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 01-31-2015, 07:01 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 27 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,027 posts, read 102,689,903 times
Reputation: 33083

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Please stay on the thread topic
I'm a little confused. What do you consider "on the thread topic"? It's very broad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-31-2015, 07:18 AM
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 42,037,172 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallsAngel View Post
I'm a little confused. What do you consider "on the thread topic"? It's very broad.
Assuming this is a serious question: something have to do with urban areas being more family friendly (or not). While less crime could be an important factor, endless discussion on the causes of inner city crime decline on the last few decades is not on topic. It became more on good policing or crime management. Likewise, while good schools may be an important factor, endless discussion on the quality of the schools in the City of Portland is also not on topic. That also was more more of a technical aside.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2015, 07:28 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 27 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,027 posts, read 102,689,903 times
Reputation: 33083
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Assuming this is a serious question: something have to do with urban areas being more family friendly (or not). While less crime could be an important factor, endless discussion on the causes of inner city crime decline on the last few decades is not on topic. It became more on good policing or crime management. Likewise, while good schools may be an important factor, endless discussion on the quality of the schools in the City of Portland is also not on topic. That also was more more of a technical aside.
You answered my question. Yes, it was a serious one. I wanted to say something about schools, and I know that topic is often considered irrelevant on this board.

Quote:
Charters here have been instrumental in attracting and retaining middle class families and offering less privileged kids better opportunities.
The second part of that is what the Colorado charter school law says charters are supposed to do. However, in practice this has not been borne out. In many cities throughout the US, charters seem to be a way for middle-upper class parents to get their kids into a private school setting at public school prices (free at point of service) while ignoring the needs of the neighborhood schools around them. It does keep these parents involved in the public school system, and perhaps be more supportive of them, but otherwise, these parents put their kids in these charters and could not care less about the other schools in the district.

Last edited by nei; 01-31-2015 at 12:27 PM.. Reason: unnecesary
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2015, 08:02 AM
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 42,037,172 times
Reputation: 14811
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.
Except that's not really the same situation. Families are at a disadvantage because they have to pay living expenses for their children, but not much extra for more space for children. Most live in houses, you pay the same whether you use one bedroom or three. A one bedroom condo or apartment in many suburbs in the Northeast, doesn't save that much money. In crowded urban areas, you're paying a lot extra for more housing square feet. In cities that are more house dominated, that doesn't apply as much. However, any gentrifying area popular with young people, houses often get shared with roommates. Four twenty-somethings even on a modest salary can afford higher housing prices than a family that uses the same space. The result is many old homes either get turned to shares or subdivided into apartments for childless adults.

As for suburban towns in the Northeast becoming dominated by empty nesters:

Old Urbanist: NYC Suburban Demographics: Choice or Fate?

According to the article, it says: these median age figures in some cases approach or exceed those of Florida counties known as retirement havens (cf. Westport, CT, at 44.6, with Palm Beach County at 43.5)

Definitely retiring in place there.

===========================================

The OP is a bit classist (not my favorite style of language, but don't know what else to read into it). Plenty of families have been living in cities, what he should be asking is will urban areas accommodate middle-class families?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2015, 10:25 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,560,873 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam View Post
The large reductions in crime in the cities is a big factor in making the areas much more attractive to people with jobs, I think we'd agree.

If proactive policing, stop-and-frisk, mandatory incarceration and relaxed firearms laws weren't the cause, what was in your estimation?

Whatever did cause the crime rate to sink is subject to change.

Identifying the reason is key to predicting when crime will go back up to historic levels.
The fact that we don't have a crack epidemic in thus country has helped reduce crime. Racial profiling has never produced any tangible results in reducing crime.

The crime in NYC isn't going up, unless you consider the cost of living there to be a crime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2015, 01:28 PM
 
56,747 posts, read 81,061,259 times
Reputation: 12550
Something like this may help: Say Yes to Education - National | Recent News
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2015, 04:12 PM
 
Location: Duluth, Minnesota, USA
7,653 posts, read 15,353,700 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by rzzzz View Post
there are no "trendy and hip" neighborhoods in st. paul
What about Summit Hill? Highland Park?

Anyway, the traditional and still prevailing view of a "family-friendly" neighborhood is one with big private yards. Stranger danger is still prevalent in these United States, most families today consist of a working parent/s, and not very many people can afford domestics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2015, 07:27 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 27 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,027 posts, read 102,689,903 times
Reputation: 33083
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Except that's not really the same situation. Families are at a disadvantage because they have to pay living expenses for their children, but not much extra for more space for children. Most live in houses, you pay the same whether you use one bedroom or three. A one bedroom condo or apartment in many suburbs in the Northeast, doesn't save that much money. In crowded urban areas, you're paying a lot extra for more housing square feet. In cities that are more house dominated, that doesn't apply as much. However, any gentrifying area popular with young people, houses often get shared with roommates. Four twenty-somethings even on a modest salary can afford higher housing prices than a family that uses the same space. The result is many old homes either get turned to shares or subdivided into apartments for childless adults.

As for suburban towns in the Northeast becoming dominated by empty nesters:

Old Urbanist: NYC Suburban Demographics: Choice or Fate?

According to the article, it says: these median age figures in some cases approach or exceed those of Florida counties known as retirement havens (cf. Westport, CT, at 44.6, with Palm Beach County at 43.5)

Definitely retiring in place there.

===========================================

The OP is a bit classist (not my favorite style of language, but don't know what else to read into it). Plenty of families have been living in cities, what he should be asking is will urban areas accommodate middle-class families?
That is a good point. Those who study education will tell you that the wealthy have always had school choice, either through private schools or by being able to live in wealthy areas that have good public schools. I will say this latter is trending away in some states that have school finance equalization, but some are still almost entirely dependent on local property taxes to fund schools.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2015, 01:43 PM
 
1,478 posts, read 2,004,645 times
Reputation: 1579
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Except that's not really the same situation. Families are at a disadvantage because they have to pay living expenses for their children, but not much extra for more space for children. Most live in houses, you pay the same whether you use one bedroom or three. A one bedroom condo or apartment in many suburbs in the Northeast, doesn't save that much money. In crowded urban areas, you're paying a lot extra for more housing square feet. In cities that are more house dominated, that doesn't apply as much. However, any gentrifying area popular with young people, houses often get shared with roommates. Four twenty-somethings even on a modest salary can afford higher housing prices than a family that uses the same space. The result is many old homes either get turned to shares or subdivided into apartments for childless adults.

As for suburban towns in the Northeast becoming dominated by empty nesters:

Old Urbanist: NYC Suburban Demographics: Choice or Fate?

According to the article, it says: these median age figures in some cases approach or exceed those of Florida counties known as retirement havens (cf. Westport, CT, at 44.6, with Palm Beach County at 43.5)

Definitely retiring in place there.

===========================================

The OP is a bit classist (not my favorite style of language, but don't know what else to read into it). Plenty of families have been living in cities, what he should be asking is will urban areas accommodate middle-class families?

It is kind of the same thing though. On both ends of the high demand spectrum (desirable urban and desirable suburban), it comes down to economics. On one end, you've got the scalability issue where many earners can share a dwelling. On the other end you've got a generation who could accumulate wealth due to economic performance. Someone investing in the market for 15 years starting at about any point in post war history has outperformed those who did the same starting around 2000. You also have the issue where fewer people are having kids (and those who are have fewer), which means someone having 1 kid (or however many today) will have relatively less buying power than they did in prior generations.

So what we are seeing is in large part an "anchoring" of the middle class due to limited upward mobility and the issues above. Where they anchor is a function of household requirements. I won't dive fully into it, but school performance and crime rates within certain thresholds certainly come into play. Everyone at a certain resource level will certainly locate to areas that meet those basic requirements, recognizing the definition of quality and "safe" are both somewhat subjective. Workplace location, transit costs/requirements, and preferences such as home size, neighborhood walkability, lot size, historic/contemporary building/neighborhood characteristics all enter into it.

I got into this at great length on a thread in another board, but many neighborhoods in urban areas (apart from those that middle class families will obviously discard due to crime or price) don't offer up the advantages sought by either side of the preference fence families fall on.

New, big lot, relatively maintenance free, subdivisions, Jr can go down tot he cul de sac and learn to ride his bike? Urban neighborhoods where middle income families reside don't have that.

Walkable, close to transit (with some appreciable transit advantage vs. a car or a commuter train from a suburb), fairly stable sociodemographics so we know: a) we can continue to afford paying our property taxes, b) Jr won't be the token white/Hispanic/Asian/Black kid in the neighborhood in 15 years, and c) the neighborhood won't deteriorate in 15 years by the time Jr goes to college so we're not taking a bath when we sell the place? Most urban areas that middle incomers can afford in cities don't have these either.

Chicago lost almost 300,000 people who belong to the middle income family group from 2000-13. This is more than the total population loss in the city over that period. It is also the biggest single loss of any demographic group in the city. Most of the middle income folks live on the far NW or SW sides. These areas are pretty indistinguishable from middle class inner and middle ring suburbs. There isn't a real advantage to living in the city in these neighborhoods for most people. The el (if it touches these neighborhoods at all) or the Metra doesn't get you to the Loop much quicker than taking the Metra 2-10 miles further out. In some areas it is actually slower. The neighborhood isn't any more urban and the houses and yards look pretty much the same as their middle class suburban counterparts. There are actually a lot of disadvantages. The reason why these areas remain middle class family havens: city employment residency requirements. If you picked a random working age resident out in these areas, it is 9 times more likely that they are a city employee than a random working age resident of any neighborhood within 6 miles of the Loop, regardless of the socioeconomic status of the neighborhood (young, old, poor, rich, any race, etc.).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2015, 01:57 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,448 posts, read 11,951,877 times
Reputation: 10561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago76 View Post
Chicago lost almost 300,000 people who belong to the middle income family group from 2000-13. This is more than the total population loss in the city over that period. It is also the biggest single loss of any demographic group in the city. Most of the middle income folks live on the far NW or SW sides. These areas are pretty indistinguishable from middle class inner and middle ring suburbs. There isn't a real advantage to living in the city in these neighborhoods for most people. The el (if it touches these neighborhoods at all) or the Metra doesn't get you to the Loop much quicker than taking the Metra 2-10 miles further out. In some areas it is actually slower. The neighborhood isn't any more urban and the houses and yards look pretty much the same as their middle class suburban counterparts. There are actually a lot of disadvantages. The reason why these areas remain middle class family havens: city employment residency requirements. If you picked a random working age resident out in these areas, it is 9 times more likely that they are a city employee than a random working age resident of any neighborhood within 6 miles of the Loop, regardless of the socioeconomic status of the neighborhood (young, old, poor, rich, any race, etc.).
Pittsburgh has neighborhoods like that as well. Some of them are known for concentrations of particular groups, like fire and police. Structurally speaking they vary from streetcar suburban to outright suburban.
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