Related to this, I remember reading that the fewer than 500 counties that Hillary Clinton won were responsible for nearly 2/3rds of US GDP. Basically it was a story of the economically productive areas vs. the non-productive areas.
The metro areas are growing for sure and look to continue as rural America empties out. I'm sure there will be some sort of argument about places in the west or south that are growing around employment nodes outside what we'd generally consider a traditional core (like NYC, Boston, or Chicago has) really being proof that suburbia is superior but it's really just a consequence of those places being built out differently (more auto dependent largely).
Perhaps it's just my area - but in general if you live out in 'burbs then you are in at minimal a different city - and often a different county as well. I don't get to vote on anything for the city, and I gladly don't pay any taxes to them either.
Aside from going in-town to work, I wouldn't step foot in downtown. Hell, by 5PM on weekdays you just see tumbleweeds from how empty it is. No one wants the inner-city. Majority of restaurants save for a few hotel ones for people traveling are only open for lunch.
Millennials might CLAIM to want to be in the city, but when they actually grow a pair in life and learn to earn more than $40k and start having a wife/kids - they all go right back to where previous generations have gone... the suburbs.
Millennials might CLAIM to want to be in the city, but when they actually grow a pair in life and learn to earn more than $40k and start having a wife/kids - they all go right back to where previous generations have gone... the suburbs.
https://www.theguardian.com/society...g-suburbs-america-housing-crisis-urban-exodus
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...g-to-suburbs-will-change-economic-development
Related to this, I remember reading that the fewer than 500 counties that Hillary Clinton won were responsible for nearly 2/3rds of US GDP. Basically it was a story of the economically productive areas vs. the non-productive areas.
They have to move because prices are high not because cities are undesirable. This is a consequence of how zoning staunched off urban housing supply not generally a deep lust of millennials for suburban life. Even still a lot of them aren't opting for the 4K sq foot McMansions on big lots in the exurbs. Inner and mid ring suburbs seem to be turning over faster with houses that much more resemble city houses on narrow lots based on what I've seen. It's driving a few of my coworkers crazy because they are having trouble selling their large homes to today's buyers.
How do you square your idea that nobody wants to live in the cities with the fact that people keep paying ever more money to live in the cities?
It's really nuts in Denver's more desirable close-in neighborhoods. People pay $500K+ for small bungalows in SE Denver, scrape them off & put up 2K-2.5K sq ft homes. Our neighborhood, Baker, is a historical district so that doesn't happen but it's quite common for 130 year old homes to be totally renovated inside.
It's really nuts in Denver's more desirable close-in neighborhoods. People pay $500K+ for small bungalows in SE Denver, scrape them off & put up 2K-2.5K sq ft homes. Our neighborhood, Baker, is a historical district so that doesn't happen but it's quite common for 130 year old homes to be totally renovated inside.
Houston. I'm talking SPECIFICALLY downtown. The majority of restaurants are lunch/breakfast only.What city do you live near where all the restaurants in the city proper are only open for lunch?
If that's the case then why do housing prices in cities continue to increase? If no one wants the inner city that should mean that prices should be going down. In my neighborhood over the last 5 years prices have gone up by about (EDIT: it's more like 50%), which would imply surging demand. How do you square your idea that nobody wants to live in the cities with the fact that people keep paying ever more money to live in the cities?
I was born in 1980 so depending on how you classify me I'm either a super young GenX-er or a super old millennial. My wife and I long ago learned how to make a great deal more than $40k a year and we have absolutely zero desire to live in the suburbs and I have lots of friends who feel the same way. The people YOU know might want to live in the suburbs but that's most likely the result of selection bias because... you live in the suburbs.
The close-in neighborhoods (the classic "Downtown" neighborhood") are typically some of the least populated in most major Eastern cities, and as pointed out earlier the western and southern cities tend to be more dispersed and often don't have a true "downtown core." The densest parts of many cities are a neighborhood or two in midtown and along the edges of city limits. Then populations explode in the surrounding suburbs.
DC is a good example since like SF its boundaries are well defined. There's only 633k people in the city proper out of 6.2mm in the entire metro (so basically 1/10th). The biggest city neighborhood is in midtown (Columbia Heights) with a little over 30k people. The Downtown neighborhood only has about 3k residents. Meanwhile in the nearby counties, Fairfax has 1.148mm residents compared to DC's 600k, Montgomery has 1.059mm, Prince Georges 912k.
The close-in neighborhoods (the classic "Downtown" neighborhood") are typically some of the least populated in most major Eastern cities, and as pointed out earlier the western and southern cities tend to be more dispersed and often don't have a true "downtown core." The densest parts of many cities are a neighborhood or two in midtown and along the edges of city limits. Then populations explode in the surrounding suburbs.
DC is a good example since like SF its boundaries are well defined. There's only 633k people in the city proper out of 6.2mm in the entire metro (so basically 1/10th). The biggest city neighborhood is in midtown (Columbia Heights) with a little over 30k people. The Downtown neighborhood only has about 3k residents. Meanwhile in the nearby counties, Fairfax has 1.148mm residents compared to DC's 600k, Montgomery has 1.059mm, Prince Georges 912k.
Houston. I'm talking SPECIFICALLY downtown. The majority of restaurants are lunch/breakfast only.
Again, there are some that are open for dinner, but they are mostly at or next to hotels for the road warriors that travel in.
You want to look at population denisty not totals. DC has at least 4 times the density of the surrounding counties in MD and VA.
Houston. I'm talking SPECIFICALLY downtown. The majority of restaurants are lunch/breakfast only.
Again, there are some that are open for dinner, but they are mostly at or next to hotels for the road warriors that travel in.
Downtown DC neighborhood is about 3.98k/sq mile, one of the lowest in the entire city. Fairfax County is 2.9k/sq mile, about 1.9k in both MontCo and PG County. So the idea that the downtown urban core (as @Jhhnn put it, the "more desirable close-in neighborhoods") is simply bursting at the seams clearly seems overstated as I said the neighborhoods in midtown and city edges are clearly more desirable if "population density" is your metric.
Downtown DC neighborhood is about 3.98k/sq mile, one of the lowest in the entire city. Fairfax County is 2.9k/sq mile, about 1.9k in both MontCo and PG County. So the idea that the downtown urban core (as @Jhhnn put it, the "more desirable close-in neighborhoods") is simply bursting at the seams clearly seems overstated as I said the neighborhoods in midtown (such as Columbia Heights which I already cited, density ~ 38k/sq mile) and city edges are clearly more desirable if "population density" is your metric. And using population density as your metric clearly doesn't work in lots of cities, take the LA metro where population density is reasonably well distributed over a huge area of Southern CA.
Houston. I'm talking SPECIFICALLY downtown. The majority of restaurants are lunch/breakfast only.
Again, there are some that are open for dinner, but they are mostly at or next to hotels for the road warriors that travel in.
it may be a different incorporation, but it's still part of the same big urban agglomeration. congratulations, you live in a city.Perhaps it's just my area - but in general if you live out in 'burbs then you are in at minimal a different city - and often a different county as well. I don't get to vote on anything for the city, and I gladly don't pay any taxes to them either.
It's been some time since I lived there, but Houston was awful when I lived there. (Strictly speaking I lived in Houston proper, but I was like a block from the border of Webster.) Part of the problem is (or at least, was) traffic. Just getting downtown left me white-knuckled. But I'd seldom have any reason to head that way. Individual suburbs were pretty much entirely self-contained. I spend more time commuting here in Huntsville, which is a vastly smaller city.Houston. I'm talking SPECIFICALLY downtown. The majority of restaurants are lunch/breakfast only.
Again, there are some that are open for dinner, but they are mostly at or next to hotels for the road warriors that travel in.
That's because downtown areas are frequently filled with commercial real estate, not residential, so it is literally not possible for them to house more people. In DC this is doubly true.
A better metric as to how desirable a neighborhood is would be the price per square foot of residential real estate. I don't know what people are describing as 'downtown' for DC but Dupont Circle seems like a reasonable estimate of it and according to Trulia price per square foot is about $666 (MARK OF THE BEAST BECAUSE OF THE GAYS?) The price per square foot for Fairfax County was less than half of that. Seems the real estate market thinks Dupont Circle is MUCH more desirable. The same holds true as you go further from the city center.
It would seem to me that the best estimate of how desirable a location is would be the amount that a person is willing to pay for an equivalent number of square feet. After all that's people putting their money where their mouth is. By that metric how desirable a location is, in a very broad sense, inversely proportional to how close to the center of the city it is.
Comparing DuPont Circle with its 10k residents to a county with over 1mm residents is a bit tough since the county isn’t housing restrained thus the supply/demand curve is very different. If hypothetically you could build units in DuPont Circle until it reached the capability to scale to Hong King density levels I doubt that you’d actually fill all those units. “Desirability” is a complex balance of location, density, price, amenities, etc and Americans have historically prized low density over other factors when they have options. No U.S. city reaches even typical European density levels. The idea that DuPont circle prices would remain at those levels as you add density is counter to both economics and recent experience.
No U.S. city reaches even typical European density levels.
Well sure they wouldn't stay at that price, which is my whole point! That's why I want to build more housing in areas like that, to bring the prices down. The thing is it's not like Dupont Circle is empty either - there is clearly very high demand to live there. And while I agree that people would prefer lower density all else being equal they are not equal as generally speaking lower commuting distance, access to amenities, etc, all come from higher densities. There's a reason why the Met isn't in Wyoming, after all.
Also while US cities in general are not very dense depending on how you decide what a 'city' is NYC either meets or well exceeds average density for European cities.
Uh this is not accurate. Boston for example is about as dense as Madrid. Chicago is about as dense as Vienna.
Uh this is not accurate. Boston for example is about as dense as Madrid. Chicago is about as dense as Vienna.
You're missing my point - suburban housing prices reflect that a lack of supply constraint - anyone who wants to live in the suburbs can live in the suburbs.
OTOH, it remains seen how many more people would move into the core areas of cities even if you built more units. DC is already near the upper end of density for U.S. cities, and at the very top end it seems reasonable that NYC average density of about 27k residents/sq mile seems like the densest that Americans will typically accept as tolerable and that's perhaps the edge case with everyone who wants to live at that density already living there. How many people currently living in the suburbs would abandon that lifestyle, lot and house size, better schools, etc. just so they could live closer to the city center? I'm sure some would, but how many is the million dollar question.