Urban vs. Suburban Lifestyle

[LakeCharles]

I guess that works. Seeing as how it's a small flexible mailer I could just fit it in a mailbox if I had one.

And that still doesn't help if I want to mail a letter or something like that.

I also live in a house with a mail slot instead of a mailbox. You can leave the letter hanging out of the mail slot and your letter carrier should take it with them when they stop by to deliver other mail.

That is what I do. Or clothespin it to the little door over the mail slot, if you have one of those.

[seanrichardryan]

I hang them from the slot with a paperclip, unless it's windy.

[seanrichardryan]

'Why Millenials Are About To Leave Cities in Droves'

http://for.tn/1WSORNg?xid=for_tw_sh

[Tiller]

When the economy sinks again sometime in the next several years, those Millennials who can't afford to live in the suburbs, but want to, as discussed in that article, will be back to square 1.

Edit: and the amount of "those" Millennials is probably nowhere near as large as the Author thinks it is.

[VacantLuxuries]

Haven't we seen some variation on this article every year since city living started to pick up again? A magazine associated with wealth talking about how "those kids" aren't acting like the consumers of yesteryear and predicting this will be the year they grow up and start buying what they're supposed to?

[grant1simons2]

Uh huh.

Also this totally ignores the fact that pretty much every city is unique.

[acs]

I've said this before, but the next 15 years are going to be pretty pivotal for cities. Look at the groups driving up the population of Minneapolis: Retiring baby boomers looking to downsize and young, childless millenials just starting their careers. You simply cannot bank on those two groups being around long-term because you're fighting human biology with both of them. Young people will start having kids and old people die, there's nothing you can really do about that. The generations between the Boomers and the Millennials are much smaller population wise, so they aren't much help. The question really is will the youngest generation stay in the city to raise their kids for the next 25 years or will they move to suburbs for the space, good schools, no crime and quality of life for their kids. Throw into the mix that autonomous vehicles will start hitting the road in numbers and diminishing the commute penalty of living farther out. Nobody knows the outcome. Minneapolis could well reach the 500k population mark or we could be on the verge of urban decay on an unprecedented scale.

[amiller92]

The question really is will the youngest generation stay in the city to raise their kids for the next 25 years or will they move to suburbs for the space, good schools, no crime and quality of life for their kids.

Well, having lived in the city, they will probably know that space, crime and quality of life are not really issues (and really, quality of life is way higher when you live where you don't have to drive to everything). The wife was a suburban/exurban woman. After two years of living in the city, she can't fathom living in the suburbs.

The question is schools, which come with a big collective action problem. If people stayed put and sent their kids to city schools, those schools would start to look "better" but for a long time the game has been to flee.

Throw into the mix that autonomous vehicles will start hitting the road in numbers and diminishing the commute penalty of living farther out.

I actually think autonomous vehicles will have little to no impact on housing choices.

[VacantLuxuries]

I dislike the 'young parents will flee the city for schools' argument, because it flies in the face of the 'young people are vapid and self obsessed' rhetoric these articles usually bank on. Also, I have to laugh at 'no crime' because that's just ridiculous. There is crime wherever people are, just the perception of there being less of it. Besides, "crime" hasn't stopped the people moving into cities, despite the constant hand wringing from people who only go downtown for Twins games.

What would have made a good article would be comparing the kinds of suburbs that are doing well. Are they the Eden Prairies and Shakopees of the country, with lots of space and giant houses, or are they more like old small towns swallowed by a metro like Hopkins and White Bear Lake, with walkable downtowns and transit amenties built/planned? If it's the former, yes that means we're in for a return to the status quo. If it's the latter, it isn't that suburbs in general are attractive to young people, but only suburbs that look like the neighborhoods of the city they like, but cheaper.

Automated vehicles aren't going to mean much to people who can't afford them. And as long as the rest of the traffic on the road is human driven, they won't solve any traffic problems that are caused by people making last minute exits and decisions based off of self-interest.

[mister.shoes]

"The youngest generation" is a constantly-refreshing segment of the population. If for some bizarre reason every single one of today's 25-year-olds move to the 'burbs in 5 years, there will be a whole new group of 25-year-olds to take their place in the city. So even if these breathless "OMG the Millennials are going to leave cities for dead!" articles are correct, there are yet more young people who will fill in behind. Where we urbanites come out ahead is in doing the things necessary to consistently shrink the % of youngsters who flee outward. Yes, some non-trivial chunk of the young population is going to leave their youth and apartment behind. But so long as the chunk that stays behind is bigger—even slightly!—each year, the city comes out ahead.

[LakeCharles]

Look at the groups driving up the population of Minneapolis: Retiring baby boomers looking to downsize and young, childless millenials just starting their careers.

Is this data or anecdata? Only ask because my anecdata don't meet those. My neighborhood is largely young families. We are in SFH, so we might not be actually growing the population (just replacing whoever lived in these houses before), but we are also not necessarily going to leave anytime soon, our kids are already in school, etc.

[grant1simons2]

acs-data

[MNdible]

I love city living and don't necessarily believe the article, but it raises some interesting questions and it's kind of baffling how ya'll are completely unwilling to accept that there may be even a sliver of truth to it.

[VacantLuxuries]

There is probably truth to it. But the writer was way too busy with being patronizing to add anything new to the conversation.

Again, I'd love to see data on the millennials who are leaving urban centers to see where they end up, not just a blanket label of 'suburbs'. I have a hard time believing they spend time living in a city and then suddenly accept having to drive fifteen minutes to a shopping center (and possibly further for a job), but I could imagine them relocating from a rental property to a house in a suburb with a historic downtown or one that has taken steps to not be like Woodbury.

[min-chi-cbus]

The bubble effect of the Baby Boom and Boom Echo generations continues to become less and less impactful. The 25 year-olds the author is talking about isn't anywhere near the size of the bubble/blip of Baby Boomers born the first 5-10 years after WWII, and is in fact probably much closer to average in size. There IS something to be said about lifestyles changing after children come into the picture, but I think it's a bit overstated in the article.

I'm a "Millennial", by definition, because I was born in 1981. My family and I live in a streetcar suburb/urban suburb of Cleveland called Shaker Heights, which is as densely populated as most major U.S. cities, and it has some of the best schools in the region. As long as cities have schools that can compete with what's offered in the suburbs, us Millennials aren't going anywhere. In fact, I think this gives Minneapolis-St. Paul a distinct advantage over other cities that have generally poor public schooling options (esp. in the Midwest). Now, most of Mpls-StP aren't as quintessentially "urban" as cities like NYC, Philly, Chicago, etc. and most of its residents aren't living in row houses or multi-family homes with small/nonexistent yards, so maybe they are more like inner-ring suburbs. Regardless, as long as there are a.) good schools where our kids have endless potential to learn/grow, b.) safe neighborhoods not plagued by guns and drugs, and c.) plenty of areas to play and kids to play with, we will consider living there -- regardless of what that built environment looks like, whether it be Manhattan or Eden Prairie. But at least with us Millennials (i.e. my family), we prefer "walkability" and mass transit and sustainable living options as well, making that an important aspect of the overall living calculator (a "d.)" to the above criteria). I can't speak for other Millennials, but those values are important to us, and the lure of suburbs won't deter us from city living as long as those a-d characteristics exist in the city/inner-ring suburbs.

If anything, I expect a serious push toward inner-ring suburbia to follow the city-living bubble we're in now, and it's already happening (esp. in St. Louis Park and Hopkins, for example).

[LakeCharles]

I love city living and don't necessarily believe the article, but it raises some interesting questions and it's kind of baffling how ya'll are completely unwilling to accept that there may be even a sliver of truth to it.

I think there absolutely might be truth to the claims. I also don't think that was a well written or persuasive article.

[MNdible]

Maybe, but there are all sorts of poorly written pro-city think pieces that get linked to on here that never receive a whiff of critical review.

[LakeCharles]

That is true, I suppose. I didn't critically review this piece (aside from responding to your question), but I don't think that not doing something for previous articles necessarily precludes me from doing it for future articles.

[mattaudio]

We're all stuck here, guys... That's why we paid a premium for city living instead of suburban living.
Stuck spending $1500/mo on a 1 BR in the city, instead of $900 in the burbs.
Stuck buying $250-500K houses, instead of $150-300K houses in the burbs.
Don't you get it, we're stuck!

[mamundsen]

Just throwing in another case or two. It's happening with my friends. We were all born in 80-81...
Friend 1 - lived in North Loop for about ten years as a single guy. (Age 23-33) Then he moved just off 169 and 494 for a year. Last year he bought a place in Savage, south of 42. The moves were motivated by more space and the girlfriend.
Friend 2 - lived in NE for a number of years, then a few houses in St Paul (Mac/Groveland) for a handful of years. Now he's building in Shakopee. Not far from Friend 1.
Me - lived in Uptown 2-3 years, moved to North Loop for 3, moved to Como Park for 3, we just signed a deal on a house near Maplewood Mall. All motivated by what's best for the family in our perception.

As I said... #itshappening