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.
How can you tell it's enough, especially if spread over a large area. 8x means a lot higher frequencies and/or transit that doesn't run empty. Most suburbs have a direct transit connection with downtown, to other job centers, less often unless they're right nearby.
The Denver Tech Center does have buses that run through that district. Are you saying it needs more transit or that it has plenty of transit?
I don't know if the transit is the right amount or not. I don't work down there. I do know the area is served by transit, something others were questioning.
How can you tell it's enough, especially if spread over a large area. 8x means a lot higher frequencies and/or transit that doesn't run empty. Most suburbs have a direct transit connection with downtown, to other job centers, less often unless they're right nearby.
If you have with 35,000 workers heading to a particular neighborhood or office park everyday and Denver JTW mode split is around 10% transit (I don't know what the actual number is) then you can expect that around 3,500 people will try to take the bus or train there (so 7,000 trips per day).
Of course it depends on the location of the place within the metro and the quality of the transit that serves it but it's a good baseline.
To get back to the OP, the question really wasn't "will families live in cities?" or even "will white families live in cities?" It was "will SWPL parents stay in cities?"
The reason I think it's important to make this generalization is because a gentrifying city will push out both working-class whites and people of color over time, as the cost differential between the cities and the suburbs becomes greater. However, it may be within that one narrow category (upper-middle class white parents) there is actually an uptick. But given this demographic seems to get married later, less frequently, and has less kids, it's unlikely to be enough to stem the decline in other types of children in urban centers.
In the examples I cited, there was only an uptick in white children under the age of 10. Since 2000, however, the absolute number of white children over the age of 10 in the District has only increased by nine. And there's actually been a decline in the number of white children in this age group since 2005 (the number grew slightly between 2000 and 2005 before falling back down to 2000 levels in 2012).
In a denser city like DC where SFHs come at a high premium (often $ 1 million plus in decent neighborhoods), I think a lot of young parents find living with an infant in a two-bedroom apartment/condo manageable. Infants don't need much space and you can just roll them down the street to meet up for mimosas with your friends. But once you have two kids and they both have bikes, instruments, a Wii, several other toys, books, desks, and start wanting to have sleepovers, the condo is simply not going to get the job done. Their kids could actually attend good schools if they were willing to live in a condo for the next 17-18 years, but I think few people are willing to do that.
I don't know if the transit is the right amount or not. I don't work down there. I do know the area is served by transit, something others were questioning.
Who was questioning it? I have been following this thread and haven't noticed that. There have been general comments about how suburban office parks and suburbs lack transit options. In many suburban cases that is true.
I already know that families do live in cities. The title is just shorthand. My real question is if you think cities, assuming massive levels of gentrification, can ever compete against the suburbs as far as attracting families goes?
I posted the following in the DC forum. By way of background, Tenleytown and Georgetown are two very affluent DC neighborhoods that are zoned for excellent schools. Chevy Chase is an affluent Maryland suburb that sits across the border from Tenleytown.
It's often stated that once the schools are fixed, families will flood back into cities in droves. But looking at the Census data, solidly affluent DC neighborhoods don't have the same number of children as solidly affluent Maryland suburbs.
So...do you think that there's a built-in bias towards the suburbs when it comes to family life (regardless of schools, crime, etc.)?
PS: I understand that not ALL neighborhoods are like the ones I mentioned. They are just examples.
IF (Make that very very big IF) the schools were great, the answer is YES! I don't like the suburbs one bit.
To long of a commute
Nothing but chains around
People rush to close their garage doors
Insane HOA's
Too much yard work
.....and the list goes on and on and on....No Thanks.
Last edited by PhotoProIP; 02-17-2014 at 09:59 AM..
In a denser city like DC where SFHs come at a high premium (often $ 1 million plus in decent neighborhoods), I think a lot of young parents find living with an infant in a two-bedroom apartment/condo manageable. Infants don't need much space and you can just roll them down the street to meet up for mimosas with your friends. But once you have two kids and they both have bikes, instruments, a Wii, several other toys, books, desks, and start wanting to have sleepovers, the condo is simply not going to get the job done. Their kids could actually attend good schools if they were willing to live in a condo for the next 17-18 years, but I think few people are willing to do that.
I don't think the condo is inherently bad. It is the fact that it is 2 bedrooms and 1000 square feet. Most families could manage pretty well in a 3-4 bedroom condo at 1500 square feet (assuming the layout is good). The problem is we rarely build family sized condos.
The ones in my own neighborhood sell in minutes (virtually). We don't have options between the "hip DINKs" who live int he city and the 2 parents/2 kids household in the suburbs. There isn't enough family sized housing at the right price in the city.
I don't think the condo is inherently bad. It is the fact that it is 2 bedrooms and 1000 square feet. Most families could manage pretty well in a 3-4 bedroom condo at 1500 square feet (assuming the layout is good). The problem is we rarely build family sized condos.
The ones in my own neighborhood sell in minutes (virtually). We don't have options between the "hip DINKs" who live int he city and the 2 parents/2 kids household in the suburbs. There isn't enough family sized housing at the right price in the city.
In a city like DC where there are a million amenities around, it would be counterintuitive to spend time indoors.
Think of Europe, cities there are opposite as they are here; most cities IS where people live, and thanks to great public transit people get around very easy. Spaces are also smaller, but being close to so many different things to do, people use their homes to sleep, and not live 24/7.
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.
