7 ms·

My take is that there is no clear-cut cultural dynamic. The article even tacitly admits that by explaining that the new so-called trend is limited to very speci

by wahern 7y ago

My take is that there is no clear-cut cultural dynamic. The article even tacitly admits that by explaining that the new so-called trend is limited to very specific areas centered around employment centers. The notion that culture is a predominate driver of urban-suburban migration never sat well with me. In nearly every place around the world these migrations are driven predominately by economic factors, particularly employment and housing costs. Except for the relatively wealthy, every other preference necessarily takes a back seat. The post-WWII generational migration to suburbia beginning in the 1940s is arguably an exception. OTOH, it was clearly driven by the automobile and accelerated by the interstate system opening up cheaper land without losing access to employment. But now traffic and other factors, such as regional industrial and commercial specializations, have made distance relevant again. The same trends that drove the return to urban areas persist. Because NIMBY suppression of housing development accelerated the rise of housing costs, we very quickly saw counter pressures back out to the suburbs. I'd argue this is still very much inline with an overall trend back toward cities, because the economics of distance and employment continue to favor density now more than ever. Again, the article admits this by explaining that the newly growing suburban cities are conspicuously close to urban centers generally, and employment centers specifically. Culture, racism, schools... these reasons resonant with people, but all these preferences take a back-seat to economic realities. If you're lucky enough to be able to say that you forwent opportunities for non-economic reasons, you're almost by definition part of a minority because the vast majority of people in this country do not enjoy such privileges of choice, at least not to any substantial degree. To that extent expressed preferences are incapable of explaining the fundamentals of large, national trends. When people give a reason for choosing a city or a suburb, they're often missing the forest for the trees--they're explaining their choice among a small set of options filtered by their means, not the reasons for the set of options they could realistically choose from.

tropo 7y ago
The cultural dynamic is intertwined with economic factors. If you will have a 2-income family, you'll want to be where multiple jobs are within a commute. The 1-income family or single person can simply move as needed. If you will have a large family, you'll prefer a location where a large house is affordable. If you won't have a family, that doesn't matter. Cause and effect go both ways. People following a traditional lifestyle are pushed out of cities by economic factors, and people following other lifestyles are pushed into cities. Meanwhile, city dwellers are discouraged from living traditionally due to economic factors, just as non-city dwellers wanting two incomes have trouble finding that second job.
- wahern 7y ago
  > The 1-income family or single person can simply move as needed. Move where? I've known plenty of both singles (white collar, blue collar) and married couples and on reflection every single one of them is living and working in a place principally because of job opportunities, not according to their preferred locale. Likewise for families. Many have relocated several times in the past 10 or 20 years. I think it goes without saying that the unwashed masses the world over will choose larger accommodations (up to some limit), all things being equal. You can't go wrong assuming the masses will choose more for less. I used to think otherwise until I began reading that even the French had begun leaving their small walkable cities for either the major cities or suburbs. That's when I had to face the reality that the French are no different than the Americans, who are no different than the Nigerians. Given the universal pressure to spread out (at least in the aggregate), if we want to explain trending migration patterns the controlling factors are almost certainly going to relate to the more mundane economics of housing prices and employment opportunities. Those are the relevant variables, everything else is relatively fixed by comparison. All the other narratives, such as the supposedly unique Millennial preference for urban environments, seem hopelessly tainted by the culture wars. I have my own opinions and anecdotes on the matter, but I've come to think they're largely irrelevant. Why resort to them when the more obvious explanations are not only sufficient to help explain the trends, but also have greater predictive power. Also, FWIW, I've noticed that our perceptions of suburbia are changing. What constitutes suburban development these days would have been considered overly dense and undesirable by suburbanites 20-30 years ago. I mention that because I think people will rationalize the choices they face and the choices they make. If they prefer suburbia, they're likely to perceive themselves as in suburbia and describe their surrounding as suburban even when their community is better described as more urban. People have preconceived notions of what urban means that don't suffice to explain contemporary patterns of development. I have a two-car garage in the San Francisco Richmond neighborhood in a house that, when built in 1926, would have been squarely considered suburban--presuming the term had been coined at that time. Today most would consider my neighborhood urban, notwithstanding the absence of skyscrapers, but there are plenty of new developments popping up that people describe as suburban but which are not appreciably less dense than many neighborhoods in San Francisco. But, again, we needn't delve into that minutiae if we instead look to more fundamental and objective qualities, such as cost of housing relative to distance to labor centers. Do I prefer the ideal of the city, where my kids can walk to the neighborhood school, library, movie theater and church, more than the idea of their ability to frolic in open pastures and virgin forest? I realized several years ago that it doesn't matter what I would prefer because the next time we move, if we move, I'll not likely have the privilege of choosing between such stark choices; rather, the reason for moving (i.e new job) will almost certainly narrow my options down not only to a particular city but to a particular neighborhood.
golemiprague 7y ago
Distance from employment centres is a factor where all else is equal but nobody is going to live in an inner city ghetto just because it is in the inner city. In practice, everybody are trying to live in an area where the majority is their own race and their own culture. Always was like that always will be, once that is satisfied they try to find the closest place to the city that they can afford. Small minorities might not be the majority in any area because they don't have the numbers but they will still concentrate to the same area.
dajohnson89 7y ago
there are some neighborhoods that are close to the city center, but remain very affordable. "gentrification" is a buzzword that describes the rent steadily creeping up, and the demographics changing accordingly.

by wahern 7y ago

tropo 7y ago

The cultural dynamic is intertwined with economic factors. If you will have a 2-income family, you'll want to be where multiple jobs are within a commute. The 1-income family or single person can simply move as needed. If you will have a large family, you'll prefer a location where a large house is affordable. If you won't have a family, that doesn't matter. Cause and effect go both ways. People following a traditional lifestyle are pushed out of cities by economic factors, and people following other lifestyles are pushed into cities. Meanwhile, city dwellers are discouraged from living traditionally due to economic factors, just as non-city dwellers wanting two incomes have trouble finding that second job.

wahern 7y ago
> The 1-income family or single person can simply move as needed. Move where? I've known plenty of both singles (white collar, blue collar) and married couples and on reflection every single one of them is living and working in a place principally because of job opportunities, not according to their preferred locale. Likewise for families. Many have relocated several times in the past 10 or 20 years. I think it goes without saying that the unwashed masses the world over will choose larger accommodations (up to some limit), all things being equal. You can't go wrong assuming the masses will choose more for less. I used to think otherwise until I began reading that even the French had begun leaving their small walkable cities for either the major cities or suburbs. That's when I had to face the reality that the French are no different than the Americans, who are no different than the Nigerians. Given the universal pressure to spread out (at least in the aggregate), if we want to explain trending migration patterns the controlling factors are almost certainly going to relate to the more mundane economics of housing prices and employment opportunities. Those are the relevant variables, everything else is relatively fixed by comparison. All the other narratives, such as the supposedly unique Millennial preference for urban environments, seem hopelessly tainted by the culture wars. I have my own opinions and anecdotes on the matter, but I've come to think they're largely irrelevant. Why resort to them when the more obvious explanations are not only sufficient to help explain the trends, but also have greater predictive power. Also, FWIW, I've noticed that our perceptions of suburbia are changing. What constitutes suburban development these days would have been considered overly dense and undesirable by suburbanites 20-30 years ago. I mention that because I think people will rationalize the choices they face and the choices they make. If they prefer suburbia, they're likely to perceive themselves as in suburbia and describe their surrounding as suburban even when their community is better described as more urban. People have preconceived notions of what urban means that don't suffice to explain contemporary patterns of development. I have a two-car garage in the San Francisco Richmond neighborhood in a house that, when built in 1926, would have been squarely considered suburban--presuming the term had been coined at that time. Today most would consider my neighborhood urban, notwithstanding the absence of skyscrapers, but there are plenty of new developments popping up that people describe as suburban but which are not appreciably less dense than many neighborhoods in San Francisco. But, again, we needn't delve into that minutiae if we instead look to more fundamental and objective qualities, such as cost of housing relative to distance to labor centers. Do I prefer the ideal of the city, where my kids can walk to the neighborhood school, library, movie theater and church, more than the idea of their ability to frolic in open pastures and virgin forest? I realized several years ago that it doesn't matter what I would prefer because the next time we move, if we move, I'll not likely have the privilege of choosing between such stark choices; rather, the reason for moving (i.e new job) will almost certainly narrow my options down not only to a particular city but to a particular neighborhood.

golemiprague 7y ago

Distance from employment centres is a factor where all else is equal but nobody is going to live in an inner city ghetto just because it is in the inner city. In practice, everybody are trying to live in an area where the majority is their own race and their own culture. Always was like that always will be, once that is satisfied they try to find the closest place to the city that they can afford. Small minorities might not be the majority in any area because they don't have the numbers but they will still concentrate to the same area.

dajohnson89 7y ago

there are some neighborhoods that are close to the city center, but remain very affordable. "gentrification" is a buzzword that describes the rent steadily creeping up, and the demographics changing accordingly.