The Triumph of Suburbia: Despite Downtown Hype, Americans Choose Sprawl (Houston: mortgages, hotels)

[riaelise]

[quote=tildahat;29488128
I think even the defenders of suburbia implicitly admit that - how many times have they argued people move there because of cost? There are numerous people like me who would prefer to live in Hyde Park, Mueller, Clarksville, etc. but live in much more suburban places because we've been priced out. That implies that the market is being prevented from meeting demand. I have yet to see a single person post "I really wanted to live in Round Rock, but I couldn't afford it, so I had to settle for Hyde Park." Until the supply catches up with demand so that those of us who want to live urban are not excluded from doing so because of prices, it's absurd for people to argue it's being forced down their throats.* And so long as many of us who want to live urban can't because laws and regulations won't let the market meet demand, I'll stick by my assertion that, if anything, it's suburbanism being forced on people.

[/quote]

Only have a brief moment here...but suburbanism wasn't forced upon us. Yes, I know I'm talking about my family only, but I know a lot of people who feel similarly. Moving to the suburbs was a conscious, deliberately thought out decision. Which makes me circle back to my other post...one should never "settle" when it comes to a home purchase. It's all about what truly is important to you and that doesn't really correlate as settling (IMO). If you really want to live in Hyde Park or any other central, walkable neighborhood, then it's a trade off. Unless you're making $$$, chances are it means that you will be living in a smaller, older home on a smaller lot. Despite what people say, there are still reasonable (below 350k) homes found in Hyde Park. Urban living/location probably wasn't as big of a factor to you as you had thought or you would have purchased there. I know if that mattered to me, I'd get a home there even if it was a 2/2 and below 2k sq ft. For us, we actively sought semi-rural/suburban living. I still enjoy seeing fields and ranches. The overall financial savings was an extra.

There are a great number of people who do not want another Hyde Park or Mueller development. I don't think it is purely regulation that is causing the suburban subdivisions to proliferate. Increasing supply isn't going to lower the prices of Hyde Park. It is expensive because it is very close in. All of the supply in the world isn't going to lower the price when the location is hot.

[ScoPro]

What's funny is the fact that Hyde Park was Austin's first master planned suburb....complete with light rail to downtown.

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by riaelise

If you really want to live in Hyde Park or any other central, walkable neighborhood, then it's a trade off. Unless you're making $$$, chances are it means that you will be living in a smaller, older home on a smaller lot. Despite what people say, there are still reasonable (below 350k) homes found in Hyde Park. Urban living/location probably wasn't as big of a factor to you as you had thought or you would have purchased there. I know if that mattered to me, I'd get a home there even if it was a 2/2 and below 2k sq ft. For us, we actively sought semi-rural/suburban living. I still enjoy seeing fields and ranches. The overall financial savings was an extra.

Family of 3 in a 2/1 with 1,200 ft2 in North University/Hyde Park. It's completely doable, if a little cramped. The real trade off in this area is the city being completely ineffective in stopping the encroachment of stealth student dorms and basically allowing the existing SFH houseowners to be forced out by a decline in community and behavior standards.

[tildahat]

Originally Posted by riaelise

Only have a brief moment here...but suburbanism wasn't forced upon us. Yes, I know I'm talking about my family only, but I know a lot of people who feel similarly. Moving to the suburbs was a conscious, deliberately thought out decision. Which makes me circle back to my other post...one should never "settle" when it comes to a home purchase. It's all about what truly is important to you and that doesn't really correlate as settling (IMO). If you really want to live in Hyde Park or any other central, walkable neighborhood, then it's a trade off. Unless you're making $$$, chances are it means that you will be living in a smaller, older home on a smaller lot. Despite what people say, there are still reasonable (below 350k) homes found in Hyde Park. Urban living/location probably wasn't as big of a factor to you as you had thought or you would have purchased there. I know if that mattered to me, I'd get a home there even if it was a 2/2 and below 2k sq ft. For us, we actively sought semi-rural/suburban living. I still enjoy seeing fields and ranches. The overall financial savings was an extra.

There are a great number of people who do not want another Hyde Park or Mueller development. I don't think it is purely regulation that is causing the suburban subdivisions to proliferate. Increasing supply isn't going to lower the prices of Hyde Park. It is expensive because it is very close in. All of the supply in the world isn't going to lower the price when the location is hot.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that everyone in suburbia is there because they are being forced to. Sorry, I thought I had been clear on that. I'm disputing the idea that *urbanism* is being forced on people, and using as evidence that facts that 1) public policy actually discourages urbanism and encourages car-dependent suburban development and 2) people who want urban are going suburban because they can't afford it, not the other way around.

One can make the argument that car-dependent development is bad public policy for numerous reasons, but here I merely want to argue that we should at least allow enough walkable, non-car-dependent development that it's available to those who want it.

Does that mean everyone could afford Hyde Park? No, but maybe if there was a "North Hyde Park" or "Even Norther Hyde Park" and "Seriously North Hyde Park" more of us could. That's why I used the hypothetical example of a Mueller at South Park Meadows. Those with more money are always going to get the closer in urbanism. I can accept the second or third tier urban neighborhoods. But the supply is so low in Austin, there's really only first tier, at least price wise. If you want suburban development, you can find something in your price range probably. May not be Westlake or Circle C, but there's enough supply and range that most people can probably get something.

Which brings me to your example. Sorry, $350k is not "reasonable" for most Austin families. The city estimated a while back that the median family needed about $175k, or half what you describe as reasonable. Our limit was somewhere inbetween the two, and we did look at condo, 2 bedroom, single bath situations. For the most part, we would have been looking at below 1000sf, not 2000sf. (Our suburban house is 1400sf, btw.) And in most cases only 2 beds and a single bath. And, here's the kicker, usually in a central zip code, but not actually very walkable, due to either poor/nonexistant pedestrian facilities, or nothing to actually walk to.

I don't disagree that someone who has a budget of $350k or $450k who says they *can't* live central may just not be willing to make all the sacrifices, and honestly I don't care that much if people who think they must have 3000sf can't buy central. But the majority of Austin families can't spend that much. We would have been very happy with a 1200sf 3-2 townhouse or condo, and willing to compromising even more by going smaller or 2-2/3-1, but there was nothing, and I mean nothing, in our price range that met that and provided a genuine walkable experience. If we had one kid or slightly more money maybe we could have done it. But whether I specifically could make it work is kind of beside the point. We ALL benefit when people are able to live less car-dependent lives. Why make it so freakin' hard for people to make that choice?

[tildahat]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

Family of 3 in a 2/1 with 1,200 ft2 in North University/Hyde Park. It's completely doable, if a little cramped. The real trade off in this area is the city being completely ineffective in stopping the encroachment of stealth student dorms and basically allowing the existing SFH houseowners to be forced out by a decline in community and behavior standards.

I do have friends with two kids living in 2-1 homes with about 900sf in Bouldin and Travis Heights. I think one family will try and make it work and the other is about to sell. TH doesn't have nearly the same level of stuff in walking distance unless you're near SoCo. Of course they couldn't afford those houses at today's prices, so it's a bit of a moot point for this discussion.

Stealth dorms are pretty horrible, I'd agree. The sort of density that gives density a bad name. I think shortsightedness on the part of NUNA and HPNA is partly to blame, however, for literally decades of opposing apartments in West Campus and along major thoroughfares...

[Devout Urbanist]

Originally Posted by ScoPro

What's funny is the fact that Hyde Park was Austin's first master planned suburb....complete with light rail to downtown.

Ha. Those who claim Americans "chose" car-dependent suburbia conveniently overlook the auto industry's deliberate (not to mention illegal) destruction of the trolley system and the government-sponsored expansion of highways and suburban housing developments.

Streetcar suburbs are miles away from modern suburban developments or subdivisions, many of which do not offer public transit or walkable central business districts. Pittsburgh's Shadyside (where I now live) is a far cry from Austin's Great Hills (where I grew up).

[Austin97]

tilda you make some good points about how suburbanism is being forced on everyone through zoning and choices of where the city spends money.

For example, the city pays for all infrastructure to new developments. If developers had to pay for that infrastructure, they might think more about redeveloping in the core.

Komeht posted something a few weeks ago around which laws specifically cost $ for building in the core.


Most of the contention isnt between suburbanites and urban core, it is existing SFH urban core people and the dense urban core people.

I actually agree with Texas Horse Lady that buildings that have a more human scale, say 10 floors or less are a good solution. The challenge is tha there is a huge amount of government overhead associated with building a building so if you are going to build 10 stories you might as well build 50.

I have a 20 acre plat of land that if I wanted to do anything with it would cost around 100K just for studies to satisfy the city of austin. And that is just to turn it into soccer fields. That isnt even considering building anything on it, just clearing the land.

I think we will see more 3-5 story dense development in crestview because their neighborhood associations arent as strong and north lamar is already pretty gritty.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Devout Urbanist

Ha. Those who claim Americans "chose" car-dependent suburbia conveniently overlook the auto industry's deliberate (not to mention illegal) destruction of the trolley system and the government-sponsored expansion of highways and suburban housing developments.

You've watched Who Framed Roger Rabbit? too many times. It's fiction, OK?

[Devout Urbanist]

Originally Posted by scm53

You've watched Who Framed Roger Rabbit? too many times. It's fiction, OK?

The only cartoons I've come across lately are Joel Kotkin and his uninformed acolytes, who know as much about American history as they do about urban planning.

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by scm53

You've watched Who Framed Roger Rabbit? too many times. It's fiction, OK?

Must be, because Austin's electric streetcar system went bankrupt in the early '50s, and the bus bidness that replaced it was deemed more efficient.