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 02-04-2015, 03:19 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,251 posts, read 26,220,119 times
Reputation: 11706

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
I looked into the figures a few years back, and the number of white children under five in Manhattan and Brooklyn is increasing at a a substantial rate.
The same thing is happening in DC. However, the number of middle to high school aged children (10-17) has declined.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-04-2015, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,251 posts, read 26,220,119 times
Reputation: 11706
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell View Post
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.
I wonder why people seem to think Millennials are so different from preceding generations when it comes to wanting an urban lifestyle. Is that really the case? Has there been a true shift in values among today's younger generation compared to those of generations past?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2015, 04:20 PM
 
1,478 posts, read 2,001,198 times
Reputation: 1579
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
I wonder why people seem to think Millennials are so different from preceding generations when it comes to wanting an urban lifestyle. Is that really the case? Has there been a true shift in values among today's younger generation compared to those of generations past?
We've got plenty of evidence, summed up as:

1) A subset of Xers started the back to the city thing in perceptible numbers. Obviously, this occurred far earlier in certain select neighborhoods of larger cities, but we only began to see the change in second tier cities and more broadly in first tier cities when the Xers came of age.
2) Millennials, as studied by marketers, appear to feel even more strongly about this than Xers as a group.
3) The improvements made pre-Millennials mean they have an easier road than their predecessors 15 years ago.
4) They're more plentiful, so even if they are no more inclined than those in their shoes earlier, they'll make a bigger impact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2015, 04:29 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,251 posts, read 26,220,119 times
Reputation: 11706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago76 View Post
We've got plenty of evidence, summed up as:

1) A subset of Xers started the back to the city thing in perceptible numbers. Obviously, this occurred far earlier in certain select neighborhoods of larger cities, but we only began to see the change in second tier cities and more broadly in first tier cities when the Xers came of age.
2) Millennials, as studied by marketers, appear to feel even more strongly about this than Xers as a group.
3) The improvements made pre-Millennials mean they have an easier road than their predecessors 15 years ago.
None of that means that preceding generations valued an urban lifestyle any less. If I could go back in time and present my 19-year old Great Grandfather with a choice between sharecropping or sipping chai tea in some hip urban coffee shop, which do you think he would choose?

I mean, a number of young people lived it up in cities during the Roaring 20s, Harlem Renaissance, etc. I just think the opportunities we have today are more abundant than what our grandparents and great grandparents had. I'm sure many of them would have chosen Paris over a small town Pennsylvania steel mill if given the choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2015, 06:49 PM
 
1,478 posts, read 2,001,198 times
Reputation: 1579
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
None of that means that preceding generations valued an urban lifestyle any less. If I could go back in time and present my 19-year old Great Grandfather with a choice between sharecropping or sipping chai tea in some hip urban coffee shop, which do you think he would choose?

I mean, a number of young people lived it up in cities during the Roaring 20s, Harlem Renaissance, etc. I just think the opportunities we have today are more abundant than what our grandparents and great grandparents had. I'm sure many of them would have chosen Paris over a small town Pennsylvania steel mill if given the choice.
Don't know if you're serious about this (or were even around to see it), but it certainly does in the post war era. Back to cities isn't limited to cross country treks to "tier 1" cities. Boomers and the greatest generation left the cities. No one held a gun to their head and said do it. Certain policies might have favored suburbanization, but on a macro level, those are still in place today. Maybe it took a full generation of suburban living from one generation to appreciate urban living more. Urban neighborhoods declined for the most part in the 70s and 80s because Boomers didn't want them. Sure, a lot of them set around listening to Lou Reed albums in the village in the 70s and 80s, but the flagship cities were the only places where the trend was even starting to reverse. They could have bought in. They didn't. It's not like things were more enticing in 1990. I could have bought an abandoned warehouse for next to nothing in 80 as easily as I could in 90. If you look at educational attainment just as the Xers came to the age when the oldest of them were old enough to be counted (1990), things took off in a lot of areas from then through 2010, when the youngest could be counted. We're talking about areas where the percent of college grads went from 15 percent to 40 percent...and that's in a slow gentrification city like STL. Sure, the national avg went up over this period, but not that much.

It's not like hammers and nails and DIY was invented in the 1990. For gen y, there is a foundation they can leverage thanks to 90-2010.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2015, 07:24 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
7,542 posts, read 8,418,221 times
Reputation: 3483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago76 View Post
Don't know if you're serious about this (or were even around to see it), but it certainly does in the post war era. Back to cities isn't limited to cross country treks to "tier 1" cities. Boomers and the greatest generation left the cities. No one held a gun to their head and said do it. Certain policies might have favored suburbanization, but on a macro level, those are still in place today. Maybe it took a full generation of suburban living from one generation to appreciate urban living more. Urban neighborhoods declined for the most part in the 70s and 80s because Boomers didn't want them. Sure, a lot of them set around listening to Lou Reed albums in the village in the 70s and 80s, but the flagship cities were the only places where the trend was even starting to reverse. They could have bought in. They didn't. It's not like things were more enticing in 1990. I could have bought an abandoned warehouse for next to nothing in 80 as easily as I could in 90. If you look at educational attainment just as the Xers came to the age when the oldest of them were old enough to be counted (1990), things took off in a lot of areas from then through 2010, when the youngest could be counted. We're talking about areas where the percent of college grads went from 15 percent to 40 percent...and that's in a slow gentrification city like STL. Sure, the national avg went up over this period, but not that much.

It's not like hammers and nails and DIY was invented in the 1990. For gen y, there is a foundation they can leverage thanks to 90-2010.
Many of your cities are a lot safer than they were, back in the 70's and 80's. Films like the Death Wish and Dirty Harry series- yes they were drama- but they were a lot closer to reality than those who came afterwards realize today. The cities, including "flagship" cities, weren't safe and people who could afford it found many suburban areas just to provide safety to live their lives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2015, 08:07 PM
 
1,478 posts, read 2,001,198 times
Reputation: 1579
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam View Post
Many of your cities are a lot safer than they were, back in the 70's and 80's. Films like the Death Wish and Dirty Harry series- yes they were drama- but they were a lot closer to reality than those who came afterwards realize today. The cities, including "flagship" cities, weren't safe and people who could afford it found many suburban areas just to provide safety to live their lives.
This isn't generally true though. In most major cities, violent crime rates peaked around 1990. Maybe it felt worse to those old enough to remember playing stick ball in the streets in the 50s and 60s, but it wasn't. Also: mental health funding declined a lot in the 80s, so vagrancy and nutters were more commonly wandering urban streets much later.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2015, 08:15 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,251 posts, read 26,220,119 times
Reputation: 11706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago76 View Post
Don't know if you're serious about this (or were even around to see it), but it certainly does in the post war era. Back to cities isn't limited to cross country treks to "tier 1" cities. Boomers and the greatest generation left the cities. No one held a gun to their head and said do it.
Is choice necessarily indicative of preference? There are Millennials who are leaving cities today without someone holding a gun to their head and saying "do it." When one points out that most Millennials today still live in the suburbs, the response is typically "Well, that doesn't mean that's where they want to be." How do we know that the preference for urban living among previous generations wasn't equally constrained by any number of circumstances?

I guess the only way we would know about changes in attitude towards urban living would be by polling the same age group (21-35) over time, possibly accounting for marital status. My guess would be that most young people back then wanted to live in a city rather than milking cows on the family farm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2015, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
7,542 posts, read 8,418,221 times
Reputation: 3483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago76 View Post
This isn't generally true though. In most major cities, violent crime rates peaked around 1990. Maybe it felt worse to those old enough to remember playing stick ball in the streets in the 50s and 60s, but it wasn't. Also: mental health funding declined a lot in the 80s, so vagrancy and nutters were more commonly wandering urban streets much later.
New York City stats show that the murder rate increase in the 60's, hitting over 1000 in 1969 and staying above that to 1994, when it started plummeting.

Yes, the absolute peak was in 1990, but the rate throughout the 70's and 80's was more than 3 times the current rate.


declining crime rates beginning in the 90's, helped make the cities more hospitable and a more reasonable choice for today's hipsters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2015, 05:02 PM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,893 posts, read 7,653,336 times
Reputation: 4508
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam View Post
New York City stats show that the murder rate increase in the 60's, hitting over 1000 in 1969 and staying above that to 1994, when it started plummeting.

Yes, the absolute peak was in 1990, but the rate throughout the 70's and 80's was more than 3 times the current rate.


declining crime rates beginning in the 90's, helped make the cities more hospitable and a more reasonable choice for today's hipsters.
What do you think lead to the plummeting crime rates? Most--if not all--cities have seen the crime rate decline, but I don't believe it's because every city police dept. adopted the same practices used by the NYPD. IMO, one of the reasons crime declined so universally, is because people started moving back to cities in greater numbers.
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