Aging cities | Maintaining economic dynamism in the face of aging populations at the city and metropolitan scale

The San Francisco Chronicle has a series on aging in the Bay Area, how it's faster than in other metropolitan areas, and the potential impacts going forward.

The theory of ecological succession (invasion-succession) focused on concentric rings emanating from a city's core posited by University of Chicago sociologists in the 1920s is based on the foundational belief that population keeps growing  

What if it doesn't?

The Chinatown piece's reference to the dissertation, "The politics of Chinatown development in American cities," where the author posits different dynamics for Chinatowns in different cities in terms of growth, maintenance, and shrinkage are extendable to thinking about cities.  Although plenty's already been written about growth, decline, stasis and renewal.

The basic cause of urban decline in the 1960s-1970s was outmigration--losing residents, business development, commerce, and revenues to the suburbs.  At the same time, the city's neighborhoods concentrated on low income and/or aging populations.    

Similar to the dynamics of outmigration is the consolidation of industry, movement to lower wage communities first in the US, then overseas (like apparel manufacturing, "A Mill Town Lost Its Mill. What Is It Now?," New York Times) and the Northeast/Midwest versus the South, growth shifted to the latter in the post-war period, spurred in part by the development and location of the defense industry (The Rise of the Gunbelt: The Military Remapping of Industrial America) and the seeking of broader horizons, and sun, after more than 15 years of urban decline in terms of quality of life derived from the disinvestment of the Depression and the need to focus on the war economy during WWII..

Among other effects, as populations age, they buy less stuff, which affects the success of urban retail commerce and nightlife, especially in the neighborhood commercial districts.  Schools close.  Etc.  This fact is why I was against DC's passing various tax benefit laws in favor of seniors, because it discourages people from moving and comes at the expense of neighborhood renewal.  (Although now at my age, I'd benefit.)  Places stagnate.

From "This is the real doom loop. It will change everything about life in the Bay Area":

For years we’ve heard of the potential economic doom spiral circling San Francisco, where a massive city budget deficit fueled by remote work leads to poorer services and even more residents fleeing. But another threat has been building in relative silence.

The Bay Area is getting old fast, and it’s accelerating. Though aging is a global trend, the San Francisco metro area — which includes San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo and Marin counties — is already the third-oldest among 20 of the largest regions in the U.S., trailing only two places in Florida. And no other region is growing older at a quicker pace.

That means fewer children, more elderly people and a declining number of 20-somethings. The confluence of demographic shifts will profoundly impact every aspect of life in the San Francisco area. Combined with rising housing costs and growing hostility toward immigration, the graying of cities and towns means the region’s continued prosperity is in doubt.

... In Berkeley, we found a once-vibrant neighborhood that is now essentially a retirement community of single-family homes. In Sonoma County, we visited a city with a family-friendly reputation that lost 35% of its children in a decade. In San Francisco, we spoke to bar owners trying to survive a one-two punch: older patrons are spending less while younger guests are drinking less.

... Of course, the Bay Area isn’t uniformly elderly. Certain parts of the region — such as around the UC Berkeley and San Francisco State campuses, the city’s Marina neighborhood and parts of downtown Oakland — are quite young.

Conversely, some areas are exceptionally old. Two Berkeley neighborhoods, Thousand Oaks and Northbrae, have median ages nearing 60. What makes these places remarkable is that, unlike most older communities, they don’t include nursing homes or senior care centers. Most of the residents have been living there for over 20 years, according to a Chronicle analysis of census data.

This affects all elements of the local economy including: 

• availability of workers
• school enrollments
• aging services and housing
• cost of housing more generally
• tax revenues
• reduced support for nightlife and other forms of urban commerce ("No drinking or late nights: How 20-somethings are changing S.F.’s nightlife scene," Chronicle)
• transit needs
• the importance of immigration as a way to continue population growth in the face of population shrinkage and the decline in fertility (as measured by births).  (This is evident in the effects of Brexit and the decline of the British economy in response to economic xenophobia.)

For example, one of the things missed in the discussion of broadening the range of types of housing in neighborhoods formerly limited to detached single family housing ("‘Missing middle’ housing plan in Montgomery County faces backlash," Washington Post), is the need to accommodate other demographics who will populate the community in the future.

And of course the non-economist discourse about the effects of immigration in US political discourse fails to consider immigration as a source of economic dynamism ("In 1965, the government tried replacing migrant workers with high-schoolers. It was a disaster," Washington Post, "How Does Immigration Affect the U.S. Economy?," Council on Foreign Relations, "Despite Trump’s claims, data shows migrants aren’t taking jobs from Black or Hispanic people," AP, "Economists Love Immigration. Why Do So Many Americans Hate It?," New Yorker).

The problem is that the average resident/citizen doesn't task themselves with thinking about and addressing these types of long term issues, in particular, neighborhood, city, metropolitan, or national decline.