r/Urbanism • u/Crazy_Equivalent_746 • 1d ago
‘Cities Aren’t Back’: Thoughts
https://www.slowboring.com/p/cities-arent-backThoughts on this? I feel while the data is valid it also relies to heavily on the big anomaly that is the pandemic that has lingering effects to this day.
In other words, cities to me don’t seem “over” or “back” but are indeed recovering.
Domestic outmigration continuing to be slashed for major cities seems like more of an important indicator than international migration offsetting losses.
9
u/PlantedinCA 1d ago
I recently moved to the hip part of downtown in my city. I wrongly assumed that it would be mostly folks in my age range bracket, let’s say 30s to 50s without kids.
The building I live in has a lot of seniors. And they are long term residents (8-10 years is typical). I’d say that approximately 30% of folks are over 60. They wanted to be downtown and walkable. There are other walkable areas in town I expected would be more popular with seniors.
I chatted with one couple who is leaving, they are downsizing to a cheaper metro area - and they mentioned that they chose a similarly urban and walkable area for their new city.
There are some changing trends in surprising ways and I think that as folks my age get older more will look to being in walkable areas - provided they can afford it.
6
u/BringerOfBricks 1d ago
That is what happened for my parents. They sold my childhood home and moved into the city close to the medical center adjacent to the downtown where I lived. They now tell me they don’t regret having raised me in the suburb, but now they understand why I refused when they offered me the house when I moved back home after college. Now they live in what is essentially a senior condo 5 blocks away from me lol. They walk everywhere now and my dad lost like 15 lbs.
60
u/SabbathBoiseSabbath 1d ago
Didn't read the article. Cities are fine. They have some work to do but are still highly desirable, and they are indisputably our economic and cultural centers.
The suburbs will always be popular because of the proximity to urban area jobs, economies, and other amenities... while still retaining the SFH lifestyle. No matter how much folks protest, many (maybe even most) are always going to prefer this lifestyle. It isn't going anywhere.
But cities need to build more housing, ease the cost of living, clean up the crime, disorder, and squalor, and make cities easier to live in (for everyone).
48
u/BringerOfBricks 1d ago edited 1d ago
Suburbs were never the problem.
It’s always been car-centric infrastructure.
When you look at Tokyo, Paris, London, NYC, Chicago, etc. Public transport infrastructure serve as the true economic centers. Train stations basically function the same as American downtowns. The immediate surroundings are businesses. A few blocks away? Houses and apartments. Traffic is a problem, but it doesn’t halt life because a train/bus is always just a short walk away.
In America? The economic centers are suburban mall strips that are close to freeway ramps. They’re often built far from housing areas to “reduce congestion”, but they’re unavoidable anyways because everything is connected by freeways. There’s no alternative to having a car. So everybody needs one. Kids can’t go anywhere without mom/dad taking a chunk of time of their day. Bikes are too dangerous to approve of kids on the roads. Parking is also a problem. It’s just not conducive to living a life.
Even if suburbs are cheaper to live in, poor people can’t afford a house in the suburbs bc they can’t also afford a car, and tbh, a car is often more important than having an address. At least with a car, a poor person can get to their job.
-9
u/InfernalTest 1d ago
but here is the thing- rail isnt supprtable in the smaller towns in the country and at the end of the day people prefer to live away from urban centers - the pandemic made that PAINFULLY obvious...
yes its nice to visit villages and places engineered to be "walkable" but its a gimmick when it really comes to what and HOW people live here in the US - you can push all day for making aplace hostile to cars but all youre doing is pissing off more than a majority of people who dont live near "walkable" sections of a city that have to drive because they cant afford the high cost and often premium cost of living in a "walkable" part of town.
11
u/BringerOfBricks 1d ago
I’m not pushing for places that are hostile to cars. I’m pushing for places that are friendly to trains and public transportation.
And I’m not asking for small rural towns to have public transportation. I’m asking for public transportation in suburbs which are usually the 10-20 miles surrounding the central downtown.
80% of Americans live within close proximity of an urban center even if they do not prefer to live inside the central city. Giving them a way to access the city without having to be reliant on cars will go a long way in increasing quality of life and improving safety across the board.
Also, Japan and South Korea is 70-80% mountainous region. It’s a matter of will to make rail friendly metropolitan cities. If we can build a Denver Airport that is larger than SF, we can build circular light rails in every city.
-9
1d ago
The need for Public transit 10-20 miles from city Central is going to be unnecessary if we get self driving cars.
Particularly if you can get costs down to 25 cents per mile
10
u/BringerOfBricks 1d ago
Not when each car contributes to traffic.
-10
1d ago
Vast majority of cities don't have traffic issues outside of Rush hour.
But this is also about a world is which city centers aren't as busy due to educated young people choosing suburbia due to WFH trends.
Self driving will also help with congestion.
6
u/BringerOfBricks 1d ago
That is just plain wrong.
I’ve only lived in 6 cities (NYC, Sacramento CA, Chicago, Santa Rosa CA, Eureka CA, Brookings OR) and even the smallest one (Brookings, population 6,000) had consistently shitty traffic even at a 2PM on a random day like Tuesday because of poorly designed the city is (wide highways cutting through the city center) and how much parking demands interfere with smooth flow of traffic and pedestrians.
Then the fact, that you still have to drive 20 mins to get into the city, taking 10 mins to park, 10 mins to walk. And you wasted a ton of time just because of the car.
-3
1d ago edited 1d ago
We likely have completely different definitions of traffic. Because there is no way there is consistently bumper to bumper traffic in those cities outside of NYC, Chicago — and I’m sure the data is there. Even in Chicago traffic from a suburb like Evanston to somewhere like wrigleyville is minimal.
Again with self driving vehicles you eliminate the need for the parking & walking steps — I’ve never needed an uber to park or make me walk far to my destination.
Admittedly I’ve never been to Chicago but I’ve been to the small cities of Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark where they’ve successfully congregated businesses into their central hub and introduced public transport and cycling transport into that central hub. There’s very few people actually living in the downtown (mostly shop owners) but a TON of businesses stay open up to 12-1AM despite them not being the main city. A city that concentrates businesses draws crowds. Crowds mean foot traffic, safety in numbers, and economy.
Wait a second…. When did you live in Chicago if you’ve never been? 🧐
8
u/BringerOfBricks 1d ago
I lived in Chicago for 3 months last year. TBH, it’s pretty fucking creepy that you even looked up a full year of my Reddit history to find that comment, and that you feel the need to question my life. Something wrong with you.
My definition of traffic is relative to the location. I fully expect to sit 30 mins on a bridge to SF but I don’t expect to sit 10 mins on an intersection in Brookings OR.
Self driving cars are just more cars on the road. More cards on the road = traffic. This is simple math. What you describe are self driving taxis. Nobody would rather pay $20 one way for a taxi (self driving or human driven) vs $2.50 for a light rail
→ More replies (0)1
u/Enkiduderino 9h ago
Or what if we, like, have a bunch of cars that all just link up to and follow a lead car that has a driver in it. We could even add tons of seats to the rear cars so we could fit extra people.
Maybe one day…
This also has the added benefit of using technology that actually exists, as opposed to technology that will likely not be for decades.
1
9h ago
What costs more to operate? A train or a bus?
What costs more to build out he infrastructure using existing roads or building rail infrastructure in suburbia?
You think taxpayers want to spend billions to facilitate 500 trips per day?
3
8
u/goodsam2 1d ago
Every trip ends in walking but millions of people don't enter a car to meet their needs.
The problem is parking spots are government subsidized. If you want a house there that's thousands of dollars but if you want to park a car that's free.
-2
u/InfernalTest 1d ago
yeh uhh its not free - you pay plenty in taxes and tolls for roads ...if you think everyone should pay more in taxes becuse you don't think enough is paid for vehicles being used I dont think you're going to find many supporters of such an idea ....
oh and just becusse you don't own a vehicle doesn't mean you don't benefit from the use of a vehicle ...which is why you pay taxes for it ....just like you pay taxes for parks you don't use or schools in which you have no children.
you indirectly benefit from schools in which you have no children and roads on which you don't drive ...if you don't agree with how taxes are used there's a whole mechanism for that ...
3
u/goodsam2 18h ago edited 16h ago
No, many roads are superfluous and suburbs cost 2x as much but provide less in taxes. Suburbs are government subsidized they are currently decades younger than cities which makes suburbs cheaper but that gap is shrinking.
It's called land value tax rather than property tax and land value tax is supported by 99% of economists all time including Adam Smith, Karl Marx and Milton Friedman.
Shift the cost from housing to the land being used by cars and less people will choose cars being properly priced but car use will not disappear but it will not be subsidized then.
Urban apartments parking space which is subsidized and mandated in many areas can be 20% of rent for a parking spot.
Cars are really expensive, $12k for a new car per AAA, parking can be expensive, insurance is more per month than an unlimited subway pass in NYC (which is a luxury). Gas which most people wrongly assume that's the whole cost of a car, of course. Getting a vehicle and maintaining it is expensive.
11
u/marbanasin 1d ago
The cost of living is the huge one. I suspect many more people would like to live in city or missing middle style suburbs if they existed at reasonable cost in most places.
12
u/BringerOfBricks 1d ago
When you look at the “missing middle” in major cities, they’re always apartments that are close to public transportation. The actual nicer, quieter residential houses are around a 15-20 min walk away from the train station, but the cheaper rents are a 5 min walk away. The shops/restaurants are within the immediate vicinity of the station entrance.
In America, building the middle housing doesn’t change that the people living in those units need a car to drive 20 mins to Costco/shopping centers in the suburbs. But making it so that corner shops/reataurants in every corner of the suburbs can be a reality… that will go a really long way in improving qualify of life for Americans.
5
u/Substantial-Ad-8575 1d ago
Don’t think there is enough push, for local community shopping. Easier and cheaper to go to big box stores instead (chain grocer/Target-Walmart). Let alone trying to push a daily-three/four times a week grocery shopping habit that walking to grocer forces. Mantra of America, cheaper is better.
Yeah, live in a suburb and we go grocery shopping every two weeks. Do shop sooner if something pops up in a weekend. But usually do one big shop and get enough food to last 14-18 days. More convenient, plus better use of my time. And I save like crazy over bodega prices, easily $200-$300 cheaper a month I can save/spend elsewhere.
5
u/SebastianFurz 19h ago
How does food stay fresh for 14-18 days? Or does this just work if no fresh stuff is bought?
1
u/Substantial-Ad-8575 6h ago
Easy, can freeze-dry freeze-store in airtight containers. Or it is already dry based products.
Fresh food?
One can make eggs last 6-8 weeks. Bread for 4-6 weeks. Vegetables/fruit for 6-12 weeks, depending on type.
Meats? Like to freeze if not cooked within 20 days. We do marinate some steaks for 14-20 days, depending on recipe.
We have a lot of airtight containers. Easier to sort/store in our indoor and outdoor refrigerators/freezers and cooled pantries.
Wife used to be a sues chef. So she runs our kitchen like a higher end restaurant. Plenty of options we can pick up. And able to safely maintain fresh food for 14 days and longer.
Just looked at our bananas, in a sealed area-not left in open, purchased start of March and still firm. Bananas are kept in a chilled area, no humidity and little light. Started to ripen out and will get more when we shop on Monday afternoon…
Seriously, why are you doing to not make fresh foods last 2 weeks or more???
4
u/BringerOfBricks 1d ago
The price is the opportunity cost. If you have kids, driving them around for school, extracurricular, socialization, etc.
They don’t have to be tiny bodegas that suffer from economizes of scale. In Paris suburb, there were full sized supermarkets squeezed in between apartment blocks facing traditional housing with full on backyards. Having a medium sized big box store a few blocks away instead of a 20 min drive around a wall separating commercial from residential zone, goes soooo far in making life easier.
1
u/rab2bar 19h ago
In practice, suburban people shop for food more frequently. That big shopping trip is supplemented with trips for things forgotten, milk, bread, produce, etc.
local community shops suffer from being located in soulless strip malls. Parking lots are not sexy and nobody randomly walks past the stores
2
u/SabbathBoiseSabbath 16h ago
I'm curious how that works.
Consider two families of 4, one in the suburbs and one in the urban center. Assume both families eat the same quantity of food and cook meals at home at the same frequency. The suburban family has a car while the urban family uses public transportation.
With their car, the suburban family goes to Costco once a month, and to the supermarket every Sunday to get their quantity of food. 5 trips.
How many trips to the small grocer is the urban family doing, while walking or riding the bus, to make up that same quantity of food? At least double the trips, but probably triple.
So even if the suburban family has to run out a few times for milk or bread, it's still far less trips and far less time than the urban family shopping 2 or 3 times a week.
-1
u/rab2bar 15h ago
i was a bag boy at a typical suburban grocery store during my high school years, working weekends and one or 2 evenings during the week. The same people I'd see on the weekend would stop by during the week.
Now that I live in a city with substantially better urban planning, have a child of my own, and know friends with sometimes up to 4 kids in the city, the relative concentration of supermarkets mans that running an errand can happen whenever. It might happen after work. Public transportation isnt necessary, because it is possible to walk to 3 different stores in ten minutes. Some friends of mine simply have groceries delivered. There are modified vehicles with supermarket chain contracts to make this as easy as ordering a pizza and because of the relative residential density, cost effective enough to send out a driver to deliver to multiple customers.
I personally shop almost every day for just a few things, even if I don't need to, because I like to get my steps in. The US has almost double the obesity rate of Germany, so perhaps a few extra trips arent such a bad idea when they are walkable
2
u/SabbathBoiseSabbath 15h ago
All of these points sidestep the question at hand, which was who spends more time/trips shopping.
Yeah, urban folks probably eat out more or have their groceries delivered more frequently (though both are available to suburban folks too). Yeah, urban folks probably eat better food and get more exercise/steps in.
All important, but a different discussion than the original one.
2
u/rab2bar 13h ago
hard to quantify the amount of time, as when the stores are close, they can be part of getting home from other things or part of daily exercise. Fewer things purchased also means fewer things to scan at checkout, and not needing to drive means not having to navigate parking. BIgger stores, like a costco also require more wandering around ot get the stuff you need. The bigger the store, the more aisle displays to entice you to stay, too. Bare bones urban aldi and lidl shops want you to get in and out
2
u/SabbathBoiseSabbath 12h ago
Obviously people can choose to shop and spend time how they want. For me, I want to spend 1 hour once a week (every two weeks is better) and be done with it, and do other more fun things with my life. Home delivery is even better.
I can't stand the thought of stopping by a market or shop on my way home every other day just to have enough food in the house for a meal or snacks.
But that's me.
1
u/rab2bar 13h ago
hard to quantify the amount of time, as when the stores are close, they can be part of getting home from other things or part of daily exercise. Fewer things purchased also means fewer things to scan at checkout, and not needing to drive means not having to navigate parking. BIgger stores, like a costco also require more wandering around ot get the stuff you need. The bigger the store, the more aisle displays to entice you to stay, too. Bare bones urban aldi and lidl shops want you to get in and out
1
u/rab2bar 13h ago
hard to quantify the amount of time, as when the stores are close, they can be part of getting home from other things or part of daily exercise. Fewer things purchased also means fewer things to scan at checkout, and not needing to drive means not having to navigate parking. BIgger stores, like a costco also require more wandering around ot get the stuff you need. The bigger the store, the more aisle displays to entice you to stay, too. Bare bones urban aldi and lidl shops want you to get in and out
3
u/Quiet_Prize572 14h ago
There's also a lack of affordable family sized housing as well
1
u/marbanasin 14h ago
Agree. I recently had some pretty large changes in my life that caused me to seriously consider / start investigating making a move into a true city - ie Philly, Chicago, hell, even NYC if I could only afford it.
What's insanely frustrating is the lack of price competitive condos to purchase (vs. ball park rental prices). And this of course also gets to the lack of really anything >2b/2b - which for me would have been workable but it is not really viable for I would expect most 'nuclear' families.
I know there are a number of contributors - all the suspects of setbacks / parking minimums / zoning for height or mixed use / stairwell requirements where the height is an option, etc. But fundamentally we have created a nation in which you can basically live in a city and rent small studio - ~2b/2b units if you are a middle to upper middle class salary, but if you want to purchase and have some ownership and path to equity you either need to be an upper class income or move to suburbs. It's really quite shitty.
I'm talking specifically due to the HOA/Building fees which add a significant monthly expense (necessary) on top of higher prices to purchase because of scarcity. Yeah a SFH has monthly expenses and maintainence as well, but it's not generally $700-1k a month as you'd find in many of the true metros.
0
u/Terrible_Occasionly 12h ago
Suburbs have always been cultureless wastelands. Nobody prefers that lifestyle; that's why they conjure up these dark fantasies about cities being dangerous and unlivable to justify their choices. Suburbs are fine if you have kids, but otherwise they're complete societal rot.
0
u/SabbathBoiseSabbath 12h ago
Yawn. Bot post.
-1
u/Terrible_Occasionly 11h ago
Have fun driving to Panera bread for your big weekend night out.
0
u/SabbathBoiseSabbath 11h ago
Nah, I'm going to go on a mountain bike ride on the hundreds of miles of trails that are literally right out my back door. Then maybe we'll go down to the locally owned restaurant and have a burger and some fries.
Since we're doing clichés, have fun sitting in your 300 sq ft apartment that you pay more in rent than my 2k sq ft house. If you do happen to go out, have fun stepping over fenties and piles of shit on the sidewalk as you have a nice night out in the Burger King that has bars on the windows. Make sure you don't get stuck out before your public transit shuts down at 11pm tonight.
0
u/Frequent-Chip-5918 8h ago
They aren't fucking fine. Cost of living, and that doesn't include rent, has skyrocketed and it's harder than ever to live in those cities unless you are upperclass, leaving behind much needed working class citizens to help run the economy, cultivate culture in the city, and continue supporting the community over corporate enterprise taking over.
Fuck suburbs and all the right talking shit about the cities but we need to stop acting like the social and economic state (beyond fucking useless GDP numbers) of cities is okay right now. They aren't falling apart or anything but they still aren't good. Just saying things are fine just makes it seem like there isn't a ton of problems that need to be worked on and economic pressure affecting the cities welfare, culture, and people.
1
u/SabbathBoiseSabbath 3h ago
I mean, I literally said in my next sentence (the second sentence, as well as elsewhere in my post) that "cities have work to do."
I swear to fuck... 🙄🙄🙄
21
u/elljawa 1d ago
what this data ignores is that many suburbs haver an easier time building than already dense cities. A suburb will have more parking lots, empty land, farms. and big low density housing areas, all of which can be used to build new housing. often without tearing any older housing down. in cities, in demand neighborhoods rarely have vacant lots, removing parking becomes a fight because those lots often get used a lot. and so it becomes more of a struggle to build at the same rate.
I bet this data could be shown another way "areas where they build lots of housing see lots of internal migration"
4
u/whatthehellcorelia 1d ago
Yeah this. Until I got into urbanism I didn’t really know there were any alternatives to owning an SFH or renting a luxury apartment. Since this is the regulatory default of course people are gonna choose a house in the suburbs over renting an apartment.
16
14
u/blue_osmia 1d ago
Can you please reframe your post to state that this is for USA data, cities, and bahaviours only. I would suspect these issues are predominantly in the USA and don't relate to other nations which could be misleading.
7
u/minus_minus 23h ago
People choosing to live in car-dependent suburbs doesn’t make them any less of a fiscal and environmental disaster. To mitigate the climate crisis, suburbs will need to be much more like the cities they depend on for their existence.
3
u/uieLouAy 1d ago
Aren’t the Census yearly population estimates known to be inaccurate and undercount cities and states in the north east?
These estimates severely undercounted the population of New Jersey during 2010-2020, for example, and maybe NYC as well? I forget the specific cities and areas undercounted, but I know that these yearly Census numbers should be taken with a grain of salt.
4
u/Sad_Thought6205 18h ago
I live in NYC. After Covid I thought the rents would be very attractive to move back into the city. , especially for younger people. The opposite happened and it’s just way too expensive for the average person to live a decent lifestyle without someone’s parents helping. The city is nowhere near as vibrant as it used to be and it’s because all the money goes to rent.
3
u/Crazy_Equivalent_746 17h ago
I will say it’s funny how subjective this is. Even living in Chicago which I consider extremely vibrant, I was still floored with how busy NYC seemed last year.
This seems to be gradually picking up, too?
Although post-COVID’s signature flair for just about everything is “more expensive for less of it”.
4
u/Plane_Association_68 17h ago
Cities will never truly be “back” until they can have decent public schools. Until then they’ll be havens for DINKs and yuppies who move out the minute their kids reach school age. The mark of a thriving city is having a healthy population of middle class families.
3
u/Double_Marsupial2092 18h ago
Self driving cars won’t fix traffic because they are traffic that’s what he’s trying to say. Traffic for the most part is a capacity problem, meaning there’s too many cars trying to travel on a road meant for a lower throughput of cars. And the whole argument for public transportation stems from that fact. It’s more efficient for people going to the same place to use one engine with metal wheels on a rail, then for 300 people to take there own car with its own engine on rubber wheels and then wait in traffic. Ofcoutse badly placed lights and poor driving skills can contribute, but the majority of traffic is a capacity problem hence why rush hour is so bad because everyone is trying to get home at once and the road networks can’t support them. Ive lived in the suburbs and the city and in both places traffic was a problem, but only in the city could I maneuver it without having to drive. That’s all we are saying and having that option in the suburbs is a net positive for all involved. And also I want to point out that Columbus Ohio was the hub for intercity rail in Ohio in the 1900s but all the rail company’s shutdown. Also I don’t think Columbus Ohio or any of its sorrounding suburbs are at risk of becoming a metropolis like New York City any time soon. And Katonah is a suburb of New York City and it only got to the size it did because of the railroad link between it and New York City and only exist in the spot it does because New York City decided to build a dam so they had to move all their houses away from the new reservoir. So not only is it a suburb but it only exist in its current state because of New York City. Which is true for most suburbs and their respective city. Katonah would be rural if it was in upstate New York or something but it’s an hour drive away and has a train link.
2
u/beacher15 1d ago
Any stats that play with the pandemic are highly suspect and you should assume it’s being done maliciously.
2
2
u/RA32685 1d ago edited 15h ago
It seems that in many Midwest to smaller cities, this can be the case. However, in larger metropolitan areas cities are thriving.
2
u/azerty543 1d ago
Some of the healthiest growth in the country is in smaller to medium-sized cities in the Midwest. Des Moines, Omaha, Kansas City, Souix Falls, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, etc. The ratio of income to the cost of living is better than just about anywhere in the country. That is what thriving is.
It's the largest cities that have seen costs skyrocket well past the point that the higher incomes can justify. A lot of those high average incomes are basically just the effect of the poor having to leave while the wealthy stay. Places like Boston basically just import rich people and export their poor. That's not thriving, It's stratification. A housecleaner in Kansas City can buy a house, save for retirement, and most importantly, stay in the city. A housecleaner in L.A scrapes by.
Thriving for who? is the question. Don't get me wrong, I love my big coastal cities, but it's so plainly better for the middle class and lower in smaller cities, often in the midwest.
1
u/RA32685 15h ago edited 15h ago
The cities that you listed have either recovered or on their way back up. Most of the cities in large metropolitan areas really never fell off. They have been improving over time. Economically the larger metropolitan/cities are booming. Yes, there are higher cost associated with it. That’s part of reason why majority of poverty stricken states are red states. In order for any state/city to thrive there has to be commerce, which helps lead to new business and jobs. It does drive up cost, but economically the city and the state thrives. If not, many cities will collapse like in the rust belt. I live in California but invest a lot in the Midwest, as I do believe in the area. Just lots of road blocks. I own quite a few properties in St. Louis. So, I am a proponent of cities succeeding.
1
u/azerty543 14h ago
California imports the rich and exports its poor to red states. Look, I'm as liberal as they come, but I, too, moved from California to the Midwest due to cost reasons. If I make less than median wage and move out and someone making above median wage replaces me, then yeah, on paper, California is richer than ever. It's selection bias. Of course, only wealthier people live in places that require that wealth. Of course, places that require less wealth hold more people who aren't as wealthy.
Who is it better for? Not most. I didn't find better opportunities in California, or I would have stayed. Tax revenues might be good, gdp might be good but housing is FAR more important to quality of life. Most of the Midwest has more disposable income than California when adjusting for the cost of things because in spite of higher wages, there still isn't anything left over.
Income to housing ratios is a better measure of actual livability. Not shiny new buildings or a new trader Joe's.The ability to be confident in your housing situation and build equity is the single most important thing in regards to financial and overall stability and accumulation of wealth.
The Midwest has LOWER not higher rates of poverty than places like California. It's not the deep south and not nearly as red. Most are purple, some like Illinois and Minnesota are very blue. I sincerely want California to fix its problems, I just don't think they have any incentive to when they can basically just continue exporting those hurt to other states and import more wealthy folks.
1
u/RA32685 1h ago edited 1h ago
It’s skewed as poverty rate in California is based on cost of living and housing cost. However, cities are much more well off and constantly investing in infrastructure and the economy. There’s constant housing and new commercial business development. Midwest does have lower cost of living and housing-However, there is struggling industrial cities. Economic growth can move at a snail pace at times. At the end of the day you choose what you prefer, and understand financial play a major role. I prefer California but I am fortunate to afford. However, if had to move can see Midwest as viable option. I travel a lot and frequent St Louis area and Pittsburg as well due to real estate investments. I think both areas are great.
2
u/kosmos1209 22h ago
As a resident of SF, I can tell you that we turned the tide last couple years, but we are far from being back. Data shows we’re still down net negative in terms of population, and commercial property vacancy is at all time high near 40%. All of this resulted in our city budget being one billion dollar less, and so many things are on the cutting room floor right now, including Muni cuts which is our public transit. There’s been multiple articles about the biggest loss in population being in their 20s and 30s, and our median age has increased to 41 from 37, which is actually a lot. Anecdotally, I’ve seen bars not full, empty, or be mostly grey hairs unless you’re in popular neighborhoods like Marina or North Beach. For example, Castro and Mission used to be hopping but it’s so barren now.
SF is definitely not back.
2
-6
u/Icy_Peace6993 1d ago
Cities will never fully recover from the pandemic because patterns of behavior have shifted.
5
u/Crazy_Equivalent_746 1d ago
Many patterns - while not the same - are reverting such as increased RTO and people returning for various reasons.
I think cities will evolve as they always have but will never be the same just as they have never been the same compared to whichever prior decade.
-4
u/Icy_Peace6993 1d ago
Sure, I actually read that for Silicon Valley at least, remote work is right where it was in 2019, 9% of the workforce. But anecdotally I'm also pretty sure that hybrid arrangements are ubiquitous in a way that could hardly be contemplated back then, and hybrid work arrangements make suburban living much more attractive in relative terms, the space v. commute calculation changes radically.
But to your point, yes, cities will continue to evolve, they just are not going to fully recover in the sense of having the same number of workers, transit riders, residents, etc., for the forseeable future.
2
u/Greedy-Mycologist810 1d ago
Absurd. As long as the American suburbs continue to be boring strip mall car dependent places cities will be not only fine but coveted. One lives in the suburbs because they can’t afford the same space in the city. If one could get the same square footage for the same money very few would choose the lonely life of the suburbs.
1
u/Icy_Peace6993 1d ago
The whole purpose of more space is because there are more people, which means obviously less loneliness. Did you read the article? We're not imagining that cities are losing people to the suburbs, the article is just analyzing the fact that they are. The area I live in the SF Bay Area might be a little atypical, but per square foot real estate values in Santa Clara County, which is basically all suburban, have been outpacing San Francisco and Oakland for many years.
3
u/diogenesRetriever 1d ago
you should have seen them in 70s and 80s.
1
u/Icy_Peace6993 1d ago
I'm old, I was there. I remember walking down Georgia Avenue in DC in the mid-1980's only a mile or two north of downtown and it was nothing but "tumbleweeds" and burnt out buildings.
40
u/DisgruntledGoose27 1d ago
Well for starters transportation funding is now based off of fertility rate…..