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.
Recognizing that residential development patterns at any particular point in time reflect a mix of subsidies, regulations and land use policies, how do you assess this fairly?
There are a few different methods for identifying an undersupply. One is to do market surveys and such. For example, roughly speaking surveys have indicated that about 1/3 of people would strongly prefer the traditional post-WWII master-planned developments (larger lots, exclusive use, autocentric, etc.), about 1/3 of people would strongly prefer denser/walkable developments, and about 1/3 could go either way and are really more focused on other things (e.g., school quality). Note that this thread is about surveys which apparently indicate that a lot more than 1/3 of Gen Y in particular falls into the denser/walkable category, but we can hold that aside for the moment.
Given those survey results, you would expect around 1/3 to 1/2 of new developments to be in the denser/walkable category. But recently, such developments have been a WAY lower percentage than that. So that is indicative of an artificial undersupply.
Another approach is to look at pricing. There is no particular reason for denser/walkable developments to cost more per square foot to develop than less-dense/autocentric developments--if anything it should be the opposite. But in most urbanized areas, if you control for other factors, people are paying a significant per square foot premium for units in denser/walkable areas. Again, that is indicative of an undersupply. Note that recently this became WAY more apparent, as housing prices have typically crashed much more in low-density/autocentric exurbs than in higher-density/walkable areas, so the observable price premium greatly increased.
Quote:
but how would you engage in such an analysis now in Pittsburgh? I think it takes a bit more than a news article that generalizes as to the housing preferences of "Generation Y."
Well, that's the thing--I don't think Pittsburgh is as much in that situation as most metro areas. Like everywhere, in recent decades our new residential units have been strongly biased toward lower-density/autocentric developments. However, new units in general make up an atypically small portion of our housing mix--or, in other words, we have just about the on-average-oldest housing stock you will find in a major metro in the United States. This is a product of several factors, including the fact that recently our population has been relatively stagnant, and that our homes in previous eras were built in an unusually durable way (e.g., lots of brick), and that after some early mistakes we had a pretty active and well-funded preservationist movement, and so on. And you can see that in pricing too. This is changing a little bit, but housing in denser/walkable areas typically commands much less of a per square foot premium in Pittsburgh than it does in many other U.S. metros.
Going forward, it is possible we will run into some of the same supply problems as other places, although I am encouraged by the fact we are now developing new residential units in places like Downtown, East Liberty, and so on. Regardless, right now we don't have the same undersupply problems as most U.S. metros, and my point in the original post is that happens to position us well if it is true that Gen Y is going to be even more interested in finding such housing at a reasonable price.
I ask in part because, in the DC area, it is very often folks from "Generation X" (born in the mid-60s and 70s) who buy SFHs in some of the outer suburbs. Of course, some do live in the city and closer-in suburbs, just as is the case with some Boomers like Jay5835, but many of them moved to outer suburbs for more or less the same reasons as many of their elders had moved to closer-in suburbs. . . .
Is it different in Pittsburgh? Maybe it's a more affordable housing market, so more "Generation X" types can afford closer-in suburbs like Mount Lebanon if they wish? I know Mount Lebanon is considered a really nice, close-in suburb of Pittsburgh, but a lot of folks from the DC area would consider it very affordable.
You've got it. To go anecdotal for a moment, my wife and I are a Gen X couple, and for a couple years circa 2007 I was living in DC while she was living in Pittsburgh (I had graduated from law school after a career change and was working for the DOJ). We looked at living both places, and we have a strong preference for historical/denser/walkable neighborhoods and short public transit commutes. The pricing of the neighborhoods we were looking at in DC as compared to Pittsburgh was prohibitive, even with the salary premium we could obtain in DC. That was one of the most significant factors in our deciding to end up in Pittsburgh rather than DC.
Quote:
It makes me think that, if "Generation Y" turns out to be radically different from their predecessors, which may or may not ultimately turn out to be the case, they will differentiate themselves not only from the Baby Boomers, but also from "Generation X."
I think Gen Y may be more urbanist than Gen X, but it is hard to tell because of these pricing issues. My friends who managed to buy starter homes in the relevant areas in cities like DC early enough were able to use their rising home equity to move up the ladder to some reasonable homes today. But those who didn't buy early enough are pretty much priced out of that market, and the housing price crash hasn't really brought price levels in the relevant areas down that much. You can't really read preferences out of a situation like that.
There are a few different methods for identifying an undersupply. One is to do market surveys and such. For example, roughly speaking surveys have indicated that about 1/3 of people would strongly prefer the traditional post-WWII master-planned developments (larger lots, exclusive use, autocentric, etc.), about 1/3 of people would strongly prefer denser/walkable developments, and about 1/3 could go either way and are really more focused on other things (e.g., school quality). Note that this thread is about surveys which apparently indicate that a lot more than 1/3 of Gen Y in particular falls into the denser/walkable category, but we can hold that aside for the moment.
Given those survey results, you would expect around 1/3 to 1/2 of new developments to be in the denser/walkable category. But recently, such developments have been a WAY lower percentage than that. So that is indicative of an artificial undersupply.
It may or may not be indicative of an artificial undersupply if those surveyed are simply expressing their preferences, but don't have the means to buy or rent. One would not necessarily expect developers to tailor their plans to meet the expressed preferences of 20-year-olds, if the 20-year-olds in question have no savings or present intention to buy or rent real estate, and 35-year-olds with a different set of preferences do. There is a difference between preference and demand.
The article does note that many of the members of "Generation Y" surveyed are in no hurry to have children - pretty much what you'd expect in a down economy. It actually sounds quite similar to Japan or Italy throughout the 1990s. Given that factor, and others that have been mentioned, it very well could turn out to be the case that many members of Generation X will gravitate toward central cities and/or stay there longer than prior generations.
Like I said. I sell that food to people for $20-30 an entree. I'm not the best in the world, but my food is better than everyone you know unless they work in a restaurant that can demand as many dollars on the menu. Our food has been compared to the best of Chicago or NYC. We're not as good as SALT, but we're better than many of the fine dining places in town. My parents are obese and would rather order a pizza than have me make something simple for them.
Who are "we"? What is the name of your restaurant? A friend wants to take me out for dinner "anywhere you want to go," so i want to go somewhere better than usual.
Also, did you see on the news last night that Le Cordon Bleu de Pittsburgh is closing? Did you study there?
does anyone else see the possible change in our future ways of life to not really be a choice, but more of a forced reality.... at the risk of sounding like a dooms day guy ...i feel like it is a 100% fact that we will run out of fossil fuels on this earth IN OUR LIFETIME (I'm 33)
I don't know if they will entirely run out, but I think it is a good bet they will continue to get more expensive. And that alone is likely to be transformative.
It may or may not be indicative of an artificial undersupply if those surveyed are simply expressing their preferences, but don't have the means to buy or rent.
Again, the surveys I am talking about here are not limited to Gen Y, and I don't think there was any particular correlation between people in the urban/walkable category and lack of means. In fact there is no obvious reason why such a correlation would exist, and it isn't consistent with the observed premium being paid for such housing.
It is pretty interesting. Among other things, it goes into the children issue. Basically, Generation Y seems pretty confident that even when they have kids, they will continue to put a premium on walkability over yard size. If they can afford it, they seem to be heading for raising their families on SFHs on small lots in cities and inner suburbs, or perhaps New Urbanist-style outer suburbs. But affordability issues may keep a decent number of them in multi-unit buildings. And a minority still wants a SFH on a large lot, but if their self-descriptions hold true, it won't be as many of them as in the existing mix.
This study also predicts Generation Y is going to start shifting in a big way from renting to buying in about 2012. So we may not have all that long to wait to see if Generation Y really is heading in a new direction.
Basically, Generation Y seems pretty confident that even when they have kids, they will continue to put a premium on walkability over yard size.
LOL, we boomers were very confident that having kids wouldn't change our lifestyles, ideas, and habits, too. Life has a funny way of surprising you.
I hope they're right, because it would be great to have Gen Y restoring the urban areas. Then, their kids will rebel (as children always do) and they can restore the abandoned suburbs.
Another issue that may come into play is gardening. Right now big yards are mostly valued for space issues or as play areas for kids. But if a war, depression, or other national emergency occurred, I can envision many people having a serious interest in owning property where they could have a large vegetable garden or raise chickens. I've read a few articles lately about new technology that makes it easier to grow a lot of produce in a small yard (1/4 to 1/5 acre). It would be an interesting development if in the future some suburban areas turn into little farmettes.
...i feel like it is a 100% fact that we will run out of fossil fuels on this earth IN OUR LIFETIME (I'm 33)
This is not a fact and it's wrong. At current consumption rates, theres enough natural uranium to supply the earth with energy for over 200 years (using the existing 1960s technology). Of course, energy consumption will increase, but this does not take into account fuel breeding and reprocessing, and technological breakthroughs for improving efficiency. Breeding alone would extend the supply exponentially, perhaps indefinitely, and has been successfully performed in many instances -- as close as Shippingport, PA! Additionally, this doesn't take into account plutonium fuel, MoX fuel, or thorium-conversion. Add that to natural gas, oil, and coal, and I don't think we'll be "running out of fossil fuels IN OUR LIFETIME."
And yes, Uranium isn't a fossil fuel, but these sources combined are sufficient for maintaining an energy supply and an inventory of fossils.
I realize that this is far off topic, but I couldn't let it go. Sorry.
I just wanted to add as an aside that this has been one of the most insightful, intelligently-debated, civilized, and informative threads I've ever read here on City-Data in regards to the differences in housing preferences amongst generations (generally speaking). I've learned so much already from reading every reply here, and I'm eager for more!
I think one also can't overemphasize the psychological toll the "Great Recession" has had upon Generation Y. It's been during the past several years that many of my peers realize that we'll likely have a lower standard of living overall than our preceding generation due to economic hardships earlier in life, bucking the typical trend of each generation's quality-of-life surpassing that of the previous generation, and this has "grounded" many of us to value "needs" vs. "wants". My idyllic dream home would be a 2-BR/1-BA, 1,000 square-foot home with a small (perhaps 30' x 90') lot in a "gritty" neighborhood like Troy Hill or Polish Hill. This home wouldn't require a hulking two-car front-facing garage the way many of my parents' homes in the suburbs have. This home wouldn't require a "bonus room", media room, formal living room, "man cave", and all of these other wasteful uses of living space that many of their homes have either. I just want a backyard large enough for a small garden---some tomatoes, cucumbers, and sunflowers---along with perhaps a small brick patio for a hot tub (my one most sought-after luxury item). My dream car would probably be a Toyota Prius. I chose Pittsburgh because after realizing these were my goals in life I understood I'd never be able to afford a tiny home in a walkable neighborhood in a neighborhood of DC where I wouldn't have to fear being shot, yet I could do so in Pittsburgh, ironically on a lower salary, and also without worrying about having to try to find a partner for a dual income.
Pittsburgh just offered that perfect mix for me. Minneapolis? Slightly too expensive and slightly too cold for my tastes. Baltimore? Slightly too close to some trauma in NoVA for my tastes and also slightly too "rough" for my tastes. Boston? Very expensive. Seattle? Ditto. Austin? Too hot. Atlanta? Too sprawling. Philadelphia? Like DC its premier walkable areas were far too expensive while other areas were war zones. Pittsburgh has four distinct seasons that aren't too severe (I don't believe we've been cooler than about 10 degrees at night here yet, and the biggest snowfall we've had was 6 inches this winter). It has generally friendly people. It is possible for middle-class 20-somethings to buy cozy fixer-uppers here (see ML North, Q-Tip Motha, and alleghenyangel, amongst others, as my inspirations to buy my own place in either Polish Hill or Troy Hill someday). People here don't care if you are going for you Master's Degree or professional certification or not like they did back in career-obsessed Metro DC (hell, people here don't even care if you have a degree at all, which I like). Pittsburgh has minimal traffic issues (although people REALLY need to stop braking before entering the Squirrel Hill Tunnel before I flip!) This place isn't perfect, but neither is anyone, really, despite what some unfortunate souls I met back in NoVA thought about themselves.
Back in NoVA I had many peers who were struggling financially just as much as I was to pay their bills on meager Federal salaries; however, they worked ever so hard to "keep up appearances" that it blew my mind. I knew some people who'd spend money earmarked for a utility bill at Express to buy a new outfit to impress others. Why? Life is far too short to care about what others think of you, and that's why I largely don't care anymore about what people say behind my back about my "rash" decision to flee NoVA for Pittsburgh, abandoning an undesirable (yet stable) career with the Feds to be a fruit delivery person. Pittsburgh is a place where you can "find yourself". For that I'll forever be grateful.
Steering this back on-topic I see Pittsburgh as being one of the nation's best-poised cities to capitalize upon this trend of my peers looking to live more minimalist lifestyles in urbanized areas because you can live in a walkable and SAFE neighborhood here on a thrift store budget---how many other major U.S. cities can boast the same? I've found numerous homes under $50,000 that I could very easily see myself growing old in, along with my sunflowers and perhaps Siberian Husky. Back in Reston, which was a 20-mile haul outside the city (without much-needed rail service, may I add), $50,000 wouldn't even get you a run-down 1-BR condo in a non-walkable environment due to NoVA's housing bubble, which totally boggled my mind. Pittsburgh's population may continue to tumble from 2010 to 2020, but I foresee growth after 2020 as more people "discover" Pittsburgh for the same reasons I did. I know of at least three like-minded people who are considering moving here now from Metro DC after seeing how well I've transitioned.
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.
