plunging birthrate

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]
So UCGal, you’re saying here that ten years ago, your now husband was 50+?, had no children and had just married (or was engaged) to you?

I take it he isn’t from SD but this doesn’t matter. This just fuels my hypothesis that there are MANY 50+ men out there who are seeking to find a spouse ASAP and begin an “immediate” family!

Pls correct me if I missed something… ;=][/quote]
He was 48 when we met and married, 49 when we had our first kid. He turned 50 about a month after our youngest was born.

He’s not typical to the guys I dated… Most of the guys who were in their late 30’s through late 40’s that I dated prior had either already had their kids with wife #1 and didn’t want more. (which is fine). Or were NOT the type I’d want to have kids with, even if they wanted them, because of Peter Pan syndrome. I don’t think my husband represents a broad stereotype… and I dated enough guys in my 30’s to say that. (I had the ticking bio-clock going. LOL).

[barnaby33]

Thanks UCGal. I’m an only child and my mom was 39 when she had me. In the 70’s that was quite rare.
Josh

[barnaby33]

Thanks UCGal. I’m an only child and my mom was 39 when she had me. In the 70’s that was quite rare.
Josh

[barnaby33]

Thanks UCGal. I’m an only child and my mom was 39 when she had me. In the 70’s that was quite rare.
Josh

[barnaby33]

Thanks UCGal. I’m an only child and my mom was 39 when she had me. In the 70’s that was quite rare.
Josh

[barnaby33]

Thanks UCGal. I’m an only child and my mom was 39 when she had me. In the 70’s that was quite rare.
Josh

[eavesdropper]

[quote=patb]http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-06-03-fewer-children-census-suburbs_n.htm

if birthrates continue to decline, will that put long term pressure on housing?
Families without children or with a single child will prefer condos and townhouses.[/quote]

patb, I don’t think the reduced “family” size will be an issue, so far as housing is concerned. I’m a mid-to-late baby boomer, and here are my observations of housing trends over the 20th century:

My grandparents’ generation (7 to 10 kids) lived in one- or two-room apartments, or a small (800 to 1000 sf) house, often shared with several members of an extended family.

My parents’ generation (3 to 7 kids) moved into little (1000 to 1200 sf) suburban ranchers and split levels in the thousands of postwar “Levittowns” that sprang up all over America.

Early Boomers (2 to 4 kids) decided that an extra room (i.e., the family room) was needed to actually “live in”, and moved on up into 1600 to 2100 sf domiciles.

Late Boomers determined that each child MUST have their own room, so mortgages were stretched to cover 2200 to 3000 sf.

Somewhere in there, the McMansion was born, and middle-class families with a couple offspring were trying to fill 4500 to 6000 sf and more with rooms for every possible activity (home theater, craft room, gift wrapping room). The foyers in most of these homes are larger than the entire house in which my parents raised five kids.

So I’m guessing that the next housing evolution will be 10,000 to 12,000 sf estates for singles or childless couples (perhaps one very small child would be acceptable).

In all seriousness, patb, energy prices are going to guide the location of neighborhoods and the size of houses. Commuting costs will increase to the point that people will have to move closer to the cities, and the lack of open space will curtail their ability to express themselves in brick, mortar, and aluminum siding. The upside to this is a reversal of the trend of developers to move into beautiful pristine rural areas, and turn them into even more hideous faceless overcrowded exurbs.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=patb]http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-06-03-fewer-children-census-suburbs_n.htm

if birthrates continue to decline, will that put long term pressure on housing?
Families without children or with a single child will prefer condos and townhouses.[/quote]

patb, I don’t think the reduced “family” size will be an issue, so far as housing is concerned. I’m a mid-to-late baby boomer, and here are my observations of housing trends over the 20th century:

My grandparents’ generation (7 to 10 kids) lived in one- or two-room apartments, or a small (800 to 1000 sf) house, often shared with several members of an extended family.

My parents’ generation (3 to 7 kids) moved into little (1000 to 1200 sf) suburban ranchers and split levels in the thousands of postwar “Levittowns” that sprang up all over America.

Early Boomers (2 to 4 kids) decided that an extra room (i.e., the family room) was needed to actually “live in”, and moved on up into 1600 to 2100 sf domiciles.

Late Boomers determined that each child MUST have their own room, so mortgages were stretched to cover 2200 to 3000 sf.

Somewhere in there, the McMansion was born, and middle-class families with a couple offspring were trying to fill 4500 to 6000 sf and more with rooms for every possible activity (home theater, craft room, gift wrapping room). The foyers in most of these homes are larger than the entire house in which my parents raised five kids.

So I’m guessing that the next housing evolution will be 10,000 to 12,000 sf estates for singles or childless couples (perhaps one very small child would be acceptable).

In all seriousness, patb, energy prices are going to guide the location of neighborhoods and the size of houses. Commuting costs will increase to the point that people will have to move closer to the cities, and the lack of open space will curtail their ability to express themselves in brick, mortar, and aluminum siding. The upside to this is a reversal of the trend of developers to move into beautiful pristine rural areas, and turn them into even more hideous faceless overcrowded exurbs.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=patb]http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-06-03-fewer-children-census-suburbs_n.htm

if birthrates continue to decline, will that put long term pressure on housing?
Families without children or with a single child will prefer condos and townhouses.[/quote]

patb, I don’t think the reduced “family” size will be an issue, so far as housing is concerned. I’m a mid-to-late baby boomer, and here are my observations of housing trends over the 20th century:

My grandparents’ generation (7 to 10 kids) lived in one- or two-room apartments, or a small (800 to 1000 sf) house, often shared with several members of an extended family.

My parents’ generation (3 to 7 kids) moved into little (1000 to 1200 sf) suburban ranchers and split levels in the thousands of postwar “Levittowns” that sprang up all over America.

Early Boomers (2 to 4 kids) decided that an extra room (i.e., the family room) was needed to actually “live in”, and moved on up into 1600 to 2100 sf domiciles.

Late Boomers determined that each child MUST have their own room, so mortgages were stretched to cover 2200 to 3000 sf.

Somewhere in there, the McMansion was born, and middle-class families with a couple offspring were trying to fill 4500 to 6000 sf and more with rooms for every possible activity (home theater, craft room, gift wrapping room). The foyers in most of these homes are larger than the entire house in which my parents raised five kids.

So I’m guessing that the next housing evolution will be 10,000 to 12,000 sf estates for singles or childless couples (perhaps one very small child would be acceptable).

In all seriousness, patb, energy prices are going to guide the location of neighborhoods and the size of houses. Commuting costs will increase to the point that people will have to move closer to the cities, and the lack of open space will curtail their ability to express themselves in brick, mortar, and aluminum siding. The upside to this is a reversal of the trend of developers to move into beautiful pristine rural areas, and turn them into even more hideous faceless overcrowded exurbs.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=patb]http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-06-03-fewer-children-census-suburbs_n.htm

if birthrates continue to decline, will that put long term pressure on housing?
Families without children or with a single child will prefer condos and townhouses.[/quote]

patb, I don’t think the reduced “family” size will be an issue, so far as housing is concerned. I’m a mid-to-late baby boomer, and here are my observations of housing trends over the 20th century:

My grandparents’ generation (7 to 10 kids) lived in one- or two-room apartments, or a small (800 to 1000 sf) house, often shared with several members of an extended family.

My parents’ generation (3 to 7 kids) moved into little (1000 to 1200 sf) suburban ranchers and split levels in the thousands of postwar “Levittowns” that sprang up all over America.

Early Boomers (2 to 4 kids) decided that an extra room (i.e., the family room) was needed to actually “live in”, and moved on up into 1600 to 2100 sf domiciles.

Late Boomers determined that each child MUST have their own room, so mortgages were stretched to cover 2200 to 3000 sf.

Somewhere in there, the McMansion was born, and middle-class families with a couple offspring were trying to fill 4500 to 6000 sf and more with rooms for every possible activity (home theater, craft room, gift wrapping room). The foyers in most of these homes are larger than the entire house in which my parents raised five kids.

So I’m guessing that the next housing evolution will be 10,000 to 12,000 sf estates for singles or childless couples (perhaps one very small child would be acceptable).

In all seriousness, patb, energy prices are going to guide the location of neighborhoods and the size of houses. Commuting costs will increase to the point that people will have to move closer to the cities, and the lack of open space will curtail their ability to express themselves in brick, mortar, and aluminum siding. The upside to this is a reversal of the trend of developers to move into beautiful pristine rural areas, and turn them into even more hideous faceless overcrowded exurbs.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=patb]http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-06-03-fewer-children-census-suburbs_n.htm

if birthrates continue to decline, will that put long term pressure on housing?
Families without children or with a single child will prefer condos and townhouses.[/quote]

patb, I don’t think the reduced “family” size will be an issue, so far as housing is concerned. I’m a mid-to-late baby boomer, and here are my observations of housing trends over the 20th century:

My grandparents’ generation (7 to 10 kids) lived in one- or two-room apartments, or a small (800 to 1000 sf) house, often shared with several members of an extended family.

My parents’ generation (3 to 7 kids) moved into little (1000 to 1200 sf) suburban ranchers and split levels in the thousands of postwar “Levittowns” that sprang up all over America.

Early Boomers (2 to 4 kids) decided that an extra room (i.e., the family room) was needed to actually “live in”, and moved on up into 1600 to 2100 sf domiciles.

Late Boomers determined that each child MUST have their own room, so mortgages were stretched to cover 2200 to 3000 sf.

Somewhere in there, the McMansion was born, and middle-class families with a couple offspring were trying to fill 4500 to 6000 sf and more with rooms for every possible activity (home theater, craft room, gift wrapping room). The foyers in most of these homes are larger than the entire house in which my parents raised five kids.

So I’m guessing that the next housing evolution will be 10,000 to 12,000 sf estates for singles or childless couples (perhaps one very small child would be acceptable).

In all seriousness, patb, energy prices are going to guide the location of neighborhoods and the size of houses. Commuting costs will increase to the point that people will have to move closer to the cities, and the lack of open space will curtail their ability to express themselves in brick, mortar, and aluminum siding. The upside to this is a reversal of the trend of developers to move into beautiful pristine rural areas, and turn them into even more hideous faceless overcrowded exurbs.

[briansd1]

eavesdropper, very interesting observations. It’s not that housing really costs more. It’s that we expect more space for our money.

I was reading an article in NYTimes about how UBS is considering moving back to Manhattan from Stamford, CT because they can’t hire traders who want to live in Manhattan or Brooklyn.

The suburbs and exurbs are an American phenomenon. For the younger globalized generations, I foresee a trend to “glamour cities” as Robert Shiller calls them. We will see in 50 years.

[briansd1]

eavesdropper, very interesting observations. It’s not that housing really costs more. It’s that we expect more space for our money.

I was reading an article in NYTimes about how UBS is considering moving back to Manhattan from Stamford, CT because they can’t hire traders who want to live in Manhattan or Brooklyn.

The suburbs and exurbs are an American phenomenon. For the younger globalized generations, I foresee a trend to “glamour cities” as Robert Shiller calls them. We will see in 50 years.

[briansd1]

eavesdropper, very interesting observations. It’s not that housing really costs more. It’s that we expect more space for our money.

I was reading an article in NYTimes about how UBS is considering moving back to Manhattan from Stamford, CT because they can’t hire traders who want to live in Manhattan or Brooklyn.

The suburbs and exurbs are an American phenomenon. For the younger globalized generations, I foresee a trend to “glamour cities” as Robert Shiller calls them. We will see in 50 years.

[briansd1]

eavesdropper, very interesting observations. It’s not that housing really costs more. It’s that we expect more space for our money.

I was reading an article in NYTimes about how UBS is considering moving back to Manhattan from Stamford, CT because they can’t hire traders who want to live in Manhattan or Brooklyn.

The suburbs and exurbs are an American phenomenon. For the younger globalized generations, I foresee a trend to “glamour cities” as Robert Shiller calls them. We will see in 50 years.

[Author]

Posts