[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve

Until the pendulum swings and the urban narrative fades (millenials start having children en masse, schools don't improve in urban areas etc) It's not much different than the M&A environment in corporate America, large conglomerates were en vogue through the early 00s, whereas now where are seeing the same bankers pitch the virtues of divesting what they previously built (Big Banks, MetLife, GE Finance etc). Despite media pitching heavy handed for city living, there is actually less need to actually reside in the dense, stressful, tight cities given the advances in technology. The current inhabitants will figure this out...

Eh, I dunno. Even if you presume that millennials will move to the suburbs the same way that earlier generations did (which isn't quite true - less are having kids, those whom are are having less kids, and more, albeit a minority, are staying in cities even after having kids), the type of suburbs professionals want these days are different. They want walkable town centers and rail access to the City - something only a few places in Connecticut have. Indeed, all of the developing "hip suburbs" of NYC I'm aware of are quaint Hudson Valley areas like Hastings on Hudson. Or else they leave NYC entirely for a cheaper part of the country. They don't move back to Connecticut.

More importantly, even if millennials decamp to the suburbs, that will not cause jobs to become decentralized again. The job decentralization happened because the cities were hugely dangerous. Crime has fallen pretty consistently now for the last 25 years for reasons no one is entirely sure of, with major urban cores safer than any time since the mid 1960s. Unless cities become actually dangerous, it really isn't in the interest of companies with offices in major cities to suburbanize these days. This is bad for CT, because only Fairfield County is really within NYC commuting range.

[richrf]

Originally Posted by MMS02760

In my view, the main reason GE will move to Boston is to be near the talent pool which will match the new direction of the company. Boston is a center of technology, biotech, and innovation. Fairfield County is not.

I agree. Recruitment and transportation as well as overall lifestyle are probably the primary reasons.

Tax is just a good headline reason for PR releases. Heck, they aren't going to anger a whole state by saying they just don't like the lifestyle.

It's a big blow, primarily because it speaks to a growing trend

[wtby4000]

The suburbs are the slums of the future.

It's already happened in Paris, and it will happen in New England as well.

[richrf]

Originally Posted by wtby4000

The suburbs are the slums of the future.

It's already happened in Paris, and it will happen in New England as well.

Stamford could be viable, but the politicians have to be a little more creative than taxing workers more in order to pay for tax abatements to corporate CEOs and their cronies. But this would require intelligent and creative politicians which is probably an oxymoron.

[CT_Yank]

Originally Posted by eschaton

One aspect that I think you guys are not considering, which I'm sure was a major concern for GE, is corporate headquarters are consolidating in the nation's biggest cities. Suburban corporate campuses are very much out of style. This is true even for corporate headquarters in smaller cities, if those cities don't have a major international airport.

This is the truth. All the crying posts about Malloy and his tax policies do not address to real issue - changes in lifestyle within the business culture. GE wants to rebrand into hip, digital company. The days of young talent driving hours into suburbia are over. 40 years ago, people started families at 22, now kids wait until 35 or later. They want quick commutes, nightlife, social scene not leafy campuses near nowhere. GE was fine when they had GE Capital and finance driving their profits. Being near NYC was place to be. Once that ended GEs clock started. Companies want to be near sophisticated cities and airports so they can tap young global talent pool. Words never uttered "We're headed to Massachusetts for the tax savings" Immelt's comments were probably a political gift to Malloy. He can now beat the stick and say we need to spend more on transit and infrastructure, staing that is why GE left. In reality, they were never staying.

[BPt111]

GE ridibg the wave of begin in world class cities like NYC Boston Seattle LA etc

[khich]

Originally Posted by CT_Yank

This is the truth. All the crying posts about Malloy and his tax policies do not address to real issue - changes in lifestyle within the business culture. GE wants to rebrand into hip, digital company. The days of young talent driving hours into suburbia are over. 40 years ago, people started families at 22, now kids wait until 35 or later. They want quick commutes, nightlife, social scene not leafy campuses near nowhere. GE was fine when they had GE Capital and finance driving their profits. Being near NYC was place to be. Once that ended GEs clock started. Companies want to be near sophisticated cities and airports so they can tap young global talent pool. Words never uttered "We're headed to Massachusetts for the tax savings" Immelt's comments were probably a political gift to Malloy. He can now beat the stick and say we need to spend more on transit and infrastructure, staing that is why GE left. In reality, they were never staying.

GP. I agree with you. Once GE started getting out of the Finance Business, staying near NYC might not have been that important for them anymore.

[Wilton2ParkAve]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Eh, I dunno. Even if you presume that millennials will move to the suburbs the same way that earlier generations did (which isn't quite true - less are having kids, those whom are are having less kids, and more, albeit a minority, are staying in cities even after having kids), the type of suburbs professionals want these days are different. They want walkable town centers and rail access to the City - something only a few places in Connecticut have. Indeed, all of the developing "hip suburbs" of NYC I'm aware of are quaint Hudson Valley areas like Hastings on Hudson. Or else they leave NYC entirely for a cheaper part of the country. They don't move back to Connecticut.

More importantly, even if millennials decamp to the suburbs, that will not cause jobs to become decentralized again. The job decentralization happened because the cities were hugely dangerous. Crime has fallen pretty consistently now for the last 25 years for reason's no one is entirely sure of, with major urban cores safer than any time since the mid 1960s. Unless cities become actually dangerous, it really isn't in the interest of companies with offices in major cities to suburbanize these days. This is bad for CT, because only Fairfield County is really within NYC commuting range.

There are a lot of assumptions here, and let's just say we've seen this movie before and trends aren't permanent. There is also the obvious, hip may not be as durable (or as important) as it's being projected. Sounds like you are following the the media narrative to a T in terms of believing what is being told that we "want". Almost scripted. The death of the suburb is greatly exaggerated (well, false is more appropriate http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...se-sprawl.html)

Cities are still violent---Fourteen days into the new year, nearly 150 people have been shot in Chicago so far, 23 of them fatally

[wtby4000]

People moving into Chicago know that the violence is concentrated in certain areas. Population growth on the north side of town is not affected by what goes on in the south side.

[Wilton2ParkAve]

Originally Posted by wtby4000

People moving into Chicago know that the violence is concentrated in certain areas. Population growth on the north side of town is not affected by what goes on in the south side.

Population growth in Chicago is sloth-like at 1% from 2010-2014.

Cute chart

Chicago's Population Grew Last Year—By 82: Chicagoist