of my peers may necessarily want to live in Manhatten, but want to live "near the action" and stay around the metro area when possible. So when they hit their late 20s or 30s they might decamp and cross the city line, but they're not really going far. I feel like its the exurbs and small towns that are suffering most.
They may end up leaving the inner city at some point, but a large percentage will still crave being in well built, walkable new urbanist communities where the distances are short and the connections are many - when combined with high capacity transit will be a excellent compromise for people who crave the city but can't afford the steep cost of entry. The traditional auto dependent sprawling suburbs are dead ducks though.
They may end up leaving the inner city at some point, but a large percentage will still crave being in well built, walkable new urbanist communities where the distances are short and the connections are many - when combined with high capacity transit will be a excellent compromise for people who crave the city but can't afford the steep cost of entry. The traditional auto dependent sprawling suburbs are dead ducks though.
The Levittowns which are now seen as lower-class/quality, sure, but the upper middle class "soulless and sprawling" communities will be fine for the foreseeable future, although their present cost premiums will probably decline somewhat. Upscale inner-city/new urbanist/old urbanist/semi-urbanist/whatever you want to call them communities are, barring massive suburban redevelopment going to be the destinations for the young/wealthy/upwardly mobile. Relatively little supply plus increased demand = high cost premium.
This isn't a trend. They're just picking up on one segment of the city-suburban convection. Young adults usually want the urban life. Then they hook up and have kids. They may try to stick it out in the city, but then they realize that kids need space, and space is lots cheaper in the 'burbs. I've seen this happen a lot.
Then the kids grow up, and find the 'burbs boring. So they move into a city, and the cycle repears
They may end up leaving the inner city at some point, but a large percentage will still crave being in well built, walkable new urbanist communities where the distances are short and the connections are many - when combined with high capacity transit will be a excellent compromise for people who crave the city but can't afford the steep cost of entry. The traditional auto dependent sprawling suburbs are dead ducks though.
I've found that a lot of my peers may necessarily want to live in Manhatten, but want to live "near the action" and stay around the metro area when possible. So when they hit their late 20s or 30s they might decamp and cross the city line, but they're not really going far. I feel like its the exurbs and small towns that are suffering most. At least in Philadelphia, and this is totally anecdotal, but it seems that the metro has gotten a lot stronger and the demand to live in and around the city has stayed pretty strong. I think you can see this play out in housing prices which have continued to appreciate in and around the city. It's the further out areas that are seeing less investment, and in a sense this isn't so much a bad thing. The metro should be dense, and the rural areas should be rural.
I agree with this. I know in D.C., people are choosing to either live in the city or outside the city along a metro line. Fortunately for D.C., that means they can get an urban lifestyle across the entire region living car free with premium transit if they choose. Living patterns are definitely changing across the nation.
What central business districts and proper high density cities are seeing new swaths of population besides DC, San Fran, NY and Boston? Chicago lost population from 2000-2010. Atlanta city proper continues to grow much slower than surrounding suburbs. Houston and Charlotte's growth is impressive, but these are sprawl cities with a large population residing in SFH cul de sacs.
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.
