New Urbanization

[Bham1982]

The population also grew more in the 1980s than it did in the 2000s, even though the crime rate was increasing during the 1980s and decreasing during the 2000s. I don't think it is a defensible argument to say that there is a causal relationship between declining crime rates and population increases in NYC. The population has increased when the crime rate has been both increasing and decreasing.

This is true, and I agree with your basic premise [[crime isn't heavily linked to population growth), but the issue is that the Census used a slightly different methodology in the 1990 Census and the 2010 Census, so they aren't directly comparable.

It probably isn't clear whether NYC grew faster in the 1980's or 2000's, because demographers usually agree the 2010 numbers are an undercount, as they didn't use the same imputed numbers [[guestimates of homeless, undocumented, etc.) they used in 2000 and 1990. You can see this because almost every city saw a population bump in the 2011 estimates.

Speaking generally, areas with high crime in the U.S. aren't the same as those gentrifying, so I doubt it matters that much. Whether or not there's crazy crime on the South/West sides of Chicago [[and there certainly is) hasn't put much of a damper on reviltaization in the core and North Side.

In NYC wealth and poverty are somewhat more jumbled so I can see the massive crime drops in the 1990's/2000's in places like Harlem and Bed Stuy and Bushwick as aiding gentrification somewhat, but these are exceptions.

Keep in mind too that NYC is an outlier in that it doesn't need gentrification to grow. Much of the Outer Borough growth is due to immigrants and Orthodox/Hasidic Jews [[huge families). Even if there were no gentrifiers Bed Stuy would be growing whiter because the Hasids are massively expanding into North Bed Stuy.

Somewhere like Chicago they don't get much inner city immigration anymore, and no Orthodox Jews really, so if they don't get gentrifiers they'll basically be a giant Flint. It's gentrify or die.

[iheartthed]

Keep in mind too that NYC is an outlier in that it doesn't need gentrification to grow. Much of the Outer Borough growth is due to immigrants and Orthodox/Hasidic Jews [[huge families). Even if there were no gentrifiers Bed Stuy would be growing whiter because the Hasids are massively expanding into North Bed Stuy.

Somewhere like Chicago they don't get much inner city immigration anymore, and no Orthodox Jews really, so if they don't get gentrifiers they'll basically be a giant Flint. It's gentrify or die.

That was going to be my next point.

It was only in the last couple of years that NYC stopped hemorrhaging residents who were born here. Population growth in NYC is more driven by foreign immigration than it is by yuppies [[this is true of most, if not all, major cities that are experiencing a consistent population growth). My theory is that these people have been less concerned about crime perception and more concerned about access to jobs and community support systems.

[Wesley Mouch]

... access to jobs and community support systems.

Do you mean something by 'access to jobs' vs. jobs? Is this another way of saying 'subway'? Also curious what a 'community support system' means to you. Does that mean living near relatives? Or is this government programs of some kind?

Your main point that NYC growth isn't 'yuppie jobs' but is immigration is good. So what jobs are the immigrants getting 'access' to that they didn't have 'access to' in the past?

Perhaps 'access' is that sentence was just a fluff word, but I think there's something your trying to convey that I'd like to hear.

[iheartthed]

Do you mean something by 'access to jobs' vs. jobs? Is this another way of saying 'subway'? Also curious what a 'community support system' means to you. Does that mean living near relatives? Or is this government programs of some kind?

Your main point that NYC growth isn't 'yuppie jobs' but is immigration is good. So what jobs are the immigrants getting 'access' to that they didn't have 'access to' in the past?

Perhaps 'access' is that sentence was just a fluff word, but I think there's something your trying to convey that I'd like to hear.

Immigrants have largely always had access to jobs in NYC, which is why the city has grown more often than it has not. That's been true for centuries.

What I mean by "access to jobs" is having an economy that immigrants can participate in via the type of jobs, and, yes, having physical access to those jobs through a robust transit system. In addition to the subway, NYC's economy is just far more immigrant friendly than places like Detroit.

And by community I mean relatives and the community infrastructure [[neighborhoods where the churches, grocery stores, etc. speak a familiar language) in place. If all things are equal people would obviously go to a place where they could find a little familiarity versus a place where they feel like a fish out of water.

[bust]

It's a great point that New York's population growth is largely attributable to foreign immigration. And I agree with iheartthed's explanation why so many immigrants choose New York. But when we're talking about the new semi-luxury buildings changing the skyline in Brooklyn [[and Queens), they're generally not immigrants who rent the $3400/month [[after a discount) one-bedroom apartments. Those who do have yuppie jobs and/or come from wealthy families -- like everyone else those buildings attract. The exceptions are the lucky ones who win the lottery for the low- and moderate- income apartments many of those buildings must set aside. But they're not the tenants the developers of those buildings had in mind.

Cities are complicated ecosystems, and New York especially. Countless factors lead to their demographics and economics. And they vary by neighborhood. Today in New York immigration has its biggest impact near the ends of the subway lines. Other factors matter more where the skyscrapers are cropping up. There were more immigrants in those neighborhoods 10 years ago than there are today. And many of the new people moving in couldn't have been bothered to step foot there then. 15 years ago they may have been afraid. In most cases that was a reflection of their flawed perceptions more than it was the realities of those places. Gentrification, not immigration, is leading the growth of those neighborhoods, and it has had more to do with changes in those perceptions than with changes in zoning laws. New zoning has allowed taller buildings, but their construction has followed, not led, the trend.

The other big factor is the increasing unaffordability of housing in New York and the need to look further out to find it. That's largely the result of a change in mentality. More people with higher incomes who in decades past would have chosen the amenities of the suburbs now choose the amenities of city living instead. New York offers more of those amenities than most cities, but it's something we can see happening across the country. It's a generational change. And it follows the familiar patterns of gentrification. Many of my neighbors are now the kids of people like those I chose the city over the suburbs to avoid. And yes I think crime, and the perception of crime, are factors. Half-seriously: I liked New York much better when people didn't feel as safe.

Now apologies as I veer slightly off topic... Here's a story about Bill Lee -- long time Fort Greene resident, notable jazz musician, and father of Spike Lee -- and how he has had frequent visits from the police due to a neighbor complaining about the noise he makes practicing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/01/ny...-headache.html

It was not long ago Fort Greene was Brooklyn's epicenter of jazz. Other forms of creativity too. It was often noisy, but no one complained. It was a lively, friendly, tolerant, and unpretentious place. It reached a tipping point about 10 years ago, when a trickle became a flood of people of a different class pouring in. It's still a great neighborhood, but a different kind of great. Its character has drastically changed. Like so many others, we were priced out when we needed a bigger apartment and found we could no longer afford anything there. Today, nearby, our new neighbors downstairs -- almost 20 years younger than us -- complain about the sound of us walking barefoot on our floors. Forget loud music, they asked if we'd stop walking in the room over their bed after 10PM.

<lament>
Some people should never have left their detached homes in the suburbs for brownstone Brooklyn with its close confines and creaky hardwood floors. I wish their parents would stop subsidizing their misadventures. It's usually not long before they head elsewhere. Unfortunately, lately, there has been an increasing supply of more people like them ready to take their place. And as the neighborhood changes, they stay longer.
</lament>

As far as the effect the new high rises are having on the neighborhood, they've added lots of high-end inventory, and thereby they've apparently slowed the growth of high-end apartment rent. So it follows: an influx of more high-end people, and more high-end businesses to cater to them. I hope the neighborhood manages to retain what's left of its creative character that helped make it appealing in the first place. If not it will still be a great place for many other reasons. And worse things could've been built. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I'm not sure we'll stay around long enough to find out.

[douglasm]

There was a story on NPR the other day about the re-urbanization on downtown Cleveland over the past half dozen years or so. Anyone able to compare and contrast it to New York or Detroit?

[BankruptcyGuy]

Interesting counter-point.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...ig-city-exodus

[emu steve]

Interesting counter-point.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...ig-city-exodus

Not sure what to make of the article.

I believe the major determining factor in housing decisions, other than cost, is as the Census Bureau refers to it: Journey to Work.

The journey to work is informally the time, distance and cost of commuting from home to work and back. And can add: modality [[i.e., car, bus, rail, walk, bicycle, work from home, etc.).

So this has two important points: start point and end point.

I assume most people start with their end point [[excuse the double speak) that is where they WORK.

Then they 'work back' to where they can live, based on distance, commute time, and cost of housing in possible locations.

In a sense, then, the location of EMPLOYMENT is, and has been, a major determiner of housing demand.

So where are the new jobs? Detroit's downtown? suburbs? exburbs?

More downtown jobs draw people to live in say downtown or a close in suburb.

A job in suburbs would encourage folks to live in the burbs or even exburbs.

One of the points of the author is where will jobs be in today changing technology economy?

Will a data center be near downtown [[like one discussed on this forum) or will it be 50 miles from Detroit in some remote area? Does cheap land and available buildings just outside downtown make it possible to locate things NEAR downtown which might otherwise by 30 - 40 miles away?

Where will a call center be? In downtown [[or near downtown)? suburbs? or even India?

So, therefore, I think job growth and where will determine housing choices going forward.

What we've seen, I think, in Detroit is that job growth in downtown was the leading indicator that increased downtown [[and midtown, etc.) housing demand would follow, as a lagging factor. Indeed we have articles and posts about trying to meet the demand for housing in downtown/midtown/Brush Park for those who work in Downtown and the related employment centers, e.g., medical center, WSU, etc.

One other related Journey to Work factor: Cost of gas.

Big difference between driving 25 or 35 miles each way if gas is two bucks a gallon vs. four bucks.

[emu steve]

One of the things about 'District Detroit' and the now smarter stadium/arena developments is to try to foster a wide variety of economic activity around them.

E.g., increased employment at the LC headquarters. Hundreds of new housing units. A school of business building. A hotel linked to the sports activities happening within walking distance. A new office building for unspecified tenants [[maybe a medical facility).

So ideally by say 2020, the District Detroit area has maybe 1K more housing including Brush Park, new hotel, office buildings, etc. etc.

Hopefully by 2020 some of those who commute from say Oakland could move close to where they work and play.

This is kind of 'planned' neighborhood development which might support 2K residents and a lot of economic activity and 'foot traffic.'

Detroit needs something big on the riverfront to put development there 'on steroids.'

[bust]

Interesting counter-point.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...ig-city-exodus

There's also this:

http://creativetimereports.org/2013/...r-inspiration/

David Byrne writes about the benefits of immigration, the enhanced possibilities for interaction and inspiration available in places like New York, and warns that New York is in danger of losing what remains of its creative soul as the wealthiest usurp the cultural resources that once made the city "a repository of ideas and information." And I do think property values will go down when that happens.

Detroit is of course far from becoming unaffordable to creative people. If anything, as we can see from Galapagos and the other creative individuals who have recently departed New York for Detroit, Detroit is a beneficiary of the situation. I'm not sure whether the inflow is anywhere near the outflow, but at least now it's headed in both directions.

[iheartthed]

Interesting counter-point.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...ig-city-exodus

I think at best this would be an argument for a spillover affect and at worst it's just wishful thinking. I think places like Atlanta would be pretty far down the list of benefiting from a rebellion against NYC and SF. I don't think places like Atlanta and NYC really compete for the same type of people. If Dallas were to someday get more expensive -- or have the bottom of its economy fall out -- that would work well in Atlanta's favor.

Cities most likely to benefit would be palatable alternatives with a lower cost of living would be those that have an environment where you could replicate some aspects of New York [[or New York-like living). If this were to happen [[huge-f'in-if) it would be a place like Chicago that benefited.

[emu steve]

I think at best this would be an argument for a spillover affect and at worst it's just wishful thinking. I think places like Atlanta would be pretty far down the list of benefiting from a rebellion against NYC and SF. I don't think places like Atlanta and NYC really compete for the same type of people. If Dallas were to someday get more expensive -- or have the bottom of its economy fall out -- that would work well in Atlanta's favor.

Cities most likely to benefit would be palatable alternatives with a lower cost of living would be those that have an environment where you could replicate some aspects of New York [[or New York-like living). If this were to happen [[huge-f'in-if) it would be a place like Chicago that benefited.

I agree.

If someone has a financial corporation it is likely to be in NYC or some other appropriate large city. I believe Capital One is located in suburban D.C. I would not expect that to be in say Fort Wayne, IN or Jackson, MI. More like NYC, Chicago, D.C. area, San Fran, etc.

I also think like companies tend to co-locate. Not likely to see Silicon Valley type companies spread all over the country.

And with manufacturing location is important. See Tesla and the battery factory. Not to close, but not to distant either...

[emu steve]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...mepage%2Fstory

A feature story today by the Washington Nationals' writer for the Washington Post.

I'm sure posters will have plenty of comments.

BTW, for context, the Southeast area is 60 square blocks. Adjacent, on the other side of South Capitol, will be the new D.C. United soccer stadium, another 20 square blocks.

In a sense, District Detroit will be roughly what 1/2 the size of the D.C. developments [[around the baseball stadium and the soccer stadium).

[emu steve]

A nice article in the Wash Post about the problems the District had in year 2000 and where it is today. Kind of a 'case study' or model for other older cities which lost hundreds of thousands residents, crime, financial issues, etc.

"Anthony Williams, as mayor of Washington, had a problem. Residents had been fleeing for the suburbs for more than 50 years. By 2000, the District had lost one-third of its population from its peak in the 1940s. Fewer people meant fewer property-tax payers. Every departure meant more money drained from the city budget."

[Anthony Williams proposed a plan to increase D.C.'s population by 100K...]

"Critics rolled their eyes. The District’s schools were a mess, its murder rate was near the highest in the nation, and its neighborhoods were littered with vacant homes. Why would people want to live here?"

Now:

"But surprisingly – through a combination of local efforts and larger economic forces – last year that mark was achieved: the District’s population swelled to 672,228, or 100,000 more people than in 2000.The growth ignited a construction boom that revived neighborhoods and generated billions of dollars of tax revenue that enabled investments in schools, Nationals Park, a convention center, a streetcar line and splashy new parks. “The money that we are using to rebuild our schools, where did it come from? It didn’t come from outer space,” Williams said. “It basically came from this economy, that allowed us to build the schools, to build the libraries.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ordable-again/

Bottom line: The same type of factors which severely hurt Detroit also hurt D.C.

I saw what I think are the same parallels in growth too.

D.C. grew from the downtown out. The downtown expanded, got stronger, a tremendous amount of commercial building, etc. and then neighborhoods also started to turn.

A positive +100,000 population increase is amazing for an "old", East Coast city like D.C. which isn't really all that big [[now 672K).

[renf]

The WashPo essay about the Nat's park is an interesting and valuable one. However, the development was successful because of the demographic trends that is contributing to
rapid population growth in Washington. The fundamental economy of that city is
booming, that is, individuals and organizations who wish to prod the federal government in directions they favor. And there is also the new demographic trend of young
highly educated persons opting for city rather than suburban residence. It would be
interesting to see if there are serious studies of the economic consequences of other
new stadia that have been erected in recent years in cities in recent years including Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Quebec City.

[Lowell]

However, the development was successful because of the demographic trends that is contributing to rapid population growth in Washington. The fundamental economy of that city is booming, that is, individuals and organizations who wish to prod the federal government in directions they favor.

I agree with that for DC. I think it is no coincidence that six of the top nine of the nation's wealthiest counties surround now it. I am sure it is benefiting from the suburban hipster to inner city trend too.

Humorous aside: While checking on this I noted that the poorest county is the appropriately named Quitman County which is in Mississippi.

[emu steve]

The WashPo essay about the Nat's park is an interesting and valuable one. However, the development was successful because of the demographic trends that is contributing to
rapid population growth in Washington. The fundamental economy of that city is
booming, that is, individuals and organizations who wish to prod the federal government in directions they favor. And there is also the new demographic trend of young
highly educated persons opting for city rather than suburban residence. It would be
interesting to see if there are serious studies of the economic consequences of other
new stadia that have been erected in recent years in cities in recent years including Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Quebec City.

One of the interesting things about the efforts to revitalize Detroit's downtown and the Nats' Park development was the 2008 financial crisis.

As some may remember, Nats Park opened in 2008. George W. Bush threw out the first pitch.

Development in that area really slowed for years because of the financial crisis and then picked up a full head of steam after the crisis passed.

When we speak of what is happening NOW in downtown Detroit is that development is picking up a full head of steam in recent years.

This does show that a big negative macro economic condition can affect both D.C. and Detroit. D.C. saw development slowed for years.

[Gistok]

We can talk all we want about redevelopment of the city... but then the 800 lb. gorilla... crime... rears its' ugly head, in this case by the entrance to Belle Isle... and we are reminded why things happen so slowly here....

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/w...oits-east-side

[emu steve]

We can talk all we want about redevelopment of the city... but then the 800 lb. gorilla... crime... rears its' ugly head, in this case by the entrance to Belle Isle... and we are reminded why things happen so slowly here....

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/w...oits-east-side

Quite frankly crime is a big problem in all big cities.

What I think happens is that certain neighborhoods are or become safe they are the one which experience growth.

In Detroit the classic case I assume is Midtown where things have changed for the better, policing with Detroit PD, WSU, etc. have increased the safety, etc.

This is how I think cities, including Detroit, need to win neighborhood by neighborhood.

For those familiar with D.C. neighborhoods, Logan Circle despite its location about a mile plus [[as the crow flies) from the White House was a haven for drugs, prostitution, etc. "Urban pioneers" during the 1980s bought shells, remodeled them, got involved, etc.

They completely turned that neighborhood around. Today that neighborhood is chic and very expensive.

If the history of Detroit had gone differently, the Brush Park area could have become Detroit's Logan Circle with all of those mansions.

That is one of the sad legacies of Detroit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_...hington%2C_D.C.

Talking of neighborhoods turning for the better, when the Nationals were thinking of a new stadium in S.E. Washington, D.C. I drove through that neighborhood a few times. I wouldn't go at night. Wouldn't get out of my car even during the day.

Now that neighborhood, as described in the referenced article earlier in this thread, is a really growing neighborhood. Not 100% safe, but still home to thousands and thousands of residents.

[swingline]

Given the the physical and academic conditions found in 90% of the DC public schools, its been surprising to observe the robust population increase. A confluence of factors have contributed. Some are unique to DC, others not. For one, DC's economy is unique among other American cities because so much of it is driven by the presence of the federal government. The growth of enterprises of all kinds that desire proximity to the federal government has been non-stop and the city has benefited from this boom. This DC economy needs young college educated workers by the thousands. Much of this young workforce is childless so schools are not an immediate concern. Also, the culture of DC is that it is a very transient place. Many young college educated folks will begin their careers there and move on or move "back home" during early mid-career. This also suppresses the demand for quality schools. And of course, this Millenial workforce is intensely interested in an urban lifestyle. Add in the excellent mass transit and the stage was set at the turn of the century for DC to reverse its population decline.

[emu steve]

Given the the physical and academic conditions found in 90% of the DC public schools, its been surprising to observe the robust population increase. A confluence of factors have contributed. Some are unique to DC, others not. For one, DC's economy is unique among other American cities because so much of it is driven by the presence of the federal government. The growth of enterprises of all kinds that desire proximity to the federal government has been non-stop and the city has benefited from this boom. This DC economy needs young college educated workers by the thousands. Much of this young workforce is childless so schools are not an immediate concern. Also, the culture of DC is that it is a very transient place. Many young college educated folks will begin their careers there and move on or move "back home" during early mid-career. This also suppresses the demand for quality schools. And of course, this Millenial workforce is intensely interested in an urban lifestyle. Add in the excellent mass transit and the stage was set at the turn of the century for DC to reverse its population decline.

A number of excellent points:

1). Yes, D.C., Va, and Maryland [[and the Feds) worked together to build a world-class mass transit system which has been instrumental in allowing growth in downtown and along various other corridors and ALL areas of D.C. and its suburbs. When the FBI relocates from downtown to ? it will probably be near a subway stop. That is a de facto requirement.

Our subway system started in 1976.

Next year Detroit will have a 3.3 mile QLine. Folks here have discussed if a Qline-like system was extended down E. Jefferson, Gratiot, etc. would commercial activity and housing follow along those stops?

[[h)uge differences in how the two regions have handled mass transit and timeframes.

2). One thing which should be noted about D.C. housing. There are many, many options at all price points in D.C., NoVa and suburban Maryland.

Those, mostly young[[?) paying 2K to 2.5K per month for new rental housing [[apts) in D.C. have plenty of options in the suburbs.

The young millenials can opt for the Ballston, Rosslyn, etc. areas in NoVa which are good places to live and on the subway lines.

It is incredible [[or surprising) that D.C. is so attractive to so many, given how desirable the suburbs are.

Even in ownership housing [[e.g., single family, townhouses, etc.) folks pay a big premium to live in D.C. compared to the 'burbs.

[emu steve]

It would not have happened without the transit. But in New York the public transit is so ubiquitous that transit alone isn't always the deciding factor. In this case I think the re-zoning and population growth had a lot more to do with it. The transit has been there for over a century.

I agree with this post.

Transit isn't enough to cause development to occur until the other factors are right.

When an area is 'ripe' to develop then the location of transit becomes important.

The one thing about subway systems is that they go long distances so they pass through many different types of neighborhoods.

Any of those neighborhoods may be developed, ready to develop or somewhat undesirable waiting for its day to come.

[[this could be said about the QLine. The areas ready to take off will be served by QLine, but if the line were to be extended to say 8 mile or along E. Jefferson those areas might have their own slower time lines to develop).

[Bham1982]

Given the the physical and academic conditions found in 90% of the DC public schools, its been surprising to observe the robust population increase.

DC is tiny, and the higher-income population tends to be young professionals. Once those professionals decide to have kids, they're off to MD or VA.

But DC has an enormous population of young professionals, so doesn't really need to keep the older ones to keep gentrifying. DC can have awful schools forever and will continue with revitalization unless govt. jobs are dispersed elsewhere.

[emu steve]

DC is tiny, and the higher-income population tends to be young professionals. Once those professionals decide to have kids, they're off to MD or VA.

But DC has an enormous population of young professionals, so doesn't really need to keep the older ones to keep gentrifying. DC can have awful schools forever and will continue with revitalization unless govt. jobs are dispersed elsewhere.

I'm not sure I agree and we can look up the data.

I've always thought of D.C. as 'old wealth' i.e., those living west of Rock Creek Park where houses usually have price tags easily into seven figures. Those are affluent who have lived there for decades. President Obama will rent a house in the Kalorama section next January.

Then there are the 'newer' neighborhoods, typically with a lot of apartments and condos, with younger, high income residents.

This is one of the difference between D.C. and Detroit. Detroit doesn't have tens of thousands of very pricey houses, many thousands of newish expensive apartments [[and condos).

Those who lived west of Rock Creek never bailed on D.C.

D.C. has regenerated its housing stocking and now the housing stock is getting 'younger' not older.

Detroit is doing so on a smallish scale in only certain neighborhoods. That is why I'm happy to see what is happening in Brush Park, Midtown, downtown, etc.

[emu steve]

Some of the same issues discussed in Detroit, Newark, Brooklyn are now being discussed in, believe it or not, Los Angeles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/us...=top-news&_r=0

Seems L.A. is tired of all that sprawl and is now looking inward for growth.