Gen-Y doesn't want to live in the burbs

[BKDotCom]

http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/no-mcmansions-for-millennials.html

Here's what Generation Y doesn't want: formal living rooms, soaker bathtubs, dependence on a car.

In other words, they don't want their parents' homes.

Much of this week's National Association of Home Builders conference has dwelled on the housing needs of an aging baby boomer population. But their children actually represent an even larger demographic. An estimated 80 million people comprise the category known as "Gen Y," youth born roughly between 1980 and the early 2000s. The boomers, meanwhile, boast 76 million.
Slide Show: How to Sell Your HomeHow to Sell Your HOme

Gen Y housing preferences are the subject of at least two panels at this week's convention. A key finding: They want to walk everywhere. Surveys show that 13% carpool to work, while 7% walk, said Melina Duggal, a principal with Orlando-based real estate adviser RCLCO. A whopping 88% want to be in an urban setting, but since cities themselves can be so expensive, places with shopping, dining and transit such as Bethesda and Arlington in the Washington suburbs will do just fine.

"One-third are willing to pay for the ability to walk," Ms. Duggal said. "They don't want to be in a cookie-cutter type of development. ...The suburbs will need to evolve to be attractive to Gen Y."

Outdoor space is important-but please, just a place to put the grill and have some friends over. Lawn-mowing not desired. Amenities such as fitness centers, game rooms and party rooms are important ("Is the room big enough to host a baby shower?" a millennial might think). "Outdoor fire pits," suggested Tony Weremeichik of Canin Associates, an architecture firm in Orlando. "Consider designing outdoor spaces as if they were living rooms."

Smaller rooms and fewer cavernous hallways to get everywhere, a bigger shower stall and skip the tub, he said. Oh, but don't forget space in front of the television for the Wii, and space to eat meals while glued to the tube, because dinner parties and families gathered around the table are so last-Gen. And maybe a little nook in the laundry room for Rover's bed?

In his presentation, KTGY Group residential designer David Senden showed slide after slide of dwellings that looked like a cross between a hotel lobby and the set of "Melrose Place."

He christened the subset of the generation delaying marriage and family as "dawdlers."

"A house in the suburbs is not for them," Mr. Senden said. "At least not yet."

Places to congregate are more important than a big apartment, he cautioned. He showed one layout of a studio apartment-350 square feet, as big as Mom and Dad's Great Room. Common space has migrated to "club rooms," he said, where Gen-Y residents can host meals and hang out before heading to a common movie-screening room or rooftop swimming pool that they share with the building's other tenants.

The Great Recession and its effects on young people's wages will affect how much home they can buy or rent for years to come.

"Not too many college grads can afford a lot of space in the city," he said. "Think lots of amenities with little tiny units-and a lot of them to keep (fees) down. ...The things these places are doing is constantly coordinating activities. The residents get to know each other and it makes for a much livelier and friendlier environment."

[dsjeffries]

Many of their statements regarding our living preferences (tiny apartments with communal living spaces) are pretty big assumptions, but at least the home builders are finally starting to listen to people that have needs which don't fall under The Rules and Order of Cul-De-Sac Suburbia.

[buckeye]

Could be that they're all about the ages when rebelling against the 'rents (however subtly) and feeling righteously informed is the default paradigm.  Wait 'till they get old enough to realize they don't stand much of a chance changing the world, then maybe the burbs and a cushy Volvo will look more attractive.    Who knows...

Dependence on a car?  Such a foreign thought to me...  I jealously guard and cherish the freedom of a car.  Maybe this is the generation that grew up driving Toyota Corollas and have no understanding of the visceral experience of driving.  They view cars as the neutered blandmobile that typifies so many "sensible" vehicles...like waiting room decor.  I wouldn't be interested in such an actively dulling experience either.  Gawd, the test drive I took in a base model Imprezza was like reading a collection of sample questions from elementary school standardized tests.

No offense to you folks that like those cars I've just vigorously disparaged.  But seriously, drive something interesting for a change just to see what it's like.

It is nice that homebuilders are taking notice, at least to get some variety in their output.

[we vs us]

Boy, that article's pretty condescending.   Not that it's not correct on substance but damn . . . "dawdlers?"  That's harsh, and I'm not even a Y'er.

The idea that suburban living is inevitable with age (and, supposedly, wisdom) is probably the worst part. It undercuts the importance of all the New Urbanism projects that the 2000's have seen across the country -- not least of which is the reclamation of numerous downtown cores in cities around the US.

Meh.  It's like my grandpa wrote this.

[runfromtulsa]

Gen Y will get older and not want to walk everywhere eventually.

[Red Arrow]

Gen Y will get older and not want to walk everywhere eventually.

And (hopefully) eventually even older and not be able to drive everywhere.

I support urban living styles for those that want it.  Maybe it will keep someone from building another development with houses 5 feet from each other out here in suburbia.  It's not urban living and it's too dense for suburbia and our present infrastructure.

[nathanm]

Maybe it will keep someone from building another development with houses 5 feet from each other out here in suburbia.  It's not urban living and it's too dense for suburbia and our present infrastructure.

The worst of both worlds, that. At least we agree on something these days.

[Red Arrow]

At least we agree on something these days.

Statistics say it's bound to happen occasionally.   

[TeeDub]

I guess my brother doesn't fit that mold.

He is a Gen Y'er and he and his fiancee (also a gen Y'er) are looking for a nice place in the burbs.    And no, they also don't want to pay for more buses or high speed rail.

[Red Arrow]

And no, they also don't want to pay for more buses or high speed rail.

Have you or they ever lived somewhere with convenient, reliable public transit?  I would prefer streetcar/light rail to buses but that's a prejudice from my youth.

[SXSW]

I guess my brother doesn't fit that mold.

He is a Gen Y'er and he and his fiancee (also a gen Y'er) are looking for a nice place in the burbs.    And no, they also don't want to pay for more buses or high speed rail.

Obviously not every Gen Y'er will want to live in the inner city.  But there is a large majority that do, much larger than the previous generation. 

[TheArtist]

I guess my brother doesn't fit that mold.

He is a Gen Y'er and he and his fiancee (also a gen Y'er) are looking for a nice place in the burbs.    And no, they also don't want to pay for more buses or high speed rail.

Well I am sick and tired of paying for roads out to the boonies and 100million dollars per mile highway widening projects.

 Tell ya what, lets not have the government pay for any transportation projects, period,,, and let the private sector decide.  Lets see what develops that way.  Bet ya you will see more density, more pedestrian friendly areas, and more mass transit.

  Via the government, we have created an artificially expensive transportation system, then complain that we don't have the money to do anything different (and complain about high gas prices).

Its nice your brother gets what he wants then shoves his lifestyle down the rest of our throats (and lungs via pollution) and forces us to pay for it whether we like it or not, then says he won't budge on divvying up any funding for what we would like.

[TeeDub]

Its nice your brother gets what he wants then shoves his lifestyle down the rest of our throats and forces us to pay for it whether we like it or not, then says he won't budge on divvying up any funding for what we would like.

It is isn't it.    Tulsa had trolleys back in the 50s.   The powers that be realized it wasn't profitable and that people wanted the convenience that taking their own car allowed.   

I tried riding the bus in Tulsa.   It was great, but also was inconvenient.  When I had to stay for a meeting or work late I had to rely on friends who had cars to get home.    Unfortunately Tulsa just isn't the dense environment you have on the East or West coasts and it never will be.   You _might_ be able to get a small urban walkable district like they have in downtown Ft. Worth, but even that will be mediocre at best.   

[TheArtist]

It is isn't it.    Tulsa had trolleys back in the 50s.   The powers that be realized it wasn't profitable and that people wanted the convenience that taking their own car allowed.  

I tried riding the bus in Tulsa.   It was great, but also was inconvenient.  When I had to stay for a meeting or work late I had to rely on friends who had cars to get home.    Unfortunately Tulsa just isn't the dense environment you have on the East or West coasts and it never will be.   You _might_ be able to get a small urban walkable district like they have in downtown Ft. Worth, but even that will be mediocre at best.    

Lets start by making it legal to create more pedestrian friendly areas.  We could even be so bold as to zone for pedestrian friendly areas like we do car oriented development areas.  Trolleys became less and less "profitable" as the old "convenient" mixed use, pedestrian friendly environments were made illegal in favor of car oriented development.

Why is it that other places, like Salt Lake City for instance, can successfully endeavor to create more pedestrian friendly/mass transit friendly areas and greatly increase their rail/brt offerings.... but for some reason its impossible for us to?  Btw, Salt Lake City is booming, economically and population wise, all the while greatly expanding their rail and even building rail lines to suburban areas that have new TOD (Transit Oriented Development).  If that fiscally conservative city thinks its economically wise "and convenient"  to do what they are doing, why must it be wrong for us?

[Townsend]

It is isn't it.    Tulsa had trolleys back in the 50s.   The powers that be realized it wasn't profitable and that people wanted the convenience that taking their own car allowed.   

You've got that wrong.

General Motors removed them and replaced them with GM busses.  In time, sprawl.

Van Wilkins sought to diminish the significance of National City Lines by claiming that, with regard to railways acquired in Tulsa, Salt Lake City and Los Angeles, the decision to abandon at least some of the electric lines had already been made. Yet this was not at all unexpected, for National was but part of GM's multifaceted anti-rail strategy. Tulsa, for example, as acquired and converted by another GM-assisted holding company, Rex Finance, before it was turned over to National. GM agents pressed Salt Lake City to convert to buses before GM's Pacific City Lines bought the system.

http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm