the trend suggesting that by 2020 80% of all households won't have kids at all


It's not my trend - it comes from the US Census. I have two kids myself.

U.S. families shift as fewer households include children: Census | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/27/us-usa-families-idUSBRE97Q0TJ20130827)

The article cited doesn't suggest any such thing in that time frame.

The part you snipped was about married couples, which you left off.

Also says: In 2012, 66 percent of households consisted of two or more people related by birth, marriage or adoption living together, compared with 81 percent in 1970.

20% change over 42 years? So that 66% would be 53% in another 42 years at that rate.

So yeah, there is a trend over many decades of fewer kids and fewer people being married, but nothing earth shattering to happen in a decade and a half.
People are still having kids and more of them are single parents living with them, still in the burbs. An anecdote...three of my closest neighbors in the burbs are single parents living with their kids.

For the love of Pete - do I have to do everything?


While married couples with children were the majority decades ago, now nearly 57 percent of U.S. households are childless. In 2012, about 29 percent included childless married couples and nearly 28 percent included people living alone.

Of the 57% of households that are childless - 29% are married couple without kids and 28% are people living alone (by definition - without kids). 29 + 28 = 57. The other 43% are married people with children, single parent with child, or divorced parent with children. However, once a child is born it takes at least 18 years for that child to work their way through the statistics. When the 18 year old drops off one end a new baby would need to be added at the other just for the rate of change to remain constant (because the 18 year old that just dropped off become a single person living alone). But we know the birthrate is dropping so the rate of change is increasing. Let me guess - your "20% change over 42 years? So that 66% would be 53% in another 42 years at that rate." didn't take that into account?

Show me the math from stats and claims in the article that show 80% of households won't have children by 2020.

It isn't there. (There's not enough data in the article to nail that down for the group.)

That was your claim, not theirs.

Where they did have enough data, on a different but related point, the change was over 42 years and not significant enough to remotely indicate changes are happening at the pace you claim. That was my point in using it.

Let me find the 80% number. I posted it in another thread not long ago. However, it might have been 2030 not 2020.

On edit

http://saportareport.com/blog/2012/06/housing-and-demographic-trends-are-changing-how-our-cities-will-develop/


Arthur “Chris” Nelson, director of the Metropolitan Research Center at the University of Utah who previously had been a professor of planning and public policy at Georgia Tech - See more at: http://saportareport.com/blog/2012/06/housing-and-demographic-trends-are-changing-how-our-cities-will-develop/#sthash.gq0WYEva.dpuf

...

And by 2030, only 29 percent of the nation’s households are expected to have children.

He puts it at 29% by 2030 and I said 20% by 2020 (although I am pretty sure I was wrong on the 2020 part). Anyhow, if helps settle the point I will agree with 29% by 2030. In 17 years 71% of households will not have children.

So, will Newcastle be the next Moore? Maybe, but it will take families moving from Moore to make it happen because very little of the 71% will be moving to Newcastle. Not sure what happens to all the single family homes in Moore though.

Here's the census report. The trend you're looking for might be in the data somewhere with some study but I don't think it says what you think it does in the time scale you think.

However, look at page 5. The graph shows something pretty interesting, the percentage of married couples without children has stayed pretty much the same since 1970, about 30% of the total household types. (I would have never guessed that but I'm not sure why.)

What has changed are the other groups. Married with children has gone down, while all the other groups have gone up. Notably would be Other Family Households. By the definitions given, that would be two or more people with one being the householder and the other being a birth or adopted child.

So I buy people are having fewer children (even though I haven't seen the actual stat.) But part of what has happened is we have more single parent households. I think we knew that.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-570.pdf

If you're looking...I said page 3 originally but it's on page 5! Figure 1.

I don't think subdivision developers take the local district into account as much as some of you seem to think. If they did they wouldn't build subdivision where local schools don't even exist. What the real-estate agent tells you and what the developer builds are two very different things. I remember when we bought our house, the agent raved about how good the local school was. Now we have lived here 10 years and we know that was a flat-out lie. Our builder choose this site because it was 500 acres of cheap contiguous undeveloped land close to existing arterial roads - and that is the only reason.


The wrong school district is the death nail for families with children. If you don't have school aged kids it doesn't matter.

I see you edited your post. Let's look at it again.

The claim on the new cite:


In 1970, 45 percent of the U.S. households had children. In 2000, that had dropped to 33 percent. And by 2030, only 29 percent of the nation’s households are expected to have children.

So over thirty years from 1970 to 2000 it decreased by a factor of 27%. (33% divided by 45%)

He predicts the next thirty years will show an additional 12% decrease. (29% divided by 33%)

Yep, there's a trend there with some small changes over many decades but nothing remotely at the pace of your original claims. There still will be plenty of people seeking housing in the foreseeable future. We'll hardly notice the difference in our lifetimes if the prediction comes true.

2030 is 17 years away.

2030 is 17 years away.

Exactly. It won't be hardly any different than it is now. The end is not near.

Exactly. It won't be hardly any different than it is now. The end is not near.

And Oklahoma lags national trends.

I very well could have mentioned Moore or Norman, I was raised in Moore schools and my 3 kids attend them now. Moore does not really have an inner city so to speak and Norman in the same type boat. However that being said i would send my children to the worst Moore or Norman school before ever allowing them to attend an OKC public school. Newcastle was use Sparti because its in the the title of the thread. I will never understand why people want to live in the inner city on top of each other. Haven't you ever seen the walking dead the big citys are the first to zombify. I take a nice suburban neighborhood myself with a yard and sidewalks and other kids for mine to play with. You can keep your buses,bike and light rail all to yourself

Sigh.

Sigh.Pretty sure Garin was being sarcastic.

He sounds like the old people who came from Tuttle to OKC city council to speak against the streetcar.

Moving on.

Pretty sure Garin was being sarcastic.


Everything except the zombie part :o

I very well could have mentioned Moore or Norman, I was raised in Moore schools and my 3 kids attend them now. Moore does not really have an inner city so to speak and Norman in the same type boat. However that being said i would send my children to the worst Moore or Norman school before ever allowing them to attend an OKC public school. Newcastle was use Sparti because its in the the title of the thread. I will never understand why people want to live in the inner city on top of each other. Haven't you ever seen the walking dead the big citys are the first to zombify. I take a nice suburban neighborhood myself with a yard and sidewalks and other kids for mine to play with. You can keep your buses,bike and light rail all to yourself

Being on top of other people isn't that bad.

Besides, I just don't know how families in places not called Oklahoma do it. They must not be real families lol

Being on top of other people isn't that bad.Completely subjective. Never in a hundred years would I want to raise a family in an urban environment. Sid, he probably could never see himself living in a suburban neighborhood in Edmond. You, you probably enjoy living in an urban living environment and that's great. Just don't even try to take away providing bus service, building big freeways/tollways, police/fire/medical, sewage and electric services etc, to people who sprawl out just because they don't want to live in a dense area.


Besides, I just don't know how families in places not called Oklahoma do itWon't even mention the fact that Ohio has plenty of suburban communities and I'm sure Cleveland has its fair share of sprawl, but over an ocean away lies South Africa with plenty of suburban communities.


They must not be real families lolHas anyone ever insinuated that? I have missed it if that was the case.

Completely subjective. Never in a hundred years would I want to raise a family in an urban environment. Sid, he probably could never see himself living in a suburban neighborhood in Edmond. You, you probably enjoy living in an urban living environment and that's great. Just don't even try to take away providing bus service, building big freeways/tollways, police/fire/medical, sewage and electric services etc, to people who sprawl out just because they don't want to live in a dense area.

Won't even mention the fact that Ohio has plenty of suburban communities and I'm sure Cleveland has its fair share of sprawl, but over an ocean away lies South Africa with plenty of suburban communities.

Has anyone ever insinuated that? I have missed it if that was the case.

Oh please this thread is all about keeping up with the Joneses in the suburb over

Oh please this thread is all about keeping up with the Joneses in the suburb overNot saying I agree with it man, just stating my opinion to your response.

Oh please this thread is all about keeping up with the Joneses in the suburb over

No, but thanks for dropping by to add your patented condesension and limited intellect to an otherwise decent discussion about the development of Moore.

Feel free to go back to your 300 story urban utopia in ...ahem...cleveland and leave us backwoods suburban folk to our rickshaws and stick house single story shanties. Somehow I think we'll manage without you and your "advice"

But this is a forum lolz. If you so badly dislike what others say, it might not be for you. Sorry to spoil your morning lurk.

Saying we're trying to keep up with the Joneses is like us saying you're trying to keep up with the jefferson's.

Saying we're trying to keep up with the Joneses is like us saying you're trying to keep up with the jefferson's.

What exactly do you mean by that?

Yeah, that was a curious comment..?

Saying we're trying to keep up with the Joneses is like us saying you're trying to keep up with the jefferson's.

Yeah, I gotta ask as well, what are you saying with that comment?

It must mean something about "the deluxe apartment in the sky" and "having a piece of the pie". LOL

Ya what he said ^^^^^

But this is a forum lolz. If you so badly dislike what others say, it might not be for you. Sorry to spoil your morning lurk.

And now you've proven my premise. Outstanding.