Was the 80s the peak of the suburban era and the nadir of cities in the US?

[JManc]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Some people don't consider equity in a primary residence to count toward one's net worth.

No because it's not liquid and people need to live somewhere

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JManc

No because it's not liquid and people need to live somewhere

401k isn't liquid and people need money when they retire. I don't see how there's a big difference. If anything, it's easier and less punishing to sell a home than to liquidate a 401k.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

401k isn't liquid and people need money when they retire. I don't see how there's a big difference. If anything, it's easier and less punishing to sell a home than to liquidate a 401k.

I guess if you have a lot of equity (compared to value) to leverage then perhaps. Our financial advisor does not factor our primary residence when determining our net worth though. Just our rental property.

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Nashville was (still is?) known for Christian music and publishing in the beforetimes. Buckle of the Bible Belt. I wouldn't be shocked if its Christian music/publishing roots were a bigger calling card pre-1990 or so.

Growing up, I didn't really associate Nashville with country music until college in the late 90's, when I met some southerners and learned about CMT and Garth Brooks. I believe CMT's studios are in Times Square, but back then I think they were just a video channel.

jmecklenborg is right that country music saw a drastic rise in popularity, for whatever reason, in the late 90s and early 2000's, at which point Nashville's stock seems to have risen, but very incorrect in his implications that country music wasn't really a thing in Nashville before that. Hell, I grew up in the north Nashville suburbs in the same neighborhood as Johnny Cash. Even got to meet him and visit his exotic animals a few times. Some of the biggest records in country music history were recorded on Music Row. I really don't understand why jmecklenborg is on such a crusade to persuade people that Nashville is nothing more than one big marketing gimmick and has zero real history to speak of, but he's gonna do him, I guess.

Also if I remember correctly, I believe CMT had it's HQ in Nashville until they moved to NY after the channel was purchased by Viacom.

[Crawford]

Yeah, I mean clearly Nashville has been an important country music center for a long time. There was some inflection point in the 1990's, though, where Nashville became this larger than life thing. I think there's a nugget of truth that it's somewhat contrived. Not fake, but a lot of the institutions (Wildhorse Saloon and that whole downtown strip), the bachelorette thing, the bigfoot homes in the poor neighborhoods) are really recent developments, and it's hard to tell what's organic and what's out of some corporate playbook.

It's probably more me, as I don't really get the city. I think last time I was there, there was a Four Seasons hotel, and a Soho House (a trendoid "creatives" social membership club). And a block away, shotgun homes with no sidewalks. I don't understand what's going on. Who are these people? Soho House is in places like NY and London. It isn't even in places like DC, SF and Boston. What the hell is it doing in Nashville?

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah, I mean clearly Nashville has been an important country music center for a long time. There was some inflection point in the 1990's, though, where Nashville became this larger than life thing. I think there's a nugget of truth that it's somewhat contrived. Not fake, but a lot of the institutions (Wildhorse Saloon and that whole downtown strip), the bachelorette thing, the bigfoot homes in the poor neighborhoods) are really recent developments, and it's hard to tell what's organic and what's out of some corporate playbook.

Oh I'll definitely give you that it's "somewhat" contrived. There is no doubt that marketing and hype have contributed to Nashville's image in recent decades, and I'll be the first to admit that it's probably not completely deserved. I just get annoyed with jmecklenborg constant crusade to try to paint this picture in which Nashville's image is completely fake and based on no actual roots of any kind. Hot Chicken? Fake. Music industry? Fake. The city itself? Why it was nothing bigger than Topeka up until last month.

It's probably more me, as I don't really get the city. I think last time I was there, there was a Four Seasons hotel, and a Soho House (a trendoid "creatives" social membership club). And a block away, shotgun homes with no sidewalks. I don't understand what's going on. Who are these people? Soho House is in places like NY and London. It isn't even in places like DC, SF and Boston. What the hell is it doing in Nashville?

No I think it's fair to be sort of confused about it all. I mean shit, I haven't entirely wrapped my head around it myself. When I moved to Chicago from Nashville in high school in the late 90's I had some classmates ask me if I had had electricity, or rode a horse to school even though at that point Nashville metro had about 1.3 million people... now twenty years later the city is not just popular with people the world over, but actually generally trendy, and we've got a Four Seasons and a Ritz (U/C) and Tiffany's and Gucci (I know none of those are ultra exclusive these days, but twenty years ago I never would've thought I'd see them here) and renown chefs opening restaurants, and non music based celebrities moving here, and places like the aforementioned Soho House or London based Nikkei restaurant Chotto Matte or NY restaurants like Boqueria, Il Luogo, and Pastis that (aside from Nashville) are expanding exclusively in Tier 1 metropolises opening up here, and I'm not going to lie, sometimes it's really a lot to comprehend... but hell, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't loving it. So I do get the resentment some folks in other cities feel, because there's not necessarily anything about the built environment of Nashville or anything I mentioned in the previous paragraph that makes it "better" than a Cincinnati or Pittsburgh, of course, and those cities deserve success just as much as Nashville does. We just had a unique identity, and capitalized on it, and were lucky enough to catch a wave. What else is there to say, ya know?

As for the city's built environment itself, inside the original pre-consolidation city limits it has a relatively well established feel in most places in my opinion, but outside of that you're right to point out that it can be a bit, shall we say, haphazard, and trust me, it annoys Nashville urban enthusiasts such as myself more than anyone. To be fair though, over the last one hundred years or so the city's built environment was hit very hard by urban renewal, and disasters such as fires and tornadoes. Couple that with the city's rapid growth, and it has really struggled to keep up in terms of infrastructure development and the like, especially outside of that aforementioned original city which really didn't have any investment into it until consolidation happened in the 60's, which is a part of the reason why you do get these areas of the city that still feel like you're in some sort of secluded rural town. Nashville is definitely trying to make up for lost time though, and is making huge investments into it's infrastructure these days.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by jd3189

I was just thinking about it a few days ago. It seemed like the 80s was the best time for American suburbs. Shopping malls were en vogue, LA was on its way to eclipse Chicago as the 2nd largest city, and a lot of the major films and TV shows of that era took place in the suburbs. On the other hand, US cities were dealing with white flight, crime, reduced public funding, and gentrification was not as widespread. It wasn't until the 90s that things started to shift toward cities again and a lot of the hallmarks of suburban living back then have had issues since.

What do you guys think? I could be wrong but it kinda makes sense?

Probably so. The malls were the center of shopping and entertainment and there was just the glimmer of urban renewal happening. Seems it was the height of retail in person shopping, big box stores and outlet malls were rare.
Now, suburbs of course continue to grow, but its not the only game now. Even in smaller cities downtown living, and 'uptown' med density living has taken off.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

401k isn't liquid and people need money when they retire. I don't see how there's a big difference. If anything, it's easier and less punishing to sell a home than to liquidate a 401k.

You don't have to pay maintenance costs, broker fees, lawyer fees, etc., for liquidating a 401k. You also don't have to completely liquidate a 401k in order to tap into it, unlike a house. As a store of wealth, the true advantage a house has over a retirement account is that you wouldn't get hit with the early withdrawal fee from the IRS if you're younger than 59.5.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

You also don't have to completely liquidate a 401k in order to tap into it, unlike a house.

huh?

you can certainly tap into your home equity without completely liquidating the asset.

home equity loan
home equity line of credit
refi
reverse mortgage

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

huh?

you can certainly tap into your home equity without completely liquidating the asset.

home equity loan
home equity line of credit
refi
reverse mortgage

Those are all examples of leveraging the house to get a line of credit (i.e. debt) from a bank because you can't monetize the asset without selling it. If you tap into a 401k you're not taking money from another institution that you have to repay.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Those are all examples of leveraging the house to get a line of credit (i.e. debt) from a bank because you can't monetize the asset without selling it. If you tap into a 401k you're not taking money from another institution that you have to repay.

a reverse mortgage monetizes the asset without having a debt to payback.

[ChiSoxRox]

To put some numbers on this:

The number of top 100 cities at each Census to have population drops from the previous Census:

1950 - 8
1960 - 32
1970 - 39
1980 - 49
1990 - 32
2000 - 19
2010 - 22
2020 - 12

In the 1980 Census, half of the top 100 cities were shrinking, including cities like San Francisco, Denver, and Atlanta. Even Fort Worth and Tampa shrank in the 70s. Now, we've almost returned to single digits of shrinking top 100 cities.

Keep in mind these are the top 100 at each Census, so a factor in the declining proportion in recent decades is having the Trentons and Youngstowns falling out of the top 100 to be replaced by the likes of Mesa and Orlando. Keeping a steady cohort of cities (say, the top 100 in 1950 and tracking them through time), 1980 would stand out even more.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

To put some numbers on this:

The number of top 100 cities at each Census to have population drops from the previous Census:

1950 - 8
1960 - 32
1970 - 39
1980 - 49
1990 - 32
2000 - 19
2010 - 22
2020 - 12

In the 1980 Census, half of the top 100 cities were shrinking, including cities like San Francisco, Denver, and Atlanta. Even Fort Worth and Tampa shrank in the 70s. Now, we've almost returned to single digits of shrinking top 100 cities.

Keep in mind these are the top 100 at each Census, so a factor in the declining proportion in recent decades is having the Trentons and Youngstowns falling out of the top 100 to be replaced by the likes of Mesa and Orlando. Keeping a steady cohort of cities (say, the top 100 in 1950 and tracking them through time), 1980 would stand out even more.

Though to be clear, the 1980 Census reflected the population changes of the 1970s, and the 1990 census the population change of the 1980s.

[Obadno]

I dont think suburbs are going anywhere as Covid and remote work really revived the whole thing.

My hope though is that modern suburban sprawl is done better, more connected and that cities aren't sacrificed or vis versa.

Canada and Australia seem to have a decent way of balancing their suburban and urban centers I think the US could learn a lot there.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Though to be clear, the 1980 Census reflected the population changes of the 1970s, and the 1990 census the population change of the 1980s.

Yes, although having 1980 report near universally negative population trends for central cities and the resulting economic and social malaise from decline feeds into the resulting cultural stigma of cities in the 1980s.

During the 1980s, even though you're getting the yuppie wave to revitalize the likes of NYC and San Francisco, and increasing immigration to offset the white flight and plunge in household sizes that pull down the 70s cities, you still have that red ink next to just about any major city's population to drive that stigma of "Will the last one out of the city, please turn out the lights?"

[eschaton]

A bit of an aside, but it is sort of amusing in retrospect that yuppies were mocked so much in the 1980s as being totally uncool when they were in a very real sense a lot more "cutting edge" than gentrifiers 20 years later (who generally got fairly positive press).

[Crawford]

The yuppie wave changed suburbia too. That was the first wave of McMansions and really opulent suburban living, really since the 1920's. Conspicuous consumption wasn't a specifically urban elitist thing, but the 1980's excess always seems to be contextualized via Wall Street or SoHo art galleries.

[pdxtex]

Portland suburbs are running robustly on all cylinders. If you mean there are less malls? Yes. If you mean less money is being spent outside of the central city, I'd say no.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Though to be clear, the 1980 Census reflected the population changes of the 1970s, and the 1990 census the population change of the 1980s.

except thee worst time was easily the early 80s, then the later 80s yuppie era and whatever else finally made cities cool again.

even the burgeoning crack era and horrible murder rates that came on at the tail end and into the 90s didn't stop it.

so the 80s are also the most interesting decade for this as the very bottom was early on and the revival trend we see continuing full steam today started later on in that decade.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

except thee worst time was easily the early 80s, then the later 80s yuppie era and whatever else finally made cities cool again.

even the burgeoning crack era and horrible murder rates that came on at the tail end and into the 90s didn't stop it.

so the 80s are also the most interesting decade for this as the very bottom was early on and the revival trend we see continuing full steam today started later on in that decade.

The term yuppie was coined in 1983 and was omnipresent in the media a year later. The phenomena likely started at least a year or two prior for academics to notice the trend and coin the term. Hence I think it's likely that the nadir in the early 1980s was pretty short.