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.
I think it also assumes an unrealistic zero-sum scenario for many places; around here there's net in-migration, admittedly skewed to young/single, but there's a significant couples/families component to the growth too.
Yes, I should have qualified it to say, "on a national level", given demographic trends, we have enough single family homes.
The point being is almost 30% of all households are single person, yet our current housing stock is skewed toward family homes and builders continue to build 3b/2b w/yard!
And yes, NYC & SF are exceptions to many nationwide generalizations.
I was sort of disturbed by the statistic that by 2025 85% of households will be childless. It makes me wonder who's going to be left by 2075.
That's not particularly surprising.
If you move out at 20, have 2 kids over a couple years (we'll say 25 years with kids in the house), and remain in your home and alive until 85, your household will have been "childless" for 62% of your adult life in spite of having had the stereotypical life.
----------------------------------
Also consider what a "household" means and how that's likely to skew your statistic. Ex: You have 100 people, 50 of them are couples with kids living together, 50 of them are single and living alone. Equal populations have kids vs being childless. However, in households that means 2/3rds of those households are childless. (50 couples = 25 households vs 50 single person households).
Obviously, there's plenty of people living together without having kids and all that, but it's still going to be a significant bias.
If you move out at 20, have 2 kids over a couple years (we'll say 25 years with kids in the house), and remain in your home and alive until 85, your household will have been "childless" for 62% of your adult life in spite of having had the stereotypical life.
----------------------------------
Also consider what a "household" means and how that's likely to skew your statistic. Ex: You have 100 people, 50 of them are couples with kids living together, 50 of them are single and living alone. Equal populations have kids vs being childless. However, in households that means 2/3rds of those households are childless. (50 couples = 25 households vs 50 single person households).
Obviously, there's plenty of people living together without having kids and all that, but it's still going to be a significant bias.
You are correct about your first part. Some houses do turn over, however, constantly, or almost constantly having kids in them. In my neighborhood, most homes are sold to families.
The quote in the OP specifically referred to smaller households where people eat out more. That's what "they" (whoever they are) are trying to attract. They're also referring to people being out at all hours. Neither of those are family habits.
Its funny to think about this style of housing being "missing" in large portions of the country, because they're ubiquitous in the urban cores of most Northeastern and Midwestern cities (although the form they take varies considerably). That said, I always did find it quite jarring how in many cities in the South and West there really was no buffer zone of moderate residential density between the CBD and detached single-family housing.
I do think that the presenters are extolling the virtues of moderate density a bit too much however. It is true that moderate density neighborhoods have unit densities which allow walkable commercial districts. But the walkable commercial districts have to be there - or at least be zoned to allow to exist. Merely plopping some townhouses or walkups into a suburban-style neighborhood won't really accomplish much of anything on its own. After all, townhouses have been the preferred "moderate density" solution in the suburbs in most parts of the country for decades now, and it hasn't helped walkability one bit.
One local suburb did aim for walkability and created slightly walkable strip malls intermixed with the moderate density new development. While it is not quite as pleasant as older walkable neighborhoods, it is pretty practical in terms of access to typical amenities. A good alternative to standard suburbia.
My own neighborhood and many around me look like the moderate density espoused here. I have lived in the same place for a decade. Over the past few years more "younger" people have moved in. Maybe a shift of 5-10% of the residents. But it has made huge improvements. Places that were too empty to walk alone at night have foot traffic, bike traffic and more people out and about later in the evening. Now it isn't as unsafe feeling taking the midnight bus. Likely people will be getting off at my stop or milling about. There are more late night food options too. It is a little less sleepy than when I moved in but hasn't changed in character. Late night eateries means more foot traffic.
You are correct about your first part. Some houses do turn over, however, constantly, or almost constantly having kids in them. In my neighborhood, most homes are sold to families.
The quote in the OP specifically referred to smaller households where people eat out more. That's what "they" (whoever they are) are trying to attract. They're also referring to people being out at all hours. Neither of those are family habits.
It feels like "family habits" are different these days. In my city there is a trend towards "family friendly" wine bars and beer gardens. They have outdoor space, games and room for strollers to navigate. Not long ago when people settled into family life they stop "socializing" in the ways they did as young adults. Now people keep their old lifestyle and bring the kid. Eating out is a family activity these days.
It feels like "family habits" are different these days. In my city there is a trend towards "family friendly" wine bars and beer gardens. They have outdoor space, games and room for strollers to navigate. Not long ago when people settled into family life they stop "socializing" in the ways they did as young adults. Now people keep their old lifestyle and bring the kid. Eating out is a family activity these days.
Maybe you Californians live differently than us Coloradans. Actually, I don't think so. My daughter's friends with kids live pretty much like we did when we had little ones. Going out to eat is a big adventure. It's not something you do every other night, like some childless people. Truth be told, it's often a pain in the rear to take small kids out. When they get into school, there's the homework issue during the week; there's generally no time to take 1 1/2 hours or so to go out to dinner in the evening.
Maybe you Californians live differently than us Coloradans. Actually, I don't think so. My daughter's friends with kids live pretty much like we did when we had little ones. Going out to eat is a big adventure. It's not something you do every other night, like some childless people. Truth be told, it's often a pain in the rear to take small kids out. When they get into school, there's the homework issue during the week; there's generally no time to take 1 1/2 hours or so to go out to dinner in the evening.
I have two small kids. If it were up to me, we'd eat dinners out half the week - but then again, I'm the one who does all the cooking when we stay at home.
Generally speaking though, we eat maybe two meals out on the weekend, and get takeout one day per week. We only get home from work around six, and the kids need to be in bed by eight, which barely leaves enough time to put something in the oven, let alone go to a restaurant and wait for food.
I have two small kids. If it were up to me, we'd eat dinners out half the week - but then again, I'm the one who does all the cooking when we stay at home.
Generally speaking though, we eat maybe two meals out on the weekend, and get takeout one day per week. We only get home from work around six, and the kids need to be in bed by eight, which barely leaves enough time to put something in the oven, let alone go to a restaurant and wait for food.
This is exactly what I mean! And wait till they're in school. Homework has to be factored in there. You can't very easily do HW in a restaurant. And then there's sports practices, play practice, etc, etc, etc.
This is exactly what I mean! And wait till they're in school. Homework has to be factored in there. You can't very easily do HW in a restaurant. And then there's sports practices, play practice, etc, etc, etc.
My daughter already has homework in kindergarten. Thankfully, it's a big weekly packet she can do any night of the week, only returning the next Monday. Unfortunately all too often she gets very little of it done by the start of the weekend, so we need to stay indoors with her a lot of the weekend while she finishes up the homework.
Its funny to think about this style of housing being "missing" in large portions of the country, because they're ubiquitous in the urban cores of most Northeastern and Midwestern cities (although the form they take varies considerably). That said, I always did find it quite jarring how in many cities in the South and West there really was no buffer zone of moderate residential density between the CBD and detached single-family housing.
Well, it could be considered "missing" in that little of it has been built in the last 50 years thanks to the solidification of uniform zoning.
And the website inferred that--densities being too low because construction would be uniformly large-lot SFHing--as the issue in how it talked about getting above a threshold density that makes many city functions viable. See below:
Quote:
But one of the primary benefits of Missing Middle is that the neighborhood densities are often higher than 16 dwelling units per acre—the threshold needed to create a supportive environment for transit and neighborhood-serving main streets.
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.
