While a cloudy sky looms for multifamily developers and city planners, the aging of the Millennial cohort is great news for the Nutmeg State.

A recent New York Times story posits that we may have reached peak Millennial population in urban environments. The wave of 25-year-old Millennials who want to live in city centers has crested, or will soon do so. If this generation follows past precedent, they will all move out to the suburbs eventually – and all the new apartments under construction won’t have anyone to live in them. Whether that peak is now or sometime in the future – and whether Millennials will behave as their Boomer predecessors have done – will have enormous impacts on housing, commerce and the composition of our city centers.

It’s generally accepted in the world of urban planning that the Millennial generation – commonly defined as those born in the years between the early 1980s and the late 1990s – prefer city living. There are a number of contributing factors, including the generation’s preference for walkability, desire to live close to amenities and, of course, the allure of living in the big city in one’s 20s.

Another contributing factor – which can’t really be deemed a “preference” – is the undeniable fact that these young adults graduated into one of the worst job markets in history. When there were jobs available, those jobs tended to be in urban hubs.

So it has gone with each generation – the young live in cities and enjoy the nightlife, eventually settling down with spouses and children and pursuing a relatively slower-paced lifestyle in the suburbs. But those pesky Millennials don’t seem to be following a script on housing; their marriages, children and home purchases occur much later than those of their parents and grandparents’ generations. (Probably due to a combination of the aforementioned poor job market and crushing student loan debt, but that’s a discussion for another time.)

There are indications that the wave has crested in cities nationwide. Several recent reports have concluded that rents are leveling off and/or dropping – indicating, one might assume, either a decline in the number of renters or their waning interest.

This is exceedingly good news for Connecticut, which has struggled to create the kinds of urban environments in which Millennials want to live – and lost population as a result. Thus the state has wonderfully low single-family home prices, particularly compared to its near neighbors New York and Massachusetts. If indeed Millennials decide they want those picket fences after all, the Nutmeg State has a lot to offer to them – and at reasonable prices.

This does not does not take into account the Boomers’ desire to revisit their hedonistic 20s and return to urban cores in their retirement. Flush with cash from the sale of their suburban manse, they may continue to seek out high-end condos in vibrant cities – and they won’t find many in the Nutmeg State. Fortunately there is an influx of 30- and 40-somethings behind them looking for larger homes in safe towns with good schools – all of which are in abundance in Connecticut.