American Urban Renissance

[urbanactivist]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Why would a real estate shill be an accurate guide to whether or not an area is doing well relative to another area?

She says that half the apartment units u/c in the Houston area are in the city limits. Isn't that kinda to be expected? Maybe even a little low?

no she said half of the new construction is inside the loop... what Houston considers the central city.

[10023]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

I think that the decline of racism and discrimination has contributed to the reversal of white flight as well. White people in general are not as afraid of living near and mixing with people of other races.

Yes and no. Cities are still as segregated as they've ever been, and whites are moving back to majority-white enclaves within cities, not diverse neighborhoods. Of course there had to be some early movers that did move into these neighborhoods when they were more diverse and start the gentrification process, as well.

But regardless, now it looks like this...

http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2...g=-73.994&l=12


Manhattan south of the 80's, the North Side of Chicago, etc. are as white as many American suburbs today.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by urbanactivist

no she said half of the new construction is inside the loop... what Houston considers the central city.

Ok, but she's not an accurate source.

According to the Census, the vast majority of housing permitted in 2012 Metro Houston consists of single family homes. That doesn't sound like some massive return to urban living. It sounds like more of the same sprawl.

Here's the link for Census permits by metro-
http://www.census.gov/construction/b...t3yu201205.txt

My point, BTW, is not to disparage Houston or urban revivals, but just to provide some counterpoints. It's still very much debatable whether we're seeing some wholesale change in living patterns.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by mhays

In many cities, things started to go northward by the early 80s. New York bottomed out in the 70s. San Francisco I'd guess about the same.

New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Boston were all seeing inner city gentrification (specifically, growth of the yuppie demographic group choosing to live in and invest in core neighborhoods) as early as the 1950s. The trends toward gentrification in these cities were absolutely unmistakable by the 1970 census.

I see current urban trends as largely driven by demographics and economics, i.e. the relative and absolute sizes of particular age cohorts, their opportunities for jobs and higher education when they reach their formative years, and their proclivity towards raising families earlier or later in life. To a lesser extent, the policy/political environment related to housing in the immediate post-WWII years (discussed further below).

The current crop of "Millenials" are a very large age cohort (much larger than the "Gen X"), who have generally reached adulthood at a time with relatively poorer job/career prospects necessitating spending more time in higher education and deferring the formation of families. Additionally, the Millenials were born, and have lived through, a time of continuous high immigration rates to the US, with international immigration often inherently favoring population migration into, or at least through, the support networks inherent to denser cities.

In contrast to all of the above, the suburbanization trend of the 1950s-1970s occurred at a time with (1) plentiful job opportunities for even the uneducated among the Greatest Generation and (2) very restricted international immigration.

Also, very simply, urban housing stock as of the end of WWII was in terrible shape and very cramped because of the almost complete lack of residential construction and deferred maintenance over the prior 15 years due to the Depression and war rationing. As widely documented, federal housing policy very strongly favored meeting the demand for a more modern housing supply with suburban rather than urban construction. Those policies, and significant federal funding for support, were in full force from the late 1940s through the late 1960s or early 1970s, so it's also natural that their effects would linger for a few decades thereafter.

[Chef]

Originally Posted by urbanactivist

If our number 1 real estate reporter thinks it's a boom, I think it would be safe to assume that she's correct. Keep in mind that the city of Houston is 627 square miles, but the inner loop is only 98 square miles. So if over 4500 units are under construction all in that space simultaneously (not including several that have yet to start) it's going to change the look of the area quite significantly.

Also as Ms. Sarnoff says, that's really only about 60% of the loop that's having construct-o-mania. Once you pass 10 blocks east of Downtown... there's really nothing happening there. So it's a very concentrated area of the city that's getting built out.

And again that report only covers apartments. A slew of new townhomes is going up in the same area.

The same thing is happening in Minneapolis. There are around 8500 units in the city that are under construction or in the pipeline and around 10,000 were build in the last decade. Minneapolis proper has been the leading municipality in the Twin Cities for building permits for the last 5 years, that hasn't happened since the '50s. It is exciting because almost all of them are mid-rises built in classic urban form.

Originally Posted by 10023

Yes and no. Cities are still as segregated as they've ever been, and whites are moving back to majority-white enclaves within cities, not diverse neighborhoods. Of course there had to be some early movers that did move into these neighborhoods when they were more diverse and start the gentrification process, as well.

That isn't the case here. White millenials are moving back to the city, at the same time non-whites are dispersing out of old enclaves and into the rest of the metro. The two trends are happening in parallel. Large swathes of Minneapolis and St Paul proper are mixed, a lot of the millenials are moving into those neighborhoods. I think it is dangerous to assume that the trends that are happening in some places are universal. There are 51 metro areas of over a million people in this country, they are a heterogeneous lot.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by Chef

That isn't the case here. White millenials are moving back to the city, at the same time non-whites are dispersing out of old enclaves and into the rest of the metro. The two trends are happening in parallel. Large swathes of Minneapolis and St Paul proper are mixed, a lot of the millenials are moving into those neighborhoods. I think it is dangerous to assume that the trends that are happening in some places are universal. There are 51 metro areas of over a million people in this country, they are a heterogeneous lot.

That's the way it is in many cities from what I understand. It's not like white people are moving only into predominately white inner city neighborhoods.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Boston were all seeing inner city gentrification (specifically, growth of the yuppie demographic group choosing to live in and invest in core neighborhoods) as early as the 1950s. The trends toward gentrification in these cities were absolutely unmistakable by the 1970 census.

That is not obviously true for San Francisco, which absolutely tanked in population and residential investment until about 1980, and stabilization was spotty and slow. Whatever 'yuppie gentrification' existed before 1980 paled in comparison to the growing rot. Much of Market Street was abandoned and dangerous through the 1980s, the Tenderloin fell off the map, the Polk became a needle-strewn ghetto, and SOMA became a true wasteland. Crime and poverty festered halfway up the southern slope of Nob Hill. Beautiful inner-city Victorian districts like North Beach, Haight Ashbury and the Castro were available for wholesale colonization by beatniks, hippies and then gays precisely because they were cheap and rundown, because families throughout the city had bum-rushed the exits to attain the suburban dream and sold their homes for whatever they could get. San Francisco continued to lose population until 1980, at which time there were indeed glimmers of gentrification--but most of the rot remained through even that decade.

[mhays]

Same with New York, Seattle, etc.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Ok, but she's not an accurate source.

According to the Census, the vast majority of housing permitted in 2012 Metro Houston consists of single family homes. That doesn't sound like some massive return to urban living. It sounds like more of the same sprawl.

Here's the link for Census permits by metro-
http://www.census.gov/construction/b...t3yu201205.txt

You're talking permits. The reporter talked about construction. Obviously apples and oranges.

Yes one follows the other. But many permitting projects don't happen. And many projects happen under old permits.

It's unclear (without looking) whether "permit" refers to land use permits or building permits, and I don't know Houston's process, but land use permits are particularly separate from actual trends.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Generally speaking, I don't think your premise is correct.

I can't speak for Houston, but most cities aren't booming with construction relative to their suburbs.

And I could be wrong, but would be surprised if this were true in Houston. The city proper is really booming with construction relative to the suburbs? The % white within city limits is growing, and % nonwhite dropping? I doubt it.

Think of Houston in a longer-term perspective. In the early 80's, there were dozens of massive office towers going up everywhere downtown and nearby. Do we see this nowadays? Can we really say that the current era is more of a boom for Houston than that era?

Photolith is correct. Houston city proper is absolutely booming, with a lot of midrise apartments and condos, as well as formerly ghetto neighborhoods being razed and replaced with new residential and retail. It's crazy, and exciting to see all the positive change.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Why would a real estate shill be an accurate guide to whether or not an area is doing well relative to another area?

She says that half the apartment units u/c in the Houston area are in the city limits. Isn't that kinda to be expected? Maybe even a little low?

You're in NYC...what is your interest in contradicting those who actually live in Houston?

[RC14]

I see this issue from a different angle. Most of the people on this forum are probably between 18-35. Big cities are more attractive to single people our age and empty nesters. Those who are trying to raise families usualy want a back yard for their kids to play and a friendly neighborhood where they know their kids will be safe. As human beings we are naturaly very protective of our kids.
I am still in my early 20's and single and I really want to live in a dense urban area, but when I think about the idea of raising kids in a place like that I look back to the burbs.
Here is one explanation based on what I just wrote. I have heard some economists speculate that the current economic slow down is due, in part, to the fact that 'baby boomers' are just entering retirement and the 'ecco-boomers' are just barly entering the work force. In other words, we don't have enough working people in their prime spending years to help grow the ecconomy.
If this is true, it would also mean that there is a larger percentage of the population at an age where they would be inclined to look at city living then there has been in a long time.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

You're in NYC...what is your interest in contradicting those who actually live in Houston?

I have no interest in contradicting anyone, regardless of where they live.

My point is that the whole premise of this thread doesn't make sense. The Census data doesn't support the premise.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by mhays

You're talking permits. The reporter talked about construction. Obviously apples and oranges.

Yes one follows the other. But many permitting projects don't happen. And many projects happen under old permits.

It's unclear (without looking) whether "permit" refers to land use permits or building permits, and I don't know Houston's process, but land use permits are particularly separate from actual trends.

Permits and construction aren't exactly the same, but they aren't apples and oranges either. There's a very strong relationship between the two.

The reporter claimed that there was some massive change in metropolitan development pattens, yet the Census numbers say the opposite. I would trust Census data over claims from a newspaper reporter or real estate broker.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by RC14

I see this issue from a different angle. Most of the people on this forum are probably between 18-35. Big cities are more attractive to single people our age and empty nesters. Those who are trying to raise families usualy want a back yard for their kids to play and a friendly neighborhood where they know their kids will be safe.

I know this has been hashed out countless times on the forum before. But city living does not mean you can't have a backyard, house, or a family friendly neighbourhood.

The fact of the matter is that most city dwellers save for like say NYC, live in houses with yards.

Living in a city does not mean living in a tight condo.

[Centropolis]

Yeah, most cities aren't 40 square miles of tenements and soiled closet beds. Even row houses have backyards and easy access to parks.

[hammersklavier]

There's also the perception gap.

Philadelphia is a city where a lot of kids are being born. While we must question what the long-term results of that are, one surety is a change in perception (i.e.: a growing perception that the city is safe for children). I also notice how dealing with raising kids in the city is becoming a ubiquitous subplot in that primary mirror we hold up to our culture: the television.*

When I walk around town, I walk through Fairmount and think: I want my kids to grow up here. I walk through University City and think: I want my kids to grow up here. I walk through Mt. Airy and think: I want my kids to grow up here. I drive through Towamencin Township and think: I don't want my kids to grow up here.
___________________
* While, by contrast, suburban-set shows almost always feature darker undertones nowadays. It's an almost-exact reversal of the days of The Honeymooners and Leave It To Beaver.

[iheartthed]

Surprised nobody has mentioned it yet, but post war suburban growth was largely driven by things that either don't exist anymore or are on the wane, two of those being: 1) cheap energy and 2) the wide availability of cheap loans to buy houses. America began to lose its grasp on cheap energy in the early 2000s. The Great Recession knocked out the wide availability of loans to buy houses.

Yes, cities like NYC, SF, Boston, D.C., did manage to stabilize the core before those two conditions changed, but I think that strict development policies and/or geographical limitations in those regions played a major role in that.

[urbanactivist]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Permits and construction aren't exactly the same, but they aren't apples and oranges either. There's a very strong relationship between the two.

The reporter claimed that there was some massive change in metropolitan development pattens, yet the Census numbers say the opposite. I would trust Census data over claims from a newspaper reporter or real estate broker.

Your viewpoint on this is nothing short of comical now. The "real estate broker" as you put it is quoting a CBRE report... she's not making up random numbers. She's also paid by the Houston Chronicle to keep up with trends in the area's real estate market. The reason that she classifies what's happening inside the loop as a "boom" is because of the simultaneous activity. There have always been things getting built here, but today in Houston, there's a bunch of things getting built all at the same time. Many of them happen to be apartments. So much so that half of all the current apartment construction for the whole Houston metro is going on in one little slice of it. That qualifies as "boom" to me.

2013 is going to bring a whole slew of new projects inside the loop. I hear about more every day. You know what I don't hear about though? Any projects that are going on in New York. But I'm also not making blind assumptions about those projects and then refuting the citizens that live there on the day-to-day workings of their city.

In the seven years that I have lived in Houston, I have spent the vast majority of that time inside the loop. This is the area I am most familiar with in the city. Between 2005 and now, there have always been a few projects going up, but they were limited to two basic areas... Midtown and the Galleria. What is going on right now in Houston is that the stretch of land between those two places is filling up. 2012 is easily the most construction activity I have seen since living here.

[TarHeelJ]

There is always someone who thinks he knows more about your city than you do, especially if your city is outside of the northeastern U.S. You're right, it IS comical.