New Census data: Americans are returning to the far-flung suburbs
 

New Census data: Americans are returning to the far-flung suburbs
Washington Post
By Emily Badger March 26


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...flung-suburbs/

I think a lot of people on the forum have been predicting this for a while. Of course, one years isn't enough to make a definitive judgment. But, it looks like sprawl is back.

Now of course, US cities are still doing better than they have in decades and are growing and attracting wealthier and better educated residents. Nothing suggests this will change anytime soon. An increasing number of Americans will like in dense walkable areas, with good public transit. But, they are largely the exception to the rule.

This isn't really surprising.
Most urban areas are already largely built out and the vacant land/allowable zoning for redevelopment is too small to compete with the cheap, plentiful land in the suburban exterior. In theory, we need upzoning in the "desirable to the middle class" core and more restrictive zoning in the outer regions, with transportation planning to match. But, neither is likely to happen given that land use policies are generally set by a web of little municipalities.

Sure the downtown high rises and "sexy" urban infill get all the attention (particularly on urban sites like this), but the generic suburbs are where most of us live. That is true even in urban cities like SF, BOS, DC, PHILLY, etc.

Hopefully, we can at least do a better job of redeveloping our existing "inner" suburbs to be a little more walkable and mixed-use. Rather then have them fall into decline as the middle class flees to new sprawl suburbs in the outter region.

the inner and middle ring suburban collapse is going full speed ahead. fyi, ferguson is both an inner and middle ring suburb.

Are they filling the housing that was already built, or is this mostly about new construction?

this board is like rats on a treadmill sometimes. sprawl is dead! sprawl is back! the reality is, some regions are dying, others are on life support, some are stable and some are kicking ass. americans taste for large things hasn't really died. the ford f150 is still the best selling vehicle in the country. the reality is, the urban fabric and transportation infrastructure wont change drastically until fuel makes it cost prohibitive to drive everywhere. and while we are busy wrecking the earths crust fracking, gas is cheap! and people keep driving on....get back to me when gas is 10 bucks a gallon, then we will see some big changes..

Eh, I don't think that higher fuel costs explain Europeans' more urban lifestyle, at least not entirely. It's more that the cities are older, and generally nicer. There are a handful of "beautiful" American cities, all of which are doing quite well, and a lot that simply aren't. There are also a bunch of drab, ugly cities in Europe, and they're not as vibrant as the former either.

And America has relatively few, but larger cities, which naturally leads to huge sprawling agglomerations. In Europe, both Chicago and St Louis would be smaller metros, and there would be something in between. Make Peoria, Bloomington, Champaign, Springfield and Decatur cities of 250k to 500k each (and make them 1,000 years old, and actually interesting and known for something), and you'd have something that looks more like a European pattern of settlement. There would be less sprawl because each would be a smaller, defined place.

i think in some ways, theres still a bit of manifest destiny still kicking around the american psyche, to expand west, to mow down trees, build subdivisions and then name the streets after the trees we cut down!. but yes, i agree, european urbanism is mostly a product of history. american urbanism and suburbanism is a product of lack of history, lots of open space and cheap resources....outside of a few cities, it seems like the ultra rich still live on the urban periphery. there is always going to be a segment of society that likes grass and weekend bbq's. rolling down to costco and not thinking much about how they interact with the built environment. thats fine by me. if traffic and its constraints were not a reality, people would probably drive even more.. i just wish transit was more on the american mind. its getting there but the incentive to not drive isn't high enough yet. when gas becomes too expensive, rivaling food costs, then our opinions as a country will change.

I think part of this is also based on the fetishizing of European centers based on infrequent tourist experiences. If you visit Europe, you're probably going to see places like Venice, Paris, and Brugge. I don't think you'll be stopping into to experience the glories of Essen, or Bradford or Lille. So people have this impression that everyone is living some ultra-urban lifestyle, surrounded by medieval architecture, narrow streets, and incredible street vitality.

Even the less pretty cities like Shefield, Nottingham, Lille, Dortmund, etc. have more street vitality and urban lifestyle than places like St. Louis, Balitmore, Tampa, and even larger cities like LA (where few people walk). And they have prettier centers too. What does that say for the poorly designed average US city? I'd say they even have more street vitality than DC and Boston. Places like Dublin certainly do - I have extensive experience with that city and have compared it to DC - and that isn't a beautiful city by european standards by any stretch of the imagination. However, it would be up there with the most beautiful in the USA. Europeans are lucky that history of dense cities and nice streets has helped shape their interesting socially connected urban lifestyle. Even the bombed out cities from WWII are much more vibrant even with drab architecture. Sprawl isn't a big factor, although some cities like London, Milan, etc, certainly appear to sprawl out and could be far denser. However, that is compensated by their large populations.

Essen and Leeds have far more vibrant and fun downtowns than Kansas City and Memphis. Visit and you'll see what I mean.

hay man, i like grass and weekend bbqs. but i prefer both my bbq and grass in my mouth and not on the ground.

puts on shades - queue tom waits song...:cool:

I can assure you that my own experiences are not like this (hence the part about some pretty drab European cities). Turin, for instance, is kind of a shithole outside of a small area in the center. But it is more urban than its peer cities in the American Rust Belt.

And who doesn't like grass and weekend BBQs? That's why anyone in NYC that can afford to decamps for the Hamptons or Jersey Shore or someplace every weekend in the summer. But most people have to make the choice, rather than buying or renting a weekend house.

Europe is much more suburban and car centric than people imagine
In France, 70% of the retail is suburban, car is by far the main mean of transportation.

yes, i do also and so do most americans i would guess. the staunch urbanist who only wants wall to wall concrete and 20k ppm density is still a fringey portion of society and north american cities have evolved to cater to both groups. so really, the suburbs and central cities of regions with booming economies will continue to grow. americans are spoiled too and think only coastal markets and a few southern cities are the best ones. the smart people can adapt and evolve and live a kick ass life where ever they go. and we can't undue suburban sprawl but we can retrofit the transportation infrastructure and thats probably the best we can hope for in america. this last recession really made an impact on the american psyche, probably in a good way once the dust finally settles. people are driving less and conserving more. cheap gas from fracking is temporary too. i think the freewheeling mcmansion days of the past 20 years aren't over but they are definitely not the building footprint of choice anymore. id be very excited if more americans would embrace the rowhouse concept. that seems to be gaining traction out west and in some southern cities. not sure how midwesterners feel about that. i like english suburbia the best. rowhouses, small cars, little yards and a good train network. perfect...

i also prefer light rowhouse and townhouse density to anything else by far, just like you describe. its a shame that so much of that density was wrecked in the midwest - when it used to define the midwestern river cities.

I looked at the latest census data, and it doesn't make any sense? Pittsburgh MSA is still declining?? Huh??? Anyone else find this confusing?

More people are moving into the region versus leaving, but I thought births were overtaking deaths with the exception of Westmoreland County. I guess they're skewing the population change downward still...

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/t...xhtml?src=bkmk

Hm, yeah? We've been wrongly influenced and completely fooled in that respect. I'm still waiting for e-business to murder those "zones commerciales" and malls in the outer suburbs for good. Are we a wannabe 20th century US? Well yes, we've been so to some bad useless extent.

It is butt-ugly. Full of large surface parking lots and parking garages. No matter how hard they try to make them attractive, it's still ugly and sorry looking.

Shop in the very city for your fun, or on the internet when you're in a hurry, or simply die.
:hell:

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with this. I'm a New Yorker and have took a trip to Baltimore recently. It was a sublimely beautiful city, built for a million inhabitants but housing only 620,000 today. As of a couple of years ago, it was still bleeding population even a couple of years ago. The census claims that it may have finally reached zero net growth last year, but only due to births and immigration. In general, people are still fleeing the city in droves, despite a few people who fall in love with the row houses. The city has even announced plans to tear down entire blocks of row houses, sadly.

Yesterday's Census Bureau estimates have Baltimore growing again.

Yes, I agree with you. America has a lot of beautiful cities in every region. The problem is many of them are rundown and not loved. Most of our older cities have architecture that is nice by international standards. What said is, we probably have the most bipolar and poorly planned cities in the industrialized world. It seems like Canada and Australia did a much better job maintaining their transit systems and keeping their urban cores solid. Too much rural politics in America.

I'd say crime is the biggest factor for why these cities bleed. If places like Baltimore, Detroit, Trenton, Camden, Flint, and so on reduced crime to the point of it being safe city wide and not just in a few areas (usually cbd's which become bad after 6pm once all the office workers leave), we would see a resurgence. People leave in part to safety. Its a really nice city (baltimore), but high crime keeps it from reaching its potential. Crime, along with its elements also infiltrate schools, and thus provide a poor system which is a big factor for raising a family.

They might be cool for younger people, but once the raising of children comes into mind, many things sound promising in the suburbs versus cities with high crime rates.

Unfortunately in the U.S., we tend to let inner city neighborhoods degrade to the point of it looking like a ghost town.

Looking at this by city:

NYC: tons of infill in city, prosperous inner ring suburbs (but with population turnover driven by immigration), some exuburban growth driven by immigrants and ethnic inner ring popuation cashing out and moving to the fringes.

LA: less infill, built out, plenty of population turnover in city and inner ring burbs, some trailer parks being built in the desert somewhere

Chicago: exurbs growing, less population turnover on south side to replace exodus, inner ring suburbs stable, 2/3 of city improving

SF, Seattle, Portland: minimal exurban growth, lots of infill, stable inner ring suburbs without much population turnover

DC, Boston: tons of infill, exurban growth, but inner ring suburbs built out and stable/prosperous, less population turnover than in NYC or LA.

Detroit: exurban growth, city declining w/ no replacement for people moving out, inner suburbs built out and stable, little densification in suburbs

St. Louis: exurban growth, inner suburbs built out and declining, city improving

Denver, Minneapolis: some infill, city improving, new exurbs, inner suburbs stable.