American cities to Millennials: Don't leave

[Traveller]

I saw this article of the front page of USA Today while I was waiting to buy lunch.  I read the online version and thought it raised several interesting issues that have been discussed on this site.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/03/american-cities-to-millennials-dont-leave-us/1744357/

[thelakelander]

Good article.  This pretty much stresses the importance of the neighborhoods that surrounding downtown.  It's another reason I'm a big proponent of fixed mass transit that ties neighborhoods together.  With that type of connectivity, you could buy an affordable single family bungalow in a neighborhood like Brentwood and still enjoy all the benefits of urban living.  With that said, our schools still have a long way to go and it wouldn't hurt if the public parks were maintained a little better.

[simms3]

Good luck is all I have to say.  City environments like SF, Manhattan, Georgetown/the District, Back Bay Boston, Inner Chicago, etc etc have been host to the young now for many generations.  These cities have seen countless generations of young singles flock to their best neighborhoods and then leave once they have kids if they cannot afford the super expensive inner city private schools.  The same 3 demographics have inhabited the country's urban environments now for basically 100 years:

The filthy rich
The extreme poor
Young childless professionals who are starting/moving up in their careers

To think that Millennials will be the first generation to stick around with children is absurd at best.  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.  And that's even saying a lot.  Most Millennials do not actually live in urban areas now and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that many do not actually care to stray too far from home.  I believe there is a shift back to urban environments in many cities across the country, especially Sunbelt cities that haven't had thriving cores for 60+ years now, but experts in the real estate industry and in the capital markets will tell you that it's more of a feel good story than a phenominally new trend or a trend for the vast majority of the Millennial generation.

Also, don't think for a second that apartments will stay more popular than single family residential.  As soon as credit is loosened up for new homes, pricing comes back and this huge Millennial generation ages, single family homes will be *the rage* once again.  It really is much more difficult to have a family in a multifamily environment.  In the US general wealth levels are high enough whereby most can live in space.  Experts are predicting that smaller lots, smaller SF and townhomes will be more popular than what we saw in the 1990s and 2000s, but suburban SFR permits will come back strong.

As I have been saying forever now, the "shift" to cities everyone is talking about is really nothing new.  The only difference is that you aren't just limited to the same 5 cities anymore.  There is hardly a city with good public school districts in their inner core, thus the ability for middle class and lower upper class young couples/singles with kids to justify living in those school districts disappears by the wayside.  And any city that has seen a rebirth or has already been a desirable place for the young and single is within a COL gradient that prevents most from even being able to live there.  Metro Atlanta home prices are like $100K.  But to find a little 2BR in a decent neighborhood within 5-10 minutes of the CBD may cost you $750K.  I could rent a 3BR apartment with granite countertops in a suburb for $1400-$1600.  Instead I live in a plain jane studio that hasn't been updated since 1991 for $1250.  The gradient even in cheaper sunbelt metros is that extreme.

Just by comments on this forum, most have scoffed at rumored rates in the new Brooklyn developments, thinking they are absurd and that they would never pay that much for so little.  And that's *this* forum with urbanites.  If you think it's bad here, most cities are even more expensive and so OBVIOUSLY most people simply can't even afford it if they tried.  Logically most millennials are already still in the burbs.

[fsquid]

I have to agree with Simms

[thelakelander]

What do you guys consider "urban environments?"  Would a neighborhood like San Marco or Riverside qualify as urban in your definition?  If so, I'd say there is opportunity (although there are some significant challenges)  to capture a lot of what you're claiming will eventually end up in the burbs.  If what you're calling urban is simply downtown, highrises, and multifamily units then I'd agree.

[simms3]

What do you guys consider "urban environments?"  Would a neighborhood like San Marco or Riverside qualify as urban in your definition?  If so, I'd say there is opportunity (although there are some significant challenges)  to capture a lot of what you're claiming will eventually end up in the burbs.  If what you're calling urban is simply downtown, highrises, and multifamily units then I'd agree.

I would consider San Marco and Riverside to be urban in the context of Jacksonville, typical walkable neighborhoods where Millennials are "flocking to".  No matter how densely you build these 1 square mile neighborhoods up, you can only fill each with a few thousand millennials, out of a potential ~300,000 in the metro?  If Jacksonville all of a sudden sees Austin, TX type growth and construction, all of these urban areas from Riverside through DT through Springfield through San Marco will sprout up, and so will the prices!  You'll still only be able to literally fit a tiny fraction of all the Millennials in the metro, and only those earning enough to afford $3.00psf rents will even be able to live in the area.  Rents in Austin, TX are now on average the highest in the SE behind Miami, which we all know is *very* expensive now ($4.00psf rents in Brickell and Edgewater).

[thelakelander]

I was only using Riverside and San Marco as examples, in terms of density, scale, street connectivity, and lot size. Looking at a 20 year horizon, I'm thinking we have a lot more than those two neighborhoods to work with.  To me, everything from Panama Park to Murray Hill and even Englewood or Commonwealth presents possibilities for infill and redevelopment at multiple price points.  However, investing in public education, parks, mass transit, modifying land uses, etc. will determine if we can take advantage of those possibilities or not. To me, it's really up to us if we want to capture and retain a higher percentage of the growth heading into Clay and St. Johns Counties.  Oh, and I'm not sold that our development patterns will be exactly the same as they were in the later half of the 20th century.

[simms3]

I think basically the entirety of Duval County dissuades many from living in the "city limits" of Jacksonville due to the bad schools, but I don't think even relative to Jacksonville itself the "urban" boundary will expand beyond Five Points, Brooklyn, LaVilla, DT, Springfield, and San Marco up to the Square.  Let's not kid ourselves here.  I don't consider Buckhead in Atlanta, which has 50 floor residential highrises and walkable shopping areas, to be "urban" or "in the city" for the same reasons.

[thelakelander]

The urban boundary already extends past DT, Riverside, San Marco, etc. I tend to toss the term around loosely on these forums, but when I typically mention "urban" in Jacksonville, I'm referring to Duval County's urban core or the preconsolidated City of Jacksonville, which all 30 square miles were walkable in the early 20th century.  It has nothing to do with millennials, real estate of a certain price point or type, trendy restaurants, or people's salaries.  Being dominated by single family homes with 20' front setbacks, instead of rowhomes, mid-rises, and skyscrapers doesn't mean you can't be urban or that the residents in these areas can't enjoy a quality-of-living one would expect in a vibrant walkable/multimodal friendly city.

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.

Our issue, like many other cities across the country, is how to best turn around the abandonment of the last half century.  Another challenge we have is what we do with our aging and now stagnant first wave of autocentric suburbs, such as Arlington, Lake Shore, Cedar Hills, and Emerson?  These are places that while autocentric, they were developed during an era where some still had walkable commerical/mixed-use nodes and connected street grids.  At some point, we'll even reach a time when the ranch style homes of the 50s/60s will be considered worthy of reuse, just like the Prairie School homes of Klutho in Riverside and Springfield are now. 

We can have quite a renaissance and significant boost to our tax base if we can bring back many of these places over the next few decades.  These places combine to create an atmosphere that can't be replicated by new tract homes in Nocatee, Oakleaf, or Northern St. Johns County. If Jacksonville really wants to turn things around, it's going to have to take advantage of the assets it has that other areas don't and never will. That's pretty much where my focus has been recently. 

As far as Atlanta's Buckhead goes, it's a traditionally rural/suburban area morphing into an urban one in an autocentric manner.  It's a significantly different animal from Jacksonville's urban core, both presently and definitely historically.  Nevertheless, depending on future land use policy in that area, it could be quite walkable in the future.

[TheCat]

[Adam W]

^Thanks for that, The Cat - I was actually wondering what a Millennial was.

My wife is one, I suppose. She used to say she thought she was maybe Generation Y (I was born at the end of Generation X). Of course, it seems that the definition of Generation X has been extended and extended, so now it doesn't really mean what it used to anyway.

[simms3]

Lake, I disagree strongly with your definition.  Everyone has their own definition of "the city" and I find that the definition becomes much more confined coming from people who live in bigger cities.  For instance, the Sunset is a large area in the city of SF with a density over 15,000 ppsm, but nobody in SF considers that even remotely close to "the city".

By your definition of "the city" in Jax (pre-consolidated Jacksonville), 20-something year old kids of Ortega families buying starter homes in the same neighborhood are good examples of Millennials "moving back to the city".  I don't buy it.

[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?

By your definition of "the city" in Jax (pre-consolidated Jacksonville), 20-something year old kids of Ortega families buying starter homes in the same neighborhood are good examples of Millennials "moving back to the city".  I don't buy it.

That would be an example of a Millennial living their life in the same community.  Actually, neighborhoods that allow for all ages/segments of life are ideal. That's how they used to be.  Chicago's Lakeview is a great present day example of that. However, I would consider it as moving back to the city if you grew up in Mandarin or Orange Park and decided to move to Sugar Hill, Springfield or the Eastside.

[simms3]

Disclaimer: we *are* specifically talking about Millennials, and since we are talking about "the city", let's just be honest here.  Income, job and education play a role.  Your average jobless, uneducated 23 year old still living at home with the parents or working 2 jobs waiting tables is not flocking to the city where rents, taxes, food, gas and groceries are more expensive, ok?  LoL  Those in "the city" now are a mix of those who are in public housing or in impoverished hoods who can't escape until forced by gentrification, or those with the means to be able to afford the more expensive and "hip" city life.  Cities are not breeding grounds of the middle class by any means.

The urban boundary already extends past DT, Riverside, San Marco, etc. I tend to toss the term around loosely on these forums, but when I typically mention "urban" in Jacksonville, I'm referring to Duval County's urban core or the preconsolidated City of Jacksonville, which all 30 square miles were walkable in the early 20th century.  It has nothing to do with millennials, real estate of a certain price point or type, trendy restaurants, or people's salaries.  Being dominated by single family homes with 20' front setbacks, instead of rowhomes, mid-rises, and skyscrapers doesn't mean you can't be urban or that the residents in these areas can't enjoy a quality-of-living one would expect in a vibrant walkable/multimodal friendly city.

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).

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".

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.

We can have quite a renaissance and significant boost to our tax base if we can bring back many of these places over the next few decades.  These places combine to create an atmosphere that can't be replicated by new tract homes in Nocatee, Oakleaf, or Northern St. Johns County. If Jacksonville really wants to turn things around, it's going to have to take advantage of the assets it has that other areas don't and never will. That's pretty much where my focus has been recently.

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".

As far as Atlanta's Buckhead goes, it's a traditionally rural/suburban area morphing into an urban one in an autocentric manner.  It's a significantly different animal from Jacksonville's urban core, both presently and definitely historically.  Nevertheless, depending on future land use policy in that area, it could be quite walkable in the future.

It will never be truly walkable as each currently walkable area is small and confined and reachable only by car.  Buckhead hasn't been rural since the 1920s and has always been and will always be a suburb.  My point was that even density alone means nothing (hence Buckhead with its towers and Sunset with its 15,000 ppsm, neither are "the city").

[simms3]

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?

By your definition of "the city" in Jax (pre-consolidated Jacksonville), 20-something year old kids of Ortega families buying starter homes in the same neighborhood are good examples of Millennials "moving back to the city".  I don't buy it.

That would be an example of a Millennial living their life in the same community.  Actually, neighborhoods that allow for all ages/segments of life are ideal. That's how they used to be.  Chicago's Lakeview is a great present day example of that. However, I would consider it as moving back to the city if you grew up in Mandarin or Orange Park and decided to move to Sugar Hill, Springfield or the Eastside.

I don't think you can put Columbia Heights, Wicker Park and then Brentwood Jax in the same sentence, LoL.  I can't speak for any of those neighborhoods, though I'm familiar with and have been to all three.  I would think that if I moved into the South Loop or Streeterville in Chicago, I would have a pretty confined view of what "the city" is.  A lot of the surrounding neighborhoods are dense, hip and walkable with access to rail lines, but many are also like denser, more urban Ortegas where people never leave.  The hot spot that everyone talks about in Chicago right now as attracting Millennials is the South Loop, which is an area that was abandoned, leveled, etc and is now seeing a huge rebirth.  Skyscrapers and mid-rises dominate that cityscape and you don't have a situation where it's still just a bunch of old connected families.