Millennials Continue to Leave Big Cities

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Sure you'll see some people with kids in urban areas but typically they are either they poor or the very rich, most of the people in urban areas are pre-child young, post child old, or the childless in general.

There are nearly 2 million kids under the age of 18 in NYC (which actually puts it slightly above the national average of 22.6%), and that's as urban as it gets.

Pretty sure those aren't only the kids of the ultra rich or the very poor (or "interracial gay couples").

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

Didn't anyone work in college?!

Yeah, more than you did. I call B.S. on your story.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

That's not the point of my post. The point is that Chicago is one of the most affordable big cities in America, not that LA is average.

This isn't true, though. Chicago's relative housing burden isn't particularly high or low. It doesn't appear to be "one of the most affordable big cities" by any standard.

Chicago is always referenced in this way in SSP because it has lower home prices than NYC, LA and SF. But lower home prices aren't a proxy for affordability. You have to factor in incomes, housing appreciation, rent regulation, and overall housing costs (taxes, fees). Chicago, overall, is pretty middle-of-the-road.

SF (city proper) actually has lower housing burden than Chicago (city proper), BTW. Roughly half of U.S. renters are cost burdened per the Census definition (paying more than 30% of income on rent); in SF, only 35% of renters are cost burdened.

I think what people are trying to say is "Chicago (really alongside Philly, which is slightly cheaper, and arguably more traditionally urban) is one of the few American cities with "real" urbanity that has relatively low sales prices". That is certainly true. But that's very different than "affordable" and housing cost isn't related to urbanity.

[dc_denizen]

I worked a couple jobs in college (sandwich maker at the student union, dining commons, TA, plasma donor lol). The money was trivial , wish I could lend my former self some cash..

[jtown,man]

Yep. I got a sweet government job cleaning up(picking up trash, powerwashing) the local public housing complex. That place really helped me form my political opinions. The stories and experiences I gained from working there...

[eschaton]

I think the most important point though regarding Chicago is that it's not really a destination for older millennials (with or without kids) who find themselves priced out of the market in NYC, SF, Boston, or DC. Those folks either relocate to the suburbs or pick a significantly smaller, more low-cost metro.

There is a fair amount of NYC-to-Philly migration spurred by cheaper housing, but that's the only "alpha to alpha" example I can think of offhand, and is more understandable because the two metropolitan areas basically touch one another.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This isn't true, though. Chicago's relative housing burden isn't particularly high or low. It doesn't appear to be "one of the most affordable big cities" by any standard.

Chicago is always referenced in this way in SSP because it has lower home prices than NYC, LA and SF. But lower home prices aren't a proxy for affordability. You have to factor in incomes, housing appreciation, rent regulation, and overall housing costs (taxes, fees). Chicago, overall, is pretty middle-of-the-road.

SF (city proper) actually has lower housing burden than Chicago (city proper), BTW. Roughly half of U.S. renters are cost burdened per the Census definition (paying more than 30% of income on rent); in SF, only 35% of renters are cost burdened.

I think what people are trying to say is "Chicago (really alongside Philly, which is slightly cheaper, and arguably more traditionally urban) is one of the few American cities with "real" urbanity that has relatively low sales prices". That is certainly true. But that's very different than "affordable" and housing cost isn't related to urbanity.

Notice how you shifted the goal posts to housing burden, from what we were discussing prior.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think what people are trying to say is "Chicago (really alongside Philly, which is slightly cheaper, and arguably more traditionally urban) is one of the few American cities with "real" urbanity that has relatively low sales prices". That is certainly true. But that's very different than "affordable" and housing cost isn't related to urbanity.

I would even go a step further and go back to your earlier point that Chicago's sales prices are only "cheap" relative to 3 or 4 other cities. It's like yeah, if you're in this really specific market of wanting to live in an expensive city, but not the most expensive city, with good transit, a plurality of densely populated neighborhoods, and in a metro area with more than 4 million people, then Chicago wins.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I would even go a step further and go back to your earlier point that Chicago's sales prices are only "cheap" relative to 3 or 4 other cities. It's like yeah, if you're in this really specific market of wanting to live in an expensive city, but not the most expensive city, with good transit, a plurality of densely populated neighborhoods, and in a metro area with more than 4 million people, then Chicago wins.

and that has been my sole point for like over a decade now.

if you want to own your own home in an urban neighborhood in one of america's "big 7"*, then chicago and philly are the two most affordable places to do so. these two cities are fantastic urban "bang for your buck" values in terms of home buying.


(*) the big 7 being defined as america's most urban big cities: boston, NYC, philly, DC, Chicago, SF, & LA. these 7 cities constitute something like 98% of the entire nation's zip codes over 20,000 ppsm. they have the most robust, comprehensive and heavily used rail transit systems in the nation, by far. they have the lion's share of old school traditional urbanism. etc. NYC obviously stands alone, and the other 6 stand apart in tier 2.


this whole tangent started because obadno claimed that you have to be extremely wealthy to comfortably raise a family in an american city, and i was just countering his "extremely wealthy" nonsense by pointing to my example of raising a family here in chicago without being "extremely wealthy".