View Full Version : "Why America’s Young And Restless Will Abandon Cities For Suburbs"



George
07-22-2011, 12:07 PM
Periodically it's good to check one's assumptions and gather information contrary to the received wisdom. In that spirit, here is a provocative article from Forbes (http://blogs.forbes.com/joelkotkin/2011/07/20/why-americas-young-and-restless-will-abandon-cities-for-suburbs/) which, using census data, argues that 25-34 year-olds have been "voting with their feet" and -- contrary to many media reports -- actually have been moving from urban areas to suburban areas. Worth reading and considering.

soonerguru
07-22-2011, 12:20 PM
F--- Forbes.

PennyQuilts
07-22-2011, 12:30 PM
That article certainly makes sense, to me. Better schools, less expensive housing (urban housing in certain cities is extremely expensive) and perhaps the most important thing is that with technology, more people are telecommuting and simply don't need to be in the same office under the same roof with their work mates, everyday. Twenty somethings like to party and run around and it works for them to have everything close in. Middle age married, with kids generally have a different lifestyle and the need to balance the needs of different members of a household so an urban setting often doesn't always work well for them. The suburbs have gotten a bad name but the reasons many people want to avoid the urban core are much more complex than it has frequently been painted.

Even the federal agency that I worked for in Washington ten years ago had satellite offices on the outskirts of DC so that workers could work from home several days a week but go to the satellite office once or twice a week. The traffic was so horrible that this allowed people some semblance of quality of life. These days, more and more employers allow their workers to work/live much greater distances from the hive, allowing them to have a lifestyle in the country if they want. many will settle for a smaller paycheck for the privilege. At my husband's agency, more and more headquarters people live all through the country, which allows their spouses to not have to find new jobs, let's them live in areas with better public schools, live closer to elderly parents, attend their kids' activities (rather than being stuck in traffic trying to get home), etc. They no longer get the DC payscale (which typically is considerably higher) but the cost of living is so much less in Smalltown USA that everyone, including the feds, come out ahead. Having smaller satellite offices hither and yon, or alternatively, allowing people to work from home, is a MUCH greener and energy efficient option than expecting everyone to commute to a central office "just because."

Larry OKC
07-22-2011, 12:31 PM
F--- Forbes.
Unless they are saying things we like to hear.....

LakeEffect
07-22-2011, 12:44 PM
Until you actually look at the numbers used in the Forbes story and find that they can't be verified either. It's written by Joel Kotkin, an anti-urbanist, so he's using the numbers he needs to use to prove his point. The two demographers he uses also wrote an essay/article this past week on New Geography. When clicking through to check their facts, I couldn't verify them either.

Also, on similar note, just saying "suburb" doesn't mean much. Most Millenials want walkable neighborhoods, which can acually be very suburban, so the Forbes article really doesn't mean much. Quality of place is the important factor - just saying urban versus suburban hardly looks at the real issues.

Pete
07-22-2011, 12:48 PM
argues that 25-34 year-olds have been "voting with their feet" and -- contrary to many media reports -- actually have been moving from urban areas to suburban areas.

No, what it says is that when people hit 35 to 44 they tend to move to the suburbs. How is this surprising?


Urban areas are generally for the very young or the empty-nesters. Not many people with school aged kids are living in downtown areas. There are some, but they are in the extreme minority, as would only make sense.

The more interesting analysis would be the numbers of people living in urban areas across all age groups NOW versus twenty years ago. I'm quite sure there would be a strong upward trend across the board.

PennyQuilts
07-22-2011, 12:52 PM
Also, on similar note, just saying "suburb" doesn't mean much. Most Millenials want walkable neighborhoods, which can acually be very suburban, so the Forbes article really doesn't mean much. Quality of place is the important factor - just saying urban versus suburban hardly looks at the real issues.
Yup, this is interesting. Plenty of folks can get walkable neighborhoods from a small town as easily as they can from the urban core - only cheaper, less crime and often with better schools.

George
07-22-2011, 01:21 PM
...what it says is that when people hit 35 to 44 they tend to move to the suburbs...

I believe the actual methodology was to look at the 25-34 aged cohort in 2000, then look at this same cohort in 2010, when the ages would be 35-44. If a member of the group moved, they moved sometime between 2000 and 2010 -- but the study doesn't try to determine exactly when. Given birthday/census timing, an urban-to-suburban move could conceivably have been anytime during ages 25-44.

bluedogok
07-22-2011, 08:19 PM
It's a Kotkin piece......a noted anti-urban writer. He loves his burbs and looks for any chance to disparage urban development.

Most of that is based data from existing cities with densely populated urban areas, not cities that have not had urban residential and are just now building it. I know of many young and old who have been moving into Downtown Austin. There there will always be some out migration to the burbs once some of them have children because they have had it beaten into their heads that "the city isn't the kind of place to raise children". What I think is more telling is how few of the younger generation are planning on having children like the generations before them. Most of the people that I know from their mid-30's and younger have no interest in having children, the ones who want children tend to have them in their late 20's and most of them never lived in an urban area anyway.

metro
07-22-2011, 08:54 PM
As a person in respected age demographic, this guy is totally off base, oh and I have a child too

PennyQuilts
07-22-2011, 09:35 PM
He is working with stats. Agree or disagree, hard to debate the numbers if the numbers are true.

stlokc
07-22-2011, 09:48 PM
I'm sure these numbers are true. Families will probably always tend to gravitate to the suburbs. But here's the thing: As the 35 year olds move out, there's always going to be another crop of 25 year olds coming up behind them. Successful cities have vibrant urban options for young people and empty-nesters, as well as suburban options for those in their child-rearing years. A city the size of OKC, for example, will always, from one year to the next, have tens of thousands of people for whom schools and suburban lifestyles are not the overriding priority. Plenty of room for both cohorts of people. Plenty of room to grow substantially in the inner core as waves of people move in and out. If OKC grows by 15% a decade, it stands to reason that the young and childless will grow by roughly the same percentage, even as the number of families also increases exponentially. This is not any kind of validation of suburb over city, it's a reflection of the way the world works.

soonerguru
07-22-2011, 09:50 PM
This is a great example of how numbers can be used to make a flawed argument. I'm sure he'll have a few adherents and defenders here. Of course there are tons of people moving to Deer Creek and Moore and Choctaw, but there are also a lot of people moving to urban areas. We will never stop the sprawl, we just need to create a competing alternative, and we are. It's not a given, for example, that inner-city schools will always be bad, or that inner-city areas will have "lots of crime." Perceptions are what they are, but they're not always accurate. Some of the best schools in the state are inner-city public schools, such as Classen SAS and Booker T Washington in Tulsa.

Clearly the writer is trying to make his case, and he did, but it's an incomplete one.

There's a reason this site is not known as "Edmond Talk." It's because most of the folks here want to see this city improve, and are passionate to see that happen. We may not always agree on everything, but we agree on making OKC the best it can be.

I'm sure as hell not going to take one left-field argument from Forbes and abandon the effort to improve this CITY. And I sure as hell don't want to live in some freaking suburb, and I'm a married man with a child in public schools.

Questor
07-23-2011, 08:29 AM
If you follow the link from within that story that goes to a story about census data, you will find:


Yet of the 51 metropolitan areas that have more than 1 million residents, only three—Boston, Providence, and Oklahoma City—saw their core cities grow faster than their suburbs. (And both Boston and Providence grew slowly; their suburbs just grew more slowly. Oklahoma City, meanwhile, built suburban-style residences on the plentiful undeveloped land within city limits.)


So whatever point that was trying to be proven by this article, it is completely wrong with respect to OKC and the data proves it.

PennyQuilts
07-23-2011, 09:00 AM
If you follow the link from within that story that goes to a story about census data, you will find:


Yet of the 51 metropolitan areas that have more than 1 million residents, only three—Boston, Providence, and Oklahoma City—saw their core cities grow faster than their suburbs. (And both Boston and Providence grew slowly; their suburbs just grew more slowly. Oklahoma City, meanwhile, built suburban-style residences on the plentiful undeveloped land within city limits.)

So whatever point that was trying to be proven by this article, it is completely wrong with respect to OKC and the data proves it.

"within city limits" covers a lot of territory. Last I checked, even west of Mustang you are still in the city.

http://okc.gov/council/wardmap/wardmap.pdf

Questor
07-23-2011, 09:41 AM
Since all cities were scored equally the same way, be it the sprawl of Dallas city proper or LA, my argument that OKC has bucked the trend of the rest of the country is still valid. Even cities larger in mass then us (such as Jacksonville) didn't out perform us. That aside, census data is provided by zip code, so if you think your implication is true it should be pretty easy for you to prove that empirically. Which if you buy the rest of the guy's opinion without argument, then I don't know why you wouldn't accept the one OKC statement in the article the guy cites as valid as well.

Questor
07-23-2011, 09:47 AM
I also find the article a bit misleading in that the real estate bubble has taken out a lot of downtown housing, or at least people's ability to live there. That being the case I am not sure that one can so easily look at 2000 data, and then 2010 and draw a specific conclusion. As is usually the case with life, the answers are probably a lot more complex than can be boiled down to a single opinion.

Snowman
07-23-2011, 04:28 PM
In areas like ours a lot of people are coming from the suburbs and moving to the city would be the choice. To go to an area that is more expensive, often still know people or have family in said suburb and know the area better. Their are perks and drawbacks, it won't be for everyone.

betts
07-23-2011, 04:38 PM
We're frequently a bit behind other cities. Downtown is just now becoming a place people are considering living, whereas in some cities it's always been the more desirable and in others it's had a resurgence over the last 15 years. And, as others have said, the people moving to the burbs are those with a bunch of kids. I've been through the whole thing myself: Originally I had no yard, then a small yard and I dreamed of having an acreage and living outside the city. Then I got my acreage and discovered that it was a big pain in the neck, not to mention really expensive to maintain, or messy if I didn't maintain it. So, I downsized to a big lot and after while, even it was too big. Now I've got my little 6 x 6 plot of land and pots on my balconies and I'm happy with that. Those changes began with unmarried apartment living to married with children to empty nester (usually). I suspect the same is true for a lot of people and so, at any given point in time, some people are moving in and some are moving out. I'm just happy that here, more are moving in than before.

shane453
07-23-2011, 06:56 PM
Kotkin is a notorious cherry-picker with data when it means he can criticize urban areas and glorify the suburbs. What would he have to say about this article (from last week), which explains how Minneapolis is having trouble adjusting to the rapid influx of young families in downtown. Number of kids under age 5 has tripled in downtown Minneapolis since 2000- young families are moving to urban cores and having children there. http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/125692778.html

soonerguru
07-23-2011, 07:03 PM
He seems to completely ignore cities like Portand in which there has been an explosion of people moving into the central city to live. One barrier to young people moving to urban areas is price: even in OKC "downtown housing" is mostly for the well off.

krisb
07-24-2011, 09:31 AM
As downtown areas become gentrified, they are no longer friendly to artists and young hipsters making $30,000 per year. In Oklahoma City, you will find more of this demographic in the surrounding pocket urban neighborhoods (i.e. Plaza District, Paseo). Suburbia now has more immigrants and eclectic offerings than some downtown areas. If suburbia can retrofit itself to become walkable and mixed-use then it may become viable competition to the central core.

Questor
07-24-2011, 12:06 PM
Those are all interesting points betts. You know one thing I view as a big driver for my generation is the desire to live someplace 'brand new.' I know so many people who just have to live in a new house or a new apartment. I have to admit that I suffer from this myself. I have to wounder if the reasons for flight out of most downtowns isn't simply that they are old and a bit worn down, and the reason why OKC's is fairing better is because so many places are new and have modern amenities. This makes sense to me because I know all around the country many old neighborhoods that are 'transitional' and coming back to life are being significantly redeveloped in.

bluedogok
07-24-2011, 12:43 PM
As downtown areas become gentrified, they are no longer friendly to artists and young hipsters making $30,000 per year. In Oklahoma City, you will find more of this demographic in the surrounding pocket urban neighborhoods (i.e. Plaza District, Paseo). Suburbia now has more immigrants and eclectic offerings than some downtown areas. If suburbia can retrofit itself to become walkable and mixed-use then it may become viable competition to the central core.
Down here most of the "affordable housing" for sale are now on the fringes of Austin, you can get a "new" house for much less than anything anywhere close to Central Austin (south of 183, north of Ben White/290, west of I-35 and east of Lake Austin). It is amazing what some of the small bungalows even 5 or 6 miles north of downtown sell for. I have been looking for one to redo in some areas and it was surprising to me.


Those are all interesting points betts. You know one thing I view as a big driver for my generation is the desire to live someplace 'brand new.' I know so many people who just have to live in a new house or a new apartment. I have to admit that I suffer from this myself. I have to wounder if the reasons for flight out of most downtowns isn't simply that they are old and a bit worn down, and the reason why OKC's is fairing better is because so many places are new and have modern amenities. This makes sense to me because I know all around the country many old neighborhoods that are 'transitional' and coming back to life are being significantly redeveloped in.
Much of the urban infill in Austin is "new", some are quality and others are crap, just because something is "new" doesn't mean they are quality. My wife manages some rental condo properties, the "new" units are a maintenance nightmare, there is something always breaking at them and they were new, ground up construction. The older (built in the 70's) remodeled units they have require less maintenance. My parents house is a small 3 bed, 1 bath, 1 car in the Hilldale area built in the mid-50's, that is much better quality than almost anything that I see built new here, that includes many $1,000,000+ homes because the same crews work on houses whether they are 150,000 or 1,000,000. The $38 million house that we are working on under construction is a completely different animal and the cost dictates that, the general contractor and subs are mostly from the commercial construction world.

Most large home builders build nothing but temporary crap, that is one thing that OKC has been lucky with, most of the large national builders haven't been in the market and there are many good, small, local builders in the market.

PennyQuilts
07-24-2011, 05:10 PM
He seems to completely ignore cities like Portand in which there has been an explosion of people moving into the central city to live. One barrier to young people moving to urban areas is price: even in OKC "downtown housing" is mostly for the well off.

Portland has become the go to place for young professionals abandoning NYC. A lot of lawyers are heading that way. Jobs have disappeared in the Big Apple and within the last couple of years, Oregon opened up its reciprocity to allow certain groups of lawyers licensed in NY to be admitted to the Oregon bar without having to take the bar. Prior to that, it was one of the few states that still made lawyers re-take the bar - no small impediment to moving.

It makes perfect sense that city dwellers leaving NYC would be apt to look for a place that is comfortable to them.

soonerguru
07-24-2011, 08:16 PM
Portland has become the go to place for young professionals abandoning NYC. A lot of lawyers are heading that way. Jobs have disappeared in the Big Apple and within the last couple of years, Oregon opened up its reciprocity to allow certain groups of lawyers licensed in NY to be admitted to the Oregon bar without having to take the bar. Prior to that, it was one of the few states that still made lawyers re-take the bar - no small impediment to moving.

It makes perfect sense that city dwellers leaving NYC would be apt to look for a place that is comfortable to them.

That is interesting. I didn't know that. One thing I have been aware of is very high unemployment in the Portland area. Not sure if that's turned around of late.

PennyQuilts
07-24-2011, 08:42 PM
That is interesting. I didn't know that. One thing I have been aware of is very high unemployment in the Portland area. Not sure if that's turned around of late.

I know quite a few NYC lawyers with feelers out in case something opens up in Portland.

Spartan
07-25-2011, 02:58 PM
Yup, this is interesting. Plenty of folks can get walkable neighborhoods from a small town as easily as they can from the urban core - only cheaper, less crime and often with better schools.

Your crusade against urbanism is noted.

krisb
07-25-2011, 09:56 PM
Your crusade against urbanism is noted.

Many new urbanist communities are strikingly similar to small town main streets. Millions of people and high rises are not necessary to create the urban form. All you need is a continuous stock of mid-rise buildings with a mix of uses and a modest population density.

Spartan
07-25-2011, 10:52 PM
The man speaks the truth.

FRISKY
07-26-2011, 05:00 AM
It will be interesting to see how this works out.


DETROIT (WWJ) – Employees of five downtown-based companies are being given financial incentives to live where they work.

DTE Energy’s Paul Hillegonds says the trend is already there, with a number of young professionals and creative types hanging their hat in downtown Detroit lofts and apartments.

Now, the plan is to create greater density in surrounding neighborhoods, but not just for the younger set.

“We have a number of probably empty-nesters, but also a number of retirements ahead with younger people who will be coming to work in Detroit at DTE headquarters,” Hillegonds told WWJ Newsradio 950′s Ron Dewey.

“And I think we’re going to see growing interest in living in Detroit,” he said.

Blue cross Blue Shield President CEO Dan Leopp thinks the program will work.

“Our first application came in via email at 10 a.m., and we’ve already gotten about a half-a-dozen phone calls. So, I think clearly I believe the demand is there,” Leopp said.

Blue Cross is offering incentives to their 16,000 employees to buy or rent downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. It’s a seed program to attract more development and more people to the city.

In the five-year, $4 million “Live Downtown” program, first-time home buyers will get a $20,000 forgivable loan. Renters will get a $2,500 first year allowance, and $1,000 the following year. Employees who already own a home in the city will be given up to a $5,000 grant for exterior improvements.

“Everything is market, and if you’ve got bodies and you’ve got volume, it’s gonna attract business, it’s gonna attract retail. You’ve gotta have that density and that’s what we’re trying to do,” Loepp said.

Other companies taking part are Compuware, Quicken Loans and Strategic Staffing Solutions.

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2011/07/25/program-offers-cash-incentives-to-live-downtown/

Questor
07-31-2011, 01:38 AM
Much of the urban infill in Austin is "new", some are quality and others are crap, just because something is "new" doesn't mean they are quality. My wife manages some rental condo properties, the "new" units are a maintenance nightmare, there is something always breaking at them and they were new, ground up construction.

All definitely true. I once lived in some old condos build in the 1920s, and the thing that struck me about the place was that the closets were absolutely tiny. Guess people of that era didn't have that many clothes. Also, the rooms were all very compartmentalized and walled off from one another. When I say that a lot of people including myself prefer "new," at least with me it isn't to be free from maintenance but rather it is a desire to live somewhere with modern amenities and aesthetics... big closets, master baths, open architectures in the living and kitchen spaces, space for modern appliances, and so on. I'm pretty sure any old place could have its interior gutted and redesigned to make all of this so, but I guess I just don't see how that would be economically realistic in places like Oklahoma and Texas.

I really do love old neighborhoods though, especially ones with unique architecture and lots of big old trees.

bluedogok
07-31-2011, 09:14 AM
All definitely true. I once lived in some old condos build in the 1920s, and the thing that struck me about the place was that the closets were absolutely tiny. Guess people of that era didn't have that many clothes. Also, the rooms were all very compartmentalized and walled off from one another. When I say that a lot of people including myself prefer "new," at least with me it isn't to be free from maintenance but rather it is a desire to live somewhere with modern amenities and aesthetics... big closets, master baths, open architectures in the living and kitchen spaces, space for modern appliances, and so on. I'm pretty sure any old place could have its interior gutted and redesigned to make all of this so, but I guess I just don't see how that would be economically realistic in places like Oklahoma and Texas.

I really do love old neighborhoods though, especially ones with unique architecture and lots of big old trees.
I was mainly addressing how some want "new" for the sake of having new when in most cases most of the older properties are better constructed and many could be made into more updated spaces. There is a lot of that being done in the near downtown areas of Austin, the rents/home prices can certainly justify it. I looked at one a few years ago that was redone in the Travis Heights area just south of downtown and they were asking $975,000, there were 800sf bungalows there in the 200's but most of that was land value, for those the houses would be demolished with new, bigger houses built. Most near downtown areas can be renovated/updated or built with new infill and still be profitable.

Some of it is just the trends at the time of construction, taller ceilings were used extensively until the post war era, you had lots of windows and deep shaded porches for passive cooling since no one had air conditioning. People lived in much smaller spaces as well, you would have a family of six living in a 1,000 sf home, yesterday I looked at an 1,200 sf house that would be just for one person. Since the economy was not as consumption based people just didn't have as much stuff so less storage was needed. Bathrooms and bedrooms were really just for the tasks intended, families spent time together in the family room or outside. My great-grandfathers house in Heritage Hills was a pretty open plan on the ground floor, my grandparents house near 22nd & Classen was very open in the front part of the house, in the post war era and the explosion of the suburban tract home by builders changed the style of homes greatly.

PennyQuilts
07-31-2011, 04:52 PM
Your crusade against urbanism is noted.

Got a little notebook, Spartan? =)

Larry OKC
07-31-2011, 09:02 PM
Questor: Small tiny closets aren't really that unusual in older buildings and even more of an oddity to us today are those places without closets at all! Sometimes see that on HGTV's House Hunters and seems to be even more prevalent in other countries. As you said, people had less clothes and many people used chests, dressers and armouirs (sp). taking their closets/storage with them.