Will the suburbs ever evolve? (metro, suburb, highway, downtown)
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.
Of course, if the suburbs government enacts zoning to prevent change, then it won't evolve. Though the demographics can change even if the building stock remains the same.
As for Chet Everett's view, it appears to be mostly scattered stores / office towers rather a recreated suburban town center. So mostly in the same style as previous.
If the economic pressures are strong enough, even zoning regulations can be changed.
If the economic pressures are strong enough, even zoning regulations can be changed.
Clearly, you've never lived in the SF Bay area. Extreme price pressure for decades on end, yet most construction (overall) has come from greenfield development. Most of the area isn't nor hasn't reacted to the land prices and has remained ardently suburban. Almost entirely on large, blighted sites has densification taken place.
If the economic pressures are strong enough, even zoning regulations can be changed.
Not if the zoning board reflects the interests of current not future residents, most of whom own their homes, have decent jobs, and would rather keep property values and leave things as is.
Not if the zoning board reflects the interests of current not future residents, most of whom own their homes, have decent jobs, and would rather keep property values and leave things as is.
I was actually thinking the opposite economic pressure. If autocentric suburbs become less desirable, resulting in falling property values, there many be intense economic pressure to allow SFH to be subdivided into multi-family housing as the poor move out to the suburbs ad the wealthy relocate to more pedestrian-friendly TOD neighborhoods (This is the Chris Leinberger hypothesis.) Obviously most suburban zoning discourages multi-unit housing, but if there is insufficient demand for SFH, accomodations will be made.
I was actually thinking the opposite economic pressure. If autocentric suburbs become less desirable, resulting in falling property values, there many be intense economic pressure to allow SFH to be subdivided into multi-family housing as the poor move out to the suburbs ad the wealthy relocate to more pedestrian-friendly TOD neighborhoods (This is the Chris Leinberger hypothesis.) Obviously most suburban zoning discourages multi-unit housing, but if there is insufficient demand for SFH, accomodations will be made.
In Long Island, the subdividing happens under the radar. Poor immigrants overcrowded single family homes. Generally in less desirable areas that become more so. The best location of new multi-family in suburbia is infill sites away from single family home residential areas.
Yep -- same forces at work in cities / urban areas
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
In Long Island, the subdividing happens under the radar. Poor immigrants overcrowded single family homes. Generally in less desirable areas that become more so. The best location of new multi-family in suburbia is infill sites away from single family home residential areas.
Folks from HUD and Habitat for Humanity do this all the time -- take a vacant site that maybe had single family houses that fell into disrepair and once the crime wave burns itself out you can build quadplexes or something similar on the site to kick start things...
Clearly some folks on this thread have ZERO experience with commercial real estate. I have seen innumerable changes in thhe structure of dozens / hundreds of suburbs that have been dramatically re-shaped by shifts in demand in everything from industrial / warehouse space to retail space to multi-family residential space -- the key driver is that when there is DEMAND for space that will be more valuable the SUPPLY will adjust to answer this demand.
These things happen REGARDLESS of what "academic planners and land use consultants" may write-up in their high falutin' dreams. If somebody sees a old closed down variety store and say to themself "Hey that would be a great place for a ______" and they invest the money and it works that is a how these things change. If another developer looks around and sees s bunch of homeowners on overly large suburban lots and can buy em out and turn a portion of the assembled parcel into a nice Class A office tower and part into a nice ammenity ladden townhouse development then WHAM there is that density that the urbanists crave and naturalists morn the loss of -- in some cases I have even seen the efforts of the nature lovers work in harmony with the density increasing developers as some portion of the parcel is kept as "wetlands" or donated to an open lands consortatium in exchange for things like favorable tax breaks or a upgraded bus service...
The initial approvals of these sorts of things often "evolve" as the market shifts and other firms develop competing sites but in the end, even if that is 20 years or more, with good people good things result -- Downers Grove Oks Homart Plan - Chicago Tribune
Folks that don't think suburbs evolve just don't get out of their bubble enough OR are so trapped by the decaying ruins of jobless wastelands that they have lost all perspective. I have vivid memories of the crushing malaise of a certain White House inhabitant that gained famed after he left office for using his own hands to build low income housing. I can't wait for the day that a similar fate is served up to the current POTUS and hopefully a person that fully believes in the potential for Americans to again invest in ventures that can reap rewards and re-invigorate the country is once again truly the leader we elect....
At least as far as what the OP was talking about, creating walkable, dense developments / neighborhoods.
In fact from directly above they appear identical.
And no I have no experience in commercial real estate but what you are saying is not mind-blowing or ground-breaking by any means. Suburbs can and do evolve but those the OP posted have little chance of developing into a true walkable and dense environment - mainly because those residents have little interest in doing that. There is plenty of room in every U.S. central city (or at least the very inner suburbs) for that type of infill.
Hey, munch -- the first article was from 1986. That is 27 years ago. There aren't any google maps from then because this from the dark ages before the interwebs. Anyhow the site USED TO have a whole bunch of sprawly homes on oversized lots and the site just to south was even worse -- 2-5 acre parcels with big funky single story homes from WW II era.
Now that site is served by a Pace bus which links into Metrarail in the rail centric core of Downers Grove a short ride away.
There is also a manufacturing oriented district of the Downers Grove's Belmont St. Metra stop that is walkably close to the industrial manufacturing.
So long no cluesless government "obey all my plans" interupt the process there are LOTS of opportunity for REDEVELOPMENT and those redevelopments are desitined to be DENSER as development companies can recoup their costs from buying up low density / low value residential and replacing it with higher density residential and office space. FURTHER this particular project is also an excellent demonstration of the developer working with Forest Preserve District to create a nature preserve that helps to limit adjacent parcel density, creates more appeal for the residential component and ultimate drives more tenants to pay more money.
I can also link to similar situations in towns around the Chicago region from Libertyville and Park Ridge to Lagrange and Naperville where redevelopment that includes appropriate commercial / retail / residential components are a win for the developer, existing stake holders and proponents of allowing market forces to reshape towns in respsonse to demand instead of foolishly bribing investment with TIFs and other market distorting incentives...
At least as far as what the OP was talking about, creating walkable, dense developments / neighborhoods.
In fact from directly above they appear identical.
And no I have no experience in commercial real estate but what you are saying is not mind-blowing or ground-breaking by any means. Suburbs can and do evolve but those the OP posted have little chance of developing into a true walkable and dense environment - mainly because those residents have little interest in doing that. There is plenty of room in every U.S. central city (or at least the very inner suburbs) for that type of infill.
Suburbs are continually evolving. Industrial suburbs were forced to as factories shut down. Thirty years ago many added large office complexes, but they seem to be going out of style. New rail lines have spurred transit oriented development.
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.
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.
Yep -- same forces at work in cities / urban areas
