The Next Slum? Atlantic Magazine article on future development trends (Denver: crime, houses)

[steveindenver]

because urban prices are more realistic due to them being in urban settings(meaning that property values are held down by the setting, urban settings are less desireable to a larger group of people willing to spend money). property values are relative on various scales, just like any other commodity values. its really apples and oranges comparing urban housing to suburban housing because they are dramatically different and appeal to dramatically different people

No, not in Denver.

Do you live in Denver?

[bhcompy]

no i dont, but i spent time to study economics some in my schooling and ive also studied the housing market in denver some because im looking to move there. what you're stating is that the economics/demographics of denver are not similar to the economics/demographics of other similar environments, when in fact there are plenty of places with similar situations in both past, present, and probably in the future that can be used in comparison

i just think that history has shown that different people will always demand a certain style of living. there is a number of people that demand urban living, and usually these are not family folks, and the reverse can be said for suburban living. both types of people will always exist, so demand for each will always exist

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Katiana

I wouldn't say prices in Boulder County, any part of it, not just Boulder, are plummeting.

Things aren't too bad in El Paso County either

Business: Upscale-home market still strong in Springs | homes, year, springs : Gazette.com (broken link)

[celes_18]

While I do agree this s a good read like most things I read on the internet I have to question the bakground of the author. Christopher B. Leinberger has had a few other pieces mentioned here the most recent one was when he named Denver one of the top 10 most walkable cites in the USA. His personal website shows that he is an urbanist, In 2000 way before the bubble burst he was talking about suburban sprawl and questioning if suburbia had an effect on the violence in Lakewood youth. I think he's an interesting writer but 'm not sure I'd take anything he said as an unbiased look at the future of real estate. And personally I think that there will always be cities and there will always be people who can't or wont live in them even if they work in them. I also think that while some areas are going to end up "slums" not everywhere n suburbia will be slums.
I got his other published works here:
Christopher B. Leinberger (http://www.cleinberger.com/AdminHome.asp?ArticleID=205 - broken link)

[tfox]

Originally Posted by WestCoDude

And Hickenlooper's Art City will thrive and prosper to a point--and that point is where nobody seriously can afford it and you'll see the city collapse on itself as businesses flee to avoid paying the extra taxes Denver will need.

Huh? Have you ever even been to Denver before?

Hickenlooper isn't on the board of the Denver Art Museum, which is not a city-run institution. The DAM is funded by a sales tax in the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District (SCFD), which is paid by the entire metro area, not just Denver. Same thing with the zoo, science museum, performing arts center, etc.

Didn't you read before when I told you that Denver's property taxes are the lowest in the metro area?

I think you know more about your home town (St. Louis) and are assuming that Denver is the same. Well, it's not the same.

[DenverAztec]

So true Tfox, most of what is happening in Denver has been years in the planning with little to no attachment to Hickenlooper. He is a great Mayor but it takes scores of years to get a city to where we are at and the doom and gloom that is offered above will not come easy, if at all. 16th Street Mall was a plan from the 1980s along the same time the rehabs began in Curtis Park and Highlands. Denverites back then just wanted something better for their city and neighborhoods, and they got it. Most cannot afford to sell and rebuy in their areas, I am one of them, but I have the security in knowing that my property investment was a good one and there should I need it.

[WestCoDude]

Originally Posted by tfox

Huh? Have you ever even been to Denver before?

Hickenlooper isn't on the board of the Denver Art Museum, which is not a city-run institution. The DAM is funded by a sales tax in the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District (SCFD), which is paid by the entire metro area, not just Denver. Same thing with the zoo, science museum, performing arts center, etc.

Didn't you read before when I told you that Denver's property taxes are the lowest in the metro area?

I think you know more about your home town (St. Louis) and are assuming that Denver is the same. Well, it's not the same.

Umm...I'm from Denver, homeslice.

I know that SOME arts funding is metro-wide...and so is mass transit. But there are numerous projects--particularly LoDo redevelopment, Stapleton, etc. which ARE taxable to Denver proper. Hickenlooper is trying to create a city centered around the so-called "Creative Class" and, by all indications, he's been fairly successful. The problem is that cities like that don't last. You need taxes to support them and that essentially pushes out the middle class and families. Denver is creating a top-heavy economy that relies upon illegal immigrants to service the wealthy. It has effectively demolished the middle class.

Yeah...three cheers for Hickenlooper and Denver. Nice work.

And I don't care if Denver's PROPERTY taxes are low (which I would contest given the tax hike in November)--Denver's tax burden is MUCH higher than the majority of the surrounding communities. That's true in most urban core cities in most metro areas in the country.

[bhcompy]

Originally Posted by WestCoDude

Umm...I'm from Denver, homeslice.

I know that SOME arts funding is metro-wide...and so is mass transit. But there are numerous projects--particularly LoDo redevelopment, Stapleton, etc. which ARE taxable to Denver proper. Hickenlooper is trying to create a city centered around the so-called "Creative Class" and, by all indications, he's been fairly successful. The problem is that cities like that don't last. You need taxes to support them and that essentially pushes out the middle class and families. Denver is creating a top-heavy economy that relies upon illegal immigrants to service the wealthy. It has effectively demolished the middle class.

Yeah...three cheers for Hickenlooper and Denver. Nice work.

And I don't care if Denver's PROPERTY taxes are low (which I would contest given the tax hike in November)--Denver's tax burden is MUCH higher than the majority of the surrounding communities. That's true in most urban core cities in most metro areas in the country.

sounds eerily familiar to LA

[MobyLL]

Originally Posted by celes_18

And personally I think that there will always be cities and there will always be people who can't or wont live in them even if they work
in them. I also think that while some areas are going to end up "slums" not everywhere n suburbia will be slums.

The author of the Atlantic article has the same opinion:
Of course, not all suburbs will suffer this fate. Those that are affluent and relatively close to central cities—especially those along rail lines—are
likely to remain in high demand. Some, especially those that offer a thriving, walkable urban core, may find that even the large-lot, residential-only
neighborhoods around that core increase in value. Single-family homes next to the downtowns of Redmond, Washington; Evanston, Illinois; and Birmingham, Michigan,
for example, are likely to hold their values just fine.

Perhaps most important, the shift to walkable urban environments will give more people what they seem to want. I doubt the swing toward urban living
will ever proceed as far as the swing toward the suburbs did in the 20th century; many people will still prefer the bigger houses and car-based lifestyles of
conventional suburbs. But there will almost certainly be more of a balance between walkable and drivable communities—allowing people in most areas a wider variety
of choices.

I think the most compelling argument that the author has to support his argument of the decline of these types of suburbs:
But much of the future decline is likely to occur on the fringes, in towns far away from the central city, not served by rail transit, and lacking any
real core. In other words, some of the worst problems are likely to be seen in some of the country’s more recently developed areas—and not only those inhabited by
subprime-mortgage borrowers. Many of these areas will become magnets for poverty, crime, and social dysfunction.

is this:
Demographic changes in the United States also are working against conventional suburban growth, and are likely to further weaken preferences for
car-based suburban living. When the Baby Boomers were young, families with children made up more than half of all households; by 2000, they were only a third of
households; and by 2025, they will be closer to a quarter... By 2025, the U.S. will contain about as many single-person households as families with
children.

Because the population is growing, families with children will still grow in absolute number—according to U.S. Census data, there will be about 4
million more households with children in 2025 than there were in 2000. But more than 10 million new single-family homes have already been built since 2000, most
of them in the suburbs.

If these statistics are correct (I believe the stats in the first paragraph b/c I have seen similar statistics elsewhere, the second paragraph I am less sure
about but I have no reason to doubt it at this point), there are simple structural demographic changes that will make traditional suburbia less appealing overall.
If one of the primary arguments for traditional suburbia is that it is great for kids, but the ratio of families with kids is declining it will mean that there
will be a relative decline in demand for that type of housing. So even if you were to assume that every family with a child wants to live in suburbs (which
of course would be an erroneous assumption), there appears to already be an oversupply of traditional suburban style houses (nationwide) to meet the demand for
the number of families that would desire such housing (4 million increase in such families year 2000 - 2025 vs. 10 million single family homes already built since
2000).

Of course, a very important factor to keep in mind is that this article is written from a national perspective. The Denver real estate market has many factors
that I believe mitigate some of the trends and conclusions that may be accurate for a hypothetical average american metro area. For one, the population of the
Denver metro area, for better or worse, will probably continue to increase at a faster rate than the national average. That in turn will continue to spur demand
for all types of housing, including typical suburban housing beyond what will probably happen in some other areas of the country. 2nd, despite the undeniable sprawl of the Denver metro, it has less sprawl than many metro areas b/c the lot sizes, even in the suburbs, are smaller than in most other areas of the nation. 3rd, Denver has made and continues to make investments in rail transit. This is important, it will allow for more density and job and population growth in both suburban and urban areas without necessarily leading to large-scale traffic congestion. It also fosters more of an interdepent and cooperative relationship between the city and the suburbs. I've said this before but will repeat it here... there in general seems to be much less of an us against them type of dichotomy between the city and suburbs here and I think that is a very good thing. I am very much an urban person and I have no desire to move my family to the suburbs. However, if someone held a gun to my head and we were forced to move to suburban Denver I think we could live there without being miserable and I don't think I could say the same thing about living in suburban Miami, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston or Phoenix just to provide some examples.

[MobyLL]

Originally Posted by tfox

Huh? Have you ever even been to Denver before?

Originally Posted by WestCoDude

Umm...I'm from Denver, homeslice.

WestCoDude -- that is completely unnecessary. tfox asked a reasonable question. You can disagree all you want with her opinion, but you do not need to become insulting. There are several great posters here on the Denver forum, but I think an argument could be made that tfox does more to inform people in a helpful, reasonable manner than anyone. She does not deserve to have insults hurled her way.