Can suburbs be reinvented for 21st century?
To make suburbs fit into modern realities, we will have to re-imagine and re-engineer them.
Steve Morgan/Wikimedia Commons
CHARLOTTE — Last year the global population crested a major ridge. More than half the world’s people now live in urban areas. This is being called the Century of the City — title of a book by my Citistates Associates.
But in the United States, the 21st century may also be the Century of the Suburb — or more accurately, the retrofitted, re-imagined, and re-invented suburb.
Sun Belt cities, in particular, are facing a huge, and hugely important, challenge. Places like Phoenix, Atlanta, Orlando, and Charlotte saw rapid growth during a time when low-density, suburban development was admired, even required.
Today, whether and how those cities meet the challenge the 21st century will require may well determine whether they struggle or thrive.
First, let’s be clear what I mean by “suburbia.” It can be a fuzzy term. Some use it for any growth at the edge of a city or metro area. Some use it to mean only separate municipalities outside a city, regardless of vintage or form. I’m using it to mean development with a specific pattern, typically built after 1945: single-use zones (stores separated from offices and housing, single-family houses apart from apartments); lots a quarter-acre or more; car dependent.
Millions of people aspire to live in suburbia and when they do, they say they love it. Indeed, the U.S. real estate industry has sold Americans on the idea that a house with a lawn in the ‘burbs is the “American Dream.”
Nevertheless, in the coming decades suburbia will pose a growing problem, due to a number of converging factors. Among them are:
- Demographics: Several population trends are going to work to favorurban-style, multifamily development. Gen Y-ers (aka the Millennials) have a clear preference, at least at this stage in their lives, for urban living. Meantime, aging Baby Boomers will be selling the family house and moving to condos or apartments. And as age, illness, and infirmity start to take their toll, many boomers will have to give up driving. They’re going to want walkable neighborhoods.
As a result of the foreclosure crisis, the single-family home market will be sluggish for years. The nation is already overbuilt on large-lot suburbia and underbuilt in cities. Among many real estate experts who are noticing the dearth of investor interest in exurban development, the Urban Land Institute’s “Emerging Trends in Real Estate 2011″ (drafted by our colleague Jonathan Miller) has this advice to investors: “Avoid commodity, half-finished subdivisions in the suburban outer edge and McMansions; they are so yesterday.”
- Fuel prices: Remember when $4-a-gallon gas walloped the economy in 2008? Now gas prices have topped $3 again. They’re likely to keep rising in coming years. Already, transportation is the No. 2 cost for average U.S. households. With pay and jobs sinking, more people are likely to want to live where they can drive less.
- Carbon footprint: It turns out city dwellers have a much smaller carbon footprint than folks living amid green lawns with shady oak trees in the front yard. If we’re to avoid creating even more destructive changes in the world’s climate (more droughts, floods, blizzards or heat waves) for our children and grandchildren to live with, more of us will need to live in tight-knit, walkable cities.
- Suburbs on the brink: Although some first-ring suburbs are thriving, others aren’t. Many suburban neighborhoods are seeing rising poverty and crime, dead or dying shopping malls and derelict strip centers and big-box stores. Can we just abandon them to blight?
Earlier this month, I moderated a Raleigh conference, sponsored by the N.C. State College of Design, examining the problem of, and opportunities for, inner-ring suburbs — generally built 1950-1980. The consensus: Cities and metro areas must encourage compact development, not just in their core but in suburban areas. And they need mass transit.
Former Indianapolis Mayor William Hudnut, author of Halfway to Everywhere: A Portrait of America’s First Tier Suburbs, said first-tier suburbs are “the place where blight can either be stopped or spread farther out.”
But how do you stop the blight? A prescription from Georgia Tech architect Ellen Dunham-Jones, co-author of Retrofitting Suburbia: Urban Design Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs, is to re-inhabit, retrofit, and re-green. Reclaim “underperforming asphalt” — surface parking lots that can hold new buildings with stores on the ground floor, offices, and housing above.
Building transit is expensive. But Patrick Condon of the University of British Columbia pointed out that, when looked at based on 30-year amortization, streetcars cost less than buses. He urges cities to reconsider expensive light-rail systems and to divert some of that money to less expensive streetcars. He showed slides of old streetcar rails popping out of the pavement, “wanting so much to be used.”
Do we really want to force our children to inherit vast, blighted ‘burbs? After all, as Marvin Malecha, dean of the NCSU College of Design, put it, the American Dream is not really to own a house, lawn and picket fence. “The real American Dream,” he said, “is that our children will be OK.”
Distributed by Citiwire.net.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!










Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Sun, Feb 20, 11:20 a.m. Inappropriate
"...when looked at based on 30-year amortization, streetcars cost less than buses."
This is certainly not true in our area. In the Puget Sound region, streetcars cost far more to build, and operate than buses.
A streetcar may last twice as long as a bus, but costs three times as much.
Streetcar tracks may last 3 times as long as asphalt pavement, but tracks cost many times as much as the asphalt. You can repave a street many times for the cost of putting down streetcar tracks.
And the operating cost per hour of the Tacoma streetcar is about 3 times the operating cost per hour of an ST Express bus.
Amortized over 30 years, streetcars are vastly more expensive than buses in our area, both by capital cost and operating cost.
The market will take care of suburbs, if, indeed, as the author claims, suburbs become less popular in the future. If fewer and fewer people want to live in suburbs, the price of homes in the suburbs will fall, until the prices are low enough to attract people who may not prefer to live in suburbs, but can't reisit the low prices. Likewise, if cities get more popular, the price of homes in cities will increase until they are so expensive that people will have to live in less-expensive suburbs, even if they prefer cities.
At the same time, the author may not even be correct about this. Some U.S. cities, like Chicago, for example, are losing population at a pretty significant rate.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-2010-census-20110215,0,6415472.story
"Chicago lost a hefty 200,000 residents in the last decade, most of them African-Americans, while suburban counties grew dramatically in numbers and diversity, according to 2010 census data released Tuesday."
""I think these data from here and elsewhere in the country reflect that the United States has become a suburban nation," said Scott W. Allard, a University of Chicago associate professor of social service administration. "It is a continuing migration from the city out to the suburbs while there are also immigration waves directly to the suburbs as well.""
This seems to directly contradict the author's main premise.
Posted Sun, Feb 20, 9:08 p.m. Inappropriate
It's amusing to see a photo of the SLUT with this article, as a presumed example of best practices.
Posted Mon, Feb 21, 8:41 a.m. Inappropriate
If you fixed the school districts, you wouldn't have parents leaving the city.
The coming increase in energy costs will also put pressure on people to live closer to where they work. Whether that's in the suburbs or in the city. Densification is coming to the land near you.
Posted Mon, Feb 21, 9:08 a.m. Inappropriate
A good example and perhaps the future of small cities outside the high density core cities, is Bellevue. Once a very small outlying community, now a full service city. This pattern of maturing smaller cities is alive and well in america. And, as telecommunications make it more and more possible to stay home, closer to ones family and neighborhood, that population will bring business and lifestyle necessities closer to them.
High density cities create highly disruptive urban ills like a childless city, poor educational systems ,traffic congestion, high crime rates and very high costs of living. This creates pressure to leave the city rather that attract a variety of income levels. As small cities start attracting baby boomers and other sensitive peoples, they will out-compete the core cities.
So, while cleaning up the small cities out there, let's help them be part of the clustering of the other cities.
Posted Mon, Feb 21, 12:07 p.m. Inappropriate
Density "creates" urban ills?!
The US has almost universally low density, even in core cities, but we have very high crime rates. Most other first world countries have much higher densities in built areas, but much less crime.
Posted Mon, Feb 21, 5:43 p.m. Inappropriate
arties4453
Let's also clue in those who steer the PSRC Vision 2040 and its Transportation counterpart down two tracks getting wider and wider apart.
mhays
So what does create urban ills?
Posted Mon, Feb 21, 10:43 p.m. Inappropriate
You first. I only debunked a myth.
Posted Thu, Feb 24, 9:18 p.m. Inappropriate
I am in favor of high density urban living. For other people.
Posted Fri, Feb 25, 1:05 p.m. Inappropriate
Density "creates" urban ills?!
The US has almost universally low density, even in core cities, but we have very high crime rates. Most other first world countries have much higher densities in built areas, but much less crime.
— mhays
Please say what you really mean.
Posted Sun, Feb 27, 11:14 a.m. Inappropriate
The Towns such as Kent already live in the 21st century.
It is the taxaous "Rotton Urbs" that are dependent on overvalued "infrastructure" that have been running the con for too long that are destined to fall.
Posted Mon, Feb 28, 3:08 a.m. Inappropriate
I am in favor of high density urban living.
http://www.10minget.com
Density "creates" urban ills?!
The US has almost universally low density, even in core cities, but we have very high crime rates. Most other first world countries have much higher densities in built areas, but much less crime.
— mhays
Please say what you really mean.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.