4 ms·

Part of what might be going on here: Millennials are happier living in cities[1], but can't afford to buy there. So they compromise, purchasing in a post-WWII s

Part of what might be going on here: Millennials are happier living in cities[1], but can't afford to buy there. So they compromise, purchasing in a post-WWII suburb, which tend to be the worst examples of suburbs: They lack walkable downtowns, with streets dotted with mass-produced homes that aren't built as well as prewar construction and starting to incur significant maintenance costs. But between ongoing student loans, that's all you can afford. [1] https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/06/millennials-are-happiest-in-cities/563999/ https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/06/millennials-are-happies...

CalRobert 8y ago
Oddly I find myself pleased with the idea of living in the city centre, _or_ in the country (though only for an extremely specific set of circumstances), but the suburbs seem like the worst of both worlds. They're still pretty expensive, but they're dangerous places to walk, cycle, or (paradoxically) even drive. I got screamed at a hell of a lot more cycling around Fremont than I did Berkeley. Also, I can get a cheap place in the country with the deposit I saved up for a house in the city and not have a mortgage, OR I can take on a mortgage, live city centre, and have better access to employment in the event my remote job disappears, but taking on a mortgage and still being a crappy commute away from potential <other job> is not a pleasant thought. Edit: Should mention that the specific circumstances I referred to are: * work 100% remote * happen to be looking at a house near a train station 90 minutes from the city (in many US cities this would _be_ a suburb) * Interested in intensively cultivating an acre or so of land to be a bit more self reliant w.r.t food.
- ryanSrich 8y ago
  I think there are 4 areas: - City center - Neighborhood - Suburb - Country At least that's the case here in Portland. My preference is Neighborhood or Country. The problem here is that the houses in the country are almost as expensive as the ones in the city center. The houses themselves aren't extravagant either, it's mostly because they come with 10+ acres of land. Portland has great neighborhoods, but they're also drastically different from one another. A super nice house in a far east neighborhood might be $500k while the same house in a more desirable neighborhood could be $1m. Neighborhoods change quickly though, so I imagine much of the remorse from millennials is coming from moving to the suburbs, and not necessarily the less desirable neighborhoods (as they have hope those will gentrify).
  - LyndsySimon 8y ago
    The allure of “the country”, for me, is getting way outside the cities. I technically live in a city of 14k people, but it’s the largest municipality in the county. I’m about two hours from anything that can reasonably be considered a “city”, in a quiet neighborhood where there is practically zero traffic after 8pm or so. This was the most isolated property I could find that’s still got good Internet access. Price-wise, there’s no comparison. I paid about $120k for a five bedroom house on half an acre. We were looking at townhouses in the last place we lived (Charlottesville, VA) with a tiny yard and half the living space that were going for $325k+.
ksdale 8y ago
Anecdote: This is exactly what my wife and I did, we bought a house 30 minutes away from where I worked in a smaller town because we could afford the quality of house that we wanted, and it was quite a nice house, but the town had basically none of the amenities that it turned out we really wanted. Turns out we'd much rather live in an apartment in a bigger city, despite having 3 young kids. As the kids get bigger we'll certainly end up in a house again, but our search criteria will be much different the next time around. We realized our mistake fairly quickly though and luckily were able to sell our house at a price so that we broke even on the whole deal, but it was definitely a valuable learning experience.
phlipski 8y ago
I hear the phrase, "Not as well built as before" a lot when it comes to housing, and I just dont' understand why that is always assumed. Modern building codes are updated based on sound science and testing. Talk to folks who have houses down in the Corpus Christi, TX area after the recent hurricane. Basically the newer the house the less damage incurred.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I hear the phrase, "Not as well built as before" a lot when it comes to housing, and I just dont' understand why that is always assumed. I think it's mostly true of 1960s-1970s construction (possibly 1950s-1980s) compared to the period shortly before that. But, also, survivorship bias: an older house must be better constructed to be still standing than a newer one.
- JustSomeNobody 8y ago
  I usually take it to mean design choices, not construction quality. Houses in FL today are designed to be tightly sealed so as to keep the heat out and the AC in. Houses from the 60's and 70's were designed to allow the windows to be opened and you get a nice cool airflow, even on hot days. I, personally, think this lack of openness in housing construction tends to keep people from interacting much with their neighbors. If your windows are open, people are more comfortable coming over and knocking on the door to say hello.
- grawprog 8y ago
  Ya standards might be higher. Doesn't mean they're being followed though. I've worked in an industry that's fairly dependent on development. New constructions are built as quickly and cheaply as possible. The developments we do jobs for aren't cheap but the quality of the construction is extremely poor. Years ago I worked as a landscaper. One of the sites we worked on was a 2 year old townhouse complex at the center of the complex was a 100 year old heritage building the developers weren't allowed to remove. It was beautiful, solidly built and will likely be standing for another 100 years. The townhouses though, there were several units having balconies, railings or even parts of their roofs replaced only two years after being built. They looked run down, parts of the foundation were already cracking, parts of walls were already beginning to rot. Gates and fences were broken. And this was in a fairly nice neighbourhood. I've also talked with construction workers who worked on the False Creek development they built in Vancouver for the 2010 Olympics. There's only one building's worth of insulation in the entire development. When one building was nearly finished they brought the inspectors in, got their approval, then moved the insulation from the one building to the next one in time for the inspection. I've probably rambled enough though...I could keep going on i've got lots first hand experience at just how bad modern construction is.

CalRobert 8y ago

Oddly I find myself pleased with the idea of living in the city centre, _or_ in the country (though only for an extremely specific set of circumstances), but the suburbs seem like the worst of both worlds. They're still pretty expensive, but they're dangerous places to walk, cycle, or (paradoxically) even drive. I got screamed at a hell of a lot more cycling around Fremont than I did Berkeley. Also, I can get a cheap place in the country with the deposit I saved up for a house in the city and not have a mortgage, OR I can take on a mortgage, live city centre, and have better access to employment in the event my remote job disappears, but taking on a mortgage and still being a crappy commute away from potential <other job> is not a pleasant thought. Edit: Should mention that the specific circumstances I referred to are: * work 100% remote * happen to be looking at a house near a train station 90 minutes from the city (in many US cities this would _be_ a suburb) * Interested in intensively cultivating an acre or so of land to be a bit more self reliant w.r.t food.

ryanSrich 8y ago
I think there are 4 areas: - City center - Neighborhood - Suburb - Country At least that's the case here in Portland. My preference is Neighborhood or Country. The problem here is that the houses in the country are almost as expensive as the ones in the city center. The houses themselves aren't extravagant either, it's mostly because they come with 10+ acres of land. Portland has great neighborhoods, but they're also drastically different from one another. A super nice house in a far east neighborhood might be $500k while the same house in a more desirable neighborhood could be $1m. Neighborhoods change quickly though, so I imagine much of the remorse from millennials is coming from moving to the suburbs, and not necessarily the less desirable neighborhoods (as they have hope those will gentrify).
- LyndsySimon 8y ago
  The allure of “the country”, for me, is getting way outside the cities. I technically live in a city of 14k people, but it’s the largest municipality in the county. I’m about two hours from anything that can reasonably be considered a “city”, in a quiet neighborhood where there is practically zero traffic after 8pm or so. This was the most isolated property I could find that’s still got good Internet access. Price-wise, there’s no comparison. I paid about $120k for a five bedroom house on half an acre. We were looking at townhouses in the last place we lived (Charlottesville, VA) with a tiny yard and half the living space that were going for $325k+.

ksdale 8y ago

Anecdote: This is exactly what my wife and I did, we bought a house 30 minutes away from where I worked in a smaller town because we could afford the quality of house that we wanted, and it was quite a nice house, but the town had basically none of the amenities that it turned out we really wanted. Turns out we'd much rather live in an apartment in a bigger city, despite having 3 young kids. As the kids get bigger we'll certainly end up in a house again, but our search criteria will be much different the next time around. We realized our mistake fairly quickly though and luckily were able to sell our house at a price so that we broke even on the whole deal, but it was definitely a valuable learning experience.

phlipski 8y ago

I hear the phrase, "Not as well built as before" a lot when it comes to housing, and I just dont' understand why that is always assumed. Modern building codes are updated based on sound science and testing. Talk to folks who have houses down in the Corpus Christi, TX area after the recent hurricane. Basically the newer the house the less damage incurred.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> I hear the phrase, "Not as well built as before" a lot when it comes to housing, and I just dont' understand why that is always assumed. I think it's mostly true of 1960s-1970s construction (possibly 1950s-1980s) compared to the period shortly before that. But, also, survivorship bias: an older house must be better constructed to be still standing than a newer one.
JustSomeNobody 8y ago
I usually take it to mean design choices, not construction quality. Houses in FL today are designed to be tightly sealed so as to keep the heat out and the AC in. Houses from the 60's and 70's were designed to allow the windows to be opened and you get a nice cool airflow, even on hot days. I, personally, think this lack of openness in housing construction tends to keep people from interacting much with their neighbors. If your windows are open, people are more comfortable coming over and knocking on the door to say hello.
grawprog 8y ago
Ya standards might be higher. Doesn't mean they're being followed though. I've worked in an industry that's fairly dependent on development. New constructions are built as quickly and cheaply as possible. The developments we do jobs for aren't cheap but the quality of the construction is extremely poor. Years ago I worked as a landscaper. One of the sites we worked on was a 2 year old townhouse complex at the center of the complex was a 100 year old heritage building the developers weren't allowed to remove. It was beautiful, solidly built and will likely be standing for another 100 years. The townhouses though, there were several units having balconies, railings or even parts of their roofs replaced only two years after being built. They looked run down, parts of the foundation were already cracking, parts of walls were already beginning to rot. Gates and fences were broken. And this was in a fairly nice neighbourhood. I've also talked with construction workers who worked on the False Creek development they built in Vancouver for the 2010 Olympics. There's only one building's worth of insulation in the entire development. When one building was nearly finished they brought the inspectors in, got their approval, then moved the insulation from the one building to the next one in time for the inspection. I've probably rambled enough though...I could keep going on i've got lots first hand experience at just how bad modern construction is.