Cities boom as young adults shun suburbs

[vicupstate]

http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9VM0F8G0%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1018

For the first time in a century, most of America's largest cities are growing at a faster rate than their surrounding suburbs as young adults seeking a foothold in the weak job market shun home-buying and stay put in bustling urban centers.

The last time growth in big cities surpassed that in outlying areas occurred prior to 1920, before the rise of mass-produced automobiles spurred expansion beyond city cores.

New Orleans ...  saw the biggest rebound in city growth relative to suburbs in the last year, 3.7 percent vs. 0.6 percent.  Atlanta, Denver, Washington, D.C., and Charlotte, N.C., also showed wide disparities in city growth compared to suburbs.

Other big cities showing faster growth compared to the previous decade include Boston, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Minneapolis and Seattle

Shepard said. "There's a bigger focus on building residences near transportation hubs, such as a train or subway station, because fewer people want to travel by car for an hour and a half for work anymore."

Jacksonville will you get ahead of this curve or will you ignore it and stay 15 years behind your peers, or at least  what USED to be your peers.

[thelakelander]

Jax is already behind. We're still struggling finding the need for bike lanes or understanding that quality of life is more important than having cheap taxes when it comes to economic development. We were already a decade behind 10 years ago. We'll be 20 years behind by the end of the decade if things don't change soon.

[Tacachale]

This doesn't seem to be the trend in Jax or most of the rest of Florida; suburban counties continue to grow faster than the urban areas.

[thelakelander]

It's the trend in Miami for over a decade.  However, the City of Miami covers less than 40 square miles of land area.

[cline]

It's not the trend in Jacksonville because we bend over backwards to make it easy for developers to acquire vast swaths of undeveloped land out in the suburbs.  We have made it cheaper for developers to build tract homes in the hinterlands than to embrace infill development.  Of course, as has been discussed on here before, the developers get to acquire cheap land while us taxpayers are left footing the bill for the true cost of that development.  But since the developers and builders own City Council, I don't see that changing.

[peestandingup]

This doesn't seem to be the trend in Jax or most of the rest of Florida; suburban counties continue to grow faster than the urban areas.

Yeah, but Florida is bubble-based lala land. So is a lot of southern cities & even places like California, who all seem like they're following the same patterns. None of them IMO are future-proof, esp in times of contraction & economic downturn. As other cities & states seem they are getting their shit together, states like ours fall further behind.

[simms3]

It's definitely the trend in Miami...the two crowds living along Brickell are wealthy foreigners and young professionals...and each has a major presence.

Suburbs will always have a place as most people simply can't afford to live in the city, have families to raise and need better public schools, get tired of lugging groceries up stairs/elevators, desire more space...etc etc.

In Jacksonville the two main differences to the city's former peers in the South/country are:

1) The city doesn't bring enough jobs or GROW enough jobs in the city that pay well enough and require a certain subset of skills and experience that young professionals have, need, desire and look for when scouting around.  Creative class is surprisingly taken care of by its own grassroots nature...at least in contrast to a Charlotte or Raleigh.

2) The city doesn't have sufficient plans/regulations to grow its suburbs in a more sustainable way.

Arguably, the third wheel is that in addition to lack of jobs, the city doesn't provide the quality of life many in their 20s/30s are looking for...and the ultimate question is a chicken vs egg (which comes first...quality jobs or quality of life).

[thelakelander]

I think the last two decades have proven that the quality of life comes first.

[PeeJayEss]

Suburbs will always have a place as most people simply can't afford to live in the city, have families to raise and need better public schools, get tired of lugging groceries up stairs/elevators, desire more space...etc etc.

In a well-designed city, there is no reason the suburbs would be cheaper than the city. The land may be less expensive, but all the other needs (multiple vehicles, need to travel distances for all things, meds for depression because your zombie-like suburban existence is horrible, etc). Give a $$ value to quality of life and the comparison isn't even close. Also, better schools in the suburbs is not a rule. Its true here and in many other places, but it is not a symptom of density of residences.

Space, I will give you. However, the city offers a density of people and programs for children to get involved/play with. While it might be nice to have a catch with your son in your yard, he'd much rather be playing with 10 of his closest buddies in the park, at a school, or even in the middle of a little-used street. With prevalent and well-maintained park facilities, the city life can't be beat. The idea that the suburban lifestyle offers any sort of advantage over city life in terms of economics or quality of life is mere delusion. The suburbs aren't even better for cycling.

[finehoe]

The idea that the suburban lifestyle offers any sort of advantage over city life in terms of economics or quality of life is mere delusion.

+1

[simms3]

^^^90+% of the country's population is wrong, then, and have therefore been making bad decisions, economically and in terms of what's right for their families.   

This thread is about young adults, anyway.  Those aged 18-34.  In Jacksonville that's kind of limited to 18-24 since everyone gets married so soon and has kids, but beside the point I'm sure even in Jax the average age of marriage is following the nat'l trend.

There is actually nothing new here.  When my parents left college, each worked in a major city.  My mom went to NYC (she's from Chicago and could have very well stayed there) and my dad went to Miami.  This was back in the 70s.  It's no new phenomenon that postgrads find jobs in big cities.  What the difference now is the choices.  Atlanta wasn't really a choice then.  Houston wasn't a choice then.  Portland certainly wasn't a choice then, and neither was Denver.  Now even smaller cities are logical and decent choices for postgrads, like Charlotte, Raleigh, Austin, Salt Lake City, Milwaukee, etc etc.

I think that's one of the major differences.  The other difference is the amount of people educated now.  2 of my grandparents went to Penn and 1 to Univ. of Chicago (1 to Stockholm) and that was a big big deal back then (granted those schools were cheaper than private grammar school nowadays).  Now educational attainment is a lot less exclusive and a lot more competitive.  My grandparents worked in a manufacturing based economy.  Our economy now is service based and requires more people with more knowledge based skills rather than labor skills.  You're no longer "in the club" so to speak if you have a college degree; you're simply able to find a job more easily.  Former industrial cities like Pittsburgh have made the ultimate transition to cities based on 21st century economies and knowledge.  Jacksonville is still kind of all over the map and hasn't refined its specific strengths yet.

[finehoe]

Jacksonville is still kind of all over the map and hasn't refined its specific strengths yet.

Jacksonville's specific strength is electing dingbats to the City Council. 

[PeeJayEss]

^^^90+% of the country's population is wrong, then, and have therefore been making bad decisions, economically and in terms of what's right for their families.   

Is your assertion that 90+% of the country's population live in the suburbs? A pretty dubious point given the difficulty with which suburbs are defined. I'm sure the 16% or so of the US population that lives in the much easier to delineate rural areas of the country would have a problem with your math. As would the apparently -6% or less that live in urban cores. But, in response to your question: Yes. I'm comfortable saying that a high percentage of my fellow countrymen make bad decisions on a regular basis. The prevalence of fast food chains alone should be sufficient evidence. Add that more of the poor now live in the suburbs than city cores, and that poverty rate is climbing in the suburbs versus the city core (while population growth is the reverse) and I think your generalization of my previous comments is fair.

And (here's a sweeping generalization!) all filled with a population that puts more time and effort into maintaining their lawns than improving their communities.

Jacksonville is still kind of all over the map and hasn't refined its specific strengths yet.

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement, and I will add that I don't think "the City" is actually trying to. 

[jcjohnpaint]

I would love if you guys could do an article on:  What makes a suburb a suburb (psychologically)?  I get the conceptual meaning, but can you have outlying areas that are dense, walkable, and express good urban planning.  I mean you look at LA, which is really dense, but does not feel urban- at least to me if compared to northeastern cities? 
What is more affordable to developers?  I think that even if Jacksonville built dense urban neighborhoods, they would be gated communities connected by deserted blvds (towncenter as example).  Such neighborhoods would feel suburban.  I believe it is cheaper for developers to build dense, but I am not sure as this is not my field.  Maybe Simms you can help on this. 

[simms3]

^^Loaded question and too much for any one man to answer.  Typically it's cheaper to build in lower density areas or cities with low barriers to entry, but it's much easier to get burned in those environments, too, so cost of capital is most likely elevated, if it is there in the first place.  Also, you have just a few groups who can take down an asset or put up a new development in places like Manhattan, Boston and San Francisco.  Price drivers are complicated.  Why is NYC expensive when Chicago is so cheap (relatively)?  Again, complicated.  How is Austin so expensive when it is growing so fast and there is still so much land available?  Why is Toronto just now in the midst of a condo explosion?  Why is Jacksonville falling behind?  These are all questions that require researched expertise/experience and cannot be generalized.

Gated communities are a factor of demand and nothing else.  Look who moves into gated communities.  Northern transplants.  Where do northern transplants move?  FL/South.  Where are the gated communities?  FL/South.  And technically condo towers are no different from gated single family housing communities.  Both are governed by homeowners associations and are secured from the general public.  Demand for gated SFR communities has waned, however, and that is coupled with the fact that many homebuilders are no longer in existence, those that are left don't have the capacity to develop lots on an efficiently large scale, and banks have billions of dollars of undeveloped lots on their books shutting off that lending spigot.

My definition of urban has become more in-line with those who define it in larger cities.  It's all relative.  People who live in Manhattan or Brooklyn might not consider Queens urban at all when its density is 20,000 ppsm.  I visit a lot of larger cities, so for me I limit true urbanity to just a few places in America.  I work on a condo development/2 ground level retail condos in Midtown West, and it is near tons of other 50 floor condos/apts yet for most New Yorkers it might as well be no-man's land.  It's certainly more urban than nearly anywhere else in America and has the foot traffic to boost, but 2 blocks over is Times Square/Broadway which is the real boundary of Midtown Manhattan and anything west is in the middle of nowhere (FTR 600 SF studios in our building are $700K+ and 2,000 SF 3 BRs are $2.5M++..."middle of nowhere" NYC pricing).

http://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/mapping-the-recovery-nycs-fastest-and-slowest-recovering-neighborhoods/