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.
We all know about the recent culture shift which has resulted in an urban residential surge. More and more people are living in lofts, restoring historic homes, and (controversially) gentrifying blighted neighborhoods.
But by and large these urban newcomers are single, married-without-kids, or retired. Particularly those living in lofts, which are being built left and right. Thus, many people assume that when these single people finally get married, or when these married people finally have kids, that the party will be over, and an urban bust will follow. And when you consider the noise, traffic, crime (real or perceived) and general lack of quality public schools, playgrounds and other family-friendly amenities, it makes sense.
However, there are a lot of people with HUGE investments in this recent boom, and I doubt they plan to sit idly by while their condo buildings and mixed-use developments go belly up. So my question is, how do you expect these newly revived urban neighborhoods to evolve to accommodate family life? Or perhaps you expect them to to evolve at all?
We all know about the recent culture shift which has resulted in an urban residential surge. More and more people are living in lofts, restoring historic homes, and (controversially) gentrifying blighted neighborhoods.
Who exactly is in support of blight?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell
But by and large these urban newcomers are single, married-without-kids, or retired. Particularly those living in lofts, which are being built left and right. Thus, many people assume that when these single people finally get married, or when these married people finally have kids, that the party will be over, and an urban bust will follow. And when you consider the noise, traffic, crime (real or perceived) and general lack of quality public schools, playgrounds and other family-friendly amenities, it makes sense.
However, there are a lot of people with HUGE investments in this recent boom, and I doubt they plan to sit idly by while their condo buildings and mixed-use developments go belly up. So my question is, how do you expect these newly revived urban neighborhoods to evolve to accommodate family life? Or perhaps you expect them to to evolve at all?
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).
We all know about the recent culture shift which has resulted in an urban residential surge. More and more people are living in lofts, restoring historic homes, and (controversially) gentrifying blighted neighborhoods.
But by and large these urban newcomers are single, married-without-kids, or retired. Particularly those living in lofts, which are being built left and right. Thus, many people assume that when these single people finally get married, or when these married people finally have kids, that the party will be over, and an urban bust will follow. And when you consider the noise, traffic, crime (real or perceived) and general lack of quality public schools, playgrounds and other family-friendly amenities, it makes sense.
However, there are a lot of people with HUGE investments in this recent boom, and I doubt they plan to sit idly by while their condo buildings and mixed-use developments go belly up. So my question is, how do you expect these newly revived urban neighborhoods to evolve to accommodate family life? Or perhaps you expect them to to evolve at all?
Speak up!
We may get "generational turnover", in the sense that each new graduating class goes to these lofts, and those who get married and have kids go to the single family homes in the burbs.
I don't know anyone who's in favor of blight per se. But some have opposed the gentrification of neighborhoods for racial or socioeconomic reasons, and the impact it has on the displaced former residents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
This topic has been done on the forum again and again.
I looked through the Urban Planning forum and didn't see anything too similar. Feel free to point them out if I've overlooked them.
Despite your assertion that this is a redundant thread, I appreciate your very detailed response. I think it will benefit many people who are interested in the topic.
We may get "generational turnover", in the sense that each new graduating class goes to these lofts, and those who get married and have kids go to the single family homes in the burbs.
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.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,563 posts, read 81,147,605 times
Reputation: 57767
Yes, many of them will marry and have kids, then move to the suburbs for the yard and better schools. They will be replaced by other singles/young married couples, however. Also, since people are waiting longer to get married, then to have kids, and more are choosing not to have kids at all, the "exodus" will be less. Add to that the well funded immigrants who are accustomed to living in a big city and don't care about the schools because they can afford private schools in the city, and I don't see any future bust.
Market demand in Chicago is resulting in a greater percentage of 3 bedroom condos (versus 1 and 2) during this construction cycle versus the pre-bust cycle. Over time the real estate market will adjust. Schools follow demographics, as indicated previously.
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 think a lot depends upon the city. In NYC, the idea of raising a family in an apartment building is totally normal - has been for ages. Some people might want to move to a comparably pastoral brownstone neighborhood if they can afford it, but it's not a requirement. 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. In Brooklyn, this may be because of the continued population explosion among Hasids, but it sure isn't the case in Manhattan.
In other cities though, I simply don't think you'll get too many families interested in the highest density of urban living, simply because there are so many other options available. There are plenty of neighborhoods where you can get a rowhouse, or even a detached single-family house with a small yard. On a square foot basis, costs here tend to be cheaper than in the "peak urban" area as well. These moderate density city neighborhoods are where I see the big growth in families in cities in the future.
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 think a lot depends upon the city. In NYC, the idea of raising a family in an apartment building is totally normal - has been for ages. Some people might want to move to a comparably pastoral brownstone neighborhood if they can afford it, but it's not a requirement. 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. In Brooklyn, this may be because of the continued population explosion among Hasids, but it sure isn't the case in Manhattan.
In other cities though, I simply don't think you'll get too many families interested in the highest density of urban living, simply because there are so many other options available. There are plenty of neighborhoods where you can get a rowhouse, or even a detached single-family house with a small yard. On a square foot basis, costs here tend to be cheaper than in the "peak urban" area as well. These moderate density city neighborhoods are where I see the big growth in families in cities in the future.
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.
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.
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.
