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.
My husband and I were Brooklyn "hipsters" once. Now we live in the burbs and love it. Good schools, sidewalks for the kids to ride their bikes on, neighborhood parks and rec programs, and nearby trails.
I loved living in the city when we were young and going out every night but with kids it's primarily just a pain in the behind.
I think it's worth noting too that most cities with expensive downtown cores (Seattle and San Francisco for ex) have very high percentages of households without children.
If the parents are rich enough they stay in Brooklyn. There are plenty of jokes about the strollers in Park Slope. It seems like it would be easier to manage little kids in the city. You don't have to drive anywhere. It changes when they start going to school.
Everyone is commenting that younger ppl want to live in the city, but it's not just young ppl. If the demand is down in the suburbs, why don't those home prices come down?
The story of the majority of people preferring city to country is a myth. that accounts for why prices remain where they are. Big house, real yard, garage and peace and quiet go a long way. I am in the suburbs of DC and too many of my friends have
properties for Better Homes and Garden. You want that or a cramped rowhouse with no back yard. Pools, gardens and a huge yard are desirable, especially when you have kids. Those people aren't moving away when their kids move away; they spent their lives building their places up.
What is gentrification other than pushing minorities out and moving white people in? What's the point? I work in the city, I surely don't want to live there.
This whole urban-suburban tension is a red herring. As cities gentrify and suburbs become denser and feature "walkable" enclaves, the two will become one giant amalgamation. The real divide is between the major metro areas (union of urban core, inner suburbs, even outer suburbs) and the rural areas or small towns… locales too far for commuting to the city (say, >100 miles away). Yuppies, parents, empty-nesters, retirees... they might move from suburb to city and back to suburb. But they're going to remain, more or less, in the metro area (or move to a different metro area). The main point is that they're not going to move to isolated small towns, or to farms, or to huts in the forest. But migration in the opposite direction will definitely occur. So who wins - city or suburb - is really moot. Both win. The real "losers" are the [former] industrial towns and farming communities. That's where property values are going to keep declining, whether we are in a burgeoning recovery or a persistent recession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB1967
With birth rates falling, where is this overpopulation coming from, unless of course you are talking about the immigration issue, where in many states that certainly is the case.
It's coming from a combination of pent-up housing demand, and migration. Keep in mind that the construction-bust (2006-present) has resulted in lots of young families and young-adults without their own living space. Yes, the lagging economy has reduced demand for new housing somewhat, but I'd venture to guess that finally demand is starting to outstrip supply. We need aggressive new construction to meet demand. And what about migration? Small towns and the countryside continue their relentless out-migration. People aren't necessarily flocking to trendy inner-cities, but they are moving to the larger metro areas (if only their outlying suburbs).
Quote:
Originally Posted by armory
... You want that or a cramped rowhouse with no back yard. Pools, gardens and a huge yard are desirable, especially when you have kids. Those people aren't moving away when their kids move away; they spent their lives building their places up.
That depends on the lifestyle. I grew up in the Northern Virginia suburbs of DC; fantastic schools, decent quality of life for kids and teens (and their parents). But what about child-free single GS-15 and SES civil-servants who work 60+ hour weeks, travel 100 days/year, and happen to still be looking for a romantic partner? It won't happen in Burke or Reston.
If the parents are rich enough they stay in Brooklyn. There are plenty of jokes about the strollers in Park Slope. It seems like it would be easier to manage little kids in the city. You don't have to drive anywhere. It changes when they start going to school.
Ha. I lived in Park Slope. Ever tried getting a stroller up and down the stairs to the subway? How about up to your 4th floor apartment? It's really hard. And the schools even in Park Slope and Brooklyn Heights suck. The only people I know who still live in the city after kids are people who just have one or who own an entire brownstone and take cars everywhere.
1. Gentrification is only really happening in a handful of cities. DC, Seattle, NYC, SF, and Boston to be precise, plus a few others. Many cities are really not seeing it to the same extent as these five.
2. Inner Ring suburbs are always going to be high priced. They have good access to the city, and good schools. There has been more infill development in these places. As a result they are high demand.
3. Prices have come down in the exurbs. This is where the prices have fallen in relative to everywhere else. There is a limit to how far people will travel outside the city and into a job.
It should be noted suburban sprawl has come to a bit of halt in many places, and the exurban areas basically were hit hard price wise. Now there is a process of infill development in inner ring suburbs and gentrification in many cities. Essentially the metropolitan areas are seeing growth, but Ohio_peasant called it right, in many places you are starting to see a shift in development patterns in inner ring suburbs closer to that of cities. In fact where I live in DC, some of the surrounding suburbs feature ares which are more dense then DC and downtown areas (Arlington, Silver Spring).
Also it was correctly identified, much of gentrification is being lead by DINKs and SINKs, there is a far larger portion of the population that does not have children, and will never have children, who are working professionals. By all accounts it is 1/3-1/4 of this group. There is also empty nesters moving into these cities.
What is happening is the value inside cities, and inner ring burbs is going up, while the exurbs is either stagnant or dropped during the recession. Most of the speculation during the bust was in the exurbs, there was a prediction of flight out to them which never happened, instead you had those who were younger professionals move into the city (a select few), or stay in the inner ring burbs. What actually began to move into exurban areas after the recession was poverty. Those who had been pushed out by gentrification had to move somewhere.
Also Ohio_peasant also correctly identified that many rural areas and towns will likely face continue declining value and populations. This can be said for some cities as well. Essentially cities will fall into three groups Elite Gentrifying (DC, SF, Seattle, NYC, Boston), Large Regional Hubs (Chicago, Atlanta, LA, Houston, etc), Secondary Gentrifying (Portland, Austin, etc), or Large Declining (Detroit, Cleveland, etc.), and Small Declining (Flint, Gary).
Most cities are NOT gentrifying, they are still in the declining group. Just because some small number of cities with regional knowledge economies are seeing growth, does not mean it is happening everywhere. Many cities will never recover from their decline, they just were former industrial towns that are likely going to continue to decline well into the future. Rural areas and towns will likely to continue to decline as well.
Again, many people view gentrification as bad, the reality is it is the best thing that can happen to a city. Most people don't get it's an either/or thing. You are either gentrifying and improving as a city, or declining. There is no real inbetween. Those cities which are gentrifying are fortunate.
What is happening is the value inside cities, and inner ring burbs is going up, while the exurbs is either stagnant or dropped during the recession. Most of the speculation during the bust was in the exurbs, there was a prediction of flight out to them which never happened, instead you had those who were younger professionals move into the city (a select few), or stay in the inner ring burbs. What actually began to move into exurban areas after the recession was poverty. Those who had been pushed out by gentrification had to move somewhere.
As you note, varies by city. In Portland, "inner ring" suburbs have actually done quite badly relative to inner city neighborhoods or exurban neighborhoods. Several reasons for that. The gentrification crowd wants to be really, really close to downtown, so just being a mile or three further out reduces demand a lot. The poor who have been displaced by gentrification have to go *somewhere*, and since the inner suburbs have decent mass transit access, that's where. It really is a major demographic shift in portland, not just a few hipsters, with whole inner neighborhoods shifting from >50% ethnic minority to white professionals now, and what used to be 95% white 'inner ring' suburbs now heavily black and hispanic, along with poor white. The city government has used tax and zoning rules to heavily concentrate new employment into the downtown core area, and to direct "affordable" apartment complex development into the inner ring suburban areas, often as infill in what used to SFH subdivisions. Meanwhile some of biggest corporate employers have chosen to locate in outer exurban suburbs (Intel, Nike), creating plenty of housing demand in one major sector of the exurbs.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,703 posts, read 81,529,753 times
Reputation: 57978
Here's a good example from today's local news. The areas mentioned in the Seattle city limits are the more suburban parts with less crowding and crime.
From the stats that we're seeing in NYC metro area, prices in suburbs have stagnated (flat lined over 10 years literally)and in the urban core they have EXPLODED. I am talking tripled within 10 years. I think this sums up the debate about peoples' preferences. Money talks and b$t walks.
As far as "kids and good schools" go, suburban good schools are NOT free. In fact, RE taxes that are used to fund those schools are so outrageously high in some suburbs that they just make no sense whatsoever. In Westchester county (NY) taxes on an average upper middle class house can easily be 50K. At that rate, I may as well send my kid to one of the best private schools in the city, which is going to be by far better than the best suburban school. Only for couples who are having 2+ kids does this move really make financial sense. But guess what, the millenials dont want to have 2+ kids. Most people I know are "one and done" and some are two and through. Who wants the hassle? People want to have fun and spend money on themselves. Add to this picture growing proportion of empty-nesters and here you have it - decline of suburbia in favor of the urban core.
As far as "kids and good schools" go, suburban good schools are NOT free. In fact, RE taxes that are used to fund those schools are so outrageously high in some suburbs that they just make no sense whatsoever. In Westchester county (NY) taxes on an average upper middle class house can easily be 50K. At that rate, I may as well send my kid to one of the best private schools in the city, which is going to be by far better than the best suburban school. Only for couples who are having 2+ kids does this move really make financial sense. But guess what, the millenials dont want to have 2+ kids. Most people I know are "one and done" and some are two and through. Who wants the hassle? People want to have fun and spend money on themselves. Add to this picture growing proportion of empty-nesters and here you have it - decline of suburbia in favor of the urban core.
Absolutely not true. A 4-5 bedroom house does not have 50K taxes anywhere in Westchester. More like 20K to 30K. Also you forget to say that if you stay in NYC you pay city taxes which on a 300K household its 10K+. So adding to that city property taxes, said household will pay close to 20K in taxes just as a family moving to westchester. However the westchester family gets the good school for free while NYC family must pay an additional 40K for the private school. If there are two kids then the situation is pretty much obvious.
Households who stay in the city fall into two categories. Those who cannot afford the suburbs: either because of money (they are poor) or or time (both parents work full time and there is no time for commuting) and those who are filthy rich (upper 1%). There are some exceptional cases mostly those who send their kids to the best city schools public or private with financial aid.
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.
