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.
Here is an interesting analysis that looked at the percent of total new construction that has occurred in the most walkable neighborhoods (e.g. where homes have been built in neighborhoods with a walk score higher than the citywide average) by city. The top cities were:
1. Philadelphia (91%)
2. Chicago (89%)
3. Cleveland (88%)
4. St Petersburg (88%)
5. Boston (85%)
6. Seattle (81%)
7. Washington DC (75%)
8. Denver (73%)
9. San Francisco (73%)
10. Dallas (62%)
Obviously we are not talking about scale or sheer amount of development here, but it is good insight into how much individual cities are investing in infill in walkable neighborhoods.
I'd be more interested in seeing the numbers at the level of the metro area. There's not much interest in building infill in outlying urban neighbourhoods/inner suburbs like Northeast Philadelphia compared to downtown and downtown adjacent neighbourhoods, and that goes for every city.
The real competition is between walkable urban cores and outlying suburban areas (that are generally outside the city limits). Even the suburban style auto-oriented garden apartment complexes often lean towards being built in outlying areas. The outer city/inner suburb ring is often too undesirable to attract any new development. Although the exact distance from downtown will vary from one city to the next (ex quite close for Baltimore or Cleveland, quite far for Seattle or Portland), the poorest areas are typically in the "middle ring". On the other hand, in more outlying suburbs, that are still desirable, there will be that stage in time where they're starting to run low of land for new development and in order to maximize income from impact fees and new tax revenue, they'll allow higher density development in the few remaining development sites. The developers might be able to get more money (rent/sales) out of the multi-family developments if they're being built in an established desirable suburban neighbourhood compared to if they're built in a totally empty corn field too (whereas SFH in established suburbs vs corn fields will probably command less of a premium).
Anyways, I'm curious who's leading the pack since the start of the pandemic. Is Seattle still going full steam? I feel like NYC and a few other cities haven't really recovered from the outflux that happened with the increase in work-from-home?
Seattle (city of) hit a record for housing completions in 2022 with a net 12,900 more units. Also, as of mid-January there were 24,948 units permitted but not completed (mostly UC). New starts have slowed a bit due to construction price spikes and tech layoffs, but projects are still breaking ground, particularly woodframes. One part of this is a big spike in accessory units (988 completed last year) due to new rules in 2019.
Our suburban development is very often in walkable areas. Cities are required to accommodate growth, and most do so by zoning their existing commercial areas for greater density. This means new multifamily tends to cluster, and it's generally close to a lot of other stuff. That said, at the moment most of these districts are still mid-transition from suburban to urban.
Seattle (city of) hit a record for housing completions in 2022 with a net 12,900 more units. Also, as of mid-January there were 24,948 units permitted but not completed (mostly UC). New starts have slowed a bit due to construction price spikes and tech layoffs, but projects are still breaking ground, particularly woodframes. One part of this is a big spike in accessory units (988 completed last year) due to new rules in 2019.
Our suburban development is very often in walkable areas. Cities are required to accommodate growth, and most do so by zoning their existing commercial areas for greater density. This means new multifamily tends to cluster, and it's generally close to a lot of other stuff. That said, at the moment most of these districts are still mid-transition from suburban to urban.
I truly wish Boston and the NYC area could build at the rate Seattle and DC have done. Truly amazing.
Minneapolis had enough infill to increase its population density by nearly 1000 ppsm. It isn't the most but it probably pretty close to it. There are new midrises all over the city. Some neighborhoods have been completely transformed. It is a much more urban city than it was 10 years ago. I don't think it has had the most but it looked to have more new midrises than Chicago or Denver which were the last two cities I've visited.
Minneapolis had enough infill to increase its population density by nearly 1000 ppsm. It isn't the most but it probably pretty close to it. There are new midrises all over the city. Some neighborhoods have been completely transformed. It is a much more urban city than it was 10 years ago. I don't think it has had the most but it looked to have more new midrises than Chicago or Denver which were the last two cities I've visited.
Yeah I'm surprised Minneapolis doesn't have more votes. It seems to be infilling quite well.
So Philly's infill (while not huge) is even more impressively located given that its walkable median is pretty high. Dallas is looking bad...38% of its new construction is in areas below the local walkable median!?
Not that Walkscore is very credible of course.
I don't view that as being that negative. Those areas with lower walk scores are becoming more dense which will lead to them becoming more walkable.
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.