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.
I've seen this repeated elsewhere, it always seemed like a bit of a myth. I haven't seen much evidence of first-ring suburbs declining, though the cheapest ones have seen their demographics become heavily minority. Neither Daly City nor Levittown have declined, though Daly City lost most of its white population [that doesn't mean it declined]. First ring suburbs often have fairly good locations, with decent access to both city and suburban job centers.
I may have overstated my case, but my main point was that people upthread were talking about all suburbs as if they were large-lot, cu-de-sac McMansions. A lot of suburbs don't have these traits. While there's something of a MCM craze now on the west coast, these sort of neighborhoods are not where the stereotypical "suburb person" wants to locate. Houses are too small and/or dated. And in some cases crime is rising and school quality are falling as well. In an area with high demand, the neighborhoods can maintain healthy population levels of course. But there probably isn't going to be the same level of investment in keeping the neighborhood as it is, particularly if the number of renter-owned houses rises and the population becomes more transient. Thus such neighborhoods are probably becoming easier and easier, politically speaking, to attempt to remake.
Of course, the neighborhoods it might be easiest to sell this sort of "new urbanism" to are the exact ones where developers aren't going to build it unless they get tons of federal support. So it may be a wash.
Actually in my neck of the woods, the new "new urbanism" infill developments (single-family infill homes on small lots, for-sale rather than rental, typically in or near the existing urban fabric) don't receive or require any federal support, they're market-rate projects. The houses generally aren't as big as McMansion standard (more like 1200-1600 feet) and typically have shared driveways and parkway space where kids can play rather than big private yards, but they cost about the same as a new McMansion minus the 45 minute commute.
A lot of what used to be called "suburban" (row houses, streetcars, stores on the corner) are now considered "urban" by many. A lot of the factors that would make car-centric neighborhoods more "urban" might sell a lot better if it was marketed as "small-town" amenities instead of the "urban" label that scares people so much--because the properties of the traditional American small town are exactly the sort of thing the "new urbanist" product is intended to provide (even if it sometimes works better in theory than in practice.)
Actually in my neck of the woods, the new "new urbanism" infill developments (single-family infill homes on small lots, for-sale rather than rental, typically in or near the existing urban fabric) don't receive or require any federal support, they're market-rate projects. The houses generally aren't as big as McMansion standard (more like 1200-1600 feet) and typically have shared driveways and parkway space where kids can play rather than big private yards, but they cost about the same as a new McMansion minus the 45 minute commute.
A lot of what used to be called "suburban" (row houses, streetcars, stores on the corner) are now considered "urban" by many. A lot of the factors that would make car-centric neighborhoods more "urban" might sell a lot better if it was marketed as "small-town" amenities instead of the "urban" label that scares people so much--because the properties of the traditional American small town are exactly the sort of thing the "new urbanist" product is intended to provide (even if it sometimes works better in theory than in practice.)
Is the new urbanist infill in Central Sacramento or South Sacramento though?
I would say what eschaton described is somewhat true in Toronto too. The East (Scarborough) and NW quadrants of Toronto, areas that are the more working class parts of Toronto and were built mostly in the 50s to 70s aren't seeing much new private investment compared to other parts of the city. The private investment is mainly in the older core, as well as the North and West quadrants which are also 50s-70s vintage but wealthier.
In Kitchener-Waterloo it's a bit different. The private investment in infill is mostly limitted to the downtowns and university area, with relatively little infill elsewhere.
The urban label doesn't have much negative connotation here. They're advertising a huge master planned area in my parents suburb as urban. It does have elements of new urbanism, although I'm not sure how it will end up. In terms of function, I think if you build in an area surrounded by autocentric suburbia, the community is going to be fairly autocentric no matter how hard you try. I guess there will be a few main street type shops that you can walk to, but many people will probably still drive, and will probably still also shop at the big box stores in other parts of the suburb on their way back from work (probably by car).
A little of both. In the central city grid there are several clusters of new homes of the unsubsidized variety, and a few mid-sized apartment building. South of the grid, Curtis Park Village is about to start construction, and to the east, McKinley Village and another project on the site of a former hospital, both based on single-family homes for sale. Even in Oak Park, there is new housing going up--a mixed use project on Broadway with ground floor retail and residential condos above, all of which have already sold. Subsequent units of the same project will have the same sort of small-lot single family homes as those in the grid. Admittedly, the Oak Park project has a percentage of redevelopment financing, the rest are market-rate projects without subsidy. The common factor they all share is that they're built in existing "streetcar suburb" type neighborhoods: not high-rises or brownstones, but small-scale neighborhoods of 2-3 stories, built in the late 19th/early 20th century. Most of them are very walkable, with one exception, and even that is being billed as highly walkable and transit-oriented because it's half a mile from a bus line that runs once an hour and stops running at 7 PM.
Folks who live in LA's most desirable suburbs such as Upland and Rancho Cucamonga do utilize the Metrolink system, but the percentage is very tiny compared to the hundreds of thousands of folks who pack the freeways leading onto downtown LA every year.
May of LA's other top-notch suburbs such as Torrance do have bus service into downtown LA, but their ridership levels are also modest.
Once rush hour ends, it's a 45-50 minute jaunt from RC or Upland into downtown LA, and 20-25 minutes from Torrance.
Many Americans cities such as Buffalo, Cleveland, Toledo, Detroit, Milwaukee, etc all have large areas within their city boundaries that are empty or filled with abandoned houses/building just waiting for urban pioneers to re-develop them. No need to force urban density on people who moved outside these cities to escape it.
I'm going to go ahead and make a prediction that eventually, cities will reach critical mass and will eventually have to demolish existing development to make room for denser development for residents and businesses. My question is-will they do this in the cities, and demolish existing structures there, or will they go for the less built-up areas instead and build those up (which seems more logical IMO)? If the latter, how will urban planners cope with the large parking lots, expansive office parks, cul-de-sacs, and other characteristics of typical suburbia when making a more dense area? How do you think it would be done, and how would you think it should be done? And would anyone happen to know of any real-life examples of this happening?
The exurbs are cheaper. Suburbs are already built up in a lot of metros, IMHO.
The inner city is the most expensive because you have to demolish existing infrastructure and try to retrofit new infrastructure into the old. No one is going to start from scratch; the existing, functioning parts of the city have to coexist with this new animal. That is why you see a lot of patchwork infill, rather than demolishing the past (what happened when the housing projects or the expressways were built, etc.).
the DC may have some of the bet US example of this type of thing today
The need is perhaps greatest in DC, which is one of the few cities actually expanding rapidly enough to afford to do it right, rather than piecemeal. Love what they're doing in DC I have always been a huge fan of the metro.
How about not? You know, some of us are living in these areas and wouldn't appreciate radical urbanists coming in, taking our homes, and building their highly-dense dream cities on the land. We suburbanites don't try to bulldoze cities and replace them with single-family detached homes with 3-car garages on quarter-acre lots, do we? (Well, maybe Detroit)
If Detroit were much smaller, say the physical size of a city like DC, it would be more desirable.
Lose large swaths of the city to suburbia, allow them to provide city services, shrink the city and allow Detroit to become a healthy metro area, of say like five to ten cities, like HR or NoVa, and see what happens. Detroit is too much city to govern, with not enough money, obscene poverty levels and incredible legacy cost overruns. Were Detroit a smaller city, say 1/15th of the size, but an efficient city it would be alright.
Suburban Detroit is a lot better than the desolate forest that exists there now. Wild animals are moving back into Detroit.
If Detroit were much smaller, say the physical size of a city like DC, it would be more desirable.
Lose large swaths of the city to suburbia, allow them to provide city services, shrink the city and allow Detroit to become a healthy metro area, of say like five to ten cities, like HR or NoVa, and see what happens. Detroit is too much city to govern, with not enough money, obscene poverty levels and incredible legacy cost overruns. Were Detroit a smaller city, say 1/15th of the size, but an efficient city it would be alright.
Suburban Detroit is a lot better than the desolate forest that exists there now. Wild animals are moving back into Detroit.
Building over Detroit with suburbs will not reduce crime, and bulldozing the city to start over doesnt necessarily mean people will move in (if you build it they will not necessarily come). Also, it'd be a pretty pointless gesture to eliminate Detroit's outer neighborhoods when its the inner ones that are suffering most.
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.
