The Death of the Fringe Suburb « Columbus Underground Messageboard

Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Development

The Death of the Fringe Suburb

[84 posts] [27 contributors]

Topic Rating:

(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:

Started 5 months ago by News
Latest reply from News

Tags:

12…5 Next »

News
Columbus Underground
Login to Send PM

The Death of the Fringe Suburb
By CHRISTOPHER B. LEINBERGER
Published: November 25, 2011
nytimes.com

DRIVE through any number of outer-ring suburbs in America, and you’ll see boarded-up and vacant strip malls, surrounded by vast seas of empty parking spaces. These forlorn monuments to the real estate crash are not going to come back to life, even when the economy recovers. And that’s because the demand for the housing that once supported commercial activity in many exurbs isn’t coming back, either.

In the late 1990s, high-end outer suburbs contained most of the expensive housing in the United States, as measured by price per square foot, according to data I analyzed from the Zillow real estate database. Today, the most expensive housing is in the high-density, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods of the center city and inner suburbs. Some of the most expensive neighborhoods in their metropolitan areas are Capitol Hill in Seattle; Virginia Highland in Atlanta; German Village in Columbus, Ohio, and Logan Circle in Washington. Considered slums as recently as 30 years ago, they have been transformed by gentrification.

READ MORE: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/26/opinion/the-death-of-the-fringe-suburb.html?_r=1

Posted 5 months ago #
alexs
Limestone bluffs of the Scioto
Login to Send PM

Maybe it's time to set up a separate topic area for bashing suburbs, there's enough content for one.

Posted 5 months ago #
bman
New Albany
Login to Send PM

alexs said:
Maybe it's time to set up a separate topic area for bashing suburbs, there's enough content for one.

+1

Posted 5 months ago #
leftovers

Login to Send PM

I consider myself an urban enthusiast, but this article seems less substance and more opinionated bullocks. I am not sure there is much value in it.

Posted 5 months ago #
jimbach
Short North (WP division)
Login to Send PM

leftovers said:
I consider myself an urban enthusiast, but this article seems less substance and more opinionated bullocks.

That's probably why the NYT put it on their op-ed page.

Posted 5 months ago #
leftovers

Login to Send PM

My point is that the author is throwing out terms like durable and lasting and then mentioning events of the last 5 years.
add in the advert:
Disclosure: I am the president of Locus, a coalition of real estate developers

Posted 5 months ago #
alexs
Limestone bluffs of the Scioto
Login to Send PM

I repeatedly find myself with something to say on the topic, but I realize that I've repeatedly made the same comments already, because the topic keeps coming up again and again.

Posted 5 months ago #
Mercurius
First Avenue
Login to Send PM

Beat you to it News!

Mercurius said:
Evidently, according to the NYTimes, Columbus is making more of that paradigm shift than I thought? I'm not sure I agree with the article though; they are still building like crazy on Stringtown Road.

Posted 5 months ago #
Walker
The KLD / Downtown
Login to Send PM

alexs said:
Maybe it's time to set up a separate topic area for bashing suburbs, there's enough content for one.

Generally speaking, I don't know if pointing out the lack of sustainability in sprawling development is "bashing". Further, there's a lot to like in many suburbs, such as Grandview Heights, Downtown Powell, Downtown Delaware, Gahanna, etc.

Posted 5 months ago #
News
Columbus Underground
Login to Send PM

IS SUBURBIA DOOMED? NOT SO FAST.
by Joel Kotkin 11/30/2011

This past weekend the New York Times devoted two big op-eds to the decline of the suburb. In one, new urban theorist Chris Leinberger said that Americans were increasingly abandoning “fringe suburbs” for dense, transit-oriented urban areas. In the other, UC Berkeley professor Louise Mozingo called for the demise of the “suburban office building” and the adoption of policies that will drive jobs away from the fringe and back to the urban core.

READ MORE: http://www.newgeography.com/content/002550-s-suburbia-doomed-not-so-fast

Posted 5 months ago #
jbcmh81

Login to Send PM

News said:
IS SUBURBIA DOOMED? NOT SO FAST.
by Joel Kotkin 11/30/2011

This past weekend the New York Times devoted two big op-eds to the decline of the suburb. In one, new urban theorist Chris Leinberger said that Americans were increasingly abandoning “fringe suburbs” for dense, transit-oriented urban areas. In the other, UC Berkeley professor Louise Mozingo called for the demise of the “suburban office building” and the adoption of policies that will drive jobs away from the fringe and back to the urban core.

READ MORE: http://www.newgeography.com/content/002550-s-suburbia-doomed-not-so-fast

There is clearly a trend back to an urban setting. Many cities saw growth in their urban cores for the first time in decades for the 2010 Census. I also disagree with the article that states that repeating something over and over again doesn't make it true. While it may not make it true right away, it will eventually spark a trend itself. Perception is often greater than reality, and as long as cities are in the mode of revitalizing their urban core and restoring lost density, they will grow. That doesn't mean that the suburbs will stop growing, but it probably will influence how suburbs are built. I think that, for the most part, the era of irresponsible, unplanned suburbia is over, but not suburbia itself. In the next few decades, I think we will see cities and suburbs overall get denser and more walkable.

Posted 5 months ago #
cheap
Westgate
Login to Send PM

this is spot on.

It turns out that while urban land owners, planners and pundits love density, people for the most part continue to prefer space, if they can afford it. No amount of spinmeistering can change that basic fact, at least according to trends of past decade.

Posted 5 months ago #
bman
New Albany
Login to Send PM

cheap said:
this is spot on.

It turns out that while urban land owners, planners and pundits love density, people for the most part continue to prefer space, if they can afford it. No amount of spinmeistering can change that basic fact, at least according to trends of past decade.

+1

Posted 5 months ago #
bman
New Albany
Login to Send PM

jbcmh81 said:
There is clearly a trend back to an urban setting. Many cities saw growth in their urban cores for the first time in decades for the 2010 Census. I also disagree with the article that states that repeating something over and over again doesn't make it true. While it may not make it true right away, it will eventually spark a trend itself. Perception is often greater than reality, and as long as cities are in the mode of revitalizing their urban core and restoring lost density, they will grow. That doesn't mean that the suburbs will stop growing, but it probably will influence how suburbs are built. I think that, for the most part, the era of irresponsible, unplanned suburbia is over, but not suburbia itself. In the next few decades, I think we will see cities and suburbs overall get denser and more walkable.

Dreaming for it also does not make it true!

I hope those people who want to live downtown get the courage and do it but for those of us who enjoy our suburban space and sprawl and our suv's we'll survive.

Posted 5 months ago #
Walker
The KLD / Downtown
Login to Send PM

cheap said:
this is spot on.

It turns out that while urban land owners, planners and pundits love density, people for the most part continue to prefer space, if they can afford it. No amount of spinmeistering can change that basic fact, at least according to trends of past decade.

I agree that many people in many regions for the most part continue to prefer space. But that doesn't mean it will always be true. That "if they can afford it" clause is key to that concept. If different factors change that (tanking economy, energy costs change, populations shift, or the changing of generational mindsets) then the value placed on enjoying space can change entirely.

As an urban dweller myself, I too enjoy space. I love having a backyard for my kids, I love having a driveway to park my car, and I love having many great recreational parks within a short distance from home. None of these are exclusively suburban concepts, and in most urban neighborhoods can be easily found if you're a space-loving person.

Personally, I don't believe for one second that "the suburbs" in general are going to disappear overnight, even if drastic changes do occur that would cause any sort of lifestyle shift in the US. The article originally posted doesn't say that either, as it's primarily referring more to relatively recent exurban development, which includes new strip malls as well as residential development. Any hurt there is probably more related to the recession and real estate market collapse more than a direct lack of demand from consumers.

At the end of the day, a strong urban core benefits the entire region. An empty urban core has a negative effect on a region. We can advocate for sustainability in new suburban development *and* a revitalized Downtown in the same sentence. An anti-sprawl stance is a fight against environmentally and financially irresponsible development, not a fight against the suburbs in general. To counter an anti-sprawl argument with an anti-urban argument is to the detriment of the entire region, including the suburbs.

Posted 5 months ago #
cheap
Westgate
Login to Send PM

i grew up in a cookie cutter suburb with cul de sacs,and i loved it.

Posted 5 months ago #
jbcmh81

Login to Send PM

cheap said:
this is spot on.

It turns out that while urban land owners, planners and pundits love density, people for the most part continue to prefer space, if they can afford it. No amount of spinmeistering can change that basic fact, at least according to trends of past decade.

This is a little simplistic. Space can mean different things. For some people, it's having a huge yard, garden, a 3,000 sf home, etc. For others, the size of the home is not as important as the ability to get outside and have access to things like groceries, restaurants, entertainment, parks and other amenities. Having the big house and yard way out in the suburbs gives you personal space, but not nearby amenities (at least not without a drive in the car). A place in the city may not be large and have the personal greenspace, but it will provide walkability and access to far more than the place in the suburbs. And public parks can and often do supplement the private yard. The point is, you can have space in both locations.

Posted 5 months ago #
jbcmh81

Login to Send PM

Walker said:
I agree that many people in many regions for the most part continue to prefer space. But that doesn't mean it will always be true. That "if they can afford it" clause is key to that concept. If different factors change that (tanking economy, energy costs change, populations shift, or the changing of generational mindsets) then the value placed on enjoying space can change entirely.

As an urban dweller myself, I too enjoy space. I love having a backyard for my kids, I love having a driveway to park my car, and I love having many great recreational parks within a short distance from home. None of these are exclusively suburban concepts, and in most urban neighborhoods can be easily found if you're a space-loving person.

Personally, I don't believe for one second that "the suburbs" in general are going to disappear overnight, even if drastic changes do occur that would cause any sort of lifestyle shift in the US. The article originally posted doesn't say that either, as it's primarily referring more to relatively recent exurban development, which includes new strip malls as well as residential development. Any hurt there is probably more related to the recession and real estate market collapse more than a direct lack of demand from consumers.

At the end of the day, a strong urban core benefits the entire region. An empty urban core has a negative effect on a region. We can advocate for sustainability in new suburban development *and* a revitalized Downtown in the same sentence. An anti-sprawl stance is a fight against environmentally and financially irresponsible development, not a fight against the suburbs in general. To counter an anti-sprawl argument with an anti-urban argument is to the detriment of the entire region, including the suburbs.

Great post. Urban revitalization does not have to come at the expense of the suburbs, and vice versa. Suburbia, by all unbiased accounts, IS extremely wasteful and unsustainable, but it's also not going to go away anytime soon. It also doesn't mean that the urban core isn't or hasn't always been the central part of any region or city. The Dublins or New Albanys of the world may have their place, but they will never come close to the importance of a strong core. For decades now, we ignored the core of our cities and it's proven to be a huge mistake.

Posted 5 months ago #
Analogue Kid
5th by West-Northwest
Login to Send PM

To me, adequate space is having single family homes on lots not smaller than 0.1 acre and not larger than 0.2 acres. Most newer developments have >0.25 acres, which is too much for my purposes.

Posted 5 months ago #
NEOBuckeye
Ohio At-Large
Login to Send PM

I don't think suburbs are just going to vanish overnight either. Most likely, some will be retrofitted over time to accommodate best practices in urban design (Dublin, Hilliard and Grove City already appear to be considering this approach, at least for their Downtown districts). Maybe some will have homes with larger lots, or at least sub-communities that do. Others, like Grandview and Bexley, will opt for higher density, multi-level development. But the age of suburban sprawl, as in developers tearing up the metro hinterlands and building whatever they can, wherever they can, is over. That economy crashed in 2007. It's dead, and better that way.

One of the biggest factors in future living considerations will be travel. Not everyone is going to have a car. Not everyone will want a car. Not everyone will be able to afford a car, much less the gas to keep one running. This--and public transportation options--may drive our choices in where we live over the next 5 to 50 years far more than any desire for a private yard.

Posted 5 months ago #