7 ms·

You are far too certain. 70 years ago a prognosticator wouldn't be considered insane to say "the ship sailed on cities 50 years ago, Americans live in downtown

You are far too certain. 70 years ago a prognosticator wouldn't be considered insane to say "the ship sailed on cities 50 years ago, Americans live in downtown and that's not changing". These things do change, often quite quickly. Personally, I think the Boomers are in for a big shock when they try to sell their homes for a "fair" price, and discover that Millennials neither want nor can afford large suburban homes. Once that happens the market (and politics probably) are going to do some really freaky things.

brightball 8y ago
> Millennials neither want nor can afford large suburban homes I see this often. Very few people want large homes when they are either single or don't have kids. As soon as you do have kids and they start to grow to an age where they want to play outside, having space to run, play sports, be away from traffic, have their own room, etc gets a lot higher on your priority list. You can also get a suburban home without it being "large" and still get a lot of space to go with it. People used to get "starter homes" and then periodically trade up if/when their incomes increased or they had some equity in the home. It seems like the biggest barrier to this today is that people want to go straight to the HGTV home. I can't tell you how many people I've known who, straight out of school, overextend to the most expensive house they can afford. If you want more house, for your money...that usually means buying farther away from density.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  You act like Millenials don't already have children, when the oldest members of that cohort are 37.
  - brightball 8y ago
    That's because it's a known trend: https://www.forbes.com/sites/josephcoughlin/2018/06/11/millennials-arent-having-kids-heres-why-thats-a-problem-for-baby-boomer-real-estate-retirement/#14aafc7a2058 https://www.forbes.com/sites/josephcoughlin/2018/06/11/mille... https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/singletons/201804/should-we-worry-about-millennials-not-having-babies https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/singletons/201804/sh... https://www.parents.com/parents-magazine/parents-perspective/millennials-arent-planning-on-having-children-should-we-worry/ https://www.parents.com/parents-magazine/parents-perspective... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/upshot/americans-are-having-fewer-babies-they-told-us-why.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/upshot/americans-are-havi...
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      Yeah, so that reinforces my point. Millenials aren't going to buy up those suburban homes.
      - brightball 8y ago
        Because they aren't having kids... Not because there's a problem with the homes or the locations. It's because somehow, an entire generation has grown up with the idea that the one biologically necessary act to further the survival of the species...is not a good idea. Maybe it's marketing, maybe it's the message, maybe it's the intensity of school causing people to believe that workaholism is necessary, maybe it's pride that working for somebody else is more important to people than raising a family and maybe it's student loan debt making the idea of the costs of raising kids difficult to bear, maybe it's culture that has changed the relationships between potential parents enough to make them incompatible. Whatever it is, something serious has happened to cause that many people to go against biology.
        WoahNow 8y ago
        Or maybe people realize the raising kids is an enormous cost from both money and time. Maybe it's selfish, but myself and many of my millennial friends would rather spend their prime earning and health years doing what they want rather than what they "have to" do for kids.
        toasterlovin 8y ago
        Just do yourself a favor and think long and hard about whether or not that's going to sustain you for the remainder of your 70-80 years on this planet.
        chc 8y ago
        Maybe not, but having kids doesn't seem particularly more likely to sustain them, does it?
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Anecdote of one. 36, wife and two kids. Have a quarter acre of land, a pool, and a 2600 sq ft house in a Tier 2 city for ~$200k. Why would I ever choose higher density and city living? I would not pay more for a lower quality of life (and distance means little to me, as I work from home and my kids don't go to school). I happily bought my suburban home instead of living close to others in a condo or a townhouse.
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      Buying suburban for me would replace my 30m walking commute for a 1.5h driving commute, all for a yard I wouldn't have time to use with my commute. Not a good trade for me. I also don't have any kids and won't be having them.
      - toomuchtodo 8y ago
        Fair points. My commute is 20 minutes (long enough for one NPR podcast and a Dunkin Dounts coffee on the way), and I only go into the office a few days each month. My employer even installed an EV charger for me!
        village-idiot 8y ago
        That sounds about perfect for a driving commute.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - chrissnell 8y ago
        How old are you? I was quite sure that I wouldn't have kids, either, but I randomly met a nice girl who lived in the (urban) apartment upstairs from me and next thing I knew, I was 38, married, and watching my son being born. It comes at you fast and unexpected and it wasn't at all the life-ruining thing that I was sure it was when I was 28. Here in my early 40s, my only regret is not doing it earlier.
- notauser 8y ago
  Yes, but fewer people are having children, which reduces the demand for suburban living. The suburbs also have less attraction for me as a parent. In the old days you could let your kids roam a suburb freely - now you can't. So why not live in a city? You have the same restrictions, but also a lot more distractions such as free museums.
  - clavalle 8y ago
    Why can't you let your kids roam in a suburb?
    - Steltek 8y ago
      I suppose my kids could technically "roam" but they won't have anywhere to go that's interesting. Most kids can't even walk or bike to school in the suburbs.
      - brightball 8y ago
        Interesting is also very different for a kid. Kids get interested in bugs, the woods, forts, climbing on trees.
        vkou 8y ago
        In the suburbs I've lived in, there are no forts, woods, or trees that you can climb, without being told off by whomever owns the property the tree is on.
      - clavalle 8y ago
        Ahh. I'm lucky enough that my kids have some trails, two parks, a lake, a water park etc. within walking/biking distance to roam to. Not to mention friends' yards. And roam they do.
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      There’s an increasing social pressure since the 1980s to supervise children at all times because of “stranger danger”. Parents have had the cops called on them for letting their kids play in the yard. Nothing structural has changed about letting kids roam, but the social side has.
- kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
  Somehow Americans managed to have large families 100 years ago without the palatial McMansions. You don't need a large home unless you're running on the real estate investment treadmill.
- lykahb 8y ago
  The suburbs have less air and noise pollution, which is good for the children but overall it's a dull and isolated environment. Playing alone in the backyard just because that is the only place where a child can go out of the house is quite sad. In Europe the children can go to a shared park or a playground. Strolling along a street is also safe and quite pleasant when there is little traffic. There is more space and things to do than you can have in your backyard. And more importantly, they get to play with other children.
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    We live in the suburbs. Our kids play with other kids at the local park all the time. But you're insane if you can't see the huge advantage to being able to just let the kids out into the backyard.
  - refurb 8y ago
    In Europe the children can go to a shared park or a playground. Strolling along a street is also safe and quite pleasant when there is little traffic. There is more space and things to do than you can have in your backyard. And more importantly, they get to play with other children. This sounds exactly like the US suburbs I've been in!
- Steltek 8y ago
  I'm a Millennial (by some definitions) with kids. I don't want "more house"; instead I want my kids to have access to things to foster their independence and growth. I have a lot of friends, with kids, who have had to look farther out into the suburbs because of home prices and inventory. And nothing in this price range is HGTV material, believe me.
- crispyambulance 8y ago
  There's some more nuance here than "urban-jungle" vs "suburbia". It is totally possible to live in a walkable area with urban amenities without being inside a dense mega-city. These used to be called "street-car" suburbs-- urban nucleations that exist just outside of the central business districts of medium-to-large cities. They're sort of like cities unto themselves. They're sometimes referred to as "main-street" communities. Lots of people live in such places and don't realize it or they've managed to give too much away for automobile infrastructure to notice that, YES, it is possible to live such that not every trip necessarily begins and ends with an automobile in a parking space. This can be done in many places _without_ moving to NYC/SF/Chicago. How much house one needs (if any) is a lifestyle decision that can fluctuate over time. People can adapt. It starts with demanding things like "complete streets" (https://smartgrowthamerica.org/program/national-complete-streets-coalition/ https://smartgrowthamerica.org/program/national-complete-str...), walkability as a target in new developments and intelligent requirements for parking so that we don't end up with "ocean-of-asphalt" parking lots.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Spooky23 8y ago
I get what you’re saying but just from a legal and complexity point of view, you’re unlikely to find radical change in suburbia. It’s just like the issues with rail — because you have so many landowners, the capital costs of transforming a single family block or subdivision to higher density is really expensive or requires eminent domain, which would be politically difficult. You can have scenarios (especially now that it’s ok to walk away from mortgages) where prices drop. Single family isn’t going away.
darpa_escapee 8y ago
> Personally, I think the Boomers are in for a big shock when they try to sell their homes for a "fair" price, and discover that Millennials neither want nor can afford large suburban homes There are plenty of foreigner investors who'd be happy to buy their property.
sxv 8y ago
> Millennials neither want nor can afford large suburban homes Due to the economics of supply and demand, if the former clause is true then the latter clause cannot also be true.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  There's a lag in between those things where both clauses can definitely be true.

brightball 8y ago

> Millennials neither want nor can afford large suburban homes I see this often. Very few people want large homes when they are either single or don't have kids. As soon as you do have kids and they start to grow to an age where they want to play outside, having space to run, play sports, be away from traffic, have their own room, etc gets a lot higher on your priority list. You can also get a suburban home without it being "large" and still get a lot of space to go with it. People used to get "starter homes" and then periodically trade up if/when their incomes increased or they had some equity in the home. It seems like the biggest barrier to this today is that people want to go straight to the HGTV home. I can't tell you how many people I've known who, straight out of school, overextend to the most expensive house they can afford. If you want more house, for your money...that usually means buying farther away from density.

village-idiot 8y ago
You act like Millenials don't already have children, when the oldest members of that cohort are 37.
- brightball 8y ago
  That's because it's a known trend: https://www.forbes.com/sites/josephcoughlin/2018/06/11/millennials-arent-having-kids-heres-why-thats-a-problem-for-baby-boomer-real-estate-retirement/#14aafc7a2058 https://www.forbes.com/sites/josephcoughlin/2018/06/11/mille... https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/singletons/201804/should-we-worry-about-millennials-not-having-babies https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/singletons/201804/sh... https://www.parents.com/parents-magazine/parents-perspective/millennials-arent-planning-on-having-children-should-we-worry/ https://www.parents.com/parents-magazine/parents-perspective... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/upshot/americans-are-having-fewer-babies-they-told-us-why.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/upshot/americans-are-havi...
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    Yeah, so that reinforces my point. Millenials aren't going to buy up those suburban homes.
    - brightball 8y ago
      Because they aren't having kids... Not because there's a problem with the homes or the locations. It's because somehow, an entire generation has grown up with the idea that the one biologically necessary act to further the survival of the species...is not a good idea. Maybe it's marketing, maybe it's the message, maybe it's the intensity of school causing people to believe that workaholism is necessary, maybe it's pride that working for somebody else is more important to people than raising a family and maybe it's student loan debt making the idea of the costs of raising kids difficult to bear, maybe it's culture that has changed the relationships between potential parents enough to make them incompatible. Whatever it is, something serious has happened to cause that many people to go against biology.
      - WoahNow 8y ago
        Or maybe people realize the raising kids is an enormous cost from both money and time. Maybe it's selfish, but myself and many of my millennial friends would rather spend their prime earning and health years doing what they want rather than what they "have to" do for kids.
        toasterlovin 8y ago
        Just do yourself a favor and think long and hard about whether or not that's going to sustain you for the remainder of your 70-80 years on this planet.
        chc 8y ago
        Maybe not, but having kids doesn't seem particularly more likely to sustain them, does it?
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Anecdote of one. 36, wife and two kids. Have a quarter acre of land, a pool, and a 2600 sq ft house in a Tier 2 city for ~$200k. Why would I ever choose higher density and city living? I would not pay more for a lower quality of life (and distance means little to me, as I work from home and my kids don't go to school). I happily bought my suburban home instead of living close to others in a condo or a townhouse.
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    Buying suburban for me would replace my 30m walking commute for a 1.5h driving commute, all for a yard I wouldn't have time to use with my commute. Not a good trade for me. I also don't have any kids and won't be having them.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      Fair points. My commute is 20 minutes (long enough for one NPR podcast and a Dunkin Dounts coffee on the way), and I only go into the office a few days each month. My employer even installed an EV charger for me!
      - village-idiot 8y ago
        That sounds about perfect for a driving commute.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - chrissnell 8y ago
      How old are you? I was quite sure that I wouldn't have kids, either, but I randomly met a nice girl who lived in the (urban) apartment upstairs from me and next thing I knew, I was 38, married, and watching my son being born. It comes at you fast and unexpected and it wasn't at all the life-ruining thing that I was sure it was when I was 28. Here in my early 40s, my only regret is not doing it earlier.
notauser 8y ago
Yes, but fewer people are having children, which reduces the demand for suburban living. The suburbs also have less attraction for me as a parent. In the old days you could let your kids roam a suburb freely - now you can't. So why not live in a city? You have the same restrictions, but also a lot more distractions such as free museums.
- clavalle 8y ago
  Why can't you let your kids roam in a suburb?
  - Steltek 8y ago
    I suppose my kids could technically "roam" but they won't have anywhere to go that's interesting. Most kids can't even walk or bike to school in the suburbs.
    - brightball 8y ago
      Interesting is also very different for a kid. Kids get interested in bugs, the woods, forts, climbing on trees.
      - vkou 8y ago
        In the suburbs I've lived in, there are no forts, woods, or trees that you can climb, without being told off by whomever owns the property the tree is on.
    - clavalle 8y ago
      Ahh. I'm lucky enough that my kids have some trails, two parks, a lake, a water park etc. within walking/biking distance to roam to. Not to mention friends' yards. And roam they do.
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    There’s an increasing social pressure since the 1980s to supervise children at all times because of “stranger danger”. Parents have had the cops called on them for letting their kids play in the yard. Nothing structural has changed about letting kids roam, but the social side has.
kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
Somehow Americans managed to have large families 100 years ago without the palatial McMansions. You don't need a large home unless you're running on the real estate investment treadmill.
lykahb 8y ago
The suburbs have less air and noise pollution, which is good for the children but overall it's a dull and isolated environment. Playing alone in the backyard just because that is the only place where a child can go out of the house is quite sad. In Europe the children can go to a shared park or a playground. Strolling along a street is also safe and quite pleasant when there is little traffic. There is more space and things to do than you can have in your backyard. And more importantly, they get to play with other children.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  We live in the suburbs. Our kids play with other kids at the local park all the time. But you're insane if you can't see the huge advantage to being able to just let the kids out into the backyard.
- refurb 8y ago
  In Europe the children can go to a shared park or a playground. Strolling along a street is also safe and quite pleasant when there is little traffic. There is more space and things to do than you can have in your backyard. And more importantly, they get to play with other children. This sounds exactly like the US suburbs I've been in!
Steltek 8y ago
I'm a Millennial (by some definitions) with kids. I don't want "more house"; instead I want my kids to have access to things to foster their independence and growth. I have a lot of friends, with kids, who have had to look farther out into the suburbs because of home prices and inventory. And nothing in this price range is HGTV material, believe me.
crispyambulance 8y ago
There's some more nuance here than "urban-jungle" vs "suburbia". It is totally possible to live in a walkable area with urban amenities without being inside a dense mega-city. These used to be called "street-car" suburbs-- urban nucleations that exist just outside of the central business districts of medium-to-large cities. They're sort of like cities unto themselves. They're sometimes referred to as "main-street" communities. Lots of people live in such places and don't realize it or they've managed to give too much away for automobile infrastructure to notice that, YES, it is possible to live such that not every trip necessarily begins and ends with an automobile in a parking space. This can be done in many places _without_ moving to NYC/SF/Chicago. How much house one needs (if any) is a lifestyle decision that can fluctuate over time. People can adapt. It starts with demanding things like "complete streets" (https://smartgrowthamerica.org/program/national-complete-streets-coalition/ https://smartgrowthamerica.org/program/national-complete-str...), walkability as a target in new developments and intelligent requirements for parking so that we don't end up with "ocean-of-asphalt" parking lots.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Spooky23 8y ago

I get what you’re saying but just from a legal and complexity point of view, you’re unlikely to find radical change in suburbia. It’s just like the issues with rail — because you have so many landowners, the capital costs of transforming a single family block or subdivision to higher density is really expensive or requires eminent domain, which would be politically difficult. You can have scenarios (especially now that it’s ok to walk away from mortgages) where prices drop. Single family isn’t going away.

darpa_escapee 8y ago

> Personally, I think the Boomers are in for a big shock when they try to sell their homes for a "fair" price, and discover that Millennials neither want nor can afford large suburban homes There are plenty of foreigner investors who'd be happy to buy their property.

sxv 8y ago

> Millennials neither want nor can afford large suburban homes Due to the economics of supply and demand, if the former clause is true then the latter clause cannot also be true.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
There's a lag in between those things where both clauses can definitely be true.