Millennials are flocking to America's biggest cities

[PhilliesPhan]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

but it doesn't have to. you always have a choice. everyone does.

for 15 years i had to listen to the "just wait 'til you have kids, you'll be out in the burbs too" goofballs on this forum.

then i actually had kids, and for some mysterious reason, i wasn't magically transported out to schaumburg against my will.

many young(ish) urbanites do move out to the burbs when they start having children, but many don't.



if PhilliesPhan is being truthful when he says that he never intends to live in the burbs, even if/when he has kids, then that might just be exactly what he does.

millions of people are raising their families in US central cities right now at this very moment. it's not some impossible herculean task.

sure, we're certainly not the majority, but it's not just like 5 or 6 people on some super-obscure internet nerd forum.

i implore you to come visit my city neighborhood around 3:30pm on a typical school day.

but maybe not, your head packed full of preconceived notions might explode.

I had the opportunity to grow up in West Philly and a post-WWII town in Delaware County. I had everything back in my old hood: a corner store, a block full of friends, a park nearby, a city pool, and space to ride my bike. Later, my mom moved us out of the city since there were virtually NO good public schools back in the mid-to-late 2000s. The entire dynamic of what I had around me changed. Although the town boasted sidewalks and relative proximity to transit, most things still had to be accomplished by car. Back in HS, I always had to ask my mom to drive me places. I didn't realize just how much of a problem this was until I arrived in college.

Before transferring to Temple University, I attended a college in a relatively rural area. EVERYTHING had to be done by car out there. Plus, I was one of the few people who was proficient in taking transit. Those experiences are what initially brought me to this forum, and eventually to the New Urbanism camp. I realized that I needed to get out of there and head back to the city. Ever since becoming a Philly resident again, I've never been happier.

That was a long way of saying that, as someone who has had the opportunity to grow up in the city and the suburbs, I know that raising children in an urban environment is vastly superior to that of a suburban environment. Growing up in West Philly taught me independence, navigation, how to get somewhere without needing a car, and street smarts, among other things. I don't want my future kids waiting for mommy and daddy to get home so that one of us can drive them somewhere; instead, I want to give them SEPTA Keys and tell them to find their own adventure in the city. That's easy, as Philly has a ton of museums, parks, trails, events, and many other things. I want my future children to be immersed in urban life, not shielded from it out in a bland, boring, depressing suburban hellscape.

If my family ever needs more space, there's always Northwest Philly. Here's an example of what one can purchase within walking distance of a Regional Rail station and Germantown Avenue:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0658...7i13312!8i6656

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by PhilliesPhan

That's easy, as Philly has a ton of museums, parks, trails, events, and many other things. I want my future children to be immersed in urban life, not shielded from it out in a bland, boring, depressing suburban hellscape.

Wherever you live, you're gonna be mostly preoccupied with issues like childcare, space needs and sleep, not whether they're being "immersed in urban life", as if a toddler cares about such things.

[mousquet]

Ah, the problem is always the same; real estate is overpriced in central areas.
The closer you get to the center, the greater the debt you owe the banks.
Even millionaires go badly in debts, cause money doesn't really fix it. If you're better off, you only purchase a roomier apartment, but you end up in a same situation of money worries anyway.

That's why they invented rental social housing. I've always been skeptical about its effects on the market and on development, wondering what the Swiss do in that matter.
Life is incredibly overpriced in Switzerland, but their median income is as high as their standards, and I heard they actually had a lot of social housing over there.

But then they don't build anything much grandiose. While the French and the Americans always want and need big things.

I'm very skeptical about subsidized real estate, even though it would supposedly help people with lower incomes to live over central areas.
I have that feeling that development freed from nasty NIMBYism would be more efficient.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Edgewater is much more urban than Lincoln Square.

not where we lived in each of them. in edgwater we were a 3/4 mile walk from the start of the andersonville strip (lower quality retail was 1/4 mile away on broadway). in lincoln square we're a 1/4 mile walk to the heart of the lincoln ave. strip. that half mile difference is really big for day to day living. we're also 600' from an el stop instead of 3/8 mile.

our census tract in edgewater had a density of 20,400 ppsm.

our census tract in lincoln square has a density of 25,700 ppsm.

Originally Posted by Crawford

How is Lincoln Square objectively more urban than the Loop/Near North Side?

more things within easy walking distance. granted, i haven't lived in rivernorth for nearly a decade, so things may be different down there now.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This, to me, is full-on suburbia. I agree this typology is much more popular for families with kids than a few decades ago, when it was mostly old fogeys, but I wouldn't go so far to say this is "embracing urbanity".

I don't think this lifestyle would be that different than someone living in outer sprawl; it's more that the aesthetics are nicer, restaurants better, fewer rednecks, and shorter commute.

of course, and it's why i said that it's suburbia. it's also a 20 minute walk to downtown clayton (or a 3-4 minute drive), i make the walk to my health club which is in a mixed use skyscraper, or the 50 (or whatever) restaurants down there, grocery store sometimes (i rent a lime bike with a basket for the way back), etc. my neighbors all walk to temple, or often bike or walk to the clayton cbd or the local pre-war strip. there are much more urban pre and post war condo/apt blocks all around there, i just picked the end of that block to highlight the funny trend of jamming mc-mansion type amenities into a closer-in setting. functionally it sort of splits the difference between sprawl and true urban living, although i cannot really say that it's like sprawl at all, as i don't touch an expressway unless i'm going to visit a client site or something. my travel times to anything i need are single digit, unless on foot (which is also common). it's also not really urban living as i understand it, of course, but it's a different life than sprawl, and thank god...

[Vlajos]

Married, 46, with three school age kids living in the city. It's very common, but of course not a majority. The public schools in our area have seen enrollment double in some cases in the last 10 years. The Catholic Schools in the area are at decade high enrollments right now. People have realized that it's not particularly difficult to raise a family in the city at this point.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This, to me, is full-on suburbia. I agree this typology is much more popular for families with kids than a few decades ago, when it was mostly old fogeys, but I wouldn't go so far to say this is "embracing urbanity".

I don't think this lifestyle would be that different than someone living in outer sprawl; it's more that the aesthetics are nicer, restaurants better, fewer rednecks, and shorter commute.

I live in full-on suburbia. The example Centrolpolis posted isn't what I'd consider typical suburbia. Not anymore. In most cities, these areas are very close to all points urban, have amenities right in the area and are highly sought after. Even if they're still predominantly SFH.

[Centropolis]

here's another example in the blocks around me, most/all of the block on either side was completely crushed and rebuilt for baby-boomer condos (and middle age professionals)...back and to the left there's elevator condos under construction marketed towards baby-boomers who have had enough of the sprawl but don't want full on urban...

https://goo.gl/maps/mUrt1eTK2zG2

[Crawford]

Steely, I'm gonna have to disagree here. Lincoln Square is much less dense/urban than the lakefront blocks, and River North is about as dense/urban as Chicago gets.

Lincoln Square is very nice, but if I wanted peak "urban Chicago" I wouldn't be looking anywhere north of Belmont, and certainly not anywhere around the Chicago River. It feels like outer Queens, which, while not anything like sprawl, isn't remotely like Manhattan either. It's really more Evanston than Gold Coast.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Steely, I'm gonna have to disagree here.

disagree all you want.

one of has actually spent decades living in river north and edgewater and lincoln square (and west loop and rogers park and little italy and wrigleyville).

and one of us hasn't lived in chicago, ever.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Lincoln Square is very nice, but if I wanted peak "urban Chicago" I wouldn't be looking anywhere north of Belmont, and certainly not anywhere around the Chicago River. It feels like outer Queens, which, while not anything like sprawl, isn't remotely like Manhattan either. It's really more Evanston than Gold Coast.

I guess you haven't been to Rogers Park? And Belmont is a rather arbitrary cut off that you used.

And I full on agree--I'm not sure how Lincoln Square somehow become more urban than River North, which is basically a canyon of skyscrapers with all sorts of restaurants/stores/entertainment at your disposal at this point

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JManc

I live in full-on suburbia. The example Centrolpolis posted isn't what I'd consider typical suburbia. Not anymore. In most cities, these areas are very close to all points urban, have amenities right in the area and are highly sought after. Even if they're still predominantly SFH.

Take a couple with two kids. How would their daily lifestyle be meaningfully different in old suburbia vs. new sprawl? I guarantee there will be an SUV/minivan (probably 2), frequent trips to big box stores, yard to mow, community association rules, etc.

That doesn't mean there aren't self-selecting differences. We all know (affluent) old suburbia will be NPR land, better takeout dining and fewer lifted trucks.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Take a couple with two kids. How would their daily lifestyle be meaningfully different in old suburbia vs. new sprawl? I guarantee there will be an SUV/minivan (probably 2), frequent trips to big box stores, yard to mow, community association rules, etc.

That doesn't mean there aren't self-selecting differences. We all know (affluent) old suburbia will be NPR land, better takeout dining and fewer lifted trucks.

i'd say yes and no. sprawl has become so ridiculous and big box/highway intensive while inner suburbia is being so quickly retrofitted that there's a widening gap. outer sprawl IS a bit of a shock for me, my world is comparatively compact (and increasingly so), even though i'm still messing with a car, using uber, etc. i bike to the central west end, forest park, etc. i can see skyscraper tops above my neighborhood.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I guess you haven't been to Rogers Park? And Belmont is a rather arbitrary cut off that you used.

To me, the most prime lakefront neighborhoods end (roughly) at Belmont. Maybe if you want to be super-strict you can say Diversey, because that's where LP ends, or looser and say Irving Park.

Obviously everywhere along the lakefront is dense/urban till Evanston, including Rogers Park, but it gets less consistently affluent/desirable somewhere around Lakeview.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Crawford

To me, the most prime lakefront neighborhoods end (roughly) at Belmont. Maybe if you want to be super-strict you can say Diversey, because that's where LP ends, or looser and say Irving Park.

Obviously everywhere along the lakefront is dense/urban till Evanston, including Rogers Park, but it gets less consistently affluent/desirable somewhere around Lakeview.

^ But this isn't a discussion about affluence, it's a discussion about urbanity

[Vlajos]

Worrying about toddlers is like 2 years of one's life. Hardly worth moving over. Plus, we had a blast living in Andersonville living with toddlers. So many parks nearby for them plus the beach.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

disagree all you want.

one of has actually spent decades living in river north and edgewater and lincoln square (and west loop and rogers park and little italy and wrigleyville).

and one of us hasn't lived in chicago, ever.

That's fine, but irrelevant. Still doesn't mean Lincoln Square is remotely as urban as River North, at least not by common definitions.

An epic streetscape of 50-floor condo towers with extensive street-level retail (sometimes multilevel), possibly unmatched in the U.S. outside NYC, obviously isn't similar to detached homes with yards on quiet, leafy streets.

This is Lincoln Square:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9816...7i13312!8i6656

This is River North:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8912...7i13312!8i6656

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

And I full on agree--I'm not sure how Lincoln Square somehow become more urban than River North, which is basically a canyon of skyscrapers with all sorts of restaurants/stores/entertainment at your disposal at this point

i agree that river north is WAY more urban from a structural standpoint (duh, it's chock full of sksycrapers while lincoln square doesn't have anything over 5 stories tall). but for my day to day life, lincoln square is better in my opinion. WAY more cheap little ethnic hole-in the-walls and neighborhood joints and other fine-grained organic urban stuff like our century-old neighborhood movie theater or giddings plaza or the global handmade jewelry store, etc. there's so much here that you just don't find downtown. so much in rivernorth is geared to people who don't live there, it never felt like a real urban community to me. lincoln square just feels more authentic (probably because it isn't crawling with tourists 24/7).

[Centropolis]

funny, there's a rock bottom brewery across the street with a bed bath and beyond across from that. i don't know what that says about the nature of these newer, cbd/cbd adjacent highrise neighborhoods but often times they feel closer to the newest outerbelt development than they do to some mid-city neighborhood, fooling around with an automobile excepted (which of course IS a big deal).

[Centropolis]

i was wandering around in a booming highrise neighborhood in seattle recently and the new construction building advertisement signs were stacked up on the sidewalk with arrows like staggered subdivision signs.