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 08-02-2015, 09:12 AM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,896 posts, read 7,661,531 times
Reputation: 4508

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by k350 View Post
I think the family in the city problem is that in many areas, especially desirable ones, when a person gets to needing a two, and especially a 3+ bedroom place to live, it gets extremely expensive. This basically forces people out of the city. Two bedrooms are even expensive with a lot of them being taken up by the roommate lifestyle rather than a family. Plus, people like to have a yard, so getting a SFH in a city area is very expensive in many places. The crappy SFHs around me in the city are going for upwards $600,000 and above, and these things are like old as heck. Why buy some old, small piece of junk when they can get a much better one for half the price out of the city in a suburb?
Age is a preference. Just being old doesn't make a house a "piece of junk." IMO, as someone who prefers old houses, spending half as much for a new house seems about right. Sure, some of it's about location. But a part of what makes that location desirable, is the character that comes with age.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-03-2015, 08:30 PM
 
391 posts, read 207,425 times
Reputation: 192
I believe that although some millenials will move back the suburbs, they will prefer denser suburbs with good transit access and walkability. So more suburbs in the future will become like that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2015, 02:37 PM
 
Location: Liminal Space
1,018 posts, read 1,235,783 times
Reputation: 1294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemlock140 View Post
A few years ago it made the news that Seattle had more dogs than children.
I'm not sure why that made the news, since there are more dogs than children in the entire United States.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2015, 12:14 PM
 
2,290 posts, read 1,297,797 times
Reputation: 1520
Just what is a walkable suburb? Has this been defined?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2015, 07:32 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
33,908 posts, read 42,154,529 times
Reputation: 43311
Germane to the thread title:

Millennials have transformed Arlington, but will they stay? - The Washington Post
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2015, 02:45 AM
 
2,825 posts, read 3,352,590 times
Reputation: 3030
"The bakery sells a lot of mini-pies and slices of desserts rather than whole cakes. During the holidays, Zovko said, the store leads all ... locations in the Mid-Atlantic in sales of tabletop Christmas trees: “We can’t keep enough in stock.”"

Yeah, pretty clear they aren't going to stay. The turnover in high density housing is high.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2015, 07:13 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,436 posts, read 11,937,287 times
Reputation: 10542
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
I think Arlington is a good test case in some ways, but not others.

On one hand, Arlington is "urban" without any of the historical baggage. By this I mean it has good public schools and relatively low crime rates. Thus in some ways it functions as if it's an entirely gentrified city already. The only concerns young parents have about staying there come down to (as the article notes) basically not being able to afford a family-sized space in your neighborhood - a concern that as an urban parent I completely understand.

On the other hand, Arlington isn't really urban. The areas along the Orange Line, along with Crystal City, are the only really urban parts of the county. These are what could be termed "faux urban" as well - all relatively recent infill. Arlington doesn't really have any historic urban neighborhoods like Old Town Alexandria. I think the most committed "urbanists" in the DC metro are probably trying to eke it out in the District itself, and those who picked one of the islands of urbanity along the Metro in Arlington would be predisposed to move further into the suburbs anyway (given that's essentially where they live already).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2015, 07:30 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,436 posts, read 11,937,287 times
Reputation: 10542
As I've said in the past (even upthread I think) one of the major issues with being an urban parent is that all other things considered, you need more space once you have kids, but you have less disposable income. This means you have a few choices.

1. Eke it out being cramped. Doable with one kid, if you purge their toys on a regular basis. Once you have two, you're probably out of luck though - it isn't easy finding a relatively affordable apartment.

2. Move somewhere more "transitional." Generally this isn't something you want to do when you have kids, however, due to either crime or neighborhood school concerns.

3. Be constantly broke attempting to afford a family-sized housing unit in a fasionable, walkable area.

4. Move somewhere not as walkable. Doesn't have to be a suburb, it could just be a less walkable part of the city.

5. Leave your metro for somewhere lower cost where you can afford a family-sized house in an ideal neighborhood.

In my mind, the main issue causing families to leave desirable city neighborhoods is one of demand. Demand to live in these neighborhoods by childless people is high, and those childless people can spend way more of their income on overall smaller units. This tends to crowd out people with families unless they come from a much higher income bracket than the young and childless.

Perhaps good way to solve this is to expand housing for both groups. First, lessen restrictions on new development so that lots of apartment buildings go up. This creates more units for the young and the childless. Second, provide incentives for owners of subdivided houses to convert their structures back into single-family houses available for sale.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2015, 08:45 AM
 
2,825 posts, read 3,352,590 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
As I've said in the past (even upthread I think) one of the major issues with being an urban parent is that all other things considered, you need more space once you have kids, but you have less disposable income. This means you have a few choices.

1. Eke it out being cramped. Doable with one kid, if you purge their toys on a regular basis. Once you have two, you're probably out of luck though - it isn't easy finding a relatively affordable apartment.

2. Move somewhere more "transitional." Generally this isn't something you want to do when you have kids, however, due to either crime or neighborhood school concerns.

3. Be constantly broke attempting to afford a family-sized housing unit in a fasionable, walkable area.
Didn't you know? All the urbanistas are high income - at least that's the conclusion your expected to believe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
4. Move somewhere not as walkable. Doesn't have to be a suburb, it could just be a less walkable part of the city.

5. Leave your metro for somewhere lower cost where you can afford a family-sized house in an ideal neighborhood.
Walkable has little to do with it. Cost has almost everything to do with it (familial status, schools and space may have something to do with it)

Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
In my mind, the main issue causing families to leave desirable city neighborhoods is one of demand. Demand to live in these neighborhoods by childless people is high, and those childless people can spend way more of their income on overall smaller units. This tends to crowd out people with families unless they come from a much higher income bracket than the young and childless.
Maybe you have the "demand" wrong and certainly the "crowd out" is wrong. Demand to live in places with more space and decent schools is high for families with children. If your "urban neighborhood" doesn't have that then you will find an exodous of families with kids, period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Perhaps good way to solve this is to expand housing for both groups. First, lessen restrictions on new development so that lots of apartment buildings go up. This creates more units for the young and the childless. Second, provide incentives for owners of subdivided houses to convert their structures back into single-family houses available for sale.
??? is there a shortage of apartments regardless of status as "young" and "childless" ? Why would owners of subdivided houses want to "convert their structures back" (into SFH)? Doubt that the numbers of these would have any material impact on bringing families into these areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2015, 09:06 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,436 posts, read 11,937,287 times
Reputation: 10542
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Walkable has little to do with it. Cost has almost everything to do with it (familial status, schools and space may have something to do with it)
My point is once accounting for all other things, walkability adds cost on a per square foot basis. So even if you have a walkable urban area with low crime and good neighborhood schools, it's going to cost a lot more to live there than not walkable area with similar crime levels and school quality. If you don't want to compromise on schools or crime (and who would, when you are a parent) and can't compromise on size, you're going to have to compromise to some degree on walkability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Maybe you have the "demand" wrong and certainly the "crowd out" is wrong. Demand to live in places with more space and decent schools is high for families with children. If your "urban neighborhood" doesn't have that then you will find an exodous of families with kids, period.
I think you're quite wrong here, because whenever there is a low-crime urban neighborhood with local schools which are considered to be good, it is quite expensive - generally speaking more expensive on a per square foot basis than the top suburbs in a metro. Price is the best evidence we have of demand, therefore we can conclude that family-friendly urban areas are in quite high demand - much higher demand than the supply currently provides for.

I know I shouldn't generalize my own personal experience, but I think while a desire for a reasonable internal square footage for a family is nearly universal, desiring large amounts of outside space is not. Few parents outside of perhaps NYC want to raise their kids in a highrise condo or apartment building. But plenty desire an intermediate level of density - say a large townhouse with a private backyard, or a small-lot single family house in an urban neighborhood. Certainly I know many parents who were willing to settle into urban-ish neighborhoods with lot sizes of well less than a tenth of an acre who are perfectly happy with the amount of breathing space this provides.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
??? is there a shortage of apartments regardless of status as "young" and "childless" ? Why would owners of subdivided houses want to "convert their structures back" (into SFH)? Doubt that the numbers of these would have any material impact on bringing families into these areas.
Maybe I'm using Pittsburgh centric evidence, but here's an example for you. When we were looking to move last year, there was a nearby neighborhood we were looking to buy into. The neighborhood was mostly 19th century houses, a mixture of rowhouses and detached - quite walkable, and within our price range for a house of the size we needed as a family of four. However, the neighborhood was 78% renters, meaning relatively few houses went on the market. Due to zoning permitting subdivision, virtually every house which was over 1,500 square feet was subdivided into two or more units as well. Therefore we couldn't move there, not because we couldn't afford the neighborhood, but because there literally were so few family-sized houses which went on the market in an average year that we'd be waiting years to find one which met our other requirements (which basically just boiled down to not being horribly remuddled).

In a situation like this, I think more apartments and the conversion of many of the houses back into owner-occupied single-family housing would make a big difference. There would still be plenty of apartments for the young and childless to locate within, but there would also be a lot more reasonably sized houses going on the market each year - 3-4 bedroom, 2 bath houses which families would be interested in.
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