America’s Cities Are Running Out of Room

[spuwho]

I read this and contrasted the issues and assumptions against the current status of greater Jacksonville.

Basically the premise of suburban zoning laws are causing certain urban centers to run out of space. So as they move to raise the density, only 1 kind of economic approach will work with the new higher density.

Per Bloomberg:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-22/america-s-cities-are-running-out-of-room

Everyone wants to live downtown, but only the rich can afford it. And it's getting worse.

A shortage of homes for sale has bedeviled U.S. house hunters in recent years, so why don't builders build more? One problem is that they're running out of lots to build on—at least in the places that people want to live.

Cities that were sprawling before the Great Recession have begun to sprawl again. Space-constrained cities, meanwhile, have run out of room to build. That reality has spurred developers to focus on center-city neighborhoods where high-density building is allowed—and new units command exceedingly high prices.   

At some point, said Issi Romem, chief economist at BuildZoom, vacant lots in desirable urban neighborhoods will run out. "If you have three days of rations left, you'll be fine on day one, two, three," said Romem, author of new research demonstrating home construction patterns. "On day 4, you have a problem."

Historically, cities grew outward, as builders developed tracts on the periphery—then filled in the land between various developments over time. When these so-called expansive cities of the South and Southwest run out of infill land on which to build, developers simply pushed out further.

Some of these cities, like Austin and Nashville, have seen downtown boomlets. But more broadly, the building trends in those metros looks more like Dallas: Inside a 30-mile radius from the center of the city, new home sales decreased from 2000 to 2015. Outside the radius, though, sales are up by more than 50 percent. The same trend has played out to varying degrees in Phoenix, Atlanta, and San Antonio, among other cities.



In America's most expensive cities, however, that dynamic has been turned inside out (or perhaps outside in). New construction trends in places like New York City have been tightly focused on downtown clusters where zoning rules permit high-density construction. These cities stopped expanding their geographic footprint decades ago, leaving builders to concentrate on finding buildable lots inside existing boundaries. As those lots became harder to find, land prices increase, reducing options for builders hoping to turn a profit. Developers building on pricey lots generally seek to offset land prices by building more densely, Romem said. In many cases, that means focusing on high-end apartments that offer better profit margins. The wealthiest residents are the only ones who can buy, and a vicious cycle is created.



Lately, there has been some give as oversupply of new high-end apartments forces landlords in New York and San Francisco to drop prices on expensive aeries. Still, the broader pattern continues to lean in the direction of higher rents.

What happens next depends on whether voters and their elected officials rewrite zoning rules to allow denser construction, said Romem, particularly in neighborhoods currently limited to single-family homes. Under current rules, he said, it's unlikely new housing will get built at affordable prices, pushing city-dwellers into a game of musical chairs rigged to favor the rich.

"As long as these cities continue to do well economically, you're going see poorer folks replaced by richer folks," he said. "You're going to read stories about teachers not being able to find place to live."

[Jim]

Jax specific data from this study.

http://statchatva.org/changing-shape-of-american-cities/

[spuwho]

Jax specific data from this study.

http://statchatva.org/changing-shape-of-american-cities/

Excellent info.

Compared to Tampa and Orlando, our income, college degrees all peak at 15 miles out.  Tampa & Orlando have density peaks at 5 miles, and income peaks at 10 miles. We have no or little density peaks. It's almost a down curve with a small bump at 12 miles.

So this study says, we have no density and the money is very far from the city.  There is no demand for college educated residentials near the core if this reads right, though the growth in Brooklyn will probably change that number the next time around.

[Tacachale]

^I can see a few patterns in our stats as well:

*Over 40% of our people with bachelor's degrees live 16 miles or more from the core, up from 24% in 1990. 23% lives 30 miles away, up from 10% in 1990. There's been a decline in bachelor's degrees near the core. This reflects the growth in the Southside, Beaches, and St. Johns and Clay County spurred by white flight. However, we have substantially higher rates of bach degrees total, and it's substantially higher within 1 mile of the core than we did in 1990 (24% compared to 8%).
*Per capita income spikes at 19 miles from the core at $37,930. Interestingly, this is substantially lower than the $42,919 spike in 1990. Like bachelor's degrees, there's been a decline in per capita income near the core. Again, this tracks with our pattern of white flight.
*We have proportionately fewer adults age 22-34 than we did in 1990, but they closely follow the same distribution pattern.
*Unsurprisingly, whites make up a smaller percentage of the neighborhoods near the core than they did in 1990, while blacks make up a higher percentage. Poverty rates are higher near the core than in 1990. White flight again.
*Elderly people now primarily live farther out than they did in 1990.
*Both our net population and housing construction are *much* higher than in 1990, and they both spike around 11 miles from the core. Given the growth in the bedroom counties I'd have thought this would be farther. Net growth within 5 miles hasn't actually slowed, despite the growth of the 'burbs.
*Population density is somewhat lower within 5 miles of the core as it was in 1990. This is probably driven more by the continued decline in the Northside and Westside than by growing neighborhoods like Riverside-Avondale, San Marco, and Brooklyn.

Orlando follows roughly the same patterns, with one notable exception: the highest rates of educational attainment, per capita income, and young adults, are very close (within 1 mile) of the core. This shows that Orlando has had success attracting young, educated, white-collar workers to its downtown area, and otherwise people are moving out farther and farther from the core.

Tampa's always hard to parse, because some people who live far out from Downtown Tampa may live in the core of St. Pete. Both Tampa on its own, and Tampa-St. Pete combined, follow Orlando in having the highest spike of bachelor's degrees, young adults, and per capita income within a few miles of the core, with others moving farther and farther out.