Semi-OT: Population Shift in NJ to urban areas

[NotInRHouse]

The towns with the very best schools but no train will continue to do well. But, for example, from your list East Brunswick has great bus access and Marlboro has OK bus access. Marlboro still though had for the first time in decades a shrinking of the school population. I think Bridgewater has a train station, Bernards too.

This isn't really about those places- this about Warren and Sussex, parts of Ocean away from the Shore...places where there is no public transportation and where the schools are not good- that in the boom did well because people couldn't afford otherwise.

By NJ standards, a place like Marlboro or East Brunswick isn't terribly unaffordable. I considered buying there as an investment before I bought my place in JC, and I could have gotten a condo or townhouse for the same price that would have been double the size and that could have probably accommodated a family. Prices there have not increased like they have by me.

Also, it's important to note that in the case of those two towns, and some others, you now have a very strong Chinese, Indian and Russian presence- and people from those communities will continue to gravitate to those places because it's familiar.

 

[Upstream]

Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by T2Kplus10:
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.

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.

I think there are some issues being conflated here.

Growth in Hudson/Bergen Waterfront: The Hudson/Bergen Waterfront (especially Hoboken and Jersey City) have seen tremendous growth because they have essentially become outer boroughs with easy access to Manhattan.

Growth of Cities: There is no general growth of cities in NJ. Since 2010, with a few exceptions, all of NJ's major urban cities have seen population declines or growth slower than the state average. The exceptions are Bayonne, Jersey City, and Hoboken (which because of their location on the Hudson Waterfront have a completely different dynamic than other cities), and Elizabeth and New Brunswick. People are still abandoning Trenton and Paterson and Camden. Other cities like Newark are seeing growth below the state average.

Growth of Non-urban Cities in the Urban core: As the study that initiated this thread indicates, there is growth in the urban core region. But that growth is happening in the less urban areas surrounding cities. Woodland Park (previously known as West Paterson), Clifton, and Wayne have grown, even as Paterson has shrunk.

Growth in Walkable towns: There is a claim that there is a shift in preference (or a shift in economics that allows the preference to be exercised) contributing to growth of walkable towns. But these are not necessarily cities. These are potentially towns like Montclair, Highland Park, or Ridgefield, where people own homes with yards on quiet streets, but can walk to a downtown area. (NIRH claims this growth is driven by train access, but I still contend that there are not enough people taking the train for this to be a significant factor.)

 

[lawmatt78]

Originally posted by T2Kplus10:
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.

Have you considered the increased % of childless households? This is a long-term phenomenon with substantial implications.

http://housingperspectives.blogspot.com/2013/04/childless-households-have-become-norm.html

Growth in cities such as Seattle, Portland, San Fran, Austin, and Denver has been significant and sustained. The cities in NJ are lagging, but numerous others are thriving.



This post was edited on 10/17 10:02 PM by lawmatt78

 

[Upstream]

Originally posted by lawmatt78:

Growth in cities such as Seattle, Portland, San Fran, Austin, and Denver has been significant and sustained. The cities in NJ are lagging, but numerous others are thriving.

If you are going to use metro-center cities like Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, etc as your comparison, you should be comparing them to NJ cities like NYC and Philadelphia.

 

[NotInRHouse]

The demographics in much of North Jersey are an extension of NYC. The phenonmenon in Hudson County is just an extension of the one in Manhattan, and really, a couple of suburbs like Montclair and Maplewood are too.

Throughout the Northeast there are a lot of cities like Paterson and Newark- pretty much every comparably sized Connecticut city is a hole, for example. It's just a vestige of white flight and decline of industry, and these cities don't have the potential many other growing cities do when you look at their location. Even today, with prices increasing in Jersey City, there's still enough deals to be had that people are not looking in Newark. A place like Plainfield has basically nothing going for it- not even a direct train to the city at most hours. If you look at the comparable cities around the country, that phenomenon isn't changing. And none of these places have some guardian angel like that mortgage company guy in Detroit that is actively trying to create street life and draw people in.

 

[Upstream]

Another article from the NY Times (but with a national slant, not just NY metro).

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/upshot/where-young-college-graduates-are-choosing-to-live.html

 

[retired711]

Thanks for posting this. It seems to me that most of the places with the greatest revivals are places with relatively cheap housing. We may be about to see a resurgence of the midwest at the expense of the coasts.

 

[MoobyCow]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
Thanks for posting this. It seems to me that most of the places with the greatest revivals are places with relatively cheap housing. We may be about to see a resurgence of the midwest at the expense of the coasts.

I didn't see that from the stats. Maybe I missed it?

The top cities in % gain were: Houston, Nashville, Denver, Austin, Portland, Washington, Buffalo, Baltimore

That seems to be a pretty good mix of places. They're cheaper than NY, but Denver, Austin, Portland, Washington are not cheap and none of those places are the midwest (though Buffalo fits the profile of a rust belt city).

 

[NotInRHouse]

The article said 25% more college graduates live in metro areas than before, and of the 51 largest metro areas all saw an increase in college grads except for Detroit.

This points to what I and some others have been saying all along about people moving to urban areas. This is also leading to a very interesting political fragmentation where blue is become synonymous with urban and red with rural and purple for the in between.

And plenty of those places are expensive. A place in downtown Austin (I zillow when I travel, lol) is line with JC/Hoboken/BK prices and has NJ level or worse property taxes, and salaries are not as good as on the coasts. Plenty of other cities that are more popular these days like SF, DC, Portland are all fairly expensive in terms of the American mean...really the only cheap big city that has jobs these days is Houston.

 

[lawmatt78]

Originally posted by Upstream:

Originally posted by lawmatt78:

Growth in cities such as Seattle, Portland, San Fran, Austin, and Denver has been significant and sustained. The cities in NJ are lagging, but numerous others are thriving.

If you are going to use metro-center cities like Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, etc as your comparison, you should be comparing them to NJ cities like NYC and Philadelphia.

Huh?

I'm simply making the point that, if we look outside NJ, we see numerous examples of thriving cities and that what is happening inside the NJ border is a small part of the overall story and potentially misleading. I think all/most here are pretty familiar with NYC and Philly.

 

[lawmatt78]

Originally posted by MoobyCow:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
Thanks for posting this. It seems to me that most of the places with the greatest revivals are places with relatively cheap housing. We may be about to see a resurgence of the midwest at the expense of the coasts.

I didn't see that from the stats. Maybe I missed it?

The top cities in % gain were: Houston, Nashville, Denver, Austin, Portland, Washington, Buffalo, Baltimore

That seems to be a pretty good mix of places. They're cheaper than NY, but Denver, Austin, Portland, Washington are not cheap and none of those places are the midwest (though Buffalo fits the profile of a rust belt city).

Rents in Portland are going up and up. We have a very low vacancy rate and despite thousands of units in the pipeline, it will probably remain that way.

The increased rents made buying a place an easier decision for me. Now, we'll see how many of these renters decide to become homeowners (while still living in the city) in a few years. I'm thinking I made a pretty good investment. We shall see.

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by MoobyCow:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
Thanks for posting this. It seems to me that most of the places with the greatest revivals are places with relatively cheap housing. We may be about to see a resurgence of the midwest at the expense of the coasts.

I didn't see that from the stats. Maybe I missed it?

The top cities in % gain were: Houston, Nashville, Denver, Austin, Portland, Washington, Buffalo, Baltimore

That seems to be a pretty good mix of places. They're cheaper than NY, but Denver, Austin, Portland, Washington are not cheap and none of those places are the midwest (though Buffalo fits the profile of a rust belt city).

Thank you to you and NIRH for the good feedback. I learned a lot from your comments.