CA demographic shifts in the coming years will favor cities over suburbia

[bearishgurl]

I can tell you that after watching their parents spend many hours on nights, weekends and holidays on weeding, spraying, pruning, pool maintenance, scraping paint, painting, cleaning, mowing, repairing, installing flooring/appls, etc, my “Gen Y” kids want NOTHING TO DO with any of this and have fled to SF (where the JOBS are). Even the one still at home is now considering moving to West LA to go to college or the Big Apple for jobs after college.

Rise of the Gen Y
In the post-Boom paradigm, future demand for housing will focus on urban multi-family units, such as condominiums, multi-story townhouses and apartments, near the coast. Adversely, demand will shrink for inland single family residences (SFRs), according to the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA’s) Anderson School of Business Forecast and numerous real estate prognosticators – first tuesday included.

But what accounts for this change in population movement and which demographic will pave the way?

California’s population is trending younger and more educated, thus there will be less demand for suburban McMansions and greater demand for trendy, urban living space. California is one of the youngest states in the nation and thus its future will be disproportionally shaped by the post-Boomer generations. According to 2010 Census data, the median age of California is 35.2 (Maine, by comparison, is 42.7 and New York is 38)…

With this higher level of education, the highly-skilled Gen Y will gravitate towards urban areas where they can implement their skills and receive higher compensation than allowed in the outlying areas. Not satisfied with money alone, Gen Y will likely also seek something slightly more obscure than simple economic prosperity. They will move to areas boasting cultural significance, places referred to by Gen Y as “hip,” denoting a certain ephemeral quality that belies youth, natural optimism and innovation. Not much happens for Gen Y on the metaphorical farm.

These magnets of prosperity will become places lush with cultural establishments which act as a physical testament to the ideals of the new generation. Areas featuring history and art museums, galleries, laudable universities, professional and financial centers, sporting events and upscale eating and drinking establishments…

The Great Confluence

Sometime in or around 2020, a real estate bottle-neck will occur, known as the Great Confluence. As part of the Great Confluence, two demographic groups will simultaneously desire living space in the urban cores of California. By 2020, Gen Y will have completed college and entered the high-skilled labor force, eventually becoming financially capable of purchasing or renting a property. In the opposing corner, the Boomers will have worked those extra years necessary to be able to finally retire, some five to ten years later than they planned for in the ‘80s and ‘90s…These demand events for housing will occur at approximately the same time, prompting both demographic groups to migrate in large numbers to the cities simultaneously.

(emphasis added)

See: http://firsttuesdayjournal.com/from-city-to-suburbia-then-back/

…Decades ago, after the phenomenon known as urban sprawl drove large portions of the city population to the less developed rural regions known as suburbs, California’s cities began to suffer a slow, but very painful, deterioration. They began to break down socially and economically as the crime rates soared, cultural amenities were shut down and, perhaps the largest wound of all, businesses and available jobs began fleeing on the coattails of the suburb-driven evacuees. San Diego had lost almost all its corporate culture by the early 1990s as major corporate headquarters left for locations of more receptive populations. The fact that within the past decade this trend has reversed in the country’s seventh largest city speaks volumes for central city changes.

Up until the rise of the suburbs, it was believed people followed jobs. It was assumed that the power cohort — the newly-educated working force of America — would gather their families and their possessions and migrate to locations of rich job opportunity. While this is true for some, it is not the most common trend. Instead, this educated populace often seeks something slightly more obscure than economic prosperity. The power cohort moves to areas boasting cultural significance; places with museums, schools, professional and financial centers, sporting events and eating and drinking establishments. As a result, jobs and businesses follow people who can fuel them, and who can fund them — more specifically, jobs opportunities follow the power cohort.

While economic pressures drove people from the cities to the suburbs, we may be seeing the start of another such shift. However, this time, that shift will be in the opposite direction. Due to the new energy ratings that homes will soon require, developers are becoming more apprehensive to take on contracts for large “suburb-style” homes despite the extensive freeway system that has been built to accommodate buyers.

In conjunction with building standard changes, the desire of wanting everything as spread out as possible is starting to wane as people are feeling the pressures of time, fuel expenditures and the continuing rise of carbon emission concerns. Cities hold the key to each of those dilemmas facing California, but more importantly, cities hold enormous potential for unleashing a kinetic wave of job creation.

The primary weapon cities have in curing the state’s job plague is the high-rise building. The high-rise building allows for large amounts of people to live in the smallest amount of space. That is not to say their living quarters are small, but rather the plot of land they take up is hugely reduced. Consequently, traveling time is reduced from an individual’s residence to his job, school and places of socializing — in fact, public transportation will finally be used to its fullest potential again. But the largest benefit of a denser population is the surge of employers who will pour in looking to take advantage of the centralized work force…

(emphasis added)

See: http://firsttuesdayjournal.com/the-plight-of-california-to-be-solved-by%E2%80%A6-cities/

…Though suburban landscapes will always be part of the California geography, their days of dominance are behind us. Thus, agents and brokers need to anticipate this massive demographic shift into urban areas, specifically multiple-housing projects with security and relatively high prestige. Take steps to prepare yourself now: starting 2016-2018, Gen Y and the Boomers will start to leave the long commutes, chaparral, sage and property maintenance of suburbia behind as they go to live where they work.

See: http://firsttuesdayjournal.com/the-fate-of-suburbia/

These prognostications bode well for filling up SD’s vacant downtown condos but ill for SFR’s located in far-flung suburbia.

It also stands to reason that there may actually be some merit to brian’s frequent posts advocating upzoning of land in the urban cores, after all, due to future demand of highly-educated residents and those employers who will follow them :=] What say Piggs?

[an]

Being a Gen Y and having Gen Y friends, I would have to disagree with you BG. We’re no different than other generations. While single or married w/ no kids, we want to live in the city, but once you have kids, most will tell you they’ll give up their city life for a yard and suburban schools.

[The-Shoveler]

hmm, I think it will get old once one is past 30.
But it kind of fits a democratic profile I think.
Not all understand, but in generally Democrats kind of view Suburbs as huge mistake.
Everyone should rent a downtown condo and ride a bike to work type of thing.
Maybe why Housing generally does better under republicans but then again I am generalizing here.

[briansd1]

There is increasing urbanization and globalization of commerce, education and jobs. The most highly educated professionals will want to live in or near glamour cities, as Robert Shiller puts it.

Within glamour cities there are first, second and third tiers.

The first tier cities will enjoy higher growth and regional wealth.

The cities around the world that are best able to provide infrastructure and housing, and keep up with growth will enjoy the fruits of economic wealth and growth.

Unfortunately, I think that the NIMBYism in San Diego will prevent us from being a great first tier city.

People think that internet makes everything local. It does not.
If you go to social networking sites, you’ll see that all the “desirable” people live in big cities so that’s where young and smart people want to be.

[briansd1]

[quote=AN] While single or married w/ no kids, we want to live in the city, but once you have kids, most will tell you they’ll give up their city life for a yard and suburban schools.[/quote]

The thing is that America doesn’t have city life. Except for New York, and a few other places, it’s a blur of city and suburban life.

I mean, is living in Mission Valley really living in the city? Not in my opinion.

In the rest of the world, the demarcation between city and suburb is much greater.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]hmm, I think it will get old once one is past 30.
But it is kind of fits a democratic profile I think.
Not all understand, but in generally Democrats kind of view Suburbs as huge mistake.
Everyone should rent a downtown condo and ride a bike to work type of thing.
Maybe why Housing generally does better under republicans but then again I am generalizing here.[/quote]

Nor-LA, for the record, I am a Democrat-turned-independent. And I DO/DID favor close-in suburbs in SD, that is: (Dtn) SD to int’l border, SD to El Cajon, SD to UCSD, SD to MM, SD to San Carlos, etc … but when is enough enough? Even former small (uninc) “coastal hamlets” in NCC have now morphed into coastal/inland megalopolises.

I believe that if the sprawl to every lizard-inhabited corner of SD County had not taken place, new incoming residents would have just taken up the existing available housing (or not relocated to SD if they didn’t like the housing choices). In addition, I feel our local governments would have been better off today due to having to provide much LESS services for a smaller population, even though collecting less taxes. If we had had slow or no-growth initiatives in place in the past, the quality of life would have been far better for every existing resident in SD. Now, nearly all of SD County’s cities are experiencing layoffs caused by rampant hiring during the artificially propped-up “Millenium Boom.” These municipal layoffs that are occurring now come at a time when the county population is 3X what it was 30 years ago and the need for public services are far greater.

The voters in the State of Washington (as well as their Legislature) apparently were far less shortsighted than we/ours turned out to be in this regard and valued their quality of life more than we did.

Back to reality … even though situated within the county of SD (a VERY large county), I don’t consider places such as Alpine, Ramona and (SD) North County as being parts of SD. I consider them to be self-contained areas in their own right. That’s why it’s never made sense to me that people choose to live in them while attempting to commute to SD’s urban core every day to work.

[UCGal]

I don’t know if it’s a generational thing. I think there is a cultural thing.

Specifically, Americans, post WWII, wanted the house, car, suburban lifestyle. Other countries didn’t make that same change. My husbands relatives in Italy are all professional, upper middle class types… and all have large apartments or what we might call town houses (party walls with the adjacent neighbors.) The single family home is just not common in that culture.

These folks have kids, grandkids, etc… They never felt the need to get a single family home in the suburbs. It wasn’t part of their culture. It wasn’t that they couldn’t afford it – like I said, they’re all highly educated, upper middle class folks.

In most other countries (except perhaps Canada) – apartment/condo living is perfectly acceptable. Even for people with kids.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=AN] While single or married w/ no kids, we want to live in the city, but once you have kids, most will tell you they’ll give up their city life for a yard and suburban schools.[/quote]

The thing is that America doesn’t have city life. Except for New York, and a few other places, it’s a blur of city and suburban life.

I mean, is living in Mission Valley really living in the city? Not in my opinion.

In the rest of the world, the demarcation between city and suburb is much greater.[/quote]

Agreed, brian. MM, where AN resides is an example of city/suburban life. For many years, MM AND SR were the “last bastions” in the northern part of the City with MM built up as tracts on small urban lots. For that reason, MM life is a combination of city and suburban existence.

Mission Valley is a dense multifamily/com’l area built-up on a “Type A” floodplain with tons of shored-up landfill using “glass breakwater” and other techniques which we all “hope” doesn’t fail in the event of a BIG FLOOD of the SD River :={

MV is NOT really “urban” at all in the true sense of the word, is not very walkable, has no real “culture” and very little “character,” lol.

SD DOES have a “city life” but it is confined to dtn, Gaslamp, East Village, Hillcrest, Balboa Park and nearby surrounds.

[briansd1]

[quote=UCGal]

In most other countries (except perhaps Canada) – apartment/condo living is perfectly acceptable. Even for people with kids.[/quote]

That’s what I’ve noticed also. It’s cultural.

That’s why I say that globalization will affect how we perceive things. The internet and travel also will allow us to absorb other ways of doing things.

After WWII we went suburban, so it’s either we do exurban now, or we do more of a city/suburb hybrid with more density with public transport as an option. I believe the latter is the way forward.

Regarding upzoning lots in the city, that will happen with the babyboomers go to nursing homes. After all, the economic life of those wood tract house is only about 50 years. There comes a time to tear-down and rebuild.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl]
SD DOES have a “city life” but it is confined to dtn, Gaslamp, East Village, Hillcrest, Balboa Park and nearby surrounds.[/quote]

Compared to world-class cities, San Diego is almost all suburbs, IMO. But by American standards, that’s a city, I suppose.

Downtown is a conventioneer/tourist trap.

Hillcrest is just University Ave with suburban bungalows around. It’s just an older version of Santee, and suburban cities such as Frisco, TX with a business district surrounded by houses.

[joec]

I’d have to agree with AN, having LIVED in the city (SF), it’s great if you have the time/money/disposal income to go out all the time and stuff, but once the kids come, I think the majority will move for more space and quiet in the suburbs.

I don’t have to post it, but there are tons upon tons of articles about SF not having any families at all. Also, when you have kids, do you really even WANT to go out and party? You’re usually too old for that and have so little time. All IMO of course. I hate cities with their pollution, noise, vandals, partiers every thursday night coming home friday morning at 2am, etc…

Glad to live in the suburbs.

Also, I think women tend to like living in the city more than men. Men like garages, cars, don’t care about being seen as much (after marriage and kids of course) so the “city” offers very little…IMO again. I’m sure you can find 1 “guy” who likes the city, but most would rather spend the money on other things IMO. Cities tend to also be more expensive to live.

Gotta admit dining is a lot better, but take a baby to any fine dining place and it’s a nightmare in stressful dining. Take out baby!

[zk]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2] in generally Democrats kind of view Suburbs as huge mistake.
Everyone should rent a downtown condo and ride a bike to work type of thing.
[/quote]

I don’t have a problem with generalizations when they’re correct. That one, however, is ludicrous. I’m not a democrat, but I know lots of them. I’m pretty sure no more than a tiny percentage of them hold that view.

[pencilneck]

A large percentage of tiny Democrats hold that view.

[The-Shoveler]

I know a lot of democrats with that view but maybe I run with a small sample.

Well San Jose is more a collection of suburbs and the Tech Companies in the L.A. area are located in some far flung suburbs like Simi Valley and West-Lake and now days Arcadia and Valencia.
Very few are down town L.A. close
The bad part is very hard to work in these areas without a car.
Also the funny part is the rich in China try to live like us.
I think TG had it right, one day in the future we will look back and figure out we were right.

[an]

[quote=briansd1][quote=AN] While single or married w/ no kids, we want to live in the city, but once you have kids, most will tell you they’ll give up their city life for a yard and suburban schools.[/quote]

The thing is that America doesn’t have city life. Except for New York, and a few other places, it’s a blur of city and suburban life.

I mean, is living in Mission Valley really living in the city? Not in my opinion.

In the rest of the world, the demarcation between city and suburb is much greater.[/quote]
IMHO, no MV is not city. Neither is Hillcrest, Point Loma, etc. City is downtown with high rises only.

[Author]

Posts