Suburbia, the next slum? (Chicago, Yorkville: loans, homes, school district)

[aragx6]

Another major factor is gas prices. I think it's easier for people to think that this problem will be magically solved with little or no impact on them, but I find this scenario highly unlikely.

The fact is, oil alternatives should have been researched and developed heavily for the last 30 years and they haven't been. These things take time, and while the science is out there it is still so painfully expensive, and gas prices are rising so quickly, that we're going to get low on oil before reasonable alternatives are available.

The average gas price was just over $2 a gallon in January of 2007, now it's well over 3. If it continues to rise at rates comparable to this (and frighteningly enough it may well get worse) normal Americans will not be able to afford to make their commutes within 5 years.

When gas is $7 a gallon in 2010, the city (and inner-ring burbs) will probably look a lot more desirable to folks.

[stewartthrower]

Even today for every one person moving into an urban environment, there are two moving to suburbia. I for one don't see it changing. Hopefully both areas remain vibrant and strong.

[Pebbs78]

There was an article in the Tribune today about how private/magnet schools in the city are overcrowded; especially in regards to private schools, where waiting lists can top 1-2 years, and many children are outright rejected. There definitely is a demand for better schools for those that live in the city; If this succeeds, there is 1 less draw, (a major one, at that), to move to the suburbs. They need more schools...or better performing ones at that. You also have to keep in mind housing costs downtown - they are 2-3x's that of the burbs, in hot areas.

[DonkeyTeeth]

This article isn't even really clear on what point it wants to make. Are the suburbs in trouble because of foreclosures? Are they in trouble because people are opting for walkable lifestyle centers vs traditional tract housing? Or are they in trouble because of a resurgence in the urban quality of life and a shift to smaller families?

Sorry, but this comes off as more of the same 'new urbanist' suburb-bashing lightly wrapped in the redundant economic alarmism we hear every day right now.

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by DonkeyTeeth

This article isn't even really clear on what point it wants to make. Are the suburbs in trouble because of foreclosures? Are they in trouble because people are opting for walkable lifestyle centers vs traditional tract housing? Or are they in trouble because of a resurgence in the urban quality of life and a shift to smaller families?

Why can't be both all three? Life is rarely so black and white for there to be only one reason for a trend. It's often when you have a piling on of reasons that real change comes.

Think about the original reasons people moved away from the cities. There certainly wasn't only one reason. A few I can think of off the top of my head:
1. Creation of interstates that make longer commutes possible
2. Poor relations between whites and blacks that caused white flight
3. A before as unseen surge in the economy leading home ownership to record numbers.

[sbd78]

Originally Posted by DonkeyTeeth

This article isn't even really clear on what point it wants to make. Are the suburbs in trouble because of foreclosures? Are they in trouble because people are opting for walkable lifestyle centers vs traditional tract housing? Or are they in trouble because of a resurgence in the urban quality of life and a shift to smaller families?

Sorry, but this comes off as more of the same 'new urbanist' suburb-bashing lightly wrapped in the redundant economic alarmism we hear every day right now.

Also, this article focuses a lot on the housing downturn and all the homes that are sitting empty. It implies that housing stock sitting empty is a suburban problem, when in fact this is a problem in the suburbs AND the city. A good friend of mine bought a new condo in the Andersonville/Uptown area exactly a year ago and 2/3 of her building is still sitting empty. These problems are from the housing downturn, which is affecting city AND suburban markets, not because everyone has ditched the burbs and moved to the city. Over the long turn, the housing market has always had its ups and downs. We are in a down side right now, and things will eventually pick up again like it always does. To imply that this is strictly a suburban problem and will be responsible for the demise of suburban life is inaccurate imo. I believe the housing downturn will pass, and the city AND the suburbs will continue to thrive.

[aragx6]

If you don't want to believe the article that's your prerogative, but you're overlooking the key thesis in the article: "The decline of places like Windy Ridge and Franklin Reserve is usually attributed to the subprime-mortgage crisis, with its wave of foreclosures... 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."

He's not saying this has anything to do with the housing crunch, although it may well be speeding up its effects.

[rgb123]

I think a lot of the city lovers here are missing the point. One of you said "thats what parks are for" and another failed to mention a main reason people leave the city.

Just as a lot of people love density and the city and can find every reason in the book to try to make the case for high density.

Just as many people refuse density, and actually *need* open space to be happy. Parks do NOT cut if for those people....city parks, are you kidding?

I'd be certain if the suburbs declined so badly (Which I dont think they will but dont have the time on my lunch hour to argue why I think that) just as many people would leave the burbs to go to *the middle of nowhere* than would move back to the city.

In the age of tellecommuting the city becomes less relevant to those who dont care to be near one anyway.

[jdiddy]

Originally Posted by rgb123

I think a lot of the city lovers here are missing the point. One of you said "thats what parks are for" and another failed to mention a main reason people leave the city.

Just as a lot of people love density and the city and can find every reason in the book to try to make the case for high density.

Just as many people refuse density, and actually *need* open space to be happy. Parks do NOT cut if for those people....city parks, are you kidding?

I'd be certain if the suburbs declined so badly (Which I dont think they will but dont have the time on my lunch hour to argue why I think that) just as many people would leave the burbs to go to *the middle of nowhere* than would move back to the city.

In the age of tellecommuting the city becomes less relevant to those who dont care to be near one anyway.

I also think a lot of city-lovers and suburbanites are missing the point of the article.

It's not saying suburban development will disappear and everyone will flock back to cities. It's noting that the worst type of suburban sprawl (all subdivisions, no walkable downtown area, no nearby public transit options), are losing favor to newer, more urban development

But developers are also starting to find ways to bring the city to newer suburbs—and provide an alternative to conventional, car-based suburban life. “Lifestyle centers”—walkable developments that create an urban feel, even when built in previously undeveloped places—are becoming popular with some builders. They feature narrow streets and small storefronts that come up to the sidewalk, mixed in with housing and office space. Parking is mostly hidden underground or in the interior of faux city blocks.

In most metropolitan areas, only 5 to 10 percent of the housing stock is located in walkable urban places (including places like downtown White Plains and Belmar). Yet recent consumer research by Jonathan Levine of the University of Michigan and Lawrence Frank of the University of British Columbia suggests that roughly one in three homeowners would prefer to live in these types of places. In one study, for instance, Levine and his colleagues asked more than 1,600 mostly suburban residents of the Atlanta and Boston metro areas to hypothetically trade off typical suburban amenities (such as large living spaces) against typical urban ones (like living within walking distance of retail districts). All in all, they found that only about a third of the people surveyed solidly preferred traditional suburban lifestyles, featuring large houses and lots of driving. Another third, roughly, had mixed feelings. The final third wanted to live in mixed-use, walkable urban areas—but most had no way to do so at an affordable price. Over time, as urban and faux-urban building continues, that will change.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by rgb123

I think a lot of the city lovers here are missing the point. One of you said "thats what parks are for" and another failed to mention a main reason people leave the city.

Just as a lot of people love density and the city and can find every reason in the book to try to make the case for high density.

Just as many people refuse density, and actually *need* open space to be happy. Parks do NOT cut if for those people....city parks, are you kidding?

I'd be certain if the suburbs declined so badly (Which I dont think they will but dont have the time on my lunch hour to argue why I think that) just as many people would leave the burbs to go to *the middle of nowhere* than would move back to the city.

In the age of tellecommuting the city becomes less relevant to those who dont care to be near one anyway.

It's not really a matter of what people love, but what they can afford. I'd love to have a penthouse in the Chicago Spire, but I can't afford it. Much, not all, of the suburban expansion is predicated on cheap gasoline allowing even lower-middle class residents to own half an acre and a nice shiny new house, albeit at the extreme edge of the metro area. IF transportation expense continue to increase significantly, those individuals and families will have to recalculate the pros/cons of living in exurbia. For many, it will no longer be financially feasible. Obviously wealthy families will be able to absord the increased transportation costs to a cetain extent, but the overall market demand for non-transit friendly exurban suburbs will decrease.

BTW, I just love these kinds of discussions.