Here's an interesting piece about that from the New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/...column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/...column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I read that article earlier today, and thought of some of the discussion that have been had on this board. As I've indicated in those discussions, I think that as millennials age and raise families, they'll move to the suburban house with back yards just like the baby boomer yuppies that preceded them. On the other hand, aging former yuppies, who are now empty nesters, are likely to move to more urban areas, as will the next generation of 30-year-olds, so there is not a real risk of vibrant cities dying (although they will continue to evolve, possibly replacing noisy bars with more subdued venues that would appeal to older patrons).
What the article does not get into is where these people are moving.
I get constant solicitations to sell my condo and move to Montclair, Westfield, Maplewood...the usual suspects.
Most other people I know are not moving to suburbs without a train, good schools, or both. And we have enough places in NJ that are outside of that category. What then?
The three towns you cite are not exactly cheap. What will happen to millennials who are having children and can't afford those places? They will end up picking between the easy train access and good schools. If history is a guide, they will pick good schools. Flemington has excellent public schools and so people live there despite the difficult commute to NYC. How many suburbs can you think of with neither train access nor good schools?
I'd say most Flemington residents don't commute to NYC. You have pharma and finance much closer like Princeton, Hopewell, Bridgewater, New Bruns, etc.
Now that I think about it, you're probably right. My wife's late husband commuted to the World Trade Center for a while but, after the first bombing, got re-located to the Princeton office of his company. Note that there is no train between Flemington and any of the places you cite. It shows that train service is not essential to being a desirable suburb.
Yeah my girlfriend lives in Flemington so I've become very familiar to the area over the last year. We both work finance in Hopewell. When we go to the city we usually drive up to Raritan or Bridgewater and just take the train from there. Raritan Line sucks though as you have to transfer in Newark and I'm used to the NJ Coast and NE Corridor lines where you don't have to.
The three towns you cite are not exactly cheap. What will happen to millennials who are having children and can't afford those places? They will end up picking between the easy train access and good schools. If history is a guide, they will pick good schools. Flemington has excellent public schools and so people live there despite the difficult commute to NYC. How many suburbs can you think of with neither train access nor good schools?
I really didn't know there was anything much in Hopewell. To me, it's just a place one reaches off Route 31. Didn't know that Raritan and Bridgewater have train stations. I agree that having to change trains in Newark is far from ideal. Maybe it's not so bad for people who take the PATH line into lower Manhattan.
Well if you own here you likely have the equity for Montclair etc.
I am thinking the exurban towns and areas like Warren and Sussex (outside of Sparta), Ocean County, some areas in Monmouth.
Montclair has walkable downtown areas. But it costs you. The lower cost alternative to Montclair isn't moving to Warren County, it is moving to Clifton, Little Falls, West Orange, or Nutley.
Most people who live in Warren County don't commute to NYC. They commute to jobs in NJ or to jobs in the Lehigh Valley.
Suburban office complexes have had trouble filling space though.
Between 14 and 22 percent of the suburban office inventory in these areas is “in some stage of obsolescence,” suggesting that between 600 million and 1 billion square feet of office space are far from ideal for the modern company and worker. That’s about 7.5 percent of the country’s entire office inventory.
Parsippany was one of the focus areas.
http://www.citylab.com/work/2016/01/the-sad-state-of-suburban-office-parks/422442/
Do you really see these land-intensive complexes moving back to more urban areas? Given modern communications, suburbia and exurbia would seem ideal for them.
No, more and more folks are working from home. Even in Pharma, which was the leader in large office complexes. Employees are going home, not cities.Do you really see these land-intensive complexes moving back to more urban areas? Given modern communications, suburbia and exurbia would seem ideal for them.
No, more and more folks are working from home. Even in Pharma, which was the leader in large office complexes. Employees are going home, not cities.
I have 12 people on my team:But are they working from home five days a week? Some workers who did found that they were at a real disadvantage in finding out what was going on. So they need some place to go to, right?
I have 12 people on my team:
2 live in the DC area (in the office 1-2 days a week)
3 live in NYC (in the office 2-3 days a week)
1 lives in DE (in the office 1-2 days a week)
6 live in NJ (in the office 3 days a week on average)
I live 20 mins away and in 3-4 days a week (mainly due to my proximity)
This is becoming the norm, lots of work from the "home office". We use a web/ex platform for meetings and all of our conference rooms are integrated. Our office has a lot of flex/open space for folks to use. Traditional offices are now desks/work stations. You can fit twice the people in the same square footage when compared to the past. Also, rent prices are still much, much cheaper in the burbs than cities.
Yes, families with school-age kids will continue to leave cities, unless they have the money for private schools. One other dynamic that helps folks live in the cities and work in the suburbs is that the "reverse" commute is always better than the other way around. Cities still blow to get into.Thanks for the info. This is one of the rare times that we agree -- those office complexes are staying in the suburbs. But it does sound as though it is increasingly possible for employees to live in an urban area if they want because they don't have to be in the office five days a week. So maybe some millennials will be able to stay in the city and go to work in the suburbs -- although I doubt they'll want to live in the city once they have school-age children.
Yes, families with school-age kids will continue to leave cities, unless they have the money for private schools. One other dynamic that helps folks live in the cities and work in the suburbs is that the "reverse" commute is always better than the other way around. Cities still blow to get into.
I have 12 people on my team:
2 live in the DC area (in the office 1-2 days a week)
3 live in NYC (in the office 2-3 days a week)
1 lives in DE (in the office 1-2 days a week)
6 live in NJ (in the office 3 days a week on average)
I live 20 mins away and in 3-4 days a week (mainly due to my proximity)
This is becoming the norm, lots of work from the "home office". We use a web/ex platform for meetings and all of our conference rooms are integrated. Our office has a lot of flex/open space for folks to use. Traditional offices are now desks/work stations. You can fit twice the people in the same square footage when compared to the past. Also, rent prices are still much, much cheaper in the burbs than cities.