What is spurring the urban revival of the 21st century? (transplants, apartments)

[ColdAilment]

hrough all the various articles I read, statistics and demographics on population growth, and by the sights of cities themselves I see that the 21st century has been good to most American cities. No longer are they shedding people, instead people are moving BACK into the cities spurring population growth.

Having only done a slight amount of research on this, my findings are as follows:

After world war 2 there was a housing boom. People came back from the war with money, the G.I. bill allowed many to become college educated and attain better jobs, thus spurred the first housing boom. This housing boom is what attributed to the growth of the suburbs. In the late 1940's and all throughout the 50's the suburbs flourished, it was in this time that the cities began to shed people. It wasn't quite until the 1970's and 1980's that the cities really began to shrink as the suburbs continued to grow and flourish.

Now in the 2000's and 2010's almost every large city in the country has reversed its population decline and are adding numbers. Some of the most notable cities that are reversing this trend.

Washington D.C.
1970 756,510
−1.0% 1980 638,333
−15.6% 1990 606,900
−4.9% 2000 572,059
−5.7% 2010 601,723
5.2% Est. 2012 632,323 [1] 5.1%

Boston
1970 641,071 −8.1% 1980 562,994 −12.2% 1990 574,283 +2.0% 2000 589,141 +2.6% 2010 617,594 +4.8% 2012 636,479 +3.1%
Chicago
1970 3,366,957
−5.2% 1980 3,005,072
−10.7% 1990 2,783,726
−7.4% 2000 2,896,016
4.0% 2010 2,695,598
−6.9% Est. 2012 2,714,856
0.7%
Atlanta
1970 496,973
2.0% 1980 425,022
−14.5% 1990 394,017
−7.3% 2000 416,474
5.7% 2010 420,003
0.8% Est. 2012 443,775
5.7%
There are dozens of other cities this is happening in. My question is, what happened in the 21st century to spur this change where people want to move back to the city?

[eschaton]

If you look at cities nationwide which are growing, they tend to have one of three characteristics.

They annex suburbs:

For the most part this is only true of sun-belt cities, but it cannot be forgotten that in many states outside the Northeast, it's relatively easy to annex new property to the city as long as you get a simple okay from the property owner (and in some cases, such as North Carolina, even without). Thus you can get a sizable portion of the metro population within the core city. This isn't exactly urban growth, but it does lead to municipal population growth.

They attract immigrants:

Virtually every modern-day city growing like gangbusters (Portland aside) gets some share of international (mostly Latino and Asian) immigrants these days. This is important for several reasons. Immigrants help drive up demand in unfashionable neighborhoods. They often also have large families, which boost flagging numbers of children within core cities.

Gentrification:

This is the now well-established process whereby younger people of middle to upper-middle class backgrounds (and usually college levels of education) move into urban neighborhoods and ultimately displace lower-income working-class people. It began during the late 1960s, and it's probably no mistake that the currently most-gentrified cities tended to get the first waves of this (San Francisco in the 1980s, New York in the 1990s, ect). That said, not all gentrification increases population. Often gentrifiers displace families, meaning it's a net loss in population if one single 28-year old displaces a family of four. In addition, often as neighborhoods hit peak gentrification larger houses which were subdivided into apartments begin being converted back into single-family houses again. However, eventually gentrification also raises local demand enough that old non-residential buildings (such as warehouses) are converted into lofts, and market-rate urban new construction becomes profitable for builders.

The cultural shift which seems to have happened, slowly, over the last 30 years is as follows. If you look back to say the 1980s, only the real cutting-edge young white people lived in cities if they had other options. Everyone else moved to "garden apartments" in the burbs after college. Now, it's basically become a near social norm that if you are from a certain social milieu, you'll have a stint in the city. The length of these stints keeps lengthening too, as people often do not move to the burbs after marriage, or even after their kids are born (if they have kids - often they'll never leave if they don't). We're getting to the point now where a lot of young urbanists have children nearing age five (public school enrollment) so we'll see what happens next. Cynics say they will almost all leave for the suburbs, but I would presume that the educational dynamics in many cities have changed enough (between smaller families and the proliferation of magnet and charter options) that you'll see more parents staying in the city to raise kids as well.

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by eschaton

If you look at cities nationwide which are growing, they tend to have one of three characteristics.

They annex suburbs:

For the most part this is only true of sun-belt cities, but it cannot be forgotten that in many states outside the Northeast, it's relatively easy to annex new property to the city as long as you get a simple okay from the property owner (and in some cases, such as North Carolina, even without). Thus you can get a sizable portion of the metro population within the core city. This isn't exactly urban growth, but it does lead to municipal population growth.

They attract immigrants:

Virtually every modern-day city growing like gangbusters (Portland aside) gets some share of international (mostly Latino and Asian) immigrants these days. This is important for several reasons. Immigrants help drive up demand in unfashionable neighborhoods. They often also have large families, which boost flagging numbers of children within core cities.

Gentrification:

This is the now well-established process whereby younger people of middle to upper-middle class backgrounds (and usually college levels of education) move into urban neighborhoods and ultimately displace lower-income working-class people. It began during the late 1960s, and it's probably no mistake that the currently most-gentrified cities tended to get the first waves of this (San Francisco in the 1980s, New York in the 1990s, ect). That said, not all gentrification increases population. Often gentrifiers displace families, meaning it's a net loss in population if one single 28-year old displaces a family of four. In addition, often as neighborhoods hit peak gentrification larger houses which were subdivided into apartments begin being converted back into single-family houses again. However, eventually gentrification also raises local demand enough that old non-residential buildings (such as warehouses) are converted into lofts, and market-rate urban new construction becomes profitable for builders.

The cultural shift which seems to have happened, slowly, over the last 30 years is as follows. If you look back to say the 1980s, only the real cutting-edge young white people lived in cities if they had other options. Everyone else moved to "garden apartments" in the burbs after college. Now, it's basically become a near social norm that if you are from a certain social milieu, you'll have a stint in the city. The length of these stints keeps lengthening too, as people often do not move to the burbs after marriage, or even after their kids are born (if they have kids - often they'll never leave if they don't). We're getting to the point now where a lot of young urbanists have children nearing age five (public school enrollment) so we'll see what happens next. Cynics say they will almost all leave for the suburbs, but I would presume that the educational dynamics in many cities have changed enough (between smaller families and the proliferation of magnet and charter options) that you'll see more parents staying in the city to raise kids as well.

To add to the school aspect, some parents are going to go private anyway. So, many figure that they can live in the city without worrying about schools, because they have made up their minds in regards to going with private schools.

[censusdata]

I think the reasons are...

Less crime / civil unrest in cities. People feel safe in cities and not just suburbs. Widespread race riots started White Flight in the 1960s. Homicide rate most places are at 60 year lows

High gas prices

Young people who didn't enjoy growing up in the suburbs

Increased care about sustainability and effects on the environment of the American suburban lifestyle

Increased number of people who have traveled in Europe and like the way their cities are designed

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by ckhthankgod

To add to the school aspect, some parents are going to go private anyway. So, many figure that they can live in the city without worrying about schools, because they have made up their minds in regards to going with private schools.

Right. That's why I cited smaller families as a reason. If you have 1-2 children, private schools are much more financially doable than having 3+ kids.

The rising age at which people with advanced degrees have their first kid also plays a role. If you put off having a child until your mid 30s, you're probably looking at a decade plus of single and/or childless urban life. People at this age are usually more financially secure (able to swing sending a kid to private school) as well as set in their ways.

Originally Posted by censusdata

I think the reasons are...

Less crime / civil unrest in cities. People feel safe in cities and not just suburbs. Widespread race riots started White Flight in the 1960s. Homicide rate most places are at 60 year lows

High gas prices

Young people who didn't enjoy growing up in the suburbs

Increased care about sustainability and effects on the environment of the American suburban lifestyle

Increased number of people who have traveled in Europe and like the way their cities are designed

I'd add to this less pollution as well. People first began moving from cities in the early 20th century not due to high crime or bad schools, but smog. One of the positive sides of the decimation of American manufacturing has been cities are now only nominally more polluted than suburban areas.

[Deezus]

Originally Posted by eschaton

They attract immigrants:

Virtually every modern-day city growing like gangbusters (Portland aside) gets some share of international (mostly Latino and Asian) immigrants these days. This is important for several reasons. Immigrants help drive up demand in unfashionable neighborhoods. They often also have large families, which boost flagging numbers of children within core cities.

Even Portland gets it's share of Latino and Asian(and also Russian and East African) immigrants. Every US city does to some degree. They just live further out in the less fashionable neighborhoods of Portland's Eastside for the most part. No one is comparing it to Los Angeles, but at the same time you didn't have neighorhoods on the Eastside where about 20-30% of the residents were foreign born until relatively recently. Though the population of Portland hasn't really grown as fast as the greater metro area for the most part(and the Latino and Asian population has grown even faster in the suburbs). But in part I'd say that immigrants to Portland contribute to the population growth, since they actually often stick around and have several kids(unlike say the revolving door of twentysomething transplants who move in and then move to Brooklyn or LA a year later).

There's probably no US city however that hasn't seen a significant increase in Mexican or other Hispanic population in the last thirty years. Asian immigration has been to more specific cities, but at the same time there's been a constant flow of immigrants to a lot of different places. It's all a relatviely recent trend for most of the country as it wasn't until post-1965 immigration reform that the US really started getting a higher influx of Hispanics and Asians.

[Spudcommando]

Originally Posted by censusdata

I think the reasons are...

Less crime / civil unrest in cities. People feel safe in cities and not just suburbs. Widespread race riots started White Flight in the 1960s. Homicide rate most places are at 60 year lows

High gas prices

Young people who didn't enjoy growing up in the suburbs

Increased care about sustainability and effects on the environment of the American suburban lifestyle

Increased number of people who have traveled in Europe and like the way their cities are designed

These are the biggest reasons for me personally, spending my childhood and teenage years in the LA area commuting through its infamous freeways has taught the importance of living as close as possible to where the jobs are. I am quite determined to never put up with a 1+hour commute just to get to my workplace.

[censusdata]

I'd like to add this: with increasing traffic, some crime, and stagnant home values in many places the suburbs have lost their luster. The traffic in NE Louisville used to not be a problem, not it's a major issue. I am looking into buying a house soon and am seriously doing some reverse migration from the suburbs to within a couple miles of downtown

[ColdAilment]

I drive through Louisville about 4 times a year, it has a nice downtown. I especially like that the interstate goes right through the heart of it. However, I especially hate that the speed limit is only 50MPH for about 10 miles...

Anyhow, I have noticed that a lot of cities continue to grow through annexation, this includes most of the younger cities, especially in the south, midwest, and west coast. Indianapolis, Charlotte, Raleigh, Nashville, Los Angeles, San Diego, Denver, Omaha, Louisville, all of these cities have annexed and consequently have HUGE city limits with somewhat low population densities. Older cities generally don't do this, Atlanta, Boston, Baltimore, D.C., Philadelphia, Chicago, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Seattle, etc.

[myspoonistoobig]

Gas prices: ain't nobody wanna pay all that, plus it's healthier to walk places and often more convenient

Gentrification: something my hometown of Brooklyn knows a lot about