Suburbs - General Topics

[David Greene]

So if you’re lucky enough to have a job, there’s just a 25% chance it’s in Minneapolis or St. Paul. And if you’re part of a typical household where you and your spouse work, the chances you’ll both land a job in the city are a tad over 6% (0.25 x 0.25). So for working couples, there’s a 94% chance at least one will have to work in the ‘burbs (the chances of both working in the ‘burbs are 56%).

Well then color me and the missus extremely lucky. Or persistant to find what we wanted.

[go4guy]

^ This is beyond laughable. Do you live within walking distance of your work? If so, good for you. But I doubt you do. Nor do a majority of people who live downtown. Many in fact work in the suburbs. How are they not wasting resources?

I don't work. I live within walking distance of all of my regular errands and a short bus ride of the rest. My wife lives within walking distance of her very short express bus commute. And I'd love to see your stats.

Do YOU live within walking distance to your job and errands? Just one or the other? Outside some portions of the first ring, very few if any people can walk to their destinations when they go shopping. Or do you imagine that the only time people hop in a car is to get to the office and somehow work commutes are the sole determiner of environmental impact?

I mean, I get it. We all make decisions, and where to live is a big one. And most of us don't like it when those big decisions are criticized. That doesn't mean the criticism of particularly poor decisions is laughable. It just means your priorities (an oversized yard, by the sound of things) are different from mine (trying to lessen the damage I do to my kids' future living conditions). Also that I think mine are objectively better.

You dont have a job? So you dont have to worry about a commute? Doesnt that change things entirely? My job is not downtown. And my job is not in a walkable neighborhood, so I need to commute to work. If I lived downtown, or if I lived in the suburb, my commute would be about the same. (Actually shorter time wise by driving in from the suburb.) I have a dog that is high energy, and needs a yard to run around in. It isnt a big yard, but it does the job. My house is in a first ring suburb. And I love the location and the amenities near by. That is my preference, and I will not apologize for that.

[schmitzm03]

Is this the statistic from the Star Tribune article a couple weeks ago? If so, I thought that was just blue collar jobs. Then the next week they came out with an article that said the urban core was where most white collar jobs were being created.

Good question. The article referred to all jobs. It said 22% of jobs in the metro are located within 4 miles of city centers. That’s a 100 square mile area, and the area of Minneapolis and St. Paul combined is 114 square miles. So 25% is a decent rough estimate. And you're right, those urban jobs are 71% white collar (according to the same article).

The data in the Star Tribune article was, if anything, presented in an unclear (if not misleading) way. According to the latest data from DEED (which is the authority on the matter...they report the data that is the basis of BLS estimates), Minneapolis and St. Paul contain about 29.5% of all metro area jobs (477,250 out of 1,618,000). Check it out:https://apps.deed.state.mn.us/lmi/qcew/AreaSel.aspx

Since the core cities make up just under 20% of population, they already contain a disproportionate amount of regional employment. If anything, living in the central cities you have a much greater than average chance of finding a job in or very near your own community. Not only that, being centrally located, even if your job happened to be located in the suburbs, you have a better chance that your commute would be shorter than if you were located on the periphery. That is why, simply from an employment/commuting standpoint, living in the central cities is clearly beneficial.

[David Greene]

I have a dog that is high energy, and needs a yard to run around in. It isnt a big yard, but it does the job. My house is in a first ring suburb. And I love the location and the amenities near by. That is my preference, and I will not apologize for that.

I do want to point out that pretty much every neighborhood in the city has a park within walking distance of residents. It seems like dog parks are getting created every month. I just feel like a lot of people don't even understand what the city has to offer and just dismiss living there without actually knowing anything about it.

Do realize that the choices suburbs have made on how they develop does in fact hurt both the quality of life and the economy of the whole region. I'm a Catholic and from time to time the Church does in fact get something right. The concept of "social sin" is a perfect fit for everyone living in the metro (and everyone in the world, actually). We may not have individually decided to bulldoze poor people's houses, drain wetlands for parking lots or build a billion dollar stadium for a billionaire but because we live in the society that has done these things, we're all responsible for it and have to try to make amends.

[WHS]

The data in the Star Tribune article was, if anything, presented in an unclear (if not misleading) way. According to the latest data from DEED (which is the authority on the matter...they report the data that is the basis of BLS estimates), Minneapolis and St. Paul contain about 29.5% of all metro area jobs (477,250 out of 1,618,000). Check it out:https://apps.deed.state.mn.us/lmi/qcew/AreaSel.aspx

Since the core cities make up just under 20% of population, they already contain a disproportionate amount of regional employment. If anything, living in the central cities you have a much greater than average chance of finding a job in or very near your own community. Not only that, being centrally located, even if your job happened to be located in the suburbs, you have a better chance that your commute would be shorter than if you were located on the periphery. That is why, simply from an employment/commuting standpoint, living in the central cities is clearly beneficial.

I mean, if you were choosing your residence completely independent of your job, then yes, you'd obviously want to live in the center of the metro area, because it's the center of gravity, employment-wise. But that's not what people do -- the two decisions are interrelated.

Also, you're forgetting that a significantly higher percentage of the population is of working age in the cities, while there are more elderly and, especially, more children in the suburbs. (I also suspect, although I admittedly don't have the statistics to verify this, that there are just a lot more working single working people and two-income families in the cities, and a lot more married couples with a homemaker in the suburbs.)

Finally, I really don't think you can just ignore the disproportion in job types. Yes, if you're a white collar professional, as a I suspect most of the posters on this board are, the cities are ideal. But if you're not, they don't look nearly as good.

[EOst]

I do want to point out that pretty much every neighborhood in the city has a park within walking distance of residents. It seems like dog parks are getting created every month. I just feel like a lot of people don't even understand what the city has to offer and just dismiss living there without actually knowing anything about it.

In fairness, most of our public parks aren't good replacements for dog parks/yards as far as dogs are concerned, because you can't really let them off their leash.

[schmitzm03]

I mean, if you were choosing your residence completely independent of your job, then yes, you'd obviously want to live in the center of the metro area, because it's the center of gravity, employment-wise. But that's not what people do -- the two decisions are interrelated.

You're absolutely right, there are a variety of factors that play into why people choose to live one place or another. I was not commenting on that dynamic. I was simply responding to posts that asserted, without any supporting evidence, that people live in the suburbs because of the greater availability of jobs. That is simply not a cogent argument supported by fact. There have been more jobs in the central cities than in the suburbs (relative to the population living in each area) for many decades, throughout the period of suburban sprawl. People simply do not (now, or historically) move to the suburbs because of the relatively greater availability of jobs. They do so for other reasons.

Also, you're forgetting that a significantly higher percentage of the population is of working age in the cities, while there are more elderly and, especially, more children in the suburbs. (I also suspect, although I admittedly don't have the statistics to verify this, that there are just a lot more working single working people and two-income families in the cities, and a lot more married couples with a homemaker in the suburbs.)

While you're gut may be right, there are over 475,000 jobs in Minneapolis and St Paul, but only 387,283 people in the labor force (per 2012 ACS). In the suburbs, there are significantly more people than there are jobs (again, per 2012 ACS). This fact does not support the contention that jobs are relatively more plentiful in the suburbs as a reason it makes more sense to live there than in the central cities.

Finally, I really don't think you can just ignore the disproportion in job types. Yes, if you're a white collar professional, as a I suspect most of the posters on this board are, the cities are ideal. But if you're not, they don't look nearly as good.

I'm not sure what kind of jobs you're referring to, but Met Council data shows Minneapolis has a higher ratio of low-income jobs (i.e., less than $41,000/year) to low-income workers than nearly any other community in the Metro, save Eden Prairie. http://www.metrocouncil.org/getattachme ... c1fb/.aspx. The 70+% white collar jobs statistic people keep mentioning from the Strib article is referring to percentage of jobs created recently, not the overall composition of jobs.

If you're talking about jobs paying higher than $41,000/year for households with only a high school degree (or a little more), please enlighten me on where these abundant jobs can be found in the suburbs and in what field. Even if these jobs do exist, it is doubtful they are concentrated in locations where it would make sense for low-income households to move (due to the high social cost of moving, the relative impermanence of low-skill jobs, etc.).

Even if you were right, however, and there are plentiful low-skill high-wage jobs in the suburbs, my post had nothing to do with the composition of jobs. As I stated above, I am simply adding contextual data to counter the endless barrage of baseless assertion that has filled the last few pages of this topic.

[min-chi-cbus]

People with children live in the suburbs for usually the same common reason: better schools. That's not to say all urban schools are bad (in the Twin Cities especially there are a variety of top-notch options WITHIN the cities), but the majority of good schools are still in the suburbs, and until this changes city living will continue to take a backseat to suburban living with younger families. That's true with my family, and I highly highly highly doubt I'm in the minority. That all being said, if we could find a great school that's IN the city and a great neighborhood that's affordable as well, we'd look there first. For families like us who aren't wealthy enough to support children in private schooling, suburbs are the best option (inner-ring suburbs, preferably). I actually wish there were more suburbs that would try to imitate cities and create dense, walkable environs, kind of like what Apple Valley and Maple Grove are trying to do, but even moreso.

Ultimately we'd prefer to be IN the city AND in a great school district AND that's safe AND that's affordable AND that's near amenities AND that's walkable, and so on...

[LakeCharles]

What first ring suburbs have better schools than the city and are cheaper than the city? Edina/St. Louis Park have good schools but are very expensive. Roseville, Richfield, Robbinsdale, Brooklyn Center, Columbia Heights, Maplewood, West St. Paul have fine schools, but they aren't an better than the inner city schools, are they?

[David Greene]

People with children live in the suburbs for usually the same common reason: better schools.

I get what you're saying and I do think that schools motivate a lot of where families choose to live but I think this is another case of people being really uninformed about city schools and schooling in general. The "bad" schools get all the press but even there, a child with the proper support (getting three square meals a day, not hearing gunfire every night, etc.) can succeed very well. Studies have shown time and again that white students perform well pretty much no matter where they go to school. Privilege has a lot to do with that. White kids don't have to do with a lot of crap other kids do. Their parents generally have more free time to spend with them, and so on. Teachers cannot alone solves what ails some urban schools. The societal problems go way deeper than that. And it is not about "black culture" or other such BS.

Certainly for Minneapolis high schools there are top-rated schools accessible from very affordable neighborhoods. My neighbor sent her kids to Kenwood elementary even though we live in the Wedge, so it is possible to move your child around the system though you're obviously in second place for enrollment if you go outside your designated area. I'm not convinced at all that Kenwood is really any better than most other Minneapolis elementary schools though we haven't researched it because we're not there with Julian yet. But we will be frighteningly soon!

[David Greene]

I'm not convinced at all that Kenwood is really any better than most other Minneapolis elementary schools though we haven't researched it because we're not there with Julian yet. But we will be frighteningly soon!

Now I should come clean too. Do I worry about Julian getting into drugs at school? You bet. Are there some schools I think might be more likely for that to happen? Yep, but that's based on a completely uninformed gut feeling. But keep in mind that a lot of the drug dealing going on in Minneapolis is serving kids from the suburbs so I'm not sure the suburbs would be any "safer" from that perspective.

[grant1simons2]

You're more likely to get into heroin at Tonka, you're more likely to get into coke at Edina, and you're more likely to get weed at Wayzata and EP. Hopkins, well... It's basically a production line. That's my knowledge for the schools around me.

[schmitzm03]

People with children live in the suburbs for usually the same common reason: better schools.

I get what you're saying and I do think that schools motivate a lot of where families choose to live but I think this is another case of people being really uninformed about city schools and schooling in general. The "bad" schools get all the press but even there, a child with the proper support (getting three square meals a day, not hearing gunfire every night, etc.) can succeed very well. Studies have shown time and again that white students perform well pretty much no matter where they go to school. Privilege has a lot to do with that. White kids don't have to do with a lot of crap other kids do. Their parents generally have more free time to spend with them, and so on. Teachers cannot alone solves what ails some urban schools. The societal problems go way deeper than that. And it is not about "black culture" or other such BS.

Certainly for Minneapolis high schools there are top-rated schools accessible from very affordable neighborhoods. My neighbor sent her kids to Kenwood elementary even though we live in the Wedge, so it is possible to move your child around the system though you're obviously in second place for enrollment if you go outside your designated area. I'm not convinced at all that Kenwood is really any better than most other Minneapolis elementary schools though we haven't researched it because we're not there with Julian yet. But we will be frighteningly soon!

^^^This. I also don't find the "bad schools" argument as a particularly compelling reason to move out of the city. I have a number of friends who are teachers in Minneapolis, and there are definitely some good schools. At the same time, David is right that research shows the most important factor in student achievement is parent involvement (controlling for economic factors and even institutional factors like class size). On top of that, the most important period in brain development is essentially 0-6, more or less before school really starts. (I understand as a white male with a master's degree and a white collar job I am privileged...that won't change if I move to the suburbs or stay in the city.)

It is also extremely important to me and my wife that our kids are exposed to people of different backgrounds. Whether that be by race, class, religion, or any other factor, you are more likely to find this in Minneapolis/St.Paul than any suburban school.

[WHS]

I'm not sure what kind of jobs you're referring to, but Met Council data shows Minneapolis has a higher ratio of low-income jobs (i.e., less than $41,000/year) to low-income workers than nearly any other community in the Metro, save Eden Prairie. http://www.metrocouncil.org/getattachme ... c1fb/.aspx. The 70+% white collar jobs statistic people keep mentioning from the Strib article is referring to percentage of jobs created recently, not the overall composition of jobs.

If you're talking about jobs paying higher than $41,000/year for households with only a high school degree (or a little more), please enlighten me on where these abundant jobs can be found in the suburbs and in what field. Even if these jobs do exist, it is doubtful they are concentrated in locations where it would make sense for low-income households to move (due to the high social cost of moving, the relative impermanence of low-skill jobs, etc.).

Even if you were right, however, and there are plentiful low-skill high-wage jobs in the suburbs, my post had nothing to do with the composition of jobs. As I stated above, I am simply adding contextual data to counter the endless barrage of baseless assertion that has filled the last few pages of this topic.

I'm quite familiar with that Met Council report and I don't think the methology is great. First, it's not clear they were using the ratio of low-income jobs to entry-level workers instead of the ratio of low-income jobs to workers overall. If it's the latter (which is what it suggests) then the cities are going to look relatively better, since they have a higher concentration of poverty and blue collar workers. Second, the ratios used the number of workers and jobs within a ten-mile radius of the geographic centerpoint of the community in question. That means the catchment of many of the inner-ring suburbs and the central cities overlap considerably -- sometimes almost completely. It's hard to know how that would impact the final ratios.

I excelled together some statistics from the DEED site showing changing employment statistics in some blue collar and entry-level industries. The selection is a bit slapdash -- I'm not sure what the best way to pick particular industries for this purpose is -- but I think the numbers do demonstrate what I'm saying, overall. Not only are these jobs relatively concentrated in the suburbs compared to population, they're becoming more so. This is particularly the case for the sort of stable blue collar jobs (such as manufacturing) which can help sustain a family.

[WHS]

People with children live in the suburbs for usually the same common reason: better schools.

I get what you're saying and I do think that schools motivate a lot of where families choose to live but I think this is another case of people being really uninformed about city schools and schooling in general. The "bad" schools get all the press but even there, a child with the proper support (getting three square meals a day, not hearing gunfire every night, etc.) can succeed very well. Studies have shown time and again that white students perform well pretty much no matter where they go to school. Privilege has a lot to do with that. White kids don't have to do with a lot of crap other kids do. Their parents generally have more free time to spend with them, and so on. Teachers cannot alone solves what ails some urban schools. The societal problems go way deeper than that. And it is not about "black culture" or other such BS.

Certainly for Minneapolis high schools there are top-rated schools accessible from very affordable neighborhoods. My neighbor sent her kids to Kenwood elementary even though we live in the Wedge, so it is possible to move your child around the system though you're obviously in second place for enrollment if you go outside your designated area. I'm not convinced at all that Kenwood is really any better than most other Minneapolis elementary schools though we haven't researched it because we're not there with Julian yet. But we will be frighteningly soon!

I think this is all basically correct, but the key here is that it applies to white middle class kids from families willing and able to provide lots of support. Kids for which that is not true would (and, studies have shown time and again, do) benefit considerably from attending wealthier schools where there is more overall parental participation, better quality administration, safer environments, etc.

It's also worth noting that while the fear is out of proportion with the reality, there really are some urban schools that no middle-class parent would send their child to, if they can help it. These are places fighting a constant rearguard action against poverty, just trying to get kids through to graduation, and they're not going to prepare children for college, et al.

[Rich]

According to the latest data from DEED (which is the authority on the matter...they report the data that is the basis of BLS estimates), Minneapolis and St. Paul contain about 29.5% of all metro area jobs (477,250 out of 1,618,000).

Just want to quickly circle back on the jobs thing. Thanks for following up! If we use these stats, there’s a 29.5% chance that any given job one finds is in the city, therefore an 8.7% chance of a working couple both finding a job in the city. And obviously that means there's a 91.3% chance that a working couple has at least one job in the suburbs.

My wife and I both worked in the city at once actually! So we beat the odds. But that was over 20 years ago (I'm old). It only lasted a couple years and then her company and it's 100+ employees moved to the exurbs, where she's worked ever since. Naturally we moved to the suburbs so we could be closer to her work, and eventually I was able to open a home office. I'd say our experience is very typical.

[Rich]

You're more likely to get into heroin at Tonka, you're more likely to get into coke at Edina, and you're more likely to get weed at Wayzata and EP. Hopkins, well... It's basically a production line. That's my knowledge for the schools around me.

I have no idea what to even say. This is the exact polar opposite of what my experience has been as a parent in the Minnetonka district for the past 20 years.

We didn’t move to the suburbs because of schools but are delighted with how outstanding they are. Minnetonka Schools offer Spanish and Chinese immersion from K through 7. The average 5th grader in Minnetonka schools has math and reading scores beyond an 11th grade level. There are 56 courses taught at the high school (AP and IB) for which one can earn college credit. The graduation rate is 99%, of which 92% go on to college. 99% of parents rate the district as good or excellent. And so on. You get the idea.

Also Minnetonka spends about $9,800 per pupil (Minneapolis spends more than $13,000 I think). So we get our money’s worth.

[grant1simons2]

As someone who knows the conference and is sill in it. I know a lot of kids who have done heroin at tonka. Any party in tonka will have it. It's one of the most popular drugs there. It was even in a strib article a few months ago.

http://www.startribune.com/local/west/190550701.html

Edit: I wasn't saying that in the fact that since they have they this problem it's a bad school, it was just to show that there are a lot of drug problems in the burbs.

[schmitzm03]

I'm quite familiar with that Met Council report and I don't think the methology is great. First, it's not clear they were using the ratio of low-income jobs to entry-level workers instead of the ratio of low-income jobs to workers overall. If it's the latter (which is what it suggests) then the cities are going to look relatively better, since they have a higher concentration of poverty and blue collar workers. Second, the ratios used the number of workers and jobs within a ten-mile radius of the geographic centerpoint of the community in question. That means the catchment of many of the inner-ring suburbs and the central cities overlap considerably -- sometimes almost completely. It's hard to know how that would impact the final ratios.

You're right, the methodology section of the report is not very clear. The tables, however are more precise. Here is a footnote clarifying: "Job Proximity Ratio: The ratio of local low-wage jobs (within 10 miles of the community's center-point, and paying less than $41,000) divided by local working residents (living within 10 miles of the center-point, earning less than $41,000)." Clearly they are measuring low-wage job to low-wage worker.

To your second point, whether or not the low-wage jobs are actually in Minneapolis is beside the point. Low-wage workers in Minneapolis have greater access to low-wage jobs than nearly any other community. That is what matters, not municipal boundaries. Of course, I never said the jobs were in Minneapolis, I merely pointed out that the statistic people were quoting from the Strib was misrepresented.

I excelled together some statistics from the DEED site showing changing employment statistics in some blue collar and entry-level industries. The selection is a bit slapdash -- I'm not sure what the best way to pick particular industries for this purpose is -- but I think the numbers do demonstrate what I'm saying, overall. Not only are these jobs relatively concentrated in the suburbs compared to population, they're becoming more so. This is particularly the case for the sort of stable blue collar jobs (such as manufacturing) which can help sustain a family.

Unfortunately, you are not distinguishing between well-paying jobs in these industries and relatively less well-paying jobs. Take manufacturing. The average weekly wage in the "manufacturing" industry in the Twin Cities metro is $1,333. http://www.bls.gov/cew/apps/table_maker ... =0&zeros=0

That's nearly $70,000 per year. That means we aren't likely talking about many low-skill manufacturing jobs, but rather jobs that require relatively significant training. The Wall Street Journal has a nice piece on this trend in US manufacturing. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 1663418600

For Transportation and warehousing, the average wage is $1,216/week in Hennepin County, or more than $63,000 per year. That's a pretty decent wage. It is great that these jobs are being created in the suburbs, it truly is. I don't necessarily think they should be created somewhere else. I just don't see where you come off asserting all these low-skill jobs are being created in the suburbs, so we need to find ways to help low-income households move into the suburbs (i.e., by forcing suburbs to accept more affordable housing). You haven't provided any data to support this claim.

[schmitzm03]

According to the latest data from DEED (which is the authority on the matter...they report the data that is the basis of BLS estimates), Minneapolis and St. Paul contain about 29.5% of all metro area jobs (477,250 out of 1,618,000).

Just want to quickly circle back on the jobs thing. Thanks for following up! If we use these stats, there’s a 29.5% chance that any given job one finds is in the city, therefore an 8.7% chance of a working couple both finding a job in the city. And obviously that means there's a 91.3% chance that a working couple has at least one job in the suburbs.

My wife and I both worked in the city at once actually! So we beat the odds. But that was over 20 years ago (I'm old). It only lasted a couple years and then her company and it's 100+ employees moved to the exurbs, where she's worked ever since. Naturally we moved to the suburbs so we could be closer to her work, and eventually I was able to open a home office. I'd say our experience is very typical.

This is where I think generational differences come into play and why so many more young people are choosing to live in the city. The economy just doesn't provide many jobs, as it did in the past, where you can expect to be working for the same company for 20 years. I don't expect to be working for the same company for much more than 5 years even. Ever increasing demand for labor flexibility is the future of our economy, so living in as central a location as possible ensures that you and your spouse have as great a chance as possible of each being relatively close to work over time. I for one do not plan to move my kids to a different side of the metro for each new job my wife or I get.

Central locations are even more valuable for low income households. The less skill required for a job, the less certainty that job will be around in the long run. Transitioning between jobs often requires access to social supports, both public and private. Social services are more accessible in the central cities, as are existing social networks. Without the supporting factors that exist for low income households in the city, moving to the suburbs for a job that might not be around in a year or two is a recipe for disaster.