The US Census Bureau thread

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm not talking about urban cores, I'm talking about outer sprawl vs. inner suburbia. I really doubt your average McMansion buyer is simultaneously considering urban living.

Is there a metro where the outer sprawl McMansion zone has better schools than the older suburbs? I doubt it. In Dallas, older suburbs like Frisco have much better schools than the newest sprawlburbs. And schools in the oldest suburbs like University Park/Highland Park are better still. In Detroit, the best school districts are all in fully built-out suburbs.

If you're building a McMansion in a cornfield, you're pretty likely to have inferior schools. IMO it's more of a more space/new construction thing.

School district performance drifts with development patterns, though. And, I would argue it is a lagging indicator of affluence.

This is not necessarily indicative of school district performance, but there's now an International Academy in Macomb to serve all of the new money sprawl in the northern part of the county and it is consistently rated as the top #1 or #2 high school in Michigan. I remember when practically no school in Macomb County made it near the top of the list of best high schools.

[Crawford]

Right, but that's a magnet school.

Highest performing districts in Metro Detroit are Northville, Novi, Bloomfield, Birmingham, Troy, Grosse Pointe. Really only Grosse Pointe district is truly old, but the rest are fully built out.

The really sprawl areas, where homes are going up on farmland, have above-average but not great schools. South Lyon, Milford, Brighton, Oxford, Lake Orion, Macomb, Romeo, etc.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Birth rates & household sizes have never been lower, so it's weird that people still want bigger and bigger homes. How much does it cost to AC a 4,000 sq. ft. home in the summer TX heat? No basements, right? In the north, that would be a 6,000 sq. ft. house, functionally.

Crime rates are near modern-day lows, and I don't think there's any evidence that sprawl is statistically safer than non-sprawl. The opposite is likely true, given the stroads and extreme commuting.

And the highest performing schools are almost always in close-in communities, not sprawl. But those districts usually have much higher home prices.

The median home size in Collin County (your poster child for "McMansion" sprawl) is 2,541 sq. ft. That's down from the record high of 3,250 sq. ft. recorded in 2017. Most new construction in DFW suburbs is just standard issue suburban sprawl that you find across the US.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm not talking about urban cores, I'm talking about outer sprawl vs. inner suburbia. I really doubt your average McMansion buyer is simultaneously considering urban living.

Is there a metro where the outer sprawl McMansion zone has better schools than the older suburbs? I doubt it. In Dallas, older suburbs like Frisco have much better schools than the newest sprawlburbs. And schools in the oldest suburbs like University Park/Highland Park are better still. In Detroit, the best school districts are all in fully built-out suburbs.

If you're building a McMansion in a cornfield, you're pretty likely to have inferior schools. IMO it's more of a more space/new construction thing.

Frisco is not an older Dallas suburb. It is one of the newer suburbs and didn't start growing until the mid to late 90s. Its still at the far north end of DFW sprawl too, despite all the growth in Collin County. An old typical sprawling suburb for Dallas is somewhere like Richardson which started growing in the 50s. But one reason why Frisco has better schools than other newer suburbs like it is because Frisco is where many of the jobs are now so it commands a higher dollar, which higher incomes trickle down to better schools. That and Collin County in general is very competitive with its schools. Great schools there have become a self-fulfilling prophecy, hence the price points to get in now.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

"OMG, I would never take my family down into the city, it's WAY too dangerous!" says the suburban soccer mom, without the slightest hint of irony, as she buckles her brood into the back of the minivan to go careening down the high speed stroads of her world multiple times per day, every day.

People generally suck at risk assessment.

Yes driving down a high speed road is dangerous because people don't pay attention on the road but you can get distracted drivers hitting you in ped-crossongs plus random muggings or damaged/stolen property in urban areas too. There's a lot to offer in the core so it's nice to see them still growing but the stats don't lie.

For me I don't get the same diversity of restaurants or get to walk to an area with as many offerings. Now restaurants close early and the trails lead to parks or parking lots. On the flipside I could leave my keys in the car overnight and not worry. Kids can go to the neighborhood school with everyone else. And my suburb has walkable areas we go to when we need a fix but don't want to drive in to town. I see both sides.

Originally Posted by DCReid

Interesting, especially about the old downtowns. I thought maybe since Dallas was an older city, it had more old downtowns. Houston has been written off many times, and I would suspect it is doing well given its economic profile because it is in Texas. A joke in the 80s was that it was the next Detroit. Other oil towns have not done well - New Orleans is not really growing and Tulsa is an oil town that is overshadowed by OKC and growing much more slowly. I guess it also benefited because the industry consolidated there, and it also drew in international companies. Even the small metro next to it, Beaumont, is not growing.

Houston is the older city. Dallas had more little cities with identities they wanted to keep so when annexation started they did their part too, whereas Houston area suburbs did nothing as Houston surrounded them. Houston benefited from the energy industry consolidation that is still going on but also finally diversifying. The way DFW planned and built itself just appeals to more general Americans which is why it is far and away the most popular metro area right now to move to (it gained 90k alone in domestic migrants last year).

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Trae

Frisco is not an older Dallas suburb. It is one of the newer suburbs and didn't start growing until the mid to late 90s.

Crawford is correct that Frisco is an "older" suburb, in contrast with the "newer" suburbs like the ones listed below (Celina, Princeton, Anna, Prosper, Forney...)

1990s is "older" compared to the 2020s. These newer suburbs are to the 2020s what Frisco was to the 1990s. Ergo, Frisco is clearly an "older" suburb, from a previous generation of DFW suburbanization. Not "old" in a vacuum, just older.

Originally Posted by C.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Trae

Houston is the older city. Dallas had more little cities with identities they wanted to keep so when annexation started they did their part too, whereas Houston area suburbs did nothing as Houston surrounded them. Houston benefited from the energy industry consolidation that is still going on but also finally diversifying. The way DFW planned and built itself just appeals to more general Americans which is why it is far and away the most popular metro area right now to move to (it gained 90k alone in domestic migrants last year).

I may be wrong but is the land around Dallas easier to develop (drier) than around Houston? Or that makes zero difference to sprawl potential?

[Trae]

Originally Posted by lio45

Crawford is correct that Frisco is an "older" suburb, in contrast with the "newer" suburbs like the ones listed below (Celina, Princeton, Anna, Prosper, Forney...)

1990s is "older" compared to the 2020s. These newer suburbs are to the 2020s what Frisco was to the 1990s. Ergo, Frisco is clearly an "older" suburb, from a previous generation of DFW suburbanization. Not "old" in a vacuum, just older.

In that sense yes but Frisco is also a large suburb in square mileage. In 2000 it had 33k people, in 2010 it had 116k, and in 2020 it had 200k. At this point it is merely running out of room. That's why its growth is spilling over into Prosper (started 15 years ago), Celina (which is getting Prosper spillover), Anna, etc. (Forney and Princeton are a little too far from Frisco). Prosper already has comparable schools to Frisco and higher incomes. Just give it a few years for the other Collin County burbs near Frisco to grow and their school districts will be as good too. It's a thing there.

Originally Posted by lio45

I may be wrong but is the land around Dallas easier to develop (drier) than around Houston? Or that makes zero difference to sprawl potential?

It is planning IMO. The Houston area was built more by developers who did what they wanted in unincorporated areas whereas DFW had more city planners. This is why you see DFW with over 10 man-made lakes for flood control. Houston has 2 and a couple reservoirs but then allowed developers to build homes in the reservoirs. The land for both areas can be developed the same. I know some geologic features are different but Houston should have developed like South Florida.

[Crawford]

Frisco is largely built-out and has much better schools than the fringe places driving Dallas-area construction. The new places are desirable due to more house for your money. Someone who places greater value on schools would head to an established suburb, sacrificing space for schools.

And West Plano, older and closer-in than Frisco, has even better schools. And North Dallas and Highland Park have the best schools (tho in Dallas proper you're talking private; I doubt many households in affluent parts of North Dallas even consider public).

[Trae]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Frisco is largely built-out and has much better schools than the fringe places driving Dallas-area construction. The new places are desirable due to more house for your money. Someone who places greater value on schools would head to an established suburb, sacrificing space for schools.

And West Plano, older and closer-in than Frisco, has even better schools. And North Dallas and Highland Park have the best schools (tho in Dallas proper you're talking private; I doubt many households in affluent parts of North Dallas even consider public).

My point was, Frisco until 2020 was one of those burbs. Frisco is not an old suburb in Dfw and no one from there considers it that. Middle aged maybe, but not old (again that's a Richardson or Irving). Frisco almost doubled in population between 2010 and 2020, and has had good schools since the growth started there in the 90s. It is only just now literally running out of land as some of the last parcels are being given to a PGA Resort and Universal Studios.

West Plano has is home to the bulk of Collin County's companies/headquarters so makes sense it became the high dollar side, which in the suburbs results in good schools.

Private schools are a whole other story. The point of going moving into a nice suburb with good schools is so you don't have to pay for private schools. In the inner cities you can move to an even nicer house but the school your house is zoned to might suck, so you have to go magnet, do a school lottery, or go private.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Frisco is largely built-out and has much better schools than the fringe places driving Dallas-area construction. The new places are desirable due to more house for your money. Someone who places greater value on schools would head to an established suburb, sacrificing space for schools.

And West Plano, older and closer-in than Frisco, has even better schools. And North Dallas and Highland Park have the best schools (tho in Dallas proper you're talking private; I doubt many households in affluent parts of North Dallas even consider public).

You have to factor in cost. The people moving to Forney are moving to modest tract houses that are relatively affordable compared to more established suburbs closer to Dallas. Most production homes range from about 1,800 to 2,500 s/f and are by no means McMansions.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Trae

Yes driving down a high speed road is dangerous because people don't pay attention on the road but you can get distracted drivers hitting you in ped-crossongs plus random muggings or damaged/stolen property in urban areas too.

I live in Chicago proper.

I'm fully aware that this town ain't no fucking Mayberry.

My comment about the oblivious soccer mom was speaking to the general myopia afflicting our society that only crime is dangerous, as an add-on to Crawford's earlier post.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I live in Chicago proper.

I'm fully aware that this town ain't no fucking Mayberry.

My comment about the oblivious soccer mom was speaking to the general myopia afflicting our society that only crime is dangerous, as an add-on to Crawford's earlier post.

The "oblivious" soccer mom probably also tells her kids to look both ways before crossing a street and not to jump in the car with strangers telling them they lost their dog. Crime is just one thing that gets discussed the most for obvious reasons

[Steely Dan]

^ you're clearly not getting it.

Moving on.......

[Trae]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ you're clearly not getting it.

Moving on.......

I get your point, it's not rocket science. "OMG, I would never take my family to the suburbs, did you hear about the kids street racing on those wide open roads?" says the urban dweller, without the slightest hint of irony, as they ignore car break-ins and pedestrians hit by cars in their own neighborhoods every day.

suburban life offers larger homes, better public schools, and a sense of safety backed by lower crime stats. those three things are what matters to many families with school-aged kids the most

yes risk assessment can be flawed but that flaw doesn't just come from suburban residents... the Census will continue to show the suburbs of America are king. luckily many suburbs have smarter growth nowadays so it's not as bad as before

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Trae

"OMG, I would never take my family to the suburbs, did you hear about the kids street racing on those wide open roads?"

What an epic reach!

This forum still delivers sometimes.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

What an epic reach!

This forum still delivers sometimes.

How is it any different than this:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

"OMG, I would never take my family down into the city, it's WAY too dangerous!" says the suburban soccer mom, without the slightest hint of irony, as she buckles her brood into the back of the minivan to go careening down the high speed stroads of her world multiple times per day, every day.

People generally suck at risk assessment.

You said the same thing, just from the inner city perspective. It goes both ways.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Trae

How is it any different than this:

One is an actual commonly held fear and the other is made up nonsense.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

One is an actual commonly held fear and the other is made up nonsense.

both fears are based on real concerns. Urban areas deal with higher crime rates. suburbs deal with things like street racing. disregarding one as "made up nonsense" ignores the risks seen in both places. it goes both ways. you can be dismissive about it if you want but doesn't make the stats any less true

essentially what you're doing is contrasting someone in the inner city's fear of driving on suburban roads to a suburban person's fear of walking in the inner city. You're just saying the opposite of what they would. each side has areas where they suck at risk assessment

[Steely Dan]

I've never once come across the attitude from my fellow Chicagoans that they would never go to the suburbs because of "street racers".

That's laughably absurd.

City dwellers say things like "I hate going to fucking Schaumburg..... because it sucks".

Has nothing to do with danger perception.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I've never once come across the attitude from my fellow Chicagoans that they would never go to the suburbs because of "street racers".

That's laughably absurd.

City dwellers say things like "I hate going to fucking Schaumburg..... because it sucks".

Has nothing to do with danger perception.

I get that street racing might not be the first thing city dwellers mention but the point remains that both areas have their own sets of risks. you pointed out a risk assessment suburban people "might" not be looking at but want to dismiss anything the other way. put anything in place of street racing—overzealous suburban cops, perhaps more racism—but the list seems smaller than the other way around, doesn't it? a city dweller doesn't want to go to Schaumburg because it's suburban and to them that sucks because now at the family function they have to drive to the store for those extra packs of beer versus walking down to the corner store. Okay but that stuff doesn't matter to people in the suburbs for the most part. they want those things I listed earlier first.