Will cities experience a second decline?

[Beedok]

Parts of cities will see rises and declines, but the suburbs that attract people back in significantly (once the infrastructure needs proper maintenance) are going to be those which manage to urbanise (at least moderately). Why live somewhere you need a car when you can live somewhere with good transit and restaurants you can walk to? The suburbs were the result of small North American cities growing rapidly when car culture got everyone excited. Now the suburbs sprawl so far new developments are too far away, and the 'exciting new' nature of cars is fading.

[The North One]

I don't think so, the whole reason the exodus to the suburbs started was because of the automobile, never before could we work so far away from home. People thought it was the greatest thing in the world to live in a home with a yard, they had on very intense rose-colored glasses. During this time we lost sight of the value of the urban neighborhoods and the community they provided, people are sick of it now, driving everywhere all the time is torture and no longer liberating. I'm sure we'll see a leveling out but a decline? No.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by The North One

I don't think so, the whole reason the exodus to the suburbs started was because of the automobile, never before could we work so far away from home. People thought it was the greatest thing in the world to live in a home with a yard, they had on very intense rose-colored glasses. During this time we lost sight of the value of the urban neighborhoods and the community they provided, people are sick of it now, driving everywhere all the time is torture and no longer liberating. I'm sure we'll see a leveling out but a decline? No.

I hope your right. I hope. Here in the glorious motherland, the united socialist republic of New Jersey, traffic has been getting much worse. I guess I'm part of the problem as well as I live in a suburb yet commute to a city, but over the years, its just a nightmare traffic wise. I-78 isn't bad, even during rush hour, but that horrible, horrible 287 South. And the Turnpike or I-95. Parkway is pretty bad as well, even with all of the lanes. But at the end of the day, to many minivans chock full of infants running around. And its getting worse over the years.

But to the idea of the cities rising and the declining suburbs, while nice to think that the burbs will be a trend of the past, they won't be.

Here in NJ, and I'm sure its being replicated elsewhere, the suburbs are becoming denser. There are actual apartment buildings rising. Sure they are 5 or 6 floors tall, wide, but they account for a lot of units. Factor that in numerous towns, and that's several 1000 units added to the pipeline.

I only see the suburbs becoming denser. Fortunately, high taxes will keep certain burbs pristine, and not as dense, but the rest, will get a lot more busy. And along with it, the crowds and the masses.

I still think crime is a big reason why a lot of people don't move to certain cities. Take my state, we have Newark and Trenton for example, but they are not growing like they should. Very slowly. Those are also cities that are full of crime bar a few neighborhoods. So what do people do? They move to the burbs. And I can't blame them.

[The North One]

Yeah, I agree with that as well.

Lets not kid ourselves, suburbia is still going strong but I also think areas in the suburbs will continue to get dense become hybrid-urban areas, it's already happening. We might take urban cores for granted again in the next generation, but I don't believe another significant decline would come, especially not in our lifetimes. Unless private jets somehow become available for the common man.

[chiphile]

Megacities, not nations, are the world’s dominant, enduring social structures

By: Parag Khanna
Quartz
April 20, 2016

http://qz.com/666153/megacities-not-...onnectography/

"Cities are mankind’s most enduring and stable mode of social organization, outlasting all empires and nations over which they have presided."

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

How much of this represents American preferences and how much of it just reflects the fact that we've largely outlawed new housing construction in our cities?

I'm the last person to defend the zoning status quo, but it only significantly impacts the housing supply in a small handful of highly desirable coastal and resort cities, especially those with natural barriers to development and a scarcity of land.

You would never say that Chicago, Denver, Dallas or Pittsburgh have "outlawed new housing construction". Middle America is really quite friendly to developers, even if the zoning forces them to build housing in ways that are less than ideal.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I'm the last person to defend the zoning status quo, but it only significantly impacts the housing supply in a small handful of highly desirable coastal and resort cities, especially those with natural barriers to development and a scarcity of land.

And those "highly desirable coastal cities" tend to be somewhat more pro-development in the urban center than in the suburbs. It's generally easier to build in LA or SF or NYC or Boston or DC than in the corresponding suburbs (at least the sprawly ones).

[memph]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I'm the last person to defend the zoning status quo, but it only significantly impacts the housing supply in a small handful of highly desirable coastal and resort cities, especially those with natural barriers to development and a scarcity of land.

You would never say that Chicago, Denver, Dallas or Pittsburgh have "outlawed new housing construction". Middle America is really quite friendly to developers, even if the zoning forces them to build housing in ways that are less than ideal.

My impression, and correct me if I'm wrong because it's just my impression:

Dallas allows multi-family development in certain areas like Downtown, Oak Lawn, and a few nodes along highways, although some of these are starting to approach build out. There are also many vacant lots that could be developed with SFHs (and maybe multi-family too?) on the south side. Many well-to-do SFH neighbourhoods in East and North Dallas limit new development to tear-down mansions. Parking requirements are fairly high throughout?

Denver - probably similar to Dallas, but maybe with lower parking requirements?

Pittsburgh - they seem to allow multi-family development in downtown and adjacent areas, as well as a few other major nodes. Hill District, Manchester and a couple other neighbourhoods have a fair bit of vacant lots that could be built up. I assume they allow loft conversions of vacant industrial buildings too. How about lowrise neighbourhoods with a better reputation? Can you build more homes on the laneways of neighbourhoods like Lawrenceville and South Side Flats, where laneway homes are already part of the neighbourhood typology?

Chicago - I assume there's plenty of development opportunities in the neighbourhoods of the West side and South side, but the reputations of those neighbourhoods are a major obstacle. There's a fair bit being built in the Downtown and areas immediately adjacent, mostly fairly high density. What about the desirable north side and semi-desirable southwest and northwest side lowrise neighbourhoods? I know mansions have been built there so SFH is allowed, but what about smaller apartment buildings?

[Reverberation]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Completely wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever, none, nada, zilch, of a massive back-to-the-city residential trend that is occurring at a sizable expense to suburban well-being.

Right. Most white flight occurred as a response to the decline in (perceived) safety. If you make a person choose between amenities and safety, they will choose safety. Nobody woke up one day dreaming of spending another 30 minutes of their morning driving to their job and nobody wants to walk anywhere if the streets aren't safe. The same goes for mass transit. If a city is thinning out due to crime it can't support mass transit. There is actually a contingent of people who protest the big, gated, super-block apartment complexes because they are difficult to police and become havens for crime as they deteriorate over the years.

There are plenty of examples of thriving first world cities and the one common element among all of them is safety or at least the illusion of it.

[llamaorama]

I think something potentially disruptive on the horizon will be the effect of autonomous electric vehicles on brick and mortar retail, and by extension sales tax revenues for municipalities. While a lot of people already shop online and there is rapid same-day delivery and that has an effect on stores now, it pales in comparison to what will happen when robot cars unlock the feasibility of universal 1-2 hour delivery as a free service and something customers see as an expectation/norm.

Healthy urban cities and successful, major suburban cities that are economically diverse and have satellite commercial hubs will be fine. Destination or 'experience' retail, dining, entertainment, and also non-retail services(salons to forklift repair centers) aren't going to be damaged by this trend and they tend to be clustered in these areas. And robot cars will just make traveling further to go eat out much easier. In some places these commercial uses will only grow- look at the huge outdoor shopping centers that primarily focus on food and boutique stores with nary a tradtional anchor store in sight popping in well-to-do suburbs and in the upscale part of urban core cities alike. Also some urban cities have been deserts for traditional retail for a while now anyways(IIRC aren't there very few chain big box stores in the whole 142 sq.mi. city of Detroit?), so their budgets won't need to really adjust because they already reflect a reality where big box stores are gone.

But what about older bedroom suburbs, which rely on wal-marts and gas stations to fill their coffers when the locals are against property tax increases? Those kinds of things will all be gone, that's going to be a huge hit on their budgets. These kinds of places tend to be kind of small, usually economically depressed, and they will struggle to adapt. I think the East Clevelands and Fergusons of tomorrow will be in the sunbelt. It won't be the closure of a factory that takes their tax base and jobs down with it, it will be the closure of the local mall, the local wal-mart, the target, the kroger, all the gas stations, etc, etc. Left behind will be huge gray lands of of old suburban commercial building foundations and cracked parking lots. I guess a place that exists already like this might be East New Orleans/Lake Forest Area- after Katrina a huge mall, multiple giant shopping centers, a hospital, every other gas station and motel and fast food place, entire apartment complexes- erased. It's very surreal, because unlike a place like Cairo, Illinois where the landscape is "old timey" and "haunted", this is a very modern waste of non-old buildings and things that even a young person would relate to. I feel like if anyone wanted to film a movie with a post apocalyptic setting that would be a winner as far as locations go.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by memph

Chicago - I assume there's plenty of development opportunities in the neighbourhoods of the West side and South side, but the reputations of those neighbourhoods are a major obstacle. There's a fair bit being built in the Downtown and areas immediately adjacent, mostly fairly high density. What about the desirable north side and semi-desirable southwest and northwest side lowrise neighbourhoods? I know mansions have been built there so SFH is allowed, but what about smaller apartment buildings?

Smaller apartment buildings are being built across the North Side. Parts of the North Side have been downzoned though to the point that a new highrise apartment couldn't be built next to some of the preexisting ones in neighborhoods like Lincoln Park though.

[memph]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

I think something potentially disruptive on the horizon will be the effect of autonomous electric vehicles on brick and mortar retail, and by extension sales tax revenues for municipalities. While a lot of people already shop online and there is rapid same-day delivery and that has an effect on stores now, it pales in comparison to what will happen when robot cars unlock the feasibility of universal 1-2 hour delivery as a free service and something customers see as an expectation/norm.

Healthy urban cities and successful, major suburban cities that are economically diverse and have satellite commercial hubs will be fine. Destination or 'experience' retail, dining, entertainment, and also non-retail services(salons to forklift repair centers) aren't going to be damaged by this trend and they tend to be clustered in these areas. And robot cars will just make traveling further to go eat out much easier. In some places these commercial uses will only grow- look at the huge outdoor shopping centers that primarily focus on food and boutique stores with nary a tradtional anchor store in sight popping in well-to-do suburbs and in the upscale part of urban core cities alike. Also some urban cities have been deserts for traditional retail for a while now anyways(IIRC aren't there very few chain big box stores in the whole 142 sq.mi. city of Detroit?), so their budgets won't need to really adjust because they already reflect a reality where big box stores are gone.

But what about older bedroom suburbs, which rely on wal-marts and gas stations to fill their coffers when the locals are against property tax increases? Those kinds of things will all be gone, that's going to be a huge hit on their budgets. These kinds of places tend to be kind of small, usually economically depressed, and they will struggle to adapt. I think the East Clevelands and Fergusons of tomorrow will be in the sunbelt. It won't be the closure of a factory that takes their tax base and jobs down with it, it will be the closure of the local mall, the local wal-mart, the target, the kroger, all the gas stations, etc, etc. Left behind will be huge gray lands of of old suburban commercial building foundations and cracked parking lots. I guess a place that exists already like this might be East New Orleans/Lake Forest Area- after Katrina a huge mall, multiple giant shopping centers, a hospital, every other gas station and motel and fast food place, entire apartment complexes- erased. It's very surreal, because unlike a place like Cairo, Illinois where the landscape is "old timey" and "haunted", this is a very modern waste of non-old buildings and things that even a young person would relate to. I feel like if anyone wanted to film a movie with a post apocalyptic setting that would be a winner as far as locations go.

All those robo-cars are going to need a place to sleep during off-peak times.

[llamaorama]

Yes of course.

The great thing about a robot vehicle is it doesn't need to deadhead somewhere just because that's where the driver lives. They'd make long circuits to maximize their economic worth. It would be like a tractor-trailer's trailer, only smaller and totally autonomous.

Little delivery pods could sleep in small lots or vertical towers(75' steel pez dispenser for cars?) near residential neighborhoods. Such lots would be fenced/screened with hedges or integrated into urban buildings.

Maybe if a lot of robot pod vehicles tend to accumulate in one location with no load to haul in the homeward direction, an economic way of sending them back would be to stack them up on railroad flat cars with a single train being able to move 1000's of them across the country.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by toddguy

The first baby boomer of the 'boomer generation' did not come of age (18) until 1965-boomers were born from 47-64. It was the 'Greatest Generation' coming back from war that started the flight.

Also cities after the war in the US were not in the best shape. There had been an entire generation where not enough new housing was built due to depression and the war, so there was not enough money to build or maintain housing, and then there was money from full employment and overtime but no materials-all for the war effort.

My parents were born in 28 and 33 and they recall 'the city' as dirty, run down, overcrowded, and not that great. There was a housing crisis really after the war, and with the decisions made by the powers that be, the desire for new housing(after 15 years of not much 'new'-new was very sought after), the artificial 'boom' of the 50's early 60's cause by the competitors of the US having war damaged economies, cheap energy, racial tension, etc it is not exactly surprising that people fled the cities.

And by the time the first 'Boomer' reached 18 in 1965, the cities were already in crisis. Hopefully there will be a balance struck between city and suburb that will prevail. And there are many Americans(yes even many millennials throughout the nation) who love the suburbs and exurbs and will pay just about whatever it takes to live there. Otherwise we would end up with wealthy cities and the poor and minorities pushed to the declining suburbs- the 'donut' in reverse.

Or in other words, the European model.

[maru2501]

I think once again, the effect of smart cars will depend on the city and the area. Some stores will be hurt of course, and it might be the neighborhood stores that are caught in the middle. Some shopping districts might not feel it.

The highest end, highest impact shopping zones, take North Michigan Ave here in Chi, many of the stores are basically advertisements you can walk into. The brands count on tourists to go home to Ohio and order from them online. They aren't paying the rent with what they sell on-site.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by Crawford

And those "highly desirable coastal cities" tend to be somewhat more pro-development in the urban center than in the suburbs. It's generally easier to build in LA or SF or NYC or Boston or DC than in the corresponding suburbs (at least the sprawly ones).

Thats definitely not true in LA. The only city in Socal that is building a significant amount of housing is Irvine.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Thats definitely not true in LA. The only city in Socal that is building a significant amount of housing is Irvine.

Per the Census, the city of LA builds more housing relative to population than its suburbs. The same is true with SF, DC, Boston, Philly.

And NYC absolutely dominates regional housing construction trends, and builds far more than even Houston. The only NYC suburbs that allow lots of density are older, urban suburbs. The sprawly suburbs are ultra-NIMBY.

Certain urban neighborhoods, like the West Village, are ultra-insane NIMBY, where even the smallest project will be protested/litigated, and delayed by regulatory obstacles for years, but cities overall tend to have more opportunities for growth than suburbs.

[mhays]

The Seattle area makes growth reasonably easy. There's tons of process and fees, but basically you can build what the zoning says. Our growth management and zoning requires cities to accommodate and plan for growth, and sprawl is kept in check (sort of) by State oversight. Most cities and counties are doing this by focusing growth in mixed-use zones as well as limited sprawl zones. An outcome is that the suburbs are dotted with urban nodes in addition to the ones in Seattle itself.

[dc_denizen]

I hope so, then I could afford to buy here.

[Qubert]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Or in other words, the European model.

People say this but it's something of a misnomer. Many european cities have exceptionally dense and urbane inner suburbs which hold much of the working class and immigrant communities. Outer London or Seine-St-Denis are nothing like Long Island or Naperville, IL.

As far as the question at hand, no, as long as we don't go down the road of fighting gentrification based on misguided arguments over "character" and "affordability" and don't cede the progress made in fighting crime. If we do those two things, then yes I think it's quite possible recent gains could be reversed.