That was fast…

From the NYT:

The Urban Revival Is Over

For all the concern about the gentrification, rising housing prices and the growing gap between the rich and poor in our leading cities, an even bigger threat lies on the horizon: The urban revival that swept across America over the past decade or two may be in danger. As it turns out, the much-ballyhooed new age of the city might be giving way to a great urban stall-out.

Starting around the turn of the millennium, young, affluent professionals began pouring into the cores of big cities, reversing generations of white flight. Unlike their parents and grandparents, these new urbanites embraced the energy and authenticity — and the ethnic, racial and sexual diversity — that are emblematic of cities. Established corporations and high-flying tech start-ups followed suit. The urban revival has been so thoroughgoing that it has even engendered a new crisis of success, whose symptoms are runaway gentrification, soaring housing prices and a widening income gap between newcomers and longtime residents.

But even as people and companies continue to pour into cities, signs that the tide has crested are emerging.

While many, if not most, large cities grew faster than their suburbs between 2000 and 2015, in the last two years the suburbs outgrew cities in two-thirds of America’s large metropolitan areas, according to a detailed analysis of the latest census data by the demographer William Frey of the Brookings Institution. Fourteen big cities lost population in 2015-16 compared with just five in 2011-12, with Chicago, the nation’s third-largest city, hemorrhaging the most people.

Over this same period, the suburbs of Sun Belt cities like Charlotte, N.C.; Orlando and Tampa, Fla.; and Denver gained population. Low-density suburban counties are once again the fastest-growing parts of the nation, according to a deep dive into America’s 3,000-plus counties by the urban economist Jed Kolko, outpacing the growth rates of dense urban counties by a large measure in 2016, when they posted their fastest growth rates since the housing crisis of 2008.

This entry was posted in Demographics, National Real Estate, New Development. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to That was fast…

  1. dentss dunnigan says:


  2. The Great Pumpkin says:

    3b, still think I’m wrong?

    “Despite the hype around “micro-apartments” and other innovations intended to cram more people into less room, many Americans still want space. They want to live in detached suburban homes, or in an apartment with enough square footage and access to outdoor space that it feels like one. Two-thirds of people born since 1997, including those who live in cities, want to live in single-family suburban homes, according to a 2015 survey, but the costs make this aspiration prohibitively expensive in most urban centers.”

  3. The Great Pumpkin says:

    “Elizabeth Warren’s first book, the Dual Income Trap, addressed this very problem almost 20 years ago.

    In short: if both parents work you are living at your absolute max and this fuels an arms race for housing in good school districts. Lose 1 job or Stay Home for kids, and that leads to borrowing, debt, foreclosure etc.”

  4. The Great Pumpkin says:

    “It’s about the lack of well-funded public schools in cities. When the Millennials have children, the availability of good kindergartens and elementary schools, will determine where they want to live. For young parents, American is a nation of school districts.”

  5. The Great Pumpkin says:

    And Christie wanted to f up the nj public school system? Is he retarded?

  6. The Great Pumpkin says:

    “”…our cities are our greatest economic drivers. Their continued revival is critical to the country’s ability to innovate and compete, create jobs and raise incomes and living standards.”

    What is the basis for this statement?

    How has what the author now calls the “New Urban Crisis” “created jobs and raised incomes and living standards” thus far in the 21st century?

    The several hundred thousand jobs created on Wall Street for all those financial “innovators” in the 2000s ended up destroying 8 million jobs in a matter of months in 2009.

    The several hundred thousand jobs in the San Francisco area with all their technological “innovation” have destroyed untold millions of jobs across the country, as well.

    The formula seems to be, create a couple of hundred thousand jobs in cities for “innovators”, and destroy millions and millions and millions of jobs in the rest of the country.

    Those wonderful “innovators” seem to have forgotten about the “create jobs and raise incomes and living standards” part.

    And that’s the problem. The innovative “economic drivers” in the cities are “driving” the economy in the rest of the country off a cliff. The resulting rural/urban divide is what got Trump elected.

    We need an entirely new economic paradigm if we’re to avoid a cataclysm.

    What we don’t need is empty rhetoric about how “innovation” creates jobs and raises incomes and living standards, when there is abundant empirical data that it does the exact opposite.”

  7. Fast Eddie says:

    While many, if not most, large cities grew faster than their suburbs between 2000 and 2015, in the last two years the suburbs outgrew cities in two-thirds of America’s large metropolitan areas…

    You didn’t have to convince me. Every house that was bought and sold in my neighborhood since I moved here have been young families with one or two little kids. It was a myth, a selling point, a way to extract more money from the soft-fingered millennials. It was a ruse, like the progressive movement, a mere snookering to take advantage of weak-minded individuals.

  8. The Great Pumpkin says:

    Fast Eddie, exactly! If these individuals would have come to njrereport, pumps has been saying this for how long?

  9. The Great Pumpkin says:

    “With a MS degree in Urban Studies, PhD in American Studies, having “done” living in NYC, Atlanta, Raleigh NC, then rural NJ, now living a couple of decades at Wrightsville Beach NC/Wilmington NC, I choose a small-city ambience where we know each other, can walk or bicycle with relative safety, can afford housing, have drug-related crime but aren’t afraid of getting mugged every time we walk out the door. Big cities may be fine for the childless and elderly, but parents wisely want a yard and garden and a home with room enough for their progeny.”

  10. The Great Pumpkin says:

    “When you are young it is fun to live in the city. When you grow up, get married and have kids things change. The suburbs are a better place to raise your kids.

    It is not rocket science.”

  11. 3b says:

    Pumps/fast and yet the urban areas are chock full of young people many in their 30s. And lower Manhattan is filled with families with school age children all the way up to high school. Are all of these people just going to wake up one day and move to the suburbs? Seems unlikely to me. The suburbs that offer none of the amenities these people want. And more than a few of the suburbs are starting to look like run down urban areas with none of the amenities. And many of these suburbs will now be building lots of new rental housing which Wil place more burdens on these towns and their school systems.70 new rental units being built in my town across the street from multiple rental complexes that are packed with multiple generations of families in one and two bedroom apartments. New Milford and Washington Township just reached agreements with developers to build hundreds of new units in both towns. Again with large impacts on the town infrastructure and schools. The suburbs won’t be the suburbs anymore. If you guys think this urban living thing is a fad . I believe you are both wrong. The poor are bee pushed out of these areas and moving to the suburbs. I see it. And many others see it as well.

  12. 3b says:

    Grim please unmoderated my comment. Don’t know what triggered it.

  13. 3b says:

    I would read the article a little more carfully before drawing any conclusions.

  14. The whitest guy says:

    Manhattan is very different than the other Burroughs. I would argue that the reason you see more families in Manhattan than ever is that you must be disgustingly wealthy to afford to live in Manhattan. These families can afford to send their kids to private schools and afford nanny’s and au pairs. In the 80s and 90s, most of the families you saw were section 8 or rent control inhabitants. I would also argue that although the numbers have increased, I doubt they have come close to doubling. I knew a lot of friends (mostly single) who moved to Manhattan and shared studio apartments say in Alphabet City and Harlem after graduating. Many of the city kids and suburban hipsters rented in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx gentrifying areas you wouldn’t dare park your car in during the 70s. This was the Great Urbanization. But as usual, they held of on having kids for two reasons. The schools were filled with section 8 and rent control kids or they simply couldn’t afford it. So NOW you are seeing the great return to the burbs as they have their kids. The difference now though is that they don’t need a house. They are perfectly content with having a county park nearby and are paying insane amounts of money for those tiny apartments propping up all over suburbia. The concept of a single family home is almost foreign to them. Mainly, they are located near train stations so they can still visit their childless hipster friends back in Bed/Stuy. Heck. One of my units in my multi is being rented by a couple without kids. That’s just crazy as my multi is perfect for children. Neither family is using the fenced in organic garden area I have too. Worst of all, they are trying to turn our suburbs into cities. Bike lanes everywhere. Insane claims of not needing cars anymore are often heard and they want four-way stops at every intersection. Parking be damned. So single family homes will not benefit much from this return to the burbs. Those developers know exactly what they’re doing.

  15. Yo! says:

    If Richard Florida’s logic is to be believed in the NJ context, Hudson County’s population is set to fall as people suddenly rush out to buy inexpensive houses in places like Sussex County.

    This trend would be the opposite of what I expect, but I must be wrong. Richard Florida has a doctorate from Columbia AND he writes for The NY Times. Who can argue the that credibility? All he needs now is a Nobel Prize. That would put him on same level as super-expert Paul Krugman.

  16. Fabius Maximus says:

    Great piece from the NYT. Sums up the death of the middle class. Job for life is gone. Headcount is the only relevant number.

  17. Alex says:

    Some crazed lib decided he wanted to have an up close and personal view of the Burning Man, and so ran right into the bonfire.

    RIP Puzzy

  18. Not Yo says:

    The big question Yo is technology.

    Think 9/4/2022 – How many near self-driving car models?
    Think 9/4/2027 – How many 100% self driving cars?

    A 90 minutes drive even with the present infrastructure becomes a non-problem when you are eating, goofing off or working while car gets you there. Car does not have to be yours. Picture the equivalent of NYC Yellow Cab Medallion fleets – all self driving moving about let’s called them “UberLyftYourFat6ssCabz”.

    With this tech. Someone that works compressed schedules 12/16 hours shift several times a week, can live comfortably happy half way to Binghamton.

  19. 3b says:

    Whitest guy. Where I am in lower Manhattan most appear to be in the public schools. I won’t argue the point anymore with other posters. But this belief that one morning these people will all wake up and move to the burbs is mistaken. People are marrying later having their first child well into their 30s and 40s and beyond! And many are one and done. No need to come flooding back to the suburbs with both spouse’s working long days and than 1.5 to 2 hour commute. I have no vested interest one way or the other just ing it as I see it.

  20. 3b says:

    Yo there will be tons of units a available in JC and Hoboken.

  21. The Great Pumpkin says:

    The hypothesis is an attempted explanation of social stratification, based on the idea of “functional necessity.” Davis and Moore argue that the most difficult jobs in any society are the most necessary and require the highest rewards and compensation to sufficiently motivate individuals to fill them. Once the roles are filled, the division of labour functions properly, based on the notion of organic solidarity advanced by Emile Durkheim.[1]

    This argument has been criticized as fallacious from a number of different angles.[2] The first problem is that they posit rewards as a guarantee of performance, when rewards are supposed to be based on merit in their argument. It is argued that if abilities were inherent, there would be no need of a reward system. Secondly, Davis and Moore do not clearly indicate why some positions should be worth more than others, other than the fact that they are remunerated more, claiming, for example, that teachers are equally, if not more, functionally necessary than athletes and movie stars, yet, they receive significantly lower incomes. These critics have suggested that structural inequality (inherited wealth, family power, etc.), is itself a cause of individual success or failure, rather than a consequence of it.[3] Class analysts point out that it is not merely income that determines inequality but wealth, access to social networks, and cultural practices that put some individuals in better positions than others to succeed.[4]”:

  22. The Great Pumpkin says:

    3b, there will always be a place in for urban and a place for suburban. My biggest tip for you, the coming generations are thrifty, after being scarred by Great Recession. They will look to the suburbs as a value and act on their instincts. Nj is the best NYC metro area value. It’s good bet.

  23. 3b says:

    Pumps I am done arguing with you. Believe what you want.

  24. Blue Ribbon Teacher says:

    Most Nj suburbs are seeing a big drop off on the number of kids in school.

  25. 3b says:

    Not where I am. The rental apartments which formerly had older couples or singles is packed with kid’s. And more units being built. But that being said I am not surprised it is happening in other suburban districts. It makes perfect sense to me.

  26. walking bye says:

    3b which Washington Twp are you talking about? thanks.

  27. The Original NJ ExPat says:

    Richard Florida is an elitest boob, but not a top flight elitest, he only lives in Toronto and Florida.

    As for our resident wannabe elitest boob, I think Pumps meant to convey this:

    “It’s about the lack of well-funded public schools in cities. When the Millennials have children, the availability of good kindergartens and elementary schools, room in their parent’s house will determine where they want to live.”

  28. The Original NJ ExPat says:

    He DopeMax, not the same thing as secession at all. Too bad you didn’t have access to a good school system.

    So we’ll just shelve those talks about succession.

  29. 3b says:

    Walking bye Washington township in Bergen county.

Comments are closed.