Do you think government forcing suburbs to be demolished is the only way to solve the "sprawl problem"? (subdivision, mcmansion)
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.
"In recent years, several apartments and condominiums have opened in the district that cater to upscale residents, particularly empty nesters. These include Avalon at Gallery Place, a luxury apartment building near the MCI Center, and Market Square, a posh building near the Naval Memorial downtown.
“Most of (empty-nester boomers) are affluent, so they can afford to buy in the better communities in town,” said Dale Mattison, a real estate broker who said the number of homes in the city he has sold to older suburbanites has steadily increased in recent years."
Looking at the first link, I got skeptical when they talked about people whose price ranges are from 1.2+ million. Makes me wonder if they are talking of the trends solely of the elite. The NY Times is particularly guilty of that, focusing on real estate choices of the rich or near rich. Then again, in the NYC Metro area that's probably a large fraction of the population.
I don't know why are bringing up your own fiances. My point was that the dented finances was a bit of an assumption. I didn't mention your finances before, and neither did you in your previous post, you gave a broad generalization. You said "one's saving have been dented". I know some families whose families where that is true others where that is not true.
What about moving to a slightly cheaper house? Or if their house is totally paid for?
Anyway, I knew a few people whose parents did move while in college. They weren't very happy with it. Coming home to your parents wasn't home anymore. I knew someone whose parents moved from Long Island to Missouri and another whose parents moved from Manhattan to a small city in PA and I can't remember others. Neither was very happy with their parent's choice. Granted, those places are cheaper than where they left.
If you think paying $1000/month just for a college kid to live at college, in the dorms or an apartment, doesn't dent one's savings, you know some people who are wealthy indeed. That is roughly $10K/year, just for R&B, $40K for 4 years. Then add in the cost of tuition; up to $40K/yr at some private schools, $8-10k/yr at most public universities, another $32-$160K. Then multiply by the number of your kids. You know people who can write these kind of checks and not have a little less in the bank?
I would assume most of your friends' parents moved for a job situation?
Few people have a totally paid for house by the time their kids graduate from college. Our youngest graduated in 2009, and our house will be paid off in 2016. (Sorry to bring up my own situation, but it's an example.) We will be happy for that, and not interested in buying any million dollar condos, which you can buy in downtown Denver, as well as in Manhattan. Frankly, anything we would buy, including a smaller house, would probably cost at least as much as we could make after paying off this house. Either that, or you have to buy a house that needs a lot of work, which also costs $$$.
Anyway, we will have to wait and see if this "back to the city" movement catches on with the empty-nest group. All the articles linked talk about what is going to happen, which isn't always what does happen.
I predict that cities, even rust-belt cities will bloom again as newly minted Green-belt cities. Localization will be a huge trend in the next decade and onward. Walkable Main Streets will prove hugely desirable. Local crops and food sources will be more and more available. Look for backyard chicken coops everywhere.
Why? Because we're heading toward a shift in living based on very expensive oil and gasoline. We're going to have to, by necessity, go back to the 'elegant-density' of urban living where we'll live without long commutes and access places and work via public transportation, by foot, and by bicycle.
No other first world country has the long car commutes we've been able and willing to do based on cheap oil. Cheap oil is fast disappearing. Peak oil is here.
The Middle East is becoming de-stabilized, too. The result? Even more pricey gas and oil.
You read it here first. We're going back to Main Street, back to walkable communities. Back to living over our place of business. Just the way much of Europe already lives. We will living more compact lives very shortly. That's a good thing, I think.
Your opinion may differ. Me? I like walking or riding my bike to most everything.
If you think paying $1000/month just for a college kid to live at college, in the dorms or an apartment, doesn't dent one's savings, you know some people who are wealthy indeed. That is roughly $10K/year, just for R&B, $40K for 4 years. Then add in the cost of tuition; up to $40K/yr at some private schools, $8-10k/yr at most public universities, another $32-$160K. Then multiply by the number of your kids. You know people who can write these kind of checks and not have a little less in the bank?
I would assume most of your friends' parents moved for a job situation?
Few people have a totally paid for house by the time their kids graduate from college. Our youngest graduated in 2009, and our house will be paid off in 2016. (Sorry to bring up my own situation, but it's an example.) We will be happy for that, and not interested in buying any million dollar condos, which you can buy in downtown Denver, as well as in Manhattan. Frankly, anything we would buy, including a smaller house, would probably cost at least as much as we could make after paying off this house. Either that, or you have to buy a house that needs a lot of work, which also costs $$$.
Anyway, we will have to wait and see if this "back to the city" movement catches on with the empty-nest group. All the articles linked talk about what is going to happen, which isn't always what does happen.
I'm not sure why we're focusing on people who pay for their kids to go to college, except that that's your experience. Many people don't pay for college:
Less than half of college tuition is paid for by parents, and that's the segment of society that 1) have kids 2) have kids that go to college 3) have kids that continue to go to college (vs. just a year and drop-out) 4) pay for a portion or substantial portion of their kids' tuition 5) don't have much money left over.
My issue is that we're focusing on one relatively minor segment of society to determine whether people are moving into cities or not. This is besides the fact that many post-college empty-nesters have equity built up in their houses (to nei's credit), and that many cities have very affordable neighborhoods (maybe not downtown in a cultural district, but nice neighborhoods nontheless).
I predict that cities, even rust-belt cities will bloom again as newly minted Green-belt cities. Localization will be a huge trend in the next decade and onward. Walkable Main Streets will prove hugely desirable. Local crops and food sources will be more and more available. Look for backyard chicken coops everywhere.
Why? Because we're heading toward a shift in living based on very expensive oil and gasoline. We're going to have to, by necessity, go back to the 'elegant-density' of urban living where we'll live without long commutes and access places and work via public transportation, by foot, and by bicycle.
No other first world country has the long car commutes we've been able and willing to do based on cheap oil. Cheap oil is fast disappearing. Peak oil is here.
The Middle East is becoming de-stabilized, too. The result? Even more pricey gas and oil.
You read it here first. We're going back to Main Street, back to walkable communities. Back to living over our place of business. Just the way much of Europe already lives. We will living more compact lives very shortly. That's a good thing, I think.
Your opinion may differ. Me? I like walking or riding my bike to most everything.
Well, many of us would like that to happen, but unfortunately, too many people are still dreaming of happy motoring and endless consumerism.
I would like to believe that a "green dream" can happen, but for the most people would only want to "go green" so they can continue running their cars and our way of life.
People aren't going to start growing food in their backyard (beyond that of a hobby) just because they want to, but rather out of necessity (because they can't afford to). The last time that happened on a large scale in America was during the 1930s and 1970s; periods of economic downturn.
In general, people aren't going to change their living habits just because oil and gas get expensive. If they did, then we wouldn't have seen post-1970s artifacts of suburban sprawl like the McMansion, SUV, Wal-Mart, America importing 2/3rds of its oil, and the whole housing bubble.
The fact that we've been sprawling since the 1980s like the 1970s energy crisis never happened is just shocking to me. Even worse is that the 1970s energy crisis did make a change in the consumption habits of other developed countries, regardless how car dependent they are. Denial is one of the big reasons why nothing has changed, but then again, societial changes occur over generations. Apparently some saying goes "Scientific theories don't become generally accepted; their opponents just die off".
It does seem that the young people (my generation) would make changes in our society, but what sucks about our energy predicament is that it's happening too fast for the young people to make changes.
I tend to think, "When will we get new urbanism?" "When we start rebuilding."
Anyway... regarding that you brought up Rust Belt cities and revitalivation, you might want to watch this video about Detroit and its future after cheap energy. (The point is at 25:00)
In my Urban Scene class, we watched a video about this. Tearing down suburban lots just to build newer nicer ones is not the way to go. The problem with sprawl is that it is a vicious cycle. Build homes, they get old, build homes, they get old, build homes, etc...We need to stop building new suburban homes and suburbs. Fix what we have and not by demolishing what is already there. I think we need to build out near our downtowns, and then I think if people want sprawl they can look into a smaller city or town with older homes or unfilled new homes.
Basically, stick people in large cities closer to downtowns and people in smaller cities in older homes and unfilled new homes.
In my Urban Scene class, we watched a video about this. Tearing down suburban lots just to build newer nicer ones is not the way to go. The problem with sprawl is that it is a vicious cycle. Build homes, they get old, build homes, they get old, build homes, etc...We need to stop building new suburban homes and suburbs. Fix what we have and not by demolishing what is already there. I think we need to build out near our downtowns, and then I think if people want sprawl they can look into a smaller city or town with older homes or unfilled new homes.
Basically, stick people in large cities closer to downtowns and people in smaller cities in older homes and unfilled new homes.
Where are are these "unfilled new homes"?
I think you are losing sight of population growth. We can't cram all the additional people into the same number of houses.
Florida, California, Arizona, maybe Nevada. I've read a number of articles highlighting new or unfinished neighborhoods that are sitting vacant because of the foreclosure/credit crisis.
Quote:
I think you are losing sight of population growth. We can't cram all the additional people into the same number of houses.
Florida, California, Arizona, maybe Nevada. I've read a number of articles highlighting new or unfinished neighborhoods that are sitting vacant because of the foreclosure/credit crisis.
OK, I read the article. In ascending order, here's where we're going to ship people to live:
Charlotte, NC
Gastonia, NC
Cincinatti, OH
Bakersfield, CA
Tampa/St. Petersburg, FL
Chicago, IL
Miami, FL
Indianapolis, IN
Jacksonville, FL
Kansas City, MO
Orlando, FL
Phoenix, AZ
Dayton, OH
Greensboro, NC
Atlanta, GA
Detroit, MI
Las Vegas, NV
The basis for this list is the rental and "home" vacancy rate, actually a misnomer b/c houses can be rentals, too. In any event, some of these cities are fairly small, as cities go, e.g. Greensboro, Dayton, Bakersfield (the only listing in CA, btw), and Gastonia. It is not clear from the article if these are new homes that are vacant, either. However, NC and FL seem to be leading the pack of states with "empty cities", with OH following.
OK, I read the article. In ascending order, here's where we're going to ship people to live:
Charlotte, NC
Gastonia, NC
Cincinatti, OH
Bakersfield, CA
Tampa/St. Petersburg, FL
Chicago, IL
Miami, FL
Indianapolis, IN
Jacksonville, FL
Kansas City, MO
Orlando, FL
Phoenix, AZ
Dayton, OH
Greensboro, NC
Atlanta, GA
Detroit, MI
Las Vegas, NV
The basis for this list is the rental and "home" vacancy rate, actually a misnomer b/c houses can be rentals, too. In any event, some of these cities are fairly small, as cities go, e.g. Greensboro, Dayton, Bakersfield (the only listing in CA, btw), and Gastonia. It is not clear from the article if these are new homes that are vacant, either. However, NC and FL seem to be leading the pack of states with "empty cities", with OH following.
Gastonia is pretty much a suburb of Charlotte so you might as well lump those two together.
The main problem with the idea of filling the existing housing stock before building more is that the vacancy rate in these cities is high mostly because they have the misfortune to be at the intersection of employment problems and developer greed. The employment base isn't there to support the housing stock and it never was. But there sure were a lot of people hoping it would be. There are a handful of heavily overbuilt areas in the states I work that I expect will require decades to reach a healthier balance between population and housing. Sure, you could move a bunch of people into the vacancies tomorrow. But they would be unemployed unless they were able to bring their job with them. North Carolina and Florida also have large swaths of housing marketed toward retirees. I don't work in Florida but in NC those areas have taken severe hits due to people at the edge of retirement experiencing large financial losses (or fearing same) and making changes to their long-term plans. These developments are particularly problematical as they were often built in areas where there were few employment opportunities in good times. Makes them very difficult to re-market to a younger demographic still in need of a regular paycheck.
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.
