The people designing your cities don’t care what you want. They are planning for hipsters.

What is a city for?

It’s a crucial question, but one rarely asked by the pundits and developers who dominate the debate over the future of the American city.

Their current conventional wisdom embraces density, sky-high scrapers, vastly expanded mass transit and ever-smaller apartments. It reflects a desire to create an ideal locale for hipsters and older, sophisticated urban dwellers. It’s city as adult Disneyland or “entertainment machine,” chock-a-block with chic restaurants, shops and festivals.

Overlooked, or even disdained, is what most middle-class residents of the metropolis actually want: home ownership, rapid access to employment throughout the metropolitan area, good schools and “human scale” neighborhoods.

A vast majority of people — roughly 8o percent — prefer a single-family home, whether in the city or surrounding communities. And they may not get “creative” gigs at ad agencies or writers collectives, but look instead for decent-paying opportunities in fields such as construction, manufacturing or logistics. Over the past decade, these jobs have been declining rapidly in “luxury cities” like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles.

In contrast, such jobs, which pay $60,000 to $100,000 annually, have been growing — particularly as the industrial and energy sectors have recovered — in cities like Houston, Austin, Nashville and Salt Lake City. These locales also feature housing, relative to incomes, that is more affordable.

The people designing your cities don?t care what you want. They?re planning for hipsters. - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/15/the-people-designing-your-cities-have-no-idea-what-you-or-the-rest-of-the-middle-class-want/)

The 404 hot link in the story to back up this claim:

A vast majority of people — roughly 8o percent — prefer a single-family home, whether in the city or surrounding communities.

Is here:

Smart Growth and The New Newspeak | Newgeography.com (http://www.newgeography.com/content/002740-smart-growth-and-the-new-newspeak)
Which says:


In the internal data of the 2011 Community Preference Survey commissioned by the National Association of Realtors, no specific question was asked about density, but 52 percent of respondents said, if given a choice, they would prefer to live in traditional suburbs, small towns or the rural countryside. Another 28 percent chose a suburban setting that allowed for some mixed uses (Question 5). Taken together, this shows an overwhelming preference for low densities. Only 8 percent of the respondents favored a central city environment.

As for vibrant urbanism, only 7 percent were “very interested” in living in a place “at the center of it all.” Most people wanted to live “away from it all” (Question 17). An astonishing 87 percent said “privacy from neighbors” was important to them in deciding where to live. One can reasonably infer that a majority of this majority would favor low density places with separated uses rather than crowded, noisy mixed use locations that blur the line between public and private.

When presented with a range of housing choices, 80 percent preferred the “single-family detached house” (Question 6). Only eight percent chose an apartment or condominium. Furthermore, 61 percent preferred a place where “houses are built far apart on larger lots and you have to drive to get to schools, stores, and restaurants” over 37 percent who wanted a place where “houses are built close together on small lots and it is easy to walk to schools, stores and restaurants” (Question 8).

Cities are for hipsters. Small towns and suburbs appeal to people who need a bit of sod to keep sane.

ummmm, is this thread serious or satire? 0_o

Cities are for hipsters. Small towns and suburbs appeal to people who need a bit of sod to keep sane.well, by my count, the number of cougars increases when one enters the city of Edmond, so I'm just fine with the suburbs ;)

Uh oh, now you did it.

So the 'burbs aren't as universally hated as some here might like for the rest of us to believe, eh?

Shocking.

Utterly shocking.

What do you mean universally hated? The 'burbs are preferred by 95+% of OKC's metro population.

So the 'burbs aren't as universally hated as some here might like for the rest of us to believe, eh?

Shocking.

Utterly shocking.

Nobody except maybe JTF has ever said that on here. I think you are a bit smarter than this.

As far as this article is concerned, cities are just responding to what the demand is. I would think a good free market-conservative like Kotkin would appreciate this.

Also, I am starting to notice that "hipster" is become a favorite term of derision for PO'ed baby boomers. It touches on class warfare and ageism in one fell swoop. At a minimum, I seriously doubt the stereotypical hipster can afford most of these projects going up in city centers.

Great article though. Really does point out the realities.

The other thing I find funny, is all of these people are moving to these great cities that are car oriented and want to prioritize mass transit. I believe cars and highways should always be prioritized in nearly every situation. Why are these cities like Dallas so bad if they are the ones attracting hundreds of thousands of people from urban cities like NYC, LA, Chicago etc.

Nobody except maybe JTF has ever said that on here. I think you are a bit smarter than this.

As far as this article is concerned, cities are just responding to what the demand is. I would think a good free market-conservative like Kotkin would appreciate this.

Also, I am starting to notice that "hipster" is become a favorite term of derision for PO'ed baby boomers. It touches on class warfare and ageism in one fell swoop. At a minimum, I seriously doubt the stereotypical hipster can afford most of these projects going up in city centers.If the demand is true, why are people choosing a good highway system over a good light-rail system in Dallas? The only demand I see are a small minority of urbanist and pro-mass transit people demanding more funding towards mass transit, removing highways, and narrowing roads.

Nobody except maybe JTF has ever said that on here. I think you are a bit smarter than this.

As far as this article is concerned, cities are just responding to what the demand is. I would think a good free market-conservative like Kotkin would appreciate this.

Also, I am starting to notice that "hipster" is become a favorite term of derision for PO'ed baby boomers. It touches on class warfare and ageism in one fell swoop. At a minimum, I seriously doubt the stereotypical hipster can afford most of these projects going up in city centers.

Apparently you didn't read the article. The cities meeting demand are those providing single family homes and the like as described by the related survey of what people actually want. As opposed to "The people designing your cities...the pundits and developers who dominate the debate over the future of the American city.

Their current conventional wisdom embraces density, sky-high scrapers, vastly expanded mass transit and ever-smaller apartments. It reflects a desire to create an ideal locale for hipsters and older, sophisticated urban dwellers. It’s city as adult Disneyland or “entertainment machine,” chock-a-block with chic restaurants, shops and festivals.""

Not everybody moving to OKC wants to live downtown. In fact, Edmond is just as popular as ever, and its not just older people who are moving there. I think people in both camps tend to look at it as an either/or proposition instead of both/and. Cities should be striving to offer gentrified vibrant cores as well as attractive suburbs. The best cities are ones that offer ample amenities for both lifestyles.

BTW...Hipster hate and use of the word as a pejorative goes way back. It was so in the beat culture and it has been so for quite sometime in the blogosphere. And so in my own experience of young people using the term that way. (I've never heard a young person offline use it any other way FWIW.) If you want to use your ageism and hate on baby boomers, you missed on this one.

Cite: Why do people hate hipsters? | Fashion | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/oct/14/hate-hipsters-blogs)

Apparently you didn't read the article. The cities meeting demand are those providing single family homes and the like as described by the related survey of what people actually want. As opposed to "The people designing your cities...the pundits and developers who dominate the debate over the future of the American city.

Their current conventional wisdom embraces density, sky-high scrapers, vastly expanded mass transit and ever-smaller apartments. It reflects a desire to create an ideal locale for hipsters and older, sophisticated urban dwellers. It’s city as adult Disneyland or “entertainment machine,” chock-a-block with chic restaurants, shops and festivals.""

I read the article. It was quite light on facts. What does it mean "areas that meet demand"? As it stands now, the total urban population of the largest metros in the US is growing faster than their suburbs. So where is the demand really at? IMO the two will probably draw even in the next few years, but that's still significant.

I guess that's why I don't get this article. The people designing your cities don’t care what you want, yet there seems to be a lot of people who like what they see. Odd.

And at the end of the day, what does it matter what cities do? They have found a niche that successfully caters to a certain segment of the population, while suburbs have their niche. Isn't living in America all about choice? Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything...just giving people another option that has typically not been there.

I read the article. It was quite light on facts. What does it mean "areas that meet demand"? As it stands now, the total urban population of the largest metros in the US is growing faster than their suburbs. So where is the demand really at? IMO the two will probably draw even in the next few years, but that's still significant.you have a link for that? Last I heard suburbs were posting the fastest growth. I'll see if can dig that up

"They" are also targeting baby boomers looking for walkable places to retire.

One thing that has stuck with me from a prior thread on what cities our fellow board members thought were the most beautiful in the world... None of them were skyscraper cities. They were all old European cities with nice, walkable, but relatively flat city centers. Many had a certain Swiss village look to them, others had a very Bavarian flare.

I actually think that most places have gotten city planning all wrong. I think a lot of people out there would prefer a large city that is expansive like the suburbs, but is more of a collection of hubs where you have clusters of two, three, and four story office buildings, shopping, and neighborhood pubs surrounded by condos, row homes, and ranch homes. I think people also want sidewalks, large expanses of pedestrian-only cobblestone streets where street vendors, cafés, and farmers markets flourish.

I think as Americans we also expect a strong highway system. I think where we often fail is that rather than using them to link these city hubs, we instead have them cutting the city up in really dumb and often unattractive ways.

I like the idea of mass transit in the central downtown area for convenience, but honestly I think most people who are just now getting on that band wagon are too late and are missing the massive technological revolution that is coming with driverless computer-controlled cars. I think that plus green technology are about to converge and will make maintaining extensive rail systems more difficult to justify in the years ahead.

I think it would make sense if cities were the fastest growing areas a few years ago but if suburbs are gaining ground again. I think what people often mistake for long-term trends are really just trends that match the demographics of the population and where they are at in their lives. Many millennials are probably now starting to transition into marriage and families, and so a reversal of recent trends would make sense to me.

I think the story author is correct that a big driver is economics. I actually think that is the biggest one. I also think he's kind of a douche.

My daughter lives in Brooklyn and loves the small town feel of the area she lives. No skyscrapers, there - just shops, local grocery, school, etc. My other daughter lives in Manhattan but in a cute little old neighborhood with buildings no higher than 5-6 stories. She also likes the shops and restaurants but I think it is the walkability that attracts her. My son lives in a 13-14 story building that towers over the rest of his neighborhood. He doesn't spend time in that area, rather, he heads to the cute little neighborhoods for walking, biking, eating out and shopping.

I think it would make sense if cities were the fastest growing areas a few years ago but if suburbs are gaining ground again. I think what people often mistake for long-term trends are really just trends that match the demographics of the population and where they are at in their lives. Many millennials are probably now starting to transition into marriage and families, and so a reversal of recent trends would make sense to me.

Questor, I loved your whole post.

I agree with Penny's post, having lived in NYC and considering myself a New Yorker at heart. The areas of Manhattan I like the most are the Village, East Village, Gramercy, and Upper West Side. None of these areas have a predominance of skyscrapers, but all feature walkable, transit-connected areas.

If "suburbs" were more urban and walkable in nature, and connected to the more frenetic urban areas, I would have no problem living there. As it is now, the thought of being marooned in an area where there's nothing to walk to and I have to go everywhere using a car is what keeps me from moving into suburban areas.

And in OKC, you don't have to move to suburbs to buy a home.

A few weeks ago I talked to a young couple who lived in downtown OKC for two years and wanted to buy a home there, but they couldn't find anything so they ended up buying in Edmond. If only they could have waited a couple more years they would have had a plethora of new options to choose from. I think family-oriented urban living will be on the major upswing in the near future as millennials get married and have children. Some of them will move to the suburbs and stay there while others will want to find some kind of balance. Cities that plan for this are cities that will come out ahead in the coming decade. The Wheeler District and neighborhoods like it are definitely the path to be taking.

A vast majority of people — roughly 8o percent — prefer a single-family home, whether in the city or surrounding communities. And they may not get “creative” gigs at ad agencies or writers collectives, but look instead for decent-paying opportunities in fields such as construction, manufacturing or logistics. Over the past decade, these jobs have been declining rapidly in “luxury cities” like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles.

This is an incredibly bizarre article with little to support its thesis. The reality is that he completely ignored the economics and what they show. Now, he says a vast majority prefer single-family homes, whether in the city or surrounding communities. Well no shi*t. People don't live in efficiency's because they PREFER IT, they live there because they PREFER THE CITY and are willing to compromise their living space and pay a boat load to live in the city. It should suprise no one that most people would prefer to have a big cheap house of their own. Well, guess where those are? Now, the reason that cities cost so much to live in is because more people want to live there than the supply of housing, and it sure as hell doesn't make sense to make the problem worse with single family houses.

So, his little number doesn't even speak to how people want their cities designed. If I could buy a single family home in a dense urban area, I'd be all over it and still fall into his shocking "vast majority".

Now let's pretend his number meant something (which it doesn't) about what kind of city people wanted to live in and how they want them design. Let's pretend it meant what he was trying to make us think and that only 20% of all people want to live in an urban setting. Well, guess what: that's a crapload of people and many cities, like Oklahoma City, can not currently meet that demand. Really, urban living has not come at the expense of suburban living, so why they are pitted against each other like this is just weird. However, urban design is much more complicated than suburban design. I mean, just about anyone can draw crooked streets lining 1/4 acre plots of undeveloped land and call it good for a suburban neighborhood. Urban planning takes a lot more into account like preexisting infrastructure, developmental synergy, and integrating denser traffic flows with bikes and pedestrians.

At the end of the day it's really not about hipsters vs. baby boomers. It's about staying competitive and if Oklahoma City gets to a point where it can accommodate a potential 10-20% demand for urban living, I'd say we will have greatly improved our competitive standing. So, as long as we're not looting Edmond homes for their brick to build and rebuild our inner city, why does anyone get all worked up like this joker?

To be sure, suburbs are growing in part because rural areas and smaller towns in general are losing people. These people are not moving from Wewoka to downtown OKC. They're moving to Mustang and Yukon. Likely with their whole family.

The areas of Manhattan I like the most are the Village, East Village, Gramercy, and Upper West Side. None of these areas have a predominance of skyscrapers, but all feature walkable, transit-connected areas.

...and some of the most expensive real estate in the world.

This article is a waste of bandwidth. OKC can't build urban housing fast enough. There's a huge waiting list for anything downtown.

As far as what people "prefer"? Who cares? I would prefer boning Jessica Alba every night, as opposed to, you know, not. Most guys would. But that doesn't take into account scarcity of a resource. My preferred housing? I want to live in that teleporting castle from Krull.

This is an incredibly bizarre article with little to support its thesis. The reality is that he completely ignored the economics and what they show. Now, he says a vast majority prefer single-family homes, whether in the city or surrounding communities. Well no shi*t. People don't live in efficiency's because they PREFER IT, they live there because they PREFER THE CITY and are willing to compromise their living space and pay a boat load to live in the city. It should suprise no one that most people would prefer to have a big cheap house of their own. Well, guess where those are? Now, the reason that cities cost so much to live in is because more people want to live there than the supply of housing, and it sure as hell doesn't make sense to make the problem worse with single family houses.

So, his little number doesn't even speak to how people want their cities designed. If I could buy a single family home in a dense urban area, I'd be all over it and still fall into his shocking "vast majority".

Now let's pretend his number meant something (which it doesn't) about what kind of city people wanted to live in and how they want them design. Let's pretend it meant what he was trying to make us think and that only 20% of all people want to live in an urban setting. Well, guess what: that's a crapload of people and many cities, like Oklahoma City, can not currently meet that demand. Really, urban living has not come at the expense of suburban living, so why they are pitted against each other like this is just weird. However, urban design is much more complicated than suburban design. I mean, just about anyone can draw crooked streets lining 1/4 acre plots of undeveloped land and call it good for a suburban neighborhood. Urban planning takes a lot more into account like preexisting infrastructure, developmental synergy, and integrating denser traffic flows with bikes and pedestrians.

At the end of the day it's really not about hipsters vs. baby boomers. It's about staying competitive and if Oklahoma City gets to a point where it can accommodate a potential 10-20% demand for urban living, I'd say we will have greatly improved our competitive standing. So, as long as we're not looting Edmond homes for their brick to build and rebuild our inner city, why does anyone get all worked up like this joker?

Exactly. Sure there's some demand and OKC will accommodate it. Why get all worked up over the desires of one or two out of ten of the population.

Exactly. Sure there's some demand and OKC will accommodate it. Why get all worked up over the desires of one or two out of ten of the population.

Out of the roughly 600,000 people living in OKC, that's 120,000 people (20%), or roughly the size of Norman. That's a considerable amount of people.

Out of the roughly 600,000 people living in OKC, that's 120,000 people (20%), or roughly the size of Norman. That's a considerable amount of people.

Yep. That's some folks. 480,000 is four times as many. It's good to keep things in perspective.

Yep. That's some folks. 480,000 is four times as many. It's good to keep things in perspective.

I simply pointed that out because it seems like you think 120,000 is quite negligible, which it isn't in the slightest.

I simply pointed that out because it seems like you think 120,000 is quite negligible, which it isn't in the slightest.

Nope. I can cipher 20% with the best and still keep it in perspective.

Out of the roughly 600,000 people living in OKC, that's 120,000 people (20%), or roughly the size of Norman. That's a considerable amount of people.Right now there is less than what, 5,000 people living downtown..... you think that number is going to get up to 120,000 people in OKC?

Not bashing you or saying it won't happen, that would be freaking sweet. I'm sure we'd have one of the largest downtown populations of any city. I'm not even sure Miami has that many people downtown and they have high-rise after high-rise going up and/or built. That is a pretty high number you're putting out there though.

The point is there is a huge market imbalance when it comes to providing the option of walkable urbanism for people who want it. Because policies and lenders have and continue to incentivize automobile sprawl.

There is no justification for what Kotkin says. Policymakers are trying to respond to an unmet need that citizens are demanding, they aren't taking away any existing options. Few policymakers outside of Vancouver or New York are focusing on skyscrapers, they're focusing on the 2-4 story neighborhood centers surrounded by single family and mixed-density housing in walking distance. Many people want this and it exists in a tiny fraction of our development pattern. It becomes very expensive because of its scarcity.

The point is there is a huge market imbalance when it comes to providing the option of walkable urbanism for people who want it. Because policies and lenders have and continue to incentivize automobile sprawl.

There is no justification for what Kotkin says. Policymakers are trying to respond to an unmet need that citizens are demanding, they aren't taking away any existing options. Few policymakers outside of Vancouver or New York are focusing on skyscrapers, they're focusing on the 2-4 story neighborhood centers surrounded by single family and mixed-density housing in walking distance. Many people want this and it exists in a tiny fraction of our development pattern. It becomes very expensive because of its scarcity.Not sure about Vancover, but have you seen how many new skyscrapers are being proposed or built for the NYC area? Talk about density and urban sprawl, skyscrapers reduce sprawl and increase density and the number of people per square mile, something people on here seem to obsess over. NYC is so big, they are running out of room to build.

At times, it almost seems the ones who oppose these tall buildings just don't like them because also appeal to suburbanites. I'd rather have tall buildings then 2-4 story residential developments all over downtown. It's a matter opinion.

Not sure about Vancover, but have you seen how many new skyscrapers are being proposed or built for the NYC area? Talk about density and urban sprawl, skyscrapers reduce sprawl and increase density and the number of people per square mile, something people on here seem to obsess over. NYC is so big, they are running out of room to build.

At times, it almost seems the ones who oppose these tall buildings just don't like them because also appeal to suburbanites. I'd rather have tall buildings then 2-4 story residential developments all over downtown. It's a matter opinion.

I know in areas like NYC, there is a bloodfest that occurs when skyscrapers go up because the view is so precious and new tall buildings block it.

Right now there is less than what, 5,000 people living downtown..... you think that number is going to get up to 120,000 people in OKC?

Not bashing you or saying it won't happen, that would be freaking sweet. I'm sure we'd have one of the largest downtown populations of any city. I'm not even sure Miami has that many people downtown and they have high-rise after high-rise going up and/or built. That is a pretty high number you're putting out there though.


Not sure about Vancover, but have you seen how many new skyscrapers are being proposed or built for the NYC area? Talk about density and urban sprawl, skyscrapers reduce sprawl and increase density and the number of people per square mile, something people on here seem to obsess over. NYC is so big, they are running out of room to build.

At times, it almost seems the ones who oppose these tall buildings just don't like them because also appeal to suburbanites. I'd rather have tall buildings then 2-4 story residential developments all over downtown. It's a matter opinion.

The point that some are making here, is that even if the original story is accurate, if 80% of people are wanting to live in the suburbs, then that still means that there's a HUGE imbalance in the way OKC housing is constructed. We're like 99.5% suburb. We should have like 40 times as many people living downtown, if the figures given in the original story are correct. The original story is about how New Urbanist Nazis are forcing people to build dense walkable neighborhoods when the people don't want it. If their figures are correct, then their conclusion is 100% wrong. We should be building waaaaaay more downtown housing if only 80% want the suburban dream.

That's the point. The original story is a crock.

The point that some are making here, is that even if the original story is accurate, if 80% of people are wanting to live in the suburbs, then that still means that there's a HUGE imbalance in the way OKC housing is constructed. We're like 99.5% suburb. We should have like 40 times as many people living downtown, if the figures given in the original story are correct. The original story is about how New Urbanist Nazis are forcing people to build dense walkable neighborhoods when the people don't want it. If their figures are correct, then their conclusion is 100% wrong. We should be building waaaaaay more downtown housing if only 80% want the suburban dream.

That's the point. The original story is a crock.I don't understand.... if he 80% want to live in the suburban.// whjy not let them?

I don't understand.... if he 80% want to live in the suburban.// whjy not let them?

I don't think he can say it any clearer…

I don't understand.... if he 80% want to live in the suburban.// whjy not let them?

Even if 80% did live in the suburbs, if 20% of OKC residents lived downtown, that would make this city have one of the most vibrant downtowns of any city its size. Right now, less than 1% of the population lives downtown. A full 20% may not desire downtown. 90% may desire suburbs, but even a city with 10% of the population downtown - that's 60,000 people, would be awesome. The truth is nobody is going to make anybody live anywhere they don't want to. What there is, is a much higher demand for urban living in OKC than what is currently available. It may only be 5% of the population, who knows, but the future is about options.

I don't understand.... if he 80% want to live in the suburban.// whjy not let them?

They do live there.

But what about the 20% of people who want to live in an urban neighborhood, but can't because we don't have enough housing?

The article starts from the wrong point, especially for Oklahoma City. The article presumes that urbanists are forcing cities into building what people don't want. It says "80% of people want to live in the suburbs, why are we focusing on building all this urban stuff when only 20% of people want it?" And the reason is, because for the past 60 years, virtually 100% of our development has been suburban. 20% of our population has been forced to live in suburban conditions when they'd prefer urban. But our zoning and land use policies have prevented that 20% from being able to live as they wish.

Let's say 80% of people like mayonnaise on their hamburger. I don't. I go to a diner. I ask for no mayonnaise. They say "well 80% of people like mayonnaise". I tell them that I don't. They say "well 80% of people like mayonnaise, why are you preventing them from eating a hamburger how they want?" I tell them I'm not. Just please let me have my hamburger with no mayonnaise. They say "but 80% of people like mayonnaise, why can't you just scrape it off?" That's what you're basically doing now. Nobody is talking about getting rid of mayonnaise, or the suburbs. What we are saying is that when you have policies that severely restrict urban development, you're preventing that 20% from living how they want to live.

They do live there.

But what about the 20% of people who want to live in an urban neighborhood, but can't because we don't have enough housing?

The article starts from the wrong point, especially for Oklahoma City. The article presumes that urbanists are forcing cities into building what people don't want. It says "80% of people want to live in the suburbs, why are we focusing on building all this urban stuff when only 20% of people want it?" And the reason is, because for the past 60 years, virtually 100% of our development has been suburban. 20% of our population has been forced to live in suburban conditions when they'd prefer urban. But our zoning and land use policies have prevented that 20% from being able to live as they wish.

Let's say 80% of people like mayonnaise on their hamburger. I don't. I go to a diner. I ask for no mayonnaise. They say "well 80% of people like mayonnaise". I tell them that I don't. They say "well 80% of people like mayonnaise, why are you preventing them from eating a hamburger how they want?" I tell them I'm not. Just please let me have my hamburger with no mayonnaise. They say "but 80% of people like mayonnaise, why can't you just scrape it off?" That's what you're basically doing now. Nobody is talking about getting rid of mayonnaise, or the suburbs. What we are saying is that when you have policies that severely restrict urban development, you're preventing that 20% from living how they want to live.

...Coincidentally, I hate mayonnaise. haha.

Why get all worked up over the desires of one or two out of ten of the population.

Money.

When 80% of the market is served and you have 20% that is underserved, that 20% is your growth potential. 20% may be nothing to you, but I'll take 20% growth in my business every time, especially when there is no risk of losing the other 80%.

To use hoya's example, if I ran a burger place and the market showed that if I just added a mayonnaise free burger option, my business would grow 20%, guess what I would do?

I'm not sure what percentage I fall within. I live in Edmond in a large house, on a large lot. I love having an acreage, and a shop, and room for my children to run around and play. This is what I think of, when I think of the "American Dream."

HOWEVER!!!

My wife and I have talked many times, and would absolutely LOVE to live in an urban "downtown" setting. A nice top floor converted warehouse in automobile alley would be ideal. I feel as if this fits my overall tastes much better. But what would we do with the children? What is the infrastructure set up, for schooling? One of the main reasons for living in suburban settings, is because of the schooling. My children attend Deer Creek, and was one of the main deciding factors in us building our house where we did. What options do the downtown area/urban settings offer for schools? There aren't any options, unless you want to ship your kid to McGuiness or Heritage Hall. These are the infrastructure issues, that keep someone like myself from living downtown. So, although I am part of the 80% who live suburban....I'm pretty sure I would be part of the 20% that want to live urban......but it's just not there yet.


And like stated previously.....I think on average, it is your young "single" individuals that are more interested in living downtown/urban areas. And unfortunately, the word "Hipster" has been so loosely used recently that it seems as if almost all young individuals are being unfairly miscatergorized as hipsters.