Monday, July 24, 2006

Housing Development Doesn't Focus on the Family.

For now, families aren’t the focus
Childless professionals and empty nesters are the new gold standard for condo developers cashing in on a nationwide migration back to cities.
. . .
The city estimates more than 3,800 new residents could move to the neighborhood in the next two decades, as the stock of condos and apartments nearly doubles.

Empty nesters and younger people without children are expected to make up the bulk of the new residents.

While they don't have much in common at a glance, Easton said the two demographic groups share lifestyles that are compatible with downtown living.

They prefer nearby shopping, restaurants, entertainment and cultural facilities to the relative isolation of suburban living, Easton said.
. . .
The downtown plan carves out no space for new schools or parks with playground equipment.


Unknown said...

"It's more than just yuppies and empty nesters," she said. "It's not only to get more bodies down here, but it's how do you make the community more viable?" Strickland said. "

Why is it that "viable" means "lot of kids"? I realize every city is not New York, but the trend I've seen is if you grow up in the city, you don't necessarily stay in the same neighborhood for your entire life. So assuming it's the same elsewhere, it's not like people are going to put down permanant roots.

There's still this "American ideal" that when your kids get to be a certain age, you get out of downtown to someplace more spacious. If that's the case, the childfree (and maybe the empty-nesters) may do more than families with kids to make the neighborhood more viable.

And with far less of a demand on resources.

Mercurior said...

but what they dont realise is, people without kids generally have more income, to spend not just on kids, is there anything wrong they wouldnt be complaining if it was a gay village. would they..
but it always seems that these people think the childfree are somehow defectives.