Mismatch between jobs and housing, will big cities build more or jobs migrate out? (office, money)
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.
For the record if rent/mortgages wasn't obscene, then this wouldn't be happening. This isn't happening by preference or choice, it is happening by force.
Jobs will not migrate out. People don't want to give up the economies, healthcare, or chance to socialize, that they get from major US cities. Gen Z and Millennials know how detrimental growing up in the suburbs when they can't drive can be to one's social life. It's extremely isolating. Relying on a parent to chauffeur you is not only ruining one's sense of independence but also eroding the parent's time. Many do not want that for their children, and would love to have alternatives, if the alternatives were not obscene in cost. It should not require me to be a millionaire to live on a street like this in Brooklyn in Bedford-Stuyvesant
What these neighborhoods have in common: SFHs or townhouses, with a small mix-in of "urban" apartments (not garden style) or condos, and light commercial possibly for a local restaurant, convenience store, some shops. Due to small setbacks from the street and on the sides, and small properties unlike gargantuan 5-over-1s they like to build, easy to traverse on foot or bike. The homes or townhouses vary ever so slightly, creating a sense of personal identity. No cookie cutters. And they probably have reasonable square footages, unlike McMansions, which means utility bills are also more affordable, and smaller lots probably mean less property tax, but still having enough square footage to hold a family unlike the super dense areas at their budget. These are quieter neighborhoods than the super dense areas of Downtowns and Midtowns, which is probably a big deal for families.
Now think long and hard about the city you live in. Do you have a neighborhood like this in your urban (commuting) area? If you live in a major US city, I would argue yes you probably do. Even super car-centric cities like Houston or Dallas probably have them. Identify it; think long and hard about it's size (how many blocks, etc.) the kinds of amenities it offers (schools in that area, stores, etc.), connectivity to the rest of the city.
Now think again about the differences between those two neighborhoods. SFHs only, no commercial or recreational amenities like public parks, in a relatively timely method via walking or biking. Etc. One has to drive to do anything or be a part of the city.
Now think long and hard about the city you live in. How many middle class suburban neighborhoods do you have like the above in your urban (commuting) area? And if you had to guess, how many more neighborhoods do you have like these middle class low-density suburban ones, over the ones I first posted?
Developers have forced, and continue to force, Americans into one style of living. If the market was more free and the former was more common, and the latter was less common (not non-existent, but simply less overwhelming), there wouldn't be a cost issue in the cities. Not everyone wants to live in super high density areas like Manhattan I certainly do not (Manhattan gives me anxiety attacks, the outer boroughs are ok with me). Not everyone wants to live in condos, many just want little bits of land with enough space for a small garden, or a small garage for a tool shop, without needing half an acre or larger. I know many my age (Gen Z) who would be very happy with the former such as myself. And for the record they go out to the suburbs because they feel like they have no choice, they are not millionaires.
You're 10 years late to the game Prickly! Your pictures are exactly what new development is. Have you been to the outer ATL burbs like Suwanee? They are recreating exactly what you describe. Town centers that have a mix of residential and commercial, townhome rowhouses in the center surrounded by pretty tightly built SFHs, all connected by greenways and walka/bikability.
What's the new thing all across the US is main street revival, a mix of older times main street vibe and tightness with some rural vibe + greenspace mixed in. So there's a community garden across the main street town center of Suwanee and a park down the boardwalk next to the creek.
Buena Vista
Here's an example from the town I'm looking at moving to in the CO mountains. This is not a ski town, and the total population is like 3000, and they have exactly what you're describing as well. The town down the road, Salida, has more bikes roaming around town per capita than anywhere you'll see in ATL. There was easily 100 bikes rolling around town last saturday, on a 45F day in Dec.
All this is to say, this isn't a debate about urbanism, it's about megametroism. To speak to NJ Brazens point, it doesn't matter if it's the suburb or the inner neighborhood, Boston is fundamentally a different livibility setup than Pittsfield. The idea of 5 million+ in a concentrated area simply no longer delivers the benefits it used to, that is an outdated version of 1960s corporate America. People will always live in cities, using the definition of a city as somewhere with a couple thousand people in a connected area. But the idea of millions of them being next to each other was a modern blip of an idea that's now showing it's irrelivancy.
And where do business move? Suburbia of those large cities? Or "Texas" aka moving to...umm, Downtown Dallas aka one of the anchor of the 4th largest MSA / 5th largest Urban Area in the whole country?
All those talks about "crime" and umm...I guess cities like Naperville is now a no-go zone just b/c Chicago is supposed to have high crime?
Or do you think business will just go to some small dunkhole towns and lose a bunch of their employees unwilling to relocate to such places? Unless you think telework/WFH is really the future for each and every jobs with people living in some million dollar home in the mountains?
Wait...look at Boise real estate market...
P.S. How do you define "large" city? To somebody from Top 15 metros a city like, let say, Indianapolis is small. But to small town dwellers Indianapolis is the "big city"...
Everything is Decentralized.
Every larger corporation in the US has dozens of sites and offices. It's a true oddball like BMW manufacturing to have everything in Spartanburg SC. Most companies like Equinix for example have data centers all over the place, and even if there were offices, they wouldn't be able to meet with all people at the distributed sites anyways.
The idea of an HQ is dead. The plant will always be there to produce the products, but the analytics, marketing, and HR can be done anywhere.
I don't think we need anyone deciding how many people should live in the country or the city. It's a free country, people will live where the economics and preferences make sense for them, and that's how it should be.
There's a synergy that happens in cities that goes beyond just being close to customers. Having highly educated/skilled workers concentrated in an area creates all sorts of cross-pollination and entrepreneurial opportunities. I have nothing against rural areas, in fact I grew up in the country. But cities are where stuff gets designed and built.
Those solar panels? Made possible by scientific research and engineering done primarily in cities. Likely manufactured in a city in China. Shipped via logistics companies based in major cities. Passing through major port cities before being shipped by truck and/or rail, also based in cities. The same is true of the inverter and batteries used for an off-grid system. By the time all the necessary components get to your house in the country numerous cities across the global supply chain have made it all possible. And you're never free from this connection to the outside world. If something breaks or the batteries wear out you're again dependent on a far flung global network.
The medical service topic is really very simple. Small town medical facilities are fine for basic care. But if you ever need a specialist, you'll almost certainly end up in a bigger city. I live in Idaho where there are tons of small remote towns. Pretty normal here for people get flown into Boise or Salt Lake City when they need a higher level of care.
Im using solar as an example. Do you have proof its all made and designed by people in our cities exclusively? We still have a lot of rural manufacturing. Plus R&D is usually done in many places. Unis out in the middle of nowhere like State College PA, or Ames Iowa get tons of money for "R&D". That is who those college towns survive. Thomas Edison was based out of Edison NJ, and considered rural back then.
As you can see above, we have a huge base of manufacturing out in the rural areas. Also here is an example of a semi-conductor and nanotech manufacturing out in the sticks. Well, its considered part of the Capitol Region of NY, but no one really calls that a big metro.
"Synergy" has nothing to do with it. People dont bring in the factories or the tranportation. Its the factories and transportation that bring in the people. But that is all dependent on a productive hinterland. The factories and transportation will follow as closely to the natural resources as possible.
Hence my point of why we need more balance between, rural, small cities, and big cities. People dont get to decide the economics and preferences for themselves. It is the economics and preference of the area that decide who gets to live there.
More doctors with more spruced up care located in more populated cities is an indication that there is correlation between living in bigger cities and being more unhealthy. Otherwise there will be plenty of doctors/specialists living in rural areas because that is where the money is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ion475
Well, I only mention those suburbs b/c the other OP was so anti-suburb where everyone should live in some dense rowhouse neighborhood...
One thing that makes town dead, though, is exactly the advancement in technologies. Farms nowaday required nowhere the amount of actual labor.
Then there's cultural shift - you're telling younger generation even one that grew up in farmland to just continue to do menial hard labor in the farm for the next 30 years? Guess what? They would rather be in comfortable offices with air conditioning. It's also somewhat related to the whole illegal immigration issue - it IS true that whatever labor intensive jobs just could not find enough people no matter how people argue otherwise. You wonder why there are some random towns in the middle of nowhere Iowa all of a sudden can be more diverse than some white bread suburbs?
As far as industry goes - automation also did reduced the labor required. Even, let say, a 20% decrease in labor required means those 20% of people would have to look for jobs elsewhere.
Automation also means scale of factories increase - i.e. instead of having production in 3 small towns they basically pick 1 single "lucky" town for those production - while leaving the other 2 towns behind. That single town would now be the "economic center" not just due to the factory, but also b/c having a somewhat stable local economy means people spend money = nicer business areas including "small town main street" which attracts urbanites at times during weekend breaks. Those 2 other small towns, though, have a shuttered main street, with only low paying jobs remaining, and basically become truly "fly over country".
If advancements in tech make farming less labor intensive, then younger generations wont have to do as much menial hard labor; if any at all. It be the same for any industry that has advancements in tech. It would also make it easier for new entrants into the field. Advancement in tech would allow for company to downsize. Yet that also means easier for competition to move in.
I get the sense that there's a lot of hyperbole in this conversation.
Folks realize that there's a whole spectrum of varying sized towns and cities, and metropolitan areas large, intermediate and small (and micropolitan areas). These areas too have housing, stores, schools and hospitals for residents to take advantage of.
Companies have basically tapped out the talent pools of large cities, and they need to expand to overlooked markets to achieve growth and opportunities. If that means more satellite offices in Milwaukee, or Tokepa, or Birmingham, then that's precisely what they'll do.
I get the sense that there's a lot of hyperbole in this conversation.
Folks realize that there's a whole spectrum of varying sized towns and cities, and metropolitan areas large, intermediate and small (and micropolitan areas). These areas too have housing, stores, schools and hospitals for residents to take advantage of.
Companies have basically tapped out the talent pools of large cities, and they need to expand to overlooked markets to achieve growth and opportunities. If that means more satellite offices in Milwaukee, or Tokepa, or Birmingham, then that's precisely what they'll do.
Our country was once like that before. It did not start out the way it is now. It became this way.
What makes the most sense is for retired people to leave job centers and move to places with abundant housing. That's not going to happen though because people want to be near their grandchildren, age in place, etc.
Option #2 is cheaper so that's what I think we'll choose as a society. And as others have mentioned, the US under building infrastructure could be a good thing since our population growth will slow and maybe stall.
Some spots in the northeast could house people. The only issue is that they are small and people aren't flocking to them now. It's possible that climate change causes more of those places to be more livable. Maybe Harrisburg PA could be a good spot, it certainly looks like a pretty place; but people aren't picking it now. Looking at the current trajectory, TX, FL, NC & ID are going to keep winning the population race. They are desirable enough and build enough housing to keep taking people.
There are quite a few mid sized areas in the Interior Northeast with small, but steady population growth, plenty of room and affordable home prices. There are about 7-8 metros in the Interior Northeast in the top 100 in metro population out of about 400 metro areas nationwide.
Also, the fact that a previous post said “only” $341k for homes in TX is a good $150k higher than median home prices in much of the Interior Northeast, give or take.
Every larger corporation in the US has dozens of sites and offices. It's a true oddball like BMW manufacturing to have everything in Spartanburg SC. Most companies like Equinix for example have data centers all over the place, and even if there were offices, they wouldn't be able to meet with all people at the distributed sites anyways.
The idea of an HQ is dead. The plant will always be there to produce the products, but the analytics, marketing, and HR can be done anywhere.
I did mention this myself in a later post - large corporations have offices in multiple cities anyway. Some of it is also logistic - US is large enough where "regional HQ" can definitely be a thing.
I do sometimes laugh at those "So and so city gain a new HQ!". Take Boeing moving their HQ from Chicago to Arlington, that involves a grand total of maybe 50 jobs, most of them high executives that basically have an office in name only anyway as they travel around all sort of different sites (i.e. Seattle and Charleston SC for commercial just for a start). But sure, "Chicago is dying since they just lost another HQ!".
As for BMW - that's b/c the office in Spartanburg is more or less a "regional office". It's no different than Nissan moving their HQ to Franklin TN (to be closer to their big plants in Smyrna TN, Dechard TN, and Canton MS outside Jackson). But even Nissan has R&D centers in places like Detroit...
Ultimately, though, it's not like everything in USA is in SF or NYC or LA. All these smaller metros in Midwest like Indy, Columbus OH, Des Moines, Omaha, etc. are all doing great, even if all of them are kind of boring (yes, including C-Bus which already has the most energy thanks to OSU).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P
You're 10 years late to the game Prickly! Your pictures are exactly what new development is. Have you been to the outer ATL burbs like Suwanee? They are recreating exactly what you describe. Town centers that have a mix of residential and commercial, townhome rowhouses in the center surrounded by pretty tightly built SFHs, all connected by greenways and walka/bikability.
I thought you're describing the Lakelands/Kentlands area near Gaithersburg MD for a moment .
There are tons of mixed-use development in DC Area otherwise...they love building those here . Mosaic District in Merrifield VA, Pike & Rose in "North Bethesda" (or South Rockville) MD...
Our country was once like that before. It did not start out the way it is now. It became this way.
Exactly. So many people forget that things like corporate consolidation and late stage capitalism is what has concentrated the vast, vast majority of lucrative jobs, wealth, industry and commerce in larger cities.
As I've alluded to before, this consolidation was terrible for the country and is precisely why we have extreme gaps in income and political divisions today based entirely on geography.
It's long past time that we literally spread the wealth.
Exactly. So many people forget that things like corporate consolidation and late stage capitalism is what has concentrated the vast, vast majority of lucrative jobs, wealth, industry and commerce in larger cities.
As I've alluded to before, this consolidation was terrible for the country and is precisely why we have extreme gaps in income and political divisions today based entirely on geography.
It's long past time that we literally spread the wealth.
How much "share the wealth" do you need? It's not like the ultra large metros are the only place you can find jobs - many mid-size metro (~1-2M in population) are doing fine.
Where it starts hurting is those small metro (~250k population) and of course random dunkhole towns. A lot of those have to do with deindustrialization more than anything, though - and there are still small metros that are doing fine.
tl;dr: Companies DO have jobs that are NOT in the ultra large metros, and there are somewhat well off areas in many mid-size metros. Metros also grow - places like Austin is not that big until 20 years ago or so.
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.
.
