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, 02:06 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
45,992 posts, read 42,110,497 times
Reputation: 14811

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
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.
Which is a bad reason why many urban neighbhoods will have trouble with families. For a number of practical things they have negatives (less space, often worse housing conditions for the price, school quality). Location is easier to compromise on than other practicalities. Families with children require more space than childless adults so families are at a competitive disadvantage in the pricier neighborhoods. At the low end, there are other practical disadvantages.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-29-2015, 02:33 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,476 posts, read 11,979,561 times
Reputation: 10579
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Which is a bad reason why many urban neighbhoods will have trouble with families. For a number of practical things they have negatives (less space, often worse housing conditions for the price, school quality). Location is easier to compromise on than other practicalities. Families with children require more space than childless adults so families are at a competitive disadvantage in the pricier neighborhoods. At the low end, there are other practical disadvantages.
To be clear though, families are at a price disadvantage everywhere.

In high-cost areas of Northeast, suburban towns with absolutely top-notch school districts are seeing significant declines in the number of children enrolling. Why? Because prices have appreciated so much that families with kids cannot afford to buy there unless they are substantially wealthier than the town average. Also that snob zoning ensures that borderline affordable options will not be built in town. So the population of these towns, known for their incredible schools, gets increasingly dominated by empty nesters - who either bought in when it was cheaper, or can more easily afford the hefty mortgages.

Of course, this is one issue the market will correct. At some point the wealthy empty nesters will begin dying off or relocating due to frailty, and the prices will begin to fall. Still, parents with kids will, assuming incomes are equal, always be at a disadvantage, be it in an urban or suburban market.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 02:48 PM
 
1,319 posts, read 1,074,670 times
Reputation: 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallsAngel View Post
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.
I've got nothing against anecdotes, either from you, The Atlantic, or anyone. But if you don't think they prove much in The Atlantic, then they probably don't prove much coming from you, either.

At least if people are posting articles, though, they're exhibiting some kind of consensus perspective. It may not be hard scientific data, but it says a lot more than one person talking about their immediate relatives. Maybe the one couple highlighted by The Atlantic doesn't actually represent millions of people, but they don't negate the fact that these millions of people exist, either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 02:49 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
7,542 posts, read 8,440,497 times
Reputation: 3483
I can't see the cities being attractive to large numbers of American families who can afford and are seeking a middle class lifestyle, in the future.

Just isn't enough room for the vehicles, pools, a sufficient amount of green grass, and other things associated with middle class living, at least for most people.

That doesn't mean the cities will remain empty of children- if people's income goes down, more families won't be able to afford the suburbs. The country is getting a lot more immigrant families, with the current enacted relaxed policies on deportations.
The closing of housing projects will help fill family neighborhoods as well.

Crime in most cities is lower than its been during my lifetime. I don't know if the future will be the same. A lot of backlash recently against 3-strike laws, mandatory incarceration rules, stop-and-frisk and other proactive police efforts, advocates of those policies say they led to the reduction in crime. Hopefully, those advocates are wrong, but we shall see none the less.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 03:01 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,073 posts, read 102,800,958 times
Reputation: 33137
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell View Post
I've got nothing against anecdotes, either from you, The Atlantic, or anyone. But if you don't think they prove much in The Atlantic, then they probably don't prove much coming from you, either.

At least if people are posting articles, though, they're exhibiting some kind of consensus perspective. It may not be hard scientific data, but it says a lot more than one person talking about their immediate relatives. Maybe the one couple highlighted by The Atlantic doesn't actually represent millions of people, but they don't negate the fact that these millions of people exist, either.
"Consensus perspectives" my, derriere. "It's better than this garbage you post, FallsAngel. It's OK for urbanists to post anecdotes, but not you." Keep in mind you are not the mod for this forum.

Go fly a kite in a city park!

Last edited by Katarina Witt; 01-29-2015 at 03:15 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 03:03 PM
 
1,319 posts, read 1,074,670 times
Reputation: 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam View Post
I can't see the cities being attractive to large numbers of American families who can afford and are seeking a middle class lifestyle, in the future.

Just isn't enough room for the vehicles, pools, a sufficient amount of green grass, and other things associated with middle class living, at least for most people.
That's the question. Will Millennials lose interest in the "things associated with middle class living"? Nobody wants the city to become the suburbs. Those people will just live in the suburbs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam View Post
That doesn't mean the cities will remain empty of children- if people's income goes down, more families won't be able to afford the suburbs. The country is getting a lot more immigrant families, with the current enacted relaxed policies on deportations.
The closing of housing projects will help fill family neighborhoods as well.
You're the only one I've seen on this thread so far that seems to equate urban living with affordability. In fact there is no direct relationship. There are cheap places to live in both city and suburbs, and expensive places in both city and suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 03:06 PM
 
1,319 posts, read 1,074,670 times
Reputation: 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallsAngel View Post
"Consensus perspectives" my, derriere. "It's better than this garbage you post, FallsAngel". I get it.
It occurred to me that "consensus" may not have been the word I was looking for. My point was that posting articles at least shows that you're backing up your perspectives with those of others. It doesn't make you right, but yes, it does beat out a lone-wolf argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 03:19 PM
 
3,948 posts, read 4,060,088 times
Reputation: 4432
Quote:
Just isn't enough room for the vehicles, pools, a sufficient amount of green grass, and other things associated with middle class living, at least for most people.
I agree with that in an aggregate sense, but not in a 'real' sense. First you have to answer if millenials actually want cars (which is what I assume you mean by vehicles. That's not a given, at least not that they personally want to own them. Sure they occasionally want them to get around - see the rise of Uber, cabs, etc. Vehicle Miles travelled is falling and has for 9 straight years so it's not a given that people want to drive more. http://www.ssti.us/2014/02/vmt-drops...taking-notice/


Secondly, pools - most new build city apartment complexes & condo complexes are adding roof decks and fancy pools as those are things people (city & suburban) do enjoy, and at some point in the future, your average city dwelller will have more access to such things than your average suburban dweller simply due to the fact that they are expensive and better shared among many people. Also why many HOA communities are building pools and clubhouses for the whole community to share.

Thirdly, green space - cities are adding parkland to service city dwllers.

Fourthly, we have to define 'most people'. Sure, you are probably right that in the US at least, 'most people' with families will never live in cities, but that doesn't matter one whit when the demand for housing in SF, DC, and NYC is far outpacing suburban cities with more space. There is definitely more demand in the US than supply as of current. If there was no demand, then housing in those cities would not be at a huge multiple of the incomes and Tampa Florida (or some other wide open space) would be the most expensive real estate in the US.

Last edited by TheOverdog; 01-29-2015 at 03:34 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 04:34 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,073 posts, read 102,800,958 times
Reputation: 33137
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOverdog View Post
I agree with that in an aggregate sense, but not in a 'real' sense. First you have to answer if millenials actually want cars (which is what I assume you mean by vehicles. That's not a given, at least not that they personally want to own them. Sure they occasionally want them to get around - see the rise of Uber, cabs, etc. Vehicle Miles travelled is falling and has for 9 straight years so it's not a given that people want to drive more. Per capita VMT drops for ninth straight year; DOTs taking notice SSTI


Secondly, pools - most new build city apartment complexes & condo complexes are adding roof decks and fancy pools as those are things people (city & suburban) do enjoy, and at some point in the future, your average city dwelller will have more access to such things than your average suburban dweller simply due to the fact that they are expensive and better shared among many people. Also why many HOA communities are building pools and clubhouses for the whole community to share.

Thirdly, green space - cities are adding parkland to service city dwllers.

Fourthly, we have to define 'most people'. Sure, you are probably right that in the US at least, 'most people' with families will never live in cities, but that doesn't matter one whit when the demand for housing in SF, DC, and NYC is far outpacing suburban cities with more space. There is definitely more demand in the US than supply as of current. If there was no demand, then housing in those cities would not be at a huge multiple of the incomes and Tampa Florida (or some other wide open space) would be the most expensive real estate in the US.
Yes, none of the 80 million Millennials want cars.
Why You Should Start Taking Millennials Seriously : NPR

http://www.autonews.com/article/2014...ually-they-buy "Millennials drawn to car-sharing services, but eventually, they buy"

Now I won't bother to tell you that virtually all the Millennials I know have cars, because the people I know are irrelevant, compared to Ashley and Ryan Hipster in their 500 sf, $500,000 condo overlooking a freeway. Heck, the married couples all seem to have at least two vehicles, which is more than we older Boomers had when we first got married. (One was the norm for a few years, especially when you were married to a grad student.) How else do you get to the ski slopes, or to the outback to go backpacking, etc?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 04:42 PM
 
1,915 posts, read 2,056,427 times
Reputation: 2192
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
To be clear though, families are at a price disadvantage everywhere.

In high-cost areas of Northeast, suburban towns with absolutely top-notch school districts are seeing significant declines in the number of children enrolling. Why? Because prices have appreciated so much that families with kids cannot afford to buy there unless they are substantially wealthier than the town average. Also that snob zoning ensures that borderline affordable options will not be built in town. So the population of these towns, known for their incredible schools, gets increasingly dominated by empty nesters - who either bought in when it was cheaper, or can more easily afford the hefty mortgages.

Of course, this is one issue the market will correct. At some point the wealthy empty nesters will begin dying off or relocating due to frailty, and the prices will begin to fall. Still, parents with kids will, assuming incomes are equal, always be at a disadvantage, be it in an urban or suburban market.
But I thought the older wealthy empty nesters wanted to move to the new hipster inner cities, thus freeing up space for the younger suburban families?
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