Why market forces will favor walkable over auto-dependent neighborhoods

[dougskiles]

Found this through Reconnecting America - which is a great daily e-newsletter for those who haven't subscribed:

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/the_collapse_of_the_key_assump.html

For today’s entry I am happy to return to Washington Post commentator Roger Lewis, whose April 23 column analyzed market forces now favoring walkable neighborhoods over the automobile-dependent, sprawling subdivisions that characterized most US land development in the late 20th century.  In particular, Lewis - sounding very much like the esteemed professor of architecture that he is - says that now-declining “suburban planning and zoning templates were predicated on four key assumptions”:
America had an unlimited supply of land;
Automobiles and road building, thanks to inexpensive and presumably inexhaustible supplies of petroleum, would forever satisfy metropolitan transportation needs;
Grouping homogenous land uses, not intermixing them, would best protect property values, especially for residences; and
The only way to realize the American dream was to own and inhabit a mortgaged house.

Today, all four of those assumptions have collapsed or are in the process of collapsing.  We now know that much of our land, especially in and around metro areas, should not be developed, because of risk (e.g., flooding, wildfire, landslides), limited resources (water), or ecological value.  There is considerable variation in these factors from one place to another, but the supply of land in regions experiencing growth can no longer be seen as “unlimited.”  Gasoline prices are back up to four bucks a gallon and, as demand for oil grows in developing countries, are surely going to continue to grow over the long term.

Lewis explains:


“Much of America’s land cannot or should not be developed. Dependency on oil and limitless use of cars pose daunting environmental, economic and geopolitical problems. Homogenizing and grouping land uses impede walkability, diminish transportation efficiency, waste energy and promote social segregation, all without necessarily enhancing real estate values. And when homeownership dreams recently became financial nightmares, many Americans discovered that having a house and a mortgage might not be all they were cracked up to be.”

Much of the rest of his column is devoted to changing demographic forces, which I have covered repeatedly:  the projected growth in housing demand is going to come largely if not entirely from young people who are much more comfortable with urban lifestyles than their parents, and from retiring baby boomers who no longer have large families living at home that need large amounts of house and yard space.  Both groups value easy, walkable access to amenities at least as much as, if not more than, the benefits of a subdivision lifestyle based on driving significant distances and caring for lawns.

We will still have continuing demand for large-lot suburbia, but the portion of the housing market that will seek it will be much smaller than it once was.  In the 1960s families with kids comprised half or more of American households; that portion is down to a third and projected to shrink further to only a quarter.

Beyond demographic shifts per se, Canadian urban observer Wendy Waters (in her blog All About Cities) attributes the increase in demand for walkable places in part to changes in the larger economy and culture, including these:
Maturation of the knowledge economy, reliant on the internet, that has benefited from a very urban workforce constantly looking for inspiration;
De-industrialization in many metro areas as manufacturing declined either outright or as a percentage of employment (while service and knowledge jobs grew);
Generations X and Y started to make their ideas and culture felt in cities, as they embraced an experience economy over a consumer goods and large-home-and-car based one;
Women’s higher rate of degree attainment resulted in career women selecting short commutes and urban living (with the trade offs) over suburban homes;
The fertility rate edged up slightly, likely as younger boomer and older gen x women who had postponed children had 1 or 2, but didn’t give up urban living or urban careers and wanted short commutes;
Millennials defining freedom as their “first iPhone” rather than first car, and driving less;
More recently in 2008 and now in 2011, high gas prices are encouraging more people to rethink automotive lifestyles.

Some observers suggest that 2010 US census data contradict these trends.  Don’t believe them.

For example, conservative pundit Wendell Cox has made much of the fact that the overwhelming majority of US metro-area growth from 2000 to 2010 took place in suburbs, not “historical core municipalities.”  Well, sure it did.  But:

These aggregate numbers mask some very important facts, including that, in between, say, 1960 and 2000, many central cities were in severe decline, due to “white flight” and all sorts of perceived urban problems.  But for some tragic exceptions like Detroit, that decline now has either slowed dramatically or reversed.  In DC, for example, the central city is growing again after 50 years of decline and ironically, a new concern of some is that “white flight” is now to the city, not away from it.  New York, Philadelphia, Indianapolis, Houston, Austin and San Antonio also grew.  This is where the change is.

 

In addition, the distinction between “central city” and “suburb” is simply not what it once was.  Inner-ring suburbs now are part of the central city in every way other than the arbitrary jurisdictional lines that mean little economically or environmentally.  In his blog West North, my friend Payton Chung points out that the supposed “suburban” district of Friendship Heights Village, in Maryland but adjacent to the DC city limits, is “the single most densely populated place in the entire country, with 79,556 residents per square mile.  Even Manhattan only clocks in at 69,468 per square mile.”

Another friend, Chris Leinberger, argues in enlightening commentary for The New Republic that the real juice in the market is with the growth of “walkable urban places,” regardless of the technicality of which jurisdiction they happen to fall within:


“Core cities are comprised of pedestrian-oriented urban places, how Jerry Seinfeld lived, but they also include auto-centric suburban places, like the San Fernando Valley in the city of Los Angeles or the Palisades in the District of Columbia. Likewise, the suburbs of those core cities include classic subdivisions and McMansions, like the home of Tony Soprano, but they also include booming places like Old Town Pasadena, Reston Town Center near Dulles Airport outside D.C., and revitalized Jersey City and Hoboken, NJ, on the other side of the Hudson River from Manhattan.

“The issue is where are walkable urban places being built, and they are being built in both central cities and the suburbs surrounding them. My 2007 survey of the walkable urban places in the top 30 metros showed 50 percent of them were in central cities and 50 percent were in the suburbs. In the metro area with the most walkable urban places, the Washington region, 70 percent of the walkable urban places were in the suburbs. These included Bethesda and Silver Spring in suburban Montgomery County, nine places in suburban Arlington County (like Ballston and Crystal City), and the newly built Washington Harbor in suburban Prince George’s County.”

“R.A.” explained last month in a blog hosted by The Economist that, gross city/suburban numbers aside, the shift in relative demand for central city living (“that demand for central city life has grown relative to demand for suburban life”) has been dramatic.  The writer also agrees with Chris that, even where suburban growth is taking place, much of it is in an urban form.  But the truest indicator may be what has been happening with regard to home prices and values.  Here’s R.A. on that point:


“Suburbs have seen massive housing growth and rapid population growth, but prices in central cities have soared, even in many places where population numbers are level or falling.  If no one wanted to live in central cities, prices for homes there would not rise. And indeed, several decades ago, prices for homes in big central cities were dropping. But that trend has clearly reversed.  You can't draw conclusions about demand shifts from population numbers alone.”

As I wrote some time back, when the housing market recovers, smart growth will claim a larger share than in the past.  We’re already seeing it, and we are only going to see more.  As Roger Lewis pointed out in the Post, we now know that the key assumptions that supported the sprawl paradigm are not valid.

Move your cursor over the images for credit information.

Kaid Benfield writes (almost) daily about community, development, and the environment.  For more posts, see his blog's home page.

[hillary supporter]

Great article. I woke up and smelled the coffee. The urban neighborhoods of Jacksonville are true gems.
If one is thinking of owning a home, the train is leaving the station. In two years, todays prices will be looked upon as a bargain.
Thanks, Doug!

[Dog Walker]

For anyone interested in relocating to a walkable, historic neighborhood;  there is a house on the corner of Dellwood and Copeland that has just come on the market.  I know the house since some friends owned it until their divorce a couple of years ago.  They remodeled the kitchen and bathroom.

It's a nice, big brick bungalow with the usual hardwood floors and fireplace.  Big sun porch and large, fenced back yard.

Listed by Traditions at $149,000 which looks like a bargain to me and this is a great neighborhood.

[Captain Zissou]

DW, that house sounds great.  Consider me interested

[Captain Zissou]

In regards to the article, I only have anecdotal evidence, but from my personal experience the author seems to be dead on the money.  OF the few walkable places that the author mentioned, I have 4 friends each living in a different one of those neighborhoods.  The reasoning for all of their location decisions were the same.  Close to work, transit, and amenities, in a walkable and affordable environment.  It helps that Hoboken has the greatest number of bars per capita in the US, but that's a different story.  I imagine that my experience is not that different from many young people in this country.  In Jax, currently most of my friends live in an urban neighborhood, or out at the beach, which is far more walkable than the Southside.

Urban Cores and Urban Neighborhoods will continue to develop and gentrify in the next couple decades.  Developments in 2030 may fundamentally change the built environment again, but until that time, a bet on a property near the core is a safe one. 

[acme54321]

I really don't know why someone wouldn't want to live in the core.  Unfortuately most people don't share the same mindset as a lot of people here.  I guess they can have fun with their 45 minute commutes and cookie cutter suburbia.  I for one wouldn't want to live anywhere in Jax but in the core or maybe the beaches.

[cityimrov]

I think it might be too late.  Well, not too late to disaster, but too late to do this without major pain.  Most of Americans assets is placed in one thing, their house.  Their wonderful glorious house located in the middle of suburbia.  Now think about what happens as gas prices go up. 

Streetcar systems, new core buildings, etc.  These things do not appear overnight.  They take years - decades even to create.  That's without considering the politics involved.  If all of a sudden gas prices shoot up to $5, $6, $7, or even $8+ a gallon - we are in big trouble as a country. 

I'd say most Americans would be wiped out of their savings and home prices as gas prices goes higher. 

[Captain Zissou]

For every cent increase in gas prices, the purchasing power of Americans decreases by $1 billion over the course of a year.  Fun Fact.

[peestandingup]

I think it might be too late.  Well, not too late to disaster, but too late to do this without major pain.  Most of Americans assets is placed in one thing, their house.  Their wonderful glorious house located in the middle of suburbia.  Now think about what happens as gas prices go up. 

Streetcar systems, new core buildings, etc.  These things do not appear overnight.  They take years - decades even to create.  That's without considering the politics involved.  If all of a sudden gas prices shoot up to $5, $6, $7, or even $8+ a gallon - we are in big trouble as a country. 

I'd say most Americans would be wiped out of their savings and home prices as gas prices goes higher. 

Probably. Most Americans have put all of their eggs in the suburban/car-centric basket & our economy depends of maintaining that dying way of life. And most cities have done it too & so has our entire infrastructure/transit systems. The way we get our food, the way we make things, get supplies, etc. Hardly any of that stuff is local anymore. Gas prices go up, everything else goes up. Everything.

So people in the cores will be better off as far as using less gas personally to get around, but you're still not gonna be able to escape it. Its a complete retooling of the way we function as societies that has to happen.

[dougskiles]

Hopefully the mindset will change soon, but we may be taking a huge step back if Hogan is elected.  I was talking this morning to one of Hogan's key supporters and he was telling me how we have it all wrong.  We shouldn't be looking for a more dense urban core like Indianapolis, instead we should celebrate that we have a very large and spread out city with lots of undeveloped land to work with. Not a surprising response from him considering that he works for one of the larger shopping center developers in the city.  I'm trying - albeit not very successfully - to get them to focus on re-developing older neighborhoods, but unfortunately they are so heavily invested in suburban land that I don't see them turning around any time soon.  You would think that as someone who benefits from people having disposable income to spend in retail stores that they would want to see a system where people aren't spending all of their money on gas, but they apparently can't see past the property tax reductions they have been promised in return for their political support.

[Kiva]

The recent census data confirmed that people, especially well educated young people, prefer to live in or near downtown. Once business people realize this they will get more interested in downtown. Business will always follow the money.

[thelakelander]

Doug, does he really believe that the vision of a sprawled out city is actually sustainable for the city's budget?  Who pays for the infrastructure (highways, ROW, public safety, libraries, parks, schools, etc.) and their ongoing maintenance to keep this type of development style going?  Also, next time you get into one of these discussions, ask him if he can provide one example of a city in Jax's tier that has been successful at ignoring sustainability and downtown revitalization altogether to promote sprawl.  My guess, is that he won't be able to answer that question because that community doesn't exist.  Thus, considering it doesn't exist, what factual evidence is he bringing to the table to suggest that Jax should go down the path of uncharted waters?

[Steve_Lovett]

Doug, does he really believe that the vision of a sprawled out city is actually sustainable for the city's budget?  Who pays for the infrastructure (highways, ROW, public safety, libraries, parks, schools, etc.) and their ongoing maintenance to keep this type of development style going?  Also, next time you get into one of these discussions, ask him if he can provide one example of a city in Jax's tier that has been successful at ignoring sustainability and downtown revitalization altogether to promote sprawl.  My guess, is that he won't be able to answer that question because that community doesn't exist.  Thus, considering it doesn't exist, what factual evidence is he bringing to the table to suggest that Jax should go down the path of uncharted waters?

It's not sustainable for the city's budget, or anyone's family budget.  More people are spending a higher percentage of their monthly wages to commute than ever before.

[cityimrov]

There is a way out and that hinges on the bet of a future electric car system.  That is one super risky bet that the entire country seems to be taking.  There are so many things that can go wrong with that bet it's not even funny thinking about it. 

However, if that bet does work, well, we can continue working the way we do. 

P.S.  If you don't like nuclear power & major mining disasters, you might not like this direction.  Think about it. 

[thelakelander]

Electric car or not, you still have to pay for and forever maintain the additional infrastructure needed to serve less people per square mile.