Is Newcastle the next Moore..............

[Goon]

I don't always agree with Spartan but he makes many very pertinent points about many issues and has been doing so for quite a few years here. He isn't wearing this board sick.

Speaking as a newcomer to the board, I will say reading the elitist trash that litters his sometimes "pertinent points" definitely makes me wary that there is any relevance to be had in his words. Then again, I tend to assume anyone who chooses to categorize an entire group of people as "sheltered white trash" to prove a point instead of using their brain to form a coherent argument is too ignorant to listen to anyway.

Otherwise, I like this board. Aside from the amazing information, most everyone seems civil and well-reasoned. As for Spartan, every village needs their idiot; who am I to stand in the way of a man whose words beg for the honor?

[Garin]

I'm just not so sure of how realistic your bombastic assertion here is... You're absolutely right my friend in theory that the school district is the priority w families and why so many inner cities are bursting at the seems with 20-somethings and still losing population.

However, you named specifics. Newcastle v. NW 23rd and Villa (Shepherd?). I think just bout anyone would make the obvious choice there between having your kids grow up modern and cultured v. white trash and sheltered. You could have named Moore Schools or Norman etc, but you named Newcastle, and that is the subject of this thread as well. We are talking McClain County..

And just to anticipate the outrage over calling Newcastle white trash, granted it isn't quite the home of Jason White, it is actually a much more offensive assumption that OCPS schools are all bad (there isn't even competition between Classen SAS and anything south of Memorial Road) which was a foregone conclusion here from Post 1.

Again I can't say enough, when people want these absurd urb v burb comparisons, have some perspective. It isn't all black and white. Its actually all quite gray.

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

[Garin]

It boils down to school districts when a developer chooses what land he is going to purchase. Plain and simple the wrong school system and you wont be selling any lots. Thats because they are in it to make money not lose.

[Just the facts]

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.

[Zuplar]

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.

What school district do you live in? I also would tend to agree some developers don't even pay attention, but then again those are often the ones that want to make a quick buck.

[Just the facts]

What school district do you live in? I also would tend to agree some developers don't even pay attention, but then again those are often the ones that want to make a quick buck.

I don't live in Oklahoma. With the decreasing number of people even having school aged children, and the trend suggesting that by 2020 80% of all households won't have kids at all - if developers were factoring in school districts, they won't be for long.

[coov23]

I don't live in Oklahoma. With the decreasing number of people even having school aged children, and the trend suggesting that by 2020 80% of all households won't have kids at all - if developers were factoring in school districts, they won't be for long.

I'm 30 years old. Everyone of my friends-- including myself and my wife-- have multiple children. My other friends are trying to have kids. I think your "trend" is way off.

[Zuplar]

I'm 30 years old. Everyone of my friends-- including myself and my wife-- have multiple children. My other friends are trying to have kids. I think your "trend" is way off.

It may not be the norm here, but I know around here it seems as though people are having kids later, and instead of having a ton of kids couples are having just one or 2.

I'm personally glad some people don't have kids, because some people aren't fit to have kids.

[Just the facts]

I'm 30 years old. Everyone of my friends-- including myself and my wife-- have multiple children. My other friends are trying to have kids. I think your "trend" is way off.

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

While married couples with children were the majority decades ago, now nearly 57 percent of U.S. households are childless

[adaniel]

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

See my reply on this here.

[mkjeeves]

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

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.

[Just the facts]

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?

[mkjeeves]

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.

[Just the facts]

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/2012/0...-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/2012/0....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.

[mkjeeves]

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

[mkjeeves]

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

[Garin]

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.

[mkjeeves]

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.

[Just the facts]

2030 is 17 years away.

[mkjeeves]

2030 is 17 years away.

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

[Bunty]

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

And Oklahoma lags national trends.

[LocoAko]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

Sigh.

Pretty sure Garin was being sarcastic.

[catch22]

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

Moving on.

[Garin]

Pretty sure Garin was being sarcastic.

Everything except the zombie part