Exodus from suburbia? What do you think

[bubbaray]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/06/16/suburb.city/index.html

Similar articles and stories have been all over our papers/newscasts here in Canada lately. "Experts" are predicting that suburbs will empty, "haves" will live in the city and "have nots" will live in the suburbs, and houses will become multi-family dwellings.

What do you think? The newscast I saw last night said this is already happening in the US.

[Clarity]

Years ago in grad school I read a book called "The Geography of Nowhere" by James Howard Kunstler. I highly recommend it to those interested in the built environment and curious as to the impact of suburban development on our culture. Kunster is a very vocal proponent of New Urbanism - he's been promoting and talking about it all over the country for years now.
I was interested to see the CNN article - to see some of the New Urbanism ideas make their way into mainstream media is promising. I do see that urban life is becoming "cooler" and that more young people, and retirees too, are interested in living in the city. BUT, I don't see an end to suburbanism as we know it...the infrastructure is simply too enoromous to abandon wholesale. It will take years and years of economic sluggishness combined with expensive fuel costs to really start Americans looking down the road to redevelopment so I just don't think we're there yet.

[egoldber]

Well if gas get much higher I can see it happening. I have been reading many places that urbanism is what we need to do in order to reduce our carbon footprint in the fastest, more economically feasible way.

[KBecks]

Have not read the article, but I think this will happen in some form or another..... but not sure of the details. At some point, everyone in a McMansion will get tired of taking care of the lawn and cleaning and want to downsize to something smaller but still luxurious.

I'm not sure if the demand for suburban life will wane or not, that depends on gas prices and a lot of things. There are the Millenials generation coming up who may move into the suburbs, or immigrant families who also seek housing.

I don't know. If the McMansions ever go on fire sale, we might size up. I'm not expecting that anytime soon for us though.

I'm happy that our suburb is close to lots of things, shopping, parks, library, gym, etc. All we need are more good restaurants and entertainment and that will come if the demand rises.

ETA: I'm in the Midwest and housing around here is much more stable than what was described in California. I've seen no change in our neighborhood. That said, I like the idea of a walkable community and think it could be great.... it all depends on the details. For now, with 2 soon to be 3 kids, a 4 BR house and decent size yard, oh yeah and nice public schools (very, very important) the suburbs are perfect for us and it would be hard for us to find a better package than what we currently have. That said, I believe the trend, I believe it's probably positive.... well except for low-income people being pushed to the suburbs, even further away from opportunities, if that happens, then that's a pretty huge negative.

[wellyes]

I don't know. I know a LOT of people who'd love to live the "New Urbanism" way, but who bought houses in the suburbs because who can afford to live in the city? The safe part of the city with parks, shops and restaurants in walking distance. I'm one of those people.... on the outskirts of a city, would move in if I could afford it. Even with the looming housing decline, I don't see big-population cities like Boston, New York, San Francisco, Chicago, etc etc becoming affordable.

[Clarity]

New Urbanism is a great way to live in a more environmentally friendly way. They build "walking communities" that are supposed to showcase traditional development principles - which are mixed economic class communities (renters above shops, as well as a mix of mult-family and single family homes within the same community.) shopping and recreation within walking distance, etc. Seaside Fla. is an example..as is Disney's town, Celebration.
In Maryland, there is Kentlands, which I've been to. It's a little "Stepford Wives" perfect for me, they have a FURRIER store there for goodness sake! I just BET there's a mix of economic classes with that type of mechant in the mix. Color me dubious.
Anyhow, I think the point is to recreate the types of communities in which people can readily walk, or utilize mass transit, from where they live to where they shop, recreate and work...which is definitely greener. Heck, I'd love to live in a REAL traditional community like the ones found in New England but I don't think the move to this type of lifestyle will happen quickly and without a lot of people kicking and screaming because they don't want to give up their version of the American Dream.

[brittone2]

I follow some of the writing on Peak Oil, etc. I'm not a doomsdayer, but I do think the truth is somewhere in between "everything will fix itself and be all peachy" and "the world as we know it will end."

I think there should absolutely be incentives provided for builders to build planned communities/New Urbanism. I know here in NC there are one or two communities locally that have daycare, churches, schools, shopping (lovely grocery, book store, coffee shop, ice cream/gelato, etc.), physician offices, movie theatre, etc. all in a planned, walkable community. DH and I have discussed that we might opt to do a townhouse in such a place when our kids are teens.

We live in a small town that has everything we need. We currently drive the 3-4 miles into town to access the farmers market, CSA pickup and co-op grocery, but it is possible to ride bikes (we are going to try to start doing this as a family). I can find most of what I need in those little indy-owned shops, and I love that. DH has about 1.5-2 years left to finish his PhD, and if we stay in the area, we've considered moving into town (or another New Urban/Planned community type of setting) and dropping down to one vehicle. Even in my small little town, there is a steep price jump to live *in* town, but if you take out car insurance/maintenance on one vehicle, and an extra car payment (we don't currently have any car payments, but may in the future), that frees up some more $ to apply toward a house potentially.

The big problem for everyone though is employment. I can combine trips and shop once a week for almost everything. I could go pretty much carless during the week (but like having a car in case of emergency, etc.). However, DH's job as a chemist isn't really something he can do in our small town. That's the problem.

I think it will be interesting to see if there is encouragement for more businesses (from govt and employees) to allow more work from home, telecommuting, etc.

I think huge changes are on the horizon. I don't think it is the end of the world, but I think *many* things will change.

We rented The End of Suburbia a few months ago and it was interesting.

ETA: DH and I were just discussing this and he reminded me that there are major discussions to put lightrail in our town (currently only freight trains) and he could ride his bike to the proposed stop easily (short bike commute, and he's a cyclist anyway). It is currently being discussed for 2011ish, so that's an option if we stay here. It would link up with the major tech hub where he would be employable.

Of course, it is all speculation since I'm not even sure we'll be staying in NC when he's finished w/ his doctorate ;)

[ThreeofUs]

I think this is going to be the necessary and reasonable response to an over-extended lifestyle.

If transportation is cheap, then there's no problem being miles from the necessities of life. As transportation becomes more expensive, however, goods/services are more expensive to transport to non-central locations and the cost of getting to goods/services in a central location over-burdens families.

ETA: This does depend a great deal on the availability of high-quality, pervasive mass transportation and the affordability of city housing.

[lisams]

Not sure, but I can relate to the vacant homes in neighborhoods. On our street, half have turned into rentals and there are a few that no one seems to take care of when they aren't being rented. Weeds, untrimmed trees, etc. - even with HOA fines they go unkept. I was just talking to one of our neighbors who paid her landscaper to take care of the house next to her because it was so unkept and she couldn't take it anymore. It's really sad.

[bubbaray]

Yeah, I'm not sure what to think. We've been in the suburbs in our current house for 9 years next week. Prior to that, we were living the urban yuppie lifestyle. We moved out here because we got an actual lot (not a postage stamp in a townhouse or a condo with no land at all). And, when we lived in the city, DH commuted to a suburb. Most suburbs here are like "town centers" or have town centers within them. There are lots of jobs in the suburbs. None are quite as walking-friendly as downtown, but some are getting close.

With a 50-yr old, run down house on a super small lot that is within the city of Vancouver but still a 20 min drive to downtown going for 1.5-2million now (and the dollar is at par), I can't see the average working family being able to afford that. I know many professional couples who live that life, but they have monster mortgages and use what little equity they have as an ATM.

I'm not even sure if I won the lottery if I'd move downtown. I would like more land, not less, KWIM?

Apparently our gas here works out right now to $5.50 per gallon (its sold in litres). Housing sales are off, but they are off everywhere across the board, not just in the suburbs. And, they are off not in the US spiral fashion, but just compared to the last 2 years, which have seen crazy insane increases in value, even more so in the suburbs.

I dunno what to think.

[DrSally]

I think it depends on the city. In places like Boston the move back to the city has already happened. Here in the midwest, the very far out suburbs that developed during the housing boom have seen a decrease in prices and more vacancies. I've also seen low income unban dwellers move to the inner ring suburbs. In Chicago, they tore down Cabrini Green projects and I think the occupants dispersed to the inner ring suburbs? I see they are starting to try to build some of the walkable communities out here in the suburbs. One place I really enjoyed living was an inner ring suburb in SW Chicago. It had the best downtown we could walk to with a ton of restaurants, shops, movie theater, etc. I could take the train to work on Michigan av. or drive downtown during the weekend quickly.

[citymama]

I'm a city gal myself (therefore the moniker!). I'd be very surprised if there's a suburb-to-city exodus anywhere near the Bay area, NYC or other expensive cities. Maybe an exurbia to suburbia move?

I live in the city because I like to take public transit and walk most places I want to get, including work and kids' school, live in close proximity to neighbors and my community, great restaurants, local grocery stores, etc. I'm fine with not having the extra space - makes me careful about what I buy as we don't have a garage or storeroom for our stuff.

But I can also see how people like the quiet, space and lower cost of living in the suburbs. Schools tend to be better as well. When it comes time to buy a home, there's no way we can afford to live in the city - not this astronomically expensive one, anyway.

BTW, Clarity: James Kunstler was on the Colbert Report a couple weeks ago!

[gatorsmom]

I think it depends on the urban area. For example, downtown St. Paul has really NOTHING to offer. There is no way I"d want to live closer to downtown St. Paul. We live in a suburb that isn't too far away. I know people who live in neighboring suburbs and I havent' heard any reports of abandoned houses.

I also think that the preference for urban living depends on the particular people. Many of the people in our area prefer to live closer to nature. Our neighborhood is very wooded and we have lots of woodland creatures that live in our neighborhood (think owls, deer, fox, woodchucks, bald eagles, etc.). We also live near a lake which is great for us and our neighbors because we love watersports. It doesn't matter the price of the real estate on the lakes around here- if there is a house for sale, it goes quickly.

Also, I think it depends on the proximity of the houses to the big job centers. If there is a major employer out in the country, people will live out there to be closer to their employment.

Also, I think the media will sensationalize anything and I think that is what they've done here. I'm sorry, but I don't have a ton of respect for our media. jmho

[kijip]

Very low gas prices in the US have allowed people to buy more house farther and farther out. Obviously that has to stop. In addition to the sub prime mess, we are starting to see families that could afford their mortgage at lower transportation costs but not now and not in a year...it's only going up.

I think it is important to distinguish suburban areas with jobs and services from suburban areas with few jobs and services that are a drive. Redmond and Bellevue are suburbs of Seattle but have a ton of jobs in all different fields (tech, gov't, healthcare, small manufacturing, financial come to mind). It's places that are long drives to work, with few jobs of their own, that are more likely to become rundown or abandoned. There are a number of communities here where houses are not all that cheap but people moved way out for more space. They are going to have to sell or lose their houses and move closer to their income source. The houses closer in are smaller for the same or more money and many people may end up renting vs. buying.

When we bought last year we bought in the city on a small lot. I would like more land (for gardening) but I did not want a commute. I don't want to waste the time and I hate driving more than just about anything else. So we have three sfg plots and a waitlist spot for a community garden. Some of my relatives and friends of friends thought we were INSANE to buy such a small house in the city when we could have bought a lot more land and house farther from work. Now I think it is abundantly clear even to those same relatives and friends we made a good choice. It's not for everyone but it works well for us and I think some people are going to be forced to make downsizing decisions as energy and food prices keep on rising. We have friends with a house 2.5 times our size. They have one child, TTC one more. He makes good money working for a major tech company. They are starting to have trouble with not only gas, but keeping their house heated (and it is not all that cold here to begin with). They realized they live in a couple of rooms and the rest of the house still has to be heated- their utility bills are really high. They don't have a lot of debt and live within their means but they can't afford the rising prices on one income and still also save enough. They are considering moving to the suburb close to his work but the move means going from a 3000+ sf house to a smaller townhouse or condo. Their housing will cost the same, but their transportation would be much lower cost (he could walk or bike). I think that is the choice a lot of people will face. And as people do, it stands to reason that the prices of close in places will climb while other areas have a huge drop in real estate prices.

[elektra]

I think it depends on the city.
I agree with this too. Los Angeles is the nearest major city to where I live in Orange County. And as most people know, LA is just weird in that it is very spread out- not like other urban cities across the county that have good public transit and things within walking distance. There have been more people moving to downtown LA, but I don't think it's likely that surrounding cities (especially the beach cities) will see max exodus in favor of downtown.
However, some communities that are 30+ miles away from LA, like Riverside for example, where people have flocked to to get a bigger house (an also a longer commute) are definitely seeing drops in home prices. I would say those Riverside-type communities more closely resemble the suburbs around most major cities. And the other "suburbs" of Los Angeles wouldn't really be affected the same way.
I may just be trying to talk myself into this however, since I just bought a house in a "suburb".
:confused:

[niccig]

I think it will depend on the location of your work. I used to work at UCLA, surrounding areas include Beverly Hills or Bel Air. No way, no heck I could afford to live there. I'm about to start part-time work at a museum that border's Compton in Los Angeles. It's an area I don't want to live by. Friends live in a hip urban area, but the public school is Los Angeles School District, and they don't want their kids to go there. Instead, they're paying a small fortune on a private school. Public schools are better where we are, so I drive the 30 - 60 mins to get to the museum and we are walking distance from the local elementary school and we don't have to pay 20K per year for private school. (Yes, their private school Kindergarten is more per year than the parents' college education!)

[clb]

The article was interesting. The gentrification is going on. I agree that lower and lower middle income people are beng pushed out of the cities. I never thought of McManisons, that is not happening here yet.

[Clarity]

Thanks! I did see the video from the website, but missed the show on TV. Kuntsler's a character but his message has always appealed to me and I've found him immensley entertaining in a caustic sort of way. I do highly recommend his books though.

[ThreeofUs]

One last thought: Most of what we now call "suburbs" used to be called "exurbs" - that is, that the houses were so far out that they were beyond reach of the urban center. Many McMansion-y 'burbs are (at least around here, and in the DC area where I grew up) in the exurbs - wayyyy far out.

I think that shopping centers, grocery stores, and services (medical, auto, etc.) have moved out into the suburbs, and that (at least around here) the schools are great in these places.

Such goods and services are still often a fairly long car trip from the exurbs. Thus, I think while gas prices and other pressures might send empty-nesters and singles in the cities and built-up suburbs, families will only move in to the point where closer goods and services are complemented by decent schools.

I happen to live in a high-SES, first-ring suburb. (Very rust belt!) The schools are horrible, the taxes high, and shopping poor, so there are very few young families around us. We live here primarily because it was the best electrical and plumbing in a solid brick structure we could find within a 2-mile distance to DH's job and major cultural attractions. We'd live another couple of miles out, in a second-ring suburb, if all were right with our world, for better public schools, lower taxes, and nearness to shopping.

[Moneypenny]

I agree that it really depends on the location. I live in a suburb, but we are within walking/biking distance of our suburb's city center with grocery, pharmacy, farmer's market, library, restaurants, etc. Very few homes go on sale here and those that do are snapped up pretty quickly for asking price or slightly above.

One benefit to many suburban homes is a larger yard that is good for gardening, hanging laundry out to dry, having chickens, etc. We are also able to put in solar panels or other alternative energy sources that wouldn't necessarily be possible if we lived in an apartment or condo in the city.