Young and Restless In Fact Anchor Cities, Few Abandon

Posted by Julia Klaiber on July 27, 2011 |

In “Why America’s Young and Restless Will Abandon Cities for Suburbs” (Forbes.com – July 20, 2011), Joel Kotkin claims that as they age, young adults are abandoning central cities.  Yet his data show that on a net basis, central cities retained about 80 percent of their 25 to 34 year-olds as they aged into the 35 to 44 year-old age group over the past decade.

Kotkin professes to be surprised that as they get older, many Americans move to the suburbs.  It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone to know that older households with children are more likely to live in the suburbs. The reason this is unsurprising, is that there is a life cycle to urban location.  Cities are relatively more appealing to younger adults and smaller households; suburbs still are somewhat more attractive to larger households with children.  That’s pretty much always been the pattern.  The question—one that Kotkin doesn’t explore—is whether the pace of this suburbanization is any higher now than it was in previous decades. 

Further, it’s disappointing that Kotkin doesn’t report either comparisons with earlier periods or show data for specific metropolitan areas.  Because of changing geographic definitions between census years, it’s easy to make mistakes with this data. For example, the percentage decline of central city population reported in the chart accompanying Kotkin’s article (-17%) doesn’t square with the figure reported in his text (-22.7%).

Close-in city neighborhoods are critical to attracting younger adults.  Analysis of census data by Joe Cortright for CEOs for Cities, shows that over the past decade, the number of 25 to 34 year-olds with four-year college degrees is, on average, increasing twice as fast in neighborhoods within three miles of the central business districts of the nation’s 50 largest metropolitan areas as it is outside that circle. College-educated 25 to 34 year-olds are the most mobile people in America, so this is the age at which you attract talent or you lose talent. As people age, they are less and less likely to move, and when they do move, they tend not to move long distances.  Metro areas that don’t have vibrant urban cores are at a significant disadvantage in attracting the population that will choose to live there now and thus be the engines of future economic activity for the entire metro area.

CEOs for Cities’ research further shows that 58 percent of a metropolitan area’s success, as defined by per capita income, can be attributed to the percentage of its population with four-year college degrees. Even though some households will move to the suburbs when they have children, no one should overlook the importance of attracting talented young adults to urban cores. Building strong core cities today contributes to successful suburbs tomorrow.

Finally, it’s worth noting the two most critical conditions that propelled suburban growth over most of the last decade—the housing bubble and cheap gas—no longer exist. The housing bubble has burst and gas prices increased sharply from $1.10 per gallon in 2002 to more than $4.00 per gallon in 2008 (and again at this level earlier this year). The combined effect has dealt a major blow to consumer purchasing power and made driving to qualify a notion of yesteryear. Indeed, the decline in suburban housing values is strongly correlated with auto dependence. Meanwhile, homes in walkable, urban neighborhoods are holding their values and even demanding premiums in many markets. The suburban option looks even less attractive over the next ten years.

So what’s remarkable about the trends of the past decade is not that some households moved out of central cities as they aged, but that roughly four out of five—and in New York City, 85 percent—stayed. 

More

America’s Fastest Changing Cities

Posted by Carol Coletta on February 23, 2009 |

Normally, I run the other way when I see these Forbes' lists of most/best/least/worst cities.  But I'll post the link to the list of America's Fastest Changing Cities. Los Angeles is at the top of the list, having lost the most households in the nation.  The rest of the list looks like this:

1.   Los Angeles
2.   New York 
3.   Miami
4.   Detroit
5.   Cleveland
6.   Chicago
7.   Providence
8.   Orlando
9.   Cincinnati
10.  Tampa

It is interesting to note that while New York lost 205,341 households, it still gained almost 190,000 households, for a net loss of 17,464.  Los Angeles gained 99,697 households, but lost 144,476, for a net loss of almost 45,000.  It would have been more illuminating if Forbes had reported how much income those households represented, but nonetheless the stats are illuminating and reflect the difficult time so many communities are encountering. 

Let's now all pick up the best books we can find on how to build resilience.

More