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.
Well the stars aligned, I wanted to start a thread about the book I read. And then this post pretty much was on target with the book. So I can combine the thoughts into one thread.
This book reviews the policies that shaped the era of "sprawl" and how the pendulum is shifting towards "walkable urbanism" in all types of communities. Also has some good stats, around exactly how many people want the walkable urbanism
Over a few different studies, he compiled into a composite result:
30-35% of people wanted drivable sub-urbanism
30-40% of people wanted walkable urbanism
30-40% of people didn't have a preference on the form
And depending on the metro area, 10-25% of the housing available is walkable urbanism, so we are way undersaturated for this housing type!
And now back to the blog post:
Quote:
“The way households are going to be evolving over the next few decades is toward more singles, empty-nesters, and city-lovers, none of whom particularly want the big yards and long commutes they may have grown up with as kids. A significant market for those things will still exist, but it will be a smaller portion of overall housing demand than it used to be. This new reality means that the communities and businesses that take account of these emerging preferences for smaller homes and lots and more walkable neighborhoods will be the ones that are most successful.”
So there are really two things at work driving the "urbanism" trend. Now I want to clarify now, walkable places can happen in any community. It does not and should not be consolidated in cities only. This trend is impacting both our cities and our "sprawling" suburbs.
So the trends:
1. The number of households with kids is declining (more aging baby boomers, more DINKs, more singles
2. Millenials like more walkable places generally
Now the assumption about millennials, is that they are going to change their preferences when they have kids, and move to the "drivable suburban neighborhoods." But although I am at the cusp of millennial and gen X, I have seen a different pattern. The people who valued walkability, are still looking for walkability in family sized housing. Now some of those people want that in a city, but other people want it in a suburb.
A personal anecdote, my transit-hating friend, is now married with a kid. When she got married, she moved to a walkable neighborhood. Now don't get me wrong, she loves her private car and avoids transit like the plague, but she absolutely loves to be able to walk to her errands etc. So she picked a TOD neighborhood, never intending to take the light rail, simply because her daughter could eventually walk to school and the park (and she could walk to shops).
Her and I have wildly different ideals about the perfect neighborhood, but we both agree that walkability is very key. When she was younger she wanted the big house, big yard in the suburbs, but she traded that for a smaller townhome in a walkable community, even though she has the resources to purchase that "dream."
Quote:
According to analysis by industry advisers RCLCO, 31 percent of Millennials prefer a “core city.” What is particularly significant about this finding is that it is twice the portion of the preceding generation when polled at the same age. Perhaps more to the point, two-thirds wish to live in walkable places and town centers, whether in the inner city or in suburbs. A third will pay more for walkability, and half will trade space for it.
And as for the non-families?
Quote:
Professor Nelson, cited above, believes that, although there will be a continuing demand for large-lot housing, that demand will constitute only 25 percent of the market by 2040. Seventy-five percent will seek either attached or small-lot housing. This makes particular sense when one considers that the number of adults of child-rearing age and the number of households actually living with children will comprise a much smaller portion of the overall market than in previous decades. Nelson estimates that 87 percent of the growth in the housing market through 2040 will comprise households without children.
So there are a ton of trends here that illustrate we need to start thinking differently about neighborhood structure and form. And that there is also a huge unaddressed market. Unfortunately, since the supply of the "walkable" stuff is pretty limited, pricing is going up, and it is also causing displacement and gentrification. And if we don't address the issue soon, the only people who will be able to afford living in a walkable transit oriented place will be the people who can afford to choose transit or not. And that's not fair either.
Eh. I think people will find all types of trends in data depending on what it is they want to believe.
I don't think Millennials are any different from previous generations. During my parents' heyday, once you got tired of hardcore urban living, you moved somewhere like Mt. Airy or East Falls (Philly). If you lived in DC, you moved somewhere like Tenleytown or Shepherd Park. Those areas were very affordable then. The problem this current generation is having is that those properties are becoming harder to come by (in some cities anyway). But I don't think they have values that are really different from the generation that preceded them.
When we're talking about Millennials, I think we need to be clear that we're talking about a very specific type of Millennial. The profile seems to be white, well-educated and middle to upper middle class. There are a lot Millennials (yes, even the white ones) that don't fit that profile. For every Millennial riding public transit while browsing on his iPhone, there are 10 Jesse Pinkmans somewhere in America. I think this current generation, however, can be so self-absorbed that they can't really see beyond their bubble. It's sort of like the NYT article that claimed that Brooklyn is becoming more and more like Park Slope. There's a certain self-centeredness in that type of thinking that can skew one's perception of reality.
Eh. I think people will find all types of trends in data depending on what it is they want to believe.
I don't think Millennials are any different from previous generations. During my parents' heyday, once you got tired of hardcore urban living, you moved somewhere like Mt. Airy or East Falls (Philly). If you lived in DC, you moved somewhere like Tenleytown or Shepherd Park. Those areas were very affordable then. The problem this current generation is having is that those properties are becoming harder to come by (in some cities anyway). But I don't think they have values that are really different from the generation that preceded them.
When we're talking about Millennials, I think we need to be clear that we're talking about a very specific type of Millennial. The profile seems to be white, well-educated and middle to upper middle class. There are a lot Millennials (yes, even the white ones) that don't fit that profile. For every Millennial riding public transit while browsing on his iPhone, there are 10 Jesse Pinkmans somewhere in America. I think this current generation, however, can be so self-absorbed that they can't really see beyond their bubble. It's sort of like the NYT article that claimed that Brooklyn is becoming more and more like Park Slope. There's a certain self-centeredness in that type of thinking that can skew one's perception of reality.
Well I will admit I do live in a slightly skewed region (and am surrounded by people who are similarly educated). But I have been finding a diverse coalition of "millenials" who are drawn to the new more urban/walkable lifestyle. Not just the white hipsters. But it could also be a Bay Area thing.
We don't really have any affordable stuff. And commutes can really suck. So people are hoping to be closer to more transportation options. And then there are the people who don't feel like spending thousands on a car. We have lots of these, both people who don't have the income for cars and the people who have the income and don't want to spend it on a car.
But separately, I think this sort of housing is actually the best/cheapest option for people with less money. Considering transportation is like 15-20% of the average persons budget, and we make too many areas car dependent. If you can give up your car, you end up saving $5-10k a year. Which is a ton if you don't have much money. And also, if you don't have much money, and your "reach" via transit increases because you have more options, it widens your job option radius (which is good as well).
The downtowns of some cities such as LA are unaffordable for anyone save the 'one percenters', and that's never going to change, since not too many folks can afford $450K or moire for a condo; the 'trend' they cite is only in their minds, since this outburst of building highrise condos leads to even higher housing prices while simultaneously result in thousands of folks either getting evicted or being coerced to move at the behest of politicians and their developer buddies.
The so called 'pack-and-stack' housing spree isn't good for the middle class, let alone the working poor, even in cities with world-class public transit systems such as Toronto and San Francisco.
Walkability only applies to very small areas within a city as opposed to an entire city, which a ton of urban planners are really out to lunch on because it doesn't conform to what they were taught in college.
Folks will always need a car for such mundane things as grocery shopping to taking Fido to the vet and lots of other things, which urban planners can't comprehend either.
Well I will admit I do live in a slightly skewed region (and am surrounded by people who are similarly educated). But I have been finding a diverse coalition of "millenials" who are drawn to the new more urban/walkable lifestyle. Not just the white hipsters. But it could also be a Bay Area thing.
The Bay Area has a large Asian population that's nearly as wealthy and educated as the non-Hispanic white population. So that's not surprising. I was really talking about America as a whole. But even in the Bay Area, I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of newcomers to hip areas of Oakland are non-White Hispanics.
I did a tract by tract analysis for DC in a different thread. Looking at some of the most popular gentrifying neighborhoods, whites were moving in at rates that were completely out of sync with their numbers in the metro area and the nation. For example, you would have a tract that's 31% White, 60% Black, 3% Asian and 6% Hispanic. The white population would post a 990% gain between 2000 and 2010 whereas the Asian population would post an 86% gain. That tells you how imbalanced the in-migration to the city is (Asians are 10% of the metro and 3% of the city, btw).
The Bay Area has a large Asian population that's nearly as wealthy and educated as the non-Hispanic white population. So that's not surprising. I was really talking about America as a whole. But even in the Bay Area, I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of newcomers to hip areas of Oakland are non-White Hispanics.
Yes and no. There is a good amount of diversity in the Oakland newcomers actually. Much more diverse than the broader region. But where Oakland is a little different, although a lot of the "hype" is around the new trendy corridors, there are lots of existing walkable areas all over town.
My neighborhood has gained a few white people in the 10 years I have lived here, but it is about 45% white 25% black 20% asian and 15% latino. Average income is $70k. The demographics are really really close to the city's on the whole in my census tract.
We've got BRT planned for the "Latino" district (and it goes deep into poor East Oakland, where the worst of the crime is). It has gentrified a tiny bit, but not by much. But there is TOD right in the middle of the neighborhood coexisting with the mercados.
Oakland is a bit more committed than other places to reign in displacement as much as possible, and there are a dozen organizations working on it. On the other side, it is the hip place for youg professionals of all types. Not just the white hipsters. (That's SF....it is pretty segregated there if you aren't white or asian).
Quote:
I did a tract by tract analysis for DC in a different thread. Looking at some of the most popular gentrifying neighborhoods, whites were moving in at rates that were completely out of sync with their numbers in the metro area and the nation. For example, you would have a tract that's 31% White, 60% Black, 3% Asian and 6% Hispanic. The white population would post a 990% gain between 2000 and 2010 whereas the Asian population would post an 86% gain. That tells you how imbalanced the in-migration to the city is (Asians are 10% of the metro and 3% of the city, btw).
We have some that are like this, like downtown. But considering downtown gained net new housing and didn't have that many people before it isn't a surprise. There is one area that is gentrifying that I'd like to keep my eye on. it is the one adjacent to my census tract. As long as it stays in range diversity wise, then we are doing good.
But I still think, in the US on the whole, people want more walkable neighborhoods. They don't have to be downtown or manhattan like. People won't be throwing away their cars completely, but the trends are we are driving less. And some people are downsizing from a 2 car household to a one car household.
"Success" in fighting off climate change isn't an all or oohing thing ....never drive your car again. But using it less, because you have the option to, means everyone wins.
I know it must be a trend when my parents (who totally were all about big houses and big lots) are starting to think, during retirement, that they'd like to move to start walking to stuff, something is up.
Eh. I think people will find all types of trends in data depending on what it is they want to believe.
I don't think Millennials are any different from previous generations. During my parents' heyday, once you got tired of hardcore urban living, you moved somewhere like Mt. Airy or East Falls (Philly). If you lived in DC, you moved somewhere like Tenleytown or Shepherd Park. Those areas were very affordable then.
I don't know about Tenleytown but this didn't happen in Mt. Airy or East Falls until relatively recently. I'm not saying people weren't moving there but certainly more people were moving out than moving in through the 70s, 80s and even a good chunk of the 90s.
Quote:
The problem this current generation is having is that those properties are becoming harder to come by (in some cities anyway). But I don't think they have values that are really different from the generation that preceded them.
. . . and wouldn't those properties have been cheaper a generation ago because of dwindling demand and harder to come by now because of soaring demand?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that people's values have changed - only that the social and economic reality has changed. It's not so much that people are swooning over urban neighborhoods but that large-lot suburbia has become less attractive.
The downtowns of some cities such as LA are unaffordable for anyone save the 'one percenters', and that's never going to change, since not too many folks can afford $450K or moire for a condo; the 'trend' they cite is only in their minds, since this outburst of building highrise condos leads to even higher housing prices while simultaneously result in thousands of folks either getting evicted or being coerced to move at the behest of politicians and their developer buddies.
Walkable isn't limited to downtown. You can make any community or neighborhood walkable.
My city has a bunch of walkable neighborhoods. All of them are actually better than downtown, since downtown doesn't have any amenities. I live near 3 of them. They are all surrounded by a main street in one way or another. Some have more single family homes, some have more 4 story buildings, and another has mostly condos and apartments of moderate heights (4-5 stories) and a few 8-10 story buildings mixed in. What they all have in common is a walkable main street and decent transit.
Quote:
The so called 'pack-and-stack' housing spree isn't good for the middle class, let alone the working poor, even in cities with world-class public transit systems such as Toronto and San Francisco.
I hate this term. But besides that, there are single family home/large lot people, single family home/small lot people, attached home/row house people, loft people, townhouse people, small building (20-25 units, 3-5 stories), and large building people (50+ units 8+ floors). We have basically only developed housing for the 1st group of people. There are more options out there. Personally, I am in the small building or loft club, I don't want a house.
Quote:
Walkability only applies to very small areas within a city as opposed to an entire city, which a ton of urban planners are really out to lunch on because it doesn't conform to what they were taught in college.
it does, but cities and suburbs can create many walkable places. You don't need only one. And the whole city doesn't need to be walkable. You just create clusters, where the development and housing is a little denser so it feeds the walkability. And you can separate these clusters by single family homes or other uses.
Quote:
Folks will always need a car for such mundane things as grocery shopping to taking Fido to the vet and lots of other things, which urban planners can't comprehend either.
Well i disagree that those tasks require a car, I have successfully grocery shopped without a car....and I know plant of people that don't drive.
But you have 2 big misconceptions here, one: promoting walkability means eliminating cars. These aren't mutually exclusive concepts. But if you make a place more walkable you can use your car less. And two: some of those people who use their car less will decide they don't even need a private car, and they'll "car-share."
So even if they walk more, they still might use a car...and that is OK.
Eh. I think people will find all types of trends in data depending on what it is they want to believe.
I don't think Millennials are any different from previous generations. During my parents' heyday, once you got tired of hardcore urban living, you moved somewhere like Mt. Airy or East Falls (Philly). If you lived in DC, you moved somewhere like Tenleytown or Shepherd Park. Those areas were very affordable then. The problem this current generation is having is that those properties are becoming harder to come by (in some cities anyway). But I don't think they have values that are really different from the generation that preceded them.
When we're talking about Millennials, I think we need to be clear that we're talking about a very specific type of Millennial. The profile seems to be white, well-educated and middle to upper middle class. There are a lot Millennials (yes, even the white ones) that don't fit that profile. For every Millennial riding public transit while browsing on his iPhone, there are 10 (Jesse Pinkmans)
somewhere in America. I think this current generation, however, can be so self-absorbed that they can't really see beyond their bubble. It's sort of like the NYT article that claimed that Brooklyn is becoming more and more like Park Slope. There's a certain self-centeredness in that type of thinking that can skew one's perception of reality.
Agreed! Let me tell you all a little story.
I am an older Boomer. Our parents were kids/young adults, sometimes both, during the Depression. (My mom was 8 when the Depression started, 20 when WW II started; dad was 15-27.) They went through that and WW II, many served. Then they started families and raised kids during the cold war. They volunteered in their kids' schools, and coached Little League. We grew up, and we started looking at them with disdain. We thought they were both too frugal (Depression mentality, we'd say) and too materialistic (two bathrooms, cars, TVs?). While they served, we protested. And WE weren't going to be "married to our jobs"; WE weren't going to be so materialistic, we'd wear jeans and T-shirts instead of suits and ties (or heels) to work. They lived in the suburbs in "little boxes made of ticky-tacky", WE were going to either live in the city in an old hovel, or "off the grid", in communes. It started out that way. But then, something changed. Reagan got elected (with our considerable help, though not from DH or me), everyone got more and more materialistic. We worked instead of calling in sick on a whim. We moved to the burbs. We had kids. We volunteered in their schools and coached sports. Now we're the ones being accused of too work oriented, "suburbanites", materialistic, etc.
What goes around comes around, or the more things change, the more they stay the same.
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.
