Affordability, Preservation or Growth.....Pick Two (metro, highway, downtown, Dallas)

[verybadgnome]

This of course is an oversimplification, but I think it has some merit. I say that because I can think of cities with 2 of the 3, but none with all of them. All three are impacted by government oversight and regulation as well as local factions that push policies based on their own desires. Of the three affordability is most impacted by forces at a higher level, e.g. commodities and labor, but even growth is highly dependent on job creation and company relocations. Seems like preservation is most likely to be under local control.

Should there be a preferred hierarchy and how much of that prioritization should be based on local conditions and community goals?

Are there other criteria that are equally as important?

https://www.betterinstitutions.com/?...=1416698580000

[Hemlock140]

I cannot think of any cities around here with even two of the 3. While there was some new development considered infill here, most was sprawl, with woods being clear cut for small tract home developments. We bought our house for $190k in 1993, it's now worth 1.2 million, so much for affordability with the median now at $990k. Our "one of the three" is preservation. The oldest homes are about 40 now, still well within their lifetime so none are being demolished for new developments. The "preferred hierarchy" is up to the local voters. We recently turned over 3 city council positions when the voters rejected their push for more development.

[masssachoicetts]

Affordability and Growth I would pick.

And Affordability + Preservation.

Its not practical to take away affordability.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

I cannot think of any cities around here with even two of the 3. While there was some new development considered infill here, most was sprawl, with woods being clear cut for small tract home developments. We bought our house for $190k in 1993, it's now worth 1.2 million, so much for affordability with the median now at $990k. Our "one of the three" is preservation. The oldest homes are about 40 now, still well within their lifetime so none are being demolished for new developments. The "preferred hierarchy" is up to the local voters. We recently turned over 3 city council positions when the voters rejected their push for more development.

Well before the last year I would say a lot of sunbelt cities had growth and affordability, e.g. Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, etc. I might even say they had preservation too in cases like Houston where many areas within the 610 loop remain untouched by (re)developers.

Is there a place on either coast that before last year had 2 out of 3?

[masssachoicetts]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Well before the last year I would say a lot of sunbelt cities had growth and affordability, e.g. Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, etc. I might even say they had preservation too in cases like Houston where many areas within the 610 loop remain untouched by (re)developers.

Is there a place on either coast that before last year had 2 out of 3?

Virginia Beach was extreme affordable and preserved nicely. Virginia Beach area. And grew pretty well for what demand there was.

Also, Jacksonville and Orlando

[TheTimidBlueBars]

Preservation and growth are pretty much inherently incompatible, at least for a given neighborhood.

[mooguy]

Preservation and affordability as these are the things that create a sense of place that people can actually afford to partake in.

[citylove101]

As soon as large swaths of a city are given "historic preservation" designation you are limiting supply--and thus affordability. So many Sunbelt cities are more affordable than Northeast cities because they are newer and have a lot fewer historic neighborhoods, and also have room to expand. Thus, they're generally cheaper to live in. And with fewer historic neighborhoods, development is also easier.

I think it would be the smaller Sunbelt cities that would be closest to being relatively inexpensive, have a healthy supply of new housing, and perhaps one or two small historic districts worth saving. Savannah? Charleston? Albuquerque? Roanoke? I dunno. Those are off the top of my head. You tell me.

[sholomar]

Affordability is what is gone and will be gone until we get an economic collapse, regardless of what you think the answer should be. Our politicians and central banks won't ever have proper fiscal policy for affordability.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by TheTimidBlueBars

Preservation and growth are pretty much inherently incompatible, at least for a given neighborhood.

I think that the bold is true, but I don't think preservation and growth are incompatible at the city or metro level. Even here in a city that's both dense and historic, we have plenty of room (within the city proper and beyond) to accommodate large scale growth without harming the established historic fabric of the area. In the near term (next 20-30 years), there are a ton of vacant parcels, sunken highways, old rail yards, underutilized industrial spaces, surface parking lots, and cheap/dated structures (not historic) wasteful structures that can be developed without adversely impacting preservation efforts. The former horse track on the Boston/Revere line is slated for 10k residential units alone, adjacent to two subway stops, without hampering preservation efforts. There's a lot like that. In the distant future (30+ years out), relocating Logan Airport will likely be considered, freeing up a 4 square mile chunk of land easily accessible from downtown Boston for development.

Even in our densest, most historic cities, preservation really isn't the biggest limit on growth (and affordability). Construction-related costs such as real estate/land acquisition, permitting, materials, and labor, etc. & community/neighborhood opposition are much bigger constraints on growth than preservation is.