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.
So, you didn't read my posts I guess, yet you comment. Ok. I have lived quite contentedly in mostly moderate to high density most of my adult life (and I'm nearing 70 years).
Here's a reality check for you: nearly no one "prefers high density", given a choice. The myth of millennials "preferring high density" has been studied. It was found that, given a theoretical scenario where millennials were offered sfh with yards and commutes with low traffic they overwhelmingly would chose that spacious lifestyle and suburban ambiance. The myth is based in younger generations adapting to what they see as any lack of reasonable, affordable options. They can't see affording full sized sfh within easy, relaxed driving conditions and times. So they sensibly favor what they see as possible: high density.
Humans aren't biologically well suited to living in large, dense societies. We are adaptable to it. But it runs counter to our biological design. There are various specializations within the science of anthropology you can consult in this regard.
People need their options restricted, kid. In a hurry. We are committing suicide as a species if we don't turn the page from development to sustainability.
Not a myth. I prefer high density and walkable environments over low density. You couldn't pay me to live in suburban sprawl 45 minutes - 1 hour from my job (probably all by car). No thanks.
To think all millennials are just following trends and trying to be hip by living in urban environments is to miss some MASSIVE differences in mindset. Many young people are rejecting previous development models and ideas. More concern for sustainability, more recognition that the world has finite resources/space - which all leads to a desire to downsize and live densely/with less. Yes, even given a choice between a place with a yard somewhere else (realistically far away).
Sure, it's possible that in some hypothetical study that people might want a yard - but this is not real life. You can't have everyone living in SFH's AND have the density needed for walkability and smart resource usage. If we want to talk about sustainability, that is probably the absolute worst option.
I think there is a huge generational divide going on that many people are missing. I talk to people my age (30's), and they mostly all reject old ways of thinking. "The American dream is BS" is something I hear often.
Last edited by HockeyMac18; 05-21-2016 at 07:41 AM..
Not a myth. I prefer high density and walkable environments over low density. You couldn't pay me to live in suburban sprawl 45 minutes - 1 hour from my job (probably all by car). No thanks.
To think all millennials are just following trends and trying to be hip by living in urban environments is to miss some MASSIVE differences in mindset. Many young people are rejecting previous development models and ideas. More concern for sustainability, more recognition that the world has finite resources/space - which all leads to a desire to downsize and live densely/with less. Yes, even given a choice between a place with a yard somewhere else (realistically far away).
Sure, it's possible that in some hypothetical study that people might want a yard - but this is not real life. You can't have everyone living in SFH's AND have the density needed for walkability and smart resource usage. If we want to talk about sustainability, that is probably the absolute worst option.
I think there is a huge generational divide going on that many people are missing. I talk to people my age (30's), and they mostly all reject old ways of thinking. "The American dream is BS" is something I hear often.
Sorry, but you are mistaken. I didn't say EVERY millennial would prefer sfh, etc. I said IF given the opportunity to live in sfh, with open space, yards, more relaxed suburban or country ambiance, and drive their own cars without traveling far to work, without horrid traffic - most would eschew high density. They pick your described urbanity because they don't have the option. Not because they prefer it. Witness:
Quote:
Here’s the usual media narrative: Millennials prefer cities to suburbs. They love renting lofts and disdain single-family homes; they ride the subway (or take an Uber) because they barely know how to drive. Where their parents wanted green lawns and cul-de-sacs, today’s young Americans want walkable neighborhoods and local bars with plenty of craft beers on draft.
The numbers tell a different story. Whether by choice or economic circumstance, young Americans are still more likely to leave the city for the suburbs than the other way around.
According to U.S. Census Bureau data released this week, 529,000 Americans ages 25 to 29 moved from cities out to the suburbs in 2014; only 426,000 moved in the other direction. Among younger millennials, those in their early 20s, the trend was even starker: 721,000 moved out of the city, compared with 554,000 who moved in.1 Somewhat more people in both age groups currently live in the suburbs than in the city. Think Millennials Prefer The City? Think Again. | FiveThirtyEight
Anthropology and other science and mathematics and logic are your friends. If you study your intuitive thoughts and observations with respect to the sciences you will broaden your understanding of your world. I don't say this with any snideness whatsoever. Just a friendly tip from an old timer. . Humans are social animals but structured for very small social societies of fewer than about 150 members. We go larger with amazing success. Because we are so clever and adaptable. But it isn't natural the way we live. There are lots of pitfalls and breakdowns. And given opportunity, virtually all of us seek escape and refuge options when available. We prefer living small.
Sorry, but you are mistaken. I didn't say EVERY millennial would prefer sfh, etc. I said IF given the opportunity to live in sfh, with open space, yards, more relaxed suburban or country ambiance, and drive their own cars without traveling far to work, without horrid traffic - most would eschew high density. They pick your described urbanity because they don't have the option. Not because they prefer it.
And I'm saying this study is absoloute nonsense since it's not based on reality. You can't have that enviroment AND have the things that MANY young people prefer (walkability, closeness to diversity, less car-dependent lifestyles). It is not possible to have those, at least in an efficient way, with vast swats of land built up as SFH's.
I think this study missed some things, too. For instance, what about the couple that wants to move out of their overpriced apartment, but doesn't necessarily want to move to the suburbs. But because of how we developed our regions, that's often the only option for living not in an apartment. We are really bad, as a nation, at building for the middle ground in these situations. I know many couples that left SF, for instance, reluctantly, and ended up in the suburbs. It would look in this study that they "prefer" the suburbs when the reality isn't the case. The problem is what they really want (density with a little more space) just doesn't exist. Or if it does, it only exists in a very small amount.
Much of this can be blamed on our terrible zoning regulations in many cities (such as requiring, in some municipalities that only SFHs be allowed).
I also think you're wrong on mindset (preference) - many young people think cities are better than building sprawl in less-developed areas. And many reject a house even if they have the option. My friends could have bought a traditional house where they live. Instead? They bought a tiny house and shed pretty much everything they own. They have never been happier. This is not some 1 off thing, either. Most people aren't that extreme, but there is a desire to get away from this 1950's living mindset.
I'd rather see SF turn into Manhattan (sorry) than see the rest of CA built up with low density. I'd be so depressed if the west turned into what much of the East is - low density all over the place. The fact that the west still has open space everywhere is something that should be preserved at all costs, imo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt
Witness:
Anthropology and other science and mathematics and logic are your friends. If you study your intuitive thoughts and observations with respect to the sciences you will broaden your understanding of your world. I don't say this with any snideness whatsoever. Just a friendly tip from an old timer. .
I work in science. I know how it works. But thanks for the insight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt
Humans are social animals but structured for very small social societies of fewer than about 150 members. We go larger with amazing success. Because we are so clever and adaptable. But it isn't natural the way we live. There are lots of pitfalls and breakdowns. And given opportunity, virtually all of us seek escape and refuge options when available.
You're not wrong - but then again these observations aren't based on a reality that means everyone gets this space. We can't have all of these things AND have 7-8 billion (or more) people AND have sustainable usage of resources AND preserve any semblance of open space in this world. I know you advocate for less people in this world - and I agree with that in principle - but I know people are still reproducing at great rates (mostly outside of developed countries), immigration is still bringing people into this country at greater than replacement rates, and people are going to keep living longer and longer (so even if we're not replacing people as fast, people are going to die off less quickly), so these problems aren't going to go away with everyone living in 150-people pods all over the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt
We prefer living small.
I agree . And that's actually exactly what I'm saying! See my friends living happily in their tiny house. 1990's McMansion living be damned.
Last edited by HockeyMac18; 05-21-2016 at 08:40 AM..
Tulemutt's article describes where people live, not where they WANT to live, the above article is an actual study of preferences. Yes, millenials prefer cities... We just can't all afford to live there. Price per square foot is much higher in denser areas, if people didn't want to live there, the price per square foot would be lower than the suburbs.
Price reflects demand. More people prefer density, plain and simple.
Eternal story: group A lives on desirable land, group B wants a piece of that land. A and B don't like each other and come up with various reasons why the other is wrong. Repeated millions of times throughout human history.
So, you didn't read my posts I guess, yet you comment. Ok. I have lived quite contentedly in mostly moderate to high density most of my adult life (and I'm nearing 70 years).
Here's a reality check for you: nearly no one "prefers high density", given a choice. The myth of millennials "preferring high density" has been studied. It was found that, given a theoretical scenario where millennials were offered sfh with yards and commutes with low traffic they overwhelmingly would chose that spacious lifestyle and suburban ambiance. The myth is based in younger generations adapting to what they see as any lack of reasonable, affordable options. They can't see affording full sized sfh within easy, relaxed driving conditions and times. So they sensibly favor what they see as possible: high density.
Humans aren't biologically well suited to living in large, dense societies. We are adaptable to it. But it runs counter to our biological design. There are various specializations within the science of anthropology you can consult in this regard.
People need their options restricted, kid. In a hurry. We are committing suicide as a species if we don't turn the page from development to sustainability.
Do you have any links to these studies?
Because people are buying units in high-density, high-rise condo buildings for $1-$2 million dollars and higher with monthly HOA fees of $500-$1000 and higher. That means the monthly cost is much higher than a comparable SFH with a yard of the same size. If hardly anyone preferred high density housing, the prices would be significantly lower as there wouldn't be so much demand for them.
Tulemutt's article describes where people live, not where they WANT to live, the above article is an actual study of preferences. Yes, millenials prefer cities... We just can't all afford to live there. Price per square foot is much higher in denser areas, if people didn't want to live there, the price per square foot would be lower than the suburbs.
Price reflects demand. More people prefer density, plain and simple.
I have to wonder about the logic of listing some article and pretending it is the end all, be all. A simple query asking "why millennials would rather live in the suburbs" produces over 3 million hits. And if I want a specific year, I can just add it since these articles have been around for the last few years.
On the other hand I can do a query on why millennials want to live in the city and probably get another 3 million hits.
WHAT'S YOUR POINT?
Internet articles are never written by people that have a narrative, are they? Kinda like the original article posted by the OP that is full of holes (or the original subject that is nothing but a straw man argument).
In addition, making statement like the 20 and 30 somethings I surround myself with say...blah, blah, blah...is not exactly scientific.
Perhaps it's best to accept what the new guy says...
Quote:
Originally Posted by candalf
Eternal story: group A lives on desirable land, group B wants a piece of that land. A and B don't like each other and come up with various reasons why the other is wrong. Repeated millions of times throughout human history.
As long as there are good jobs here, people will move here regardless. During the mid-1800's gold rush, hundreds of thousands of people moved to California even though there was no housing for them. Most of them lived in tents or on the streets. It can happen again.
Nowadays, even Google engineers making 6-figure salaries are living in RVs in the parking lot.
The NYC subways alleviated an even much worse problem. Without the subway system there would be 5 times as many cars on the streets and it would be total gridlock 24/7.
Stopping development is not going to stop people from coming here. Just witness the last 5 years.
I would write "surely you jest," but I'm pretty sure you are serious. Which is hilarious. Um, no. The techies aren't going to set up a tent city in the streets of downtown.
You read one story about one Google guy living in his RV in the Google lot - and you extrapolate that to an invasion? The media thrives on sensationalism wherever, whenever they can find it. And you lap it up.
NYC subways? I'll ask you again: are the streets of New York congested or not? It doesn't matter what the streets would be without subways. It matters whether they are gridlocked WITH subways operating. And the answer is: yes, they are choked. So, did the subways solve the congestion?
Stopping development WILL, of course, stop people from moving here. And companies from opening and expanding. It's already happening. Give it some more time. The frustration is high already and getting higher to the point where growth will have to shift more and more away. But that won't kill the Bay Area that exists now.
Eternal story: group A lives on desirable land, group B wants a piece of that land. A and B don't like each other and come up with various reasons why the other is wrong. Repeated millions of times throughout human history.
True enough. Yet your observation doesn't address whether one party or the other is correct / incorrect regardless of the accusations of the other. Group A is established and has position. Group B expects A to give it up? Heh. Right.
True enough. Yet your observation doesn't address whether one party or the other is correct / incorrect regardless of the accusations of the other. Group A is established and has position. Group B expects A to give it up? Heh. Right.
Yep. Me and my wife will be moving away from the Bay Area ourselves at some point. Much to the dismay of the whiners here, we will be renting our house out and hopefully passing it on to our children. I can assure you wherever we end up going, I will not be asking the natives to conform to what I want. Rather, I will assimilate into their culture. And frankly, I'm amazed at the arrogance of others who expect people to bend to their will. F that! And all so we can cater to their selfish little self interests while it is no solution of any kind (merely a quick fix that will screw over the area for natives and future generations that will be in the same boat they're in now...and I'm guessing they won't give a damn when those generations complain).
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.
. Humans are social animals but structured for very small social societies of fewer than about 150 members. We go larger with amazing success. Because we are so clever and adaptable. But it isn't natural the way we live. There are lots of pitfalls and breakdowns. And given opportunity, virtually all of us seek escape and refuge options when available. We prefer living small.
Um, no. The techies aren't going to set up a tent city in the streets of downtown.
