Trending away from the suburbs- current/future impact locally? (Minneapolis: foreclosure, rentals) - Minneapolis - St. Paul - Minnesota (MN) -Twin Cities - City-Data Forum

Camden Northsider · 08-24-2010, 05:28 PM

This article (The Next Slum? - Magazine - The Atlantic) was linked to from an article that was linked to on the "Will Mpls reach 500,000" thread. Although the headline is a simplistic attention-getter likely to draw visceral reactions from many- reading past the title and into the content of the article, I felt there were many topics (being discussed on a national scale and/or other locales) that were pertinent to development and migration patterns here locally, including the following:

the creation of "faux downtowns" in suburban areas as a way to build walkable communities back into newly developed areas (these 'faux downtowns' often take the definition of 'new urbanist' development depending on the source- there are a number of local examples of these and this concept has always fascinated me a little- e.g. the downtown-ish areas that spring up out of nowhere that attempt to look traditional and/or well-established).
The shift back towards wanting to live in urban, walkable communities vs. the suburbs amongst a number of demographic groups ("walkable" really has been one of the most utilized words on this forum for the better part of the past year or two; I have also noticed a lot of people saying "I don't have kids so schools aren't a concern", stating a desire to live in diverse areas or neighborhoods with character, etc. which could be viewed as evidentiary of demographics/attitude shifts re: urban living locally).
Decline of outer (and sometimes inner) suburban areas- although we have some examples, I don't think the metro has seen nearly as much of this as other parts of the country- what are people's thoughts on whether or not this will be a local trend? -I'm not so sure with this- with the lack of transportation infrastructure in outer-tier suburbs, the "rural" roots of so many of the state's/region's denizens (not to mention a huge focus on raising families and 'the simple life'), and the fact that the city cores are so small comparative to the metro as a whole- I don't think this will be as much of an 'issue' for this area outside of some isolated examples (maybe places like Shakopee and other areas where a lot of entry level jobs exist- on the other hand a lot of local suburbs have long histories of being blue collar towns and just recently began being considered "desirable" due to the housing boom it seems; e.g. Anoka). Other people's thoughts?
The author states a belief that a number of suburban areas with larger lots located close to the city (and/or that have their own walkable areas within or directly adjacent to them) will continue to demand a high premium; e.g. they will still be considered desirable (and/or even more desirable) because they are convenient, close-in, and/or interesting- I think we have a lot of examples of this phenomenon in the metro already- Kenwood, SW Mpls/Linden Hills, Sunfish Lake, Golden Valley, Bryn Mawr, Edina, parts of St. Louis Park, etc.- although a number of these areas are 'urban' in the sense of being within city limits, their density and/or feel is more appropriately deemed 'suburban' yet they are close and convenient and/or have little downtowns of their own.

What do other people think- can we anticipate massive shifts locally in the desirability/demand for urban living at the expense of 2nd/3rd-tier suburbs and exurbs? The foreclosure crisis' impact on many local outlying areas has been well-documented already... will these areas rebound or continue to decline?

Are there already areas like this that people are aware of (e.g. massively empty suburban developments that are overgrown and/or being transitioned from SFH to rentals/multi-family units)? -I'd be curious to see something like this if it exists (I've heard of some empty townhouse developments but that's about it).

SteelCityRising · 08-24-2010, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camden Northsider

Can we anticipate massive shifts locally in the desirability/demand for urban living at the expense of 2nd/3rd-tier suburbs and exurbs?

We can only hope.

nick is rulz · 08-24-2010, 06:42 PM

I think its trending away from them, but I dont see them completely going away or all turning into slums. I think well established communities like Stillwater that sort of became 3rd tier suburbs due to development will maintain.

golfgal · 08-24-2010, 06:57 PM

west336 · 08-24-2010, 07:47 PM

I really do think the outer tier will be the slums of the future. This only makes sense, as it's the least desireable land in the area if you consider central to be most desireable, but most reasonably, I feel this way because of the infrastructure and distance from major points of interest.

Infrastructure in the outer tier is scary bad in some examples, at least this is what I've heard. Many of these structures built today could crumble 20 to 30 years from now, plus they are built large enough to be split into several "units" if necessary, except unlike S. Minneapolis Victorian homes that were built for royalty, these structures are death traps already and with a poor tenant that can't maintain the home I see potential disaster here. Plus, why maintain a poorly built structure when you can just move, and people who can afford to move away will, leaving the infrastructure and others less fortunate behind, and taking with them their tax revenue and investment idealism.

From the perspective of distance to points of interest, I consider this to be the major deterrant in the 1st place of living far away from the core. Even if you had nearby Ex-urban or suburban points of interest, they would have to inherently be further away from eachother if you are a firm believer in the land value/density to distance ratio. So it is more costly to get from point A to B (or in this case point Y to Z), and once again, less desireable if you consider cost and time to commute a deterrant in your quality of life. If you commute to the core, then the costs increase dramatically.

So to me the Outer Tier is already less efficient than its Inner Tier peers if everything is based from a specific center of economic importance (which, for the most part, the Twiin Cities are). From an investor standpoint, dollar for dollar the Outer Tier can't really compete with the Inner Tier in the long run without sifnificant reinvestment. Schools, land area and lack of crime currently make the Outer Tier worthy as an investment or living opportunity, but if just about anything changes for the worse I feel that the Outer Tier will suffer more dramically and more quickly than the Inner Tier can in the long run.

Just some subjective and non-founded thoughts...

Cruz Azul Guy · 08-24-2010, 08:03 PM

I think we are trending in that direction, although it is probably more gradual than articles such as this one depict. One interesting thing I've observed is that of my Minnesotan friends who graduated from my undergraduate college class, over half currently reside in Minneapolis or St. Paul propers while the rest are randomly dispersed in the suburbs and outside of the Twin Cities. It's quite surprising, honestly, beings that the majority of those now residing in the city grew up in the suburbs.

Of course some of that is due to the fact that we are young professionals. Some of my friends who are now starting families are now looking to move into a larger lot in the suburbs where they perceive the schools to be better. I personally couldn't imagine moving back to the suburbs though. I like city life too much.

west336 · 08-24-2010, 08:08 PM

The larger lot for families is still ideal to many (even me to a degree, but I personally don't want a large lot, maybe .25 acres but that's about it), but again time and maintainance make it less appealing then something comparable closer in.

Kebinminn · 08-24-2010, 08:49 PM

I think it's tied to the economy and a current cultural trend to wait to have kids, have fewer kids and live more simply. However, in time, it will trend the other way. People will start having kids at a younger age and will have more kids and will want more room especially when they live in an era where more and more people will have a home office and only commute periodically.

west336 · 08-24-2010, 08:59 PM

Well we just had our first less than a year ago, and we want some space, but not necessarily anything big, and not even anything a home if we don't need it. If a condo provides what we need we may take it, as the two of us aren't very practical of maintaining a very large area and the little can go to the park or something like we did as children if she wants to play. I know that's not as popular as it use to be, but I loved it!

uptown_urbanist · 08-24-2010, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kebinminn

I think it's tied to the economy and a current cultural trend to wait to have kids, have fewer kids and live more simply. However, in time, it will trend the other way. People will start having kids at a younger age and will have more kids and will want more room especially when they live in an era where more and more people will have a home office and only commute periodically.

I'm not sure about this; on the one hand, I see your point, and agree that many people with families are going to make space a priority. I think there are some other factors that are going to have to play out first, though, especially things like school funding and quality. If some of these places slip in reputation (whether deserved or not) then it might be too late for them to easily recover if and when things do trend back.

I think it's clear that sharp divisions between suburb and city are going to continue to dissolve.