TREND WATCH: What’s Happening? The media often report that Boomers are flocking to cities. With their adult children finally leaving the home, Boomers are thought to be downsizing and moving into the urban core. The city is believed to offer a change of pace from their previously suburban lives.
Our Take: Contrary to media stereotypes, Boomers are actually less likely to live in urban neighborhoods than previous generations of older people. From 1990 to 2018, the share of 54- to 72-year-olds who are urban residents fell steadily from 21.6% to 17.8%. While this age-bracket has grown as a share of all urban-dwellers, that's just because Boomers are a large generation. But the share of this age-bracket that is living in cities is declining. In fact, at every phase of life Boomers have been less likely than other generations, at the same age, to prefer urban residence. This trend marks a generational shift from the Lost to the G.I. to the Silent and then to the Boomer.
boomers aging in the Suburbs and exburbs
Jed Kolko's recent article in the NYT, The Myth of the Urban Boomer, does an excellent analysis of Census data that basically corroborates what I have been saying for some time now. See "Reports of Suburbia's Death Are Greatly Exaggerated," wherein I make a similar point: Since 2010, the 65+ population in the outer suburbs (+5.7% annually) and in the exurbs (+4.3%) has grown more than twice as fast as the population in the inner urban core (+2.2%). The media seem to believe the opposite, that Boomers--especially affluent Boomers--are increasingly likely to move into urban cores. (See "Boomers Splurge on Luxe, Urban Apartment Rentals."). But no, this is not true--not even for affluent Boomers.
So let's start again from the top. Yes, Boomers are a relatively large generation. It therefore follows that whichever age bracket they find themselves in will likely grow as a share of total population. It likewise follows that the 54-to-72 age bracket (the demographic Baby Boom in 2018, when this analysis was made) is today expanding as a share of total population almost everywhere--nationally, in rural counties, in the suburbs, and in cities. But, at the same time, it is also true that the share of everyone in this age bracket living in rural or suburban locations has recently been rising and the share living in cities has been falling.
Get it? Over the last three decades, in fact, the share of Americans age 54-to-74 who live in urban neighborhoods (defined by population density) has steadily fallen, from 21.6% in 1990 to 17.8% in 2018. Since 2000, that age bracket's urban share is down 11%. Meanwhile, for the age bracket now occupied by Xers, its urban share is down only 2%. And for Millennials, it's down only 4%. Keep in mind that, lately, even nonaffluent young adults have been moving away from cities. (See "Biggest Metros Spawning Greatest Inequality.")
origins of media stereotype
Why do so many people suppose that Boomers are increasingly moving into cities? In part, perhaps, because they see that a rising share of this age bracket rents rather then owns its home. (In the Xer and Millennials age brackets, of course, the rental shares have been rising even faster.) That means Boomers must be living more in cities, right? Wrong. As the Census data clearly indicate, rising Boomer rentals have occurred entirely outside of cities--in the suburbs and in rural areas. Ditto for multi-unit housing. Yes, Boomers are increasingly moving into multi-unit buildings... but not in cities.
Bottom line: They graying of America translates mostly into the graying of America's small towns and suburbs, not into the graying of its cities.
Boomers have HISTORICALLY rejected the city
Let's now reach for explanations. Why is this happening? IMO, it's mostly generational. Boomers have never been attracted to cities. And if you go back and look at the numbers, you find that Boomers at every phase of life have been less likely than other generations, at the same age, to prefer urban residence. Boomers came of age celebrating a pastoral counterculture that was overtly hostile to crime-ridden city life (crime that young Boomers themselves were perpetrating at ever-higher rates). Indeed, the 1970s was one of the very few decades in U.S. history when the net movement of young adults was out of, not into, cities. Ever since, Boomers have continued to avoid cities. (See "Hard Times in Rural America" and "The Outdoors Isn't Looking So Great.") A nice proxy indicator here is the dramatic aging of visitors to national parks--along with the personnel who work there.
The NYT article implicitly makes this point in its best chart, which tracks urban residence by age at various dates going back to 1990. Notice that, for 50- and 60-somethings, the lowest urban share is demarcated by the 2018 line. That means Boomers. Then, for 40-somethings, the lowest urban share is demarcated by the orange 2010 line. That means Boomers again. And then, for earlier ages, it's demarcated by the 2000 and the 1990 lines. Boomers and Boomers yet again.
Natural TENDENCY vs generational shift
Here's the one criticism I would make of this otherwise well-argued piece. The NYT author entirely misses the generational dynamic implied by his own graphic. Whenever you see a certain behavior climb (in years of age) at the same rate that it moves forward (in years of time), you have to suspect that the behavior is linked to birth cohorts--that is, to a single generation moving through time. He concludes that there is a "natural" tendency for the elderly to move, at some point, back to the city--but that this turning point has been getting ever older. He never considers an alternative explanation, which is that the age brackets are simply tracking a generational shift--and that the turning point will never occur for Boomers.
One of the most urban (and immigrant) generations of the 20th century was the Lost Generation (born 1884 to 1900). If the Census had data on urban share by age in 1980, ten years earlier than the earliest line shown here, I suspect it would have shown an exceptionally high urban share for the 80-somethings of 1980. In general, at every phase of life, the urban share in midlife and beyond has successively declined from the Lost to the G.I. to the Silent and then to the Boomer Generation. Most likely, we will eventually witness a renewed preference for urban living in older age brackets. But we may not see it until Generation X, the generation following the Boomers, enters those older age brackets. And for that you'll have to wait a good while. Don't count on Boomers hitting any "turning point."
