The Great Migration

[nmm]

Ive been reading about the reverse flight back into the cities. As in, people are choosing to live inside the cities over living in suburban settings.

I just wanted to know what you guys think of this? Why do you suppose people would rather live closer to the city, whereas once they chose to live away from the high crime, corruption, traffic, pollution?

With all the new residential highrises under construction, what is fueling the desire to migrate back into cities?

[MidtownCoog]

the hip factor

[The Great Hizzy!]

I think relative convenience--depending on the lifestyle--is another. Also, the suburbs, just due to its sheer growth numbers and the prevailing tendency of human beings, have adopted some of the same idiosyncracies that might have sent some people to the 'burbs to begin with: crime, congestion, higher property tax rates, etc.

[sevfiv]

Why do you suppose people would rather live closer to the city, whereas once they chose to live away from the high crime, corruption, traffic, pollution?

most burbs have neither less crime nor traffic

Edited March 28, 2006 by sevfiv

[editor]

Ive been reading about the reverse flight back into the cities. As in, people are choosing to live inside the cities over living in suburban settings.

I just wanted to know what you guys think of this? Why do you suppose people would rather live closer to the city, whereas once they chose to live away from the high crime, corruption, traffic, pollution?

With all the new residential highrises under construction, what is fueling the desire to migrate back into cities?

One reason is that cities have changed. Especially crime rates, which have gone down dramatically nationwide over the last 30 years in urban cores. Not that long ago Houston had signs posted around downtown celebrating its status as the most crime-free neighborhood of the city.

Also, people are living longer. A lot of the people moving back in are older people who want to enjoy the amenities and conveniences a city offers, are are tired of mowing the lawn, worrying about the foundation, sitting in traffic, and wandering around malls. They find that urban climates suit them.

So to sum up your four points:

Crime: Not as bad in the city as it used to be, and nowhere close to what suburbanites imagine it is.

Corruption: Exists everywhere, suburban or rural. Just ask anyone from Houston who's been pulled over by a rural county sheriff's deputy.

Traffic: If you live in the urban core, you're not commuting, thus traffic isn't a concern for you.

Pollution: American cities are cleaner than they have been in years. Pollution is usually a problem of one of the exurbs. In Houston's case, suburban Pasadena has more to worry about pollution than downtown Houston.

[RedScare]

Pollution: American cities are cleaner than they have been in years. Pollution is usually a problem of one of the exurbs. In Houston's case, suburban Pasadena has more to worry about pollution than downtown Houston.

I would suggest that the pollution that both Downtown and the suburbs (other than Pasadena) endure is that of the vehicles that traverse both areas. Industrial pollution, while certainly not extinct, has been contained somewhat since the Love Canal & Buffalo Bayou 70s.

[MidtownCoog]

Traffic: If you live in the urban core, you're not commuting, thus traffic isn't a concern for you.

Wrong. I lived in Midtown, and worked on Research Forest Drive in The Woodlands.

I lived downtown for the "hip" factor.

In Houston's case, suburban Pasadena has more to worry about pollution than downtown Houston.

And in the Summer, the Alief area ozone levels are higher than downtown.

[Subdude]

Ive been reading about the reverse flight back into the cities. As in, people are choosing to live inside the cities over living in suburban settings.

I just wanted to know what you guys think of this? Why do you suppose people would rather live closer to the city, whereas once they chose to live away from the high crime, corruption, traffic, pollution?

With all the new residential highrises under construction, what is fueling the desire to migrate back into cities?

How widespread is that really? Somehow I assumed that movement to the suburbs was still predominant. Is is concentrated in some cities, or is happening everywhere?

[RedScare]

How widespread is that really? Somehow I assumed that movement to the suburbs was still predominant. Is is concentrated in some cities, or is happening everywhere?

In virtually every city, including Houston and Dallas, more whites are leaving than entering. The RATE has slowed dramatically, giving the feel that everyone is coming back. Additionally, middle class Blacks and Hispanics are not leaving as quickly, as they once did.

[west20th]

Wrong. I lived in Midtown, and worked on Research Forest Drive in The Woodlands.

I lived downtown for the "hip" factor.

And in the Summer, the Alief area ozone levels are higher than downtown.

The "reverse" rush hour is nice also.

[skwatra]

i know a lot of people at work (mostly in their 20's) who live inside the loop for the sake of living there, and reverse commute. i will be one of them hopefully starting June.

everything i do, other then work, is there, so why not live there? i didn't at first to save money (from rent and going out), but now its time to have some fun.

[The Great Hizzy!]

This isn't 100% with all cities, obviously. Detroit, though working to bring residents back downtown at least, is still bleeding residents to its suburbs or the sunbelt. Virtually all big cities are trying to invest in the core and bring in new residents. The problem is that not every city is bringing in enough to offset the exodus, including a relatively prosperous city like San Francisco, which has lost approximately 50,000 residents over the last 5-6 years.

And to comment about changes in crime in the city, consider that in 1981, Houston (with only about 75% of the population it has now) had over 700 reported murders. Even compared to the sharp increase in homicides in 2005, that's still more than TWICE the amount despite a significantly smaller population base.

That has its affect, in some way, I'd imagine.

[MidtownCoog]

The "reverse" rush hour is nice also.

It was if I took Hardy Toll Rd. Still was 45 minutes.

[torvald]

Ive been reading about the reverse flight back into the cities. As in, people are choosing to live inside the cities over living in suburban settings.

I just wanted to know what you guys think of this? Why do you suppose people would rather live closer to the city, whereas once they chose to live away from the high crime, corruption, traffic, pollution?

With all the new residential highrises under construction, what is fueling the desire to migrate back into cities?

fella, these aren't your homework assignments are they?

[MidtownCoog]

fella, these aren't your homework assignments are they?

I often wonder the same thing on many of these posts...

[editor]

In virtually every city, including Houston and Dallas, more whites are leaving than entering. The RATE has slowed dramatically, giving the feel that everyone is coming back. Additionally, middle class Blacks and Hispanics are not leaving as quickly, as they once did.

While I have no firm numbers to back this up, it's been my observation that whites are moving into the urban core more often than they are leaving in cities like Houston, Chicago, New York, Montreal, Seattle. The result is the "ring rot" mentioned elsewhere on HAIF. A new urban paradigm is forming.

[The Great Hizzy!]

I think Wayne's right in this case. Surely, Red Scare's points are very valid for cities such as New Orleans (pre-Katrina), Detroit, Cleveland, etc but there are some cities that are pulling in a significant number of white urbanites at a rate that's at least equal to the migration of whites to the suburbs. Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Los Angeles, New York, Boston and Chicago readily come to mind.

If anything, in most cities (not all, but most), there is a significant increase in the number of non-whites moving out of the city either because a) they're tired of living in traditional neighborhoods in the city that have more or less been plagued by higher crime, poorer housing stock or poorer schools than what's available in the suburban neighborhood of choice or b.) gentrification has made it too expensive to live in their old neighborhood in the city.

Edited March 30, 2006 by The Great Hizzy!

[HeightsGuy]

Speaking for myself, there is another reason not listed but related to traffic I suppose. That is time, as in more time for me to spend doing the things I want to do. I have co-workers that talk of an hour drive each day. My drive is 15 minutes. That gives me 8.5 hours per week. With my busy schedule, that's worth more than the 3000sq house that would cost as much as my 3bed 1bath bungalo.

[Jeebus]

If anything, in most cities (not all, but most), there is a significant increase in the number of non-whites moving out of the city either because a) they're tired of living in traditional neighborhoods in the city that have more or less been plagued by higher crime, poorer housing stock or poorer schools than what's available in the suburban neighborhood of choice..

You see this in great numbers on the southwest side. Neighborhoods around Braeswood/Belfort west of Fondren are host to 3000sq foot homes with mostly black middle class families. These aren't ghetto either. The apartments surrounding these littel enclave communites are, but the communities themselves are quite nice.

[RedScare]

I think Wayne's right in this case. Surely, Red Scare's points are very valid for cities such as New Orleans (pre-Katrina), Detroit, Cleveland, etc but there are some cities that are pulling in a significant number of white urbanites at a rate that's at least equal to the migration of whites to the suburbs. Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Los Angeles, New York, Boston and Chicago readily come to mind.

If anything, in most cities (not all, but most), there is a significant increase in the number of non-whites moving out of the city either because a) they're tired of living in traditional neighborhoods in the city that have more or less been plagued by higher crime, poorer housing stock or poorer schools than what's available in the suburban neighborhood of choice or b.) gentrification has made it too expensive to live in their old neighborhood in the city.

I think both of you are hitting it. There may be more white singles and couples moving inside the loop, but more white families moving out to the burbs. This would cause an apparent increase in white households, while accounting for an overall decrease in white population citywide. The Dallas Morning News article in another thread described this very situation of single and couple whites moving into the core, while middle class families moved out.

[The Great Hizzy!]

You see this in great numbers on the southwest side. Neighborhoods around Braeswood/Belfort west of Fondren are host to 3000sq foot homes with mostly black middle class families. These aren't ghetto either. The apartments surrounding these littel enclave communites are, but the communities themselves are quite nice.

Exactly! This is why a cringe when I hear someone make the broad generalization that the SW is a ghetto.

Parts of it are, but you also have some very good and well-kept traditional neighborhoods, too--in fact, more of those than you do the Gulfton Ghettos or Fondren/W. Bellfort complexes.

[Natty]

I left the city 6 years ago and now can't wait to get back. Smaller home, less commute time and peeps who look like me are some of the main reasons for moving back. The burbs can kill your "spirit" too much of the same - same homes, same people, same shops, same, same, same!! Killing Me.

[nmm]

One thing i despise about suburban living is everything is so much the same. Just like the poster before me mentioned, suburban life is in a sense, very 'static' whereas city life is much more vibrant, lively and thrilling.