Cities Compete in Hipness Battle to Attract Young

NY Times ^ | Nov. 26, 2006 | SHAILA DEWAN

[seacapn]

ATLANTA, Nov. 24 — Some cities will do anything they can think of to keep young people from fleeing to a hipper town.

In Lansing, Mich., partiers can ease from bar to bar on the new Entertainment Express trolley, part of the state’s Cool Cities Initiative. In Portland, Ore., employees at an advertising firm can watch indie rock concerts at lunch and play “bump,” an abbreviated form of basketball, every afternoon.

And in Memphis, employers pay for recruits to be matched with hip young professionals in a sort of corporate Big Brothers program. A new biosciences research park is under construction — not in the suburbs, but downtown, just blocks from the nightlife of Beale Street.

These measures reflect a hard demographic reality: Baby boomers are retiring and the number of young adults is declining. By 2012, the work force will be losing more than two workers for every one it gains.

Cities have long competed over job growth, struggling to revive their downtowns and improve their image. But the latest population trends have forced them to fight for college-educated 25- to 34-year-olds, a demographic group increasingly viewed as the key to an economic future.

Mobile but not flighty, fresh but technologically savvy, “the young and restless,” as demographers call them, are at their most desirable age, particularly because their chances of relocating drop precipitously when they turn 35. Cities that do not attract them now will be hurting in a decade.

[seacapn]

I don't normally post from the NY Times, but as someone who follows demography, this story caugh my interest, particulary this comment from further inside the article:

At the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce, Tony Crumbley, the vice president for research, said the city and state had done a lot of things right without realizing it, like establishing liberal banking laws that made Charlotte a financial capital, and redeveloping downtown in the 1980s.

Between 1990 and 2000, the cities that gained the largest percentage of 25 to 35-year-olds were Las Vegas, Austin, Charlotte, Portland, and Atlanta, in that order. Philadelphia is one of the biggest losers.

The interesting question is, will these young people settle down in those cities? Or will they move on to somewhere else? And if so, where? I have no idea, but I do know that the demographics are shifting, and young people reflect that. Lots of growth in the south, southwest, and west, along with less growth in the northeast and midwest.

[CindyDawg]

Looks like we are starting to miss all those babies.

[kinoxi]

Yo yo yo, yo check dis out yo. ?

[Paleo Conservative]

But which cities are attracting future parents, and which are attracting DINKS?

[AlaskaErik]

I, for one, can't understand why anyone would want to live in the city. I live in a small town in a neighborhood where the lots are at least an acre. It's quiet and peaceful and I don't have to fight that nasty city traffic. Every so often I do have to go to the city, and every time, I'm reminded of how bad it is there.

[seacapn]

Right, that's another issue. Birthrates aren't mentioned in this article. But is also raises the future question of whether or not kids will stay where they are born. Youngsters are more mobile nowadays. Many get moved around several times while growing up as thier parents change jobs, or job locations.

It's interesting to see cities grapple with how to "attract" more of these economically-desirable young workers.

[seacapn]

I feel the same way... I live in a meadow in the forest, and couldn't imagine giving up the fresh air and open space. But I guess it comes down to the money. I have to be honest that there aren't many jobs around here, and certainly not "high-paying" jobs. I can see why the local kids tend to leave and not come back.

[durasell]

Because young people, and quite a few of us oldsters, don't want peace and quiet.

[mirkwood]

Atlanta just gives up and let looters and thugs have their way every year.

[seacapn]

Atlanta's an interesting case. There are some really dismal parts of the city, but the entire metro area has gotten gigantic - nearly 5.3 million people by some estimates. It's a boomtown, with everything that comes with such a condition.

[Paleo Conservative]

Because young people, and quite a few of us oldsters, don't want peace and quiet.

But do their priorities change after they start having children? Are the cities that are fun for young adults really the places they want to raise children?

[mirkwood]

The homeowners used to complain, but when a cop actually shows up, writes a report and then leaves, the homeowner is screwed. The car is vandalized. Everything you can poop on is pooped on. Urination and throwing bottles are most of this "college break". The crime rate does up by 2000% in one week. Thanks for a "party'.

[durasell]

But do their priorities change after they start having children? Are the cities that are fun for young adults really the places they want to raise children?




Mixed bag. Some leave for the 'burbs. Some stay. Lately more and more have been staying. And yeah, it's where they want to raise kids.

[seacapn]

This is an area where cities with reasonaly good public school systems benefit.

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "Are the cities that are fun for young adults really the places they want to raise children?"

Some cities, yes, people do want to raise children there--I grew up on a farm but have learned to love urban life. But that's the problem with the whole 'cool city' model that's being pushed all over the country. The people many of these cities want to attract are not people who are that interested in raising families--and will probably never be interested in raising families unless they can accommodate one designer baby at some point before menopause and after the big promotion. Cities that in any way discourage people from settling down generationally--starting families, building a sense of place and neighborhood and community--are like little Europes, with an aging demographic and unsustainable social services. 'Hipness' is a lousy criterion for long-term urban growth.

[durasell]

Again, mixed bag. Some of the schools in NYC are very, very good and some are horrible. Same with private schools.

It's just a different lifestyle. Not for everyone.

[mirkwood]

I am amazed. You are clueless. The people that get out of Atlanta are the same ones who screwed it up. But then they have a kid, and don't want their kid to be out on the street poppin caps into your honkey ass. I worked with these people for too long. It is whitey's fault that they drink and do crack. I was a foreman and tried to hire some of these guys to walk the power line. Crack is better. I did hire a gang so that when I ran through their neighborhood I would not get mugged. The Atlanta police were supposed to be with me by contract, but I guess they were chickenshit. The gang mom made me and my crew breakfast every morning. Never believe it when the cops break in and the mom says "duh". They know damn well what their sons are doing and they don't mind cleaning your wallet. Who do you think sells your stolen credit cards? The kids?

[durasell]

You might want to consider staying out of the more crime prone neighborhoods.

[t_skoz]

where's all my popped-collar, Williamsburgh hipsters? Holla!!

Oh man, did I just say that?

[EDINVA]

During those 20-30's years I lived in DC/NY/Chicago/LA .. and I tell my 20-somethings and their friends they should forget those cities and look toward the newer ones, preferably in the south. Personally, I'd pick Charlotte.