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)
 
Old 03-27-2015, 08:44 AM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,894 posts, read 7,655,626 times
Reputation: 4508

Advertisements

^My grandparents lived in a neighborhood similar to your 1950s example. I'm sure you already know this, but some houses had 3 bedrooms with an unfinished attic, and some had 2 bedrooms with a large, finished attic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-27-2015, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,841 posts, read 7,327,156 times
Reputation: 13779
Quote:
Originally Posted by censusdata View Post
I'm a married Millennial that is house shopping and the possibility of kids in the next couple years is one factor. When younger I lived a variety of places: suburban apartment, house in small town, rural on 70 acres of grandparent's land, 1950s subdivision, suburban subdivision, urban neighborhoods, etc. Now looking for a home I'm looking for something less dense than the very urban places I lived but still somewhere with more character and neighborhood feel than the newer suburbs.

I don't like any traditional suburbs built after 1960. I am not spending half my freetime trying to prevent flowers the Creator made to help the animals out (suburbanites call them weeds) from growing in my yard. Or giving my neighbor dirty looks because they hang laundry out on the line. I am not owning a hideous bi level house that has a no sense layout and no exterior character.

At the same time I need somewhere on a quiet street, has some yard, and parking is decent. I'm really drawn to stuff built from the 1920s to 1950s. The newer end would be technically sprawl but the neighborhoods are still more walkable and houses have more traditional style. Also some urban homes are too large (high utility bill) or too small (700 sq feet). I want something with around 1k sq feet, if it's only a 2 br it needs to be like a large upstairs bedroom that could be divided into 2.

People brought up higher home prices in urban areas... in most of my metro the best urban areas are uber gentrified and out my our price range, we are looking at a nice urban small city just across the river where a starter home in livable condition in a safe area can be bought in the $60k's.

That way long lol... in summary I'm not seeking really urban but I'm also not giving up my disdain for newer suburbs.

Here's some Street Views of areas in consideration

1950s street.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/S+...5fd4023aed9180

1920s bungalow area
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bu...512318!6m1!1e1
You would love my neighborhood! It's on the outskirts of a small city with a suburban feel in that most lots are about 50-60 feet wide so they accommodate driveways and garages (very important when your city gets 120-150 inches of snow in the winter). We have city amenities like sidewalks, streetlights, schools and parks kids can walk to, etc without the hustle and bustle of higher density neighborhoods.

My block is mostly 1920s era homes ranging from 1 story cottages to a couple of styles of story and a half bungalows to 2 story homes. Before the entire neighborhood was developed however, the Great Depression and WW II intervened, so there are some cape codes scattered around that were built as infill in the 1950s.

Across the next "main" street south, there are a few pre-WW II houses but most are a variety of capes and ranches (a few splits) built between about 1950 and 1970.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2015, 07:51 AM
Status: "Nobody's right if everybody's wrong" (set 24 days ago)
 
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
9,829 posts, read 21,138,014 times
Reputation: 9418
My wife and I (both millennials) looked at a few houses yesterday, all built in the 1920s. Personally I like urban living (not condos but all Victorian houses) but are top list is all stuff built from 1950 to 1984. Here's why

Homes built before 1950 are simply antiquated if they haven't been updated. The closets are really odd and small - and we have less clothes than the average American. Often the problems for cheaper starter homes require a lot of money to fix. We saw things like plaster on the walls and ceiling filled with cracks, basements with standing water, 1970s era wall paper and wood paneling, etc.

A cheap starter home that's newer needs less overall to be functional again. And the floor plans are better. Not much can be done about a hideous floor plan. Around here many older 2 story homes have the only bathroom on the 2nd floor and the chimney goes to a (now defunct) coal furnace in the basement - no fireplace. Many are also only 2 bedroom with no cheap way to add a room. Many people won't consider a house with less than 3 bedrooms. Again that's lots of money to fix

Now if you can afford more house and get the totally redone old house those problems are fixed. But for a starter home you just get more for your money in a slightly newer area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2015, 08:16 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by censusdata View Post
My wife and I (both millennials) looked at a few houses yesterday, all built in the 1920s. Personally I like urban living (not condos but all Victorian houses) but are top list is all stuff built from 1950 to 1984. Here's why

Homes built before 1950 are simply antiquated if they haven't been updated. The closets are really odd and small - and we have less clothes than the average American. Often the problems for cheaper starter homes require a lot of money to fix. We saw things like plaster on the walls and ceiling filled with cracks, basements with standing water, 1970s era wall paper and wood paneling, etc.

A cheap starter home that's newer needs less overall to be functional again. And the floor plans are better. Not much can be done about a hideous floor plan. Around here many older 2 story homes have the only bathroom on the 2nd floor and the chimney goes to a (now defunct) coal furnace in the basement - no fireplace. Many are also only 2 bedroom with no cheap way to add a room. Many people won't consider a house with less than 3 bedrooms. Again that's lots of money to fix

Now if you can afford more house and get the totally redone old house those problems are fixed. But for a starter home you just get more for your money in a slightly newer area.
Yep! That was the experience DH and I had 30+ years ago when we went to buy our first house. We ended up with a four year old house that was in move-in condition. Over the 5 1/2 years we lived there, we did some work on it and put in some upgrades, but at least we didn't have to put in a whole new kitchen, bathroom, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2015, 08:34 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
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14804
Someone made a map of Chicago neighborhoods by % in their 20s. Nice cartogram. Definitely a strong urban youth (not really the right word for those in their mid to late 20 or even early 20s) concentration

introvert.net: making chicago community area cartograms

Another reason to teach myself Python. Another one by same author:

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2015, 01:07 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
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14804
Dunno where to place this, but thought this was interesting. Compares regional differences in teen driving rates:

US study: 3 in 4 teens drive, with rates lowest in Hawaii and highest in the Dakotas | Star Tribune
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2015, 10:53 PM
 
6,433 posts, read 9,953,387 times
Reputation: 7974
That's what I find so funny. This generation is no different then any other. I laugh when I hear folks of my age talk about how they're going to live forever in the city and invest there. I'm like, yeah right. And when you meet your wife and decide to have kids, you think your little one bedroom condo is going to cut it? Lol. The circle of life continues on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2015, 11:35 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,416 posts, read 11,920,328 times
Reputation: 10536
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenk893 View Post
That's what I find so funny. This generation is no different then any other. I laugh when I hear folks of my age talk about how they're going to live forever in the city and invest there. I'm like, yeah right. And when you meet your wife and decide to have kids, you think your little one bedroom condo is going to cut it? Lol. The circle of life continues on.
While this has been the established norm in the U.S. in recent history, it's only a norm that's around two generations deep. There's no reason to presume that it will continue for centuries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2015, 03:14 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,004,486 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
While this has been the established norm in the U.S. in recent history, it's only a norm that's around two generations deep. There's no reason to presume that it will continue for centuries.
Not to mention Millennials are having children at different rates and at different points in their lives than the previous two generations. So we have to be careful how far we take the comparison across generations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2015, 03:34 PM
 
3,352 posts, read 2,264,182 times
Reputation: 2238
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Not to mention Millennials are having children at different rates and at different points in their lives than the previous two generations. So we have to be careful how far we take the comparison across generations.
Yea because birthrates are down.
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