Downton Revitalization in The Era of Millennials

Urban Geography
ISSN: 0272-3638 (Print) 1938-2847 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rurb20
Downtown revitalization in the era of millennials:

how developer perceptions of millennial market
demands are shaping urban landscapes
Meagan M. Ehlenz, Deirdre Pfeiffer & Genevieve Pearthree
To cite this article: Meagan M. Ehlenz, Deirdre Pfeiffer & Genevieve Pearthree (2019): Downtown
revitalization in the era of millennials: how developer perceptions of millennial market demands are
shaping urban landscapes, Urban Geography, DOI: 10.1080/02723638.2019.1647062
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2019.1647062
Published online: 05 Aug 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 6
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rurb20
URBAN GEOGRAPHY
https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2019.1647062
Downtown revitalization in the era of millennials: how

developer perceptions of millennial market demands are
shaping urban landscapes
a
Meagan M. Ehlenz , Deirdre Pfeiffera and Genevieve Pearthreeb
a
School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA; bCurrent
Planning Program, City of Flagstaff, AZ, USA
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Downtown Phoenix and Houston are changing. They are not Received 9 July 2018
dense, historic downtowns; instead, they reflect contemporary Accepted 19 July 2019
downtown growth in sprawling cities. Both cities have reimagined KEYWORDS
their downtowns, leveraging vacant land, new construction, and Urban revitalization;
infill projects. Through this process, developers are shaping down- downtown revitalization;
town in response to market demand. This research explores how Millennial migration;
developers in two Sun Belt cities are thinking about Millennials affordable housing;
and cementing their preferences into rapidly changing down- centralization
towns. We triangulate data from the U.S. Census, regional media,
and interviews with 22 downtown development experts. We find
developers respond to Millennial preferences in several ways. They
are endowing their downtown projects with a greater sense of
place and diversity of activities. However, there is a social cost:
underlying concerns include rising housing costs and gentrifica-
tion in the downtowns and reduced demand for housing in the
suburbs, particularly if Millennials elect to stay downtown for the
long term.
Introduction
The Millennial generation has grown up. While the end points of the generation are
debated, there is consensus that the entire generation is of voting age, and its youngest
members are enrolled in college (Dimock, 2018). Notably, they are also making choices
about where they live: a proportion of Millennials are eschewing car-centric suburbs in
favor of more urban, walkable, amenity-rich locales (Gallagher, 2014; Warren, Kramer,
Biank, & Shari, 2013). Their downtown preferences are attributed to higher levels of
educational attainment, greater tendencies to live alone, and their choice to delay
traditional adult milestones, such as marriage or parenthood, in favor of more flexible
lifestyles (Arnett, 2006; Snyder, de Brey, & Dillow, 2016). The Millennial movement
into adulthood and towards urban housing options coincides with continued growth in
downtowns across the U.S. (Birch, 2012; Danielsen & Lang, 2010).
CONTACT Meagan M. Ehlenz meagan.ehlenz@asu.edu School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning,
Arizona State University, 975 S. Myrtle Ave, Fifth Floor, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 M. M. EHLENZ ET AL.
Just as suburban preferences characterized an outflow of population from cities and

into suburbs in the mid-20th century, cities are, once again, at an inflection point, with
the largest generation since the Baby Boomers expressing preferences for urban ame-
nities (Lee, 2018; US Census Bureau, 2015). But what implications do these preferences
hold for the urban built environment? This research explores the ways developers are
responding to Millennial trends and incorporating their preferences in development
projects in the “emerging” downtowns of Phoenix and Houston (Birch, 2009). We ask
three questions: (1) what are the characteristics of Millennials in downtown Phoenix
and Houston and how do they compare to Millennials elsewhere in the region? (2) How
do development stakeholders perceive Millennial market demand and how are they
incorporating those preferences into the changing downtown landscape? And (3) how
are new downtown projects shifting the housing landscape in the regions beyond
downtown? To answer these questions, we triangulate data from 22 development
stakeholders, regional media, and the U.S. Census to consider the intersection of
Millennial market trends with expanding downtown growth in Phoenix and Houston,
as well as shifting housing markets within the regions.
Our research provides insights into a contemporary process of revitalization occurring
outside of classic 20th century downtowns. Whereas downtown revitalization has tradi-
tionally identified density, historic preservation, and convertible building stock as key
ingredients for success, there is another category of revitalization taking place in rapidly
growing, car-centric cities with historically underdeveloped urban cores. In these places, the
contours of change are different: similar to other downtowns, their growth is sustained by
long-term commitments from city stakeholders, but there is also substantially more latitude
for developers to transform the landscape through new construction and infill develop-
ment. We explore the ways developers in two of the largest Sun Belt cities are approaching
downtown projects, describing the ways Millennial markets are shaping their investments
and exploring the impacts of these choices on regional housing markets.
The organization of this article is as follows. We first review downtown development
trends, including the drivers of growth, conventional revitalization strategies, and
population trends that contribute to urbanization. Subsequently, we describe the data
and methods used in our analysis, followed by an introduction to our case studies. We
then examine downtown growth, focusing on qualitative assessments of recent residen-
tial trends and their impacts on the downtowns and regions of Phoenix and Houston.
We conclude by identifying key concerns for planners in these—and similar—cities, as
developers respond to perceived Millennial preferences for urban-style living, cement-
ing those ideals into downtown and suburban housing landscapes.
Understanding downtown growth, revitalization, and the built

environment
Downtown revitalization—or lack thereof—has been debated for decades. The literature
spans: observations about development and demographic trends that illuminate patterns
of growth or decline (e.g. Birch, 2005b; Danielsen & Lang, 2010; Sohmer, 1999; Sohmer &
Lang, 2001); arguments that advocate for the revitalization of downtown in ways that
differ from the commerce-centric forms of the past (e.g. Gallagher, 2014; Hoffman, 1961;
Sumo, 2007); and strategies for spurring growth and revitalization (e.g. Florida, 2014;
URBAN GEOGRAPHY 3
Leinberger, 2005). However, there are substantially fewer conversations about the char-
acter of the downtown built environment— especially in less developed downtowns
outside of the Northeast and Midwest, where developers are engaging with market trends
to make investments that shape the downtown landscape. This study endeavors to
address this gap, highlighting the ways developers respond to market preferences and,
in turn, shape the character of two emerging downtowns in the Sun Belt.
Downtown growth and development

Scholars and stakeholders have been engaged in discussions about the state of downtown
since the 1950s and 1960s. During the early 20th century, the downtown primarily served as
a central business district (CBD), supported by offices, industry, and warehouses (Birch,
2005a). In the post-World War II period, many cities began wrestling with downtown
conditions, seeking to remedy poor building conditions and invest in modern infrastruc-
ture (Birch, 2002, 2005a; Teaford, 2000). A number of federal programs supported down-
town renewal, including urban renewal, community development block grants, and tax
credits for historic preservation and low-income housing. These programs provided the
impetus for new office development, as well as entertainment and destination uses (e.g.
festival market places, stadiums, convention centers, and/or hotels) (Birch, 2002). Some
also advocated for improved housing stock as a core component of a “reconstituted down-
town” (Hoffman, 1961). Yet, these strategies did little to stem the rapid flow of people, jobs,
and dollars out of the central city and into the suburbs (Birch, 2002).
Evidence suggests neighborhoods can be expected to change in two ways: (1) their
change is constant, with neighborhood economic status changing an average of 13% in
a given decade; and (2) their arc of change is long, rising (and falling) over several
decades (Rosenthal, 2008). These observations are apparent for downtowns. After several
decades in decline, the popular press declared the “downtown is back” in the 1990s
(Birch, 2002; Sohmer & Lang, 2001). The pronouncement ushered in a multitude of
studies that explored downtown growth trends, as well as demographic characteristics
(e.g. Danielsen & Lang, 2010; Ford & Ford, 2003; Sohmer, 1999; Sohmer & Lang, 2001).
Birch’s work offered a foundational perspective, assessing downtown population trends
between 1970 and 2000 (and, later, to 2007) for 45 downtowns in major cities across the U.S.
(Birch, 2005b, 2009). Her findings largely supported the general consensus that downtowns
were “back,” experiencing growth in the 1990s after two decades of decline, but the trends
were not ubiquitous across cities. For instance, between 1970 and 2000, both Phoenix and
Houston experienced large downtown population losses (−26% and −32%, respectively),
despite growth in the rest of their cities; meanwhile, Seattle (86%), Denver (36%), and
Chicago (39%), for example, all showed upward trajectories. Based on population and growth
rate, she stratified downtowns into five typologies, including: Fully Developed 21st Century
Downtowns, Developing 21st Century Downtowns, Downtowns on the Edge of Take-off,
Slow-Growing Downtowns, and Declining Downtowns (Birch, 2005b).
Similarly, Danielsen and Lang contributed new knowledge about downtown trends,
measuring housing development in 20 cities between 1998 and 2008 (Danielsen & Lang,
2010). Consistent with Birch’s findings, their work demonstrated the uptick in down-
town growth during this period. A number of cities in their sample, including Houston,
showed substantially higher shares of rental projects than for-sale development; there
was also a considerable degree of mixed-use development and conversions of non-

residential buildings into residential projects.
Traditionally, historic and architecturally interesting building stock is considered critical
to revitalization (Danielsen & Lang, 2010; Sohmer, 1999; Zukin, 1987). These buildings
offer the opportunity for historic preservation, as well as office or warehouse conversions
into downtown housing. That said, there are downtown precedents that rely on new
construction (Danielsen & Lang, 2010). More importantly, scholars contend that down-
town revitalization and development does not happen in short bursts; successful down-
towns are often defined by decades of policies and commitment to the longer vision (Birch,
2002; Danielsen & Lang, 2010). Successful and/or growing downtowns possessed common
characteristics, including: expanding downtown boundaries, multiple downtown districts
instead of a singular identity, investment in mass transit, substantial open space amenities
and improvements, and active downtown stewards (e.g. business improvement districts).
An essential driver for downtown revitalization has been a change in the way cities
have perceived the function of their downtown. Whereas they were once aggregators of
commerce and industry, recent history has emphasized the live-work-play dynamic of
downtowns (Danielsen & Lang, 2010; Sumo, 2007). Leinberger captures this approach
with a downtown revitalization playbook that offered twelve strategies for successful
downtown growth (2005). The initial steps focus on visioning, planning, and establishing
productive partnerships, policies, and downtown stewards. The latter strategies highlight
the critical variables in the downtown formula, including an entertainment district, rental
and (subsequently) for-sale housing markets, and strong retail and office markets.
Downtown population growth: trends and projections

Downtowns across the U.S. have demonstrated varying degrees of success as they
attempt to grow (Birch, 2005b; Danielsen & Lang, 2010). While some downtowns
experienced substantial population gains in the 1990s, others lagged. Phoenix and
Houston were part of the latter group, only overcoming legacies of population decline
in the 2000s when they became “emerging downtowns” (Birch, 2009). Recent demo-
graphic research suggests these shifts are largely driven by Millennials, “creatives,” and
downsizing Baby Boomers (e.g. Florida, 2017; Lee, 2018; Millsap, 2018; Myers, 2016).
The shift of people towards the urbanized core has been examined and predicted by
the literature. Fishman’s fifth migration argued a revival of central cities was imminent
(2005). New and existing immigrant households would lead the charge, alongside Baby
Boomers and Millennials who would rediscover the urban core, as the former emptied
their nests and the latter rejected the suburbs of their youth. Nearly a decade later,
Ehrenhalt’s great inversion theory further cemented Fishman’s fifth migration hypothesis
(2013). Ehrenhalt predicted a movement towards a European model of city structure,
with concentrations of affluence and demand in the urban core and poverty and afford-
ability in the outlying suburbs. He argued that several factors drive this inversion,
including higher demand for urban amenities (e.g. shorter commutes, multi-modal
transportation, walkable neighborhoods, and access to arts and cultural nodes). As
more affluent households seek urban centers and lower-income households increasingly
relocate to more affordable suburbs, immigrant populations skip central cities altogether
in favor of the suburbs (Markley, 2018; Suro, Wilson, & Singer, 2011; Walker, 2014).
URBAN GEOGRAPHY 5
A key component of the great inversion is the upwards filtering and swapping of
residences, as higher income households move into older industrial areas and historic
working-class neighborhoods (Ehrenhalt, 2013; Markley, 2018). There is also
a movement to create urbanity from scratch in newer Sun Belt cities, like Phoenix or
Houston, where there are fewer existing homes to refurbish or repurpose. Ehrenhalt
recognized that the absolute growth of households in urban cores is small relative to the
suburbs; yet, the intrinsic qualities of urban growth are dramatically reshaping central
cities, led by Millennials in search of authenticity, single-headed households, and
downsizing Baby Boomers (2013).
Yet, not all scholars are convinced a great inversion will occur. They argue recent
urban reinvestment represents a momentary aberration in a longer trend of dispersed
settlement patterns; factors like gentrification and lifecycle preferences will keep
U.S. cities from going the way of their European counterparts (Kotkin, 2010; Myers,
2016). Kotkin argues that while some generations may express urban preferences, it is
a life stage; the suburbs are not shrinking and, in absolute terms, most households opt
to live in lower density communities (2010). He projects that dispersion will remain the
dominant trend, boosted by those same Millennials as they move towards coupledom
and parenthood. However, this temporary urban boost should not be lamented; the
short-lived swell of urban demand represents an opportunity for lagging central cities to
correct years of neglect (Myers, 2016). Myers argues cities should harness this energy to
reshape the urban fabric, embracing new development densities, walkability, multi-
modal transportation infrastructure, and mixed-use developments.
Contextualizing the literature to downtown Phoenix and Houston

For their parts, Phoenix and Houston do not embody the qualities of the quintessential
downtown. Many of the essential ingredients for downtown revitalization are absent or in
short supply, including large stocks of historic and/or architecturally relevant buildings or
supplies of convertible office or warehouse buildings (Birch, 2009; Danielsen & Lang,
2010; Sohmer, 1999; Sumo, 2007). Furthermore, both downtowns have historically been
defined by the low-density sprawl of their automobile-fueled origins, distinguishing them
from the concentrated development patterns of traditional CBDs (Birch, 2002).
They are, instead, indicative of another kind of contemporary urbanization and
downtown growth. Both Phoenix and Houston possess enduring commitments and
stewardship that support growth, including major investments in transit and anchor
institutions (Birch, 2009). These efforts have provided kindling for Phoenix and
Houston to reimagine their downtowns with a different formula. Their assets include
vacant parcels and parking lots; rather than reconceiving downtown through renova-
tion and historic preservation, these cities are seeing the downtown emerge anew with
new construction and infill projects. As a result, developers have the opportunity to not
just build residential and mixed-use buildings but, collectively, shape the landscape of
downtown in two major Sun Belt cities. While the literature exploring the rise of
downtown living and growth has been extensive since the late 1990s, this research
represents a new exploration of the roles of developers in defining downtown and the
way contemporary market preferences are cemented into the rapidly growing down-
town landscape.
Data and methods

Our research focused on study areas in downtown Phoenix and Houston. We used the
downtown definitions adopted by local planners (see City of Phoenix and Downtown
Phoenix Inc 2016; City of Houston 2015; Supplement 1). Downtown Phoenix was
bordered by the following streets: McDowell Road to the north, Lincoln Street to the
south, 7th Street to the east, and 7th Avenue to the west. Downtown Houston included
a much larger area, which spanned the Downtown Management District, the Midtown
Management District, and the East Downtown Management District.
We employed a multi-method approach to assess how the development community
was perceiving and responding to Millennial preferences in the Phoenix and Houston
regions. First, we used U.S. Census data to assess the differences between Millennials
living downtown versus those living elsewhere in the regions and compare the trajec-
tory of the downtowns to other parts of the regions. We relied on the Census to define
the Millennial generation as those born between 1982 and 2000 (US Census Bureau,
2015). As we are most interested in the movement and impacts of young adults within
the downtown residential market, we compared adults aged 25 to 34-years in 2016—
the year leading-edge Millennials (born in 1982) turned 34—to the same age cohort in
2000. Geographically, we relied on U.S. Census Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs)
to align local definitions of downtown with Census data (referred to as downtown). The
two areas largely overlapped, though the PUMAs did extend beyond the study area (see
description of limitations at the end of this section). In addition to the downtown areas,
we grouped PUMAs into two regional categories for each city, including: (1) the
remainder of the central city, excluding the downtown, which we defined as the central
city and (2) the remainder of the region, excluding the central city, which we defined as
the suburbs. We used descriptive statistics to compare differences in characteristics and
trajectories among the downtown, central city, and suburban PUMAs in each region.
Subsequently, we collected and analyzed qualitative data to understand how the
development community perceived and incorporated Millennial preferences into the
built environments of downtown Phoenix and Houston. First, we conducted a content
analysis of media in each region. We identified relevant content by inputting key words
associated with infill development and Millennial migration to downtown Phoenix and
Houston into Google and search engines located on regional media websites (e.g.
newspapers, radio and TV stations, and trade publications). We sorted search results
by relevance and reviewed the first 100 items for each combination of keywords for
inclusion in our sample. Overall, about 60 separate items of media content comprised
the sample. Most of the content came from the Arizona Republic and Houston
Chronicle, the regions’ flagship newspapers, but we also collected content from national
sources, like Governing, Next City, and Architect, regional public radio, and regional real
estate, business, and legal trade publications.
Second, we conducted interviews with downtown stakeholders, including developers,
property managers, journalists, activists, planners, and researchers (see Table 1). We
identified fifty-five potential interviewees (27 in Phoenix and 28 in Houston). We
collected most of our potential participants (46) through the media analysis;
a snowball sampling method offered nine additional contacts. Of these, 22 (10 in
Phoenix and 12 in Houston; 20 from the media analysis and two from the snowball
URBAN GEOGRAPHY 7
Table 1. Description of participants.

Category Sex Count
Phoenix
Developer M 4
Property Manager F 1
Community Development Organization Leader M 2
Planner F 1
Activist F 1
Researcher M 1
Houston
Developer M 2
Architect M 1
Local Government Leader M 1
Community Development Organization Leader M 1
Planner M 2
Activist M 1
Journalist F 1
Journalist M 1
Researcher M 2
Total 22
sample) eventually participated. The largest proportion of non-respondents were from

developers; in turn, a few developers and planners refused to participate due to lack of
knowledge on the topic. We interviewed stakeholders in 2016 via phone, email or in
person. Interviews were semi-structured, covering themes like participants’ perceptions
of Millennials, their roles and experiences downtown, and perceived effects of
Millennials’ migration downtown.
We relied on qualitative content analysis for the media and interview data. Our
media analysis used summary transcription, while we utilized full transcription for
interview data. We used Atlas.Ti to code all qualitative data, employing a combined
deductive and inductive framework. Codes were derived from existing themes in the
literature (e.g. gentrification) and emergent themes from the data (e.g. emerging versus
attempting adults, a theme described in the results that follow). Lastly, interview
participants reviewed and commented on a draft copy of the findings.
There are several limitations to our study. First, the quantitative Census data for
downtown Phoenix and Houston originate from a much larger area than the qualitative
data derived from our media and interview data. For instance, the Phoenix downtown
PUMA encompassed the more affluent and White Encanto, Willo, and Coronado
neighborhoods to the north and less affluent and largely Latino Garfield and Gateway
neighborhoods to the east. The Houston downtown PUMA extended further to the
southeast and did not include the Midtown Management District, which interview
participants used in their definition of the downtowns. We had to use the larger
PUMA Census geographies to capture fine-grained information on the characteristics
and trajectories of these downtowns, but readers should accept estimates with caution,
as they do not perfectly capture conditions occurring only within the downtowns.
Second, with a few exceptions, our interviews do not represent first-hand experiences
with Millennial migration. Most interviewees, for instance, were white males and were
often not, themselves, Millennials; they did, however, design their projects with the
Millennial market in mind. To this end, we captured a range of perspectives on our research
themes, but those perspectives are a limited sample and based on self-selection. Third, our
research is limited to the ways our interviewees perceive and interpret Millennial market
trends, as well as the ways new development is shaping downtown growth in Phoenix and
Houston; our data does not extend to Millennial behaviors or their self-reported prefer-
ences, now or over time. Fourth, downtown Phoenix and Houston are both in a state of
flux; our media analysis and interviews represent a specific point in time and do not
necessarily account for the dynamism of trends in those regions.
Comparing the cases: Phoenix and Houston

This research explores the ways developers are responding to Millennial trends and
incorporating their preferences into development projects in the “emerging” down-
towns of Phoenix and Houston. Subsequently, it considers the ways these projects are
shifting the housing landscape in not only the downtown, but also within the region.
Phoenix and Houston both claim several comparable rankings with respect to their
size and growth. They are among the largest cities in the U.S., ranked fourth (Houston)
and fifth (Phoenix) in 2017 (US Census Bureau, 2018b). Their regions are also among
the fastest growing in the U.S., ranked second (Houston) and fourth (Phoenix) in
population increase between 2016 and 2017 (US Census Bureau, 2018a). And both
cities are hubs for Millennial migration: they ranked sixth (Houston) and eleventh
(Phoenix) for the growth in young adults (20–34 years old) between 2000 and 2015,
beating out higher density cities along the U.S. coasts (Kotkin, 2017)
Physically, Phoenix and Houston are well known for their sprawling development
patterns and historically weak urban cores, henceforth called central cities, and downtowns
within their central cities, which sometimes are known as the CBD. In 2000, their popula-
tion densities were 4,377 and 3,909 persons per square mile, respectively; by comparison,
the coastal cities of Los Angeles (8,797) and Washington D.C. (9,227) claimed roughly twice
as much density (Manville & Shoup, 2005). Historically, their downtowns have also been
weak with an emphasis on exodus—and parking, rather than live-work-and-play. For every
ten jobs located downtown, Phoenix and Houston had nine and six parking spaces,
respectively; comparatively, downtown Los Angeles had five spaces and downtown
Washington D.C. had three spaces (Manville and Shoup 2005).
The recession and foreclosure crisis of the late 2000s and early 2010s hit both regions
hard. In 2010, foreclosure rates in Phoenix (11%) and Houston (6%) were well above
the national rate (2.23%) (RealtyTrac, 2012). By 2016, however, both cities had
rebounded, experiencing 5% and 10% growth in their respective housing stocks.
At a regional level, the data suggests that housing and population characteristics
differ across downtowns, central cities, or suburbs. Young adults between 25 and
34 years old are more concentrated in downtown than elsewhere in the region.
Millennials comprised about 21% and 17% of the downtown Phoenix and Houston
population in 2016, respectively, compared to 14% and 15% in the broader regions (see
Table 2; U.S. Census 2016). Yet, new construction trends have favored the regions’
central cities or suburbs over their downtowns. Only recently have downtown housing
starts increased in both regions, showing growth between 2000 and 2010; downtown
Phoenix experienced additional gains from 2010 to 2016. Approximately 4% of down-
town Phoenix’s 2016 housing stock was constructed in the past six years compared to
5% of housing in the region; Houston saw rates of 3% and 12% in the downtown and
region, respectively (U.S. Census 2010, U.S. Census 2016).
URBAN GEOGRAPHY 9
Table 2. Conditions in phoenix and Houston regions, 2016.

Conditions Phoenix Houston
Total Population
Population 46,61,537 67,72,470
% Population Growth (2000–2016) 43 45
% Latino 31 37
% African American 5 17
% Non-Hispanic White 56 37
% Asian 4 8
Median Household Income $58,075 $61,708
% Unemployed 6 6
% College Educated 31 32
Millennials
% Millennial 14 15
% Population Growth (2000–2016) 29 39
Housing Conditions
Housing Units 18,82,098 25,56,349
% Housing Unit Growth
2000–2006 (Boom) 22 18
2006–2010 (Recession) 11 10
2010–2016 (Recovery) 5 10
% Homeowners 62 59
Average Neighborhood Foreclosure Rate, 2010+ 11 6
% of Housing Units Vacant* 7 8
Environmental Conditions
% of Housing Units Single-Family Detached 65 62
Median Year Built 1990 1987
% of Workers Driving Alone 76 81
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2016); Joint Center for Housing Studies [JCHS] (2011)
Note: Millennials are ages 25 to 34
* Excludes second homes and homes for migrant workers.
+The number of auctions in 2010 divided by the number of outstanding first lien
mortgages in Dec. 2009.
The socio-economic characteristics of Millennials in downtown Phoenix and

Houston were also distinct from their peers in the region, as reported between 2011
and 20151 (see Table 3). Downtown Millennials were more likely to have never been
married. In Phoenix, close to two-thirds of downtown Millennials had never been
married compared to nearly half of Millennials elsewhere in the region. Differences in
Houston were narrower: 55% of downtown Millennials were never married relative to
Table 3. Characteristics of millennials in phoenix and Houston regions, 2011–2015.

Phoenix Houston
Characteristics (%) Downtown Central City Suburbs Downtown Central City Suburbs
Non-Hispanic White 38 42 57 12 27 39
Black 11 7 5 14 20 16
Latino 45 42 29 72 43 36
Asian 3 5 5 2 9 7
Never Married 62 53 49 55 52 41
Enrolled in School 14 12 15 9 13 12
College Educated 31 26 29 19 35 29
Poor 27 21 14 20 18 13
Born outside state 66 65 63 50 56 46
Moved within the Year 35 27 28 28 30 24
Moved from Out of State 17 18 24 10 19 16
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2015)
Note: Millennials are aged 25 to 34. Millennials who identify as Black or Asian may also identify as Latino.
52% and 41% in the rest of the City of Houston or its suburbs. Downtown Millennials
were also more likely to be poor—27% in Phoenix and 20% in Houston—compared to
their peers in the region. And both downtowns claimed a higher share of Latino
Millennials (45% and 72% in Phoenix and Houston, respectively) than elsewhere in
the regions—a trend that likely reflects the proximity of historic Latino neighborhoods
in both city centers.
We did identify a limited number of differences between Phoenix and Houston’s
Millennial populations. In Phoenix, a greater proportion of downtown Millennials
were college educated (31%) and had moved within the year (35%) relative to the
rest of the region; this was not the case for Houston’s downtown Millennials, where
only 19% had college degrees. Interestingly, neither downtown claimed a higher
share of Millennials enrolled in college, graduate or professional schools than else-
where in the regions—a surprising observation given the presence of major uni-
versities in both downtowns.
Findings: downtown transformation in Phoenix and Houston

Downtown Phoenix and Houston do not exemplify the stereotypical downtown. They
are not downtowns with a wealth of historic buildings or density. In the 1990s, when
many downtowns were growing, downtown Phoenix and Houston realized substantial
population decline in spite of growth in their cities (Birch, 2005b). Instead, these cities
are indicative of another kind of downtown revitalization, largely defined by infill
development and new construction. In turn, the downtown landscape is being shaped
by the choices and projects developers choose to pursue.
Our analysis focuses on the ways developers are perceiving Millennial preferences and
cementing them into the built environments in downtown Phoenix and Houston. We
begin with a discussion of the perceived Millennial lifecycle stages in downtown: emer-
ging adulthood and attempting adulthood—a new stage that we derived from our data.
These impressions help contextualize the development community’s approach to new
projects. We then offer three insights about the ways developers have shaped recent
downtown development. First, developers are activating previously underutilized spaces,
seeking to capitalize on the growing demand for urban living and changing long-held
downtown perceptions. Second, downtown housing market shifts are sparking concerns
about affordability and gentrification, consequently affecting Millennials in different ways
depending upon their lifecycle stage. Third, downtown growth is impacting Phoenix and
Houston at a regional level, as demand and investment shifts away from the suburbs, and
suburban developers seek to leverage urban infill strategies in outlying communities.
Examining millennial lifecycle stages

Through our interviews and media analysis, we found Millennials typically align with one
of two lifecycle stages—emerging or attempting adulthood, each defined by differing
housing preferences and life goals. Emerging adulthood originates from developmental
psychology and describes the transition between adolescence and adulthood (Arnett,
2006). This stage encompasses young adults who intentionally delay or reject the tradi-
tional milestones of adulthood, such as becoming financially independent, coupledom,
URBAN GEOGRAPHY 11
homeownership, and parenthood. They prioritize flexibility, mobility, and new experi-
ences and view downtown living as “a lifestyle choice,” as a Houston researcher put it.
This stage often comprises younger Millennials, including students, but also older, work-
ing Millennials. For the latter, emerging adults typically prioritize locational preferences
above other considerations, such as job opportunities. As a Houston community devel-
opment organization (CDO) leader summarized, “If you can’t meet [these Millennials’]
lifestyle criteria, they’re just not going to move to your city, period.”
Emerging adults generally chose to de-prioritize traditional adult milestones because
they “value experience over material gain,” as a Houston planner described. A Millennial-
aged journalist in Houston asserted these individuals are not “renting because there’s no
choice;” emerging adults are “renters by choice . . . they don’t want to own a house . . .
they would rather pay less and have more flexibility, that lifestyle of being close, inside the
city.” They are also willing to adapt to stay in their preferred location.
Our research, however, revealed that emerging adulthood did not capture the
priorities of all Millennials in the downtown housing market. Instead, a second lifecycle
stage surfaced, which we classify as “attempting adulthood.” Interviewees described
attempting adults as Millennials who seek the traditional adult milestones, but are
constrained in their quest to settle down and become homeowners and/or parents. In
contrast with emerging adults, a Millennial-aged journalist described these individuals
as “renting because there’s no choice.”
Attempting adults may struggle to reach traditional milestones because of economic
or personal constraints. In the U.S., stagnant incomes and growing wealth inequality hit
these Millennials hard. “[T]hey’re shackled,” explained a Phoenix developer; “A lot of
them have a difficult time with a down payment . . . [t]hey’ve got student debt . . . a car
payment.” Millennials who experienced foreclosure during the recent U.S. Great
Recession and want to return to homeownership also linger in this stage. Others,
a Houston planner observed, “ . . . are delaying their housing purchase . . . [because]
a good slug of those got out of college in the depths of the Great Recession” and faced
limited opportunities in a slack economy.
Some participants surmised that attempting adults may represent a larger segment of
the downtown Phoenix and Houston Millennial population than in other high-cost
coastal downtowns, like New York, Seattle or Los Angeles. One explanation may be the
more conservative culture: A Millennial-aged journalist in Houston explained, “A lot of
my friends on the East Coast are still working, still dating. They’re not necessarily
looking to settle down . . . in Texas, it’s a little different . . . there’s a sense that, ‘Let’s get
married. Have kids. Raise a family.’” Homeownership is also more attainable in Phoenix
and Houston relative to other cities; a Houston local government leader noted, “[W]e’re
seeing a lot of transplants from the coast who literally can sell their 1,000 square foot
apartment and get a house three times that size for 75% of the cost.”
How are downtown Phoenix and Houston changing?

For the development community, downtown Phoenix and Houston have become
increasingly attractive markets for investment. The perception is that Millennials are
a major target market. As they pursue new projects, developers are responding to
perceived demand to activate underutilized spaces, ushering in new building materials

and architectural styles and extending street-level activities beyond the 9-to-5 work day.
While downtown Phoenix and Houston are known for their low densities, recent
projects have broken that mold. Developers are now approaching these downtowns
differently, seeking “to find underutilized lots . . . [that] have been vacant for 20 plus
years, haven’t had a house on it or anything, and basically utilize the zoning to [get] the
most capacity that we possibly can.” As a result, they are converting vacant lots, surface
parking, and other underutilized parcels into active spaces for housing, retail, restau-
rants, and other amenities.
Developers described how Millennials are shaping the downtown market by virtue of
their perceived preference for urban lifestyles. A Phoenix CDO leader surmised that if
a small portion of Millennials decided to move downtown, their actions “would totally
rebuild and use all of the vacant land that we have.” Their preferences have already
created “nodes of walkability,” attracting amenities that have helped remake downtown
Phoenix and Houston, according to a Phoenix developer. And their presence has
rebranded the downtowns as “ . . . more youthful, it’s become more energized. It’s
becoming more diverse . . . The street-level activity, you can see and feel everything
change . . . it’s becoming a real urban place,” reported the Phoenix CDO leader.
These new investments have altered regional impressions, with Millennial energy
changing “the perception problem of downtown.” As one Millennial-aged activist in
Phoenix described, there was a time that “you would never come down[town],” but that
is no longer the case. A Houston architect noted that downtown “was literally a ghost
town after 6 p.m. [10 years ago],” but now it is “much more of an 18-hour city.”
Interviewees believed the influence of Millennial demand on developers was mutually
beneficial and positively reinforced downtown revitalization. A Phoenix CDO leader
characterized it as a self-sustaining, “circular kind of thing . . . The more [Millennials]
that are here, the more that the businesses will change . . . [and] the more that will attract
Millennials.” A Millennial-aged developer provided a personal anecdote, describing how he
only went to downtown Phoenix for “baseball games and basketball games” in his youth.
However, there was now “this whole new world,” leading Millennials like himself, who
“grew up here and don’t really want to leave [Phoenix],” to move downtown “because it
gives them that little sense of somewhere else, yet [it’s] still home.”
Millennials are also shaping the downtown built environment through civic engage-
ment. A Phoenix planner believed Millennials “are having an absolute impact on
how . . . downtown is shaped.” She attributes this to their participation “on more boards
and commissions . . . [and their attendance at] City Council meetings and planning
meetings to really guide and push what they want to see, and how they want to see it
developed.” A Houston activist cited two Millennials on the East Downtown TIRZ
board, adding “one of them owns and operates a [very successful] brew pub . . . He
speaks out about what his generation wants. We listen. We want young people to really
not only enjoy living in the city, but profit from it.”
One Millennial-aged activist shared her experience living in downtown Phoenix,
describing how she routinely spoke at public meetings for downtown development
projects in favor of reduced parking requirements. She said, “I always show up at those
meetings and be like ‘I don’t own a car. I haven’t had a car for three years. These are the
type of people that are going to come down here. This is the type of people we want to
URBAN GEOGRAPHY 13
attract, yet you’re building two spaces for one unit or three spaces, whatever.’” She also
advocates for affordable housing and against “stupid variances.” She explained how
Millennials fought for “at least 10 [affordable housing] units [in one project] . . . because
of just how high everything has been here. Allow baristas that work down here to
actually afford to live down here . . . [W]e fight buildings all the time that have stupid
variances . . . they aren’t adhering to the downtown code, they’re not being walkable, so
we go to the hearings and fight that.”
Implications for downtown living: housing affordability and gentrification

As developers break ground on new residential projects, the cost of living in downtown
Phoenix and Houston is increasing. These rising prices are spurring concerns about
gentrification and its consequences for historic populations in the downtown.
Downtown Phoenix and Houston have long been more economically depressed than
the rest of their central cities and suburbs. However, those trends are shifting, suggest-
ing a process of reinvestment and, potentially, gentrification is underway. Table 4
summarizes shifts in socioeconomic status (SES) between 2000 and 2016 for downtown
Phoenix and Houston, relative to their central cities and suburbs. The reported SES
values account for two characteristics commonly used to approximate a place’s relative
advantage: the percentage of adults (25 and older) with at least a bachelor’s degree, and
the percentage of households earning above the region’s median annual household
income (approximately $44,000 to $62,000, depending on the region and year).2
Geographies with values above zero have higher SES relative to the other geographies
in the region; conversely, geographies with values below zero have lower relative SES.
Two trends are evident. First, downtown Phoenix and Houston have long been of
lower SES than the rest of their regions. However, recent trends suggest the downtowns
are catching up to the central cities and suburbs. Between 2000 and 2016, the SES of
both downtowns increased markedly, with the largest increases occurring between 2010
and 2016 (−1.35 to −0.95 in Phoenix and −1.77 to −1.09 in Houston); the central cities
and suburbs remained relatively static during this period. Even though the 2016 SES
index of downtown Phoenix (−0.95) and Houston (−1.09) remained approximately one
standard deviation below other parts of the regions, trends showed significant move-
ment towards closing the historic gap between a downtown and its region.
Table 4. Changes in socioeconomic status of phoenix and Houston regions, 2000–2016.

Phoenix Houston
Indicators Downtown Central City Suburbs Downtown Central City Suburbs
SES Index
2000 −1.43 −0.14 0.14 −2.06 −0.29 0.24
2006 −1.39 −0.20 0.17 −1.95 −0.36 0.28
2010 −1.35 −0.31 0.22 −1.77 −0.32 0.25
2016 −0.95 −0.27 0.18 −1.09 −0.17 0.14
Median Rent
2016 $772 $919 $1,079 $729 $878 $1,069
% Change in Rents 2012–2016 1 −2 −2 3 2 6
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000, 2006, 2010, 2012, 2016)
The SES index is calculated as the average z scores of the percent of adults college educated and households above the
median regional household income among the PUMAs in the geography. Rents are in 2016 dollars. Rents for each
geography reflect the median of the median gross rent of the PUMAs within the geography.
Many interviewees expressed concern about the continued affordability of downtown

housing units. They described the ramifications of increases in the construction costs of
new downtown projects, which initially favored luxury multi-family rental buildings
and, more recently, have started to include more condo buildings. Participants also
discussed the consequences of increasing demand and decreasing housing affordability
for downtown residents, including those who have historically called the area home.
Median rents increased in downtown Phoenix and Houston during the 2010s (see Table
4). Rent increases in downtown Phoenix were particularly notable, given rent declines
in the rest of the City of Phoenix and the region’s suburbs.
Housing densities have increased in both regions, which have impacted land values and
construction costs. A Houston planner expressed concern that cheaper “stick-built” struc-
tures no longer penciled out3 in the downtown and adjacent Midtown area. A Houston
developer elaborated, citing the tradeoffs between “land [that] goes over $125-$150 a square
foot” and the more expensive “ . . . concrete frame buildings [that can support] . . . 300 units
per acre.” As he summarized, “if you want to provide affordable housing and get the density
to work with the land price, you’re going to have to go [with a] higher density design.”
The expense of higher-density steel concrete frame buildings translates into higher
cost homes. A Millennial-aged journalist in Houston observed that 95% of new down-
town apartments were higher-cost Class A developments; very few represented lower-
cost Class B buildings. A Phoenix CDO leader described similar escalation, noting that
“ . . . [t]he only housing that was being built during the recession . . . was affordable
housing, because land prices fell and there was funding for it.” Now, however, he
believes the “sheer volume of the high-end stuff . . . overwhelms” any existing housing
supply; it is “ . . . probably even more challenging to get stuff in between luxury and
affordable built because the [land and construction] prices just don’t work too well.”
Disappearing infill opportunities are also increasing land values and housing costs in
downtown Phoenix. One suburban homebuilder explored downtown development
opportunities in 2013, comparing his chance of identifying suitable lots to finding “a
needle in a haystack” (Reagor & Morrison, 2013). During the second quarter of 2015,
the “asking rental rate” in downtown and central Phoenix was the highest in the region
(Kingston, 2015), and reports described escalating housing costs in Phoenix’s down-
town and downtown-adjacent neighborhoods (Reagor, 2015).
The effect of decreasing housing affordability varies for the Millennial population in
downtown Phoenix and Houston. A Houston planner observed Millennials doubling up
(or more) in order to remain in increasingly expensive downtowns. He explained, “I
suspect that there is . . . because of the focus on experience, a bigger willingness to double
up . . . [and] form communities, even if they’re informal communities in apartments, than
you would see in other generations.” A Houston journalist and Millennial stressed,
“Millennials are always going to want to be close to the center of the city, and they’re
going to do whatever they can to pony up this rent.” A Phoenix developer observed
Millennials are willing to sacrifice even though they didn’t “necessarily want to be with
a roommate.” A Houston study estimated that 35% of Millennials earning at least $60,000
and identifying as recent or prospective homebuyers were willing to consider a roommate
in exchange for more affordable housing costs (Takahashi, 2015).
Despite emerging adult Millennials’ apparent flexibility, participants also expressed
concern that only a subset of Millennials were in a position to withstand increasing housing
URBAN GEOGRAPHY 15
costs; they saw the potential for gentrification to exclude others from remaining downtown.
This is particularly true when considering that “Millennial” is not a static label and
encompasses a broad spectrum of individuals and socio-economic circumstances (Quick,
2015). These increases in downtown living costs contributed to growing housing demand
in historic, downtown-adjacent neighborhoods. Median sale prices in neighborhoods
within a short drive or train ride to downtown Phoenix increased 50% between the first
quarters of 2015 and 2016 (Goth, 2016). Attempting adults often drove housing demand in
these neighborhoods, seeking a compromise between their desire to live in a dense, vibrant,
and amenity rich downtown and their demand for more space to raise families. A CDO
leader in Phoenix stressed that despite the “cost prohibitive” prices in downtown-adjacent
neighborhoods, attempting adults are “not going out to [the suburbs] . . . [T]hey’re looking
for housing as close to downtown as they can get.”
Developers, in return, recognized this demand and responded by expanding their
investments beyond the downtown. A Millennial-aged developer in Phoenix explained,
“Our idea is basically to buy up land just on the outskirts of [today’s] downtown . . . to help
push it out and build that community out.” Gentrification in Houston’s adjacent neighbor-
hoods is also placing upward pressure on downtown-adjacent land values. A Houston
researcher observed, “What you’re seeing, really . . . [is] a spillover [in Midtown] and
a backfilling from Montrose back toward downtown of gentrification with Millennials.”
Participants debated the relative affordability and continued accessibility of downtown.
A Millennial-aged journalist in Houston claimed, “[T]here’s a sense that people are going
to have to do something” because “things are getting out of hand very quickly.” On the
constraining end of the spectrum, Houston stakeholders noted the limited supply of new,
affordable housing in downtown, which could prohibit even the most flexible Millennial
from residing in the area. A Houston researcher described the current supply of new
housing as “mid-luxury, five-story stacked flats.” A Houston planner noted, “I think it’s
getting much more difficult, if you just look at median income—the median person in
that Millennial group—toward housing in those districts. Even though a lot of it has been
built, it’s really not at the variety of price points.” A Houston CDO leader admitted,
“trying to find a way to get more development of that mid-range, or market-affordable, at
least, kind of housing product is definitely a challenge.” Developers’ pressure to build
higher density projects also has increased the feasibility of micro-units4 in both regions,
which target Millennials—particularly emerging adults who are more flexible in their
living preferences. Yet, there were concerns that micro-units may make it difficult for
larger families to stay or move downtown.
At the same time, gentrification pressures in downtown Phoenix and Houston are
occurring more slowly than in other coastal centers. One reason is the greater land
availability in these Sun Belt regions. For instance, in 2016, Houston’s Fifth Ward
included approximately 3,000 vacant lots (Stephens, 2016). The historic concentrations
of poverty in downtown Phoenix and Houston may also contribute to slower gentrifi-
cation (Sunnucks, 2015).
In Houston, two countervailing trends may further explain lower downtown gentrifica-
tion pressures. First, the overall supply of multifamily rental properties in Houston suggests
an abundance of stock. The rental market may also be slackening, driven, in part, by
dipping oil prices and job cuts in the energy sector. A Millennial-aged journalist pointed to
evidence of oversupply, including apartment companies using gimmicks to attract renters,
such as “three months free rent” or iPads. Other participants noted the recent decline in
new multifamily projects, as banks were less eager to finance them owing to slowed
employment in the energy sector. Second, there is a perception that Houston’s
Millennials have limited tolerance for spending a high proportion of their income on
housing. As an architect explained, Texas Millennials are more cost conscious and “there’s
not the desire to pool . . . money, [to] spend 30, 35, 40% of [their] income on housing . . .
There’s not a desire to do that in Texas, because the premise is, why, right? They’ve built
one of the most inexpensive big cities in the country . . . ”
Beyond downtown: centralization and its impact on the suburbs

As demand grows in downtown Phoenix and Houston, it is affecting development
patterns in the rest of the region and drawing investment away from the suburbs
(Reagor & Morrison, 2013). A Millennial-aged journalist in Houston explained,
“Millennials, more so than any other generation, they’re not in a rush to buy a house
in the suburbs.” A Phoenix CDO leader described the recent migration of Millennials to
the city center as “only the tip of the iceberg.” He projected, “You’re going to see
a repopulation of the center part of Phoenix that’s driven principally by this generation.”
As he sees it, Millennials’ desire to live downtown stands in contrast with Baby Boomers’
preferences in their youth—the “suburban nation generation” who “fled city centers.”
Where will millennials move? downtown versus the suburbs

Some interviewees believed Millennial-led demand for downtown living would even-
tually reduce demand for suburban housing. As a Millennial-aged activist in Phoenix
pondered, “Sometimes, I’m driving out [to the suburbs], and I’m just like, ‘Is anyone in
my generation going to buy these huge houses in the middle of nowhere?’” A Houston
developer polled his Millennial staff about whether they would consider moving to
a new suburban project they were building; his staff responded that “they would rather
have Alzheimer’s disease than live in [the suburban development].” The Phoenix
activist summarized, “[Millennials are] shifting things back from suburbs to center
cities, or walkable areas, and that’s going to be crazy, because we’re basically reversing
a trend of 60 years . . . of everyone leaving out to the suburbs and building all that up.”
However, other signals suggest that some Millennials may not remain downtown,
particularly attempting adults with school-age children who struggle to satisfy their
evolving housing needs. For instance, attempting adults in both downtowns grapple
with whether they should invest in depressed downtown public schools, pay for
expensive nearby private schools, or move to more advantaged suburban school
districts.5 Their choice depends, in part, on whether they have “start[ed] establishing
roots, friendships, job security” and “certain ties to the area that’s going to make them
want to stay around that area,” a Phoenix developer explained. The Phoenix activist
thought “a lot of people would stay [in downtown Phoenix] until they were ready to
have kids . . . ” The dilemma, however, has shifted with “a lot of [Millennials] want[ing]
to make it work with kids . . . but I don’t know until what point . . . I want to be down
here always, but I don’t believe . . . [others] feel the same way.”
Development choices, including a limited supply of family-friendly housing units or
amenities, may have longer-term impacts on the types of households able to move (or
URBAN GEOGRAPHY 17
remain) in downtown Phoenix or Houston. A Houston developer admitted, “No one’s

building family-oriented apartments in Houston right now, in the inner city, that would
appeal to a Millennial with a family.” In Phoenix, a CDO leader noted that “[t]he
[housing] options are relatively limited” for attempting adults living downtown who
wanted more space. He added, “I think the hardest thing for us to figure out [is] how to
build housing to attract young families.” The Phoenix activist claimed that downtown
needed “more family-friendly things . . . that aren’t tailored towards the drinking
crowd.” Two of the Phoenix participants mentioned a new coffee shop with
a playground out back as an example of the very recent, but still unique, kind of uses
that are needed to attract and retain attempting adults downtown.
Lastly, the more conservative culture and sprawling geography of Phoenix and
Houston may, over time, orient attempting adults away from downtown towards the
suburbs. A Millennial-aged developer in Phoenix noted, “For some young professionals,
but specifically for people starting a family, people that are just married, I think that [the]
single-family, detached product is still a much more desired . . . product.” A Millennial-
aged journalist in Houston agreed, “I think there is more of a desire here, in Texas
especially, because there’s so much land . . . to move to a single-family home.” While
downtown-adjacent neighborhoods may satisfy that preference, the predominant supply
of single-family homes in Phoenix and Houston are located beyond either downtown.
Gen X or Baby Boomer interviewees were less certain that Millennials would stay
downtown over time, in part informed by their own experiences. Most felt that
Millennials, like preceding generations, would be unable to resist the draw of the
suburbs as they started families. A Houston CDO leader, who also identified as a Gen
Xer, used the metaphor of downtown being a “revolving door,” anticipating Millennials
would eventually relocate to the suburbs in search of better schools and more space for
their kids, before returning downtown as empty nesters. Millennials acknowledged this
trend, distinguishing the “hard core” Millennial urbanists from the “light” urbanists,
who would likely decamp for the suburbs during their family-rearing years.
How is downtown development shaping the suburbs?

The potential depopulation of suburban neighborhoods is of particular concern in the
cities of Phoenix and Houston, given the preponderance of existing suburban-style
neighborhoods contained within their massive borders. Local policymakers face tradeoffs
when they promote downtown growth and reinvestment, as it may disadvantage their
more suburban neighborhoods. “Houston has a lot of suburbs,” explained a planner, “and
some of [them] are not in very good condition, given their age. I think that certainly
needs to be a concern of the City as it moves forward . . . the extent to which some of
these neighborhoods outside of the [downtown] continue to be places that people can live
with decent standards of living.” A Houston architect forecasted the suburbs “becoming
these hotbeds of lower-income populations.” – a concern reflected in the literature, as
scholars debate urban-suburban shifts in poverty and housing markets (Brueckner &
Rosenthal, 2009; Ehrenhalt, 2013; Leinberger, 2008; Myers, 2016).
A countervailing trend to the decline of Phoenix and Houston’s suburbs is the influence
downtown housing markets are having on traditional suburban development strategies.
A Phoenix developer remarked that as more innovative projects accumulate in the down-
town, suburban developers are noticing and experimenting with new urban products. He
said, “When we started [building downtown], it kind of . . . awakened a lot of people. ‘Gee,
there might be something down here that we’re missing out on. Let’s get involved.’”
This experimentation has resulted in two outcomes. First, some traditional suburban
developers, such as Meritage and Toll Brothers, are spearheading urban infill projects in
downtown Phoenix and Houston (Feser, 2015; Reagor & Morrison, 2013). The Great
Recession, which hit Phoenix’s suburban neighborhoods particularly hard, was
a catalyst for some of these projects, as developers reconsidered their portfolios in
light of new housing market realities.
Second, some suburban developers are adapting downtown strategies and urban
products for Phoenix and Houston’s outlying suburbs. Phoenix’s suburban cities
experienced a surge in multifamily development during the mid-2010s. Considering
the predominance of single-family homes and planned neighborhoods in these com-
munities, this represents a path-breaking trend. In another example, a developer in
a Phoenix suburb named a planned subdivision after a historic downtown neighbor-
hood, incorporating “homes . . . designed with a historic feel, amenities and price point
to appeal to the Millennial generation” into the project (AZ Business Magazine, 2016).
A Millennial-aged developer in Phoenix had pursued several single-family develop-
ments in more walkable suburbs, aiming to attract Millennials. He explained, “Every
single one of my locations has a grocery store across the street from it right now. Every
one of them has some sort of restaurant, bar, places where you can go eat, go play, and
are walkable.” He also builds single-family homes with only a one-car garage to appeal
to “a young professional, a start-up family” living in a walkable area. As a Phoenix CDO
leader explained, “Even in suburban settings, Millennials expect it to be more urban.”
A Millennial-aged activist living in downtown Phoenix observed that her friends have
been “congregating” in “walkable, quasi-urban areas that you still have to have a car,
but you can, on the weekend, not worry about that and just walk to your favorite
restaurant or grocery store, or whatever.”
Similar trends are occurring in Houston, with “urban village environments” popping
up in far-flung suburbs (Mulvaney, 2014; e.g. Kadifa, 2016). As a Houston CDO leader
described, “exurban bedroom communities . . . have started to form their own gravity . .
. [with] their own downtowns or city centers.” He now sees “ . . . completely suburban
communities that have responded” to Millennial demand for “that kind of shared space,
urban experience” within their neighborhood. A Houston architect pointed to Sugar
Land Town Center as an innovative example of mixed-use suburban development in
the region. He explained, “There’s an attempt . . . to counteract the inclination of
Millennials to leave the suburbs where they went to high school, and then come back
to the city. The[y’re] trying to urbanize the suburbs.”
Not all participants were impressed by new suburban products, however, noting that
their location was the only true innovation. A Phoenix developer said, “The stuff that’s
out there, outside of the [downtown], the apartments, the multifamily stuff that they’re
doing—it’s all pretty vanilla. And, I think it’s very difficult to do something that’s
special without having the mass of folks . . . ” A Houston planner cautioned that “the
housing component of that mixed-use is probably still insignificant in the grand scheme
of things” in the suburbs. A Millennial-aged developer in Phoenix felt that the reach of
new suburban housing styles was limited. For instance, he argued more innovative
architectural features “[don’t] change the price of construction that much” and might
URBAN GEOGRAPHY 19
penetrate suburban housing projects; however, he would be “surprised if builders move

away from the traditional earth-color tones . . . towards something that’s more vibrant,”
as color palettes “definitely increase the [construction] price.” Ultimately, urban-aspir-
ing suburban developers face challenges in their efforts to identify features that are
“unique, but still feasible to replicate.”
Discussion and conclusion

This research has explored the ways developers have understood and responded to
Millennial housing preferences in the rapidly growing downtowns of two sprawling U.S.
Sun Belt regions, Phoenix and Houston. The ways developers have interpreted
Millennial markets in these downtowns provided the primary lens for understanding
change. We offer several insights into the nature of this downtown housing market and
how these dynamics may be reshaping regional housing markets.
First, developers and Millennials are investing their money, time, and energy into
downtown Phoenix and Houston. As developers respond to Millennial market prefer-
ences, they are activating previously underutilized spaces through physical transforma-
tion and catalyzing new perceptions about downtown character. Whereas downtown
spaces were once avoided, at worst, or, at best, viewed as single-purpose destinations for
work or location-specific events (e.g. baseball games), they have since evolved into
vibrant, 24/7 destinations within their regions.
Second, downtown transformation is contributing to worries about housing afford-
ability and gentrification in Phoenix and Houston. New housing units more fully
accommodate some population groups better than others, including Millennials who
identify with the emerging adult lifecycle stage and other households, such as Baby
Boomers, seeking a “lock and leave lifestyle” in an amenity-rich locale (Reagor, 2017).
Those seeking more traditional housing choices or requiring more affordable units,
including long-time downtown residents, are not served as well. For instance,
Millennials in the attempting adult stage may struggle to find downtown housing suitable
for coupledom and parenthood due to high housing costs and the lack of family-friendly
housing and amenities. This is not an uncommon phenomenon in the U.S., where
downtown population growth is frequently accompanied by falling numbers of children,
but there are models for retaining—even promoting—family households as part of
downtown revitalization (Roberts, 2017). Notably, Vancouver, British Columbia is often
lauded for its family-friendly housing policies (City of Vancouver, 2016), including
zoning for 2+ bedroom units and planning for amenities, including child care, schools,
and public spaces (Roberts, 2017). In cities like Phoenix and Houston, where the down-
towns are still being built, there may be greater opportunity to consciously plan for these
family-supporting units and amenities and allow Millennial-led families to remain.
Third, new investment in downtown Phoenix and Houston is reshaping regional
demand and investments. Increased interest in downtown living has shifted demand
away from conventional suburban developments. As a result, there are concerns about
the consequences for regional housing markets if Millennials—and older generations
seeking to downsize—continue to support demand in downtown markets. There is
special concern directed towards understanding the trends for attempting adults who,
in previous generations, would have aspired to move to the suburbs once they started
families (Ehrenhalt, 2013; Gallagher, 2014). At the same time, some suburban devel-
opers are leveraging urban demand by incorporating downtown-inspired infill strate-
gies into outlying communities.
Last, it is worth noting that the development community is often responding to
a narrow Millennial market, informed by commonly held conceptions of the genera-
tion. Millennials are often cast as educated, affluent, and, many times, White individuals
seeking an urban lifestyle worthy of Instagram selfies (Ruggeri, 2017); however, the
generation is substantially more diverse than this stereotype with respect to race and
ethnicity, educational attainment, and socioeconomics (Frey, 2018; Lee, 2018; Quick,
2015). Racial and ethnic disparities in wealth and educational attainment persist for the
Millennial cohort, which has implications for housing demand and preferences (Frey,
2018). In turn, downtown market trends and changes in the built environment do not
speak for an entire generation, but respond to impressions alone.
Several questions remain unanswered with respect to Millennials and urbanization
trends in Phoenix and Houston. At present, there is no clear picture of how the
generation’s locational preferences might shift as they opt in to parenthood and/or
transition into middle age. Consequently, downtown growth in Phoenix and Houston
could represent a durable inversion of population in previously sprawling cities
(Ehrenhalt, 2013; Florida, 2014; Lee, 2018) or a momentary deviation in the continued
movement towards suburbanization, as other scholars have forecasted (Kotkin, 2010;
Myers, 2016). Each path portends to different challenges for urban theory and practice.
Ongoing demand for downtown housing, driven in part by Millennials, would
introduce a number of questions about gentrification, access, and affordability to U.S.
Sun Belt regions. The consequences borne by Millennials during the Great Recession
are receding. Whereas household formation and wage potential were suppressed for
a number of years, those trends are reversing and an average of two million new
households are coming online each year (JCHS, 2016). However, for younger genera-
tions, this expansion is tempered by student debt—a growing concern for recent
college graduates that may constrain homeownership opportunities and influence
housing choices in the short- to mid-term (Bleemer, Brown, Lee, Strair, & van der
Klaauw, 2017). Future research should assess the intersections and gaps between
Millennial preferences, which are already transforming the face of downtown devel-
opment, market options, and socioeconomic trends. Furthermore, Millennials are not
the only demographic contributing to population gains in downtown; perhaps, Baby
Boomers and empty nesters will continue to drive demand for higher cost housing in
the urban core. In that case, future research should also consider the diversity of the
downtown residential market and the potential supply gaps as different populations
compete for space.
Conversely, waning demand for downtown housing among Millennials would offer
an opportunity to examine the implications for both urban and suburban areas.
A critical question, as posed by Myers (2016), is how can urban centers maximize
reurbanization trends to sustain recent downtown gains? Further, how might recent
and planned investments in infrastructure and the built environment be designed (or
adapted) to address the needs of forthcoming generations, whether they are from
preceding or future cohorts? Future research should explore the ways urban locational
preferences are and can be translated into non-traditional locales, including suburban
URBAN GEOGRAPHY 21
communities. For instance, the Phoenix region hosts multiple urban centers beyond its
downtown. These nodes are emerging in Phoenix’s urban neighborhoods, as well as in
adjacent suburban communities. They often leverage regional infrastructure, most
notably light rail, and rely on similar downtown development strategies, adapted to
suit a slightly different scale, price point, and/or audience. These emergent approaches
could be particularly relevant for larger U.S. Sun Belt cities and megaregions, offering
insights about how to harness the preferences for more urban amenities and catalyze
improvement beyond the traditional city center.
Phoenix and Houston are not reflective of quintessential downtowns, but they do
represent a transformation taking place in rapidly growing, car-centric cities in the U.S.
Sun Belt. Their experience offers insights into how developers, as key downtown
stakeholders, have the ability to respond to discrete markets and remake the built
environment into a vibrant, newly dense place. The metamorphosis of downtown
Phoenix and Houston can offer lessons for other urban cores that, similarly, lack the
classic ingredients for revitalization, such as historic buildings and warehouse conver-
sions, but are dotted with vacant lots and infill potential. This dynamic also offers
insights for cities with sprawling development patterns, as Phoenix and Houston
developers adapt their downtown projects to establish multiple nodes of activity and
density throughout the broader region.
Notes
1. Note: The five-year American Community Survey estimates (ACS) are continuously
collected over a five-year period. Thus, they differ slightly from our selected Millennial-
aged definition of young adults born between 1982 and 2000. In 2013, the mid-point of the
2011–2015 five-year estimate, a 34-year-old would have been slightly older than our target
Millennial group (born in 1979). Notably, this definition does still align closely, though not
perfectly, with the Pew Research Center’s definition of Millennials (1980–1996) (Dimock,
2019). This is a limitation of the available data, but still offers a largely overlapping view of
young adult characteristics in the study areas.
2. The SES index was constructed as follows. First, we calculated z-scores for each
PUMA’s percent of adults age 25 and older with at least a bachelor’s degree and percent
of households earning above the region’s median household income. Z-scores for each
characteristic were calculated by subtracting the PUMA’s value for the characteristic from
the average value for the characteristic for all PUMAs in the region and dividing this value
by the standard deviation of the characteristic for all PUMAs in the region. Then, we
constructed an index by taking the average of the PUMAs’ z-scores for the percent of
adults age 25 and older with at least a bachelor’s degree and percent of households earning
above the region’s median household income for each geography.
3. The term “penciled out” is often used in the development community and refers to rough
cost estimates used to determine if a proposed project would be profitable.
4. Micro-units are small apartments with in-unit kitchen and bathrooms. While there is no
standard size, a working definition suggests they generally are less than 350 square feet
(Urban Land Institute, 2014).
5. The schooling issue is so pressing in Houston that various downtown management
organizations have formed a committee to address education. Yet, our Phoenix partici-
pants felt that the public schools downtown were relatively good compared to those
elsewhere in the city, which meant that school quality was less of a barrier for their
attempting adults trying to stay downtown.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Meagan M. Ehlenz http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7357-9485
References
Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen. (2006). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through
the twenties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
AZ Business Magazine. (2016). Upcoming phoenix community built with millennials in mind.
AZ Business Magazine.
Birch, Eugenie L. (2002). Having a longer view on downtown living. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 68(1), 5–21.
Birch, Eugenie L. (2005a). Who lives downtown. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
Birch, Eugenie L. (2005b). Who lives downtown today (And are they any different from downt-
owners of thirty years ago)? Working paper, Philadelphia, PA.
Birch, Eugenie L. (2009). Downtown in the “New American City.”. The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 626(1), 134–153.
Birch, Eugenie L. (2012). Living downtown in the twenty-first century: Past trends and future
policy concerns. In F. Wagner & R. W. Caves (Eds.), Community Livability (pp. 143–173).
Routledge.
Bleemer, Zachary, Brown, Meta, Lee, Donghoon, Strair, Katherine, & van der Klaauw, Wilbert.
(2017). Echoes of rising tuition in students’ borrowing, educational attainment, and home-
ownership in post-recession America. New York, NY: Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Brueckner, Jan K., & Rosenthal, Stuart S. (2009). Gentrification and neighborhood housing
cycles: Will America’s future downtowns be rich? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 91
(4), 725–743.
City of Vancouver. (2016). Creating housing options for families in Vancouver, text/xml.
Retrieved from https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/housing-options-for-families.aspx
Danielsen, Karen A., & Lang, Robert E. (2010). Live work play: New perspectives on the
downtown rebound. disP - the Planning Review, 46(180), 91–105.
Dimock, Michael. (2018). Defining generations: Where millennials end and post-millennials begin.
Factank: News in the numbers. Pew Research Center.
Dimock, Michael. (2019). Defining generations: Where millennials end and generation Z begins.
Washington DC: Pew Research Center.
Ehrenhalt, Alan. (2013). The great inversion and the future of the American city. New York, NY:
Vintage Books.
Feser, Katherine. (2015, October). Toll brothers looks inside the loop for home building. Houston
Chronicle, pp. 22.
Fishman, Robert. (2005). Longer view: The fifth migration. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 71(4), 357–366.
Florida, Richard. (2014). Rise of the creative class: Revisited. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Florida, Richard. (2017). The new urban crisis: How our cities are increasing inequality, deepening
segregation, and failing the middle class– And what we can do about it. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Ford, Larry R., & Ford, Larry R. (2003). America’s new downtowns: Revitalization or reinvention?
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Frey, William H. (2018). The millennial generation: A demographic bridge to America’s diverse
future. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
URBAN GEOGRAPHY 23
Gallagher, Leigh. (2014). The end of the suburbs: Where the American dream is moving.
New York, NY: Penguin Group.
Goth, Brenna. (2016, May). Downtown phoenix condo market ready to rocket. The Republic, pp. 4.
Hoffman, Morton. (1961). The outlook for downtown housing. Journal of the American Institute
of Planners, 27(1), 43–53.
Joint Center for Housing Studies. (2011). The state of the nation’s housing: 2011. Cambridge, MA:
Author.
Joint Center for Housing Studies. (2016). The state of the nation’s housing: 2016. Cambridge, MA:
Author.
Kadifa, Margaret. (2016, March). Mixed-use complex planned at former TI site in stafford.
Houston Chronicle, pp. 8.
Kingston, Sloane. (2015, August). Phoenix condo market aims for Gen Y. KTAR News, pp. 4.
Kotkin, Joel. (2010). The next hundred million: America in 2050. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
Kotkin, Joel. (2017). Forget the urban stereotypes: Where millennials are really moving.
Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2017/08/02/forget-the-urban-stereo
types-what-millennial-america-really-looks-like/
Lee, Hyojung. (2018). Are millennials coming to town? Residential location choice of young
adults. Urban Affairs Review, 107808741878766.
Leinberger, Christopher B. (2005). Turning around downtown: Twelve steps to revitalization (pp.
24). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
Leinberger, Christopher B. (2008). The next slum? Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/
magazine/archive/2008/03/the-next-slum/306653/
Manville, M., & Shoup, D. (2005). Parking, people, and cities. Journal of Urban Planning and
Development, 131(4), 233–245. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2005)131:4(233)
Markley, Scott. (2018). Suburban gentrification? Examining the geographies of new urbanism in
Atlanta’s inner suburbs. Urban Geography, 39(4), 606–630.
Millsap, Adam. (2018). Location choice in early adulthood: Millennials versus baby boomers.
Papers in Regional Science, 97,S139–S167.
Mulvaney, Erin. (2014, June). How multifamily boom in Houston, nation affects affordability.
Houston Chronicle, pp. 11.
Myers, Dowell. (2016). Peak millennials: Three reinforcing cycles that amplify the rise and fall of
urban concentration by millennials. Housing Policy Debate, 26(6), 1–20.
Quick, Kimberly. (2015). A new silent majority—low-income and minority millennials. Retrieved
from https://tcf.org/content/commentary/a-new-silent-majority-low-income-and-minority-
millennials/
Reagor, Catherine. (2015, April). Phoenix: Infill trend reflected in rising home prices. The
Republic, pp. 24.
Reagor, Catherine. (2017, June). Empty nesters, millennials shelling out to live in new
phoenix-area condos. The Republic, pp. 2.
Reagor, Catherine, & Morrison, Kara. (2013, December). Housing market shifts back to metro
Phoenix’s core. The Republic, pp. 27.
RealtyTrac. (2012). 2011 year-end foreclosure report: Foreclosures on the retreat. Retrieved from
https://www.realtytrac.com/news/2011-year-end-foreclosure-report-foreclosures-on-the-retreat/
Roberts, David. (2017). Young families typically leave cities for the suburbs [Here’s how to keep them
downtown]. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/2017/6/21/15815524/toderian-families-cities
Rosenthal, Stuart S. (2008). Old homes, externalities, and poor neighborhoods. A model of urban
decline and renewal. Journal of Urban Economics, 63(3), 816–840.
Ruggeri, Amanda. (2017, October). What everyone gets wrong about “millennial snowflakes”.
BBC Capital, pp. 3.
Snyder, Thomas D., de Brey, Cristobal, & Dillow, Sally A. (2016). Digest of education statistics
2015 (51st ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.
Sohmer, Rebecca R. (1999). Downtown housing as an urban redevelopment tool: Hype or hope?
Housing Policy Debate, 10(2), 477–505.
Sohmer, Rebecca R., & Lang, Robert E. (2001). Downtown rebound (pp. 1–10). Washington, D.
C.: Fannie Mae Foundation and Brookings Institution.
Stephens, Josh. (2016, May). What if Houston fell in love with planning. Next City, pp. 9.
Sumo, Vanessa. (2007). Downtown is dead. Long live downtown: America is busy rebuilding its
downtowns. But these are not the downtowns of yesterday. Economics Focus, Federal Reserve
Bank of Richmond(Fall), 12–17.
Sunnucks, Mike. (2015, March 2). Face of downtown phoenix changing, but city lags in
attracting college-educated millennials. Phoenix Business Journal.
Suro, Roberto, Wilson, Jill H., & Singer, Audrey. (2011). Immigration and poverty in America’s
suburbs. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
Takahashi, Paul. (2015, June 12). The kids are all right: Houston housing market braces for influx
of millennials. Houston Business Journal.
Teaford, Jon C. (2000). Urban renewal and its aftermath. Housing Policy Debate, 11(2), 443–465.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2015). 2015 American community survey 5-year estimates. Washington,
DC: Author.
DC: Author.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). 2000 decennial census. Washington, DC: Author.
DC: Author.
DC: Author.
DC: Author.
Urban Land Institute. (2014). The macro view on micro units. Washington, DC: Author.
US Census Bureau. (2015). Millennials outnumber baby boomers and are far more diverse.
Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-113.html
US Census Bureau. (2018a). New census bureau population estimates show dallas-fort
worth-arlington has largest growth in the United States. Retrieved from https://www.census.
gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/popest-metro-county.html
US Census Bureau. (2018b). Census bureau reveals fastest-growing large cities. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/estimates-cities.html
Walker, Kyle E. (2014). Immigration, local policy, and national identity in the suburban United
States. Urban Geography, 35(4), 508–529.
Warren, Andrew, Kramer, Anita, Biank, Stephen, & Shari, Michael. (2013). Emerging trends in
real estate: 2014. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
Zukin, Sharon. (1987). Gentrification: Culture and capital in the urban core. Annual Review of
Sociology, 13(1), 129–147.

Downton Revitalization in The Era of Millennials

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Downton Revitalization in The Era of Millennials

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Urban Geography

ISSN: 0272-3638 (Print) 1938-2847 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rurb20

Downtown revitalization in the era of millennials:

Meagan M. Ehlenz, Deirdre Pfeiffer & Genevieve Pearthree

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2019.1647062

Published online: 05 Aug 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Downtown revitalization in the era of millennials: how

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Just as suburban preferences characterized an outﬂow of population from cities and

Understanding downtown growth, revitalization, and the built

Downtown growth and development

was also a considerable degree of mixed-use development and conversions of non-

Downtown population growth: trends and projections

Contextualizing the literature to downtown Phoenix and Houston

Data and methods

Table 1. Description of participants.

sample) eventually participated. The largest proportion of non-respondents were from

Comparing the cases: Phoenix and Houston

Table 2. Conditions in phoenix and Houston regions, 2016.

The socio-economic characteristics of Millennials in downtown Phoenix and

Table 3. Characteristics of millennials in phoenix and Houston regions, 2011–2015.

Findings: downtown transformation in Phoenix and Houston

Examining millennial lifecycle stages

How are downtown Phoenix and Houston changing?

perceived demand to activate underutilized spaces, ushering in new building materials

Implications for downtown living: housing aﬀordability and gentriﬁcation

Table 4. Changes in socioeconomic status of phoenix and Houston regions, 2000–2016.

Many interviewees expressed concern about the continued aﬀordability of downtown

Beyond downtown: centralization and its impact on the suburbs

Where will millennials move? downtown versus the suburbs

remain) in downtown Phoenix or Houston. A Houston developer admitted, “No one’s

How is downtown development shaping the suburbs?

penetrate suburban housing projects; however, he would be “surprised if builders move

Discussion and conclusion

Anda mungkin juga menyukai