Suburbs: The Next Slum?

[Spartan]

^Well, this guy's theory is that those old suburbs like Rock Hill will become nodes of urban development. So walkable neighborhoods near the nodes will still be ok if they are made to be walkable. Its new growth suburbs like Matthews, Mauldin, Boiling Springs, Springdale/Lexington, and Goose Creek that will be hurting the most in the long run.

South Carolina is relatively fortunate that it does not have the level of sprawl that is seen in much larger cities like Charlotte and Atlanta. It is my hope that SC will be spared to some extent, though it remains to be seen how much.

Its also important to note that the suburban style of development wont just disappear, because there will always be a market for that, but we will see much more of an even mix of development over time- particularly as baby boomers start to retire en masse in 2012.

[monsoon]

..... People, in very large numbers, do not want the standard suburban crap anymore. Real urban development is the wave of the future. In fact, for those of you who have not read that article I highly recommend it, as it does a great job of covering what was in his presentation.

[Spartan]

Thats why the suburban home market will always be around- it just wont be as strong. Also, I think that by more "urban" at least in the Carolinas, we will interpret that to be more TND type extensions of our cities. More Converse Heights, Shandons, Dilworths, etc. These neighborhoods are walkable, transit friendly, arguably more urban in character than you standard crappy tract home, and they are family friendly. Schools do determine where people move, but as more people move to urban areas I think that the urban schools will become better because these people will not want to drive way out to the burbs to take their kids to shcool and have a different- and arguably lower (depending on your point of view) quality of life. Now, after that runon sentence, I think its relevant to add that like you said, the retirees still have kids. 2012 is just the start, its not when it will all happen. But many older people will want to downsize after their kids leave. Certainly some will not.

What is clear, however, is that the current housing market is going to have to change. It will be interesting to see how that happens.

[digital_sandlapper]

This is some very interesting discourse indeed--just what I was hoping for!

I slightly disagree, though, with the notion that the Generation X, Y, and Zers will "automatically" go for the 'burbs when they get married and have kids like one poster said. Other factors have to be considered these days--gas prices for one (and a big honkin' one at that!) There is PLENTY of affordable housing stock closer in to the center city in most metro areas, and in safe neighborhoods in decent school districts. One just has to look. In Columbia, for example, Cayce, Earlewood, and Forest Acres come to mind. I live in the Avenues, and my housing costs are very reasonable, and my commute to downtown Columbia where I work takes 4 minutes. My fuel savings alone (I can even walk or bike to work if the weather's nice) are tremendous, not to mention the ease vs. stress of it all. I have all the amenities on the way (groceries, banks, gas station, restaurants, etc.), as well. My house is 1930s era, with HUGE bedrooms (and not the stereotypical small rooms of older homes.) I have a HUGE backyard for my dog, and there are mature shade trees, parks, schools, and churches also all within walking distance. The nightlife of the Vista and West Vista are a brief trip away.

Anyhow, my point is that the arguments used in the past to advance suburban living to new homeowners seems to be crumbling. Someone added "to be among those like themselves". I would argue that they don't have time to meet their neighbors because they're stuck in traffic on Clemson Road, Lake Murray Blvd., or the interstates!

No, I think a sea-change is definitely happening. We are going to see it even more pronounced as the days go by in these times. Developers are even beginning to wise up, to a certain extent.

[teshadoh]

But that argument can't be discounted. It is a big assumption that the young crowd that moves into urban - or at least comparably urban - neighborhoods will stick there when they have kids. I think there is a big reason why you are far likelier to find couples in their 20's & 30's as well as 60's than those that are in their 40's or 50's. Unfortunately for most, it is still a fear factor for us parents, the idea of our child going to a public school that includes kids whose parent's are socially / racially / economically different. In a fair world it wouldn't matter if your kid goes to school with poor kids, but in the real world you only think about your children, not your values.

But - the real test is for gentrified neighborhoods to be stable & improve for greater than 10 years. Especially if they border neighborhoods that are also developing from transitional to gentrified to stable neighborhoods. When that is the case & their are those types of neighborhoods, it is acceptable to raise your child in the city. Case in point is the Virginia Highlands neighborhood in Atlanta. The only downside - most people can't afford those neighborhoods. Which brings you back to the idea of raising your child in a neighborhood where drugs, prostitution & quite frankly non-family oriented people live within a few blocks of you.

[Spartan]

This is a problem for all urban neighborhoods, particularly those undergoing redevelopment and gentrification. Cities do not have adequate affordable housing policies in place to ensure a mixture of incomes. Note that I'm saying affordable- not low income. Places for teachers, firefighters, or whatever that should not have to live in the far flung suburbs to work downtown.

[CorgiMatt]

The difference is that this is the first generation that has actually bought houses in the city, and as their children grow old enough to attend school, they'd be silly to scatter into the burbs when all they have to do is look around the neighborhood at all the children and say, "duh," let's build it - the school, that is.

Besides, the census figures will spell it out to the school district officials and other powers that be, including the parents.

[sonofaque86]

Here's an article in today's State newspaper about Surburbia Columbia, the first ring suburbs vs. the new ones in Northeast and such.

http://www.thestate.com/local/story/360158.html

here are some of the challenges from one of the links from that article

First-ring suburbs

The first U.S. suburbs were built between the end of World War II and the early 1970s, most sporting low-slung, ranch-style homes. As the neighborhoods aged, some residents left, moving farther from downtown. Nearby businesses followed. Here are some challenges and ideas for revitalizing the neighborhoods:

Some challenges

[digital_sandlapper]

Here's an article in today's State newspaper about Surburbia Columbia, the first ring suburbs vs. the new ones in Northeast and such.

http://www.thestate.com/local/story/360158.html

here are some of the challenges from one of the links from that article

First-ring suburbs

The first U.S. suburbs were built between the end of World War II and the early 1970s, most sporting low-slung, ranch-style homes. As the neighborhoods aged, some residents left, moving farther from downtown. Nearby businesses followed. Here are some challenges and ideas for revitalizing the neighborhoods.

[CorgiMatt]

Here is an intriguing report from National Public Radio's Morning Edition this morning about an emerging correlation between areas with long commute times and falling housing prices. If the trend continues, it indeed looks as though those who chose to move to the far-flung areas might wish they had not gone with the "get away from it all" crowd (whatever "it" is or was). And it would seem that the metros with the most centralized cities will have the healthiest economies.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=89803663

[Spartan]

No surprises there. Thanks for posting that though. Its a very telling piece of the story.

Its something for the Upstate to take a serious look at. Our multi-nodal system may not be sustainable in the future. IMO we should market ourselves as one entity, but encourage growth in the central cities (Anderson, Greenville, Spartanburg) and not just the "counties." We're going to have to force development to go where we want it, when we want it, or else we will be sprawled to death.

[CorgiMatt]

Judging by the attached article, I'd say anyone who owns a home in the "get away from it all" suburban ring had better get out while they can, if they still can. They'd better hurry up and decide whether they want to live in the country sho 'nuf or come on back to the city where the people belong.

http://timesunion.com/archives/secure/doch...puttype=DOCXSLT

[Captain Worley]

I can see that in larger cities, but in Columbia, the suburbs really aren't that far out. I don't see it being a huge issue here.

[CorgiMatt]

I can see that in larger cities, but in Columbia, the suburbs really aren't that far out. I don't see it being a huge issue here.

[sonofaque86]

Wow at 36 miles. If you look at NE Richland it's only about a 15 mile drive which isn't too bad. This however may stop alot of building going towards Kershaw County when you look at it

[Spartan]

Its already an issue in Charleston. The places where you are seeing the most foreclosures are in these single-family tract houses where every one looks exactly like its neighbor. Usually they have vinyl on at least 3 of the for sides of the house. Usually they are in a one entrance cul-de-sac subdivision with names the sound like the pristine natural environment that they mowed down. Usually they have front-loaded garages. Usually they have large, treeless yards (or the occasional twig tree). Usually there are no sidewalks.

Notice a pattern?

There may not be a problem in Columbia yet, but someday, these poorly constructed and poorly designed neighborhoods will be a huge problem. Big cities like Charlotte are seeing this happen already. Its just a matter of time before mid sized cities start to feel it too.

[CorgiMatt]

And with the price of gas I won't be able to afford to ride out to see these neighborhoods for myself, and probably wouldn't want to without bullet-proof windows on my car.

[breed]

A dose of reality may be needed...

I live about 10 miles from Greenville and commute to downtown every day. According to this site...

http://www.commuterpage.com/Userweb/CostCo...stCommuting.htm

...to purchase a comparable house in a downtown market versus the suburbs where I live, gas would need to be in the realm of $20/gallon. And that's if I don't trade in my relatively inefficient vehicle for something better.

While development patterns are changing, the expectation that you need to "get out while you still can" is not realistic... at least not in much of the South. The impacts would be much more drastic in larger cities, but then again, the cost of residential real estate is most urban settings is much higher than it is in Greenville.

[Captain Worley]

^^Yep, the expensive in-town pricing is a lot of the reason for the sprawl.

[Spartan]

That's definitely an accurate perception. The expense of the city is all relative.

If you live in a far flung suburban or rural area, chances are your transportation costs are much higher than they would be if you lived in the city simply because you have to drive a lot more to get anything accomplished. 10 miles to work... 20 miles a day just commuting. Then there's errands and any other trips into downtown (I presume its a significant destination for anyone who posts on UP). For example, I rarely have to drive more than 2 or 3 miles to do anything since I live and work in the same general area. In fact, most of my trips are less than 1 mile, and my transportation costs are virtually non-existent since I can use my bike, transit or walking to get to most of my destinations (work, grocery store, pharmacy, etc).

Sure my housing is more expensive. I could easily find a better deal in the suburbs if I only look at the cost of housing. But then, I would be paying upwards of $300 in gas each month plus more time in the car (an immeasurable expense), plus here in Charlotte you have to pay to park in uptown so that's an additional expense (at least $250/mo depending on the location...usually aroudn $300). As a result of my housing location in the city, the record gas prices are a non-issue for me. I might pay $60 a month for gas. If you do the math, there is a lot of money that can be saved by not having to drive as often and by not having the car as a status symbol. That savings can be transferred to the additional cost of housing in the city.

I'll also point out that part of the reason that suburban subdivisions are inexpensive not just land costs, but poor construction techniques and poor design practices. These neighborhoods, while less expensive, will not have lasting value.

[sonofaque86]

so isn't it kind of balancing out in the end? cheaper housing in the suburbs but more automobile costs versus expensive housing in the city but cheaper automobile costs?

[Captain Worley]

If you work and run errand in the city, that makes some sense. However, to get the same square footage, condos are going for about three to four times what my house is worth.

Now take into account that I don't work in Columbia (although I drive through on the way to work) and don't shop in town, it would just be added expense to live in town.

Also, gas for me is running about 60 bucks a month, so no big savings there.

There are a lot more people working outside the downtown area, and I'm betting the same applies to them.

I do agree 100% that the modern subdivision is not built very well. That's why I prefer older homes (mine was built in '50 or '55). Construction was much better. I believe that is because people see their houses as investments now. Back when my house was built, people intended to, and did, spend their entire adult lives in one house. They wanted something built to last and purchased accordingly. If you purchase a house intendeing to move in 5-0 years, all you care about is low price and looks, surface looks.

OK, rant mode off. Sorry.

[GvilleSC]

I really doubt that people moving into a downtown area are ever expecting the same size unit as what they may have or once had in the outer areas. It's a part of the lifestyle that you are chosing to embrace by even looking into an urban housing market...

[CorgiMatt]

The main thing about South Carolina's cities (metros) is that it would seem they've sprawled as far outward as they are likely to sprawl, given the cost of driving a long way to work, since most of the jobs are closer in.

[nashbill]

Not every job is in downtown. I think probably most of the jobs are not downtown. I don't know what the breakdown is. My point is where do you choose to live? When I lived in Charlotte I lived in the inner ring (street car) suburbs. I commuted to Monroe for my job. It was a choice I made and didn't mind the 30 minute drive to and from work because I liked the neighborhood. Would high gas prices have forced me to move closer to work? I doubt it, but I guess it may depend on how high. Now I live in Nashville and live as far away from downtown as you can be and still be in the same county. Why? My job is in the next county. I chose not to do the long commute. I like cities and all they have to offer. but didn't feel like driving even further to work. Could I find a job close enough to downtown to get me to move. Not in my field. Manufacturing does not exist close to downtowns anymore. As an engineer trained in actually making something, I go where the job is. Yes, we do still make things in this country. As gas prices contiue to rise I find that I go into the city less and less. I find what I need nearby. Do I miss downtown? Yes, but I will adjust. I'm not sure what my point is. Sometimes, we make choices. Will suburbs become slums. Some already are and were before the latest migration back to the city. Some will never be. Some of the neighborhoods close to downtown were slums before gentrification and some still are slums and some never were. It's all about choices.