http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/no-mcmansions-for-millennials.html
Quote
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."
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.
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.
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.
Gen Y will get older and not want to walk everywhere eventually.
Quote from: runfromtulsa on May 17, 2011, 07:03:59 PM
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.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 17, 2011, 10:36:52 PM
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. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on May 17, 2011, 11:44:00 PM
At least we agree on something these days. ;)
Statistics say it's bound to happen occasionally. :D
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.
Quote from: TeeDub on May 18, 2011, 09:31:25 AM
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.
Quote from: TeeDub on May 18, 2011, 09:31:25 AM
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.
Quote from: TeeDub on May 18, 2011, 09:31:25 AM
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.
Quote from: TheArtist on May 18, 2011, 10:47:48 AM
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.
Quote from: TeeDub on May 18, 2011, 10:53:22 AM
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?
Quote from: TeeDub on May 18, 2011, 10:53:22 AM
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.
QuoteVan 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 (http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm)
Quote from: TheArtist on May 18, 2011, 11:05:33 AM
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?
But even their "booming" light rail still has not (and most likely will never) pay for itself. Then again, by that rationale, the highway system doesn't pay for itself either. I guess it comes down to how many infrastructure networks do I need/want to subsidize.
Quote from: TheArtist on May 18, 2011, 10:47:48 AM
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.
All the roads to the casinos would be really great...
Quote from: Townsend on May 18, 2011, 11:16:07 AM
You've got that wrong.
General Motors removed them and replaced them with GM busses. In time, sprawl.
Partly wrong. Many rail lines, both street cars and interurbans, were not very profitable and poorly maintained. Part of the nonprofitability compared to buses was due to franchise requirements with cities. Not only were fees required of the private companies but the rail companies often had to maintain the streets as well as their tracks. Unregulated jitneys often stole riders from transit companies. Buses were new, clean, and compared to the decaying rail system, comfortable. GM, Firestone, and Standard Oil were the last several straws that broke the the trolley's back.
I believe a case could be made that the origins of sprawl were enabled by trolleys/interurbans. Before convenient, affordable mass transit, everyone had to walk to work. With the advent of mass transit, a lot more people could escape the crowded living conditions of the city. Many at the time chose to do that. Transit Oriented Development created suburbs which were a lot less crowded than the inner city.
Many of our newest suburban developments are sufficiently dense to support light rail. I base this on the density of the area in suburban Philadelphia, PA where I spent my first 20 years. A big problem for any mass transit is the scattered nature of employment in our area.
Quote from: TeeDub on May 18, 2011, 11:21:30 AM
I guess it comes down to how many infrastructure networks do I need/want to subsidize.
Supporting rail for others helps keep the traffic count down so I don't get so stuck in so much congestion.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 18, 2011, 12:54:48 PM
Supporting rail for others helps keep the traffic count down so I don't get so stuck in so much congestion.
Having worked all over Tulsa, I have seldom if ever gotten stuck in more than 10 minutes of congestion.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 18, 2011, 12:54:48 PM
Supporting rail for others helps keep the traffic count down so I don't get so stuck in so much congestion.
If it gets more texters off the road, fine with me.
Quote from: TeeDub on May 18, 2011, 01:05:07 PM
Having worked all over Tulsa, I have seldom if ever gotten stuck in more than 10 minutes of congestion.
Lucky you.
I've not always been so lucky. When 169 was only done as far south as 51st St and I worked at Cherokee Industrial Park (66th N & Lakewood), it frequently took me 30 minutes just to go from 111th & Memorial to get on 169. Until Memorial was expanded to 6 lanes south of the turnpike, it frequently took 10 minutes just to get from the turnpike to 101st. Try going anywhere along 71st between Memorial and Garnett on a Saturday.
My present drive is 10 miles and usually about 15 to 20 minutes, depending on traffic. If I get on Memorial at the wrong time, the drive can easily become 25 minutes, about 10 minutes worth of congestion compared to a relatively clear road.
I forgot, when I worked at 41st & Sheridan (long ago) it took about 1/2 hour to go 7 miles. Expensive road expansion helped ease that, but only for a while.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 18, 2011, 01:38:25 PM
Lucky you.
I've not always been so lucky. When 169 was only done as far south as 51st St and I worked at Cherokee Industrial Park (66th N & Lakewood), it frequently took me 30 minutes just to go from 111th & Memorial to get on 169. Until Memorial was expanded to 6 lanes south of the turnpike, it frequently took 10 minutes just to get from the turnpike to 101st. Try going anywhere along 71st between Memorial and Garnett on a Saturday.
My present drive is 10 miles and usually about 15 to 20 minutes, depending on traffic. If I get on Memorial at the wrong time, the drive can easily become 25 minutes, about 10 minutes worth of congestion compared to a relatively clear road.
I forgot, when I worked at 41st & Sheridan (long ago) it took about 1/2 hour to go 7 miles. Expensive road expansion helped ease that, but only for a while.
Do you take the Creek at Memorial, or 121st around to Delaware/Riverside?
Quote from: Conan71 on May 18, 2011, 01:52:23 PM
Do you take the Creek at Memorial, or 121st around to Delaware/Riverside?
Yes.
In the morning I take the Creek from Memorial to Jenks (and get tied up in High School traffic on Peoria/Elm, come on summer break). Sometimes I catch most of the 7 traffic lights in 1-1/2 miles green. If not, add at least 1 minute to the drive for each light. Riverside going into Jenks is intolerable at 7:30ish.
In the evening I go through downtown Jenks to Delaware and 121st. Getting on the Creek at 5 PM is bad enough but going south on Memorial is icing on the congestion cake. Stupid drivers cause as much or more problems as the quantity of cars. All the traffic lights are no help either.
TeeDub has missed a lot of areas. 31st and Sheridan. Almost anywhere along Memorial. 51st & Harvard - both before and during construction. 169 during traffic time. BA expressway. There are many 10 + minute waits around town.
Trolleys from the 50s and before. They were extremely viable and practical (cost effective) as a city provided service. This is where the unknown history - or lost history - or something - comes into play. What they didn't teach you in school, TeeDub, was the fact of GM systematically targeting trolley and bus systems throughout the country with destruction of same as the only intent and goal. Even though they built buses...they wanted buses to replace trolleys, and cars to replace buses since there was much more profit to be had in selling a car.
Nothing less than the destruction of public transportation was the achieved goal. And lest one think it is just my paranoid "conspiracy theorist" tendencies - this is well documented. The company was prosecuted. And convicted.
Kind of like John Pickle company in Tulsa, no real consequences ensued ($1 fines to the executives involved), but the evidence was massive and overwhelming.
http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm
http://national-city-lines.co.tv/
Another interesting article from Bradford Snell linking GM to Hitler and the Nazis during the 30's and Sloans, President of GM, disdain and disliking of FDR and the New Deal. Apperently Sloan was more intersted in the economic recovery of Germany than the US.
"This documentation and other evidence reveals that GM and Opel were eager, willing and indispensable cogs in the Third Reich´s rearmament juggernaut, a rearmament that, as many feared during the 1930s would enable Hitler to conquer Europe and destroy millions of lives. The documentation also reveals that while General Motors was mobilizing the Third Reich and cooperating within Germany with Hitler´s Nazi revolution and economic recovery, GM and its president, Alfred P. Sloan, were undermining the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt and undermining America´s electric mass transit, and in doing so were helping addict the United States to oil."
Is this guy related to Michael Moore?
http://hnn.us/articles/37935.html (http://hnn.us/articles/37935.html)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 18, 2011, 05:23:30 PM
Trolleys from the 50s and before. They were extremely viable and practical (cost effective) as a city provided service.
Most, if not all, trolley companies started as private companies. Some survived as private companies for quite a while. Many were taken over by some sort of city or regional governmental authority. I doubt there are any totally privately owned trolley systems in regular commuter use today.
Worked and would work again as a city service.
Sloan isn't the only one to support Nazi Germany for way too long. But it's good for business, isn't it?
Union Banking Corporation was an investment bank controlled by the Thyssen family - BIG supporters of Hitler until their ox got gored a little bit. This is one of the major financial support institutions that allowed Hitler to do what he did. One of seven directors of that bank in THIS country was from one of the elitist families we have all come to know and love - Preston Bush.
It took Roosevelt until October 1942 to stop this activity. Shows how tough it is to slow the RWRE juggernaut - 3 years after the start of WWII and one year after WE got into it, someone kept on getting their profits while our soldiers were being killed in the Pacific and in northern Africa. Getting those profits from the enemy killing our soldiers. But with "plausible deniability", I'm sure no one in this country knew anything about Union Banking Corporation activities. Not even the board of directors. (Maybe kind of like Obama didn't know about Reverend Wright's personal thoughts?)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 18, 2011, 05:23:30 PM
TeeDub has missed a lot of areas. 31st and Sheridan. Almost anywhere along Memorial. 51st & Harvard - both before and during construction. 169 during traffic time. BA expressway. There are many 10 + minute waits around town.
Meh, there was always a backup leaving downtown, but seldom (discounting accidents and rubberneckers) was the actual stop time more than 10 minutes. Going down Memorial is never fun, but again, it wasn't like it took 30 minutes to go 2-3 miles. Even the last few years when I worked over at 41st and Skelly during the construction traffic would be "bad" but never was it anything like Dallas, Houston, or St. Louis at rush hour.
And yes, going north on Sheridan through 31st was miserable, but again, never more than 10 minutes.
I'm jinxed - seem to get caught for 10 and 15 a lot in some of those areas.
My new favorite is 41st between Sheridan and Yale. Went through there on a sight-seeing trip last weekend and took about 30 minutes to go from east to west. Mess.