American cities to Millennials: Don't leave

[thelakelander]

Disclaimer: we *are* specifically talking about Millennials, and since we are talking about "the city", let's just be honest here.

To be honest, I'm talking about the city in general.  Millennials, Generation Y, or whatever is only one age group of the population.  Even within that age group, the demographics vary too much to paint it with one broad brush. 

Again, this article and others related aren't referring to the flock of Millennials to single family homes in former streetcar suburbs, though in certain cities that is happening.  It's referring to basically downtowns and immediately surrounding environs where explosions of dense new development are occuring, hence the related articles about the rising "popularity" of efficiencies (also just as hogwash as the articles on the sudden rise for the first time ever of young people moving to the city).

This quote from the article implies that it also includes what you would consider as the hood:

An urban renaissance unfolded as the number of people living in America's downtowns soared, construction of condos and loft apartments boomed and once-derelict neighborhoods thrived.

In DC's case, Columbia Heights was everything we'd consider a Durkeeville or New Springfield is today, back in the 1990s when it started to turn around.

The Sunset is a 15,000ppsm neighborhood in the city limits (which are tiny like pre-consolidated Jax) of SF.  It blows the densest areas of Jax out of the water, yet *nobody* would consider it the city.  It's the most boring part of SF and Millennials who do flock to SF with jobs in pocket or the means aren't flocking to that area, despite its "walkability", density and access to public transportation and bike paths.  It simply just isn't "the city".

I don't believe you can equate a neighborhood in SF as a typical example.  If that's the case, there's no reason for the article since most cities in the country don't have that type of density.

Today, Riverside or San Marco may be trendy, but a Lackawanna, Durkeeville, Brentwood, or Phoenix Avenue still maintains similar characteristics in terms of scale, infrastructure, walkability, etc.  Some may write off a New Town or Moncrief but I see these as areas of opportunity, restoration, and infill.

Good luck developing these areas anytime soon!  And that would involve the highly controversial practice of gentrification whereby poor people are displaced and the "rich young professionals" move in to their fancy new apartments, etc.

Not really.  It just involves creating a community where all segments of the population can enjoy a higher quality of living.  Just because one can't afford to eat dinner at Orsay doesn't mean they can't have clean parks, good schools, and live in a pedestrian scale urban setting.  I believe things are much larger and complex than catering a city to only one segment of the population.

Agreed.  Like Atlanta and many other sunbelt cities, a very large asset is being able to live in a Single Family House near the city.  That's why it's more difficult to draw the line of what is in "the city" in a place like Jax, where the density gradient is not extreme and you can live in a house with a yard a half mile from downtown.  You can't do that in CA, Chicago or the NE.  Now if you want to see large scale development and densification occur throughout the city, you'll have to start demolishing these houses.  We already did in Brooklyn, paving the way for multifamily, we did in LaVilla, paving the way for nothing so far.  Atlanta's Midtown used to be entirely SFR and duplexes/quadplexes up until the 70s and was literally bulldozed to make way for what it is now and what's being built.  That's what has to happen to turn most SFR areas into "the city".

You can find homes with yards in many of these cities today.  Our urban landscapes are much more diverse than you're giving them credit for.  It's a huge misconception that one can't have a single family house and raise children in an urban setting.  Not everyone in a city has to or wants to reside in condo flats and apartments.

[thelakelander]

Oh, I know you disagree. However, the "city" is larger than a central business district or a few trendy neighborhoods. 

What do you call the Columbia Heights (DC), Brentwoods (Jax), and Wicker Parks (Chicago) of the country? I can't imagine them being seriously considered suburbs.  What's your term for these areas...streetcar suburbs?

I don't think you can put Columbia Heights, Wicker Park and then Brentwood Jax in the same sentence, LoL.

I'm a generation older, so I actually remember Columbia Heights and U Street before Starbucks and the Metro came online. From your past online comments, I KNOW you would not have been caught alive in Columbia Heights during the early 1990s before the Green Line opened.  You would have put it in the same sentence as Jacksonville's Brentwood. 

[simms3]

To be honest, I'm talking about the city in general.  Millennials, Generation Y, or whatever is only one age group of the population.  Even within that age group, the demographics vary too much to paint it with one broad brush. 

Falls well within my point.  When all these articles are talking about Millennials, they are really referring to creative types with means and elite college educated professionals making well more than the local median who are moving into the city.  The "age group" that is Millennials contains millions of people still living at home past the age of 18, contains young people in poverty, includes young professionals who prefer a suburban lifestyle, and contains those who live in smaller towns or rural areas.  Definitely a large and varied group whereby the small segment "flocking to the city" is similar to the small segment of the Baby Boomer or Gen X generation that moved to NYC, Boston, DC, Chicago or SF before for the same reasons.

I still think we aren't talking about "city limits" here, whether consolidated or pre-consolidated (especially in large land area cities like Jax), but rather the real central urban cores (i.e. DT and immediately adjacent neighborhoods).  In cities like Jax it is difficult to truly say that Riverside is more urban than Avondale, which is more urban than Murray Hill, etc etc as all of these neighborhoods are still of relatively the same lower density characteristic of 1920s streetcar suburbs across the Sunbelt, and the downtown density is also not there, so there isn't really a "gradient" where the city obviously starts.

[thelakelander]

There's even diversity within the college educated group who are "moving into the city."  It's even diverse within the group who participate on the discussion boards here.

I still think we aren't talking about "city limits" here, whether consolidated or pre-consolidated (especially in large land area cities like Jax), but rather the real central urban cores (i.e. DT and immediately adjacent neighborhoods).

Yes, I think we're both talking about real central urban cores.  I just happen to be including developed neighborhoods that would have met your definition a half century ago.  It's also not regional based because even the Sunbelt has several spots like Richmond, Miami, Charleston, New Orleans, etc. that challenge the low density sunbelt theme. The criteria I base my views upon are little more age, public policy, and infrastructure based, which when combined, don't shift as easily.

[tufsu1]

I'm with Lake on this one

[cline]

Until cities get a handle on inner city public education, there is no logical way most with children who have the option of moving to better school districts and safer districts in the suburbs won't.

For Jax I feel like this is especially true.  There is a large percentage of young singles and DINKs that will bail on DT and the urban neighborhoods as soon as they start having school-age kids due to the fact that the public school system in Duval schools sucks.  If you can't afford to send your kids to private school chances are you're likely to move to SJC where you can send your kids to A-rated middle and high schools for free.  I hear all the time from people about how they really love the Riverside area but wouldn't move there because of the schools.  Lee HS is not what it used to be back in its glory days.  We need to address this problem if we really want to see a revival of other neighborhoods.  Just my .02.

[thelakelander]

Definitely agree.  I'm dealing with it now.

[tufsu1]

come on Stephen...you know that Council would tell you they can't be involved in schools....we have an elected school board for that

[fsquid]

doesn't matter how much money you throw at the schools if you aren't getting help at home.  Duval County says they spend $8k per student and that is about the norm for a city like JAX. 

[David]

Until cities get a handle on inner city public education, there is no logical way most with children who have the option of moving to better school districts and safer districts in the suburbs won't.

For Jax I feel like this is especially true.  There is a large percentage of young singles and DINKs that will bail on DT and the urban neighborhoods as soon as they start having school-age kids due to the fact that the public school system in Duval schools sucks.  If you can't afford to send your kids to private school chances are you're likely to move to SJC where you can send your kids to A-rated middle and high schools for free.  I hear all the time from people about how they really love the Riverside area but wouldn't move there because of the schools.  Lee HS is not what it used to be back in its glory days.  We need to address this problem if we really want to see a revival of other neighborhoods.  Just my .02.

I'm experiencing that right now. My lady has middle and high school aged kids and I suggested buying a place in Riverside & she voiced concerns about the schools. And my counter argument of "but but, I want to bike to the restaurants  and walk to the grocery store and live in a house with character" doesn't hold much water against a mom's concern for her children's education.

[jaxeeyore]

Education, job training, and research & development are the foundation of all modern societies. Jacksonville and it's urban core areas will never advance socially or culturally  until we remodel our deplorable educational/vocational system.  The growth boom of St. John's County is largely driven by the outstanding public education program they have built and the rapid advance of some Asian countries is also attributable to their investment in education/research & development.  It's time for Jacksonville to wake up and consider what is truly important.

[simms3]

^^^It's the same way in all cities, which is why urban areas tend to have three demographic groups (the haves which include rich families, young professionals and rich empty nesters, and the have nots).  Middle America = the suburbs.  America = suburban = middle class society.

[Tacachale]

^St. Johns County's boom is sustained by good old fashioned white flight. It's a bedroom community that attracts well-to-do folks with kids. By and large the urban core isn't going to compete with that, though it's worth pointing out that areas of the urban core that do attract that demographic like Avondale and San Marco are doing pretty damn well with it.

That said, Duval County's educational system is in a deplorable state and needs fixing, stat.

[simms3]

Not entirely related, but just an example of how city life is really just for the wealthy (or the poor), and is realistic only for those who can afford private schools or have no children.  From an article I just read:

Sure, it's still possible to find a $400 room for rent in some of the neighborhoods. For now. But over time, as more and more people move into the area, the concentration of shops, trails, parks, and restaurants could make it more difficult for a young family, service worker, police officer, firefighter, or teacher to afford to live in communities along the Eastside Trail. Ponce City Market asked for, and received, a reduction in the number of affordable units in its development. And in May 2011, subsidized rents at the Telephone Factory, the Poncey-Highland loft building south of Historic Fourth Ward Park, expired and converted to market rates.

Andy Schneggenburger of the Atlanta Housing Association of Neighborhood-based Developers warns that those cheap rooms for rent could quickly disappear.

"Relying on current market conditions certainly doesn't guarantee that such affordability will be available in years to come, either," says Schneggenburger. "Market rental rates and property tax rates will rise over time, especially from where they are now, and reduce both affordability and access. Hello, gentrification. We know it happens, we know what it does to affordability."

Beltline officials say they're "intently focused" that affordable housing is available "long term" in northeast Atlanta, the same area where it's hardest to convince developers to build units that people living on lower incomes can call home. They recently struck a deal with the developer of new apartments under construction on North Avenue near the Masquerade to make 20 percent of the units affordable for 10 years.

In the particular area referenced there are 829 units UC on 2 large city blocks right now, 228 more to break ground in 2 weeks, and within a few more months ~500 more will break ground.  All are 220 Riverside prices and higher.  The institutional interest in this area includes AMLI, North American Properties, Jamestown and Perennial.  Archstone is doing its first deal in the SE in a project breaking ground in January a mile north...Archstone was just split and sold to Avalon Bay and Equity Residential, the average rents across the entire portfolio around $2500/mo!!!  (considering its primary markets are DC, NYC, SF and LA)

"Hello gentrification" - I love that.