That's interesting to know. I hope the schools are improving as a result of the involvement of folks like you.
Semi-OT: Population Shift in NJ to urban areas
- Thread starter NotInRHouse
- Start date
The grade schools are improving quickly and JC has some pretty good charter schools as well. The middle schools are still pretty dicey and HS outside of McNair is a crap shoot. Lots of kids going to the numerous private schools as well.
Right now if you're downtown there isn't enough room for all the kids and some get bussed to schools in other parts of the city. That's where charters etc can come in. It's actually just in the last few years they wound up with a space crunch downtown.
Full disclosure though my kid now goes to a private school. I wasn't upset with her public education and would have happily left her there. It was better than what I had at her age, but the private is better and I can afford it.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Right now if you're downtown there isn't enough room for all the kids and some get bussed to schools in other parts of the city. That's where charters etc can come in. It's actually just in the last few years they wound up with a space crunch downtown.
Full disclosure though my kid now goes to a private school. I wasn't upset with her public education and would have happily left her there. It was better than what I had at her age, but the private is better and I can afford it.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
It's good that you can afford the education you want for your daughter, and I'm glad to hear that the elementary schools, at least, are good. I think you would agree that it's harder for middle and high schools to be good places -- having adolescent kids is hard on even the best school.
No doubt middle and HS education is more difficult. I do expect it to improve some as the kids in the affluent areas age into those schools. I certainly know a lot who are planning to stay and stay public. But once you get to the older ages it is more and more challenging to change the schools and it should be interesting to see what happens. The leading edge of the city baby boom is probably in 1st grade or so, so there is still a ways to go.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
That is absolutely wrong. As far as JC goes, while the improvement has so far been limited to downtown, because of population density that has affected a ton of people. All of Hudson County is growing though, look at Hoboken, Edgewater, etc... And JC is going to see a huge change in Journal Square with all the new development.
Newark actually is WAY better than it was a decade ago, although I fear that bad days are ahead there. New Brunswick and Morristown are way improved. Paterson, Trenton, and Camden are worse. Plainfield actually is slightly better, but just has so far to go, it will take decades to fix.
While millenials may move to suburbs when they have kids, they are moving to Maplewood and Montclair instead of Marlboro and Bridgewater. More of them are staying in cities than ever though.
Newark actually is WAY better than it was a decade ago, although I fear that bad days are ahead there. New Brunswick and Morristown are way improved. Paterson, Trenton, and Camden are worse. Plainfield actually is slightly better, but just has so far to go, it will take decades to fix.
While millenials may move to suburbs when they have kids, they are moving to Maplewood and Montclair instead of Marlboro and Bridgewater. More of them are staying in cities than ever though.
I wouldn't say Camden has gotten worse in the last decade -- but it hasn't gotten much better either. Almost no one lives there unless they have virtually no other choice, and it is very unlikely to became a destination for young people who are not desperately poor.
I'll make a more modest claim: the percentage of people who prefer the Monctlair/Maplewood genre is very substantial, and this percentage has continued to rise in recent years. Whether those areas are outpacing the Marlboro/Bridgewater types in growth is another matter. But if they aren't, it's probably due, in large part, to practical reasons - e.g., price, lack of land, etc. - not because the Mont/Maple model isn't compelling to a substantial and increasing number of people. If all else were equal (and it rarely is), I think most youngish people would choose the suburb with the downtown, urban amenities, etc. If we simply look at how people "vote with their feet," we aren't getting the whole picture of what people actually desire.
That is probably true. But the practical considerations have always been a driver. Certainly in the recent past there has always been a substantial portion of the population that prefers urban amenities (at least since before 1980, when the term 'Yuppie" was coined to describe young urban professionals).
You could argue that that preference for urban amenities has recently become greater. But to your point about practical considerations, the preference level may be the same, and the geographic changes we see are purely economic. 20 years ago, as Yuppies needed more room for their families, and better schools for their kids, they may have been forced to less urban suburbs because of factors like affordability and school quality. The recent growth of the urban core may not be a change in desire, but just a change due to the fact that urban core towns with good schools have become more affordable (and 40 years of "gentrification" have made once-dangerous towns safer).
There is one elementary school in JC near Exchange Place that seems to be well regarded. McNair is also nationally regarded...but frankly if I lived in JC and my kid didn't get in, I would be petrified to send them to another public HS.
Hoboken is a very interesting case of this right now. They have one of the highest incomes of any municipality in the state- but the public schools are atrocious, and there is a big debate about how much money charters are getting.
My thought has been that if I did get married and have kids, I would live in JC/Hoboken until they were school age...see if they made it into one of the dual language schools...and if not, move to a "train town" with good schools.
I also think there is a small number of people selling their places in the burbs once their kids graduate HS and then moving to an urban spot once they no longer need the schools.
Hoboken is a very interesting case of this right now. They have one of the highest incomes of any municipality in the state- but the public schools are atrocious, and there is a big debate about how much money charters are getting.
My thought has been that if I did get married and have kids, I would live in JC/Hoboken until they were school age...see if they made it into one of the dual language schools...and if not, move to a "train town" with good schools.
I also think there is a small number of people selling their places in the burbs once their kids graduate HS and then moving to an urban spot once they no longer need the schools.
This is certainly true in the Philadelphia area, where empty-nesters from the suburbs (particularly the prosperous Main Line suburbs) often move to condos downtown.
There was an article on the football board a few years ago and it featured a couple from Haddonfield moving to Philly for tax reasons. Up here, I don't think you see people moving into NYC as much because of the city income tax- which NJ pols should really be publicizing more. You do however get dinged on property taxes in NJ much worse than in NYC, but taxes on LI and in Westchester may be even worse than in NJ.
In the Wawa thread you said you live in Jersey City and commute by driving on Rt 280 to a job in Morris County. So why would a train station be a criterion for you?
(And why don't you take the train now? As a lawyer, I assume you work near the courthouse in Morristown. You can take the Light Rail to Hoboken and then NJ Transit to Morristown.)
My office isn't on the Green. You have to drive there. I sometimes take 280, sometimes 78/24...you have to vary based on time and traffic.
I want to be near a train because much of my social life is in the city, and the industry I work in is heavily tilted towards NY, with a sizeable NJ presence. My company has a NY office. I don't know that I will be forever reporting to Morristown or NJ generally.
I also travel for work a lot, so being close to EWR and JFK is a plus.
And I generally want to live in a walkable place- I don't want to get in the car just to go to the store. Typically, the walkable towns have a train.
I want to be near a train because much of my social life is in the city, and the industry I work in is heavily tilted towards NY, with a sizeable NJ presence. My company has a NY office. I don't know that I will be forever reporting to Morristown or NJ generally.
I also travel for work a lot, so being close to EWR and JFK is a plus.
And I generally want to live in a walkable place- I don't want to get in the car just to go to the store. Typically, the walkable towns have a train.
Many reconstructed and renovated buildings in Philadelphia receive ten-year tax abatements, and Pennsylvania income tax is less than NJ income tax. It's true that Philadelphia charges a wage tax, but someone living in New Jersey and working in Philadelphia is paying much of that tax anyway. But my impression is that it is lifestyle, not taxes, that is attracting prosperous empty-nesters to the city. One consequence, by the way, is that rents have gotten really out of sight in center city Philadelphia, and that is a real problem for young people starting out.
Upstream- much of my work involves client entertainment in NYC, and most of my friends are up in this area.
Camden...maybe increasing rents will be Camden's gain one day.
Camden...maybe increasing rents will be Camden's gain one day.
I consider "client entertainment" to be work, not social life.
As far as friends in the city ... that is my point. Once most people have kids, they then end up with a different set of demands on their time. Heading into the city from NJ every weekend (or even one weekend a month) to go clubbing will quickly fall to the bottom of their priority list. Their social life will quickly revolve around their kids, either involving the kids or timed to coordinate babysitters.
Upstream,
And yet my circle of friends in JC, all of whom have young kids, spend one hell of a lot of time in NYC both with and without children.
The city is absolutely fantastic for kids. Once you live close enough that it is easy to get there it becomes an incredible resource.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
And yet my circle of friends in JC, all of whom have young kids, spend one hell of a lot of time in NYC both with and without children.
The city is absolutely fantastic for kids. Once you live close enough that it is easy to get there it becomes an incredible resource.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
My brother has two kids on the UWS (right on Riverside Drive). He and his family love all that the City has to offer.
For me, I am content to be a few blocks from the Ocean.
He is the City mouse and I am the sea rat. LOL
Like Mooby says, to each is own.
JC and Hoboken are like outer boroughs. Getting into Manhattan from there is like getting into Manhattan from Brooklyn (maybe even easier).
But NIRH is talking about moving to a "train town" with good schools. At that point, you're talking about a much longer trip into Manhattan. And for most people with kids, that means those trips become more of a hassle and more infrequent. For most people, once kids are in the picture, social life changes.
I would like to think this is true. But there are plenty of places to gentrify in the areas in Philadelphia that surround Center City. Those areas will improve first.
I have to imagine there are a lot of people who work in Camden but live in Philadelphia. It is a pretty easy commute, and Phila is a lot more livable than Camden.
People who work in Camden but live in Philadelphia? Outside of some professors at the Camden campus, it's very rare. so far as I know. The alternative to Philadelphia is not Camden (where no one earning a living wage would live) are either the Pennsylvania suburbs or else South Jersey suburbs ranging from Collingswood to Tabernacle.
Yes the data does. See the graph on the link.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/06/sprawl_withdrawal_young_nj_residents_push_toward_cities_and_away_from_suburbia.html
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/06/sprawl_withdrawal_young_nj_residents_push_toward_cities_and_away_from_suburbia.html
It shouldn't be a surprise that young people with less spending money (higher debt, weaker job prospects for whatever education level they have) and no kids aren't buying McMansions. Thats a pretty predictable consequence of the youth bulge in our population and the long term stagnation of the economy. Your gonna see alot of suburbs go down hill for a while as Boomers age out of needing a big house, and young people decide that an apartment is fine until they have kids.
One note - the Baby Boomers were the largest cohort at one time. At the time they were young they made up a disproportionate amount of the population. But there are now as many or more Millenials than Boomers (depending on how you define each) and that will obviously continue to go in the favor of Millenials.
Its actually interesting, because Millenials kind of have it rough now - like I said - weak job prospects and lots of debt. The economy has been so focused on Boomers, and their needs (healthcare for example). But those Boomers are going to retire just as the Millenials really start to hit their peaks of their careers. Since the Boomers are generally the parents of the Millennials, the millennial will stand to inherit alot of money too (all of those trillions stashed in 401ks). And all of those Boomer houses in the suburbs will suddenly be pretty cheap when Millenials finally start to have kids.
One note - the Baby Boomers were the largest cohort at one time. At the time they were young they made up a disproportionate amount of the population. But there are now as many or more Millenials than Boomers (depending on how you define each) and that will obviously continue to go in the favor of Millenials.
Its actually interesting, because Millenials kind of have it rough now - like I said - weak job prospects and lots of debt. The economy has been so focused on Boomers, and their needs (healthcare for example). But those Boomers are going to retire just as the Millenials really start to hit their peaks of their careers. Since the Boomers are generally the parents of the Millennials, the millennial will stand to inherit alot of money too (all of those trillions stashed in 401ks). And all of those Boomer houses in the suburbs will suddenly be pretty cheap when Millenials finally start to have kids.
That's good point Der on the 401s. It will be up to the suburbs to keep fresh- their schools in good shape, and have some kind of downtown.
The town I grew up in is building a downtown. Something I remember reading in the local paper when I was probably not even 10, now I'm 28...they're supposedly starting anytime now...
The town I grew up in is building a downtown. Something I remember reading in the local paper when I was probably not even 10, now I'm 28...they're supposedly starting anytime now...
I'm missing something. The only graph I see on the link is the % change in >62 population. Is there a graph showing where millennials move when they have kids?
I' not as sold on the downtown thing being that important over time. Walking and biking are great when you are 30. What about 50. If people are still driving to these downtowns, then its really just a change of style from strip malls, to more old fashioned. And if they arent = well they will be when they move to the burbs to raise their kids (which they will - because people with kids generally just dont want to live in condos/row houses if they can help it).
Of course part of it is just a rejection o the familiar. Almost no one I knew that grew up in a row house lives in a condo or row house now that I can think of other than people too poor to afford a decent neighborhood in the suburbs. All of the people I know that have moved to the city (in this case Baltimore) are people who grew up in single family suburban homes.
That's a good point, but I think part of the theory is that millenials - at least the yuppie ones- are in good shape and may stay that way, and be less concerned with walking around at 50.
I don't think being 50 makes people less inclined to walk to downtown than being 30. Being 50 might may them less inclined to play basketball or run a marathon. But if you were walking a mile or two to the store at 30, you are probably still able and willing to do so at 50. With the exception of those affected with a serious injury or medical condition, the people who don't walk at 50 didn't walk at 30 either. (80 is a different issue.)
As people pass out of young adulthood, they tend to have young children with whom it is impracticable to walk a distance. Moreover, unfortunately, people are often less healthy as they pass into middle age, which also means less walking.
BTW, I am not sure I agree with Der Leider. Yes, there are more millenials than baby boomers. On the other hand, baby boomers, when they were young, made up a larger proportion of the population. That's why baby boomers have been dominant in the culture since the 1960s. Perhaps they will enrich millenials with inherited 401(k)'s, but certainly a lot of boomers are not at all prepared for retirement, and may well run through much of their assets.
Yes, millennials have it rough. They are in a position analogous to those who attained adulthood in the 1930s. Then too, marriage and childbearing were postponed. The 30s generation was saved by the prosperity brought by World War II (FDR was not that successful); what will save the generation of the 2010s?
BTW, I am not sure I agree with Der Leider. Yes, there are more millenials than baby boomers. On the other hand, baby boomers, when they were young, made up a larger proportion of the population. That's why baby boomers have been dominant in the culture since the 1960s. Perhaps they will enrich millenials with inherited 401(k)'s, but certainly a lot of boomers are not at all prepared for retirement, and may well run through much of their assets.
Yes, millennials have it rough. They are in a position analogous to those who attained adulthood in the 1930s. Then too, marriage and childbearing were postponed. The 30s generation was saved by the prosperity brought by World War II (FDR was not that successful); what will save the generation of the 2010s?
No one is going to have the influence of the boomers, probably ever in the history of the nation. The combined situation of no one having kids in the 1929 to 1945 era and everyone having quite a few (that survived at a much higher rate than before) is probably never going to happen again.
Boomers running through their assets seems like a pretty good savior - money spent is jobs for Millenials isn't it.
Whic his my main point. Millenials are numerically superior to Gen X. But their main benefit will be that the country will finally be moving on from the Boomers (who will shrink in number and influence) just as Millenials are hitting their strides. Basically simply being out of the shadows of the Boomers will (and to some extent already has) allow them to be much more influential than Gen X.
This post was edited on 10/16 9:49 AM by derleider
Boomer expenditures will go up as their health diminishes, but will millenials be on the high-wage jobs that benefit from that? We don't know yet.
Yes, the boomers were extremely influential. It is too bad that much of their influence was for the negative. The boomer generation did not do one thing to invest in the infrastructure improvements their parents made. Their politicians got us into a stupid unwinnable war, I would not criticize any millenial who felt bitterly toward my generation.
Yes, the boomers were extremely influential. It is too bad that much of their influence was for the negative. The boomer generation did not do one thing to invest in the infrastructure improvements their parents made. Their politicians got us into a stupid unwinnable war, I would not criticize any millenial who felt bitterly toward my generation.
A couple of points.
1.) Walking with small children is one hell of a lot easier than packing everything into a car. A small trip to the store in the city has been much better than a small trip to the store in the suburbs. Once my daughter was 2 we got rid of the stroller and she will happily walk for miles without complaint. Heck the walk to school everyday is over a mile. Kids who visit us from the suburbs whine after a block.
2.) My older relatives, in their 60s and 70s have moved to downtowns. Mobility may become an issue, but no more of one than driving as they get older.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
1.) Walking with small children is one hell of a lot easier than packing everything into a car. A small trip to the store in the city has been much better than a small trip to the store in the suburbs. Once my daughter was 2 we got rid of the stroller and she will happily walk for miles without complaint. Heck the walk to school everyday is over a mile. Kids who visit us from the suburbs whine after a block.
2.) My older relatives, in their 60s and 70s have moved to downtowns. Mobility may become an issue, but no more of one than driving as they get older.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Jumping back into this topic, good conversation so far. I believe a bunch of posters have hit the nail on the head on why "growth" of cities are modest and will likely not continue - the quality of public schools. If you think this through, folks that like cities and have the money to send their kids to private schools very well may stick around. However, those without private school money are still going to get the hell out of dodge for Bridgewater, Bernards, East Brunswick, Marlboro, etc. and the higher quality public schools (or Montclair-like towns).
If this continues, the demos in cities are essentially going to be the haves and the have-nots, which is never a good dynamic.
If this continues, the demos in cities are essentially going to be the haves and the have-nots, which is never a good dynamic.
Its the historic dynamic though. The inner cities being the domain of the poor is basically a post-war thing due to rapid subrubanization and at least in the US racial preferences (if not outright discrimination).
The inrony of course is - if all of those people stayed in place, and the private school people bucked up and put their kids in public shcool, the schools in cities would end up being fine. Its the parents largely that make the schools. But no one really wants to be a trend setter with their kids future at stake, understandably.
