U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-02-2015, 08:06 AM
 
9,838 posts, read 11,426,863 times
Reputation: 2353

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PerseusVeil View Post
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the long run, and I hope it doesn't hurt the return to the cities too much in the near future.
This really depends on which city we're talking about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-02-2015, 10:20 AM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,003,488 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
In any case, people have to live somewhere and they can't all live downtown. Since the other suburbs are already built out, no one wants increased density, and household size is still shrinking there's really no other place for people to go.
This, plus one thing:

For the most part, developers are still producing a lot of exurban, low density development. We're talking big homes on large lots on cul-de-sacs tens of miles from job centers. But if this is the vast majority of what of being produced, do the numbers show demand for that kind of housing or simply for housing, period, in absence of an "affordable" city alternative? If we were more willing to mildly densify our nearer suburbs--townhomes and 2-3 story condos--and keep that housing affordable, would people still opt for the exurbs?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2015, 11:03 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 14 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,980 posts, read 102,527,356 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
This, plus one thing:

For the most part, developers are still producing a lot of exurban, low density development. We're talking big homes on large lots on cul-de-sacs tens of miles from job centers. But if this is the vast majority of what of being produced, do the numbers show demand for that kind of housing or simply for housing, period, in absence of an "affordable" city alternative? If we were more willing to mildly densify our nearer suburbs--townhomes and 2-3 story condos--and keep that housing affordable, would people still opt for the exurbs?
Lots of townhouses and condos/apt. buildings in the suburbs of Denver, especially the close-in burbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2015, 11:04 AM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,880,155 times
Reputation: 18049
The big change is that boomers; said to be 26% of population is retiring to continue the next 13 years. No job concerns to hold them anywhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2015, 12:46 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,003,488 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallsAngel View Post
Lots of townhouses and condos/apt. buildings in the suburbs of Denver, especially the close-in burbs.
And I totally believe that. Unfortunately, not all suburbs are like that, or, of those that are, the stock is old and new developments are rare. And that really is the core of my point: we're producing vastly more exurban large-lot developments than close-in moderate-density developments, and it is not clear if this is developers responding to or leading the market. On the one hand, they could just be giving us what we want (so long as gas is cheap and freeways aren't tolled!), but, on the other hand, they could be only giving us one affordable option to choose from.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2015, 04:20 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 14 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,980 posts, read 102,527,356 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
And I totally believe that. Unfortunately, not all suburbs are like that, or, of those that are, the stock is old and new developments are rare. And that really is the core of my point: we're producing vastly more exurban large-lot developments than close-in moderate-density developments, and it is not clear if this is developers responding to or leading the market. On the one hand, they could just be giving us what we want (so long as gas is cheap and freeways aren't tolled!), but, on the other hand, they could be only giving us one affordable option to choose from.
But, but, but. . . Denver is one of those evil, wasteful, western sunbelt cities! (Though it's snowing right now, LOL.)

Re: the bold-
Apartment Investors Turn to Suburbs After Crowding Cities - Bloomberg Business
Multi-Family Real Estate Forecast: 2014-2020 - Forbes
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...eps-on-growing
The composition of Cook County's housing market - Institute for Housing Studies - DePaul University

Here is an interesting article about housing:
America's Apartment Shortage: 8 Million Units | Planetizen: The Urban Planning, Design, and Development Network
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2015, 04:52 PM
 
Location: Cushing OK
14,547 posts, read 17,531,320 times
Reputation: 16771
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
The big change is that boomers; said to be 26% of population is retiring to continue the next 13 years. No job concerns to hold them anywhere.
I'm a boomer. The last place I lived in California was an apartment building in the middle of a lot or businesses. It was handy, and there were busses, but waaayyyyy too many people and no extra space. I moved to a small town and into a small old house, in good shape, and aside from mowing issues with the city (I LIKE tall grass) its been great. I suspect I'm not alone in terms of those without the money to invest a huge chunk. And I wanted quiet and space. And I'm very happy to leave the crush of people behind in socal. There is no good way to 'manage' that many people if you don't like a crush.

Now, my son is mostly a millenial. He's married and couldn't find a job in California. He and his wife moved to another state, to smaller city. The cost of his two bed, full sized kitchen and living room plus a patio downstairs new place their renting is less than what they paid to rent a room. And the LOVE that its not so full and crowded. I think as the millenials get the money, they'll also move away from dense populations.

I know that planners like to make plans and use dispassionate data to find what they believe to be the 'optimal' housing patterns, but sometimes people just don't want to live that way and in the end they'll win.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2015, 05:29 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,003,488 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallsAngel View Post
This one is interesting because it suggests that, yes, multi-family housing is growing but, even when projected out to 2020, is still in the minority in the US.

While this is a little old (data through 2010), this article is very interesting: THE LONG TERM: METRO AMERICA GOES FROM 82% TO 86% SUBURBAN SINCE 1990



Quote:
All major metropolitan area growth between 2000 and 2010 was in the functional suburbs and exurbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2015, 06:38 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 14 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,980 posts, read 102,527,356 times
Reputation: 33045
Minority, sure! "Different strokes for different folks" and all. But it is not non-existent in the burbs of ANY city I am familiar with. Your first figure totally excludes these "inner-ring" suburbs that people on this board wax rhapsodic about. All suburban is labeled auto-dependent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2015, 08:04 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,003,488 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallsAngel View Post
Minority, sure! "Different strokes for different folks" and all. But it is not non-existent in the burbs of ANY city I am familiar with. Your first figure totally excludes these "inner-ring" suburbs that people on this board wax rhapsodic about. All suburban is labeled auto-dependent.
When I said minority, I was talking in reference to the Forbes article you linked to. In it, single family housing is the bulk of new starts.



As to your point re: what I linked to, yes, it does lump together everything pre-1946, and, yes, this does include streetcar suburbs. What of it? Even if it had them as separate categories, the overall narrative driven by the data wouldn't change; populations increased the most in the later suburbs, as shown here:

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top