|
Will the suburbs become the next slums as the wealthy recolonize urban areas?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrJiveBoJingles |
COR Version: Some people predict that urban property values will increase, attracting wealthier people and driving poor people to the suburbs, where they will find decaying homes and drive up the crime rate.
Long version: I found an interesting article in last month's Atlantic Monthly about the possibility that urban areas and "urbanesque" suburban areas might be the new destinations for people with middle class and higher incomes in the U.S. A few of the main ideas from the piece:
1. Demographic changes are lessening the preference for bigger houses; since people are having fewer children or none at all, many of them are feeling less of a desire for the spaciousness provided by suburban "McMansions."
2. It turns out that lots of people enjoy the idea of living within easy walking distance of businesses and shops. This is shown by the success of the many "pseudo-downtowns" being constructed in wealthier suburbs; these typically feature restaurants, banks, and other businesses right alongside compact living arrangements like apartments or condos.
3. As the cost of keeping a car and heating a home rises, more people will consider using cars less and living in a more compact home.
Anyway, the basic thesis is that several forces will drive wealthier people to start recolonizing cities in large numbers, driving up the property values and driving out the poorer people that currently occupy many urban areas. Those poor people will then colonize the devalued and vacated suburbs. Basically a big switcheroo: instead of "urban decay," we will have "suburban decay," complete with disintegrating homes and rising crime rates.
A few excerpts from the piece:
| quote: | Strange days are upon the residents of many a suburban cul-de-sac. Once-tidy yards have become overgrown, as the houses they front have gone vacant. Signs of physical and social disorder are spreading.
At Windy Ridge, a recently built starter-home development seven miles northwest of Charlotte, North Carolina, 81 of the community’s 132 small, vinyl-sided houses were in foreclosure as of late last year. Vandals have kicked in doors and stripped the copper wire from vacant houses; drug users and homeless people have furtively moved in. In December, after a stray bullet blasted through her son’s bedroom and into her own, Laurie Talbot, who’d moved to Windy Ridge from New York in 2005, told The Charlotte Observer, “I thought I’d bought a home in Pleasantville. I never imagined in my wildest dreams that stuff like this would happen.”
...
The decline of places like Windy Ridge and Franklin Reserve is usually attributed to the subprime-mortgage crisis, with its wave of foreclosures. And the crisis has indeed catalyzed or intensified social problems in many communities. But the story of vacant suburban homes and declining suburban neighborhoods did not begin with the crisis, and will not end with it. A structural change is under way in the housing market—a major shift in the way many Americans want to live and work. It has shaped the current downturn, steering some of the worst problems away from the cities and toward the suburban fringes. And its effects will be felt more strongly, and more broadly, as the years pass. Its ultimate impact on the suburbs, and the cities, will be profound.
Arthur C. Nelson, director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, has looked carefully at trends in American demographics, construction, house prices, and consumer preferences. In 2006, using recent consumer research, housing supply data, and population growth rates, he modeled future demand for various types of housing. The results were bracing: Nelson forecasts a likely surplus of 22 million large-lot homes (houses built on a sixth of an acre or more) by 2025—that’s roughly 40 percent of the large-lot homes in existence today.
...
Demographic changes in the United States also are working against conventional suburban growth, and are likely to further weaken preferences for car-based suburban living. When the Baby Boomers were young, families with children made up more than half of all households; by 2000, they were only a third of households; and by 2025, they will be closer to a quarter. Young people are starting families later than earlier generations did, and having fewer children. The Boomers themselves are becoming empty-nesters, and many have voiced a preference for urban living. By 2025, the U.S. will contain about as many single-person households as families with children.
Because the population is growing, families with children will still grow in absolute number—according to U.S. Census data, there will be about 4 million more households with children in 2025 than there were in 2000. But more than 10 million new single-family homes have already been built since 2000, most of them in the suburbs.
If gasoline and heating costs continue to rise, conventional suburban living may not be much of a bargain in the future. And as more Americans, particularly affluent Americans, move into urban communities, families may find that some of the suburbs’ other big advantages—better schools and safer communities—have eroded. Schooling and safety are likely to improve in urban areas, as those areas continue to gentrify; they may worsen in many suburbs if the tax base—often highly dependent on house values and new development—deteriorates. Many of the fringe counties in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, for instance, are projecting big budget deficits in 2008. Only Washington itself is expecting a large surplus. Fifteen years ago, this budget situation was reversed. |
|
|
|
| KiNeTiC ENeRgY |
yup, this has been going on for a long time. Theres some areas here close to me where thats exactly whats happening. Their driving the poor people out and trying to rebuild with high rise, million dollar condos. There was some sort of bill that was passed that allows the government to basically force u to sell ur POS house/building to get u out. Sad but true.
Your second point is right on too, as there are these new "downtown" and "midtown" upscale plazas close by. I like them as they have the stores & restaurants I like. |
|
|
| biznology |
Yes.
If also only because wealthy yuppies are the only ones with the means to uproot themselves from their McMansions to move back to an equally expensive part of any major city.
Those without the means will be stuck in the burbs, where a cycle of driving and heating costs, amongst other things will not improve their situation. More urban development will also push lower income city dwellers out, as the easiest renewal comes from the lower income areas of cities.
Most other large cities in South America and Asia, et al already demonstrate this. The money becomes clustered within a city center, and often behind fences or walls, and the farther from that center, the more poverty and decrepit housing.
Most communities were developed in the last ten years in the US to attract money, not to foster a sustainable living environment. Little if none of that development focused on mass transit or being pedestrian friendly. It is only in recent times that the development of areas 30-40 years ago are incorporating more public transit systems...so i would hedge my bet that it will take that long if all of our 'housing boom' subdivisions ever make that change, and that is IF they have the means in 40-50 years| |
|
|
| CONNERMAN2000 |
I didn't read the article, but I can tell you just from the South Loop area in Chicago that this is, indeed, happening. The Chicago skyline, which used to come to an end only a block or two south of the Sears, is now extending well beyond thanks to several new condos and office buildings that have sprung up.
Everything costs a ridiculous amount of money, so only wealthy people move in, fancier restaurants are being established, and up-scale businesses of all kinds are showing up. This is pushing all the poor further south, well into communities such as Alsip, Blue Island, and Calumet Park. These weren't necessarily safe places to begin with, but this newly-invented downtown Chicago isn't helping things either. |
|
|
| Project-K |
I live in a sub and pretty much 95% of the people who lives here do so because they're too poor to live in montreal. The other 5% are filthy rich people who own mansions by the river and huge million-dollar yatches. Their houses are usually seperated from ours by natural or artificial barriers.
The irony is that living here, you can't function without at least one car per adult per household. Because of that I've been completely paralysed. Finding jobs has been a nightmare and getting anywhere takes a minimum of 2 hours (even on the island). I have to pay 105$ a month just for a transit pass. |
|
|
| KiNeTiC ENeRgY |
| Stay in school kiddies so u can get that good job and afford to live in a good area. |
|
|
| Audious |
| Can't we just get to the post-apocalypse already? |
|
|
| tubularbills |
i lived in the suburbs in a gang-infested ghetto. the next suburb over had homes in the $500k range. it's a complete toss up...i mean, you build low income housing/apartments, you're going to attract crime (****GENERALLY SPEAKING****) you build $500k homes, you *generally speaking* aren't going to have as much crime (at least, not as much violent crime).
so it doesn't matter if its suburbs or inner-city...its the type of dwelling.
in the recent "renovations" of the cabrini complex in Chicago, they integrated higher income housing into the area. it served two purposes: 1) to stop "segregating" rich vs poor and their ethnic backgrounds; and 2) to help reduce crime in the lower incomed areas.
whether or not its been dubbed a success, i don't know. but its been happening all over metroplexian areas. |
|
|
| glass |
| quote: | Originally posted by tubularbills
you build low income housing/apartments, you're going to attract crime |
racist:whip: |
|
|
| Sykonee |
| quote: | Originally posted by tubularbills
i lived in the suburbs in a gang-infested ghetto. the next suburb over had homes in the $500k range. it's a complete toss up...i mean, you build low income housing/apartments, you're going to attract crime (****GENERALLY SPEAKING****) you build $500k homes, you *generally speaking* aren't going to have as much crime (at least, not as much violent crime). |
Ironically enough, here in Vancouver it's the higher-end suburbs that are attracting more criminal elements. Those large houses make for great grow-ops/labs, and being tucked away in a 'nice' neighborhood decreases your shady profile. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| i sure as hell hope this happens. although i doubt suburbs will 'decay' into poverty. i'm sure some will, but most will become working class neighborhoods. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| This is happening at a rapid pace in DC - I've only been here a short time but you can already see the effects of gentrification take hold. Many neighborhoods in NW DC used to be low income and some had very high crime rates - now a lot of trendy restaurants, cafes, bars, nightclubs are moving in as crime goes down and real estate values go up. Neighborhoods that weren't deemed safe just last summer are now hotspots for going out. Old properties are being renovated and new properties are going up all across the District, and the lower class is getting slowly but surely pushed into Prince Georges County, Maryland. And Baltimore. |
|
|
|
|
