A big myth is also expelled, which is the percentage of young people in each of these regions (the assumption is that San Jose has fewer). Both San Jose and San Francisco have 15% of their population between ages 25-35, while New York is slightly less at 14%. Also while San Jose and New York have "low" crime rates, San Francisco is ranked as "average." Check out the source link for the full list of cities!
Source: Huff Post Collect, Hat tip to our friend Dan De La O
"Neighborhood: Old Mountain View". Clearly they're a little confused...
ReplyDelete11 out of 25 is nothing to celebrate. What matters is what the millenials are doing....still living at home with parents, service worker, or young tech professional. And where the trend is going. If SJ wants to thrive in the future, they will start to seriously look at the needs of young tech workers, or facing dropping even further down the list. Companies wanting to locate are looking for environments that they can attract these workers to. With a decline in these companies locating in SJ, so will the local economy decline. Other nearby cities are moving to aggressively cater to millenials, while SJ seems to still cling to its 20th century car-centric suburban model for new developments, which poles show is clearly not what millennials want. SJ would do well do think about the emerging competition and consider creating islands in the city that are more urban and more connected, then work on connecting the islands. Pushing more disconnected carmageddon suburbia will be the demise of San Jose.
ReplyDeleteThe vision is definitely to expand density, focus on transit, and build urban villages. I think we're in a good position to cater more towards millenials in the near future, especially Downtown and in Japantown.
DeleteMillenials will eventually grow up, have kids, move to the suburbs, and buy a detached SFR. It is the way of things; they're just taking a little longer to do so than their forebears.
DeleteI agree that SJ downtown is not building towards long term, family rootedness. That is a sorry mistake and we will all pay for it dearly. I understand the need for condos, appealing to millenials, etc. But that can't be it. Property turnovers, especially fish bowl apartments, are not the way to build long term civic commitments. I see absolutely NO COMMITMENT to making downtown a mixed population–family and singles. Again, this is a SORRY mistake that will and IS already SJ in the butt. Greedy developers and powerless populations–that's it, folks. It breaks my heart because I am a downtown resident and I see the difference in attitude and home life in north 1st/2/3/4th streets, where there are long term family homes vs downtown, a disaster. Some of the older home and buildings (with outdoor areas) hold down a vanishing past of committed, long term residents.
DeleteThere are plenty of single family homes in Downtown San Jose, and in general I think the suburban family environment is pretty well covered throughout the city. What is missing is more dense, urban condos and apartments that are more accessible to younger generations, empty nesters, and people living here temporarily. We need to have a variety of housing offerings to cater towards all demographics. I think it is also possible to create a family-oriented condo building, but this is not the direction that any developer seems to be going at the moment.
DeleteKind of fun that we have two complaints that completely contradict one another. Anon 1 says SJ is staying too suburban, Anon 2 says building urban is shortsighted. Not sure what to make of this.
ReplyDelete