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.
Yeah, there is no doubt that American cities are going through a significant rebirth. The question here is who is leading the revitalization and repopulation of our urban cores.
It's safe to argue that middle-to-upper income singles and married couples (straight and gay) are making the investments. They have the disposable income and more people in their 20s and 30s are willing to take a risk on real estate investments.
We do NOT see middle-to-upper income families making the transition from suburbia to the city center. This has been the case in the metro DC region since the 1990s. Why are families staying in Fairfax or Montgomery County? Even if the parents have to commute to DC, they remain in the suburbs. What do the suburban counties in Northern Virginia and Maryland offer to families that the District cannot offer today?
As JEB pointed out, there is NO empirical evidence showing a trend of people settling long-term in the District or planning on raising families in the city.
If there is a supposed "settling" trend in the District: I could point to a couple of factors:
1. Couples are stuck with their properties. They bought a condo or row home at the peak of the real estate bubble from 2005-2007. Selling a property today could be a losing proposition for the home owner. Why would someone sell property in DC? Job relocation, job loss or the couple decided that the urban lifestyle was not the best fit after all.
There could be a significant number of owners who want to sell but they are waiting until the economy gets "hot" again and property values rise like they did during the 2002-2007 period. The odds of another real estate price spike are looking more remote but who knows.
Remember, there was strong evidence that real estate speculation was rampant in the mid-2000s in several DC neighborhoods. The investors were looking for a huge double-digit return within a short window. They got burned if they didn't bail out by 2008. Do not discount the fact that are some people who are "settling" involuntarily.
2. Easy commutes. If couples have jobs in the city, why bother relocating to another part of the region. Shorter commutes allows for more leisure time and less stress.
3. Hedging on better schools and safer streets. Gentrification has its rewards. People are betting on better economic and public safety conditions. There is a chance that DC might be a good place to raise children.
I think we all have to wait until the 2020 census is completed. By then, we will have a definitive picture of DC's demographic trends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14thandYou
The reurbanization of America isn't a myth--it's a trend that's been going on for the better part of 15 years now. It's no mere coincidence that numerous neighborhoods across DC have gentrified and investment in the city has skyrocketed at the same time the Distrci reversed a six decades-long population loss. I think it's more than mere hopeful thinking or wild speculation to assume that at least a portion of the recent arrivals into the city will remain planted here.
You're confusing two topics: the fact that some people are forced out of the city for better schooling is not the same as those who eagerly move out to the outer suburbs.
You're also ignoring the fact that "market investments" have long existed in the outer suburbs but have shifted to include the urban core. There are ample articles and data showing outer suburbs are struggling the hardest to sell homes now, while inner-ring and urban core neighborhoods boom. There has been a shift.
I already posted demographics for Loudon County proving it is not attracting the young adults and,, as 14thandYou pointed out, this is part of a much larger trend that does not include a vision of someday ending up on the fringe.
Displacement is also a normal and predictable result when wealthier people choose to move anywhere. It's not intrinsically bad or good.
I'm struggling to understand why you're so adamant about this issue. We all acknowledge that some people with high education still move way out, but it's nothing like it used to be in terms of a universal default.
I'm only "adamant" because I was curious to see if people on this forum could back up their assertions with solid data. I haven't seen it yet - just a lot of generalizations about market trends and what people in different age cohorts ostensibly want. Given how passionately posters like you and 14th and You feel about the District and its prospects, I guess I expected better.
I think there are some powerful drivers that are pulling people toward DC and the inner suburbs at this particular point in time. I also think there are some powerful disincentives that push people away from DC as they get older and start families. I've watched it happen to several generations in a row of people who thought they were "different" from their predecessors. The latest Census data suggests that trend hasn't really changed and, if anything, may have accelerated. If nothing else, I suppose I'd like to see some posters with some degree of self-awareness acknowledge that their housing decisions are based on a variety of external circumstances, and not toss out platitudes such as "no one in my generation wants the house with the white picket fence anymore."
My own bias, as you may have inferred, is to prefer urban environments that really support a certain bourgie lifestyle that accommodates persons of varying ages. I don't get super excited about urban neighborhoods that are overwhelmingly populated by one age group, particularly when those in that age cohort tend to have the same types of professional aspirations. One of the things I actually like about my current suburban neighborhood is the broad age range of its residents, although it admittedly does not have a lot of 20-somethings.
My cousin and her husband used to live in one of those fancy one-bedroom condos off Massachusetts Avenue. "My child will just have to grow up in a one-bedroom apartment," she once told me. She had her first child in November.
They closed on a house in Silver Spring last month.
I hear all types of protestations against suburban living from my friends all the time:
"Who wants to drive 2 hours to and from work every day? Yuck!"
"I want my kids to be exposed to diversity. I would never move to Virginia with those closed-minded bigots."
"Well, my kids will have to live in the city, because I can't live in a place where I can't walk to a yoga studio or Mr. Yogato."
"I would never live in Maryland! The whole state is completely lacking in character."
The ones who have gotten married have all moved out of the city. Very few of them will actually back up their talk and raise their kids in the heart of Bed-Stuy, Harlem or Columbia Heights.
Given how passionately posters like you and 14th and You feel about the District and its prospects, I guess I expected better.
What, precisely, are you looking for? The statistical evidence you appear to be searching for is close to nonexistent simply because this is such a recent trend. I don't think anyone, regardless of their particular stance, can provide anything other than suppositions with regards to where all of this change throughout the city is leading. You can point to trends from 20 years ago that people moved to the city for a few years and then promptly fled to the suburbs, but I'd argue that that doesn't have near the bearing on an examination of demographic trends within the District today as it may have in 1990.
Quote:
I think there are some powerful drivers that are pulling people toward DC and the inner suburbs at this particular point in time. I also think there are some powerful disincentives that push people away from DC as they get older and start families.
That may very well be. However, what I am saying is that there are incentives in existence today to remaining in the city that didn't necessarily exist in the recent past. For example, regional traffic is worse, and people have become more commute-averse, placing a higher priority on living closer to one's place of work. Amenities in many city neighborhoods have improved substantially, negating the need to leave one's neighborhood for many basic needs. Crime is down rather significantly, lowering a barrier to moving into the city that may have been present for some. And there is a general movement back towards more urban environments today, which stands in sharp contrast to conditions of the 1980s when a mass exodus from many cities was still occuring. (There is also the larger societal trend, particularly among more affluent couples, to delay the raising of a family until later in life, which also includes an increasing number of childless couples.)
Might the tens of thousands of new arrivals into the city--the ones that added approximately 5% to the city's population ranks over the past decade--spontaneously decide to ditch their Brookland bungalows for townhomes in Fairfax? Certainly; these decisions typically come down to personal preferences anyway, and there is a limit to the accuracy of largescale demographic prognostications. But I keep returning to the fact that there are a lot of factors working in the District's favor right now, which plays into my own personal belief that you'll find increasing numbers of residents electing to remain within the District for the forseeable future.
what I am saying is that there are incentives in existence today to remaining in the city that didn't necessarily exist in the recent past. For example, regional traffic is worse, and people have become more commute-averse, placing a higher priority on living closer to one's place of work.
One response to this has been telecommuting. Many more employers are encouraging this. In any event, most people aren't willing to tolerate less space, worse schools and higher crime for a shorter commute. Unless you're young, fearless, and without kids, that is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14thandYou
And there is a general movement back towards more urban environments today, which stands in sharp contrast to conditions of the 1980s when a mass exodus from many cities was still occuring. (There is also the larger societal trend, particularly among more affluent couples, to delay the raising of a family until later in life, which also includes an increasing number of childless couples.)
Most people who move to the DC region move to its suburbs, not the city proper. While the city is growing, I don't think that's necessarily reflective of any emerging trend. After all, cities couldn't lose population forever; the bleeding had to stop at some point. If DC adds 100,000 people by 2030, then maybe we can say there's a "general movement back towards more urban environments."
Most people who move to the DC region move to its suburbs, not the city proper. While the city is growing, I don't think that's necessarily reflective of any emerging trend. After all, cities couldn't lose population forever; the bleeding had to stop at some point. If DC adds 100,000 people by 2030, then maybe we can say there's a "general movement back towards more urban environments."
The bleeding didn't simply stop, the District added a significant number of people, which is indicative of national trends. Adding some 40,000 people to the District over the course of the last decade isn't a blip or aberration, or something that was just naturally goign to occur. (Consider cities like Detroit, Chicago and St. Louis, each of which saw alarming rates of exodus from their cities to the suburbs over the past decade.)
An Urban Land Institute report from last year sums things up quite well: "The coming decades will be the time of the great reurbanization as 24/7 central cities grow and suburbs around the country are redeveloped with new or revived walkable suburban town centers."
I don't know I think that in the end it all may mean that the District will resemble San Francisco or Manhattan 10-15 years from now. By that I mean a rather yuppified city with few children. At the end of the day people are opting for the suburbs when its time to start families. Yes there are some pioneers who are braving the city streets but they remain in the minority.
Loudoun county has been mentioned quite a bit in this thread. Well the growth in Loudoun has been way more than the District they added 140K while DC added 30K. In these days and times one doesn't have to do the traditional city to suburb commute. I can only speak from my personal experience but most of the Northern Virginians I've met are suburb to suburb commuters. Just making an observation.
Going back to the article I thought it was funny that the people interviewed had the most stereotypical DC jobs: lawyer and lobbyist. While I've met and even went on that one date with a couple of lawyers I've yet to meet an actual lobbyist. So not sure if folks in those fields are all that representative of the city. Also a lot of the folks I'm meeting are in DC to stay none really talk about moving. I've met one gal who just hated it here and was biding her time until she could get out.
Most people who move to the DC region move to its suburbs, not the city proper. While the city is growing, I don't think that's necessarily reflective of any emerging trend. After all, cities couldn't lose population forever; the bleeding had to stop at some point. If DC adds 100,000 people by 2030, then maybe we can say there's a "general movement back towards more urban environments."
Well like I just mentioned Loudoun (which has a population half of the District) grew by 84% and added twice as many people as DC during the last decade. The whole region is growing but the suburbs are still outgrowing the city. I think the District is on the right track but people aren't abandoning suburban living just yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14thandYou
The bleeding didn't simply stop, the District added a significant number of people, which is indicative of national trends. Adding some 40,000 people to the District over the course of the last decade isn't a blip or aberration, or something that was just naturally goign to occur. (Consider cities like Detroit, Chicago and St. Louis, each of which saw alarming rates of exodus from their cities to the suburbs over the past decade.)
An Urban Land Institute report from last year sums things up quite well: "The coming decades will be the time of the great reurbanization as 24/7 central cities grow and suburbs around the country are redeveloped with new or revived walkable suburban town centers."
I agree that cities are going to see more growth but people still want the 2 car garage and lots of land, not everyone but still a good number of people do want these things.
I'm only "adamant" because I was curious to see if people on this forum could back up their assertions with solid data. I haven't seen it yet - just a lot of generalizations about market trends and what people in different age cohorts ostensibly want. Given how passionately posters like you and 14th and You feel about the District and its prospects, I guess I expected better.
. . .
If nothing else, I suppose I'd like to see some posters with some degree of self-awareness acknowledge that their housing decisions are based on a variety of external circumstances, and not toss out platitudes such as "no one in my generation wants the house with the white picket fence anymore."
. . . .
Please do not misquote me. I never said that no one in my generation wants to live in the suburbs. I only said that some people in my generation want to stay in the city and are working very hard to do so. I have no idea why you are on the attack, but it is unnecessary, and it is undercutting whatever argument you are trying to make.
Last edited by lackadaisi; 05-10-2011 at 03:29 PM..
The bleeding didn't simply stop, the District added a significant number of people, which is indicative of national trends. Adding some 40,000 people to the District over the course of the last decade isn't a blip or aberration, or something that was just naturally goign to occur. (Consider cities like Detroit, Chicago and St. Louis, each of which saw alarming rates of exodus from their cities to the suburbs over the past decade.)
An Urban Land Institute report from last year sums things up quite well: "The coming decades will be the time of the great reurbanization as 24/7 central cities grow and suburbs around the country are redeveloped with new or revived walkable suburban town centers."
1. I think DC is unusual because there are so many young professionals here. This is really what's fueling the growth. But a city can only grow so much through an infusion of young professionals alone. If those same young professionals don't raise children here and grow old here, then you'll just have a revolving door of young professionals for the forseeable future. That's not going to drive the population back up to 1950 Census levels. I expect DC's population to taper off around 630K-650K. Maybe lower.
2. As I mentioned before, the region as a whole is growing, and the suburbs are growing at a much, much faster rate than the District. The city was bound to stop losing population at some point (and yes, even Detroit's population will begin to rebound in the future). DC is naturally going to benefit from some of the growth that's been occurring region-wide, but don't read too much into it as far as trends go. You will not see people rushing to get back into DC with the same as haste with which they left it. For your theory to be convincing, I'd need to see data showing that DC grew at something like a 10% rate whereas the burbs had little if any increase at all. But the data points to the opposite conclusion: the overwhelming majority of people who are moving to the DC region are choosing places like Centreville rather than Logan Circle, Chinatown, Petworth, or Shaw. I mean, if you think about it, the population increase in the District was rather marginal when compared to the growth of the region as a whole.
There's also this supply and demand thing that kinda gets in the way. There are many young professionals who can't afford to live in DC little less families of five. Unless DC mandates that 30-35% of all new construction units be set aside for households earning $90-$150 per year (yeah right), there will never be a middle class in DC again. Granted, Mr. and Mrs. 14thandYou may be so committed to urban living that they'll raise 4 kids in a two bedroom apartment, but the reality is that most people aren't trying to do that. Suburban living is here to stay, and within the next 30 years, I expect to see a proliferation of suburban developments rather than a diminution.
In sum, DC's future will be...
(1) 30K-40K more yuppies or so (hey, there are only so many six-figure jobs and Ivy League degrees to go around). It's much harder to boost a city's population by infusing it with patent lawyers and regulatory analysts than it is with garbagemen and dock workers fresh off the boat from Ellis Island.
(2) A smaller, still impoverished black population largely confined to the city's easternmost neighborhoods (and a few sprinkled throughout NW due to legally mandated construction of affordable housing)
Last edited by BajanYankee; 05-10-2011 at 03:50 PM..
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.
