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.
Generation Y Prefers Suburban Home Over City Condo
New Survey Shows 66% of Millennials Want to Live in the Suburbs
Millennials Prefer Single-Family Homes in the Suburbs - WSJ ... a survey released Wednesday by the National Association of Home Builders, a trade group, suggested otherwise. The survey, based on responses from 1,506 people born since 1977, found that most want to live in single-family homes outside of the urban center, even if they now reside in the city.
“While you are more likely to attract this generation than other generations to buy a condo or a house downtown, that is a relative term,” said Rose Quint, the association’s assistant vice president of survey research. “The majority of them will still want to buy the house out there in the suburbs.”
The survey, which was released at the association’s convention in Las Vegas, found that 66% want to live in the suburbs, 24% want to live in rural areas and 10% want to live in a city center. One of the main reasons people want to relocate from the city center, she said, is that they “want to live in more space than they have now.” The survey showed 81% want three or more bedrooms in their home. Millennials Prefer Single-Family Homes in the Suburbs - WSJ
And yes, I can link more.
What you and others are failing to recognize here is there is one thing that all generations have in common: we are all basically of the same nature, regardless of trends in time. And the basic nature of the human species is as I described previously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGreatCurve
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.
Some condos are higher with higher fees. Others are lower than some sfh in some places. You are making a generalization that can't realistically be quantified. Too broad.
In any case, I didn't say everyone preferred low density suburban living. I said: it is human nature to prefer more controllable personal space and smaller societies. That doesn't mean they will always chose it. There are many extenuating reasons for compromising preferences.
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.
It isn't nonsense at all. There's nothing nonsensical about asking people their desires whether attainable or not. But, more importantly, those things you say do not exist - DO, in fact, exist. Many places. Not in the Bay Area. But elsewhere across the nation? Take your pick. Small, medium, and large cities such as Detroit, Rochester, Buffalo, Milwaukee, Albuquerque, DesMoines, Sioux Falls, ... I can write a list for hours. Those places have lots of tech jobs too. Anywhere there is manufacturing, medicine, and banking there is need for tech. Every one of those cities is populated mainly in sfh. Affordable sfh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18
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.
Excuse me chuckling "Density with a little more space"? Heh. What I been saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18
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.
This is not borne out by the studies I quoted. What you are referring to is how youth is drawn to energy during the early years of leaving home and establishing themselves. Most end up seeking relationships and having families. At which point the singles energy shifts to family energy. And most families prefer space and privacy and more calm, controllable, safe environments.
The tiny home thing is great. But doesn't contradict anything I have been saying. When I talk about space, I mean land, not interior square footage. I live in 64 square feet of living space aboard a little boat. I have lived this way for a very long time. I love it. I am a minimalist. I understand how little it takes to be happy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18
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.
I agree. And that is exactly the point of my arguments here. "Build it and they will come." So stop building.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18
I work in science. I know how it works. But thanks for the insight.
Well, good then. Apply your scientific mindset to rational analysis of anthropological truths and resource use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18
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.
Right. We're not going to live in hunter-gatherer clans of 150 and less people. And the planet can't support 7-11 billion people on a hunter-gatherer basis either. The estimates for hunter-gatherer sustainability run as low as 500,000 population that the earth can carry. So yep, we clever humans will necessarily rely on our science and technology to produce what we need. But even that has practical resource limits within bounds of materials and toxic residuals. Most importantly, there is absolutely no benefit to having 7-11 billion people compared to having say only 3 billion. None. Not one quality of life is enhanced by over population at the levels we have attained. Nothing but trouble. Problems to solve that don't need to exist.
Time to switch from consumerism based economy to sustainability based economies.
Are you aware of where, when and how consumer economics as a system was conceived, developed and put into action? It was less than 150 years ago. Humans thrived for 100's of thousands of years without this deliberate plan to consume and use up and throw away resources.
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.
Um no. Tulemutt's links - and your own linked article - address where millennials want to live in the full view. Millennials are like every generation: when kids enter adolescence they seek a lot of free socialization. This socialization marks the beginning of mate-seeking - which continues into emancipated adulthood. As the individuals pair off they mostly start families. And then they turn to desiring more space and safety in their environments.
From your linked study:
Quote:
Sixty-two percent indicate they prefer to live in the type of mixed-use communities found in urban centers, where they can be close to shops, restaurants and offices. They are currently living in these urban areas at a higher rate than any other generation, and 40 percent say they would like to live in an urban area in the future.
Note that "40%" who would like to live in and urban center in the future is only a little more than 1/3. Not a majority by any stretch.
Also note that the 40% who say they'd like to stay urban are saying that before they have transitioned to family-oriented decision-making for the most part. Things change. Sometimes young people actually mature. Could even happen to you yet.
The reasons for "price per square foot" have to do with several dynamics other than what you (and poster theGreatCurve) suggest. Availability of space relative to immediate needs (entering workforce, conforming to career demands, etc.). Ability to make commuting workable. The passions of youth craving social connectivity - which is a temporary phase of life.
I have no problem with people reproducing. We have discussed this before. Replacement rate is 2.1 children per couple, I believe. And California's birthrate is below that now. In fact almost all developed nations have birthrates below replacement rate. And, though sure it would have been great to restrict immigration somewhere about the mid-80's or so, I wouldn't expect or advocate for that in our free society. And I don't now. The point of these "we need to develop more dense housing" threads, including this one, is to support more development. It's obvious that if development is stopped, the place can't grow. And my argument is that is a good position to take. People are always coming and going to some extent. But expressly advancing perpetual development is killing the state now that it has matured. Just as the short-sighted love to point to greater density in Japan and Chinese cities, Singapore, etc as examples that it is possible to replicate those conditions in California, there are plenty of places in the country and world that restrict development to save their character that has matured. Just because it is possible to do something doesn't make it desirable or smart.
Try proposing new industry and housing for Monaco or the French Riviera. Hell, try proposing it for Aspen, Colorado or Greenwich, Conn. Try proposing high density housing projects on Mercer Island between Seattle and Bellevue. You won't get to the front door with your petition. NIMBYism is alive and thriving all around the world. With good reason. Go develop W. Virginia. Gorgeous mountain state. Weather's not terrible there either.
This is such a ridiculous comparison for several reasons. Monaco is fully built out and not even a full square mile in land size BUT even they are accommodating new development, high density of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odeon_Tower Forbes Welcome
You named a named a bunch of small exclusive suburbs or resort towns, all of which are dependent on wealth that is generated elsewhere. Without the growth of NYC and Seattle places like Greenwich, CT and Mercer Island would not even exist. These aren't fully functioning economies and metro areas like the Bay Area is and its ridiculous to try to compare the two.
Quote:
Yes, "better, sure" - and then some. You betcha. But had "issues related to growth" back then? Hardly. Expanding roads and freeways and water storage systems had mostly to do with investing in the future development that was projected. Not in solving any existing nightmares.
I'm pretty sure you weren't alive in the 60's even, right? You didn't drive around the Bay Area. I did. It was a relative breeze. There were no utilities issues either. My moving here did not put any strain on the region. For one thing, I was billeted military for nearly 7 years. And after that I soon transitioned to a lifestyle with such a light footprint I pretty much leave no trace.
Expanding infrastructure to accommodate you and other transplants put a strain on the environment. You don't think building reservoirs affected wildlife and nature? Building new power plants from dirty power sources didn't hurt the environment? If anything development back then did a lot more damage to the environment back then than today on a per capita basis. And it is because of that irresponsible and unsustainable development model that began after WWII that the Bay Area and other places have the issues they have today. If the Bay Area would have built denser with better public transit in the era after you moved here it wouldn't have as many of the issues today as it does.
Quote:
LA did clean up its air. But traffic has not improved. Anywhere. And the improved air quality isn't a result of increased density. If the same intelligent measures were initiated without the growth experienced since, the air would be even far better.
The average annual delay per traveler hours in 2003 was 93 in Los Angeles with a travel time index of 1.75. In 2014 it was 80 hours and 1.43 respectively.
I never claimed it was because of increase density but you can argue that part of it was if people drive less since they live closer to jobs and amenities as well as being able to take public transit.
Quote:
Humans have always innovated. True. Again, that doesn't mean it's a good thing. There are no benefits to increased population and development beyond where we are now. I don't expect to reverse, nice as it would be. I am arguing that to continue to support a model that is built on perpetual development is logically suicide. It can't be done, for one thing. And shouldn't be taken to its limit for another. There is no benefit. We have to face transition to sustainability at some point. We are using resources at a vastly unsustainable rate as it is.
As I have said, the issue isn't really about shutting the door. It's about addressing the unsustainability of perpetual growth. What we are doing in America, with coastal California as poster child, is literally criminal.
Why now? Why not 1960? 1980? 1990? Stopping development in the Bay Area won't stop population growth or make anywhere any more sustainable as the Bay Area doesn't exist in a vacuum. If anything it might hurt innovation and progress due to all of the technological advances that come out of this region, which is very unique in that regard.
This is such a ridiculous comparison for several reasons. Monaco is fully built out and not even a full square mile in land size BUT even they are accommodating new development, high density of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odeon_Tower Forbes Welcome
You named a named a bunch of small exclusive suburbs or resort towns, all of which are dependent on wealth that is generated elsewhere. Without the growth of NYC and Seattle places like Greenwich, CT and Mercer Island would not even exist. These aren't fully functioning economies and metro areas like the Bay Area is and its ridiculous to try to compare the two.
Expanding infrastructure to accommodate you and other transplants put a strain on the environment. You don't think building reservoirs affected wildlife and nature? Building new power plants from dirty power sources didn't hurt the environment? If anything development back then did a lot more damage to the environment back then than today on a per capita basis. And it is because of that irresponsible and unsustainable development model that began after WWII that the Bay Area and other places have the issues they have today. If the Bay Area would have built denser with better public transit in the era after you moved here it wouldn't have as many of the issues today as it does.
The average annual delay per traveler hours in 2003 was 93 in Los Angeles with a travel time index of 1.75. In 2014 it was 80 hours and 1.43 respectively.
I never claimed it was because of increase density but you can argue that part of it was if people drive less since they live closer to jobs and amenities as well as being able to take public transit.
Why now? Why not 1960? 1980? 1990? Stopping development in the Bay Area won't stop population growth or make anywhere any more sustainable as the Bay Area doesn't exist in a vacuum. If anything it might hurt innovation and progress due to all of the technological advances that come out of this region, which is very unique in that regard.
Innovation like food delivery companies or a taxi service?
This is such a ridiculous comparison for several reasons. Monaco is fully built out and not even a full square mile in land size BUT even they are accommodating new development, high density of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odeon_Tower Forbes Welcome
You named a named a bunch of small exclusive suburbs or resort towns, all of which are dependent on wealth that is generated elsewhere. Without the growth of NYC and Seattle places like Greenwich, CT and Mercer Island would not even exist. These aren't fully functioning economies and metro areas like the Bay Area is and its ridiculous to try to compare the two.
Expanding infrastructure to accommodate you and other transplants put a strain on the environment. You don't think building reservoirs affected wildlife and nature? Building new power plants from dirty power sources didn't hurt the environment? If anything development back then did a lot more damage to the environment back then than today on a per capita basis. And it is because of that irresponsible and unsustainable development model that began after WWII that the Bay Area and other places have the issues they have today. If the Bay Area would have built denser with better public transit in the era after you moved here it wouldn't have as many of the issues today as it does.
The average annual delay per traveler hours in 2003 was 93 in Los Angeles with a travel time index of 1.75. In 2014 it was 80 hours and 1.43 respectively.
I never claimed it was because of increase density but you can argue that part of it was if people drive less since they live closer to jobs and amenities as well as being able to take public transit.
Why now? Why not 1960? 1980? 1990? Stopping development in the Bay Area won't stop population growth or make anywhere any more sustainable as the Bay Area doesn't exist in a vacuum. If anything it might hurt innovation and progress due to all of the technological advances that come out of this region, which is very unique in that regard.
Best part about this post (besides the content, of course) is that it's coming from a Bay Area native. Oooops...
With BART, one can always develop mini-cities around the rail stops, with mid to high rise housing, to lessen the density of housing in San Francisco. But is this even possible, with the Nimby's surrounding the rail stops?
I know Oakland and Berkeley has their share of anti-development, anti-density Nimby's, and what of the other areas along the rail stops?
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.
"Density with a little more space"? Heh. What I been saying.
