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 09-08-2014, 03:48 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,144 posts, read 103,022,234 times
Reputation: 33186

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
I was only suggesting that the meme is wrapped around some truth. That it has also been the case for several generations is an aside; the meme is specifically in regards to the preferences of one (very large and economy-shaping) generation.
OK, but the Boomer generation was huge, too. I know we're a bit smaller in numbers than the millennials, but I think in terms of % of population, we may have been bigger back in the 70s. As for NYC, before us, there were the Beatniks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-08-2014, 03:57 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,015,796 times
Reputation: 1349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
OK, but the Boomer generation was huge, too. I know we're a bit smaller in numbers than the millennials, but I think in terms of % of population, we may have been bigger back in the 70s. As for NYC, before us, there were the Beatniks.
Neither point I argue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2014, 11:34 AM
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
45,993 posts, read 42,247,227 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
You're not confused, you're being argumentative, and I say that in a nice way! Here's the relevant fragment of darkeconomist's post: Now I interpreted this to mean "that's what millennials want". I'm pointing out it's what 20 somethings wanted in 1945, too! When the war ended, and my mom got out of the Army, where she'd been a nurse, she and her friend went to Boston to further their educations. Now that's Boston, not NYC, but it was still "the city". My mom was a farm girl from Wisconsin. Moving to "the city" was popular in the 1970s as well. I remember when we were all graduating from nursing school. Those of us who were 'unattached' to a certain city for various reasons (partners, strong family ties, whatever) talked of where we would go,and a certain number went to NYC and particularly SF. It was VERY popular in the 70s, trust me.
Found this, that shows the difference between the 70s and now:

Peak Sprawl? The Fringes of the New York Region Are Shrinking | Streetsblog New York City

The report says young adults between the ages of 20 and 29 are behind both of these trends. From 1970 to 1980, suburban counties captured 96 percent of the growth in this demographic. From 2010 to 2013, that figure dropped to 56 percent, with the urban core becoming increasingly competitive.

People may have been moving to NYC from elsewhere in the 70s, but that wasn't the overall trend. Not sure if I agree with the other confusions, posting this just to shows there's big difference between now and bad then. For NYC, I'd guess more young 20 something must have been leaving NYC than any other other decade, the population losses were severe that decade.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2014, 08:49 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,109 posts, read 16,194,472 times
Reputation: 12743
Uh, what?

So if suburban counties are continuing to capture most of the growth in the NY region, how is that peak sprawl? Peak sprawl would be if the suburban counties were losing population. Instead they're gaining most of the population. Leave it to Streetblog, I suppose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2014, 08:55 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
45,993 posts, read 42,247,227 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Uh, what?

So if suburban counties are continuing to capture most of the growth in the NY region, how is that peak sprawl? Peak sprawl would be if the suburban counties were losing population. Instead they're gaining most of the population. Leave it to Streetblog, I suppose.
bady worded title. But:

Growth since 2010 has been concentrated in the core counties, accounting for 69 percent of the region’s total population growth.

That's more than their % of the region's population, so you argue the region is de-sprawling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2014, 11:42 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,109 posts, read 16,194,472 times
Reputation: 12743
I thought it was: From 1970 to 1980, suburban counties captured 96 percent of the growth in this demographic. From 2010 to 2013, that figure dropped to 56 percent, with the urban core becoming increasingly competitive.

Edit: Oh, never mind. The above is for Millenials who are "driving" the change who are mostly settling in the suburban counties while at large the population grew mostly in the core counties.

I guess the title isn't that bad since Millenials are continuing to drive "peak sprawl."

Last edited by Malloric; 10-05-2014 at 11:54 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2014, 11:49 AM
 
Location: Newark, NJ
692 posts, read 353,464 times
Reputation: 955
My immediate reaction to Kotkin's article is that he's intentionally misusing statistics to tell the story he wants: young people actually prefer suburbs to the city - which is asinine.

The first question is why he chose to use millennials at all. I would guess because it's a deliberately vauge demographic that can be manipulated to tell the story he wants. His article considers population trends in 20-29 year olds. I am 33 and am considered a millenial. A 20 year old was born in 1994 and is generally too young to be a millennial. So lets look at his not-quite-millenial demographic. Can we safely assume that the majority of 20-24 year olds are in college, grad school, or are living with their parents? What exactly does it tell us that these undergraduates and boomerangers are not living in cities?

My personal experience is that when young people begin their careers, and have enough money to build their own lives, they overwhelmingly prefer to live in cities. Most of those people are in their late twenties to early thirties.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2014, 05:44 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,015,796 times
Reputation: 1349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackjack2000 View Post
My immediate reaction to Kotkin's article is that he's intentionally misusing statistics to tell the story he wants: young people actually prefer suburbs to the city - which is asinine.

The first question is why he chose to use millennials at all. I would guess because it's a deliberately vauge demographic that can be manipulated to tell the story he wants. His article considers population trends in 20-29 year olds. I am 33 and am considered a millenial. A 20 year old was born in 1994 and is generally too young to be a millennial. So lets look at his not-quite-millenial demographic. Can we safely assume that the majority of 20-24 year olds are in college, grad school, or are living with their parents? What exactly does it tell us that these undergraduates and boomerangers are not living in cities?

My personal experience is that when young people begin their careers, and have enough money to build their own lives, they overwhelmingly prefer to live in cities. Most of those people are in their late twenties to early thirties.
"Millennial" may be vague, but so are maps if we get too worried about precision; there's always room from disagreement when we try to nail down a definition. Pew Research, no small fry, defines the generation as those born 19811996.

The reality is that millennials are a massive generation that are now and will continue to define the market for goods and services, housing included. Just take a look at all the stories of developers worrying about new household formation. So, it's worthwhile to talk about what millennials are doing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2014, 09:51 AM
 
3,492 posts, read 4,985,201 times
Reputation: 5383
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Huh? Rent prices in Toronto are cheaper than comparable northern US cities, say Chicago or Boston. I agree spending large sums on rent isn't the best idea financially.



What were you renting? Your housing costs sound cheap to me.
2 bed 2 bath. It was overpriced relative to the rest of the state because it was in the Midwest. It was not a real city like Boston or Chicago. The amount of value offered in that city for the price offered is crap. The city is Iowa City, IA. For comparison, the same unit in Des Moines, IA would have ran around 650 to 700.

Unfortunately, CD's cost of living comparison in regards to Iowa City isn't very accurate

On the flip side, had we been in Boston or Chicago, there would have been jobs that paid much more than minimum wage without them being entirely blocked by union rules / nepotism. So, there would have been benefits to offset the rent. For the crappy services and crappy pay, the prices were higher than they should have been. It appeared to be due to regulatory capture as the landlords controlled a great deal of the building process and the local government. As a result, there were several laws designed strictly to aid landlords and prevent new competition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2014, 10:00 AM
 
3,492 posts, read 4,985,201 times
Reputation: 5383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackjack2000 View Post
My immediate reaction to Kotkin's article is that he's intentionally misusing statistics to tell the story he wants: young people actually prefer suburbs to the city - which is asinine.

The first question is why he chose to use millennials at all. I would guess because it's a deliberately vauge demographic that can be manipulated to tell the story he wants. His article considers population trends in 20-29 year olds. I am 33 and am considered a millenial. A 20 year old was born in 1994 and is generally too young to be a millennial. So lets look at his not-quite-millenial demographic. Can we safely assume that the majority of 20-24 year olds are in college, grad school, or are living with their parents? What exactly does it tell us that these undergraduates and boomerangers are not living in cities?

My personal experience is that when young people begin their careers, and have enough money to build their own lives, they overwhelmingly prefer to live in cities. Most of those people are in their late twenties to early thirties.
I'm not sure I agree with you, but I do appreciate the logically coherent structure of your position. Why can't all posts on urban planning be like this?

I'm 30, male, and married. I'd consider someone that is 20 to be a millenial, and I'd consider you to be about as old as someone can be while still being in the millenial category. If they were born before you, they had the opportunity to graduate into a properly functioning job market. IMO, a key defining factor for millenials is being crapped on by a bad job market after going through an over-priced college system.

My personal experience is that I prefer to live in a suburb. At 28 my wife and I purchased a reasonably large (2500 sqft) house in the suburbs. However, I think there is some difficulty with strictly defining what living in the city means. We were not interested in living in suburbs outside of a crappy city. We had done that and hated it. We wanted to buy a house in the suburbs of a very nice city.

My experience is that when young people begin their careers, they are actually starting jobs instead of careers. As a result, the vast majority do not have enough money to build their own lives. Those that do have enough money and have careers underway are such a small and unique group that they can not accurately represent the rest of the generation.

Among my small peer group. 3 out of 5 wanted suburbs. 2 out of 5 wanted down town urban life.
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
Similar Threads
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