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 a 2010 report, Brookings - an advocate of higher-density housing - called that development "at least a temporary retreat from the longer-run march toward outer suburbia and lower-density metropolitan areas" that was induced by the "bursting of the housing bubble" and the recession that followed. It added that whether a move toward higher-density housing would persist in the current decade "will depend on a range of factors."
In other words, it said the jury was still out.
Yeah, I guess we shall see. If the more affluent are doing a disproportionate amount of the home buying (and buying in expensive urban and inner ring suburban areas), then the data may not reflect the trend that some of the density-advocates believe it does.
I don't think the quality of life standards are nowhere near equitable in the DC region. Economically, the District of Columbia itself has the highest income inequality number in the nation. How did you determine that leveling the suburban sprawl vs. urban density would create a more "equitable" region? What are the metrics here?
I never said QoL is equitable. I said we should work toward equity by providing as many options as possible so people are not forced to fund both a large home and a car, especially if they can't afford one.
I can't afford a car, so for me living in a dense transit / walkable area increases my quality of life significantly.
Quote:
But see...you just made a judgment about people living in sub-divisions "miles away from anything" and "they have their reasons" (translation, I have no idea what the eff these yokels are thinking by moving out to Lessburg). Then, you attempt to make an economic justification for more denser urban development for "balance" purposes. If anything, housing is getting much cheaper in the outer burbs since the housing crash. Price has much of an influence on decision-making as lifestyle, good schools and proximity to the work place. If prices fall low enough, that kinda messes up the "balance".
I can't be held accountable for you injecting thoughts I never even had. If people choose to live miles from goods and services, it's a simple fact.
People do have their reasons for every choice they make, many of them valid. You projected your own insecurities on that.
Giving people choices - to bike, walk, drive, take a train or bus, live in a tiny apartment or an opulant McMansion provides the ability for everybody to find their place and thrive here. Chicago is a good example of a city that has embraced a pro-building policy and, as a result, it has created enough housing (much of it high-rise) to maintain an affordable cost-of-living because the supply has been able to match the demand.
That's all I'm looking for here. We have too much demand for density and not enough supply.
Quote:
Riiiiiight...so writes one of the biggest cheerleaders for gentrification in this City-Data Forum. Maybe poor people are tired of commuting an hour and thirty minutes to work each day. Wouldn't be great to buy a condo where you have walking access to shops, public transportation? Wouldn't be great to rent an apartment within walking distance of any Metro station? Only one problem...money is a huge obstacle. They have no choice.
I mean the funny thing about gentrification in DC...the most affluent buyers and renters living in the trendiest neighborhoods could get by WITHOUT using Metro on a daily basis while the poor suckers have to take multiple bus transfers and drive in crappy old cars to get to their jobs. It's the poor people who have to drive everywhere for errands while the "lobbyists, lawyers and corporate profiteers" that you supposedly challenge have easy-breezy walks to the grocery stores.
And high-density development close to public transportation is EXPENSIVE everywhere. It's expensive in Rockville. It's expensive in Silver Spring. It's expensive in any suburban city where you have public transit lines and large retail clusters. Well...no wonder why real estate developers were building miles and miles of cul-de-sacs on farm land near Frederick, MD. I mean...if two-bedroom condos in downtown Rockville are going for $550,000 then I mind as well a buy a HOUSE with a YARD and a GARAGE for $375,000 in Frederick.
Gentrification does not just EFF over the poor, it also freezes out the middle-class trying to stay above water in an ocean of mortgage debt, student loan debt, health care bills debt and so on. I think most people would prefer closer commutes and closer access to grocery stores, dry cleaners, pharmacies or whatever else. But The Market is rigged against anyone who is not a top 10 percent income earner in this country.
And you look out for the "little guy" by advocating for the modern 21st century version of the English land closure laws? Puleeeeeeeze.
You accuse me of being the biggest cheerleader of gentrification. That's funny. I want a healthy, functional, safe, vibrant city. If that somehow gets reinterpreted as me advocating for a rich people's playground, then that's the fault of the interpreter.
I want transportation choices so people who can afford or not afford options can both get to work on bus, train, bike or foot. I would like people with money who want to live in dense environments to have that option without forcing everybody else out. That requires new buildings.
I have posted many times in support of a mixture of market-rate, workforce, and low-income house (distributed, not concentrated). I enjoy living here but I would be forced out of DC under the scenario you accuse me of supporting. Please get off my back.
You seem to want DC to forever be awash in poverty and disinvestment (anything else is "gentrification" to you) because that's what it was like when you arrived here in the 90s. Ostensibly this is because you don't want to see the poor people get pushed around, which I would agree with you on, but given that you are a gentrifier who has contributed to pushing poor people out of Silver Spring and support suburban development that pushes poor people out of their entire rural livelihoods, I can't help but think you might just like the idea of all the poor people concentrated far from you in the city.
This is true. My ex co-worker and her boyfriend paid $3,400 to live in one of those buildings in Downtown Bethesda near the Metro. And it was a one-bedroom apartment (plus den). Given the small number of people who can afford to live near Metro stations, I don't see how TOD is going to relieve traffic congestion. It's a drop in the bucket.
I'm not sure the inability to live affordably in the epicenter of one of the most expensive cities in the region / country really makes your argument.
Also, when you figure an average of 600,000 trips are taken everyday on Metrorail alone, just picture that many more cars during your commute and you'll see the impact it is having on traffic. I've never understood why car-based people don't wildly support as much density and transit as possible in strategic areas because it can only reduce traffic congestion.
Quote:
Do you have studies on this? I'm curious about the profiles of those demanding higher-density housing. Some people suspect that greater demand for higher-density housing reflects a value shift from more traditional suburban living, but I wonder if the demand for "traditional" housing is only weaker because the people who typically demand it have been hardest hit by the recession.
Speaking of Greater Greater Washington, they just posted a link to a survey showing 58% of Americans want (not need) to live in areas they can walk instead of drive.
I think a lot of people became aware of this shift in recent years because it reached some level of critical mass so they draw false causation between the current economy and this emerging demographic, but it was growing for many years before the recession. No doubt the recession has forced some to downsize against their will (just as a percentage of the growth in this area in recent years has been due to the economy elsewhere). But, there's still a larger trend at work that goes back to vibrant economic times.
Speaking of Greater Greater Washington, they just posted a link to a survey showing 58% of Americans want (not need) to live in areas they can walk instead of drive.
I think a lot of people became aware of this shift in recent years because it reached some level of critical mass so they draw false causation between the current economy and this emerging demographic, but it was growing for many years before the recession. No doubt the recession has forced some to downsize against their will (just as a percentage of the growth in this area in recent years has been due to the economy elsewhere). But, there's still a larger trend at work that goes back to vibrant economic times.
Do you have the link? I saw it earlier and can't find it now.
Some important points to remember here is that such areas - like jobs -are found all over the region; that there are other options between walking and driving (i.e., mass transit); and that many people now opt for something in the middle (i.e., they may prefer an area where they can walk to shops and restaurants but have to drive or take mass transit to work over a completely walkable lifestyle if the latter requires them to live in small quarters or a neighborhood with mediocre schools).
The original topic of this thread related to immigrants in the suburbs and it would be interesting to see how the expressed preferences of area immigrants compares to the expressed preferences of the larger group of persons surveyed in the poll reported by GGW. The preferences of someone in his 30s who grew up in cramped quarters in Mumbai or Seoul may be different from someone in his 20s who grew up on a cul-de-sac in Rockville (or, for that matter, someone in her 40s who grew up in a village in El Salvador and now lives in Virginia or Maryland without a car and has a long bus ride to get to work every day).
The article itself seems to just be blind boosterism over the number without a lot of analysis.
Quote:
Some important points to remember here is that such areas - like jobs -are found all over the region; that there are other options between walking and driving (i.e., mass transit); and that many people now opt for something in the middle (i.e., they may prefer an area where they can walk to shops and restaurants but have to drive or take mass transit to work over a completely walkable lifestyle if the latter requires them to live in small quarters or a neighborhood with mediocre schools).
The original topic of this thread related to immigrants in the suburbs and it would be interesting to see how the expressed preferences of area immigrants compares to the expressed preferences of the larger group of persons surveyed in the poll reported by GGW. The preferences of someone in his 30s who grew up in cramped quarters in Mumbai or Seoul may be different from someone in his 20s who grew up on a cul-de-sac in Rockville (or, for that matter, someone in her 40s who grew up in a village in El Salvador and now lives in Virginia or Maryland without a car and has a long bus ride to get to work every day).
I'm almost 100% sure that a vast majority of immigrants prefer spread out suburbia for the very reasons you state. Same is true for a lot of people born-and-raised in DC who are now moving to PG County.
I'm not sure the inability to live affordably in the epicenter of one of the most expensive cities in the region / country really makes your argument.
Where else are they building TOD? It's mostly in expensive metro areas that already have a well-established public transit system. Even in metros that are not as expensive as DC, the people who will be able to afford a lot of the new housing will typically be at the far right end of the income distribution curve.
The article itself seems to just be blind boosterism over the number without a lot of analysis.
I'm almost 100% sure that a vast majority of immigrants prefer spread out suburbia for the very reasons you state. Same is true for a lot of people born-and-raised in DC who are now moving to PG County.
Thanks. It's a new article about an NAR-commissioned study that's now almost a year old.
Like many opinion surveys, there's grist for everyone in the actual survey. My main take-aways are (1) there's broad support for more TOD, even among people who wouldn't necessarily want to live in one; (2) locally, places like Arlington and Bethesda now represent the "ideal" for many people; and (3) the economy has had a major impact on attitudes toward housing issues, since it's dampened the appetite for buying homes.
The finding that you emphasized was that, when given a choice between living in a neighborhood with a mix of houses and stores and other businesses within an easy walk, or a housing-only community, 58% preferred the former and 40% the latter (apparently, 2% of those surveyed had no preference). That's actually pretty consistent with my supposition, which is that most people don't necessarily prefer an urban, car-free lifestyle, but instead one - whether in an urban or suburban area - where they are not totally car-dependent. People want options and not to be at the mercy of OPEC or whatever the powers that be decide should happen in the Strait of Hormuz.
Otherwise, how the responses translate into preferences for housing types is hard to reconcile. It turns out that people want lots of different things that, taken together, tend to cost lost of money. So, while people would like to live near a walkable area, 61% of those surveyed also would choose larger lots and needing to drive over being able to walk to schools, stores and restaurants (a preference of 37%), privacy and high-quality schools were the top two considerations identified for Americans in deciding where to live; 80% of those surveyed would prefer to live in single-family detached homes over other types of housing, including townhouses, condos and apartments; 59% would accept a longer commute and having to drive to shops and restaurants if that meant they could live in a single-family home rather than an attached house or apartment (38%); and 60% would take a smaller house and lot for a daily commute of 20 minutes or less over a larger house with a longer commute (40%).
It's an interesting picture when you try and put it together. It sounds like, in an ideal world, many of us would like to live in a single-family home with ample privacy and strong schools, but also near other people who are living in housing that is dense enough to support plenty of amenities in walking distance and expensive enough that the children who live in such housing don't pull the test scores down. In DC terms, that means the ideal for many is a single-family house in a place like Arlington or Bethesda near a Metro station and a bunch of condos that other people get to live in. Going to your earlier point, if you can afford the single-family home in such an area, you may very well welcome density nearby, because the additional people create the demand for the services that you also would like to have within walking distance. This is exactly the dynamic you see today in some single-family neighborhoods in Arlington today, which are near a Metro station and condo/apartment complexes, but also experiencing growing pains as residents who had decided that a smaller house and a shorter commute were more important than a larger house with a longer commute butt heads with other residents with a "I'll have my McMansion and eat it, too" attitude. The latter tear down older and smaller properties and, in doing so, reduce the privacy that other residents thought they had secured by moving into the neighborhood. It's an interesting dynamic, with the concept of "there goes the neighborhood" redefined.
Unfortunately, the survey does not separately break out the attitudes of immigrants (and, in any event, was a nation-wide survey, rather than a local one). Had local immigrants been surveyed, I suspect they would have expressed a stronger preference for what are specifically defined in the survey as "sprawl" options than the survey responders generally. But that is just a guess, based on where immigrants are currently living in the area.
Perhaps not particularly germane to this discussion, but I actually prefer to live a non-walkable distance away from work. I spent about a year living 6 blocks away from my office. And although I found the convenience a nice thing, it was also a little too close: I found myself working later hours, bumping into colleagues during "personal" time, eating out in the same restaurants I ate in during my work days, and so forth. I discovered that I actually prefer to live a little farther from work to get that "distance".
I take Metro every day now, and although the commute is a *little* longer than I would prefer, in some ways I prefer it over living just a few blocks away from my office. Some separation can be a nice thing.
Thanks. It's a new article about an NAR-commissioned study that's now almost a year old.
Like many opinion surveys, there's grist for everyone in the actual survey. My main take-aways are (1) there's broad support for more TOD, even among people who wouldn't necessarily want to live in one; (2) locally, places like Arlington and Bethesda now represent the "ideal" for many people; and (3) the economy has had a major impact on attitudes toward housing issues, since it's dampened the appetite for buying homes.
The finding that you emphasized was that, when given a choice between living in a neighborhood with a mix of houses and stores and other businesses within an easy walk, or a housing-only community, 58% preferred the former and 40% the latter (apparently, 2% of those surveyed had no preference). That's actually pretty consistent with my supposition, which is that most people don't necessarily prefer an urban, car-free lifestyle, but instead one - whether in an urban or suburban area - where they are not totally car-dependent. People want options and not to be at the mercy of OPEC or whatever the powers that be decide should happen in the Strait of Hormuz.
Otherwise, how the responses translate into preferences for housing types is hard to reconcile. It turns out that people want lots of different things that, taken together, tend to cost lost of money. So, while people would like to live near a walkable area, 61% of those surveyed also would choose larger lots and needing to drive over being able to walk to schools, stores and restaurants (a preference of 37%), privacy and high-quality schools were the top two considerations identified for Americans in deciding where to live; 80% of those surveyed would prefer to live in single-family detached homes over other types of housing, including townhouses, condos and apartments; 59% would accept a longer commute and having to drive to shops and restaurants if that meant they could live in a single-family home rather than an attached house or apartment (38%); and 60% would take a smaller house and lot for a daily commute of 20 minutes or less over a larger house with a longer commute (40%).
It's an interesting picture when you try and put it together. It sounds like, in an ideal world, many of us would like to live in a single-family home with ample privacy and strong schools, but also near other people who are living in housing that is dense enough to support plenty of amenities in walking distance and expensive enough that the children who live in such housing don't pull the test scores down. In DC terms, that means the ideal for many is a single-family house in a place like Arlington or Bethesda near a Metro station and a bunch of condos that other people get to live in. Going to your earlier point, if you can afford the single-family home in such an area, you may very well welcome density nearby, because the additional people create the demand for the services that you also would like to have within walking distance. This is exactly the dynamic you see today in some single-family neighborhoods in Arlington today, which are near a Metro station and condo/apartment complexes, but also experiencing growing pains as residents who had decided that a smaller house and a shorter commute were more important than a larger house with a longer commute butt heads with other residents with a "I'll have my McMansion and eat it, too" attitude. The latter tear down older and smaller properties and, in doing so, reduce the privacy that other residents thought they had secured by moving into the neighborhood. It's an interesting dynamic, with the concept of "there goes the neighborhood" redefined.
Unfortunately, the survey does not separately break out the attitudes of immigrants (and, in any event, was a nation-wide survey, rather than a local one). Had local immigrants been surveyed, I suspect they would have expressed a stronger preference for what are specifically defined in the survey as "sprawl" options than the survey responders generally. But that is just a guess, based on where immigrants are currently living in the area.
Where else are they building TOD? It's mostly in expensive metro areas that already have a well-established public transit system. Even in metros that are not as expensive as DC, the people who will be able to afford a lot of the new housing will typically be at the far right end of the income distribution curve.
New housing or retail developments, by definition, are going to go wherever the money can be maximized. That's why poor communities don't have much investment. It really doesn't have anything to do with whether that development is alongside a highway or a subway stop.
Having a mix of housing options when the market starts pressuring an area is important, if you ask me.
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.
