The end of the suburbs?

[mustang84]

A lot of people over at the Skyscraperpage.com forums that I sometimes visit have been predicting this for a while, and I wouldn't be suprised if more and more cities begin building up downtown areas and inner suburbs. I know Des Moines and Omaha are both experiencing a huge housing boom downtown with new lofts and condos going up everywhere. Old inner city 'burbs like Windsor Heights are also getting built up.

Some people are also saying this will be the reverse white flight...gentrification will cause real estate to skyrocket in downtown and inner city areas, forcing poorer people out. What's amazing is that most other countries, especially in Latin America and Europe have the highest real estate in the central city, while the "suburbs" are usually where shantytowns and poorer neighborhoods build up. If there is this reverse white flight, I see it being very hard on lower income people because they will be stuck without mass transit and will probably have further commutes to work...and many may not even have a car.

Could rising gas prices kill the suburbs?

When a high-cost commute reaches the point of no-return, home buyers will start finding houses closer to work. In fact, some already are.

City of the future: here, soon

Gabriel already sees change in car-centric Los Angeles, where the commuter culture has for years pushed mile upon mile of city sprawl into neighboring towns and farmland. But now Gabriel says KB Home is leading the way to a new type of neighborhood.

Once thought of as a first-home builder, KB in June launched KB Urban to develop high-density, mixed-use projects. The first such project will be a 2-million-square-foot complex of luxury hotels and private residences built in partnership with hotelier Marriott International and sports-and-entertainment company AEG, owner of L.A.'s Staples Center. This kind of development, Gabriel believes, will help make L.A. a denser, European-type central city. It is celebrated in a 2004 film called "The End of Suburbia."

"If you or I come back to Los Angeles 15 years from now, we are not going to see (the current) persistent pattern of building single-family detached homes farther and farther into the desert," Gabriel says. Instead, he says, expect "a denser center city, denser inner-ring suburbs … a city that is more vertical."

"Suburbia is full of far-flung destinations," says Lessinger. "It was oriented as a place where they could sell more goods and services, with shopping centers and subdivisions everywhere. It really maximizes the use of cars. It makes sense that, with high gas prices, the more-distant places are going to be hit the most." Like Gabriel, Lessinger predicts that the shape of communities to come will be circular and concentrated, and dictated by the need to conserve, where "the suburban plan is here, there and everywhere."

http://realestate.msn.com/buying/Articlene...742526&GT1=8479

[trinacriabob]

Too bad. I like suburbs. I always have. I don't like in-town living....I have never tried to be way-cool and living in a loft apartment amidst high density construction with no place to park your car is not for me.

I have always lived in suburbia...though not the outermost ring. That sector will be troubled by high gas prices. It really will hit certain So. Cal suburbs bordering on the desert quite hard, I'm sure.

The other thing is that people feel suburbanites are banal. When I lived in Seattle, there were lots of interesting, well-educated professional types who liked living in places like Bellevue or Kirkland where the housing stock is newer, the decibel level is lower, there are more trees and more places to park your car...and yes, these people are interesting, well-traveled and not at all boring. I think that the in-town Seattle frumps who are a bit more liberal incorrectly brand them that way.

Bella-fornia, baybay...on Seattle's Eastside...where all transplants belong.

Let's see how this plays out. Major urban areas with sprawl and without adequate transit provisions (Houston, LA) will be hurting.

[Cadillacfan]

I don't think it will be the end of Suburbia as we know it. Though, cities will gain from this a bit. We'll probably just see an increase in commuter trains and other forms of public transportation as gas prices continue to climb. Suburban living has become entrenched in North American culture. It's not going away because we like our space.

[The O.C.]

Too bad.  I like suburbs.  I always have.  I don't like in-town living....I have never tried to be way-cool and living in a loft apartment amidst high density construction with no place to park your car is not for me.

I have always lived in suburbia...though not the outermost ring.  That sector will be troubled by high gas prices.  It really will hit certain So. Cal suburbs bordering on the desert quite hard, I'm sure.

The other thing is that people feel suburbanites are banal.  When I lived in Seattle, there were lots of interesting, well-educated professional types who liked living in places like Bellevue or Kirkland where the housing stock is newer, the decibel level is lower, there are more trees and more places to park your car...and yes, these people are interesting, well-traveled and not at all boring.  I think that the in-town Seattle frumps who are a bit more liberal incorrectly brand them that way.

Bella-fornia, baybay...on Seattle's Eastside...where all transplants belong. 

Let's see how this plays out.  Major urban areas with sprawl and without adequate transit provisions (Houston, LA) will be hurting.

180651[/snapback]

That's why I like Orange County. Here near the coast, we have the typical feel of a suburb in many spots but with a surprising and unexpected amount of culture, nightlife, high-end restaurants, shopping, and commerce/business.

The O.C. has just about all the amenities one would expect in a major city center.....just spread out a bit more as opposed to being centralized.

The TRUE southern California "bedroom" communites that truly suffer are, for example, the cities out in Riverside and San Bernardino counties (the "Inland Empire") Here, people have moved (an hour from the beach) to where the land and houses are less expensive and commute (many to O.C. as well as L.A.) 2 hours or more ONE-WAY.

For example......whereas in Orange County a high number of high-end, distinctive, and culturally unique restaurants abound.....in the Inland Empire, your choice of dining doesn't extend much further than the usual chain restauarants.

Even in spread out O.C. we are seeing an unusually high concentration of high-rise condo projects going up.....in places like Irvine, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, and Anaheim.

[Drew Dowdell]

I think this is the sound of the bubble popping.

People are less willing to live 2 hours from work and pay almost as much as their mortgage in fuel costs <single adult in a Suburban ya know> just to have a postage stamp sized yard.

[mustang84]

I'm not against suburbs or anything like a lot of the people over at that SSP site. Since I grew up in a small town, I know what it's like to have a backyard, have a neighborhood park down the street, have houses in neat little rows with front porches, and have ample space to park a car. You never have to worry about paying for parking or being late to work due to heavy traffic. It's a nice, quiet atmosphere.

But I do think it's getting pretty rediculous how large some cities are sprawling out into farmland and desert. A lot of the older suburbs pre-1980 were more compact, but drive around any major city today and you'll see suburbs with $250,000 homes with huge parcels of land, no sidewalks, and no greenery. It's about as anti-community as you can get.

A lot of co-workers at the firm I interned at this summer live in a neighborhood in Des Moines called Beaverdale, which has some beautiful old brick homes from the 30s and 40s. The trees are fully developed and lined neatly along the street and it's a fairly young neighborhood with local eateries and recreational space. That is the type of neighborhood I have grown up in, and that's the type of neighborhood I think I want to live in when it's time to purchase a home. Not to mention the commute time to downtown is about 10 minutes with traffic.

[Cremazie]

Suburban living will not grow as fast but you will not see them flounder.

[mustang84]

Here's what I'm talking about...20 or so houses on a piece of land that could probably fit 50-75 comfortably. You see this all over the Midwest too...acres upon acres of farmland gives way to development like this.

Edited August 15, 2006 by mustang84

[NOS2006]

From what I see going on in Michigan alone, I wouldn't be shocked if many of the current suburban communities became closer to urban, pushing more housing, businesses, and "city-life" without the huge smoke-throwing plants/industries.

Suburban areas will not die out.. There's always going to be a middle place between rural and urban. What I'm worried about is rural areas and what's going to happen to them with our suburbs growing and expanding...

[nyscene911]

I'm not against suburbs or anything like a lot of the people over at that SSP site.  Since I grew up in a small town, I know what it's like to have a backyard, have a neighborhood park down the street, have houses in neat little rows with front porches, and have ample space to park a car.  You never have to worry about paying for parking or being late to work due to heavy traffic.  It's a nice, quiet atmosphere.

But I do think it's getting pretty rediculous how large some cities are sprawling out into farmland and desert.  A lot of the older suburbs pre-1980 were more compact, but drive around any major city today and you'll see suburbs with $250,000 homes with huge parcels of land, no sidewalks, and no greenery.  It's about as anti-community as you can get.

A lot of co-workers at the firm I interned at this summer live in a neighborhood in Des Moines called Beaverdale, which has some beautiful old brick homes from the 30s and 40s.  The trees are fully developed and lined neatly along the street and it's a fairly young neighborhood with local eateries and recreational space.  That is the type of neighborhood I have grown up in, and that's the type of neighborhood I think I want to live in when it's time to purchase a home.  Not to mention the commute time to downtown is about 10 minutes with traffic.

180703[/snapback]

Man, I wish houses around here were only 250k. For that on LI you're looking at a one bedroom shack in the middle of Wyandanch or Brentwood(which, for those of you not from the Island, aren't exactly the best places to live).

[trinacriabob]

Man, I wish houses around here were only 250k.  For that on LI you're looking at a one bedroom shack in the middle of Wyandanch or Brentwood(which, for those of you not from the Island, aren't exactly the best places to live).

180727[/snapback]

For 250 K in the Bay Area, you get N-O-T-H-I-N-G.

For 250 K in the LA area, you get South Central or East LA...and you wouldn't want that.

[razoredge]

This is one interesting scenerio Mustang but myself I believe it will be the opposite. See these well off, over paid people are not hurt one bit by the energy inflation. They will still be going to the lake and out in the boat and HVAC the huge mostly unused house, heating the pool, defrosting the driveway because its just pocket change.

The working poor and simple county folks that have been able to afford to drive the extra 30 miles to work and able to afford to heat the old farm house or small ranch house will in the end be the people pushed into slum living in the inner cities or rounded up into trailor parks bordering some "industrial wanna be area" as if there is much "industry" left.

Does anyone have any idea what the economy and/or unemployment rate would be if not for the employment involved in this "suburban sprawl" and all related infrastructure ? You have to see it from the raw products invloved to the finished product, to the sewer, utilities, and highways, its an amazing sum of man hours. This is who, what, why , where and when we are keeping this countries populations economy afloat. That picture you posted sums it all up if you can truely see the big picture.

Am I in favor of it? hell no! I hate it, but this is where we are currently employing all the people we put out of work by deporting our industrial base. Our overwhelming immigration flood is also fueling this fire of "growth" which also employs many immigrants as well.

Somehow it seems like someday it will all just blow up becasue its a big sheltering blanket making everything look OK. But one day fuel will really be a serious problem. The other countries will catch up with America and those Americans makeing the big bucks due to low wages in foreign countires will loss that "resource" and when they can no longer afford to live as seen in this photo..........then what ? Theres going to be so many Americans without employment. Ya know, some day the world isnt going to need "the information age"

How long ? Well it depends on how long it takes for these resources to dry up. I wont see much of it in my remaining years, but doesnt anyone else care about their children and grandchildren ?

The past 20 years have been too fast of growth, to fast of change and there has to be a steep price comming down the road.

[razoredge]

One last "boreing" detail.

The picture posted was a timber lot put out of commission, not some old abandoned farm field. It is essentially the equivilent of a clear cut, only a clear cut will, one day, again be productive. So this is no longer a part of the visious circle of life but part of the circle that is now out of the game. While it is a necessary evil of the always growing population of the earth one has to question how fast can growth be before it is no longer healthy.

[speedy_2]

Here's what I'm talking about...20 or so houses on a piece of land that could probably fit  50-75 comfortably.  You see this all over the Midwest too...acres upon acres of farmland gives way to development like this.

180711[/snapback]

Judging by the small shed-like things in each yard I think it's safe to say these houses are not on city water or sewer. Which means they can't be any closer. There's needs to be room for a septic tank and drain field for each house. As for people moving because of gas. I hope they do. More room for me out in the country I'm not much for the city.

Edited August 16, 2006 by speedy_2

[CARBIZ]

I am basically a technocrat, in that I believe technology will save the day, but (there is one big BUT) we somehow, some day need to ween ourselves off an economy that can only prosper by growing. The population of the U.S. is probably at a comfortable level now. If the population were to rise another 100 million or so, that extra population will begin to seriously deplete available resources.

Personally, I think we all deserve a big house in the suburbs (or fancy condo downtown, if that's what your lifestyle dictates) and in North America we still have plenty of land to grow into.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that our oil-based economy needs to change. Alternate energy sources will be found and our economy will prosper.

But the REAL threat is Asia: China and India. Now THEY have some fierce problems to face up to. China's middle class is already larger than the entire population of the U.S. Just wait until they demand a house in the suburbs.

[Dsuupr]

Portland was one of the first, if not the first, to move away from the spreading disease. This includes making rowhomes/condos a hot commodity ($250,000 for a 2 bedroom, 2 bath condo), and forcing mass transit.

It's not a bad idea, as long as I'm not the person paying a crap load for a box on top and below another box. Country livin is the place for me.

Check out these$500,000+ lofts near downtown Portland. Well ok, they do have a bottom floor 1x1 for a little over $200,000.

[capriceman]

Considering Detroit has no jobs to offer and every one is leaving it. Nope not going to happen in D-Town Detroit. my Suburban home made in late 50's solid brick, about 1100 sqft with basement so i consider it 2200 sq ft. about a mile away from Lake St. Clair is a cool 150k but since the Market is dead right now so you could get a 180k home for 150 no problem. but Taxes are deadly.

I really cant see whats going to happen over here. I just hope that Canton gets more roads. Trying to go down ford road at 4pm is nothing less then hell.

[The O.C.]

For 250 K in the Bay Area, you get N-O-T-H-I-N-G.

For 250 K in the LA area, you get South Central or East LA...and you wouldn't want that.

180766[/snapback]

In The O.C., $500K buys you a two-bedroom condo. Where I live, a basic, cookie-cutter 3-bedroom, 1,900 sq. ft. single-family-home (relatively new however) is about $700-$800K.

<gulp>

[Camino LS6]

The old notion of suburbs as relatively complete and independent communities has been largely supplanted by raging sprawl, at least in my corner of PA. It shows no sign of slowing down anytime soon and what I've always loved about this area is diminished by each new development and its attendent traffic. I have also been priced-out of buying a home in my own home town which ticks me off no end. Around here, people are buying perfectly sound homes for 500K and up and then promptly tearing them down to build McMansions. It makes me sick.

[sciguy_0504]

I'm on SkyScraperPage, too. I use it to keep track of developments in Philadelphia.

I do not see the end of the suburb. It may be cool to live in the city when you're young but once you add kids, schools, crime and quality of life into the mix, suburbs have cities beat no matter what anyone says. I would not trade my yard (complete with much needed TLC), private pool and relatively quiet streets for anything, especially when I have a family.

Most of the people on SSP do not understand these points and are very critical of suburbs. While I do see many of their points in regards to transportation and sprawl, you cannot force people to live in certain areas. Get over it.

[regfootball]

-you are already seeing a condo bust. trust me, where i work we do this for a living. the condo boom was 2-4 years ago. now those sitting with unsold units were just the losers trying to catch up with the experts

-mainstream middle classers will always prefer the laid back spaciousness of the suburbs. The urbanite liberal granola yuppies are conspiring to create forces to try desperately to restore tax base back to the big cities after years of losing wealthies to starter castles in the burbs; their schools, social services and crime prevention forces are taking financial hits and the bad schools and crime are now affecting theri urban paradise. If they fail, the core cities go to hell. But you will always have a majority that prefer suburbs.

-maybe the morons will provide more jobs in the suburbs. that would make more sense rather than continuing to put all the eggs in one basket and limit everyone's job options to downtowns. Not to mention relieve the burden in utilities and infrastructure there.

-someone better pony up for better mass transit if they are preaching about how wonderful it is. the rest of us, we prefer the freedom of time being in our car and driving short distance from our suburban house to our suburban job.

-this further underscores where leadership is needed from govt. to find more energy sources in addition to foreign oil.

Edited August 16, 2006 by regfootball

[speedy_2]

I'm on SkyScraperPage, too.  I use it to keep track of developments in Philadelphia.

I do not see the end of the suburb.  It may be cool to live in the city when you're young but once you add kids, schools, crime and quality of life into the mix, suburbs have cities beat no matter what anyone says.  I would not trade my yard (complete with much needed TLC), private pool and relatively quiet streets for anything, especially when I have a family.

Most of the people on SSP do not understand these points and are very critical of suburbs.  While I do see many of their points in regards to transportation and sprawl, you cannot force people to live in certain areas.  Get over it.

181176[/snapback]

Agreed. Once I move back home I'll have a total of 20 Acres. Paid for by me. I'm not leaving it nor giving it up because someone "thinks" I should. I paid the price for it and I like it that way.

[trinacriabob]

-you are already seeing a condo bust.  trust me, where i work we do this for a living.  the condo boom was 2-4 years ago. 

-mainstream middle classers will always prefer the laid back spaciousness of the suburbs. 

The urbanite liberal granola yuppies are conspiring to create forces to try desperately to restore tax base back to the big cities after years of losing wealthies to starter castles in the burbs

181190[/snapback]

Reg, I am not a condo fan; however, I do like towhomes (garage at ground level and two floors above that are fee simple ownership and have a smidgeon of property in front and in back).

Gee, I never thought of myself as a mainstream middle class person. I just like the suburbs because, well, I always have.

Yup, damn those urbanite liberal granola yuppies. Can't stand the mo-fos.

[sciguy_0504]

Here's what I'm talking about...20 or so houses on a piece of land that could probably fit  50-75 comfortably.  You see this all over the Midwest too...acres upon acres of farmland gives way to development like this.

180711[/snapback]

Around the Philadelphia area and other locations I have seen/heard of, the trend is placing those size homes on rediculously-sized lots. I mean, a 6,000-square foot $800,000 home has no business being on a .5 acre lot. It looks and seems rediculous. If I'm paying that much for a house there must be on some land.

[regfootball]

a lot of crops we could raise in like 10% the space if we had hydroponics going on. there's never going to be a shortage of farmland. trust me. have you SPENT time in North Dakota?

[regfootball]

That's why I like Orange County.  Here near the coast, we have the typical feel of a suburb in many spots but with a surprising and unexpected amount of culture, nightlife, high-end restaurants, shopping, and commerce/business.

The O.C. has just about all the amenities one would expect in a major city center.....just spread out a bit more as opposed to being centralized.

The TRUE southern California "bedroom" communites that truly suffer are, for example, the cities out in Riverside and San Bernardino counties (the "Inland Empire")  Here, people have moved (an hour from the beach) to where the land and houses are less expensive and commute (many to O.C. as well as L.A.) 2 hours or more ONE-WAY.

For example......whereas in Orange County a high number of high-end, distinctive, and culturally unique restaurants abound.....in the Inland Empire, your choice of dining doesn't extend much further than the usual chain restauarants.

Even in spread out O.C. we are seeing an unusually high concentration of high-rise condo projects going up.....in places like Irvine, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, and Anaheim.

180688[/snapback]

i was working on the Plaza 3000 project in Irvine. 3 towers. oh my, the prices! you Californians are crazy for paying that much for what you're getting!

[regfootball]

For 250 K in the Bay Area, you get N-O-T-H-I-N-G.

For 250 K in the LA area, you get South Central or East LA...and you wouldn't want that.

180766[/snapback]

some condos we were working on in Mission Bay in SF were selling about 600-700 sf for like 500 grand or 600 grand.

that's almost 4 digit prices PER SQUARE FOOT!

[regfootball]

Portland was one of the first, if not the first, to move away from the spreading disease.  This includes making rowhomes/condos a hot commodity ($250,000 for a 2 bedroom, 2 bath condo), and forcing mass transit. 

It's not a bad idea, as long as I'm not the person paying a crap load for a box on top and below another box.  Country livin is the place for me.

Check out these$500,000+ lofts near downtown Portland.  Well ok, they do have a bottom floor 1x1 for a little over $200,000.

180997[/snapback]

yes Portland, legislated congestion, forced by liberal agenda, and praised by the liberal press. I guess its fine if that works for them.

[trinacriabob]

some condos we were working on in Mission Bay in SF were selling about 600-700 sf for like 500 grand or 600 grand.

that's almost 4 digit prices PER SQUARE FOOT!

181352[/snapback]

I would NOT want to live in SF. I don't think it's particularly livable. Give me Walnut Creek or the Peninsula where the prices are less and you have less density.