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.
I wonder why they chose Brooklyn but not Manhattan? Both Brooklyn and Chicago were near the bottom of the list for an increase in college educated "Millenialials" as they're both large with lots of non-gentrifying areas.
They're younger, right? That suggests they are 'junior' at their workplaces and not yet sufficiently high on the earning curve to afford living in Manhattan. They can afford Brooklyn, which for them is the next best thing for those working in Manhattan.
I know Brooklyn has become a hip/young area, but it's still somewhat reasonable to live there. The cost of living in Manhattan is astronomical compared to Brooklyn, and Brooklyn still has some old charm to it with their brick buildings and boutique shops and restaurants. In Manhattan half of it is skyscrapers compared to two to four story buildings in Brooklyn.
It depends on where you look in Brooklyn, in the hip areas of Brooklyn it is going to be just as expensive as Manhattan. You have to go out to Sunset Park and the rest of southern and eastern parts of Brooklyn before you really begin to find reasonable places to live.
They're younger, right? That suggests they are 'junior' at their workplaces and not yet sufficiently high on the earning curve to afford living in Manhattan. They can afford Brooklyn, which for them is the next best thing for those working in Manhattan.
If they can't afford Manhattan, then they can't afford Brooklyn. It is more like Queens, Uptown Manhattan, the Bronx, and the Jersey side (and even then you have to go further out in Jersey to find something more affordable) where people are going to find the more affordable parts of NYC.
You'd be surprised, I know people who went looking for apartments in the hip/young part of Brooklyn and ended up in Manhattan because it was cheaper. The core area of Williamsburg has gotten more expensive than the Manhattan stops along the L. Park Slope, Downtown Brooklyn, Greenpoint, etc. are also more expensive than some Manhattan neighborhoods south of Harlem.
It sounds like after a few years of everyone heading to Brooklyn they have ended up pricing out many people. I know that happen to Haight-Ashbury in San Fran because that was considered a cheap neighborhood at one time, but not anymore.
I didn't read the whole thing - I can't read from the computer and I don't have a printer. I don't know why anyone would choose to live in a city, especially a city like Philadelphia. Philadelphia icky. But, other cities aren't any better. Sometimes I wonder about my generation.
Big cities are where the good jobs are. A college degree is practically useless if you're going to live in a rural area or small town. Also, millennial generally don't want long commutes and they like the amenities that the big city provides. There are a lot more things to do, more socialization options with a diverse population of people, etc. I hated living in a small town. There was only one "track" of people, in which if you didn't fit in forget about making friends. If you weren't an outdoors type there wasn't anything to do, nothing but lousy chain stores and restaurants, etc.
I didn't read the whole thing - I can't read from the computer and I don't have a printer. I don't know why anyone would choose to live in a city, especially a city like Philadelphia. Philadelphia icky. But, other cities aren't any better. Sometimes I wonder about my generation.
I think cities are more attractive to young people is the possibility of more jobs. I say possibility because there are more job openings, but there are more people competing for those jobs. Therefore, it's a catch 22; however, you have a better chance when you can apply for 20 jobs a day compared to a small town of one to two jobs a day. I can attest from personal experience.
Second, cities provide more restaurants, night life, and things to do overall. Philadelphia for example has amazing steak sandwiches, and then add in the Italian restaurants to ethnic cuisine and you end up with plenty of places to check out. In a smaller city you can exhaust every place within a month, and most of it isn't that good because the competition for places is lenient, therefore they can get by on mediocrity. I can attest from personal experience.
Then cities like Chicago or New York have amazing museums and music scenes. In Chicago they have free orchestra concerts in the park throughout the summer, and it's a top notch orchestra with people from around the world who perform. Then you have art museums, and plenty of music clubs. In a small town you may see a local band playing other's music, and poorly at that.
I wonder why they chose Brooklyn but not Manhattan? Both Brooklyn and Chicago were near the bottom of the list for an increase in college educated "Millenialials" as they're both large with lots of non-gentrifying areas.
Here's what they say: "NOTE: Brooklyn is, of course, part of New York City (although it was a separate city until 1898). Since it is widely seen as the locus of demographic transformation in New York City, we chose to look at it separately, since what may be taking place in that borough is likely to be obscured if citywide data is used."
By making the magnet classification trump the sunbelt classification, they were able to redefine the most appealing sunbelt cities as magnet cities, which in turns skews the results. Both Austin, TX, and Denver, CO are properly sunbelt cities, though they might ALSO be magnet cities. To remove them from the list of sunbelt cities creates an unfair juxtaposition.
Further, by looking at growth in terms of the city compared to the state, they have absurdly removed the individuals preference for a certain state. Thus even if a city is growing rapidly, it must be outpacing the rest of the state in order to score higher in this report. This is a dramatic failure compared to using the country as a whole or the other cities as reference points. Comparing each city to the state in which it is located has caused each city to be graded on a different curve.
The people preparing this study should have gone back to school to learn more about proper research methods. I was very interested in the topic, but their poor organization and misrepresentation of the data has created a study that is entirely useless for analysis.
^^Sadly, a lot of what passes for "research" in the popular press has these same problems. I agree Denver is a sunbelt city.
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.
