Personally, I think the Boomers are in for a big shock when they try to sell their homes for a "fair" price, and discover that Millennials neither want nor can afford large suburban homes. Once that happens the market (and politics probably) are going to do some really freaky things.
I see this often. Very few people want large homes when they are either single or don't have kids.
As soon as you do have kids and they start to grow to an age where they want to play outside, having space to run, play sports, be away from traffic, have their own room, etc gets a lot higher on your priority list.
You can also get a suburban home without it being "large" and still get a lot of space to go with it. People used to get "starter homes" and then periodically trade up if/when their incomes increased or they had some equity in the home.
It seems like the biggest barrier to this today is that people want to go straight to the HGTV home. I can't tell you how many people I've known who, straight out of school, overextend to the most expensive house they can afford.
If you want more house, for your money...that usually means buying farther away from density.
It is totally possible to live in a walkable area with urban amenities without being inside a dense mega-city. These used to be called "street-car" suburbs-- urban nucleations that exist just outside of the central business districts of medium-to-large cities. They're sort of like cities unto themselves. They're sometimes referred to as "main-street" communities.
Lots of people live in such places and don't realize it or they've managed to give too much away for automobile infrastructure to notice that, YES, it is possible to live such that not every trip necessarily begins and ends with an automobile in a parking space. This can be done in many places _without_ moving to NYC/SF/Chicago.
How much house one needs (if any) is a lifestyle decision that can fluctuate over time. People can adapt. It starts with demanding things like "complete streets" (https://smartgrowthamerica.org/program/national-complete-str...), walkability as a target in new developments and intelligent requirements for parking so that we don't end up with "ocean-of-asphalt" parking lots.
In Europe the children can go to a shared park or a playground. Strolling along a street is also safe and quite pleasant when there is little traffic. There is more space and things to do than you can have in your backyard. And more importantly, they get to play with other children.
This sounds exactly like the US suburbs I've been in!
I have a lot of friends, with kids, who have had to look farther out into the suburbs because of home prices and inventory. And nothing in this price range is HGTV material, believe me.
Your argument basically presupposes that there’s something desirable about suburban homes, and that people not buying them is abnormal. I find this both unconvincing and historically incoherent.
https://www.businessinsider.com/do-it-for-denmark-ad-campaig...
It's not shaming to point out a thing is happening or that it a thing is biologically necessary to further the human race. You're welcome to call it anything you want, but there's a lot of "shaming" that's gone in the other direction as well. I've watched it my entire life.
Desired home locations are just a side effect.
That is after all, how humanity worked for a few Millenia.
You're arguing for the Amish.
Even today, with a global fertility rate of 2.5 children per woman and a population of over 7 billion people I don't think there's any need to worry about biological mandates. On the contrary, I think that in developed countries where each human being consumes much more (and consequently generates more waste) than other countries the birth rate should be heavily lowered. Of course, our economy/society may not be engineered for that but better start doing it sooner than later.
On the other hand, getting eaten by a tiger, living with ringworms, having your teeth fall out before middle age, or having 50/50 odds of dying by the age of 4 is perfectly natural, does not go against biology.
I don't think biology is a great litmus test for how we want to structure society.
Which is a natural expectation of the species...
No, because they don't believe they're financially stable enough to support children[1]. Millennials have dealt with stagnant wages and rising housing costs.
(While some of the responses to that story ([1]) do indicate a desire to do things other than raise children, many of the responses indicate a desire, but a lack of ability. Additionally, leveling off the population growth of humanity would likely have benefits for the environment, though certainly some current government schemes assume infinite growth, and those will have a bad time.)
I'm personally in the "can't" not "won't" bucket. Real-estate in SV is nuts, and I will have to (as James Mickens calls it) complete the "sisyphean task" of escaping SV and its housing crisis.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/upshot/americans-are-havi...
I happily bought my suburban home instead of living close to others in a condo or a townhouse.
It doesn't make you a bad person to be taking advantage of bad policies. But cities do need to incentivize sustainable living over unsustainable suburban sprawl.
[1] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/9/5/but-rich-people...
Sprawl is not unsustainable if you internalize the external costs, and I'll argue it'll get cheaper as mobility moves to electric vehicles and trucks, new infrastructure (with higher longevity) is built in new subdivisions instead of trying to replace 100+ year old gas, water, and sewer mains, etc.
@village-idiot: To your deleted comment, yes, my Teslas have a carbon impact during their manufacturing, but it is less than the SUV and pickup truck we used to own. It is very difficult to have no impact whatsoever on the Earth; optimize the best you can.
I also don't have any kids and won't be having them.
The suburbs also have less attraction for me as a parent. In the old days you could let your kids roam a suburb freely - now you can't. So why not live in a city? You have the same restrictions, but also a lot more distractions such as free museums.
Nothing structural has changed about letting kids roam, but the social side has.
There are plenty of foreigner investors who'd be happy to buy their property.
It’s just like the issues with rail — because you have so many landowners, the capital costs of transforming a single family block or subdivision to higher density is really expensive or requires eminent domain, which would be politically difficult.
You can have scenarios (especially now that it’s ok to walk away from mortgages) where prices drop. Single family isn’t going away.
Due to the economics of supply and demand, if the former clause is true then the latter clause cannot also be true.
Sure, you won't turn Tampa into Rotterdam overnight but those changes are important and they do add up. 50 years of these policies would give us much better, even if not perfect, cities.
If so, we may have vastly different ideas about the definition of a city.
Also, Seattle, Philly, Boston, Miami, and lots of other smaller cities are very much unlike living in the suburbs.
As far as I'm concerned, there's a ton more "city" in those neighborhoods than those high-rises. Density is only one variable in an incredibly large equasion. Seattle has a good deal of its own as well. Even in neighborhoods as nice as Queen Anne.
That said, I wish most other cities had it as good as Seattle. And I wish Seattle was far more diverse than it is.
I had the impression suburban homes tend not to be well-built. They may last a few decades, but that's about it.