The Future of the ‘Burbs: Retirement Havens
Forget the snowbird phenomenon. The trend of retirees migrating to Florida when the weather is cold and returning to their home in the North at the first sign of spring will probably become the exception rather than the rule in the next few years. Instead, retirees will be flocking to the suburbs, according to a new book. William H. Hudnut, the book’s author, surmises that “Between now and 2030, the over-65 population will double in the nation’s suburbs.”
Kay Severinsen, Editor for SearchChicago-Homes.com, reviews Hudnut’s book, Changing Metropolitan America: Planning for a Sustainable Future in an article entitled “Suburbs to age ungracefully?” Severinsen shares that a recent study by the McKinsey Global Institute found that “older boomers, born between 1945 and 1954, are saving no more than 20 percent of their income in their late 40s, and young boomers, born between 1955 and 1964, are saving no more than 10 percent.”
If those in their late 40s are saving no more than 10 percent, I don’t even want to think about what people in my age group are saving. I already know that I should be saving a lot more than I am, but part of me thinks I’ll probably have to work until I’m 80 at the rate this economy is going, so why bother? And there is some truth to this theory of mine. As Severinsen continues, she confirms that because these boomers have not saved, they will be working well past the traditional retirement age. Now what does this have to do with flocking to the ‘burbs, you ask? She asserts these older workers will be less likely to maintain their aging properties, propelling them to suburban living.
On some levels, this makes sense, but I found the last few paragraphs of Severinsen’s article a bit offensive. First, she gives the example of 75-year-old “Joe Schmo” coming home from a long day at work and being too tired to fix the loose gutter. She then shares a personal example of someone she remembers as the “Cat Man” – an elderly man who lived with his even more elderly mother and a large number of feral cats — and she doesn’t mind admitting that her family moved to another neighborhood to get away from “Cat Man.” Now I don’t want to judge Ms. Severinsen — perhaps she or someone in her family was highly allergic to cats, and I understand from her article that the stench was atrocious.
While she makes some valid suggestions for the future of silver-haired suburban living — tax breaks, community clean-up days, free paint — she uses these two examples of Joe Schmo and Cat Man to illustrate a point that I find somewhat unsettling: “Today’s newer subdivisions still have that shiny, just built look, but they could become tomorrow’s problem neighborhoods, regardless of their original price.” Is she suggesting that the suburbs will become run down once the senior citizens move in? I think this is an unfair judgment. Personally, I prefer city dwelling and wouldn’t trade my 1920’s home for a suburban spot, but no matter where you live, there are always going to be people who don’t or can’t maintain their property in a way that suits everyone. Should cities and suburbs alike be prepared to support an aging population in their community? Sure. Should people currently living in the ‘burbs worry about Cat Man moving in next door? I don’t think so.
Given the current economic conditions and a boomer population that has saved less than their parents’ generation, it seems that we are looking at a future where retirees aren’t likely to buy that condo in Florida, even if it’s just for the winter months. Regardless of where retired elders end up, let’s be sure to check in on them now and then. Shovel their walkway when it snows or lend them a hand when you see them carrying heavy bags of groceries. Being a good neighbor doesn’t cost a penny, and in today’s world, you can’t find much with that price tag anymore.
- Michelle Seitzer
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI
January 2nd, 2009 at 2:55 pm
I can only speak of my own city, Toronto, Canada now the fifth largest urban area in North America. Toronto, Chicago and San Francisco have one thing in common, large numbers of affluent people live in the city cores. We have seen a major change in patterns. As older areas gentrify they become expensive. The houses of my grandparents that they were so happy to escape from are now hot properties. Immigrants no longer move in our core and then do the moving up process over the decades. They get off of planes and head directly to the suburbs. Our trend may be different but as a city with one of the highest concentrations of condos, why would I retire to a detached house in the burbs with the snow, the grass and needing a car to get everywhere when I can live in the city, walk to the museums, theatres, restaurants, groceries and more importantly – doctors and medical care. The city has a subway, the suburbs have poor public transportation. As a real estate professional since 1968 and one who has worked extensively across Canada and the United States, yeah, I would agree with the article if it were Detroit based. Future predictions? In many larger cities the suburbs will become run down, in some cases slums while the city cores with their amenities will attract the affluent and the boomers. Nothing else makes common sense.
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:18 am
Interesting points, Barry. I remember seeing an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer a few months back that illustrated the phenomenon that you described…many affluent, baby boomers/retirees are moving to the city core and enjoying access to arts and culture.
Thanks for sharing your insights!