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 agree with the above from Ben. I am Gen Xer who lives in one of the most urban neighborhoods of the country FWIW but as stated the growth driver in the US was still the burbs, mostly exurban in the last ten years. Though to be fair their has been a rebirth in urban spaces. Both Boston and Philly saw the largest percentage increases in their core populations in nearly 100 years recently but this on the whole represents a small percentage of the overall growth. Can I see some change, absolutely, overnight, no, all new construction in high density, no way. Personally I would prefer it but I feel it just wont be the case. The largest growth in the DC metro was in Loudon County I believe, nearly ALL suburban/exurban in nature. I think Tysons will infill and that is a good thing, the palce was awful for years, all the pain of urban places with none of the character. But I realistically do not see it being a 100K place so to speak, that would make it on par with the highest DT neighborhood concentrations in the US, just dont see it.
Also it is great they teach concepts, there is always a difference between theory and reality, plans and what comes to fruition. Maybe even being one generation older I have been around long enough to not always believe the press nor theory.
Also more than just sprawl led to failure of many neighborhoods, but was a factor
lastly, urban living is very desired to many until they have kids in school, not saying I agree or disagree with the premis but it is oh so real.
Refer to my previous post, things do not remain the same. Just like 1990 is very different from the reality we see today. 2030 will be very different from 2010. If you think the 2010 census has anything to do with 2030, you might want to go back and compare 1970 and 1990 for example.
The good schools will be in the cities as demographics shift. The demographic shift is what many people are forgetting.
Refer to my previous post, things do not remain the same. Just like 1990 is very different from the reality we see today. 2030 will be very different from 2010. If you think the 2010 census has anything to do with 2030, you might want to go back and compare 1970 and 1990 for example.
I agree they change but 1970 and 1990 (as was the 2010) were actually EXTREMELY similar on where growth took place just to use your example. Pure urban repopulation is likely not an outcome, though honestly places like what is being done in Tysons or Rockville are likely something we will see more of, though not truly urban in the purest sense , more hybrid. I am still highly doubtful there will be wholesale shift by 2030, if ever in the US
I agree they change but 1970 and 1990 were actually EXTREMELY similar on growth just to use your example. Pure urban repopulation is likely not an outcome, though honestly places like what is being done in Tysons or Rockville are likely something we will see more of, though not truly urban in the purest sense , more hybrid. I am still highly doubtful there will be wholesale shift by 2030, if ever in the US
Well as crime continues to climb in the suburbs and drop in the cities, we will see I guess. Also, this may just be for places like DC and Portland that are basically taking zoning and building power away from sprawling county government, but they want actually be able to build the developments they built over the last 40 years in the DC area by law.
Well as crime continues to climb in the suburbs and drop in the cities, we will see I guess. Also, this may just be for places like DC and Portland that are basically taking zoning and building power away from sprawling county government, but they want actually be able to build the developments they built over the last 40 years in the DC area by law.
I like the zoning changes in DC personally but remember another factor. DC is the only place that has gown at recent rates with a high COL, this was subsidized by the Gov't which is in EXTREME deficit spend. I cant see the sustained growth honestly, the funds have to slow and even the private sector in DC has huge ties to Gov't spend. I cant see DC growing at this rate over the long term nor Govt spend to continue to support astromical growth in an area of such high COL. Fundamentally DC is subsidized in this respect (even the foreign monies dry up when demand drops). And as you say, things change, to me I see the DC growth rate declining from its lofty peak recently. It truly has been an insulated and subsidized bubble in recent times.
I like the zoning changes in DC personally but remember another factor. DC is the only place that has gown at recent rates with a high COL, this was subsidized by the Gov't which is in EXTREME deficit spend. I cant see the sustained growth honestly, the funds have to slow and even the private sector in DC has huge ties to Gov't spend. I cant see DC growing at this rate over the long term nor Govt spend to continue to support astromical growth in an area of such high COL. Fundamentally DC is subsidized in this respect (even the foreign monies dry up when demand drops). And as you say, things change, to me I see the DC growth rate declining from its lofty peak recently. It truly has been an insulated and subsidized bubble in recent times.
Who said anything about massive growth? I said new construction will be urban multi family. The rate of growth is not the question. It's more so, where that growth will live. You continue to talk about that but I have never been talking about growth mirroring the past. DC is building along Metro which is going to Loudon by the way.
Who said anything about massive growth. I said new construction will be urban multi family. The rate of growth is not the question. It's more so, where that growth will live. You continue to talk about that but I have never been talking about that.
Construction (at least at the current rates)wont continue without demand and money is my point
Also new construction is driven on demand, not people abandoning the suburbs, that is non economically sustainable model unless subsidized or people walking away from an asset which really doesnt take place without extreme factors
regardless even modest growth wont all be in high density multi family settings, maybe more very unlikley a majority sadly to me. I like the concept just personally dont see it as a one-dimensional reality, nor a majority reality
Construction (at least at the current rates)wont continue without demand and money is my point
Also new construction is driven on demand, not people abandoning the suburbs, that is non economically sustainable model unless subsidized or people walking away from an asset which really doesnt take place without extreme factors
regardless even modest growth wont all be in high density multi family settings, maybe more very unlikley a majority sadly to me. I like the concept just personally dont see it as a one-dimensional reality, nor a majority reality
I guess we will see.
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.
