Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The densities in some place like Boston are so much a part of the geography that it is silly to compare it to some other places (like Houston, Chicago, or LA) where that is such a minor factor.
It is "the job" of researchers to find "broad trends" and make generalizations but too often they end up coming to conclusions that are not based on valid data.
The drivers of growth and development in Pittsburgh are far different than those in Charlotte. The surface similarities in preferences for shorter drivers and more convenient shopping that go along with "urban" developments in former "rust belt" cities have very different economic consequences than in places where high percentage of people might be retired from white collar jobs...
So many differences it is really almost silly -- sure Manhattan NY is dense / urban, but in very different ways,especially with regard to income than someplace like Washington DC ...
Boston's density wasn't a result of the physical geography of the place, it was due to the transportation systems available--the slower the transportation, the denser a city had to be. Chicago and Los Angeles also look the way they do because of their transportation networks and the era of their construction.
In most cases the new development in the exurbs have suffered more from the housing bust than the inner cities. For the most part the only reason people even bother to move to the suburbs in the first place is because of the school systems. Once you have an increasing amount of singles and empty nesters they will have other priorities making suburbia less attractive.
For the record, we have no kids. Two reasons why we moved to the suburbs?
1. House size and cost. We didn't want an apartment or condo. We wanted a house, with a garage, that didn't have small and odd shaped rooms or wouldn't need a lot of repairs. We also wanted a yard. Not a huge yard, but a yard. Those things either don't exist or are incredibly expensive if the city/first ring suburbs for the most part. Which brings me to....
2. Safety. When we bought our house, it was right during the move to get people back into the city. We could have bought a huge (2-4 X the size of our house) newly rehabbed house for about 75% of the cost of what we paid for the house we bought. Only problem was that these gorgeous houses were in a HORRIBLE neighborhood.
Citing the condo markets in Miami and Las Vegas as an example of urbanizing trends is fatuous. Those condos were built as second homes for snowbirds and expatriates. They were never intended as primary residents for working professionals. Never mind that the Las Vegas market is among the most depressed in the country. It’s disingenuous and misleading to look at Las Vegas condo prices without reference to the market as a whole. The same is true for the LA-metro and Florida.
Condos in the hip, urban cities (Boston, San Francisco, New York) are doing very well. Some smaller markets (Seattle, Minneapolis) are down, but it’s hardly a Vegas-style crash.
A more useful analysis would be to look and condo prices in cities not known for urban living but that were not decimated in the sub-prime crisis (Dallas, Houston, Atlanta). That data would be much more interesting, but I suspect too mixed to fit with Kotkin’s pronouncements.
Kotkin’s writing is so slanted. He states: “Over the past decade the percentage of Americans living in suburbs and single-family homes has increased.” That sentence is meaningless by itself. To prove his point he would have to say: “And the population of urban areas has decreased.” He does not do so. Why? Because the population has increased in ALL areas, and that would not fit with his thesis. Instead he switches the topic to “new housing permits.”
I admit the people like Richard Florida are cheerleaders for the back-to-the-city movement. However, to refute the argument, Kotkin need to come up with better numbers and better writing.
Citing the condo markets in Miami and Las Vegas as an example of urbanizing trends is fatuous. Those condos were built as second homes for snowbirds and expatriates. They were never intended as primary residents for working professionals. Never mind that the Las Vegas market is among the most depressed in the country. It’s disingenuous and misleading to look at Las Vegas condo prices without reference to the market as a whole. The same is true for the LA-metro and Florida.
Condos in the hip, urban cities (Boston, San Francisco, New York) are doing very well. Some smaller markets (Seattle, Minneapolis) are down, but it’s hardly a Vegas-style crash.
A more useful analysis would be to look and condo prices in cities not known for urban living but that were not decimated in the sub-prime crisis (Dallas, Houston, Atlanta). That data would be much more interesting, but I suspect too mixed to fit with Kotkin’s pronouncements.
Kotkin’s writing is so slanted. He states: “Over the past decade the percentage of Americans living in suburbs and single-family homes has increased.” That sentence is meaningless by itself. To prove his point he would have to say: “And the population of urban areas has decreased.” He does not do so. Why? Because the population has increased in ALL areas, and that would not fit with his thesis. Instead he switches the topic to “new housing permits.”
I admit the people like Richard Florida are cheerleaders for the back-to-the-city movement. However, to refute the argument, Kotkin need to come up with better numbers and better writing.
OK, here's some anecdotal evidence from an area not known for condo living and not decimated by the real estate crash. Nashville, TN. To say that the condo market there is struggling would be an understatement on a comic level. A few random bits? About a year ago the developers of the Terrazzo gave up on selling their remaining units at list and auctioned them. They sold 25 units at an average discount of about 38% off list. Nine units were no-bid. In July the developers of the unsold Velocity gave their deed back to the bank. They're calling it a "friendly foreclose" but bankrupt is bankrupt. Last month 4th & Monroe and Rolling Mill Hill (both 100% unsold) were picked up by investors who are converting them into apartments. I'm not sure there are enough condo sales happening to come up with any realistic numbers regarding percentage price declines.
No one expects serious declines in areas with a long history of condo living and a lot of pent up demand. Although I do remember reading somewhere recently that prices are off a bit even in New York. And the other side of the coin is that everyone expects severe price declines in markets like Miami and Vegas where there were a large proportion of vacation condos and investor owned properties. But the truth is that the middle ground is struggling and was often overbuilt by developers who were listening a little too much to urban cheerleaders and not paying quite enough attention to local tastes, options and economic realities.
You can almost universally discount this article...its Joel Kotkin, he has an axe to grind and a heavy handed agenda that is very pro suburbia and very anti city.
I have seen for myself that cities are growing, with an upper middle class...and conditions within cities are rapidly improving. And the suburbs still suck
For the record, we have no kids. Two reasons why we moved to the suburbs?
1. House size and cost. We didn't want an apartment or condo. We wanted a house, with a garage, that didn't have small and odd shaped rooms or wouldn't need a lot of repairs. We also wanted a yard. Not a huge yard, but a yard. Those things either don't exist or are incredibly expensive if the city/first ring suburbs for the most part. Which brings me to....
Than I guess you are an exception to the rule than. Most people I know in their 20's - 30's don't have a desire to move into the suburbs unless they have to for cost reasons or because that area has a better school system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hodgemo2
2. Safety. When we bought our house, it was right during the move to get people back into the city. We could have bought a huge (2-4 X the size of our house) newly rehabbed house for about 75% of the cost of what we paid for the house we bought. Only problem was that these gorgeous houses were in a HORRIBLE neighborhood.
Just so you know the suburbs are not immune to crime either. Look at Atlanta and Washington DC for example since right now as those cities are gentrifying, the criminal element is being pushed into the suburbs (ie mainly Prince Georges County, Maryland and Clayton County, Georgia in this case). So Prince Georges County and Clayton County is now having a rise in their crime rates as a result while Atlanta's and Washington DC's crime rates are now decreasing.
I assume hodgemo2 realizes that suburbs aren't immune to crime; I took his or her comments to mean that in their particular case the homes that they could afford to buy in the city were in bad neighborhoods. That's often the case. Since DC has been mentioned, DC has some very, very nice, safe neighborhoods, but the homes in those neighborhoods are not affordable to many people. I know many people who would prefer urban living if they could, but end up in the suburbs because they want to own something and they can actually afford to buy something in one of the safe neighborhood in the 'burbs. Some people are willing to take on the risk of a still-crime-ridden neighborhood with potential, others aren't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
