The importance of urbanized suburbs (Atlanta, Commerce: 2015, renting, crime)

[ATLTJL]

There's a lot of talk on this forum about what millenials want. How they want to live, where they want to live, etc.

This research indicates they want single family homes. And that urbanized, walkable areas are important to them....but being in city cores is not.

So that answers the question routinely asked around here, like why in the world would Johns Creek want to design and develop a master planned downtown?

The answer is because as millenials age and have kids, they will still want walkable urbanized areas. But they don't care as much as we think they do if those areas are master planned suburban or organically grown city cores.

That's what the research suggests, anyway.

Survey: More Millennials Renting, But Just As Many Want To Own - Developments - WSJ

[midtown mile girl]

It's almost as if there is a trend back to the way people used to live in the 40's and early 50's when people walked or took public transportation rather than drove a car.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by midtown mile girl

It's almost as if there is a trend back to the way people used to live in the 40's and early 50's when people walked or took public transportation rather than drove a car.

Because we figured out that driving 30 miles to the suburbs is not the answer for everyone. That designing our cities for cars-first is killing us, making us fattier, more unhealthy, adding air pollution and run off, creating unsustainable development where cities and counties cannot afford to maintain the infrastructure because low-density development is less efficient than higher-density development, we are losing valuable farmland and forest at an alarming rate. We figured out that the automobile is not the end-all answer to transportation.

[Saintmarks]

Had dinner with my newlywed 24 yr old and his new bride. Topic of conversation got around to living in Uptown Dallas (Dallas' version of Midtown Atlanta). They both mentioned how they would really like it but both of their jobs are in the burbs and the cost is too much. There is a desire for more walkable, livable communities all over and one shouldn't have to be in an upper echelon financially to partake. Market forces at work if you ask me.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Because we figured out that driving 30 miles to the suburbs is not the answer for everyone. That designing our cities for cars-first is killing us, making us fattier, more unhealthy, adding air pollution and run off, creating unsustainable development where cities and counties cannot afford to maintain the infrastructure because low-density development is less efficient than higher-density development, we are losing valuable farmland and forest at an alarming rate. We figured out that the automobile is not the end-all answer to transportation.

You can't pack 6 million people ITP. The area has grown so it would sprawl into these areas anyway. The congested mess of cities pre WWII led to the desire for space, the advent of the automobile made the developmental pattern work. There is a correction back, but building more dense pockets throughout a major metro area is the real solution, not continuing to blast suburban growth and believe that the core city is the only viable option like most of your posts purport.

It's time you take a nice road trip. You can go through miles upon miles in south Georgia where there is more than enough land for forests and farms than you can shake a stick at. Drive out here to Texas and it is even more so. That growth is booming in a handful of metro areas and land is taken for that growth is but a drop in the bucket for the huge rural areas in our country where growth is negative and tons of land is sitting idle. That is more alarming than a Gwinnett or Cobb farm turning into a subdivision IMHO.

[bu2]

From the article-worth quoting:

"The National Association of Home Builders in January released a survey finding that most millennial respondents intend to eventually purchase single-family homes in the suburbs. Conversely, the Nielsen Co. told us last year that millennials prefer to live in the city. Meanwhile, Commerce Department data show that, in 2014, more millennials moved to the suburbs from the city than vice versa."

[bu2]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

Had dinner with my newlywed 24 yr old and his new bride. Topic of conversation got around to living in Uptown Dallas (Dallas' version of Midtown Atlanta). They both mentioned how they would really like it but both of their jobs are in the burbs and the cost is too much. There is a desire for more walkable, livable communities all over and one shouldn't have to be in an upper echelon financially to partake. Market forces at work if you ask me.

They will face the same decisions previous generations did.

Pay more for a smaller living space and live in the city where crime is higher and schools are worse. Or live in the suburbs with a commute further away from many of the city amenities (unless, of course, you work in the suburbs).

[bu2]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

You can't pack 6 million people ITP. The area has grown so it would sprawl into these areas anyway. The congested mess of cities pre WWII led to the desire for space, the advent of the automobile made the developmental pattern work. There is a correction back, but building more dense pockets throughout a major metro area is the real solution, not continuing to blast suburban growth and believe that the core city is the only viable option like most of your posts purport.

It's time you take a nice road trip. You can go through miles upon miles in south Georgia where there is more than enough land for forests and farms than you can shake a stick at. Drive out here to Texas and it is even more so. That growth is booming in a handful of metro areas and land is taken for that growth is but a drop in the bucket for the huge rural areas in our country where growth is negative and tons of land is sitting idle. That is more alarming than a Gwinnett or Cobb farm turning into a subdivision IMHO.

We aren't losing any valuable farmland in this country except maybe in the central valley of California and Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Any forests we are losing are to farmland. The only reason for farmland in the major metro areas is to get a tax break. It was long a tradition in Texas to see a few head of cattle on a tract held for development in the big cities.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by bu2

We aren't losing any valuable farmland in this country except maybe in the central valley of California and Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Any forests we are losing are to farmland. The only reason for farmland in the major metro areas is to get a tax break. It was long a tradition in Texas to see a few head of cattle on a tract held for development in the big cities.

The JCPenney headquarters near me in Plano has had cattle on parts of their plot for this reason. It is just now being developed for Toyota's new US headquarters.

In much of my home county of Meriwether (and other areas in that neck of the woods... pun intended) farmland is going back to trees. Less agriculture on any scale, farmers are letting it go back to timber. I would say that in much of the south, there is MUCH more acreage in trees than 50 years ago.

[jsvh]

Yeah, "suburbs" will continue to exist. The vast amount of housing stock built over the last 50 years is not going away overnight. But we will see people continue to cluster towards nodes of walkability.