Suburbia, the next slum? (Chicago: rental, houses, neighborhood)

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

We can assume that to an extent government policy was following the will of the people. Some people like to live in tight groups and others like to spread out; both types should be accomodated.

According to the original article, data suggests that government (primarily through zoning) is opposing the will of the people (as determined by market demand.) There's definitely an undersupply of pedestrian-centric, mixed-use neighborhoods in America today. We don't build many new ones anymore even though the safe ones that do exist tend to command a premium.

[meatpuff]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

According to the original article, data suggests that government (primarily through zoning) is opposing the will of the people (as determined by market demand.) There's definitely an undersupply of pedestrian-centric, mixed-use neighborhoods in America today. We don't build many new ones anymore even though the safe ones that do exist tend to command a premium.

Well put. I'd never thought of it that way before.

You have to imagine one of the driving forces is the housing developers buying up large tracts and trying to put as many homes on them as possible. These guys are there to make money; nothing wrong with that. But they know how to sell houses, not rent out commercial space for a corner store, or do market studies on whether the traffic patterns would demand another coffee shop. So left to their own devices, they will fill everything with houses.

I guess you have to imagine the strip mall developers also salivate more over developing a large mall that will draw people from miles, compared to smaller neighborhood stores. And with the same business model and stores over and over, for which they already know the expected market.

And the urban planners are happy to oblige. Partly because a few suburbanites really will complain if you put a store next to them. And then they have to deal with people walking by and trucks dropping off goods and other signs of civilization that some cranks just really don't like.

I wonder if the current lack of mixed-use suburbs is a life cycle thing. The type of people who move into cornnfield housing developments might consistently prefer the tract housing/strip mall type of development. But today's cornfield suburbs become tomorrow's leafy inner suburbs, which house some people that could do with a more walkable design. But the town is stuck with how it was when it originally developed. And as time passes, a smaller and smaller percentage of suburbs are are the mixed-use type.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by meatpuff

Well put. I'd never thought of it that way before.

You have to imagine one of the driving forces is the housing developers buying up large tracts and trying to put as many homes on them as possible. These guys are there to make money; nothing wrong with that. But they know how to sell houses, not rent out commercial space for a corner store, or do market studies on whether the traffic patterns would demand another coffee shop. So left to their own devices, they will fill everything with houses.

I guess you have to imagine the strip mall developers also salivate more over developing a large mall that will draw people from miles, compared to smaller neighborhood stores. And with the same business model and stores over and over, for which they already know the expected market.

And the urban planners are happy to oblige. Partly because a few suburbanites really will complain if you put a store next to them. And then they have to deal with people walking by and trucks dropping off goods and other signs of civilization that some cranks just really don't like.

I wonder if the current lack of mixed-use suburbs is a life cycle thing. The type of people who move into cornnfield housing developments might consistently prefer the tract housing/strip mall type of development. But today's cornfield suburbs become tomorrow's leafy inner suburbs, which house some people that could do with a more walkable design. But the town is stuck with how it was when it originally developed. And as time passes, a smaller and smaller percentage of suburbs are are the mixed-use type.

Even though he is a bit of a wack job, James Howard Kunstler has done some pretty good research about why post-war suburbs are the way they are. A lot of it was codified in zoning ordinances, but surprisingly traffic engineers and fire departments had a much larger impact than they ever should have been allowed to have.

[oakparkdude]

A Tale of Two Exurbs | The American Prospect

Most outer-ring suburbs are being developed into unwalkable sprawl. But it doesn't have to be that way.

Ben Adler | April 27, 2009

Leesburg, Virginia, is the archetypal American exurb. Named after an ancestor of Robert E. Lee, it is the seat of Loudoun County, 35 miles northwest of Washington, D.C. -- the farthest true suburb west of Washington. To its west are small towns and a few remaining farms; to its east are highways lined with chain hotels, mega-malls, and the office towers of the defense contractors powering the recent growth in Northern Virginia's economy and population. In 2004, Loudoun was the nation's fastest-growing county, and median home prices were rising by about one-fifth every year. In 1990, Leesburg had only 16,000 people. Now it has 38,000.

Kind of a follow-up to the original Atlantic Monthly article. This article doesn't say that exurbs are doomed to become slums, but it does highlight the challenges of retro-fitting car-centric suburbs to be more pedestrian and transit-friendly. It also illustrates the role that bad zoning policy plays in limiting the mixed-use old-style downtowns that every loves but hardly anyone builds anymore.

[chitown85]

Arlington County, VA, which is just across the river from DC and about 35 miles from Leesburg, is often called the most well planned urban area in America. Arlington County, which compromises only the city of Arlington, has a little over 200K people. It's neighborhoods are based around the DC Metro. Each neighborhood has a little downtown around each Metro stop. Everything is walkable. All the big box stores are there as well.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by chitown85

Arlington County, VA, which is just across the river from DC and about 35 miles from Leesburg, is often called the most well planned urban area in America. Arlington County, which compromises only the city of Arlington, has a little over 200K people. It's neighborhoods are based around the DC Metro. Each neighborhood has a little downtown around each Metro stop. Everything is walkable. All the big box stores are there as well.

Yeah, what little experience I've had of the inner DC suburbs was of dense TOD around Metro. Its a shame we can't get more of this in the Chicago area, especially around el stations. Too much NIMBY power and Alderman perogative.

[cubssoxfan]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

A Tale of Two Exurbs | The American Prospect

Most outer-ring suburbs are being developed into unwalkable sprawl. But it doesn't have to be that way.

Ben Adler | April 27, 2009

Leesburg, Virginia, is the archetypal American exurb. Named after an ancestor of Robert E. Lee, it is the seat of Loudoun County, 35 miles northwest of Washington, D.C. -- the farthest true suburb west of Washington. To its west are small towns and a few remaining farms; to its east are highways lined with chain hotels, mega-malls, and the office towers of the defense contractors powering the recent growth in Northern Virginia's economy and population. In 2004, Loudoun was the nation's fastest-growing county, and median home prices were rising by about one-fifth every year. In 1990, Leesburg had only 16,000 people. Now it has 38,000.

Kind of a follow-up to the original Atlantic Monthly article. This article doesn't say that exurbs are doomed to become slums, but it does highlight the challenges of retro-fitting car-centric suburbs to be more pedestrian and transit-friendly. It also illustrates the role that bad zoning policy plays in limiting the mixed-use old-style downtowns that every loves but hardly anyone builds anymore.

The article explains why so many of the towns along the Metra lines are popular. These towns have discovered if they promote mixed use development near the trains, the merchants do well and their downtowns survive and often thrive. It also maintains and often increases the value of the homes within walking distance. Barrington, Palatine, Arlington Heights, Mt. Prospect, Des Plaines, Park Ridge, even Crystal Lake recently, are examples of this type of development. Evanston and Oak Park are older examples of this built around what is now the CTA. Many other areas along the Metra lines are built like this
The walkability is tremendous. Compare that with the walkability of say Hawthorn Woods or Long Grove. And if you compare with more newly built urban areas, especially in the south and southeast-Chicago area has more consistently built pedestrian friendly areas. Except for in town or first ring suburbs, I do not remember seeing as many pedestrian friendly neighborhoods in Atlanta, Charlotte, or Houston. Visiting Houston, I saw walkable neighborhoods with sidewalks that ended at the major road at the entrance to the neighborhood. So if you wanted to walk 2 blocks to the store, it was set up well in the neighborhood, but you had to walk on a busy road once out of the neighborhood. And connecting 2 adjacent subdivisions-that seemed too logical. Yes there were some exceptions, but primarily, only the large master-planned burbs like Sugarland, Cinco Ranch and Woodlands.
Here in AH, sidewalks along the major roads, usually seperated several feet away from the roadway. Subdivisions typically interconnect. It's all walkable. The only issue is locating most shopping along the main highways too far to be easily walkable. So you can walk to school and parks, but need to drive to go shoppping-unless you're close to downtown or few blocks away from the strip malls

[ajolotl]

The new mixed-use residential/commercial construction next to the 103rd street station in Beverly is in foreclosure. I had high hopes.

Originally Posted by sukwoo

According to the original article, data suggests that government (primarily through zoning) is opposing the will of the people (as determined by market demand.) There's definitely an undersupply of pedestrian-centric, mixed-use neighborhoods in America today. We don't build many new ones anymore even though the safe ones that do exist tend to command a premium.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by ajolotl

The new mixed-use residential/commercial construction next to the 103rd street station in Beverly is in foreclosure. I had high hopes.

Well, there are other forces at work in this instance. It wasn't because it was a bad idea!

[ajolotl]

On top of the obvious bad timing, the townhouses were too expensive. 2 bedrooms in the 400's.

I'm going to go crazy if 103rd street doesn't pick up a bit. I was hoping for four or five more stores there. Now it Starbucks, Cafe 103, Calabria, Starbucks, Cafe 103, Calabria. I'm going nuts, not the kind of person who enjoys sitting in the house.

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

Well, there are other forces at work in this instance. It wasn't because it was a bad idea!