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 01-29-2015, 11:09 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,504,059 times
Reputation: 7830

Advertisements

For people looking to stay in cities, most are having smaller families. The need to have large families don't make sense in this day and age. A number of friends I have have only one child, and my wife and I are only planning to have one child. Smaller families mean people need smaller spaces which makes city and urban living easier to do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-29-2015, 12:01 PM
 
1,774 posts, read 1,834,450 times
Reputation: 2701
Millenials don't seem to care as much about moving into the city as people tend to assume. They will live where they can afford. I think the internet and smart phones play a big part of this. It was imperative for Gen X to move into the city in order to meet like minded people. However, now it's not as important. In addition, the millennials having the most kids are religious, minorities, or religious minorities like Mormons. These groups do not seem to be moving into the city. Taking this into consideration, maybe cities don't need to do anything?

Certain cities like NYC will always have a cachet but IMO the future is much foggier for places like Chicago. One can look at recent housing busts in places like Atlanta for what could happen. Hundreds of empty condos, being auctioned off for a song, or turned into rentals. I think the number of cities where this question is relevant is actually very small, and many of the cities in that group have already adapted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 12:16 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,414 posts, read 11,913,851 times
Reputation: 10533
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
The bases have already been covered pretty well in this thread. I would like to touch on the issue of gentrification, a little. I've said this before, but to me, there is a difference between gentrification and revitalization. Gentrification happens when the demographics of an existing functioning neighborhood are changed quickly. Revitalization happens when people move to, and restore, a dysfunctional neighborhood, a neighborhood with lots of blight: vacant lots, boarded up/broken windows, vacant structures, etc.
I actually use the terms quite differently.

Gentrification merely means the socio-economic stratum of a neighborhood changes. It can happen without substantial physical changes to the neighborhood, although you do of course see houses get fixed up and more interesting businesses eventually. Still, new market-rate development comes in only once gentrification has nearly finished.

In contrast, revitalization is more of a planned, top-down, developer driven process. A blighted neighborhood is targeted by the local government and community groups for investment, which comes into the community before any real change in neighborhood demographics. Non-residential neighborhoods (e.g., CBDs, or old warehouse districts) can revitalize, but they can't gentrify, because there's virtually no one to displace.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
I agree with you. But in this thread: Why do we ignore moderate density? many people seemed to have an unfavorable impression of that type of neighborhood.
Again, we were sort of pushed into the neighborhood we chose. We would have rather lived in bigger historic rowhouse, but we found that prices for larger rowhouses in walkable neighborhoods which needed little to no work had appreciated beyond what we were willing to pay. We couldn't compromise on price, condition, or size considerably, which meant we had to compromise on location. It's a much better fit for us personally speaking than a fully suburban neighborhood would have been, it's physically speaking an amazing house from 1905, and it still has some city amenities like transit service. It's not ideal, but when you are a parent, you need to compromise on some things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
The need to have large families don't make sense in this day and age.
Even though we stopped at two kids, I'd argue against this. A lot of people operate under the false assumption a family has only so much "social capital" to go around. E.g., if you have a third child, the strain on family resources means the outcomes for your other two children will result in worse adult outcomes. There's no evidence to suggest this at all. If this were true, we would have seen a tremendous rise in living standards in the U.S. with the shrinking of families. Instead we largely see stagnation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 12:56 PM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,893 posts, read 7,653,336 times
Reputation: 4508
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
I actually use the terms quite differently.

Gentrification merely means the socio-economic stratum of a neighborhood changes. It can happen without substantial physical changes to the neighborhood, although you do of course see houses get fixed up and more interesting businesses eventually. Still, new market-rate development comes in only once gentrification has nearly finished.

In contrast, revitalization is more of a planned, top-down, developer driven process. A blighted neighborhood is targeted by the local government and community groups for investment, which comes into the community before any real change in neighborhood demographics. Non-residential neighborhoods (e.g., CBDs, or old warehouse districts) can revitalize, but they can't gentrify, because there's virtually no one to displace.
We do use these terms differently. For example, my neighborhood is going through what I would call an organic revitalization. I say organic, because we're receiving no special help from any government agency or CDC. And, it's not gentrification, because all of the houses that have been--or are being--restored/renovated (that I'm aware of) were vacant. So no one has been displaced. That's not to say that gentrification won't be an issue in the future.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 01:00 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,987 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell View Post
That's an interesting thought, as well. But it's also interesting to consider whether Millennials will ever develop the same cultural attraction to large yards, two-car garages and unshared bedrooms. That's one of the big questions behind this topic, IMO. And it's one that will have a huge impact on property values and development trends in the suburbs of today.
I know a number of millennials who do have single family homes. Now in metro Denver one must be close to a millionaire to have a large yard (with a few exceptions), so very few have large yards. My daughter's house, built 15 years ago, has a yard that's small even by metro Denver standards. But they like it; they like their landscaping, they like to make it grow. My other daughter in Minneapolis has a bf who wants a yard. What for, I don't know, but he wants one. The DD here has a two car garage; the ones in MN really want a garage badly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 01:25 PM
 
1,322 posts, read 1,068,949 times
Reputation: 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallsAngel View Post
I know a number of millennials who do have single family homes. Now in metro Denver one must be close to a millionaire to have a large yard (with a few exceptions), so very few have large yards. My daughter's house, built 15 years ago, has a yard that's small even by metro Denver standards. But they like it; they like their landscaping, they like to make it grow. My other daughter in Minneapolis has a bf who wants a yard. What for, I don't know, but he wants one. The DD here has a two car garage; the ones in MN really want a garage badly.
Yes, there are "a number" of "every kind of person" who wants "anything you can name". There might be some value in a forum where we just dish about people we know, but I thought we were shooting for something a little more big-picture here. Maybe I was wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 01:30 PM
 
1,322 posts, read 1,068,949 times
Reputation: 682
Sometimes I react harshly to purely anecdotal arguments, but would you ever bring an anecdotal argument to a venture capitalist? or a city planner? If this is the Urban Planning forum, then I think we should stick to arguments that are based on facts or high-level observations, and not on our immediate circle of acquaintances.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 01:46 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,504,059 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallsAngel View Post
I know a number of millennials who do have single family homes. Now in metro Denver one must be close to a millionaire to have a large yard (with a few exceptions), so very few have large yards. My daughter's house, built 15 years ago, has a yard that's small even by metro Denver standards. But they like it; they like their landscaping, they like to make it grow. My other daughter in Minneapolis has a bf who wants a yard. What for, I don't know, but he wants one. The DD here has a two car garage; the ones in MN really want a garage badly.
Just about every American city is filled with single family homes. Typically when someone says they live in the city, they are rarely talking about the densest part of the city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 01:49 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,987 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell View Post
Sometimes I react harshly to purely anecdotal arguments, but would you ever bring an anecdotal argument to a venture capitalist? or a city planner? If this is the Urban Planning forum, then I think we should stick to arguments that are based on facts or high-level observations, and not on our immediate circle of acquaintances.
Lots of people bring anecdotes to this forum, on an hourly basis at least. I'm talking about Urban Planning, too, not all of CD.

And then there are those "fluff" pieces from these serious research journals like The Atlantic (sarc), which purport to tell you that all millennials want to live in a loft overlooking I-25 in Denver (for example) and then give a story of one such couple that are supposed to represent these millions of people (except my kids and their partners, total outliers); that other posters post and think are just the most enlightened thing they've ever read.

Last edited by Katarina Witt; 01-29-2015 at 02:01 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 01:54 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,414 posts, read 11,913,851 times
Reputation: 10533
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
We do use these terms differently. For example, my neighborhood is going through what I would call an organic revitalization. I say organic, because we're receiving no special help from any government agency or CDC. And, it's not gentrification, because all of the houses that have been--or are being--restored/renovated (that I'm aware of) were vacant. So no one has been displaced. That's not to say that gentrification won't be an issue in the future.
See, I'd call that (early) gentrification. The socio-economic status of the neighborhood is changing, even if it's merely through the addition of new, wealthier people rather than outright replacement.

My previous neighborhood was very similar. It was an old, working-class white rowhouse neighborhood down by the river. There were a fair number of abandoned houses. More importantly, back in 2000 it had the highest proportion of elderly residents of anywhere in the city. The old people were dying off, and without gentrification, it wasn't clear who was going to move into the houses. Some would probably become abandoned, while others would become Section 8 rentals.

No neighborhood ever stays one way forever. Over decades, the socio-economic status of all of them changes, either swinging upwards or downwards. The issue isn't when one neighborhood gentrifies, it's when virtually an entire city (or at least all the convenient parts) gentrify in tandem, making the core area of the metro unaffordable.
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