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, 06:53 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,600,501 times
Reputation: 7830

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam View Post
I am sure they will get some, but the cities are more equipped to handle those in need of extensive social services and public transportation.
Then we could also expect cities to continue to see their populations grow as they become more attractive to people with smaller families, immigrants, and people who need more social services and public transportation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-29-2015, 07:04 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
7,542 posts, read 8,440,497 times
Reputation: 3483
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Then we could also expect cities to continue to see their populations grow as they become more attractive to people with smaller families, immigrants, and people who need more social services and public transportation.
People with larger families are more likely to be immigrants and/or people who need social services, not people with smaller families.


If the crime rate rises over its current nadir, to a point closer to its historic average, I suspect that cities will be less appealing to those with smaller families.


Right now, there is a lot of backlash from the recent (past few decades) policies which are credited with reducing the crime rate- mandatory sentencing, proactive police work, 'stop and frisk' , etc. The recent incidents in Ferguson and Staten Island are reducing support for these policies, I see them disappearing rather quickly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 07:23 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,600,501 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam View Post
People with larger families are more likely to be immigrants and/or people who need social services, not people with smaller families.


If the crime rate rises over its current nadir, to a point closer to its historic average, I suspect that cities will be less appealing to those with smaller families.


Right now, there is a lot of backlash from the recent (past few decades) policies which are credited with reducing the crime rate- mandatory sentencing, proactive police work, 'stop and frisk' , etc. The recent incidents in Ferguson and Staten Island are reducing support for these policies, I see them disappearing rather quickly.
Yes, I was referring to two different groups, small families and immigrant families. My wife and I planning to have one child would be considered a small family.

There is nothing that shows crime is rising in cities in our country, so I don't know where you came to the conclusion that crime will go back to historic average.

As for Ferguson, that is a suburb and very suburban. Staten Island is also known for being very suburban.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 07:40 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
7,542 posts, read 8,440,497 times
Reputation: 3483
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Yes, I was referring to two different groups, small families and immigrant families. My wife and I planning to have one child would be considered a small family.

There is nothing that shows crime is rising in cities in our country, so I don't know where you came to the conclusion that crime will go back to historic average.

As for Ferguson, that is a suburb and very suburban. Staten Island is also known for being very suburban.


The law enforcement community feels that their aggressive, proactive policies have been successful. IF those policies are curtailed, and if the law enforcement community is correct in their claims, then crime will increase.


Further, there is a real backlash against citizens carrying firearms. Proposed restrictions against concealed carry and other policies, could further embolden criminals and also increase crime in the cities. Nothing discourages a criminal more than the possibility that the proposed victim is likely to fight back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 08:59 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,600,501 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam View Post
The law enforcement community feels that their aggressive, proactive policies have been successful. IF those policies are curtailed, and if the law enforcement community is correct in their claims, then crime will increase.


Further, there is a real backlash against citizens carrying firearms. Proposed restrictions against concealed carry and other policies, could further embolden criminals and also increase crime in the cities. Nothing discourages a criminal more than the possibility that the proposed victim is likely to fight back.
Well let me know when there is actual proof to back up that claim. Until then I am not buying it.

And the part about being able to carry guns in cities is just baseless. The amount of legal guns in a city has no proven effect on the amount of crime in a city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 11:20 PM
 
1,478 posts, read 2,006,999 times
Reputation: 1579
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.
Since you're looking for something more concrete, I figured I'd offer up some evidence in Chicago. The biggest piece of evidence that Mill/Y Gen will stay in the city and raise their families is what has already occurred. Professional Xers have already started the process and we can measure it.

We don't have perfect census numbers that tell us that n yuppie households are now raising pre-school or school-aged kids in the city, but we can make some statistical inferences. A pretty good place to start is non-Hispanic white married couples with children. We can look at the stroller brigade (those with kids under 6+none 6-17) and we can also look at the same group with kids between 6-17, all courtesy of the census 2000 v 2010. 2000 is just early enough to avoid all but the very front end of professional Xers raising school-aged kids while 2010 is pretty close to mid-stream.

The neighborhoods in Chicago that are further up the gentrification ladder are located north of the river and south of Montrose more or less (the River North's, Lakeviews, and Lincoln Parks, in addition to their respective "sub neighborhoods" like Gold Coast, Roscoe Village, Boystown, Wrigleyville, North Center, Streeterville, Old Town, etc). From 2000 to 2010, the number of NHW married couples with only young kids increased 42.5%. Those with school aged kids increased 32.6%. Obviously, a lot of Xers stayed. It got very expensive, and many of the younger Xers couldn't afford to stay in the immediate area. They moved to areas like Ravenswood and Lincoln Square a bit futher north (both of which are also popular for young professional families). They also moved west of the river into Bucktown, Wicker Park, East Village, etc.

In that area west of the river, the number of NHW married couples with school aged kids increased only 0.6%. Part of this is that this area further behind in the gentrification process. It's a bit rougher in terms of quality neighborhood schools over there, so people are hesitant. Another reason was because this group was booting out working class families (such as Ukrainians) who had kids of their own, so you don't see the yuppie gain when netted against the white married couple Eastern European losses. What is interesting in that part of the city is that the number of NHW married couples with kids under 6 has increased 160.6% from 2000 to 2010. Not all will stay, but a big crop will, which will substantially change the character of the neighborhood (it already has over there).

How does this relate to Gen Y? There is plenty of evidence that the Yers are even more keen to stay in the city (no generation has been more studied by marketers so early). There is a big difference between saying you'll stay and actually staying when it comes time to find a KG for junior. Some won't but many will. I expect that more will compared to the Xers, in part due to attitude, but primarily because Xers have done a lot of the heavy lifting. Xers like myself came into many of these areas when they were much less desirable to the general population. DIY rehabbing, nightlife, retail emerged. When it came time for kids to go to school, many Xers packed up and moved. Some sent their kids to private schools. Others dug in and went about lobbying for additional magnets and charters. There are more viable education options in these types of areas today than there were in 2000 and crime in these areas is also down substantially. Xers did all of this while swimming upstream demographically as well. In IL, the number of NHW married couples with kids only under 6 declined 18% from 2000 to 2010. For the same group with school aged kids, the decline was 14.5% over the same period. Imagine what those neighborhoods would look like today if those declines were increases.

Chicago isn't every metro in America. It's ahead of many and behind others when it comes to the back to the city movement. I'm in St. Louis now, and see the same pattern here, and STL is not a place that has the regional conditions necessary for huge, quick leaps. Metro population growth is slow. High wage employment is pretty middle of the road by large and medium sized metro standards. There is very little immigration to spur neighborhood change. Crime is higher here than it is in Chicago on an apples-to-apples neighborhood comparison basis. But the changes are still occurring. I'm going through the school thing with our kids now and just about every desirable school appears to have all time high wait lists/lottery participants, depsite the fact there are more desirable schools today in our area than there were 10 years ago. If these changes are occurring here, I've got to believe the same thing is occurring just about everywhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2015, 09:15 AM
 
12,721 posts, read 10,014,497 times
Reputation: 9537
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Who exactly is in support of blight?



This topic has been done on the forum again and again. Some of your concerns IMHO aren't a big deal. For example, if you live in a city, you're more likely to be in walking distance of a playground than if you live in the suburbs. And crime is falling in just about every city in the country. They may not be safer than the suburbs, but many city neighborhoods are probably safer today than they were in the time of young people's grandparents.

Regardless, there are a few things to consider to start with. First, total fertility rate has fallen. It's somewhat controversial if this actually is because less people are having kids, but surely those who have kids are having smaller families today, and having them later in life. If someone waits until 35 to have a child, they will be 40 before their kid is kindergarten age, meaning even if they high-tail for the suburbs, a solid 20 years of urban life are plausible. And if they stay in the city, since they are likely to have less kids they have less need for space than families of the past. If they want to go the private school route paying tuition for one kid is a lot less than two or three as well.

When it comes down to it, there are two, and only two, major concerns for urban parents: Schooling and cost of living.

Schooling is basically a chicken and egg issue. Urban neighborhood schools are generally bad not for any intrinsic reason, such as worse teachers or less funding. They perform poorly because historically everyone who wasn't impoverished pulled their kids out of them and into other options (usually private schools or movement to suburban districts). The strongest correlations on test scores are related to race and socio-economic status, so a school which is majority black/latino and low income is almost invariably going to be "worse" than a school which is upper-middle class and white/Asian.

Urban parents have more options today than in the past, due to both the proliferation of magnet options and charter schools. I find charters dubious, but the magnet system has long been able to retain some high-performing students in urban settings - particularly in districts which have merit-based placement (like NYC) where it results in a "district within a district" with very different demographics and performance.

Still, the demand in many schools for these slots has gotten so fierce that many parents have not been able to place their kids into the alternate public system. As a result in many cities they have begun enrolling their kids in the neighborhood schools. These schools tended to be in neighborhoods which were already highly gentrified, where the neighborhood itself was majority white but the school enrollment was formerly very low, consisting of the residual low-income families who lived in the area. The smallish influx of middle-class students was enough to get the school's test scores to rise, which in turn rose the cache of the schools, and resulted in more middle-class parents choosing them as an option. If this cycle continues for another decade or two they'll probably be well-established schools with high middle-class enrollment soon enough.

Of course, cities vary dramatically in terms of their public school systems. Cities like Seattle and Portland were always seen as having pretty good public schools (as cities go). NYC has long been known for having an array of options as well. Chicago is developing the "district within a district" dynamic on the North Side right now. On the other hand, cities like Philadelphia and DC, outside of a small favored quarter, still have poorly regarded schools. It will take a critical mass in each city to turn things around, which may not happen everywhere.

The second, more insidious problem, has to do with cost of living - speaking here as a urban parent myself. Even if you navigate through the urban school issue successfully, you need to make compromises regarding urban living other people do not.

Kids cost money, a lot of money. If you have two working parents, you must pay for day care. And once they are school age, even if you go the public route, it's highly likely you'll have to pay for after-school care. You also need to feed, clothe, and most notably house them. In the modern era, this means if you have one kid you need at minimum a two-bedroom place, which should be easy to swing in many metros in terms of cost and size. But if you have two, may want to find a three-bedroom, two bath place, and there just aren't a ton of them, at least if you're talking apartments/condos. Those that you find will be quite expensive as well - and remember that your kids are essentially roommates who do not pay rent. Therefore, you'll always have one hand tied behind your back compared to a childless couple who makes the same amount. You'll have less money to spend on housing, but you'll also need to buy more housing. This means either you'll make big sacrifices in terms of cost or size (always be broke or cramped) or you'll have to pick a cheaper neighborhood where most people are poorer than you are (and who wants to be an urban pioneer when they have school age kids?).

Compounding the issue is a lot of the modern walkable amenities just aren't catered towards families with kids. Up until the fall we lived in one of the most walkable neighborhoods in Pittsburgh. There were some things we walked to with our children, like the playground, bakery, bank, card store, etc. But a lot of the business district was comprised of bars or fancy restaurants which we just couldn't take a five-year old and a baby into. So despite there being like two dozen dining options in our hood, there was like one we could use with any regularity. Considering you pay a big premium for walkability, you begin asking what you're paying the premium for.

As for us, we found another house in the city, in an old "streetcar suburb" area. It's more than big enough for us and has a backyard. It also has a bus stop right outside the front door, so I still don't need to drive to work. We would need to walk around 15 minutes to get to the nearest business district with anything worthwhile, but that was the compromise we needed to make, because we quickly figured out that anything walkable within our price range just wasn't something we were comfortable having a family of four in (e.g., either too small, or something which needed more work than we could manage with two kids).
Maybe it's about time people stop insisting that kids sharing bedrooms is simply not an option. Similarly with having one in the living room.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2015, 09:23 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,476 posts, read 11,979,561 times
Reputation: 10579
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1 View Post
Maybe it's about time people stop insisting that kids sharing bedrooms is simply not an option. Similarly with having one in the living room.
If we had a second daughter, we would have considered our kids sharing a bedroom. But we figured it would be too awkward with mixed-gendered kids, particularly say when my daughter was 14 having a 10-year old brother in her room.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2015, 11:22 AM
 
3,565 posts, read 1,882,933 times
Reputation: 2263
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam View Post
The law enforcement community feels that their aggressive, proactive policies have been successful. IF those policies are curtailed, and if the law enforcement community is correct in their claims, then crime will increase.


Further, there is a real backlash against citizens carrying firearms. Proposed restrictions against concealed carry and other policies, could further embolden criminals and also increase crime in the cities. Nothing discourages a criminal more than the possibility that the proposed victim is likely to fight back.
Those are some very big IFs in your first paragraph. The truth is that no one knows why crime is at historically low levels across the United States. There is certainly no empirical evidence that firearm restrictions make crime more likely--actually, the evidence points the other direction.
Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/we...anted=all&_r=0

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Well let me know when there is actual proof to back up that claim. Until then I am not buying it.

And the part about being able to carry guns in cities is just baseless. The amount of legal guns in a city has no proven effect on the amount of crime in a city.
Exactly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2015, 06:03 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
7,542 posts, read 8,440,497 times
Reputation: 3483
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
Those are some very big IFs in your first paragraph. The truth is that no one knows why crime is at historically low levels across the United States. There is certainly no empirical evidence that firearm restrictions make crime more likely--actually, the evidence points the other direction.

If you don't think that relaxed arms laws discourage the criminal element, we'll find out soon enough.


If crime soars when the gun control comes down, living in cities is going to be a lot less appealing to those who can afford to leave.
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