Columbus and Millennials (Cleveland, Cincinnati, Oregon: 2015, apartment complexes, how much)

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by SyraBrian

For some of these cities, there's no room in city proper. They're small and dense and the older folks love their city so much they're not moving out.

Portland has a 2.7% vacancy rate. It was 6.5% ten years ago. Columbus is at 4.7% and was at 13.5% ten years ago. A lot more available spots were able to be filled in Columbus.

None of Columbus' peers are these massive NYC-style density cities, and even NYC finds room to grow. And as I said, Columbus's density is actually a lot higher than people seem to believe. Portland and Columbus have city densities that are not that far apart- About 4300 vs. 3800, respectively. Columbus is the faster growing city, so its density is increasing faster as well, so the gap is closing.

From what I can tell, those vacancy rates are from 2013, right? Columbus' residential vacancy, at least in the inner city, is only 1-2%, and not much higher than that overall for the whole city. And vacancy rates don't really tell a full story, and they certainly don't tell you who is moving in.

I guess I'm just not sure how this would affect Millennial growth rates that much.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Kamms

I was just going from the list you cited.

Yes, that's what I am referring to. A lot of the cities on this list would be cheaper places to live, and many of them at least have decent economies. I think both other 2-Cs are a bit cheaper, and both metros have unemployment rates at or below the national average. So why aren't they attracting this demographic at a more similar rate? I guess I'm looking more for discussion on why certain cities are doing better if some of the conditions are the same.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Yes, that's what I am referring to. A lot of the cities on this list would be cheaper places to live, and many of them at least have decent economies. I think both other 2-Cs are a bit cheaper, and both metros have unemployment rates at or below the national average. So why aren't they attracting this demographic at a more similar rate? I guess I'm looking more for discussion on why certain cities are doing better if some of the conditions are the same.

Pretty easy question: One of the largest state universities in the country has something to do with it.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

Really not sure why "millennials" are just outright considered to be "good". I personally think more families in cities would be better than just a bunch of single 20 somethings. Because guess where these millennials go when they have a kid?

I get that 20 and 30 somethings do provide some energy and innovation. But I don't know, I'd be willing to bet that there are more millennials within five square miles where I'm writing this than in all of Columbus. They're not here because any vague concept of a city "did" anything to "attract" them. Plus, most of them will be leaving for somewhere else within a 1-3 years.

The assumption that Millennials will abandon the city as soon as they have kids goes back to the belief that cities can't provide a positive environment for families, and I really don't think that is true anymore. It seems totally outdated to me. While urban schools still need a lot of work, as I've argued before, parental guidance makes the real difference, not test score rankings by district. And with generally falling crime (maybe not this year for many cities), increased amenities, etc., cities are definitely in a lot better shape than they were in the 1960s and 1970s when a lot of the suburban migration was taking place. Part of that transformation, if not a majority chunk of it, has been through a combination of Millennials and perhaps older empty nesters moving back. If the population of this demographic is growing, even is some are leaving for the suburbs, it still means more are moving in than moving out. And even if every single one moved out, the city will still end up in better shape than they found it, and that means future generations will continue to move in.

Boston is not a Columbus peer, though, but even if it was, the city itself has about 17,000 fewer than in Columbus, but its % of population is a few % points higher, so I think they're actually fairly comparable.

You do raise a point that I want to check out though, about families. One way to check if families are moving in is to look at the household size numbers and see how they are changing. If household size is increasing, then it would indicate that they're not all headed to the suburbs after all.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

The assumption that Millennials will abandon the city as soon as they have kids goes back to the belief that cities can't provide a positive environment for families, and I really don't think that is true anymore. It seems totally outdated to me. While urban schools still need a lot of work, as I've argued before, parental guidance makes the real difference, not test score rankings by district. And with generally falling crime (maybe not this year for many cities), increased amenities, etc., cities are definitely in a lot better shape than they were in the 1960s and 1970s when a lot of the suburban migration was taking place. Part of that transformation, if not a majority chunk of it, has been through a combination of Millennials and perhaps older empty nesters moving back. If the population of this demographic is growing, even is some are leaving for the suburbs, it still means more are moving in than moving out. And even if every single one moved out, the city will still end up in better shape than they found it, and that means future generations will continue to move in.

Boston is not a Columbus peer, though, but even if it was, the city itself has about 17,000 fewer than in Columbus, but its % of population is a few % points higher, so I think they're actually fairly comparable.

You do raise a point that I want to check out though, about families. One way to check if families are moving in is to look at the household size numbers and see how they are changing. If household size is increasing, then it would indicate that they're not all headed to the suburbs after all.

Well, thinking about bostons 40 sq miles compared to Columbus and its 220 sq miles is pretty insane. Let's talk metros. It'd be a huge mistake to ignore Cambridge, about a quarter mile from downtown Boston and home of Harvard and mit. Tufts in Somerville, Boston college in chestnut hill, etc. there are 600,000 students in the Boston area, which is more than 25% of Columbus metro population, in only students alone. I guess I'm just saying that I don't think having excessive numbers of young people is inherently good or bad. Just don't understand the preoccupation with age. I would prioritize skill, for example, whether you're 18 or 62.

I didn't say cities don't offer things for families. I'm saying the majority of families do not live in the cities.

[jbcmh81]

Okay, I just did a quick look...

Between 2005-2014, Columbus' total family households rose from 170,851 to 187,208, or about a 9.6% increase. Those families with children under 18 increased from 94,616 to 99,030, or a 4.7% increase. So yes, families are moving into the city. However, non-family households are increasing much faster, from 130,474 to 151,937, for a 16.5% increase.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

Well, thinking about bostons 40 sq miles compared to Columbus and its 220 sq miles is pretty insane. Let's talk metros. It'd be a huge mistake to ignore Cambridge, about a quarter mile from downtown Boston and home of Harvard and mit. Tufts in Somerville, Boston college in chestnut hill, etc. there are 600,000 students in the Boston area, which is more than 25% of Columbus metro population, in only students alone. I guess I'm just saying that I don't think having excessive numbers of young people is inherently good or bad. Just don't understand the preoccupation with age. I would prioritize skill, for example, whether you're 18 or 62.

I didn't say cities don't offer things for families. I'm saying the majority of families do not live in the cities.

Sure, Boston is much smaller, that's why I gave the % of population, which is probably a better metric than totals. At present growth rates, Columbus' % of population will be where Boston's is right now in just a few years, so they're actually pretty close as far as this demographic's presence in the city goes. They have roughly the same impact, despite the overall city size difference.

If you're wanting to compare metros, the population differences are every bit as stark as they are with city size, only the opposite. The Boston metro had 688,795 people aged 25-34 in 2014 while Columbus had 303,853. Columbus actually had a slightly higher % of population, at 15.2% vs. 14.6%. Keep in mind that my comparison wasn't necessarily about student population, as the age group I looked at, for the most part, would already be graduated.

And I didn't make any claim that it was necessarily good or bad, only that this generation is and will continue to have impacts on many things in regards to cities just because of its sheer size alone. And they're certainly being hyped in recent years, so I just wanted to see where Columbus' peers stood.

Sure, but the majority of people in any metro do not live in the core city. For one thing, it would be impossible for everyone to live in the city even if they wanted to, and the costs to try would be huge just because it is a lot cheaper to build in green fields than it is to increase density in an existing neighborhood, mostly because the costs to build out in the burbs are subsidized.

BTW, I did look at the numbers. Total family households in the city grew by about 9% since 2005, while non-family households grew about 16.5%. Families with children under 18 grew by about 5%. So families are moving into Columbus, just not as fast as non-families.

[steelers1523]

No offense to Columbus, but it doesn't compare to Boston. Totally different animals.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by steelers1523

No offense to Columbus, but it doesn't compare to Boston. Totally different animals.

I've already stated that they are not peers.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

Pretty easy question: One of the largest state universities in the country has something to do with it.

OSU is a great feeder for millennials taking entry-level jobs.