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 02-25-2013, 02:00 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,111,636 times
Reputation: 3982

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by semiurbanite View Post
There seems to be little question from my experience - almost everyone I know who spent their 20s and early 30s in an urban neighborhood do not actually WANT to move to the suburbs. However many still do, often because of schools. Almost every friend that left for the suburbs would not have done so if the schools were better. The ones that did move seem somewhat regretful, especially when so many of their other friends are staying in the city and making it work.

Alot of this comes down to schools improving, which is already happening with the recent influx of educated parents staying in the city. 20 years ago, staying in the city with kids probably didn't seem like an option. 10 years ago, a small number of parents started to make it happen. Now it seems to be snowballing - many younger parents are seeing that it can be done and are staying, at least through elementary school.
In Los Angeles it seems like the best schools in the area are the in-city Charter Schools. Of course getting your kid into them is not assured by any means.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-25-2013, 02:17 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,989 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
It's pretty shortsighted of that study to exclude in-city SFH residential neighborhoods from the counting.
The study doesn't, it even mentioned some places in-city. It's for the entire country. I prefer going to the census directly:

New York QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

right-hand column is the entire country, homeownership rate is 66%. Same number

Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
Good point, the vast majority of US cities are built mostly of SFHs. Only exceptions are cities like Boston, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco (maybe, lots of attached homes there).

Some of the trendiest cities right now are chock full of detached SFHs (Austin, Portland, Seattle, Denver, etc).
I don't think I realized until visiting this forum how common detached SFHs are in large American cities. But Seattle has slight majority (50.4%) of multi-family housing units. Denver is around 55% single-family, so most but a huge majority. My town is 51% single-family units, and it's not a big city at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 02:20 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,989 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve View Post
The math is still pretty compelling... 66% of homes are owner occupied. Even if the other 34% all want urban center living and and opt to rent, the trend is still towards SFH and suburbs.
Nope that's not a trend — a trend would be if more want center city living than previously. So, 10% prefer center city compared to 8% a decade ago. Whether it's a majority or minority is irrelevant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 02:24 PM
 
2,923 posts, read 3,118,048 times
Reputation: 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Nope that's not a trend — a trend would be if more want center city living than previously. So, 10% prefer center city compared to 8% a decade ago. Whether it's a majority or minority is irrelevant.
You are confusing trend definitions. This isn't "current style", but rather "general direction"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 02:30 PM
 
1,211 posts, read 886,730 times
Reputation: 1107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve View Post
Sorry to rain on your parade.
This paints a different picture:
The Next Real Estate Boom | Brookings Institution

"Not surprisingly, fully 77 percent of millennials plan to live in America’s urban cores."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 02:33 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,989 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve View Post
You are confusing trend definitions. This isn't "current style", but rather "general direction"
yes, I know. A trend = a change over time. You're not giving a change in prefernces over time; just a preference %.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 02:38 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,111,636 times
Reputation: 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by semiurbanite View Post
This paints a different picture:
The Next Real Estate Boom | Brookings Institution

"Not surprisingly, fully 77 percent of millennials plan to live in America’s urban cores."
What age group are Millennials? I can't figure out if I am part of that generation or not - I was born in 1985. (EDIT: according to wikipedia it looks like I am).

If I am, 77 percent seems awfully high.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 02:46 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,989 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
If I am, 77 percent seems awfully high.
If the 77% is accurate, that's a lot of unhappy Millenelialss — there's not enough urban housing to accomodate them.

Reading through that article, I found this interesting but not for the reason the author intended:

Ten years ago, the highest property values per square foot in the Washington, D.C., metro area were in car-dependent suburbs like Great Falls, Virginia. Today, walkable city neighborhoods like Dupont Circle command the highest per-square-foot prices, followed by dense suburban neighborhoods near subway stops in places like Bethesda, Maryland, and Arlington, Virginia.

Space is normally at a premium in center city neighborhoods, it seems natural to expect per square foot prices would be cheaper in the suburbs even in wealthy areas while the total price might be the same. It shows DC has made tremdous gains, but also shows how far the city fell.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 02:51 PM
 
Location: IL
2,992 posts, read 4,419,619 times
Reputation: 3085
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
If the 77% is accurate, that's a lot of unhappy Millenelialss — there's not enough urban housing to accomodate them.

Reading through that article, I found this interesting but not for the reason the author intended:

Ten years ago, the highest property values per square foot in the Washington, D.C., metro area were in car-dependent suburbs like Great Falls, Virginia. Today, walkable city neighborhoods like Dupont Circle command the highest per-square-foot prices, followed by dense suburban neighborhoods near subway stops in places like Bethesda, Maryland, and Arlington, Virginia.

Space is normally at a premium in center city neighborhoods, it seems natural to expect per square foot prices would be cheaper in the suburbs even in wealthy areas while the total price might be the same. It shows DC has made tremdous gains, but also shows how far the city fell.
Reading this I immediately thought denser suburbs with good public transport to the city (at least during working hours) will likely be a winner in future years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 03:14 PM
 
2,923 posts, read 3,118,048 times
Reputation: 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
yes, I know. A trend = a change over time. You're not giving a change in prefernces over time; just a preference %.
That's not the only definition. Argh
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