What's new

New Yorkers Look To Suburbs And Beyond. Other City Dwellers May Be Next

If I continued to live in NY it would be only natural for me to move to the suburbs. The feeling of the suburban life is much more enjoyable and relaxing for long term living. The city eventually grows tiring and if you're someone who likes to have your space then NYC can be get suffocating as there's so many people trying to "make it or break it" and not that many opportunities like before.
The only reason why anyone lives in Downtown is due to requirement of getting on work on Time beat rush hour every one hates being in Downtown , I hate downtowns any city

I like Easy life of Suburbs , enjoyable atmosphere
Completely feel you on this. The suburbs are relaxing, enjoyable and everyones having a good time. 8-)
 
.
There is Brooklyn and the suburbs, where new contracts surged in August, according to the latest market report from Douglas Elliman.

Then there is lonely old Manhattan, ... where the business community is taking every opportunity to tout the city’s unshakable foundation; ...

“That urban-to-suburban story has to be recast as Manhattan-to-suburban,” said appraiser Jonathan Miller, who compiled the report.

Since the pandemic hit, much has been made of the so-called “death” of cities. However a recent report from Zillow showed that urban and suburban residential real estate markets have mostly fared the same — the Northeast being the exception.

The pandemic is a huge driver, of course — but not only because it sparked a rush of interest in homes with privacy and outdoor space.

Deals in Brooklyn have mostly followed the upward trajectory of the suburbs. Co-op deals climbed 181 percent last month to a total of 138, the report showed. Most of them were in the $500,000-$999,000 range, followed by the second-largest bracket, under $500,000. There were zero co-op deals above $4 million.

Single-family home contracts totalled 128 in August — up from 50 in the same month last year.

“[Brooklyn] didn’t take the hit that Manhattan did, and it continues to show that,” Miller said, noting that demand appeared to be outpacing supply.

“If you look at the two of the three property types, there was larger growth in signed contracts than there was in new inventory coming on.”

Brooklyn and Queens, up to a certain distance along the East River is the sweet spot. The full effects of gentrification has created an oasis for a certain segment of the Manhattan crowd that wants the amenities but also more space.

Lots of people out jogging in these neighborhoods, they still feel safe, compared to other parts of Brooklyn and Queens.

Many people move to the suburbs so their kids can go to good schools, but with schools mostly shut down, you might as well stay close to your old social networks if you can afford it.

Single homes in these neighborhoods of Brooklyn and Queens would Be the most ideal, especially if you still have to eventually go back into the office in the city (Manhattan). Buying a home is One of the biggest decisions and a bad move can cost you years of income. While 300,000 people have left NYC, once this pandemic passes they maybe rushing back in, especially if the business community (as hinted in the article) can end the work from home option. Work from home will be the make or break factor for a lot of industries in New York.

The flight to the suburbs is like the mass exodus in the 1960s, but I don’t think it will take a generation for the more well off to consider moving back to the city, maybe after the current mayor is thrown out of office, and a new pro-business Bloomberg type is back in office, the wealthy will come back, along with their tax money. Give or it take 3-5 years IMHO.
 
Last edited:
. .
If Demography is Destiny, so are Suburbs and Small Towns

Policy and politics often collide at the intersection of geography and demographics. The non-urban, non-college-educated white voter causing concern among Democrats these days, the suburban voter of 2018, and the heartland voter of 2016 are all profiles built on the common interests of certain people in certain types of places.

After 18 months of domestic migration prompted by a pandemic, another interest in addition to where people live has emerged in this equation: where people wish they lived.

Americans of all stripes, including young people, have long preferred suburban to urban living despite the prevailing (mis)conception in the media, but the twin crises of Covid and urban unrest in 2020 have clearly accentuated Americans’ desire to leave denser places. Not only have Americans continued apace in their usual migration from cities to suburbs, they also now aspire to live in towns and hinterlands more than one might expect.

Americans’ desire to live in big cities is at the same level as when Gallup polled people one month after 9/11 when cities suddenly felt like terrorist targets – about 8 percent, down from 12 percent three years ago. Comparatively, 27 percent of Americans would prefer to live in a rural area.

When you look at where Americans live compared with where they would prefer to live, it is perhaps no surprise that a plurality of people in each type of municipality – big city, small city, suburb of a big city, suburb of a small city, town, or rural area – live in the kind of place they prefer. Still, with the exception of rural areas, a majority of people wish they lived somewhere else, and their preferences are almost always for smaller, less-dense places.

This “flight from density” proclivity shows that real people’s geographic interests depart from commonly accepted media narratives in some important ways.

First, a greater share of big city residents wish they lived elsewhere than residents in all other types of municipalities. According to new national survey data from the American Enterprise Institute, a greater share of people living in big cities would rather live in the suburbs than the city where they live (32 percent vs. 29 percent). Suburbanites, on the other hand, are fairly happy where they are, and those who are not mostly prefer something even less dense. Forty-three percent of people living in the suburbs of a big city say they prefer where they live to other places, while only 18 percent wished they lived in a city and 38 percent prefer a suburb of a smaller city, a town, or rural area.

Second, big cities are not as popular with young adults as is commonly thought. Except for Generation Z, there are more people in every generational group living in a big city than actually want to. And even though slightly more Gen Zers wish they lived in a big city than actually do, a greater share still prefer suburban living to the city. Perhaps most surprising is that 80 percent more millennials wish they lived in a rural area than actually do. This phenomenon is nearly identical among Gen Xers and Boomers. Roughly the same share (about 30 percent) of millennials prefers the suburbs as lives in them, while more millennials live in cities than want to.

Third, highly educated and affluent people are more suburban than is commonly assumed. Forty-eight percent of those earning more than $150,000 want to live in the suburbs versus 26 percent who prefer cities. Only 27 percent of college-educated Americans want to live in cities compared to the 37 percent who actually do, while 40 percent prefer the suburbs and another third prefer a small town or rural areas.

On the flip side, there are some aspects of the flight from density that reinforce some common assumptions. For instance, 21 percent of those with a high school degree live in a rural area but 34 percent would like to. Only 3 percent of people who describe themselves as “very conservative” want to live in big cities, compared with one in five who are “very liberal.” And even though 22 percent of conservatives live in rural areas, 39 percent wish they did. Moderates, perhaps fittingly, are likely to live in big city suburbs, and are quite content with suburban living. Nearly half (48 percent) of white evangelicals prefer to live in rural areas compared to the 30 percent who presently do, and while black Protestants are the most likely religious group to live in big cities, only 13 percent of them prefer big city living while 30 percent would like to live in a big city’s suburbs.

A kind of “density paradox” is at work in this general trend to suburbs and towns. Americans are, on the one hand, happiest when they live close to a blend of amenities such as parks and cafes, and yet when asked to choose between proximity to amenities and larger lot sizes farther from amenities, 57 percent prefer the latter. There are important ideological variations on this point, though. A little more than half of liberals prefer smaller houses and amenity proximity, while two-thirds of conservatives want larger houses farther from amenities. Moderates fall closer to the middle. Less than a third of white Evangelicals prefer compact communities with proximity to amenities, compared to about half of Black Protestants and nearly two-thirds of Jews.

As contented large city dwellers, there is very little about the flight from density that makes sense to us personally, but it is important for urbanites – and especially the cosmopolitan class over-represented in the media and political intelligentsia – to understand why so many Americans desire life outside big, dominant cities.

One reason is the atomization that can come from city life. Big city dwellers who want to leave are more disconnected from their community than those who want to stay, and live further away from amenities that make healthy community life possible. Only 9 percent of city dwellers who want to move away live in neighborhoods rich with amenities.

Urbanites who want to stay in the city report higher levels of neighborliness and a belief they have a say in what goes on in their neighborhood than those who want to leave. They are also more likely to say they have people they are close to and much less likely to feel isolated or left out.

For urbanites who want to leave big cities, crime is their biggest concern by a long shot. In a year when violent crime spiked across American cities, it is no surprise that “leavers” feel less safe at night than “remainers,” and they are more likely to favor an increased police presence in their neighborhood.

A greater share of homeowners in big cities want to leave the city than stay, which is flipped considerably in the suburbs where homeowners mostly want to stay put. Local taxes are a much bigger issue for Americans across the board than is commonly reported, which helps explain why homeowners in urban neighborhoods that are light on amenities and heavy on crime want out.

Suburbanites who wish they lived in towns and rural areas are less likely to be homeowners and more likely to be concerned about crime than contented suburbanites. High taxes are among the biggest concerns of all suburbanites.

For policymakers interested in how geography and demographics intersect in America at the moment, it is indisputable that the appeal of less density is ascendant, which is in turn driven by basic concerns such as safety and cost of living. Narratives about cities that many of us wish were true, simply aren’t.
 
Last edited:
. .
They don't call us "Taxachusetts" for nothing.
View attachment 651991
Illinois is right behind us (or ahead of us)

I feel your pain with taxes. It's slightly higher than $13K here.

Too Damn High!

iu


The median property tax on a $508,800.00 house is $3,001.00 in Los Angeles County.

Surrounding counties such as Orange and San Diego counties (which I'd say are the most desirable in the nation) aren't very much higher.

The median property tax on a $508,800.00 house is $5,342.40 in the United States. Again, too damn high. Probably making up for the lack of industrialization revenue.
If I continued to live in NY it would be only natural for me to move to the suburbs. The feeling of the suburban life is much more enjoyable and relaxing for long term living. The city eventually grows tiring and if you're someone who likes to have your space then NYC can be get suffocating as there's so many people trying to "make it or break it" and not that many opportunities like before.

Completely feel you on this. The suburbs are relaxing, enjoyable and everyones having a good time. 8-)

No way to find this in Manhattan. Everyday day is staycation for us - it's going to be 65 degrees today. Rubbing it in. :enjoy:

iu
 
.
The median property tax on a $508,800.00 house is $5,342.40 in the United States. Again, too damn high. Probably making up for the lack of industrialization revenue.

The $5000 only sounds bad if you have crappy services in return for it. If you get good stuff back the tax sounds like a bargain compared to all your other expenses.

This is why people are moving to the suburbs. You may pay higher taxes but if your schools are far better (and not built in 1910), the crime almost non-existent, the roads quickly paved and cleaned/cleared, the covid rates low, you feel better about paying it.

If you live in some crappy looking city where it looks like the government doesn't care at all about its upkeep or services then all that tax money seems like a waste.
 
Last edited:
.
The $5000 only sounds bad if you have crappy services in return for it. If you get good stuff back the tax sounds like a bargain compared to all your other expenses.

This is why people are moving to the suburbs. You may pay higher taxes but if your schools are far better (and not built in 1910), the crime almost non-existent, the roads quickly paved and cleaned/cleared, the covid rates low, you feel better about paying it.

If you live in some crappy looking city where it looks like the government doesn't care at all about its upkeep or services then all that tax money seems like a waste.

Well - on that count, most Southern California suburbs rate great to excellent. But inner-cities are another story.

Southern California overall rates 4th or 5th in Healthcare and 3rd in Higher Ed. per the US News and World Report rankings.

Most of the suburbs here rate very high on the Best Places list, with mostly educated folks as neighbors.

Here are a list of places to visit in California before one dies. I have been to most of them.

 
.
This is already happening all throughout the Blue Cities, people are getting the hell out in droves because of the crime, violence, trash, drugs and homeless.
 
.
This is already happening all throughout the Blue Cities, people are getting the hell out in droves because of the crime, violence, trash, drugs and homeless.

Certainly when you have crazy liberals offering "Sanctuary Cities" and other nonsense you are going to end up alienating your taxpayers (and enticing lopsided benefit receivers) because funds are diverted from the usual civil programs. Soon things are falling apart and budgets spiral out of control causing people to flee. Then things like your subways/buses don't have enough paying riders to cover the costs.

Next thing you know your city is Detroit and then those same liberals are scratching their heads wondering what happened. Wow it isn't too difficult to see.
 
Last edited:
.
Certainly when you have crazy liberals offering "Sanctuary Cities" and other nonsense you are going to end up alienating your taxpayers (and enticing lopsided benefit receivers) because funds are diverted from the usual civil programs. Soon things are falling apart and budgets spiral out of control causing people to flee. Then things like your subways/buses don't have enough paying riders to cover the costs.

Next thing you know your city is Detroit and then those same liberals are scratching their heads wondering what happened. Wow it isn't too difficult to see.

Funny because Detroit has very few immigrants. The decline has nothing to do with sanctuary cities. They're all Nth generation muricans. They're probably more murican than whites are since their latest non-US descendants came in 1807 while white muricans are statistically descended from German, Irish and Italian immigrants in the late 19th century.


Only 6.2% Hispanic, 3.3% Asian, the 2 most prevalent immigrant groups.
 
.
Funny because Detroit has very few immigrants. The decline has nothing to do with sanctuary cities. They're all Nth generation muricans. They're probably more murican than whites are since their latest non-US descendants came in 1807 while white muricans are statistically descended from German, Irish and Italian immigrants in the late 19th century.


Only 6.2% Hispanic, 3.3% Asian, the 2 most prevalent immigrant groups.

The poverty rate in Detroit is 37.9%. One out of every 2.6 residents of Detroit lives in poverty.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out why the people who are (or were) the taxpayers left. They see their tax money not giving any benefit at all to them. The poor people of course are not leaving.

detroit_population.gif

Look at all the flight from Detroit

Detroit population is down to: 674,841 (2019)

Meanwhile Michigan's total population is going up
michigan.jpg


So you can't say people were also fleeing Michigan
 
Last edited:
.
The poverty rate in Detroit is 37.9%. One out of every 2.6 residents of Detroit lives in poverty.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out why the people who are (or were) the taxpayers left. They see their tax money not giving any benefit at all to them. The poor people of course are not leaving.

detroit_population.gif

Look at all the flight from Detroit

Detroit population is down to: 674,841 (2019)

Meanwhile Michigan's total population is going up
michigan.jpg


So you can't say people were also fleeing Michigan

what does that have to do with sanctuary cities? there's very few immigrants in Detroit. Detroit is an all murican problem.
 
.
what does that have to do with sanctuary cities? there's very few immigrants in Detroit. Detroit is an all murican problem.

I said Santuary cities is an example of a Liberal government policy that when compounded with others chases taxpayers away due to their tax money being slowly siphoned from the usual city budget items like infrastructure and schools to things like social causes. People expect to see some benefits from their tax money. If the schools and roads are in disrepair with no solution in sight they are going to run away. Then the percent of taxpayers to benefit receivers starts going down in a death spiral.
 
Last edited:
.
I said Santuary cities is an example of a Liberal government policy that when compounded with others chases taxpayers away due to their tax money being slowly siphoned from the usual city budget items like infrastructure and schools to things like social causes. People expect to see some benefits from their tax money. If the schools and roads are in disrepair with no solution in sight they are going to run away.

sanctuary cities literally have nothing to do with all that. I am pretty sure it costs nothing to change a few written laws lmao. It's not like a zoning or building code change, a tax raise or whatever.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom