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 sorry you're annoyed. On the other hand, I often find the rhetoric employed by others on this topic amusing, if not sufficiently vexing to prompt an occasional comment or two.
To wit, broad assertions about demographic changes in DC and other cities are purportedly clarified with explanations that they obviously were really about metropolitan areas all along, and that political jurisdictions are largely irrelevant to a discussion; assertions of preference in response to opinion surveys are treated as more salient data points than hard statistics as to the decisions that people actually make, and the consequence of those decisions; and what originally is characterized as a mind-blowing "cultural shift" turns out to be rather more evolutionary and reactive than revolutionary.
Obviously you're referring to me, at least in part here, and all I can say is that you prefer to delineate "city" from "suburb" because you can throw stats up that show undeveloped suburbs are growing faster than a mature city (duh).
My point all along is simply that the market now OVERWHELMINGLY!!!!! demands walkability and transit, whether it's in Shaw or Tysons. That's supported by hard statistics of home sales and housing values, as I've posted here (not just preference surveys).
People are moving from the city to the burbs (or from burb to burb). They know the value of a carcentric lifestyle.
And if they do live in a city, it's in a sunbelt city, where you can actually park the car without a nightmare.
I realize you're just trolling for a rise, but it's really the wealthy that thrive in that environment. Cars are expensive for the rest of us so perhaps a little empathy for those without as much disposable income would be in order.
Also, DC saw an increase in population of about 30,000 people, so the facts, once again, stand in the face of your claim.
Obviously you're referring to me, at least in part here, and all I can say is that you prefer to delineate "city" from "suburb" because you can throw stats up that show undeveloped suburbs are growing faster than a mature city (duh).
My point all along is simply that the market now increasingly demands walkability and transit, whether it's in Shaw or Tysons. That's supported by hard statistics of home sales and housing values, as I've posted here (not just preference surveys).
I distinguish between cities and their suburbs when responding to posts that refer to "cities."
If you view it as a given that an undeveloped suburb would grow faster, in both absolute and relative terms, than an older city with excess capacity and whose population is well below its historical peak, perhaps you are not quite as confident that a "cultural shift" has occurred as you initially implied.
On the other hand, if the sum total of your observation is as most recently articulated (with your having edited yourself to replace the reference to "overwhelming" demand for TODs with the more modest and realistic reference to an "increasing" demand for such developments throughout the region), I have no quarrel.
I distinguish between cities and their suburbs when responding to posts that refer to "cities."
If you view it as a given that an undeveloped suburb would grow faster, in both absolute and relative terms, than an older city with excess capacity and whose population is well below its historical peak, perhaps you are not quite as confident that a "cultural shift" has occurred as you initially implied.
On the other hand, if the sum total of your observation is as most recently articulated (with your having edited yourself to replace the reference to "overwhelming" demand for TODs with the more modest and realistic reference to an "increasing" demand for such developments throughout the region), I have no quarrel.
This discussion began with coldbliss making broad references to demographics in the region, so let's stop pretending it was just about the city. I was more referencing your always pointing to broad, county population changes, ignoring where people in the city and county are moving (dense, walkable).
I changed my previous post because I wanted to keep you from blowing a gasket about it. It is, actually, quite overwhelming demand, as the statistics show with regard to both shift in housing values being highest on the outskirts in the 90s and highest in the central areas today, and only 12% of the population wanting a lifestyle that a generation or two ago was a majority.
So, I will happily reinsert "overwhelming" demand.
Haha - the depth to which you make up lies is profound.
Average cost of a Metro ride: $3.79
2-way commute / day = $7.58
260 weekdays a year = $1,970.80
Even if you add another $500 for errands and entertainment on weekends and such, what car are you buying, maintaining, and insuring for $2,500?
What does people moving to the sunbelt have to do with it? You said people were moving from the city to the suburbs, and I provided the fact that DC has increased population so obviously your claim cannot be inherently true.
Haha - the depth to which you make up lies is profound.
Average cost of a Metro ride: $3.79
2-way commute / day = $7.58
260 weekdays a year = $1,970.80
Even if you add another $500 for errands and entertainment on weekends and such, what car are you buying, maintaining, and insuring for $2,500?
What does people moving to the sunbelt have to do with it? You said people were moving from the city to the suburbs, and I provided the fact that DC has increased population so obviously your claim cannot be inherently true.
You forgot to add in the cost of case. Here is the AAA average, per year by car type, which could easily come out to be much more than $2000 per year for all car types. Than you can add on Insurance and Maintenance.
I distinguish between cities and their suburbs when responding to posts that refer to "cities."
If you view it as a given that an undeveloped suburb would grow faster, in both absolute and relative terms, than an older city with excess capacity and whose population is well below its historical peak, perhaps you are not quite as confident that a "cultural shift" has occurred as you initially implied.
1. I am a lazy typist - its sometimes simply easier to refer to a cultural preference for cities, than to constantly describe the kinds of (mostly) urban neighborhoods to which the college educated young are increasingly drawn. I presume folks understand that Im not referring to peripheral neighborhoods with suburban development patterns that happen to be within city limits.
2. That DC has a population below its historic peak makes growth there somewhat easier than it would otherwise be. It is still far more difficult than growing in a county with large amounts of vacant land. You are talking in some cases of existing units with fewer people, in some cases empty lots strewn among substandard, aged, low quality housing. Surely anyone with sense can see that redeveloping that is a larger challenge than building on a thousand vacant acres in Loudoun, and anyone of good will would admit it. And anyone with wisdom and good will would see that acknowledging that a place with large amounts of vacant land would be more likely to grow rapidly than a place with the overwhelming challenges fo rebuilding, is not expressing any lack of confidence in a cultural shift.
This discussion began with coldbliss making broad references to demographics in the region, so let's stop pretending it was just about the city. I was more referencing your always pointing to broad, county population changes, ignoring where people in the city and county are moving (dense, walkable).
I changed my previous post because I wanted to keep you from blowing a gasket about it. It is, actually, quite overwhelming demand, as the statistics show with regard to both shift in housing values being highest on the outskirts in the 90s and highest in the central areas today, and only 12% of the population wanting a lifestyle that a generation or two ago was a majority.
So, I will happily reinsert "overwhelming" demand.
the counters Jeb might pose
A. You can't use price as an indicator of revealed preference, since constrained supply drives price. Its POSSIBLE that with increased supply (more metro stops, zoning changes, the frontier effect finally eliminating crime as a constraint, etc) you would run out of demanders, and the price would plummet
B. You can't supplement that with revealed preference - with survey data - etc - cause people lie about what they want, cause they think its "right" to want urban living, like they think its right to say the voted, or that they will lose 50 pounds. Also the think tanks doing the surveys are eevil haters of the autocentric american dream, and write the surveys to encourage that kind of misleading result
Ergo, only a change in the QUANTITY of people moving to TOD/walkable/Urbanorneotradsuburban will show the change. BUT we can't see that, because the supply is limited.
There is no winning the debate in words. We can only push to improve the supply, and see what happens.
1. There are broad trends you can use. For example, a lot of rust belt cities have been abandoned by the middle class even with ample supply of housing during a period when most did not prefer the urban stock. So when outer-ring burbs had higher prices and occupancy rates than inner cities, it indicated something about demand regardless of supply..
2. Surveys have long shown preference for the picket fence lifestyle until recently, whether people could afford it or not. I'm not sure why realtor organizations conducting these surveys would rig them since they tend to benefit more from new housing.
3. The change in quantity of people has taken place, as well as the change in infrastructure investments. So, based on the facts and preferences expressed, it seems the result is the same. I travel a fair amount and have seen these trends play out across the country, particularly in the revival of older suburbs built around transit.
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.
demands walkability and transit, whether it's in Shaw or Tysons. That's supported by hard statistics of home sales and housing values, as I've posted here (not just preference surveys).
