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.
Looking at myself. I have never lived in a suburb before. I grew up in small towns in Michigan, and then spent the last twenty years living in large cities - american ones or international ones.
Now I have a wife and kid, and looking a lot at DC.
While I have never lived in a suburb before, (and never wanted to either). I am thinking that if I moved to DC, I would have to live in one.
As much as I like the city, and I personally feel very comfortable in the city. There are other elements at work when you have a wife and kid. Affording a place is a big one. You can't slum it in the ghettos with a wife and kid, even true moreso when you're a single-family income. That means the wife/kid have to deal with the environment you put them in 100%, while you spend 95% of your time at work. Easy to slum it for awhile when you are young and single and at work most of the time. You just go back and sleep, and not much more to it.
The hip trendy interesting areas are certainly interesting, and desireable. But, just barely affordable as a studio or possibly a 1-bdrm. If you are supporting a family and trying to live there....good luck.
If a person wants to live in Adams-Morgan with a family. As a married guy with kids, it loses it's attraction. The best part of hip areas is to hangout in the evening with your 'hip' friends and socialize and meet people. Now imagine dragging the wife and kid by all the coffee shops you can't afford. You just have enough for more diapers and milk, not enough for more ale in your favorite tavern with the cute waitress. You're working well into the night most nights so you can have just your wife/kid live there? You're not even enjoying it yourself anymore. Wife wants you home watching the kid most evenings anyways, rather than out every evening enjoying that expensive 'hip' neighborhood.
There are elements that just push families into the blandness. Of course it would be more ideal if American suburbs were just designed more walkable, neighborhood-ish, etc. But, since they aren't, the choices are limited, and none of them are good.
Last edited by Tiger Beer; 05-10-2011 at 05:23 PM..
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.
I was attempting to paraphrase a number of posts in this thread, rather than to quote you verbatim. However, you did expressly assert that "[t]he american dream is changing." I think that's probably as good as example as any of the overblown rhetoric that's accompanied some of the posts. I don't know what that means. Does it mean that people now searching for "a more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living," as Hillary Clinton asserted back in 1969? Perhaps you can reconcile it with the fact that local exurbs such as Loudoun actually grew much more than DC itself over the past decade, as well as the fact that local suburbs such as Fairfax, Arlington and Alexandria continued to experience growth.
If one wanted to resort to cliches to describe some of the recent trends, I'd think "a rising tide lifts all boats" probably captures what's been happening around here better than "the american dream is changing."
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.
If by "kids" you mean "cats" then perhaps.
Also, I'm not saying that this is the end of the suburbs or suburban living. In fact, I've kept my comments focused solely on DC throughout this conversation. The DC region as a whole is attracting a whole boatload of people right now, and many of them are setting up shop in the suburbs. (For any number of reasons--some may work there, for some that may be what they can afford, some may prefer suburban living, etc.)
But if the DC population tops out at around 650k within the next 20-30 years, that would be a remarkable turnaround for the city. As much as Loudon County may be attracting more residents today, DC was running a net negative for decades. If DC is able to add 15-20% to its population over the coming 10-20 years, that would be a significant achievement, as well as an indication that people are willing to relocate to a dense, urban environment to a greater degree than they were 15 or 20 years ago. How many of those individuals end up staying permanently in the city remains to be seen, but if the District becomes a more desirable place to live, people who leave will likely be replaced by people moving in. Interpret that as you will with regards to what it means to DC's demographics and culture.
If DC is able to add 15-20% to its population over the coming 10-20 years, that would be a significant achievement, as well as an indication that people are willing to relocate to a dense, urban environment to a greater degree than they were 15 or 20 years ago.
To be honest, I think the current stream of people into DC is an indication that employment is really bad everywhere else in the country, and it looks like that will be a long term situation. That's why the entire DC metro area (city and burbs) is growing so much right now. I think it's great, but I wouldn't read that much trend setting into it. I really think most people are moving here because this is the one place in the country that has jobs--and if that wasn't the case, those same people would have moved to a trendier city in an instant. But that's ok--while they're here, they can make DC hip. Or at least a little hip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14thandYou
How many of those individuals end up staying permanently in the city remains to be seen, but if the District becomes a more desirable place to live, people who leave will likely be replaced by people moving in.
That's the big question, isn't it. IMO, the longer this economic turmoil and national unemployment situation lasts, the more likely people are to stay here. We can already see the affect it's having--DC is becoming a more desirable place to live, plus an increasing number of people who thought they were moving here temporarily have decided to stay and buy property.
I was attempting to paraphrase a number of posts in this thread, rather than to quote you verbatim. However, you did expressly assert that "[t]he american dream is changing." I think that's probably as good as example as any of the overblown rhetoric that's accompanied some of the posts. I don't know what that means. Does it mean that people now searching for "a more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living," as Hillary Clinton asserted back in 1969? Perhaps you can reconcile it with the fact that local exurbs such as Loudoun actually grew much more than DC itself over the past decade, as well as the fact that local suburbs such as Fairfax, Arlington and Alexandria continued to experience growth.
If one wanted to resort to cliches to describe some of the recent trends, I'd think "a rising tide lifts all boats" probably captures what's been happening around here better than "the american dream is changing."
There's really no debate over this topic in professional and academic circles. It's a well-established shift in values. You keep loooking at broad demographics showing suburbs growing faster or another poster points out people raised in the city who want to move out.
That's all true, but we're talking about a specific subset of the middle class and even cities that lost population overall gained in traditional downtown areas. You also mention Arlington, Alexandria, and Fairfax as if they are examples to prove your point when in fact they prove my point. There's nothing magical about the District border or any reason everybody who desires a transit-oriented, walkable lifestyle should cram in the relatively tiny District (especially with its questionable schools and still uuneven crime situation). But nationwide, walkable, traditonal downtown-oriented communities have thrived (Alexandria, DC), been created out of sprawl (Arlington, Silver Spring, Bethesda)) or are in the process of being created (all of Fairfax).
The fact that, starting with Tysons, all of Fairfax (as of last week) is now being rebuilt to function more like cities (with various town centers) than a suburb (with big box parking lots and such) is proof that there's a widespread shift in lifestyle values that is not going away once the "hip" phase passes. It's not hyperbolic at all. As I said, it's very well established in planning and development circles where people study these dynamics rather than just draw anecdotal conclusions.
I was attempting to paraphrase a number of posts in this thread, rather than to quote you verbatim. However, you did expressly assert that "[t]he american dream is changing." I think that's probably as good as example as any of the overblown rhetoric that's accompanied some of the posts. I don't know what that means. Does it mean that people now searching for "a more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living," as Hillary Clinton asserted back in 1969? Perhaps you can reconcile it with the fact that local exurbs such as Loudoun actually grew much more than DC itself over the past decade, as well as the fact that local suburbs such as Fairfax, Arlington and Alexandria continued to experience growth.
If one wanted to resort to cliches to describe some of the recent trends, I'd think "a rising tide lifts all boats" probably captures what's been happening around here better than "the american dream is changing."
In the future please do not paraphrase my words, or words that include phrases that I have used, by putting them into quotation marks. It is misquoting, and in this instance your version is not at all what I said or meant to say.
I did say that the American Dream is changing, and I believe that to be true. That is not to say that everyone in my generation wants to raise a family in the city, or that everyone in my generation will be able to afford to raise a family in the city. And, it certainly does not mean that everyone in my generation will want to raise their family in the city even if they do not work in or near the city - that would be ridiculous.
There was a time in which the American Dream generally consisted of a man going to work in the city during the week and then returning home to his wife and children in a house in the suburbs for evenings and weekends. At least in large metropolitan areas, including DC, that has changed. Of course this is due to external factors, including transportation times, transportation costs, lengthening work hours, more women with careers, delayed parenthood, women wanting to keep careers, etc. But, the American Dream, as spelled out above, often does not work as well when these factors are considered.
My generation has much different choices than past generations because the problems and the opportunities have changed, thus changing attitudes and creating additional options. Commute is a large issue. There are several ways of dealing with it. Some companies are locating further from city centers, thus providing employees with the opportunity to live further out from the city center but without the commute or to do a reverse commute. Some employers allow telecommuting, which allows, among other things, employees who wish to live in a large house far from the city the opportunity to do. Some employers, however, continue to be located in the city and do not provide telecommuting opportunities, again for various reasons. Given the quickly changing options, my generation has different choices and do not all have the same "American Dream."
I came to this thread from the perspective of a lawyer or lobbyist type who moved downtown as a young professional, after a brief stint of commuting from the suburbs, nine years ago. We moved in mostly to be closer to my job, at which I spent the vast majority of my time. By living downtown, we could maximize our time together having fun and minimize our time commuting and/or taking care of a house. We also really liked watching the city grow and watching the neighborhood being formed, so we bought a condo that we could grow into.
Six years after we moved downtown, we had a child. This changed everything, obviously. There weren't really any other children in our neighborhood, so we assumed we would have to move. We researched moving locally, moving further, having a stay-at-home parent, and many other options. But, it didn't make sense to sell at that point, again for various reasons. So, we waited it out and kept thinking. In the meantime, our child has shown her own personality, other kids have stayed a bit (many because there parents could not sell either), and buildings have risen. And, we started looking around. It is hard to see from the surface how kid-friendly the downtown area has become, but the activities are endless. And, we still like living in a condo. And, there are educational prospects. So, now we want to stay. And, we are going to try hard to do so.
We like it here. It is our home. We don't want to move. We just want to make our home better. And, there are other people in similar situations, so we are trying to work to make it a viable option. This does not mean that we think that everyone with kids should move to the city; to the contrary, I think that you should only do it if you want to so much that you are willing to work for it. We do, and so do others. I don't think that there are a ton of families moving to the downtown area at this point. But, there are people to whom this is home, and we would like to stay here with our children. At this point, I think that the benefits to my child outweigh the downsides.
I would never tell you that you should come to the same conclusion with regard to your children. You should raise your children where you think they should be raised, but I should raise my child where I think she should be raised. All I am saying is that I am doing so, and so are others.
In the future please do not paraphrase my words, or words that include phrases that I have used, by putting them into quotation marks. It is misquoting, and in this instance your version is not at all what I said or meant to say.
I did say that the American Dream is changing, and I believe that to be true. That is not to say that everyone in my generation wants to raise a family in the city, or that everyone in my generation will be able to afford to raise a family in the city. And, it certainly does not mean that everyone in my generation will want to raise their family in the city even if they do not work in or near the city - that would be ridiculous.
There was a time in which the American Dream generally consisted of a man going to work in the city during the week and then returning home to his wife and children in a house in the suburbs for evenings and weekends. At least in large metropolitan areas, including DC, that has changed. Of course this is due to external factors, including transportation times, transportation costs, lengthening work hours, more women with careers, delayed parenthood, women wanting to keep careers, etc. But, the American Dream, as spelled out above, often does not work as well when these factors are considered.
My generation has much different choices than past generations because the problems and the opportunities have changed, thus changing attitudes and creating additional options. Commute is a large issue. There are several ways of dealing with it. Some companies are locating further from city centers, thus providing employees with the opportunity to live further out from the city center but without the commute or to do a reverse commute. Some employers allow telecommuting, which allows, among other things, employees who wish to live in a large house far from the city the opportunity to do. Some employers, however, continue to be located in the city and do not provide telecommuting opportunities, again for various reasons. Given the quickly changing options, my generation has different choices and do not all have the same "American Dream."
I came to this thread from the perspective of a lawyer or lobbyist type who moved downtown as a young professional, after a brief stint of commuting from the suburbs, nine years ago. We moved in mostly to be closer to my job, at which I spent the vast majority of my time. By living downtown, we could maximize our time together having fun and minimize our time commuting and/or taking care of a house. We also really liked watching the city grow and watching the neighborhood being formed, so we bought a condo that we could grow into.
Six years after we moved downtown, we had a child. This changed everything, obviously. There weren't really any other children in our neighborhood, so we assumed we would have to move. We researched moving locally, moving further, having a stay-at-home parent, and many other options. But, it didn't make sense to sell at that point, again for various reasons. So, we waited it out and kept thinking. In the meantime, our child has shown her own personality, other kids have stayed a bit (many because there parents could not sell either), and buildings have risen. And, we started looking around. It is hard to see from the surface how kid-friendly the downtown area has become, but the activities are endless. And, we still like living in a condo. And, there are educational prospects. So, now we want to stay. And, we are going to try hard to do so.
We like it here. It is our home. We don't want to move. We just want to make our home better. And, there are other people in similar situations, so we are trying to work to make it a viable option. This does not mean that we think that everyone with kids should move to the city; to the contrary, I think that you should only do it if you want to so much that you are willing to work for it. We do, and so do others. I don't think that there are a ton of families moving to the downtown area at this point. But, there are people to whom this is home, and we would like to stay here with our children. At this point, I think that the benefits to my child outweigh the downsides.
I would never tell you that you should come to the same conclusion with regard to your children. You should raise your children where you think they should be raised, but I should raise my child where I think she should be raised. All I am saying is that I am doing so, and so are others.
Interesting, and good luck with your decision. Of course, you don't have edit rights on my posts, nor do you retain editorial rights over any and all direct or indirect use of, or reference to, your own posts by other posters.
In my mind, there is a difference between an individual thinking that he or she has made the right decision for his or her family and purporting to speak for others by proclaiming that there's been "a change in the American Dream." The "American Dream" has always meant different things to different people. Moreover, to the extent one is trying to determine what it currently means, there is a difference between what people may tell a pollster they prefer and what they actually end up deciding upon. Societies and cities are constantly in flux, and some recent changes in development and work patterns may actually make it easier for some to live in a house in the suburbs with the proverbial "white picket fence," if that's indeed what they prefer.
Given these developments, I would personally expect to see a gradual increase in DC's population, if current trends continue, with perhaps modest growth in the number of young families with children, but certainly not an exponential rush by young families to DC. No one has provided any data that demonstrates otherwise.
There's really no debate over this topic in professional and academic circles. It's a well-established shift in values. You keep loooking at broad demographics showing suburbs growing faster or another poster points out people raised in the city who want to move out.
That's all true, but we're talking about a specific subset of the middle class and even cities that lost population overall gained in traditional downtown areas. You also mention Arlington, Alexandria, and Fairfax as if they are examples to prove your point when in fact they prove my point. There's nothing magical about the District border or any reason everybody who desires a transit-oriented, walkable lifestyle should cram in the relatively tiny District (especially with its questionable schools and still uuneven crime situation). But nationwide, walkable, traditonal downtown-oriented communities have thrived (Alexandria, DC), been created out of sprawl (Arlington, Silver Spring, Bethesda)) or are in the process of being created (all of Fairfax).
The fact that, starting with Tysons, all of Fairfax (as of last week) is now being rebuilt to function more like cities (with various town centers) than a suburb (with big box parking lots and such) is proof that there's a widespread shift in lifestyle values that is not going away once the "hip" phase passes. It's not hyperbolic at all. As I said, it's very well established in planning and development circles where people study these dynamics rather than just draw anecdotal conclusions.
Well, asserting that a well-established shift in values is recognized in "professional and academic circles" proves to me only that you're well-read, have friends with degrees or both. Otherwise, it doesn't tell me a lot, since there's a difference (widely understood by all the experts in the field) between (1) empirical research as to what people are actually doing, (2) surveys as to what individuals ostensibly prefer, the results of which are often largely determined by how questions are framed, and (3) the personal preferences of urban planning professors, who have a long history of advocating for things that people don't actually want.
Of course, if we look at the same trends and think it proves both our points, we really have no disagreement worth debating further. I agree that there's a demand for denser and more transit-oriented development in some areas in jurisdictions outside DC and that, other things being equal, people prefer shorter commutes over longer ones. That doesn't necesarily mean, of course, that people will rush to raise their families in urban neighborhoods with historically troubled schools and elevated crime rates, particularly as jobs are now widely dispersed in the region. Moreover, if a substantial volume of the jobs currently in the DC area were to be moved elsewhere, you might see some of the impetus for TOD to dissipate significantly.
Well, asserting that a well-established shift in values is recognized in "professional and academic circles" proves to me only that you're well-read, have friends with degrees or both. Otherwise, it doesn't tell me a lot, since there's a difference (widely understood by all the experts in the field) between (1) empirical research as to what people are actually doing, (2) surveys as to what individuals ostensibly prefer, the results of which are often largely determined by how questions are framed, and (3) the personal preferences of urban planning professors, who have a long history of advocating for things that people don't actually want.
Of course, if we look at the same trends and think it proves both our points, we really have no disagreement worth debating further. I agree that there's a demand for denser and more transit-oriented development in some areas in jurisdictions outside DC and that, other things being equal, people prefer shorter commutes over longer ones. That doesn't necesarily mean, of course, that people will rush to raise their families in urban neighborhoods with historically troubled schools and elevated crime rates, particularly as jobs are now widely dispersed in the region. Moreover, if a substantial volume of the jobs currently in the DC area were to be moved elsewhere, you might see some of the impetus for TOD to dissipate significantly.
Well, you seem extremely attached to your belief, for whatever reason. Lackadaisi is absolutely correct that there's been a shift in values, and while the realities of schools and crime in the city might drive some people away, that doesn't negate the underlying desire for an urban environment or suburban environment retrofitted to offer what places like DC already offer (but with better schools and lower crime).
I really think most people are moving here because this is the one place in the country that has jobs--and if that wasn't the case, those same people would have moved to a trendier city in an instant.
Speaking solely for myself, I moved here well before the economic crash, simply because I thought this would be a fun place to live.
Certainly DC's robust economy is a major factor in drawing people here--and like you said, I don't really have a problem with that. But I wouldn't sell DC short in terms of its amenities and the quality of life it offers its residents, either. It doesn't approach New York, of course, but in terms of overall quality of life I think it easily makes the top 10 in the U.S.
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.
