"Why America’s Young And Restless Will Abandon Cities For Suburbs"

[George]

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 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]

F--- Forbes.

[PennyQuilts]

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]

F--- Forbes.

Unless they are saying things we like to hear.....

[LakeEffect]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

As a person in respected age demographic, this guy is totally off base, oh and I have a child too

[PennyQuilts]

He is working with stats. Agree or disagree, hard to debate the numbers if the numbers are true.

[stlokc]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/min...125692778.html

[soonerguru]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.