As he often does, Joel Kotkin looks past wishful thinking to the numbers:
It’s an idea echoed everywhere from “Friends” to “Girls”: Young people want to live in cities. And, we’re told, a lot of them (at least the cool ones) do.
It’s a common assumption. But it’s also wrong.
Between 2010 and 2013, the number of 20- to 29-year-olds in America grew by 4 percent. But the number living in the nation’s core cities grew 3.2 percent. In other words, the share of 20-somethings living in urban areas actually declined slightly.
This trend has occurred in supposedly hot cities like San Francisco, Boston, New York and D.C., notes demographer Wendell Cox. Chicago and Portland, Ore., both widely hailed as youth boom-towns, saw their numbers of 20-somethings decline, too.
I think maybe he needs to go back to algebra class. His claim with those numbers doesn’t make any sense, or else he’s leaving out some crucial detail.
The only way that the number in core cities would also be 4% would be if 100% of the people aging above 20 years old lived in core cities or moved there, i.e. if 100% of the growth occurred in cities.
That second number would grow in proportion to how many live in the core cities, not at the same rate. So 3.2% actually sounds like growth to me, not decline, since it indicates that more than 3/4 of the growth in that demographic was in core cities.
Congratulations, Lee.
You’ve perfectly misunderstood the simple math involved – for which no algebra is required.
What about the number of 20-29 somethings with Bachelors degrees or more?
That’s the demographic many have in mind when they talk about the ‘rebirth of cities’, whether they are really admitting it openly or not.
The NY Times published an article today which states “the number of college-educated people age 25 to 34 living within three miles of city centers has surged, up 37 percent since 2000, even as the total population of these neighborhoods has slightly shrunk.”
Wow – I apparently shouldn’t trust my reading or math comprehension before 8am! I stand corrected.
Interesting that the NY Times gets this wrong: “And as young people continue to spurn the suburbs for urban living …”
Yes, but the point the NYT is making is still hugely significant. When considering the future growth of cities, the degree that overall youth are moving to or away from cities is irrelevant. What is relevant is how many young people who are poised to create future jobs and, indeed, have the wherewithal to grow our urban areas are, in fact, moving downtown.
Jack,
Here’s the City Observatory research report (PDF) that was the basis for the NYT article. It makes for a fascinating read and closes with an emphasis on the point you’re making.
In the mid-70s I had a front-row seat on the transformation of Lincoln Park by a wave of 21-34 year old baby boomers. That was followed by Gen Xers and Gen Yers spreading out into other north side neighborhoods.
Compare the numbers of Chicago Millennials with degrees in Tables 3 and 6 of the report. Chicago’s downtown has gained share among degreed Millennials in recent years according to the reported numbers, but the great majority of them are still living beyond downtown.
The Millennial influx, such as it is, strikes me as just the latest chapter in an ongoing story: young people, like other demographic cohorts, tend to cluster near similar people. How that will play out over time for the Millennial generation is a story that’s yet to be told rather than one that can already be written.
I think the NYT’s report stands.
When the Millennials have kids, most of them will move to the suburbs.
A few people say that “our generation will be different”, but I just don’t see it happening.
Every time my wife and I bring our kids to the city, we are reminded of just how kid-unfriendly this place is.
more power to you^ all I see is that private schools can’t be built fast enough in this town
How is the city kid unfriendly? Theres sidewalks, use them. Oh you dont have a front row parking space for your SUV stroller? Well then GTFO and stay in Scumburg then.
BTW – I have kids and we love the city. And we plan on making it better, not cut and run.
Where’s all the juvenile hate coming from?
Based on your first comment, the city’s not a better place for having you in it. Further comments along that line will be deleted.
I have no idea why the city is kid unfriendly. We have kids, they walk to school, walk to church, have friends in the neifhborhood and play outside riding bikes, play football, etc.
I see two likely Chicago city dwellers:
The affluent, either via family or high paying careers. They need the convenience, mom and dad simply cannot commute with the hours and the travel work requires. Private schools and childcare for them is simply a cost of doing business.
The Neo-Marxist children of Baby Boomers who think the suburbs lack the culture required to be a part of a progressive society. They cannot ‘afford’ the city but make due by attempting to participate in the public school systems, talking up common core, using Divvy and generally living on the fringes of what Chicago has become, a corporate culture of expensive rental homes and restaurants catering to the corporate elite.
I mean no ill will by these two groupings, it is simply fact. Young people with less money would have a higher quality of life in Oak Park, Skokie, Morton Grove, etc. They could own homes plant gardens, participate in local government and their kids could walk to school.
Something has happened in society – a sense of entitlement. A belief that the governing bodies of these large cities owe everyone a quality of life. In the end, as in London, Paris, New York, Tokyo… big cities are for wealthy people. Private schools feed into top colleges, feed into corporate jobs and family businesses. Public schools feed into public colleges feed into debt and jobs in public life, non profit, perimeter corporate careers with limited upside.
If I were young today, I would cut bait and move to a smaller city where I would have a shot at a good life. The fallacy of being middle class in the City proves evident when you see families renting long term with limited or no savings, and no land, no private space, no opportunity.
I’m sorry but I felt like I had to share this perspective.
Naïve Kelt:
What is it like to have every facet of your beliefs be dictated solely by right wing talk radio talking points?
Oh, and for reference, my decidedly non-marxist girlfriend and I live in the city and have for years. We are both 30, dual income of about 140K total (last time I checked, pretty much dead in the center of the middle class), and simply prefer the city to the suburbs. We are also *gasp* doing just fine and have no desire to leave Chicago.
There’s also nothing wrong with the suburbs, but not everybody desires the things in life that you described above. Unlike you, where I choose to live is in no way motivated by politics, either, so sorry to disappoint.
I really do feel bad for people like you, it must be strange and sad living in the imaginary bubble you’ve created for yourself.
Just Curious,
What is it like to make unwarranted assumptions about people based on a single comment?
It must be sad living in the imaginary bubble you’ve created for yourself.
How many of those 20-29 want to live in core cities and can’t afford it or still “live at home”?
When I worked in the burbs the 20-somethings in our office mostly lived out there and were scared of the city or loved the city and were about to make the move (mostly interns still in school and were summer employee’s or recent grads) with a few wanting to but not being able to afford a move (though rents in that region were higher than I paid “downtown” at the time – with no obvious comparables) or not being able to move for a variety of other reasons. The millennials are by no means monolithic from what I can tell, though they do seem to be driving less, which does support the ‘urban lifestyle’ argument.
Joe, what impact if any, can we expect the new Governor to have on our cost of living in our fair city?
Big Ed,
Your guess is as good as mine, which I’ll keep to myself.
Big Ed, one can hope that the Governor will only make living in the city more expensive.
What I mean by this, of course, is that I hope his actions lead to more economic growth, more jobs, and higher salaries–translating to higher rents, higher real estate prices, thus higher mortgages, etc etc.