Why is Joel Kotkin Extolling the Virtues of Suburbia?

[Insoluble]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

- Inserting TOD into 17 locations in Central Florida is a bold experiment. In order for it to work, the rising costs of housing will need to be addressed, and Central Florida can take advantage of this ambition to succeed. Orlando home sales are coming back, thanks to the mild climate and desirable lifestyle. That is very different, however, from guaranteeing that the economics of the rail commuter will make it worth discarding the single-family detached American Dream in favor of a relatively new model that has an unproven track record.

Since when is 100+ years old relatively new?

[M II A II R II K]

The Shifting Landscape of Diversity in Metro America


01/04/2012

By Aaron M. Renn

Read More: http://www.newgeography.com/content/...bout+places%29

Census 2010 gave the detail behind what we’ve known for some time: America is becoming an increasingly diverse place. Not only has the number of minorities simply grown nationally, but the distribution of them among America’s cities has changed. Not all of the growth was evenly spread or did it occur only in traditional ethnic hubs or large, historically diverse cities. To illustrate this, I created maps of U.S. metro areas showing their change in location quotient. Location quotient measures the concentration of something in a local area relative to its concentration nationally. This is commonly used for identifying economic clusters, such as by comparing the percentage of employment in a particular industry locally vs. its overall national percentage.

- While commonly used for economic analysis, the math works for many other things. It can be useful to measure how the concentration of particular values changes over time relative to the national average. In this case, we will examine the change in LQ for various ethnic groups between the 2000 and 2010 censuses for metro areas. Those metro areas with a positive change in LQ grew more concentrated in that ethnic group compared to the US average over the last decade. Those with a negative change in LQ grew less concentrated compared to the nation as a whole, even if they grew total population in that ethnic group. To increase concentration level requires growing at a faster percentage than the US as a whole. This is obviously easier for places that start from a low base than those with a high base.

.....

Change in Location Quotient 2000-2010


The change in Black concentration is particularly revealing. Much has been written about the so-called reversing of the Great Migration. But contrary to media reports, there is no clear monolithic move from North to South. Instead, we see that the outflow has been disproportionately from America’s large tier one metros like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. In contrast, Northern cities like Indianapolis, Columbus, and even Minneapolis-St. Paul grew Black population strongly, and actually increased their Black concentrations.






Places like Nashville, Oklahoma City, and Charlotte particularly stand out for increasing Hispanic population percentage. Again, large traditionally diverse tier one cities like New York and Chicago show declines on this measure as smaller cities are now more in on the diversity game.






There were big increases in Asian population counts, with resulting LQ changes, in places like Atlanta, Indianapolis, Philadelphia, and Boston. Even New York (which now has over one million Asian residents within the city limits alone) and Chicago showed gains among Asians.






Here we see that metros along America’s northern tier now have relatively fewer children than a decade ago, while metros like Denver, Dallas, and Nashville had more. Clearly, some places are increasingly seen as better – and perhaps also more affordable – locations for child rearing than others. Perhaps unsurprisingly many of the out of favor locales are either expensive, have poor economic prospects, and/or are excessively cold. Not surprisingly, for example, Atlanta, Houston and Florida’s west coast have gained in this demographic while much of the Northeast, particularly upstate New York, have lost out.

[Chicago103]

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4O3_...b&noredirect=1" target="_blank">Video Link
The guy controlling the dog is big oil and other pro-sprawl corporate elites, Joel Kotkin is the dog on the leash and the sheep are the suburban minded masses.

[M II A II R II K]

The U.S. Economy: Regions To Watch In 2012


01/04/2012

By Joel Kotkin

Read More: http://www.newgeography.com/content/...-watch-in-2012

.....

Our list assumes that we will be living in a post-stimulus environment. Even if President Obama is re-elected, it will largely be the result of the unattractive nature of his opposition as opposed to his economic policies. And given it is unlikely the Democrats will regain the House — and they could still lose the Senate — we are unlikely to see anything like the massive spending associated with Obama’s first two years in office. Clearly the stimulus helped prop up certain regions, such as New York City, Washington and various university towns, which benefited from the financial bailout, lax fiscal discipline and grants to research institutions. But in the foreseeable future, fundamental economic competitiveness will be more important. Global market forces will prove more decisive than grand academic visions.

1. The Energy Belt. Even if Europe falls into recession, demand from China and other developing countries, as well as threats from Iran to cut off the Persian Gulf, will keep energy prices high. While this is bad news for millions of consumers, it could be a great boon to a host of energy-rich regions, particularly in Texas, Oklahoma, the Dakotas, Montana, Louisiana and Wyoming. New technologies that allow for greater production require higher prices than more conventional methods — roughly $70 a barrel — and most experts expect prices to stay above $100 for the next year. Goldman Sachs recently predicted that the U.S. will become the world’s largest oil producer by 2017.....

2. The Agricultural Heartland. You don’t have to have oil or gas to enjoy a strong economy. Omaha, Neb., is not in the energy belt, but its strong agriculture-based economy keeps its unemployment rate well under 5%. Demand from developing countries — especially China, which is expected to supplant Canada as our No. 1 agricultural market — should boost the nation’s farm income to a record $341 billion. Most of the increased product demand lies in commodities like soybeans, corn, barley, rice and cotton. Contrary to the assumptions of East Coast magazines such as The Atlantic, which paint a picture of a devastated and dumb rural America, places like Iowa are doing very well indeed and are likely to continue doing so.....

3. The New Foundry. The revival of Great Lakes manufacturing is one of the heartening stories of the past year, but the biggest beneficiaries of American manufacturing’s revival will likely be in the Southeast and along the Texas corridor connected to Mexico. Future big growth will not come from bailed-out General Motors or Chrysler, with their legacy costs and still-struggling quality issues, but from foreign makers — Japanese, German and increasingly Korean — that build highly rated, energy-efficient vehicles. These countries are not just investing in cars; they also have placed steel mills and aerospace facilities in the rising south-facing foundry.....

4. The Technosphere. Silicon Valley, as well as the Boston area, has thrived under the stimulus, and worldwide demand for technology products will continue to spark some growth in those areas. Over the past year, San Jose-Silicon Valley, Boston and Seattle all stood in the top five in job creation among the country’s 32 largest metro areas. The coming IPO for Facebook and other Valley companies may heighten the tech sector’s already smug sense of well-being. Unfortunately for the rest of California, and even more blue-collar Bay Area communities like San Jose and Oakland, high costs and an unfavorable regulatory environment will keep this bubble geographically constrained.....

5. The Pacific Northwest. This is one blue region in the country with excellent prospects. For one thing, both Washington and Oregon enjoy considerable in-migration, in sharp contrast to New York, California and Illinois. They also have a more varied economy than Silicon Valley, with strong companies connected to retail (Amazon, Costco and Starbucks), aerospace (Boeing) and software (Microsoft). The Seattle region, home to all these companies, is the real standout. It ranked first on our recent list of technology regions and third in industrial manufacturing, a trend likely to continue as Boeing expands production of its new 787 Dreamliner. The business climate and the housing costs are somewhat challenging, but more favorable than in California. The Bay Area and Los Angeles continue to send large numbers of migrants to the Puget Sound region.....

.....

[M II A II R II K]

New Urbanism vs. Dispersionism


02/07/2012

By Richard Reep

Read More: http://www.newgeography.com/content/...bout+places%29

.....

I recently played the role of real estate developer interviewing two consultant teams vying to help me create a new fictional community. Fortified with readings in both the New Urbanist camp and the Dispersionist camp, each team of students pitched their method of community building to me. The actual debate was very lively, with many rebuttals and some serious emotional engagement. The premise: I have a multi-acre greenfield property. I have shortlisted my planning candidates down to two: a New Urbanist team, and a Dispersionist team.

.....

Question 1: Since I am only able to afford Phase 1, future phases will be left to future developers. In your approach, can future generations be trusted to keep focus on high-quality development?

- The New Urbanist team was ready: As Master Planners, they will create the entire form-based vision for the property and design it around a smart code so that the future developers will obey a plan to keep property values rising. No future developer will get to ‘cheap out’. For this team, the Master Plan will guarantee a quality of life for all residents.

- The Dispersionists will plan Phase 1, not as a rigid image of a town, but rather as a response to the natural landscape. This team said the community would grow organically, from its functional needs, guaranteeing the freedom of future generations to plan their own destiny.

- This round, in my mind, went to the Dispersionists. Their argument that future generations should have the freedom to plan based on their functional needs outweighed the seductive beauty of a Master Plan. Too many Master Plans are implemented poorly, or abandoned due to their disutility based on changing needs and markets.

Question 2: How does your viewpoint deal with the car? How will residents and visitors get around your community? I asked the Dispersionists to go first this time.

- We’ll plan for sidewalks and bikes, but we know that the car is a necessity. We know that a 5-minute walk isn’t so realistic in Florida’s hot, humid climate.” The Dispersionists have a hearty regard for cars, and they spoke of long, sweeping curves and scenic drives. They pointed out that most residents will need to drive to other parts of the city as well.

- The New Urbanists shuddered. “We will plan for car-free living,” they stated. With very clever planning, they intended to keep driving to a minimum, and will design walking trails. One New Urbanist ventured 4-story parking garages, crowing that their proposal would not be littered with gas stations. The New Urbanists pointed out the ugly commercial strips dominating our current city, and how little they want that to intrude into the new development.

- The Dispersionists asked me why, in this ten-acre community, I thought I could attract residents with 4-story parking garages? Good point, I thought. Both sides had good answers, and the question did not fully go to one side or the other. Cars do tend to generate a lot of aesthetic horror. On the other hand, they are not going away anytime soon, so learning how to deal with them seems like an important task for a developer looking to the future.

Question 3: How would you distribute density in your development? One center, multiple centers, and centered around what?

- The core, they stated, will be in the center of town, and could go to 8-10 stories, leaving the perimeter a green zone. In the center will be the government and institutional buildings, carefully matched with proper style. The point, they said, is predictability. They pledged to learn from the failures of the past, and their Master Plan will account for the full scope of development.

- The Dispersionists suggested multiple centers. “Phase 1 will be our first density cluster,” they said, “and we’ll see how it goes.” Unlike the New Urbanists, they didn’t want to introduce all their product at once, in case the market changes. “We believe in New England-style green space,” they said, and wanted to evolve the community around these. They saw the vitality of the community coming from diversity.

- I asked the New Urbanists what they would do if the market changes . When pressed, they insisted their Master Plan had plenty of contingency plans in case the original plan wasn’t workable, but it sounded like they were winging it. This is what the Dispersionists saw as their own strong suit. “We don’t have all the answers,” they said. Their first phase would gently nudge the community in a certain direction, but it would leave future developers the choice whether to reinforce the first phase, or strike out and build another phase better suited to a unique need.

.....

Question 5: Give me your arguments why your strategy is sustainable. I let the New Urbanists go first.

- For one thing, they said, they will have more efficient transportation. Vertical buildings save land, they argued, and people who choose this community will value open space more highly and be willing to live densely. They believed that they will have less gridlock by de-emphasizing the car and will be more stable and socially cohesive. All this will come from a well-designed Master Plan.

- The Dispersionists said their community would start small and then grow. Failures won’t cause dead zones, they claimed, because they are not sentimental about form and want a community that works. So if a building in their development begets a failed business, the building will need to be reinvented to make it successful.

- “Yes, but,” countered the New Urbanists, “for every successful community like yours, there are 10 that have failed and ultimately decline in value. What guarantee do you give that you will be the one out of ten?” They went on to cite their successes – Seaside, Celebration, and so on.

- The Dispersionists noted that Seaside was a resort town and Celebration was heavily subsidized by a local employer, so those weren’t exactly good models. In any case, they said, their community will appeal to a much broader segment of the population than the New Urbanists, and therefore more likely to sustain growth in the future.

.....

[M II A II R II K]

Housing Affordability: St. Louis’ Competitive Advantage


02/28/2012

By Wendell Cox

Read More: http://www.newgeography.com/content/...bout+places%29

Things are looking better in St. Louis. For decades, St. Louis has been slowest-growing metropolitan areas of the United States. Its historical core city has lost more than 60 percent of its population since 1950, a greater loss than any other major core municipality in the modern era. Nonetheless, the metropolitan area, including the city, added nearly 50 percent to its population from 1950. The fate of St. Louis has been similar to that of Rust Belt metropolitan areas in the Midwest and East, as the nation has moved steadily West and South since World War II.

- During the past decade, high house prices have driven residents away from areas with better amenities, especially California’s coastal metropolitan areas and metropolitan New York. Between 2000 and 2009, Los Angeles exported 1.4 million domestic migrants, the San Francisco Bay Area 600,000 (San Francisco and San Jose) and San Diego 125,000. New York lost nearly 2,000,000. St. Louis did much better, losing less than 45,000 domestic migrants. On a per capita basis, St. Louis also performed better, losing 1.6 domestic residents per capita to migration, compared to 4.5 in San Diego, 10 in the San Francisco Bay Area and 11 in New York. This may not sound like an accomplishment, but the St. Louis area has probably not outperformed California in terms of migration since it entered the Union in 1850.

- The big change between the 2000s and previous decades lies in housing price. It is in this period that America became effectively two nations in housing affordability. The major metropolitan areas that experienced that largest housing bubble lost 3.2 million domestic migrants, while those with lesser or no bubble gained 1.5 million. Demonstrating the preference of people for more dispersed surroundings, even more (1.7 million) moved to smaller metropolitan areas. Housing affordability has emerged as a principal competitive factor among metropolitan areas. Superior Housing Affordability: This is where St. Louis excels. As of the third quarter of 2011, the median house price was 2.6 times the median household income in St. Louis.

- Moreover, the gap could become larger, especially as governments in California try to outlaw new detached housing, under Senate Bill 375. None of this is good for young households or less affluent households who will have to leave to find housing that meets their desires. Many will need to leave to fulfill their dreams. Inevitably, the higher housing costs associated with these policies (called by various names, such as "livability," "smart growth" and "growth management") fall hardest on lower income households (often minorities), who have less to spend, are forced to move away or cannot afford to move in.

.....

While other metropolitan areas were reeling from house price increases that still have not returned to normal, St. Louis (and other metropolitan areas, like Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston and Indianapolis) have continued to experience affordable and far more steady house prices.






The consequences to low income and minorities were articulated by California's Hispanic oriented Tomas Rivera Policy Institute.






Just what did the St. Louis leadership do to improve its competitiveness so much? Nothing. They just stayed out of the way. Unlike their counterparts where house prices exploded, St. Louis officials did not prohibit people from living where they wanted on the urban fringe and they did not force new houses to be built on postage stamp lots.

[M II A II R II K]

The Evolving Urban Form: Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon)


03/22/2012

By Wendell Cox

Read More: http://www.newgeography.com/content/...bout+places%29

.....

Ho Chi Minh City is the core of Viet Nam's largest urban area, which is headed toward a population of 9 million, including exurban areas beyond the municipal boundaries. For planning purposes, the area has been divided into five subregions. The urban development trends in the Ho Chi Minh City area are similar to those of high income world urban areas. The core is experiencing little or no population growth, while peripheral areas are growing much more strongly.

- The inner core area has a population of approximately 1.4 million, with little growth expected, and is expected to decline in population by 2025. At the same time, the inner core is particularly dense, with more than 100,000 residents per square mile or 40,000 residents per square kilometer. This is approximately 1.5 times as dense as Manhattan or the ville de Paris. By 2025, the inner core will decline further to a population of 1.3 million. One unusual distinguishing characteristic of the core is very thin buildings, the result of taxation based upon building width.

- Over the past five years, the outer core grew from approximately 2.2 million to 2.5 million, which is strong growth in most high income world urban areas but not as notable for a rapidly growing urban area in the developing world. This growth is expected to moderate even further by 2025, when the population is expected to reach only 2.6 million. The population density in the outer core area is 60,000 per square mile or 23,000 per square kilometer. In contrast, almost all the growth is expected outside the core, with both less formal development and very attractive housing.

- The population density of the urban fringe is 14,500 per square mile or 5,500 per square kilometer, nearly as dense as the city (municipality) of San Francisco. The suburban areas within the municipality of Ho Chi Minh City grew from 1.0 million in 2004 to 1.3 million in 2009, again approximately a 30% growth rate. By 2025, the suburban areas are expected to experience the greatest growth, adding 1.6 million population, rising to 2.9 million residents. Comparable data for the exurban areas outside the Ho Chi Minh City municipality are not as readily available. However, it is projected that from 2007 to 2025 the population in these areas will rise from 2.6 million to 4.1 million.

- Ho Chi Minh City may have the highest personal transportation market share outside North America. The personal vehicle (motorcycle and car) share of travel is 92%, leaving just 8% for transit (one estimate indicates an even lower 5%). Most of this travel by motorcycle, which sometimes carry three or more people. As Ho Chi Minh City becomes more prosperous, the share of travel by automobile will likely increase. Automobile ownership is rising at 20 percent annually, more than twice the rate for motorcycle ownership.

- The government would like to change this pattern and has embarked on building a Metro in hopes of increasing transit's market share to between 40% and 50% by 2025. This huge capital investment will be largely limited to feed and serve the core areas that will account for virtually none of the population increase and little of the new employment.

.....

New suburban housing






Tax induced thin buildings






Personal Mobility

[M II A II R II K]

The Evolving Urban Form: Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto


03/28/2012

By Wendell Cox

Read More: http://www.newgeography.com/content/...bout+places%29

Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto is Japan's second largest urban area and ranks as the 12th largest urban area in the world. With a population of approximately 17,000,000 and a land area of 1240 square miles (3200 square kilometers), Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto has a population density of 13,700 per square mile (5,200 per square kilometer), making it the most dense major urban area in Japan and among the denser urban areas in the high income world. The larger metropolitan region includes four prefectures, Osaka, Kyoto, Kyoto and Nara.

- Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto is a conurbation, an urban area that has grown together from multiple cores (here, the urban areas of Osaka, Kobe and Kyoto). Most urban areas grow concentrically from a single core. In the process their suburban growth can engulf and incorporate smaller urban areas (such as Gifu in Nagoya, Bogor in Jakarta or Newark in New York), However, conurbations --- such as Rhine-Ruhr region in Germany (Essen, Dortmund, Duisburg, and Bochum), Katowice-Gliwice-Tychy (upper Silesia) in Poland, Dallas-Fort Worth and Minneapolis-St. Paul in the United States --- develop when major urban areas grow together (or merge), forming a larger urban area.

- Between 1950 and 1970, the Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto region experienced extraordinary growth, adding nearly 5.7 million residents. The increase from 9.8 million to 15.5 million exceed that of all urban areas in the world except Mexico City (approximately 6 million) and Tokyo (11 million). Tokyo's 20 year increase was the largest numerically in history for a metropolitan region. By comparison, Los Angeles, the Western world's fastest growing metropolitan region between 1950 and 1970, added 5.0 million new residents. In 1970, only the Tokyo and New York urban areas were larger than Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto.

- As is typical of major metropolitan regions in the world virtually all of the growth in Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto since 1950 has been outside the historically core municipalities. Only 150,000 of the 6,250,000 population increase from 1950 to 2010 was in the municipalities of Osaka, Kobe or Kyoto. The suburbs accounted for nearly 98% of the region's growth. As growth came to a virtual stop, however, the historical core municipalities have done better. Between 2000 and 2010, the municipalities of Osaka, Kobe and Kyoto had added 125,000 people, while suburban areas lost 79,000. The net result was a 46,000 population increase between 2000 and 2010.

- The annual number of transit trips in Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto alone is more than one-half the total US ridership, despite having a population only 6% of the US. However, lest any conclude that Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto (or Tokyo) might be a model for US or European metropolitan areas, it must be noted that transit's market share has dropped from 80 percent in the late 1980s. Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto (as well as Tokyo and Nagoya) also demonstrate the "mass transit cannot be profitable" claim is a myth. In each of these three metropolitan areas, the vast majority of transit travel is on profitable private suburban railways.

- Very few large metropolitan areas have experienced population declines, and none with the vast scale and historic importance of Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto. Smaller metropolitan areas like Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Liverpool, Manchester and Genoa have stagnated and even experienced periods of population decline. But none have faced a future bleaker than likely for Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto. United Nations population projections indicate that Japan will decline in population by 20 percent between 2010 and 2050. As the nation's economic activity continues to centralize in Tokyo, this could be particularly be ominous for Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto. The trains could get less crowded.

.....

[M II A II R II K]

Joel Kotkin: The man urbanists love to hate


30 Mar 2012

By Greg Hanscom

Read More: http://grist.org/cities/joel-kotkin-...-love-to-hate/

.....

I grew up in New York and live in Los Angeles, so I do not exactly dislike cities. I dislike people who mischaracterize what’s going on about cities because they often miss the more important issues. And they also promote this idea that everything is inevitably going to go with us, so we don’t have to fix our basic problems. I’m trying to tell the situation like it is.

- Urban life in America does not necessarily mean a high-density life. What makes many American cities attractive for some families and some of the middle class is that there are some similarities to what you get in suburbs — think of Staten Island, Queens, or the San Fernando Valley. It’s one of the reasons we decided to stay here, to remodel our house. We love our neighborhood. It’s diverse, it’s near things, we can walk to a grocery store.

- When I’m home I ride a bike five, six times a week. I have an old 1930s house, which is actually very efficient because it has giant trees around and it has only one story.

- When you get older — and I can tell you, unfortunately, because I’m going to be 60 next year — the things that the city offers, particularly if you are used to the suburbs or the countryside, are less vital to you. You may want to come for a weekend or a vacation, but do you really want the noise, the congestion. Are you really going to stay up until 3 in the morning hanging out in Manhattan? Probably not, in most cases.

- If you look at the Koch years in New York, or if you ever saw the Woody Allen move Play it Again Sam, San Francisco all of a sudden became the young, hip place. But over time, many of these young people moved out. The key issue is, cities need to hold onto a bigger percentage of young families. Otherwise they have a situation where they have to continually import families because there aren’t going to be enough kids brought up in L.A., New York, or Chicago for whom this is going to be home. Cities need to understand, why are these families leaving?

- The big problem that cities have is, they’re becoming a place for the very rich and the very poor, the overeducated and the undereducated. The second thing is the schools. The current L.A., New York, Chicago schools — even though there may be little points of improvement, they’re pretty awful. People I know who have kids in these schools either have to live in very wealthy neighborhoods that have good schools or they have to go to private schools.

- If you look at transportation, we’re slightly below where we were in 1980 in terms of how many people use mass transit. I think there are more flexible ways of getting to where you need to go, particularly telecommuting, which is growing much faster [than transit ridership], and is almost completely ignored in the new urbanist press, and almost completely ignored by environmentalists. Telecommuting is by far the killer app in terms of reducing our DMTs [daily miles traveled] — that, and improved car mileage.

- The question is, how can we create an environment where people can work near where they live? How do we create a series of villages in the suburbs and exurbs and to strengthen urban neighborhoods? I’m very much in favor of localism, in terms of building things from the community level up. The way I look at it, every city has its own DNA.

- How do we make those communities better? Any policy that says we’re going to force people to live in high density, and if they don’t like it they can either leave the state or they can try to buy the remaining single family homes at an inflated price — that’s what you end up with. What people don’t understand is that when you do surveys, people in the suburbs generally know their neighbors more, they vote more, they’re more involved in their communities, because they’re generally homeowners. In my neighborhood, we know our neighbors and it’s very diverse — and a lot of people don’t want to give that up.

- If I have a favorite city in history it would be Amsterdam in the 17th century, which [Simon] Schama calls the “Republic of Children.” You’d have a business on the ground floor and the family would live upstairs, and all of the Rembrandts and amazing paintings of that time … Descartes called it “the inventory of the possible.” And that’s what cities should be — they shouldn’t be tied to somebody’s idea of what the right aesthetic form is, or some prescribed density.

.....

[M II A II R II K]

Smart Growth and The New Newspeak


04/04/2012

By Ed Braddy

Read More: http://www.newgeography.com/content/...bout+places%29

It’s a given in our representative system that policies adopted into law should have popular support. However, there is a distinction to be made between adopting a policy consistent with what a majority of people want, and pushing a policy while making dubious claims that it harnesses “the will of the people.” The former is a valid exercise in democracy; the latter is a logical fallacy. Smart Growth advocates are among the most effective practitioners of Argumentum ad Populum, urging everyone to get on the bandwagon of higher densities, compact mixed-uses, and transit orientation because all the “cool cities” are doing it. Smart Growth advocates also claim this is what people prefer, even if it is not how they currently live. The two core features of Smart Growth land use — high densities and multi-family dwellings — are simply not preferred by most Americans in most places, despite the trendy push for Livability, New Urbanism, Resilient Cities, Smart Codes, Traditional Neighborhood Design, Transit Oriented Developments or any other euphemistic, clever name currently in fashion.

- In the internal data of the 2011 Community Preference Survey commissioned by the National Association of Realtors, no specific question was asked about density, but 52 percent of respondents said, if given a choice, they would prefer to live in traditional suburbs, small towns or the rural countryside. Another 28 percent chose a suburban setting that allowed for some mixed uses (Question 5). Taken together, this shows an overwhelming preference for low densities. Only 8 percent of the respondents favored a central city environment. As for vibrant urbanism, only 7 percent were “very interested” in living in a place “at the center of it all.” Most people wanted to live “away from it all” (Question 17). An astonishing 87 percent said “privacy from neighbors” was important to them in deciding where to live. One can reasonably infer that a majority of this majority would favor low density places with separated uses rather than crowded, noisy mixed use locations that blur the line between public and private. When presented with a range of housing choices, 80 percent preferred the “single-family detached house” (Question 6). Only eight percent chose an apartment or condominium.

Yet the press release from the National Association of Realtors proclaimed that “Americans prefer smart growth communities.” This is because on Question 13, respondents were given a description of two communities:

Community A, a subdivision of only single family homes with nothing around them. Not even sidewalks!

Community B: lots of amenities all “within a few blocks” of home. Of course, the description neglected to mention the population density and degree of residential stacking required to put all those dwellings in such close proximity to walkable retail. This was a significant omission, since the first housing option offered in Community B was “single family, detached,” on “various sized lots.”

- Community B received 56 percent support. So, with just one response to an unrealistic scenario, out of twenty answers that included many aversions to Smart Growth, the myth that people prefer Smart Growth was spread. The National League of Cities released a Municipal Action Guide to thousands of elected and appointed officials declaring the preference for Smart Growth, and the online network Planetizen, among others, uncritically helped spread the news. Missing from the triumphalism was this important caveat in the 98-page analysis of the results by the consultants who conducted the survey: “Ideally, most Americans would like to live in walkable communities where shops, restaurants, and local businesses are within an easy stroll from their homes and their jobs are a short commute away; as long as those communities can also provide privacy from neighbors and detached, single-family homes. If this ideal is not possible, most prioritize shorter commutes and single-family homes above other considerations.” In addition to spinning the results of preference surveys, Smart Growthers also ignore them.

.....

Photo by W. Cox: Rail station in Evry, a suburb of Paris

[LtBk]

- How do we make those communities better? Any policy that says we’re going to force people to live in high density, and if they don’t like it they can either leave the state or they can try to buy the remaining single family homes at an inflated price — that’s what you end up with. What people don’t understand is that when you do surveys, people in the suburbs generally know their neighbors more, they vote more, they’re more involved in their communities, because they’re generally homeowners. In my neighborhood, we know our neighbors and it’s very diverse — and a lot of people don’t want to give that up.

From my experience, most people in their suburban neighborhoods don't know their neighbors or get involved in their communities, even if they lived there for 20+ years.

[miketoronto]

He did make some sense with the comments about needing to retain families.

The truth is that people do not party everyday, and our cities do have to do a better job of attracting people who want to build a life in the city and not just party there.
This actually goes back to my comment about "regular neighbourhoods".
Our cities are trying so hard to just have trendy neighbourhoods that people want to spend a Friday night out at, that we are losing just your average neighbourhood with a nice home, local retail within walking distance, good schools, and good transportation.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by LtBk

From my experience, most people in their suburban neighborhoods don't know their neighbors or get involved in their communities, even if they lived there for 20+ years.

That isn't my experience at all...I grew up in a suburban area and we knew all of our neighbors for several streets around us, sometimes because they had kids my age. Conversely, living in an urban area as an adult, I barely know my neighbor's names because I don't want them bothering me - I like to choose my friends more by common interest than by proximity.

I know it's simply one person's experience, but I think that suburbs are largely mischaracterized as bland and lonely places on this and other pro-urban sites when they truly vary from place to place. I'm sure some may be that way, but the one's I've experienced in my lifetime have been pretty lively and friendly. Anyone else experience this?

[llamaorama]

Who knows. Urban, suburban, whatever, it depends a lot on you, your efforts to make friends, and what forms the backbone of your social network. I've lived so many places and they have all been very different.

It's a good idea to introduce yourself and get to know your neighbors in case of an emergency. However I don't see what's wrong with not being BFF with some random schmo you have nothing in common with just because of proximity.

[LtBk]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

That isn't my experience at all...I grew up in a suburban area and we knew all of our neighbors for several streets around us, sometimes because they had kids my age. Conversely, living in an urban area as an adult, I barely know my neighbor's names because I don't want them bothering me - I like to choose my friends more by common interest than by proximity.

I know it's simply one person's experience, but I think that suburbs are largely mischaracterized as bland and lonely places on this and other pro-urban sites when they truly vary from place to place. I'm sure some may be that way, but the one's I've experienced in my lifetime have been pretty lively and friendly. Anyone else experience this?

It varies from region to region. I could see people in suburban Atlanta know their neighbors better than in Baltimore-Washington area, but I'm generalizing. Regardless they are still "dead" IMO.

[miketoronto]

I agree it totally depends on the people more than location (although in really sprawled suburbs I can see knowing your neighbours being a little harder as there is such a gap between houses).

I live in the suburbs, and we have one of the most close knit set of neighbours ever.
We hold each others keys when one goes on vacation. We buy gifts for each other when on vacation, etc. We chat on our porches together, etc.
We never really hang out and go out together. But we are connected.

My sisters live in the city, and they hardly interact with their neighbours at all. In fact on my suburban street you always see people out sitting in front of their homes, or doing yard work, etc.

In my sisters inner city neighbourhood, you almost never see anyone lounging on their front porch or doing yard work or anything.

But overall I think it is based on people more. And sadly in today's world, even what I have with my neighbours, I don't think is replicated much anymore.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

I agree it totally depends on the people more than location (although in really sprawled suburbs I can see knowing your neighbours being a little harder as there is such a gap between houses).

I live in the suburbs, and we have one of the most close knit set of neighbours ever.
We hold each others keys when one goes on vacation. We buy gifts for each other when on vacation, etc. We chat on our porches together, etc.
We never really hang out and go out together. But we are connected.

My sisters live in the city, and they hardly interact with their neighbours at all. In fact on my suburban street you always see people out sitting in front of their homes, or doing yard work, etc.

In my sisters inner city neighbourhood, you almost never see anyone lounging on their front porch or doing yard work or anything.

But overall I think it is based on people more. And sadly in today's world, even what I have with my neighbours, I don't think is replicated much anymore.

I think this decline in community has been going on for a long time in bigger cities.

A) TV - after TV one never HAD to leave home to 'see' other people, and, HAVE to obey Emile's Rule of Ediquette while watching these photo luminescent images.

Look at old pictures of any US downtown on a Saturday night in the Tenderloin districts, or along department store row any time of the business day in 1910 and the places are packed. Look at pictures in the early 40s and every parking space is full, and people can be see walking between stores.

B) The automobile- enables us to flee from either our genuine fears or from the fears planted by real estate developers about race, ethnicity, and, income level.
We have become increasingly economically segregated via the subdivision/mall/freeway culture. We drive home in our (largely) class determined type of car, go inside, and, watch our racial, ethnic, and economically correct TV shows on ever larger screens.

C) The internet. Sure safer to say **** and **** ****** here than in a coffee shop or a grocery line. In addition, the internet, more so than cable TV, has Balkanized our interests into communities independent of location.

D) Democraphics- the older you get, particularly past 50, the more getting out and meeting people is a hastle, so why not stay home and ________________.


I have no doubt that this reduction in community ethos is present in Istanbul, Shanghai, Mumbai, Jahkarta, Manila, Tehran, Cairo, Lagos, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, among others, too.

More of us, world wide, are living closer together and desiring to smell and hear our human selves face to face, less by the year....

[M II A II R II K]

Alternative Growth Paths for Sydney: A New Report and its Implications


04/12/2012

By Tony Recsei

Read More: http://www.newgeography.com/content/...bout+places%29

Population growth in Australia is double the world average and the New South Wales Department of Planning has projected that the population of the Sydney region will increase by 57,000 people annually. How will these extra people be housed? The NSW Government follows the usual doctrines based on higher population densities.

- To achieve this 70/30 strategy the Department of Planning in effect has placed a restrictive growth boundary around Sydney to force higher-densities into existing residential areas. Greenfield land release has been reduced from an historic 10,000 lots per year to less than 2,000. This has caused a severe land shortage. These policies are undemocratic and widely resented.

- What is more, the government has not justified them in terms of public good. Indeed they might find that hard to do. For example, Australian studies show that greenhouse gas emissions per person are higher in high-density living, congestion is worse, human health is compromised, the costs of electricity, gas and water services increase, heritage conservation areas valued by the community are often lost and irreplaceable urban patchwork of greenery and wildlife within the city is decimated.

- The report alleges that electricity consumption is greater in houses than it is in apartments. This is incorrect. Studies show that consumption per capita is greater in apartments. It appears that the data the report relies on does not take into account the consumption of electricity common to the whole apartment block such as lifts and lighting common areas such as foyers and car spaces. The report also does not take into account costs to existing residents arising from forcing high-density into communities originally designed for low-density.

- As is not unusual in reports by density advocates throughout the English-speaking world, the report’s findings are marred by the fact that significant factors are omitted. If costs and benefits were fully accounted for, including the costs and benefits borne by existing residents, an already weak case for emphasising densification over fringe development would vanish. As we have seen, even with the flawed accounting used in the report, the magnitude of the cost differences that it finds between its three scenarios is trivial.

.....

[mhays]

Typical stupidity and misinformation from newgeography.

The only reason to go there is to find out what the retards are saying.

[M II A II R II K]

Census Estimates: Slowing Metropolitan Growth and the Future of the Exurbs


04/19/2012

By Aaron M. Renn

Read More: http://www.newgeography.com/content/...bout+places%29

Recently the Census Bureau released 2011 county and metro area population estimates that showed overall slowing population growth and particularly showing slow to halting growth in exurban counties.

- Someone once said to me about Chicago’s Mayor Daley that if he did something you liked, he was a visionary genius leader, but if he did something you hated, he was a corrupt machine dictator. That seems to be how too many urbanists view the Census Bureau. Back in the 90s when the Census estimates showed cities growing more slowly than boosters believed, they pressured the Census Bureau into adjusting the estimates to provide higher values. As it turned out, in most cases even the original estimates for cities proved inflated. In fact, the 90s were actually better for a lot of major cities than the 2000s were (e.g, New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago). This led to a new narrative that the Census had undercounted cities somehow.

- Now this new data shows slowing exurban growth. All of a sudden, the Census Bureau has become once more a source of Gospel Truth, and I’ve seen many articles suggesting that the exurbs are dead, killed by rising gas prices and new Millennial preferences. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves here. Yes, exurban growth slowed recently. While cities on the whole fared more poorly than expected in the last census, we did see strong growth in downtowns and adjacent areas. I myself wrote about improving migration trends for core cities. That’s good news worth celebrating for cities. But don’t overstate the case.

- I think a chunk of the fringe migration was from very low end home builders skipping out beyond established jurisdictions into unincorporated territory with few buildings restrictions. They threw up dirt cheap homes there and often sold them to people with marginal credit and income who had no business buying homes, using a variety of gimmicks to do so. (I know someone who sold homes for one of these builders, so I heard about some of these). Loose credit policies and government guarantees fueled this. The housing crash killed this market. Now that subsidies for this type of growth aren’t available, so that market is probably never coming back. But when the economy improves and the market normalizes, I’d expect some level of suburbanization to resume.

- Part of the logic is simple math. If you add up the population of the municipalities of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Boston, Seattle, Washington, Portland, and Miami you only get 20 million people. That’s only about 20% of what the Census Bureau is projecting for just population growth by 2050. With the difficulties of building in urban areas, there’s no way to accommodate just the new growth even if everybody wanted into the city. In other words, there’s just no way there is going to be some massive back to the city movement. I hate to break it to you, but that’s reality.

.....

Here’s the full list of large metros, sorted by population growth percentage: