Stereotyping the Suburbs

White and wealthy.  Car-dependent.  Monotonous uniformity.  A Stepford Wife lurking behind every door.   

That's the suburbs for you.


Unless you look at the data.  In many parts of the the DMV, these stereotypes simply don't apply.   Bethesda and Silver Spring--both in Montgomery County--are more public transit oriented than many parts of neighboring DC.  Montgomery County is also just as ethnically diverse as, if not more so than DC.  While whites and African Americans are the two dominant ethnic groups in both counties, Asians and Latinos account for a much larger share of MOCO's total population (14.9 and 18.3% respectively) than they do in DC (3.9 and 10% respectively).

Strangely, the stereotypes persist.  And, as usual, it seems to boil down to our collective obsession and hysteria about Millennials.

A May 8th blog post on the Washington Post's Digger blog is a case in point.  The post (The Real Challenge for Cities: What Happens When Millennials Have Babies and the Suburbs Beckon?) covered a panel held at the Urban Land Institute.  I didn't attend the panel, but if the blog review is any indication, the goal of the panel wasn't to answer the question 'will they stay or will they go?' so much as brainstorm how to get them to stay.  

I get it.  Everyone wants a piece of the millennial pie.  They are a large demongraphic with a lot of money to spend.  Right now they spend most of it (at least in DC) on overpriced rents and craft beer.  But, they are about to spend a lot more money.  That's right, millennials are now beginning to do 'adult' things like buy houses and have kids, which entails a whole new category of purchasing (beware the plastic crap you accumulate and trip over at night, inadvertently teaching your kids their first curse words).   

I'm also sympathetic to wanting to keep/attract more families in the city--millennial or otherwise.  One of the biggest unintended consequences of city leaders' millennial fetish is that cities are becoming uniform in their own way, as places rebuilt for wealthy people without kids.  The micro-unit trend is just the most obviouis example. 

But..and there's always a but isn't there?...I resent the smug undertone that often underpins the whole millennial fetish.  The effort to keep them in the city when they're ready to have kids, for example, is often legitimized as a movement to save said offspring from the presumed horrors of the suburbs.

One of the panelist at the Urban Land Institute, Sarah Snider Komppa, described her life growing up in the suburbs as "unfulfilling."  "You’re shuttled from one place where everyone is the same as you to another place where everyone is the same as you.”

I have no doubt Komppa's description captured her actual experiences.  My suburban childhood wasn't all that different, except for the quirky southerners that populated it (bless their hearts, every last one).  However, the suburb I grew up in is not what it used to be.  Nor, I suspect, is Komppa's.

And, that's the problem.  The suburbs are a convenient bogeyman for urban boosters.  The suburbs that Komppa and other urban boosters bemoan is really a small slice of modern suburbia--the so called exurbs.

The intellectual fuzziness of the 'making cities work for millennials' movement is annoying.  But, mostly it just feels underhanded.  Like a mask for something that feels, underneath it all, a lot like a push for consolidating gentrification.   





 

The Millennial Fetish

As every new generation comes of age, the media loves to fixate on them.  What makes them tick, we wonder?  How are they different from all the others that came before them?  I get it, I really do.  But, some of the recent coverage of millennials, especially in the DMV, veers toward the ridiculous, or sublimely funny, depending on your mood. 

Case in point?  An article in the Washington Post Real Estate section this past Saturday (4/19/14) about the efforts of developers and architects to build for millennials, or as the article puts it,  "to create living spaces with this generation’s behaviors in mind."

So, what sorts of behaviors do millennials exhibit that the rest of us don't, and more importantly, how does this translate into different living spaces?


The WAPO article identifies three main differences.

1.  Millennials aren't buying homes just yet.  They've got too much debt, so they either can't afford a mortgage, or they don't have enough savings to cover a down payment.  So, how does this translate into how we build/design spaces for them?

Wait for it...really, you're going to be floored by this one...seriously, sit down...take a deep breath...THEY RENT APARTMENTS. 

2. Millennial like customizable spaces.  As the WAPO article notes:  "Millennials have the same expectations about physical spaces and digital spaces; they want to be able to socialize within personalized spaces that they can break down and rebuild in different ways."

I'm not sure what a digital space is.  But, this is to be expected.  I'm a Gen-Xer.  Translation:  I'm a slacker working on a refurbished IBM 486.

Anyway, I digress.  How does this love of customization translate into millennial spaces?  According to the WAPO article, millennials want "retail-style walk-in closets that can be arranged multiple ways, in-unit areas to hang bicycles and kayaks, and sliding doors within apartment units that can enable more opened or closed environments."  Seriously?  That's what makes them different--big closets?  The article's writer clearly hasn't seen the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.  Those ladies have closets the size of Alaska, and are, ahem, older than your average millennial. 

3.  Millennials like upgrades.  I'm not sure exactly what the article's author means by an upgrade, but it seems to boil down to technology. 

So, how do millennials' preferences for the most updated technology translate into new and creative spaces?  Apparently it is about things like new and inventive lighting.  As WAPO puts it, "glowing floors, lit walls, light boxes...flat-screen technology."

I'm starting to think a millennial wrote this article.   

John Travolta's best dance moves in Saturday Night Fever were on a glowing floor.  All those hip thrusts would've been just another Elvis rip-off without that floor!

And, don't even get me started on the Lava Lamp, that beacon of alternative lighting from across the ages.    

So, the next time you meet a millennial, behold the exotic creature before you.  She rents an apartment, has big closets, and likes funky lights.  Dorothy, you're not in Kansas anymore.  

P.S. the movie poster is from Wikipedia and falls within the fair use category. 

How do people get by on less than a living wage?

Yesterday I provided some living wage figures for the DMV.  In MOCO, a single adult needs to make at least $13.20 an hour to make a living wage.  A single parent with one child needs to earn $25.02.  I concluded yesterday's post by noting that discussions about a living wage are so important because a lot many people don't make one. So, how do people get by when they DON'T make a living wage.

Let's look at what people do to get by in terms of housing.  I focus on housing here because as the author's of the living wage calculator note, housing (and childcare costs) tend to be higher in metropolitan areas. 

In densely populated parts of the DMV (e.g. downtown Silver Spring, Columbia Heights, Ballston), people with low wages often double and triple up in one bedroom apartments.  This happens in 2 bedrooms too, but not as often.  Why?  Well, for starters, there just aren't as many 2- and 3-bedrooms in the DMV as there are 1-bedrooms.  And, their scarcity makes them more desirable, and thus more expensive.   

In my last apartment in DC there were two families who lived in 1-bedroom apartments in my building.  One family included 2 parents and 1 child.  The other had 2 parents and 2 children.  I don't know what their wages were, but I do know that squeezing into a 1-bedroom apartment was what they had to do to afford to live in our neighborhood in the city.  Even the small houses in the area cost upwards of $800,000.  I understood why they were willing to make the squeeze.  The schools were good and access to buses downtown was literally out our front door.  But, it was a sacrifice too.  A 1-bedroom with 3 and 4 occupants is definitely cozy, but exceptionally crowded.  There's too little closet space, not enough privacy, and only one toilet for the all of you.   

Millennials do this teaming up as well.  Although many of the millennials flocking to DC are young professionals, it is useful to keep in mind that being young and professional doesn't mean you can afford DC's luxury rents (Numbeo puts the average 1 bedroom rent in the city center at $1,984.38).  This is especially the case for interns and entry level staffers on the hill, and almost anyone at any level working for an NGO.  There's a reason a lot of millennials haven't left the nest, or have returned to it.  They can't afford to rent.

People do this in the suburbs as well.  There, though, the house is what gets piled up with people.  In households where people don't make a living wage, it is not uncommon for multiple generations of families live together under one roof.  Sometimes, families will also rent out their basements, or even single rooms.  Housing costs in DC's suburbs are lower than in the city, but they are still high, especially when compared to suburban locations in smaller cities, or in cities that aren't experiencing urban booms (e.g. Cleveland or Detroit). 

For people who don't make a living wage, the idea of a nuclear family in a single family house is just that--an idea. It isn't a reality, or likely to be one anytime soon.