
American Suburbs Swell Again as a New Generation Escapes the City - sndean
https://www.wsj.com/articles/american-suburbs-swell-again-as-a-new-generation-escapes-the-city-11561992889?mod=rsswn
======
homerhomer
We just recently moved from a city to the burbs. Our choice was multi-
factored. It was price of a bigger house, better schools, less congestion and
crime.

My old house was 900sf, perfect for 1 to 2 people, but it got cramped when my
son was born. We looked into expanding but for the cost of adding a room with
a bathroom ($100k) we decided that it wasn't worth it.

With schools we got lucky, the elementary school was just recently built and
looked great. But there was an issue, the schools that my son would be going
after grade school were rated very poor. This was a concern.

Traffic bad and seemingly only getting worse. Traffic projects have been in
endless gridlock between car commuters and the bicycle community.

Not sure about other large cities, but mine (Portland, OR) has a pretty big
homeless and crime issues as of lately. Gone are the days of how clean our
city is and now it's just littered with trash and tent communities. It's not
uncommon to see a heroine needle if walking in a city park. In the last year,
we had somebody try to break into my shed and my wife and 4 years old Son were
confronted in our driveway by a homeless individual, who said that he was
considering suicide.

I still have a soft spot for PDX and I think it's a great place, but we
decided get out.

ha ha sounds like I'm repeating the same story of earlier genereations, ha ha
nothing new.

[https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/homeless/our-city-
has...](https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/homeless/our-city-has-become-a-
cesspool-police-union-president-blames-mayor-for-homeless-
problems/283-574760140)

~~~
kartan
> My old house was 900sf, perfect for 1 to 2 people

That is 80m2. I grew up in a 75m2 apartment (810sf) with my parents and two
brothers.

I guess that "cramped" is a matter of perspective. :)

> Not sure about other large cities, but mine (Portland, OR) has a pretty big
> homeless and crime issues as of lately.

It makes me sad to hear about that. We are in the XXI century and we have good
ways of helping homeless people and reduce crime. I understand that you leave
to a better place, but that does not solve the problem.

> confronted in our driveway by a homeless individual, who said that he was
> considering suicide.

I hope that you have find a good place for you and your family but do not
forget the people that you left behind. Their lives are a tragedy that can be
averted.

~~~
afthonos
> That is 80m2. I grew up in a 75m2 apartment (810sf) with my parents and two
> brothers. I guess that "cramped" is a matter of perspective. :)

Also a matter of layout. The expected amenities in US apartments live little
room for living space, particularly pantries and walk-in closets, and large
appliances. Large bathrooms are also common. Having just moved to Europe, I am
acutely aware of the trade offs; we have a lot of living space, but we also
have had to buy wardrobes, get used to a much smaller bathroom, and generally
adapt to different expectations.

~~~
benj111
Built in wardrobes are a thing. More space efficient than a separate wardrobe.
I've had them in half my prior rentals.

~~~
vinay427
For some anecdotal evidence, I've never seen an actual walk-in closet in
Switzerland or Spain where I've traveled and/or lived so far, though I'm sure
they may exist somewhere.

~~~
pwagland
To be fair, a builtin wardrobe is different to a walk-in wardrobe. The latter
_tends_ to be builtin, the former tends be built into "the space between
walls". I'm not 100% sure I would call them more space efficient, however they
don't poke out into the room, and so you end up two rectangular rooms, and
with their wardrobes next to each other, as opposed to two non-square spaces
with the wardrobes (typically) backing onto each other. So you typically end
up with extra usable space.

A walk in robe on the other hand typically wastes space since it (in effect)
introduces a new hallway into your house, since that is effectively what the
wakling area in your walk-in robe is.

------
OrwellianChild
This article blows my mind due to this single sentence:

 _The couple found a sprawling five-bedroom house next to a horse farm for
$782,000, half the cost they would have paid in the Seattle suburb they left
behind._

This implies that the family in the article was shopping for a $1.5M home in a
"Seattle suburb" that is most likely in the Bellevue/Redmond area _in the year
2015_. In that year, the average sale price in the region was between $855K
(Bellevue, WA) and $598K (Redmond, WA), implying that they were aspiring to
live well above the median lifestyle in two of the richer suburbs in the
Seattle area. [1]

I don't know how to square this family's story with the surrounding narrative
in the article. This family could afford to live almost _anywhere_. They could
afford to pay taxes to fund schools and other municipal services. They could
choose to live somewhere that has _none_ of the problems the article decries,
simply by buying in.

Methinks this is a story about false advertising on the part of "Millennial
Mayberry", rather than suburban flight.

[1]
[https://public.tableau.com/shared/9P33834MX?:display_count=y...](https://public.tableau.com/shared/9P33834MX?:display_count=yes&:origin=viz_share_link)

~~~
mruts
That's not what it implies. The article is just talking about the price of
housing in Seattle. The journalist was comparing the cost of the home the
family bought, with a theoretical similar house in the city.

Moreover, almost everyone is highly leveraged when "buying" a home. Hell, I my
wife and I could swing a 1.5m mortgage if we really wanted to. According to
mortgage calculator, a 1.5m house would take 60k down-payment and
1.5k/month[1]. That's very reasonable for a large portion of the population.

I've paid _triple_ that amount in rent for apartments.

[1]: 30-year, 60k realtor cut, 4.2% fixed rate, $2400 property taxes/year,
average credit

Edit: Yeah I think the calculator is giving wrong results. There's no way
that's possible.

~~~
apohn
>According to mortgage calculator, a 1.5m house would take 60k down-payment
and 1.5k/month[1].

Did you miss a zero somewhere or did the calculator have a bug? There's no way
60K down and 1.5k/month is correct. It's much higher than that for a $1.5M
home.

~~~
coolaliasbro
I was about to say the same thing. I put $33k down and financed $208k at
around 3.5% (in the Upper Midwest). Three years on my payments are about
$1280, after increased taxes YOY.

------
Xcelerate
I grew up in the suburbs outside of Atlanta, and last year I moved from rural
East Tennessee to the Bay Area. Having lived in all three (rural, suburban,
and city), the suburbs are definitely my least favorite.

Suburbs sort of combine the worst aspects of city and rural life; too many
people around that you don't really get space, privacy, or scenery, yet not
enough people for there to be any interesting restaurants, farmer's markets,
museums, coffee shops, or really just anything to do.

I love the Bay Area because it offers all the amenities of a big city, yet all
sorts of natural beauty is within an hour's drive away. One of my relatives
visited recently and was shocked at how you can be in downtown SF one minute
and then standing in an old-growth forest of redwood trees twenty minutes
later.

Unfortunately, I imagine once my wife and I have children, expenses will
become rather difficult. I'm not sure how well a tiny apartment will
accommodate a growing family, especially if we have two or three kids. So...
I'll probably end up back in the suburbs eventually, but I'm not in a hurry,
and it certainly isn't my preference to be there.

~~~
freetime2
> Unfortunately, I imagine once my wife and I have children, expenses will
> become rather difficult. I'm not sure how well a tiny apartment will
> accommodate a growing family, especially if we have two or three kids. So...
> I'll probably end up back in the suburbs eventually, but I'm not in a hurry,
> and it certainly isn't my preference to be there.

You may find that your preferences change as a result of having children. Also
- there are a lot of different living options falling somewhere between San
Francisco and Atlanta suburbs with regards to population density. E.g. a small
city with a walkable downtown, restaurants, etc., but affordable enough to own
a decent-size house and a car.

~~~
mruts
Suburbs are way worse for children than cities are. As a teen/pre-teen in a
city you have independence, you can go to places with your friends and
hangout. Suburbs make your children dependent on you for rides and
consequently stunts their emotional maturity.

~~~
fetus8
I have no doubts that a city is better for teens/pre-teens, but I don't think
growing up in a suburb stunts their emotional maturity. I grew up outside of
DC in a decent suburb, and was able to get around via bike and meet my friends
at the mall, the movie theater, etc. This was 2004-2007ish, not the 80's.

I spent a lot of time exploring with my friends, and being independent. I
think it would be hard to have this kind of experience in a rural town, but in
a suburb, it seems pretty normal.

~~~
closeparen
A typical suburban-sprawl house is in an exclusively residential pod,
separated from the nearest commercial pod by several miles on a fast road with
no bike lane. If a teenager on a bike can reach any kind of business without
mortal peril, it’s a different kind of suburb from the ones people react so
negatively to.

------
brownbat
Kevin Drum's rebuttal, citing census data and Brookings estimates:

"there never really was much of a back-to-the-city trend in the first place...
With only tiny variances, the suburbs have been gaining population for 70
years relative to cities (and rural areas)..."

Millenials' preferences appear roughly similar to the preferences of other
generations.

It's almost as if millenials don't love avocado toast so much as they love
defying sweeping stereotypes about cohorts divided by arbitrary birth years.

[https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-
drum/2019/07/millennials-l...](https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-
drum/2019/07/millennials-love-the-burbs/)

.

~~~
mymythisisthis
What's not talked about so much is the ghettoization of the suburbs. If you
look closely, many of the houses are rooming houses. It's harder to tell
because 4 or 5 cars parked in the driveway is not abnormal in the burbs.

The suburbs built in the 1930s are being gentrified, and are now considered
'downtown'. The suburbs built in the 1940s-1960s are in now the edge of the
city, inhabited by an older generation or retires that vote very
conservatively as they try to stop change in their neighborhoods. The suburbs
built in the 1970s and 1980s are starting to show their age. They are at the
ends of public transit lines where rents in rooming houses are the cheapest.
This is the area new immigrants are moving, as it saves money, but the commute
is long. The suburbs of the 1990s till now are eating up small towns. This
causes some tension between the new burbs and the more redneck locals that
have never liked the city.

~~~
closeparen
There's a widespread NIMBY view that small apartments are part of a "race to
the bottom," and by enforcing a high minimum standard for living space, we can
make all families better off.

But of course, if you're in the market for a small apartment, you're not
getting a large-lot single family home to yourself. You're getting a roommate
situation in one. Five commuting adults in a house is arguably a worse strain
on infrastructure than a small apartment building would have been.

------
hoodwink
This article doesn’t jive whatsoever with my anecdotal experience as an urban
dwelling elder millennial.

As my friends and family form families, they either stay in the city.

After all, having a kid or two and staying in NYC or SF is the ultimate status
symbol.

Or they move to more livable cities such as Philadelphia from NYC or Austin
from SF or Pittsburgh from Chicago.

The exception is moving back to the suburbs to be close to our boomer parents
who of course still live there.

Seriously, no one I know my age (35) willingly moves to the suburbs. Curious
if this is my bubble or consistent.

~~~
koolba
> Seriously, no one I know my age (35) willingly moves to the suburbs. Curious
> if this is my bubble or consistent.

My anecdata is the total opposite. Every newly married couple I know that’s
looking to have kids has either already left city living or the migration is
in progress. The well off ones keep their old spots as a pied-a-terre for a
distant future but there’s a universal distain for city life.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Where do you live? I can imagine that the suburban exodus is more true for
Midwest and southern cities and less true for west coast and northeastern
ones.

~~~
almost_usual
Most of the people I know in the Bay Area are leaving SF and headed to either
the Peninsula or East Bay when they have kids. Most people I know with kids
are in the Peninsula. I do know a couple in their 40s with kids in the city.
They did the opposite, went from the Peninsula to the city years ago (before
the city became very expensive).

I’d argue it’s a lifestyle decision more than anything else. Each couple or
family has their own reasoning about why they moved. The attitude in the city
is much more keep to yourself. Suburbs are gossipy and people tend to pay
attention to everything.

I would argue there are much more ‘mega wealthy’ people outside of the city.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Is it really fair to call the peninsula suburban? I guess south and east of
San Jose, but the Bay Area is heavily urbanized and pretty dense.

~~~
hkmurakami
Yes. Other than some corridors like El Camino, the industrial or office zones,
or the various downtown areas, most of the peninsula are suburbs.

~~~
closeparen
The El Camino corridor, an almost-continuous strip mall, is as
quintessentially suburban as it gets.

~~~
hkmurakami
Some parts are pretty built up with mixed use mid rises these days.

Agreed that it needs to get developed much more.

------
mi100hael
Living in the St. Louis area, I can say that this example of Glendale used in
the article is awfully strange. Makes me suspicious of other conclusions drawn
by the author.

 _> Glendale, Mo., which is hobbled by the loss of such St. Louis corporate
anchors as Anheuser-Busch."_

Glendale is a very tiny municipality (1 of 88) in St. Louis county with a
population of 5,924 in 2010 and 5,886 in 2017. Over the same time period,
median home prices are up from about $340k to $390k. Hardly what I'd call
"hobbled."

In fact, St. Louis County as a whole (which doesn't include the city but does
include some rather dense urban "suburbs") has remained relatively flat and
St. Charles County, the next ring out, has seen steady growth.[0]

[0] [https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/census-st-louis-
ci...](https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/census-st-louis-city-lost-st-
charles-county-gained-and/article_738cfe8f-a15e-5da8-9ad7-a38d8027ea71.html)

~~~
sureaboutthis
People who don't live in the area are thoroughly clueless as to the geo-
political makeup of what we citizens here call St. Louis. Proof of that are
the countless articles pointing to the population of the city being less than
300K while completely ignoring the nearly 3 million of us who live in the area
outside the 66 sq miles of the city.

And I haven't a clue how they make a connection between Anheuser-Busch--which
is just as active in the city of St. Louis--and Glendale down the street from
me.

------
helen___keller
There are so many confounding factors in any discussion about this, it's
almost meaningless to try and draw generalizations across an age cohort
without first stratifying by city.

The urban design of a region dictates what "suburb" means. A New England
suburb is vastly different from a Florida suburb.

The zoning laws and building regulations of the past few generations dictate
what older housing stock is available. In most cities this means the housing
stock is overwhelmingly suburban thanks to the sprawling postwar housing
policy.

Today's zoning laws and regulations decide the same but for the newer and
nicer end of the housing stock. Some cities have moved to more density-
friendly policy for new construction, some cities are still sprawling, and
California is largely frozen in amber.

The composition of the housing stock as discussed above play a large part in
the pricing of suburban vs urban living.

Another confounding factor is what the commute looks like, which again is
dictated by the past century+ of public policy. A driving commute in greater
Boston is generally worse than in your average midsized American city. But
rail commutes are viable in many greater Boston towns, and demand trends
upwards near rail lines.

Finally, as always, education is a big factor in housing for anyone with
children. If all the urban schools suck I expect that pushes some families out
of the city.

------
jhbadger
One thing is that "suburb" doesn't necessarily mean the sterile tracks of
ranch houses with nary a store or restaurant within miles that is the cliché.
Many smaller towns/cities are technically "suburbs" in that they are within
commuting distance of a large city but are still walkable/public transit
friendly and have their own downtowns.

------
mostlyjason
I like to fantasize sometimes about having a giant house in Raleigh for the
price of my one bedroom in SF. I just don’t know anyone moving from SF to
Raleigh. The people I know are moving to Berkeley or the peninsula after they
have kids.

It’d be nice if they had done data to back up their demographic trend other
than just claiming it based on anecdotal stories.

~~~
atwebb
Curious, would you not prefer a modest house and early retirement or options
to a giant house in another area? Maybe you can grab both right now, I don't
know, but 3-400k can buy a house in extremely nice areas in flyover states,
why not find a nice one, buy that and live relaxed?

~~~
metaphor
> _...3-400k can buy a house in extremely nice areas in flyover states, why
> not find a nice one, buy that and live relaxed?_

Although the general sentiment is agreeable, there's nothing _relaxed_ about
maintaining a $400k home. I like to think of it as a different class of stress
that's decoupled from work that pays the bills.

~~~
atwebb
We can disagree on this one, the amount of time a home takes for maintenance
vs a 9-5 isn't a close call for me.

------
burlesona
I’d love to see a study more controlled for cost of living.

> In the early 2010s, after the financial crisis walloped the housing market,
> average growth rates in cities with populations greater than 250,000
> outpaced the suburbs. But over the past five years, the average annual
> growth in America’s big cities has slowed by 40%, to 0.69%, according to
> census estimates.

I think it’s no coincidence that when prices dropped significantly,
Millennials flocked to cities. That’s where the jobs are, and they could
afford it.

Since most cities are not really accommodating growth, prices have ballooned,
and people are being priced out.

I used to live in Raleigh and I knew a few people who moved to Apex. It was
always the same story: “I’d rather stay in Raleigh but we can afford Apex.”
That’s not to knock on Apex, it is a cute town, but the migration was driven
much more by the simple price tag than anything else.

Meanwhile what’s happening in Apex now is pretty much the definition of the
Growth Ponzi Scheme (ref: [https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-
scheme](https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme)).

The thing that blows my mind the most is how easy it is to accommodate massive
growth by simply requiring a connected street grid — what almost every
American town and city did before WW2 and the suburban design social
engineering projects of the FDR and Eisenhower eras. A grid can scale. The
stupid cul-de-sac design is literally engineered to create traffic congestion.
How much more land are we going to inflict that abomination on?

Really that’s what this all comes down to: there are straightforward, known
solutions to scale urban populations well beyond the relatively modest growth
that we have in the US, but as long as we refuse to pull our heads out of the
sand and grow _intentionally_ we will continue to have this phenomenon where
growth ruins places - first in quality of life, and fiscally in a generation
when Apex is not the hot new suburb any more but is saddled with the
maintenance cost for hundreds of miles of unproductive infrastructure.

~~~
r00fus
> The thing that blows my mind the most is how easy it is to accommodate
> massive growth by simply requiring a connected street grid — what almost
> every American town and city did before WW2 and the suburban design social
> engineering projects of the FDR and Eisenhower eras. A grid can scale. The
> stupid cul-de-sac design is literally engineered to create traffic
> congestion. How much more land are we going to inflict that abomination on?

Cul-de-sac design (and the related 3-leaf clover design where you have
multiple cul-de-sacs all emptying into a single artery, allow for more private
front porch experiences and kid-play areas.

It was a reaction to the inability of most residential towns to keep out the
gangs, racers and high-speed commuters (ie, bad combo with pedestrians, kids
playing in the street).

How do cul-de-sac designs cause congestion?

~~~
Symbiote
Cul-de-sacs without pedestrian (or cycle) path cut-throughs make journeys that
could be a 3 minute walk unnecessarily long on foot, leading to a general
increase in car use.

------
sethammons
For half a million bucks, down near my SoCal office, you can get one of the
two or so available listings with about 1k sqft and maybe two bedrooms. You
probably have to be a dual professional income household to live down there.
Want a couple of kids to have their own rooms? Tack on another 50-100% of that
price. I don't even get how folks in San Fransisco do it.

Go inland an hour or two, hundreds (thousands?) of listings with 3, 4, or 5
bedrooms and 2.5k+ sqft at the same or more affordable prices. You are
literally going to double or more your housing costs by being in the city
close to work.

I decided to go full remote and moved to the middle of beautiful nowhere. I'm
closer to the grocery and restaurants (limited as they are) than before. My
commute is going across the hallway to my own office space. My three kids all
have their own rooms. Unfortunately, they will probably have to move closer to
some city when they look for careers.

------
droithomme
The idea the article proposes, that $782,000 for a house in North Carolina is
an example of "affordable housing", is incredible. Is the article's author a
Rockefeller?

~~~
electricslpnsld
The triangle tends to be pricey. Good public schools, both primary and Uni
level, lots of tech work, nice weather 10 months of the year, close to the
coast and the mountains. Apex and Cary tend to get lots of Yankee expats
(compared to Long Island 700K is nothing), also driving up prices there. Drive
20 minutes and you can get a nice place for half that.

~~~
sgerenser
I live in the same neighborhood as the individuals profiled in the article and
my house (new construction, 2500 sf) cost less than half of that price,
purchased around the same time. Even though Apex is growing quickly $782K is
still very high by local standards. I’m sure it was still a “bargain” compared
to Redmond.

------
pmoriarty
This might be a good time to mention a documentary called _The End of
Suburbia_ [1], which lays out the case for the existence of the suburbs being
fueled and sustained by the easy availability of cheap oil and then goes on to
forecast the death of the suburbs as cheap oil stops being so easily
available.

[1] -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3uvzcY2Xug](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3uvzcY2Xug)

~~~
baroffoos
Do we have any estimates on when oil will stop being cheap. It was my
understanding that the planet will be well and truly fucked beyond repair if
we ever managed to use up all the easily available oil.

~~~
adrianN
Hopefully oil won't become expensive because we used it all up, but because we
finally price in all the externalities.

~~~
masonic
That's really well-put and succinct.

------
lanrh1836
I think the decision to move to the burbs is almost entirely out of the
question as an LGBT. Urban centers are the only places with thriving LGBT
communities, and I think I would feel very alone if I moved away from one.

------
SN76477
My family and I moved to the suburbs about 5 years ago. Less traffic, better
schools and no weirdos wandering the streets at night.

~~~
elindbe2
Living in a big city, its funny/sad how big an impact the weirdos have on my
opinion of the city.

------
atwebb
I doubt it's a net loss for cities and compliments the swing a decade ago now
that people have families and the suburbs offer more of the amenities they're
looking for, similarly to downtown offering more amenities for the childless
or single. Of course downtown's have things for families but they have a lot
of other bosses, business, tourists, industrial...suburbs tend to serve
families and retirees and businesses related to those demographics.

------
elindbe2
It wouldn't be an "escape" for me, it's just if I want a decent amount of
space and good schools and a subjectively "nice" neighborhood then I have to
look at more suburban areas. I would like to be able to afford a reasonably
big place in a nice green, walkable neighborhood in the city but I don't want
to spend 10-20 extra years of my life working to afford it.

------
antisthenes
Is there a way to live in the city without paying exorbitant fees to an HOA
for crumbling infrastructure and their cronyist maintenance contracts?

Every time I look at real estate, the HOA fees pretty much make condo living a
no-go. I'm somehow supposed to believe that it takes $800/mo to service a
small 2-br apartment? In many cases that doesn't even include utilities.

~~~
zamfi
This often includes either a) full-time staff, in the case of building with
doormen or maintenance staff, or b) payback of construction loans or mortgages
taken to pay for maintenance.

But: do you live in a house? I assume you haven’t had to maintain it much
yet...new roof, new heating, new sewer line, renovations, etc. all cost tons
of money. I’d be surprised if for a house > 50 years old, you’re paying less
than a few hundred a month on maintenance on average.

~~~
toasterlovin
The rule of thumb for home maintenance is 1% of purchase price per year. Which
isn't $800/month for most people, but is around the few hundred per month you
mentioned.

------
didibus
Nothing sucks the soul and joy of life out of me more than a suburb, yet cost
of cities and the space needed to raise kids mean they're not all negatives. I
just wish we could do better, because no one should be forced to live in such
soulless place,yet no one should have to pay so much to afford an extra
bedroom.

------
RickJWagner
Given the problems cities are having these days, and the cost of housing (and
the lack of housing), I'm not surprised.

------
rolltiide
Do Not Get Priced Out

