Because employment centers are so spread out, it makes it hard to live in the city...

I want to get other people's take on this because it is affecting me...

Are there people out there who would prefer to live in the city, but can't realistically do it because of how employment centers are spread out all over the region? By that I mean, if your employer located in or near the city, would you choose to live in the city as well?

I live downtown and for the past few years was working downtown, which was awesome. I didn't even have a car for a while. However, that position ended, and now I'm working for an auto supplier in the western suburbs, and while my commute is tolerable, it is not ideal. Likewise, my girlfriend [[who lives with me), has been working in the far western Oakland County suburbs. She is really worn down by her brutal commute and I feel bad about it. Not to mention, gas prices between us are terrible. It probably adds an extra $400/month to our costs. Worse yet, my next position might be even further out in the Wixom/Milford area. Yikes! :eek:

We both REALLY want to stay living in the city. It's just reaching the point where it might not be realistic. It makes me wonder how many other people there are in a similar type of position. Are there people who would prefer to live in Detroit, but simply can't because the jobs are all spread around? It's especially difficult when you are a couple and both people must commute long-distances in different directions. I feel like our commutes would be easier from rural Pinckney than they would be from downtown Detroit. It's kind of ridiculous.

Well, I don't live in Detroit now, and I probably wouldn't move back to Detroit unless for a job located either downtown or in Midtown. Likewise, I wouldn't really consider a job here in the NY area [[where I live) that wasn't based out of Manhattan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Well, I don't live in Detroit now, and I probably wouldn't move back to Detroit unless for a job located either downtown or in Midtown. Likewise, I wouldn't really consider a job here in the NY area [[where I live) that wasn't based out of Manhattan.

---

That's interesting. Unfortunately, I really can't be too picky about where my job is located, just happy to have one! But, I'm like you. If I had the pick of the litter, I'd take a job in the city center any day over other options.

This sort of thing happens all of the time. I'm sure almost every person over the age of 25 has been in that position more than once in their lives. It all comes down to choices, what you want, and what you are willing to tolerate. My commute used to be tolerable, now it's terrible. I work downtown and we moved to the M-59 corridor recently. Why? For various reasons, but a few are that it is close to family, it is something of a dream house, the school system is terrific, there are tons of kids, and our little subdivision even has sidewalks and streetlights. So, anything I might not like about the move is blown away by the positives it has had for the rest of the clan. Now, if there was an opportunity to work closer to where I live would I take it? Probably, but I'm just happy to be working, and being downtown is pretty cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Well, I don't live in Detroit now, and I probably wouldn't move back to Detroit unless for a job located either downtown or in Midtown. Likewise, I wouldn't really consider a job here in the NY area [[where I live) that wasn't based out of Manhattan.

---

Similar, my small family [[wife and me) is in Chicago now and neither of us would take a job outside of the Loop or one of the areas abutting it.

I know dozens of people from SE Michigan that would love to return home but feel there's no really, really desirable place to live. Suburbs are per se out of consideration and a lot of the nicer neighborhoods [[Indian Village, Palmer Woods) are basically inaccessible. In conversations at bars, mixers, and so on out here, a lot of us have expressed our strong hope that the Woodward line gets done so that living in Midtown, Boston Edison, and a few other places becomes more of an option. So much so that, as we get older and we aren't the young professionals we were 5-10 years ago while in our early 20's, and as we are on the verge of putting down those roots, it's one of those wistful topics of conversation that comes up more often than not when you get a couple of us together [["us" being SE Michigan expats).

It's a damn shame, truth be told.

I feel you OP,

I have my first ever IT job downtown, and would consider living anywhere up to Ferndale, but I would rather stay as close to work as possible, so I'm looking in the downtown area. Unfortunately, most IT jobs here are located in Oakland County, so when I lived in Fraser that made for a fun commute. Never again! :)

Chances are that I'll probably be moving out of state if this contract is not a long term one.

Regional planners, developers, and bigwigs *really* need to heed this thread, and make decisions accordingly. Today's generation is just not going to commute 2 hours per day by car unless they have to, and they won't want to do it long-term. We also tend to prefer walkable, bike-able settings... especially the under 30 crowd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous

I know dozens of people from SE Michigan that would love to return home but feel there's no really, really desirable place to live.

---

IMO, this is nonsense. Chicagoland and Metro Detroit real estate are 95% the same. Same bungalows on flatland grid everywhere, same exurban sprawl, same crappy economy. The only major difference is 3 miles or so of core Chicago real estate.

Almost all those friends you're talking about are eventually moving to the suburbs, or suburban-type neighborhoods. Very, very few will be having babies in lofts or highrise apartments, whether in Chicago, Detroit, or Walla Walla for that matter.

So while I agree that Detroit can't compete effectively for the postcollegiate crowd [[which prefers doing the singles thing in big city centers), that same crowd mostly moves to the suburbs, whether it's Schaumburg or Novi, Winnetka or Birmingham.

95% the same?!? Not even close.

My wife and I chose to move downtown. I work in Waterford, she works at Big Beaver and 75.

The drive does suck, but my new job I'm starting in a month has two of it's three locations in Detroit. Either way. We like it enough to deal with the commute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English

Regional planners, developers, and bigwigs *really* need to heed this thread, and make decisions accordingly. Today's generation is just not going to commute 2 hours per day by car unless they have to, and they won't want to do it long-term. We also tend to prefer walkable, bike-able settings... especially the under 30 crowd.

---

Amen! I'm relatively young and I get annoyed about my commute from home Downtown to work in New Center. I grew up in Detroit so I used to be accustomed to driving a lot but now I find myself avoiding leaving the city at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

IMO, this is nonsense. Chicagoland and Metro Detroit real estate are 95% the same. Same bungalows on flatland grid everywhere, same exurban sprawl, same crappy economy. The only major difference is 3 miles or so of core Chicago real estate.

Almost all those friends you're talking about are eventually moving to the suburbs, or suburban-type neighborhoods. Very, very few will be having babies in lofts or highrise apartments, whether in Chicago, Detroit, or Walla Walla for that matter.

So while I agree that Detroit can't compete effectively for the postcollegiate crowd [[which prefers doing the singles thing in big city centers), that same crowd mostly moves to the suburbs, whether it's Schaumburg or Novi, Winnetka or Birmingham.

---

Reread what I wrote: "Suburbs are per se out of consideration."

That 95% -- or whatever the real number is -- is of no desire to this group of people. Schaumburg, Winnetka, etc. aren't a consideration the same way that Birmingham, Novi, etc. wouldn't be, either.

The group I'm referring to is all about 25-35 years old or so, and many of us have kids. My wife and I will begin trying next year, barring an economic setback. And none -- none! -- of us have moved or expressed a desire to move out there, save for one couple that moved because the commute would have been hell [[he took a job in Northbrook). That lifestyle has never been on the table for any of us; indeed, those in the groups I'm talking about with kids have moved to Lincoln Park, Southport/Lakeview, Wicker Park/Bucktown, etc.

Definitely not suburban, and there's definitely little desire for it. The suburbs are looked at as the type of place you move if you can't afford to live in the city, or if you get stuck taking a job out in the suburbs.

And as a bit of an aside, we get that the 40 hour week is more or less dead, and that if you give an extra hour a day away by commuting [[1/2 hour each way), you're likely giving up a good quarter or more of your waking, non-working/commuting hours.

EDIT: I don't have a dog in the awful metro Detroit suburbs vs. city fight. The shame is, though, that there is a large mass of very talented and educated people that would prefer a city [[wouldn't consider the burbs) and that are just chomping at the bit to come back, but feel marooned out in, in the case of my friends/acquaintances, Chicago and New York.

There was a very good open letter I read a year or two ago from an IP lawyer about how hard it is for him to recruit talent. I wish I had it, or a link to it, handy, but it more or less perfectly summed up how a lot of us feel.

The only good thing about the commute from downtown to work in the suburbs, is you are going the opposite of most of the traffic. My motto is live near where you play, not where you work.

Brush, I'm sure you're not alone. Personally, I wouldn't take a job that required more than a 30 min drive unless I really, really had to.

And it's not just a matter of "preference" or gas prices. Researchers have found again and again that long commutes have a negative impact on health and relationships...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous

The group I'm referring to is all about 25-35 years old or so, and many of us have kids. My wife and I will begin trying next year, barring an economic setback. And none -- none! -- of us have moved or expressed a desire to move out there, save for one couple that moved because the commute would have been hell [[he took a job in Northbrook). That lifestyle has never been on the table for any of us; indeed, those in the groups I'm talking about with kids have moved to Lincoln Park, Southport/Lakeview, Wicker Park/Bucktown, etc.

---

Your anecdotes don't reflect overall preferences, though.

There are 10 million people in Chicagoland. Maybe 100,000 live hard core urban lifestyles.

So why would Metro Detroit be a more attractive place if it concentrated on the 1% of folks in Chicagoland who want a hard core urban lifestyle?

Wouldn't Metro Detroit be more attractive if it had more jobs? Light rail won't grow a region the way jobs grow a region.

Jobs around here aren't so permanent that it makes a lot of sense to move for them. Traffic patterns change as well, so moving to avoid traffic doesn't always work. In my career, I was "bumped" to Lansing a few times. Fun commute that was. Well, it was long, anyway, 75 miles one way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Wouldn't Metro Detroit be more attractive if it had more jobs? Light rail won't grow a region the way jobs grow a region.

---

Detroit might have more jobs if it were more attractive. People create jobs. If people aren't interested in living there then no one comes to create the jobs.

Here's the letter, copy/pasted into a blog:

http://rustwire.com/2011/03/11/michi...iving-us-away/

He speaks for a *ton* of us. I am dying to raise my kid as a Michigander. I shudder at the thought of my kid being a Bears fan over a Lions fan, or preferring a Chicago Dog over a Coney, or remembering taking a field trip as a kid to see La Grande Jatte at the Art Institute here, rather than Rivera's Detroit Industry at the DIA, and on and on, and on. All of those things are what I would love for my kid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Your anecdotes don't reflect overall preferences, though.

There are 10 million people in Chicagoland. Maybe 100,000 live hard core urban lifestyles.

So why would Metro Detroit be a more attractive place if it concentrated on the 1% of folks in Chicagoland who want a hard core urban lifestyle?

Wouldn't Metro Detroit be more attractive if it had more jobs? Light rail won't grow a region the way jobs grow a region.

---

Strong correlation between professionals with elite credentials and that sort of lifestyle. *Very* strong.

And to add, I'll bet if you drew a boundary encompassing more urban areas, from Rogers Park/Edgewater to the north, over to the West Loop, through Lincoln Square and Bucktown, on through well south of the Loop, it'd be *well* north of 100k

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Here's the letter, copy/pasted into a blog:

http://rustwire.com/2011/03/11/michi...iving-us-away/

He speaks for a *ton* of us. I am dying to raise my kid as a Michigander. I shudder at the thought of my kid being a Bears fan over a Lions fan, or preferring a Chicago Dog over a Coney, or remembering taking a field trip as a kid to see La Grande Jatte at the Art Institute here, rather than Rivera's Detroit Industry at the DIA, and on and on, and on. All of those things are what I would love for my kid.

---

I wouldn't want my kids to grow up as FIPs either. You should move back to Michigan. You can drive a car or ride a bus if you choose. You could even ride the people mover if you miss the brown line. I don't know how you can stand living there with all those Blackhawks fans. I lived over there for 4 months and got sick to my stomach everytime a Bears game was on, or I saw a Blackhawks flag in a bar. Chicago is a very nice place, but seriously if you don't like Detroit without a light rail line, you probably won't like it with one either. A city is much more than a light rail line. A place is what you make of it. If you are afraid of Detroit, there is always Grand Rapids. Have you been there recently? It is really nice!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Strong correlation between professionals with elite credentials and that sort of lifestyle. *Very* strong.

And to add, I'll bet if you drew a boundary encompassing more urban areas, from Rogers Park/Edgewater to the north, over to the West Loop, through Lincoln Square and Bucktown, on through well south of the Loop, it'd be *well* north of 100k

---

Yeah, we all know that Chicago has tons more urban professionals than Detroit and a much more vital center. What's your point?

And New York has tons more urban professionals than Chicago, and a much more vital center. Again, so what?

Outside of personal anecdotes, is there evidence that more centralized cities produce stronger economies?

Chicagoland has one of the worst economies in the nation. Their job losses are among the bottom two or three cities. The population loss within city limits is epic, and second only to Detroit.

True, Chicago's economy is better than that of Detroit. But Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta have better economies too, and they're sprawling messes. Maybe Chicagoans and Detroiters should all follow the lessons of sprawltopia Dallas. After all, their economy is better than anything in the Midwest.

IMO, there are many, many factors in economic growth. Yes, it's a good thing when young professionals are attracted to city centers, and I hope Detroit can improve in this respect. But I don't see any sort of correlation between vital urban centers and strong regional economies.

"But I don't see any sort of correlation between vital urban centers and strong regional economies."

Name all of the strong regional economies that exist without a strong urban core city.

I'm 26, live in the city, and am self employed.

Self employed for a reason.

I TWICE had full time work in my industry [[first in Birmingham, second in Troy). I left each job for a number of reasons, but way up on the list... the commute.

Even though I was driving counter-traffic, spending an hour or more each day using my time and resources for free never felt worth it.

So now I freelance. Yes, I work less, and yes, I work in the 'burbs most of the time. But hell, I make a lot more money and have a lot more free time to enjoy my life and where I choose to live.

Long story short, lump this guy in with the group who chooses where they want to live first, then finds employers second.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pcm

I'm 26, live in the city, and am self employed.

Self employed for a reason.

I TWICE had full time work in my industry [[first in Birmingham, second in Troy). I left each job for a number of reasons, but way up on the list... the commute.

Even though I was driving counter-traffic, spending an hour or more each day using my time and resources for free never felt worth it.

So now I freelance. Yes, I work less, and yes, I work in the 'burbs most of the time. But hell, I make a lot more money and have a lot more free time to enjoy my life and where I choose to live.

Long story short, lump this guy in with the group who chooses where they want to live first, then finds employers second.

---

I'm in the same boat. Choose live...employers next. And it's the same in most cities. I have friends that live in Chicago and work for corporations headquartered downtown. But 4 days a week they drive 60-75 minutes each way so that they can be on-site with clients.

When you figure that 20-30 somethings change jobs every 2-4 years on average...and then add in the people who stay in jobs that require them to change where they go to work...then throw in the people that can work from home 1-2 days a week....

....I'd say our economy is moving away from the old model where people buy a house because of its proximity to work.

Bham1982, I respect what you're saying but I think you're view [[while common) is dangerously misguided. First, I lived in Chicago for 12 years and a hell of a lot more people than 100,000 live in the core city. The "yuppified" part of Chicago is huge. It goes up 5-6 miles from the loop and has moved now 3-4 miles from the lake. South of the Loop is also big. I tried to look at census data but the numbers are much more like 400,000.
Second, Chicago is not "post-collegiate." There are tons of people 30,40 and older living in the central city.
But more importantly, the critical flaw in your argument is that even if young people people leave Chicago for the suburbs, the point is they moved to Chicago in the first place. So the suburbs that they move out are not Birmingham but Lake Forest. We lose the best and brightest to Chicagoland and they never come back.
Finally, an attractive city center is a huge cultural and business asset. Even people who live in work in Chicagoland suburbs enjoy being near the city.
Coming to Oakland Country from Chicago's Near North Side. I would say for me has been hellish. There's no comparison that life in Chicago was wildly superior. I hate driving everywhere, hate the ugly sprawl and would move back in a heartbeat if I could. I would not hesitate to raise kids in the city.
I respect the fact that people in suburban Detroit like their suburbs, but the region is getting killed because most people in America with education, money and/or choices will not choose to live in a metro without a viable urban core.