Over the next few years, demographic research shows, the growth in demand for urban living could stall.
The debate is full of contours and caveats, but it really boils down to this: Are large numbers of millennials really so enamored with city living that they will age and raise families inside the urban core, or will many of them, like earlier generations, eventually head to the suburbs in search of bigger homes and better school districts?
Full Story: Peak Millennial? Cities Can’t Assume a Continued Boost From the Young – The New York Times
San Francisco has the lowest share of children of the country’s largest cities, a longstanding trend reinforced by a tech industry that skews young and single.
A report released on Tuesday by the San Francisco Planning Department said the building boom in the city, which for the most part has introduced more studios and one-bedroom apartments, was unlikely to bring in more families. For every 100 apartments in the city sold at market rates, the San Francisco school district expects to enroll only one additional student, the report said.
Full Story: San Francisco Asks: Where Have All the Children Gone? – The New York Times
There’s a back story to the spotty cell reception in the heart of Silicon Valley: the city’s very mixed feelings about the influx of tech companies.
In an election year, with nearly constant squawking from presidential candidates about well-paying jobs, the mayor of Palo Alto has an unusual message for some of the cash-flush tech companies based here: Go away. Please.
“Big tech companies are choking off the downtown,” Mayor Patrick Burt said. “It’s not healthy.”
Read More: Message to Tech Firms From Palo Alto Mayor: Go Away. Please. – The New York Times
In response to that recent NYTimes article about growth in Boulder:
Susan Osborne, a former mayor of Boulder, Colo., says zoning and land use regulations have not necessarily promoted inequality.
Source: Bigger and More Equal Cities – NYTimes.com
Thanks for sharing these articles. The July 4th front page article in the NYT about Boulder was reprinted in our local paper in Eugene as well today, so it was a huge PR success for developers seeking to undo decades of carefully crafted local policies so they can build more of everything anywhere. The article is actually a commentary and it is disappointing that the NYT editors would allow something like this to be in their paper, let alone portray it as objective news reporting and placed on the front page. It is a classic example of “data-free analysis” where sweeping generalizations are made about complex issues without the benefit of an actual supporting body of evidence or even a balanced treatment of the subject. There is nothing to indicate that the author is qualified to make such analysis. He fails to provide any actual evidence to support the inflammatory headline and instead, uses out-of-context quotes to try to support his storyline. This highly biased “article” would not have gone anywhere if the NYT had not lent its credibility to the poorly-done story.
I have lots more to say about this, but unfortunately don’t have the funding of developers, large corporations, or a group like the Nation Association of Realtors to pay me to write it.
Fodor & Associates LLC
The small city of Boulder, home to the University of Colorado’s flagship campus, has a booming local economy and a pleasantly compact downtown with mountain views. Not surprisingly, a lot of people want to move here.
Something else is also not surprising: Many of the people who already live in Boulder would prefer that the newcomers settle somewhere else.
Source: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality – NYTimes.com
The author of that article followed it up with this posting on his Facebook Page, making his opinions and biases more obvious: