Why did you move from KCMO to a suburb?

[aknowledgeableperson]

And the survey says:

In a recent article in Newsweek titled "Generation Screwed" which talked about those under 35 43% of the millennials described the suburbs as their ideal place to live compared to 31% of older generations. And although big cities are preferred by college grads in their 20's just 17% want to settle permanently in one which was the same percentage as those expressing a preference for small towns.

[pash]

.

[aknowledgeableperson]

I don't think the numbers are all that much different. On page 39 of your posted report only 31% of young singles "prefer" cities. I take it that the rest, which would be a majority, would prefer suburban or rural. True, New Urbanist settings do have a strong preference but I take it that most of those settings take place in the burbs, not the city.

With regards to "walkability" go to page 27. A majority prefer space over walkability.

[pash]

.

[warwickland]

parenting is more important than environment. that said it's nice for kids to grow up in an interesting environment. i partially grew up in a somewhat eccentric small town/rural environment removed from the pressures of the privileged quarters alpha parenting and am thankful for that. some kind of walkable and reasonably safe urban environment would be nice, too. something with some kind of balance and perspective. the big slabs of suburbia surrounding our cities can be a bit myopic.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Talk about cherry-picking, why not include all of the numbers from page 9.

Preferred community type:
18% city downtown
13% city residential
30% mixed suburban (almost 50/50 suburban vs city)

and then the rest
12% suburban houses only
11% small town
14% rural

The article I used had suburb as suburb not by type of suburb which your survey makes a difference. No matter 42% prefer suburb vs 31% for city vs 25% for rural/small town, more prefer suburb over city.

And to finish the numbers in your quote:

Preferred living
19% in a city
28% in a mixed suburban setting
22% in a rural area
18% in a small town
12% in a house only suburban setting.
In other words, 19% city, 40% suburban, 40% rural/small town.

A suburb is still a suburb and not a city no matter what the type of development it is.

[warwickland]

A suburb is still a suburb and not a city no matter what the type of development it is.

eh, there are lots of suburbs that are in-between that are on city type blocks, with lots of trees and walkable to a downtown. that's very appealing and not beyond the pale of "suburban." suburban at it's best is the bridge between small town and big city, to me.

[pash]

.

[aknowledgeableperson]

But this topic is about moving from KCMO, no matter what type of development, to a suburb, no matter what type of development. So one moment you live in KCMO and the next moment you don't live in KCMO. I inserted the info from the article for a few reasons, one being that even millennials like the suburbs (no matter the type of development since no distinction was made) to counter a few postings, and two, living in the cities was a temporary fling for many since it appears that as they grow older a suburb was a preference.

A new urbanism development in a suburb is still in a suburb and not in a city. This is about location, not about living style.

[pash]

.

[aknowledgeableperson]

OK, an urban environment in the suburbs. It is still in the suburbs vs the city.

[pash]

.

[pash]

.

[KC-wildcat]

Yes, I'll give you that. People want to live in nice neighborhoods populated by middle-class and wealthier white people near shops, restaurants, and offices.

In other words, they want to live in Helsinki Downtown, Plaza, West Plaza, Brookside, Northeast JoCo.

I don't care about my neighbor's race. I do care about "living in nice neighborhoods populated by wealthier people near shops, restuarants, and offices."

I'd rather kill myself than move to Olathe. But, NE JoCo is fine for me. Very similar demographics to counterpart neighborhoods in the MO side (brookside, westplaza, westwood hills, etc.) With high income comes a lot of benefits (lower crime, higher property values, better schools, better city services, more highly maintained properties). Am I supposed to be ashamed of these things?

I'd probably add that the average condo owner in the CBD or XRoads is as white and/or wealthy as anybody in the aformentioned neighborhoods. Maybe we could have loftguy breakdown the demographics for condo owners to confirm this fact.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Of my neighborhood of roughly 300 houses there are more than a few black families. And I would imagine a few houses with higher income or lower income than ours. And by dress a few Muslim families and by name a few Jewish famiies. Yes, mostly lilly-white but probably not much different than Brookside, West-Plaza, and so on.

[pash]

.

[flyingember]

My ideal would be a KCMO suburb like brookside or maybe those urban homes off oak In the river maeket. The schools kill that idea for me and I bet a lot of people think the same.

So I live similar in an old Briarcliff neighborhood with good schools. We have no sidewalks and in some places, no stop signs!

I'm originally from Liberty from elementary to high school. My current home isn't in a suburb like parts of KC north or liberty is.

I'm closer to downtown than Zona Rosa or Shoal Creek which I like as well.

I'd have considered NKC but flood plain = no.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Apparently—in my view—that's because "city" is a by-word for crime and poverty and all that goes along with it. No wonder people would rather live in the suburbs.

Awhile back I read that middle-class blacks are leaving "the city" for the burbs at a high rate. I think you might see that with the growth of the black population in many of the suburbs surrounding KCMO from 2000 to 2010.

[KCMax]

Yes, I'll give you that. People want to live in nice neighborhoods populated by middle-class and wealthier white people near shops, restaurants, and offices.

In other words, they want to live in Helsinki Downtown, Plaza, West Plaza, Brookside, Northeast JoCo.

I don't care about my neighbor's race. I do care about "living in nice neighborhoods populated by wealthier people near shops, restuarants, and offices."

I'd rather kill myself than move to Olathe. But, NE JoCo is fine for me. Very similar demographics to counterpart neighborhoods in the MO side (brookside, westplaza, westwood hills, etc.) With high income comes a lot of benefits (lower crime, higher property values, better schools, better city services, more highly maintained properties). Am I supposed to be ashamed of these things?

I'd probably add that the average condo owner in the CBD or XRoads is as white and/or wealthy as anybody in the aformentioned neighborhoods. Maybe we could have loftguy breakdown the demographics for condo owners to confirm this fact.

I grew up in Blue Springs, and the reason our family moved to Johnson County when I got a bit older, was my parents were afraid Blue Springs was becoming too populated with "those kind of people" and they didn't mean black people.

[KC-wildcat]

I grew up in Blue Springs, and the reason our family moved to Johnson County when I got a bit older, was my parents were afraid Blue Springs was becoming too populated with "those kind of people" and they didn't mean black people.

guess I missed it, but who were your parents referencing?