I don't get it, doesn't this just say that more rich/educated people live in the suburbs than urban areas? How is that an economic advantage or 'outperforming' urban neighborhoods?<p>I thought it has been shown that suburbs cost a lot more per capita in public services like roads but this is heavily subsidized by more the efficient urban areas.
>The once cut-and-dried distinctions between city and suburb have blurred and no longer explain the actual places we live<p>I think this should be expanded on. If you live in a place where people commute to the urban center on a daily basis, then you are a part of that city's urban fabric, even if you are not "in the city".<p>The distinction between "urban" and "suburban" is mostly superficial based on the forms of housing common in each location, the modes of transportation commonly used, and the culture of each location. This is even evident in day to day speech, if you are traveling and meet someone who asks where you are from, from my experience you say the name of the city you live near, not the name of the adjacent suburb or township you live in.
"Across the board, suburban neighborhoods have higher incomes, higher home values, higher shares of college grads, and higher shares of professionals than urban neighborhoods. And suburbs do better than urban areas even when we compare neighborhoods in the same quartile of status."<p>I think though that part of the problem is that housing in the suburbs is more expensive to begin with, so only people with a lot of money can afford to live there. If you have more money you'r emore likely to be a college grad and a "professional" (whatever that means). It's not that suburbia makes you rich, it's that you have to be rich to live in surburbia. There isn't an economic advantage to living there, you just have to be richer to live there.
"Subdivisions" -- Rush, 1982, <i>Signals</i><p><pre><code> Sprawling on the fringes of the city
In geometric order
An insulated border
In-between the bright lights
And the far, unlit unknown
Growing up, it all seems so one-sided
Opinions all provided
The future pre-decided
Detached and subdivided
In the mass-production zone
Nowhere is the dreamer
Or the misfit so alone
...
Any escape might help to smooth
The unattractive truth
But the suburbs have no charms to soothe
The restless dreams of youth
</code></pre>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subdivisions_(song)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subdivisions_(song)</a>
This article is all about money. What about life?<p>Suburbs are depressing. I find myself both happier and healthier in walkable communities near city center.
It would be interesting to see how age factors into this spread. During this study's timeframe at least, older people have had more opportunity to accrue wealth and have children (who have also had more time to go to college). In my anecdotal experience, most of the urban influx has been from younger people.
Is it any surprise?<p>I don't want to be accused of being a racist so I can't move into affordable urban neighborhoods with too many 'underrepresented minorities'. I like peace and quiet, you don't find that in the city. I like driving more than walking/bicycling/taking the bus so I live in a place that makes it less of a hassle to own the cars. And I care for my safety and my property, I'd be an idiot to move to the cities near me that care more about being nice to criminals than protecting property owned by the working class.<p>And yeah, the suburbs are advantaged. I saved money to live there, I want my kids to have the most advantages possible, I've instilled enough discipline in them that they're able to learn and grow at school. I've been in city schools, they're full of kids pissing away the opportunity to learn and interfering with the learning of other students, how can someone succeed when their classmates are cranking that soulja boy?