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'm not a shy person, and my wife is certainly an extrovert, but finding real substantial friendships in the city was somehow less fruitful than out here in our burb.
And that's one kind of benefit you found in an inner-ring suburban city. But that churn in a central city that you mentioned is also important--new ideas and energy is constantly cycling in to and around within a central city. So a municipality that provides housing for both the young and restless and older demographics balances some of that dynamism with some persistence.
If all a muni has is 20-somethings--a college town or a tech hub--then it may live and die by exogenous socio-economic factors particular to that demographic. If all a muni has is married, child-rearing 30- and 40-somethings, then it, too, may live and die by exogenous socio-economic factors.
And that's one kind of benefit you found in an inner-ring suburban city. But that churn in a central city that you mentioned is also important--new ideas and energy is constantly cycling in to and around within a central city. So a municipality that provides housing for both the young and restless and older demographics balances some of that dynamism with some persistence.
If all a muni has is 20-somethings--a college town or a tech hub--then it may live and die by exogenous socio-economic factors particular to that demographic. If all a muni has is married, child-rearing 30- and 40-somethings, then it, too, may live and die by exogenous socio-economic factors.
I don't know if you can say that's true about every city! Pittsburgh went through about a 20-25 year funk before things picked up again in the 90s.
Even assuming it's true, as bg7 pointed out, people often have more "connections" living in the burbs, where the population doesn't turn over every few years. I will say that in my neighborhood where I/we have lived now 27 years, there is turnover and new neighbors. It's just not like in the city where many are living in rentals and just getting started in life. Almost every time a home is sold in my 'hood, a young family moves in, to interact with us old people.
A city with a lot of those sport teams just mentioned with a real vibrant downtown that is lively and dynamic not just during the day but during evenings, too. It also has to have a world class international airport, shopping, economy and strong diversity.
I don't know if you can say that's true about every city! Pittsburgh went through about a 20-25 year funk before things picked up again in the 90s.
Even assuming it's true, as bg7 pointed out, people often have more "connections" living in the burbs, where the population doesn't turn over every few years. I will say that in my neighborhood where I/we have lived now 27 years, there is turnover and new neighbors. It's just not like in the city where many are living in rentals and just getting started in life. Almost every time a home is sold in my 'hood, a young family moves in, to interact with us old people.
It may not be true for every city, but it is for some. Darkeconomist never stated that it was true for every city.
And about "connections", that wasn't really the point. I assume that darkeconomist was talking more about the different atmospheres in different places.
It may not be true for every city, but it is for some. Darkeconomist never stated that it was true for every city.
And about "connections", that wasn't really the point. I assume that darkeconomist was talking more about the different atmospheres in different places.
There seem to have been numerous "points" in this thread. It would seem the OP's should be the most relevant.
If all a muni has is 20-somethings--a college town or a tech hub--then it may live and die by exogenous socio-economic factors particular to that demographic. If all a muni has is married, child-rearing 30- and 40-somethings, then it, too, may live and die by exogenous socio-economic factors.
Not really. A College town can support itself as long as the College is doing well. A tech hub so long as tech companies want to have a presence there. It is nice for a town to have diversified industry but that is another story.
Not really. A College town can support itself as long as the College is doing well. A tech hub so long as tech companies want to have a presence there. It is nice for a town to have diversified industry but that is another story.
Is that not the kind of undiversified risk I've been talking about? Being heavily dependent on the vitality of a college opens the muni to socio-economic threats against which it may not have a counter-balance. As in if we see a sharp slump in birth rates, shrinking the number of attendees. Or as in if the federal government drastically changes student loan policies.
Even assuming it's true, as bg7 pointed out, people often have more "connections" living in the burbs, where the population doesn't turn over every few years. I will say that in my neighborhood where I/we have lived now 27 years, there is turnover and new neighbors. It's just not like in the city where many are living in rentals and just getting started in life. Almost every time a home is sold in my 'hood, a young family moves in, to interact with us old people.
Yes, as I said previously, so long as there is sufficient turnover in a suburban muni, that muni is somewhat buffered. They key here is "sufficient." And I already outlined some concerns of the risks if turnover falls below that.
Also, in the very post you quoted, I said a city does best if it
Quote:
balances some of that dynamism with some persistence
As you can see, I'm in no way undermining the value of long-term residents. But that value they bring is not the be-all, end-all. Long-term residents come with some risks as do short-term residents. And both bring different benefits. The same applies if we, instead, talk about different demographics.
So the ideal is to have a broad array of housing types so that a muni can capture the benefits of different demographics while minimizing its exposure to any particular risk. Not only does this minimize the fragility / maximize the resiliency of the muni as generations move through the life cycle, it also buffers against changes in the overall economy and in general preferences for living.
For example, if a muni is very heavily weighted toward detached SFHs, that muni is open to a lot of risk from an extended economic slump without the counter-balance of other housing types. As we saw at the end of the last decade, this can push a muni to the brink in extreme cases. But this risk can also apply to "urban" munis, as we saw in the 1980s.
For example, if a muni is very heavily weighted toward detached SFHs, that muni is open to a lot of risk from an extended economic slump without the counter-balance of other housing types. As we saw at the end of the last decade, this can push a muni to the brink in extreme cases. But this risk can also apply to "urban" munis, as we saw in the 1980s.
so would an older city with little detached SFHs also be at risk for the same reasons?
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.
