Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Suburbia Is Dying

Update: U.S. News puts a different spin on the Brookings report and highlights the change in the the Under 45 population. Rust Belt suburbs are the clear loser. Might this accelerate urbanization in this megaregion? It doesn't bode well for political consolidation and regional cooperation.
<----------End Update---------->

Boomtowns are aging much faster than Rust Belt bust-towns. The Washington Post takes a good look at the latest from Brookings demographer William Fry, “The Uneven Aging and ‘Younging’ of America.” The sidebar graphic makes my first point:


The likes of Pittsburgh are among the slowest aging communities in the United States. In fact, those bottom-5 metros are all getting younger. The Post article teases out the shifting politics resulting from such demographic trends, particularly in rapidly graying suburbia:

“When people think of suburban voters, it’s going to be different than it was years ago,” Frey said. “They used to be people worried about schools and kids. Now they’re more concerned about their own well-being.”

My take is that this will make the suburbs less attractive to families. I'd extend that to the fastest aging boomtown metros. Rust Belt cities as a hot destination make a lot of sense for younger cohorts.

To put it another way, legacy costs are shifting from traditional brownfields (urban centers) to greenfields (suburbs). How will the outlying communities pay for the senior infrastructure? Public transportation will be a nightmare. Services are diffuse. The geographically isolated tend to be poor.

Suburbs will have to shrink with ballooning dependency ratios (the other way). Schools will close. The fiscal crisis will extend decades into the future with high energy prices serving to exacerbate the problem.

Metros drunk on decades of in-migration and sprawl will be the worst hit. More from The Post:

“AARP research shows that most communities are behind in planning for their aging populations, but those that are adapting have come up with common-sense solutions to improve home design and make transportation easier,” said Nancy LeaMond, the AARP vice president, in a written statement.

What a mess. Given all the constraints on federal, state, and municipal budgets, I don't see how we will pay for the adaptations. Stay ahead of the curve. Move to Pittsburgh.

11 comments:

Andy said...

"Stay ahead of the curve. Move to Pittsburgh."

Recruiters, I think we have a winning slogan.

rootvg said...

My wife and I have been trying to return to the Rust Belt for fifteen years. When the recruiters hear what we do and what we make they just hand back our resumes, tell us to go back to California and shut up.

Jim Russell said...

That's because there is a glut of talent in the Rust Belt already doing what you do.

BrianTH said...

And yet we really don't have enough room for everyone to move to Pittsburgh (and its urban brownfield cousins). That may seem like a strange thing to say, but these areas are just not that large geographically, and when you factor in the current standards for people per household, once this process gets going in earnest those areas will fill up quickly.

So while I agree Phase One could be "Move to Pittsburgh," we will somehow have to solve the suburban retrofitting problem for Phase Two.

Steve said...

I love, "Stay ahead of the curve. Move to Pittsburgh."

My take is that this will make the suburbs less attractive to families.

While this is true, I think families will still end up in the suburbs for one reason, schools. Gen Y might want to live in an urban area, but things change as soon as kids enter the picture. For that matter, I know people older than Gen Y who wanted to live in an urban area but headed to the suburbs as soon as they had kids because the urban public schools where they lived were horrid. Their choices were move to the suburbs, send their kids to a horrid urban school, or pay for a very expensive private school they could never afford. They chose move to the suburbs. When pressed with the same issue I can't see Gen Y making a different decision (unless vouchers are a reality by then or there's a quantum leap of improvement in urban school systems).

I'm not familiar with the urban school systems of the Rust Belt. I'm assuming that they're like the urban school systems out here (DC, Baltimore, etc.) If urban schools are a lot better in the Rust Belt then the Rust Belt would really be a hot destination for Gen Y wanting to live urban (although I suspect that's not the case).

Steve said...

So while I agree Phase One could be "Move to Pittsburgh," we will somehow have to solve the suburban retrofitting problem for Phase Two.

What probably would need to be done is retrofit the suburbs to a Reston Town Center" model, the town center of a suburb of DC. Of course if the retrofit looked like Reston Town Center then any rust belt chic would be thrown out the window.

Jim Russell said...

I think families will ignore the burbs because of the schools. The graying demographic in the burbs will starve the district of funds. I remember that happening in Milton, Vermont. The high school lost accreditation.

Steve said...

I think families will ignore the burbs because of the schools. The graying demographic in the burbs will starve the district of funds. I remember that happening in Milton, Vermont. The high school lost accreditation.

Jim, while I agree with you in concept about the graying of suburbs leading to a financial starving of suburban schools, that doesn't change the problems with urban schools. A significant fraction of Gen X, perhaps not as large as Gen Y but still significant, would live in urban areas right now if it wasn't for the schools. Gen Y will run into this problem when their kids become school age. Are you assuming that vouchers will be common place by that point? Otherwise parents who can't afford expensive private schools (i.e. most parents) are going to be between a rock and a hard place when it comes to the problems of both urban schools and suburban schools respectively.

Jim Russell said...

I don't think urban schools are that big of a problem. Much of the concern is informed by myth and misunderstanding. There are good, even great, public schools in the worst districts.

Moving to NOVA, I had to consider reputation with two kids (3 and 5). The scuttlebutt on schools is lousy, almost useless. And I'm seeing other parents with young families take a stand, making the local school situation work.

You go where you know. Gen Y knows and loves cities.

Steve said...

I don't think urban schools are that big of a problem. Much of the concern is informed by myth and misunderstanding.

I don't doubt that, but isn't that just as big of a problem? Clearly people are making decisions on that basis.

Jim Russell said...

I don't doubt that, but isn't that just as big of a problem?

I think that has been THE problem. Seniors starving suburban school districts of funds should help that. Gen Y getting firsthand experience in the city doesn't hurt, either.

Think of it in terms of political space. Boomers will rule the suburbs. They don't care about the cities. Gen X will eat it up.