Urban Flight Reversing?

[chicbicyclist]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12254224/

Very interesting. Seems like my generation are going to supplement the baby boomers in urban rennaisance in response to the banality of the car-centric suburbs. I hope this will mean more efficient public transit, bicycle friendly and less automobile-centric developments.

[STEEKER]

Sweet bike :)

[Slow Train]

For the glass half empty viewpoint:

3 Virginia Exurbs Near Top of U.S. in Growth
Home Prices Extend Frontier of D.C. Area
By D'Vera Cohn and Amy Gardner
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 16, 2006; Page A01

The Washington area's powerful economy has pushed out suburban sprawl so far that two semirural counties south of Fredericksburg have become bustling commuter frontiers that rank for the first time among the fastest-growing communities in the nation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/15/AR2006031502563.html

And this follow up article:

Washington's Got Enough Growth to Share
By Steven Pearlstein
Friday, March 17, 2006; Page D01

Yesterday's report by my colleagues D'Vera Cohn and Amy Gardner on the explosive growth in King George and Caroline counties should dispel any fantasy that we're finally getting sprawl under control.

Like it or not, the Washington regional economy remains among the hottest in the country, with most of the growth going out rather than up, west rather than east, toward the exurbs rather than the inner city.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031602160.html


I especially found this section intersesting (from the 2nd article):
In many cases, the region finds itself at those tipping points in the growth process, where the next increment of desired capacity requires a huge, upfront investment. These are the points where increasing capacity on the subway line doesn't simply require a few new subway cars, and people to operate them, but an entire new track and all the tunnels that go with it. Or when it's not just a new wing on the high school but an entire new high school.

Put another way, what we've seen over the past decade has been relatively cheap growth -- growth that's been built on the foundation of past investments. But going forward, the next batch of new jobs and new residents will require a much bigger investment, not just on the part of those moving in, but for those of us already here.

[Mtn Mike]

For the glass half empty viewpoint:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/15/AR2006031502563.html

And this follow up article:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031602160.html


I especially found this section intersesting (from the 2nd article):

The DC area makes me sick. I'm glad I left 10 years ago. I was born and raised in a one-time small town 25 miles from DC...now 30 years later it's nothing but a suburban waistland sprawl. And it just keep growing. Of course we don't have sprawl under control. People want to live in big suburban houses, and that's what will be built to sell to them.

[gwd]

The DC area makes me sick. I'm glad I left 10 years ago. I was born and raised in a one-time small town 25 miles from DC...now 30 years later it's nothing but a suburban waistland sprawl. And it just keep growing. Of course we don't have sprawl under control. People want to live in big suburban houses, and that's what will be built to sell to them.
Mtn Mike... the city has changed in 10 years. Besides, 25 miles away isn't DC anymore it is wasteland. The post is a pander for suburbanites, they get their revenue from them. On my short bike ride to work I pass several infill development projects. They're building coops and apartment buildings downtown now. It is difficult to get a horizon shot of the city without construction cranes. The infill is going on at a good pace, all the construction is annoying but not unbearable. They are striping bike lanes throughout the city as they redo the streets. Back in '96 I think the city only had that one bike lane across the Duke Ellington Bridge and up Calvert Street, now there are many more. Last night I was down on 7th street and had to look for bike parking, the good spots were taken. If you have to come back, don't move 25 miles away and complain about sprawl, move downtown. If you want a nature break you can bike out the C&O or even look for coyotes right here in Rock Creek park.

Also the idea that people want to live in big suburban houses doesn't correlate with prices does it? It seems like a smallish house around my neighborhood is more expensive than a similar house 25 miles away, if there really were higher demand for the suburban house in a car dependent community than for the urban house near the subway, wouldn't the equivalent size/condition suburban house cost more?

[Dahon.Steve]

From the article:

>>>>Those new residents are seeking lower-priced housing, bigger lots and less congested roads than established neighborhoods offer. Some are bypassing other fast-growing counties that imposed development restraints. Age-restricted housing and waterfront property in Caroline and King George also are drawing retirees and "pre-retirees," people in their fifties who plan to work for a few more years.<<<<

For the moment they appear to have it all. Just wait till more start building thousands of new homes with tens of thousands of new residents living right next to them! I can assure you, the lower priced homes will now become high priced and those congested roads will be back again. It happend in Long Island, New York.

I'm seeing a lot of developement in so called "Slums" in the city. The article mentions Newark New Jersey as having little college grads but that's changing fast. Newark may never return to it's glory but the changes are coming and fast. New luxury condos, lightrail extention, arts and entertainment and even a minor league baseball club built all within the last 10 years.

The reason we are seeing this new urban rennaisance is because the burbs are really pricing out young adults. I've looked for home in the burbs and the prices are just as bad if not worse than a condo in the city. The past five years have seen real estate prices rocket to the moon and if you didn't buy in, you're basically looking at living in slums. This is what is bringing about the rennaisance. Those same slums are being cleaned out and it's about time.

[folder fanatic]

In the Southern California area, it is a little different. I live in a run down former suburb of circa 1920. We had a big white and true Mexican American flight to the far flung suburbs back in the 1960's to the 1980's. Guess what? Our neighborhood has reversed back into another direction. The old families dissapeared-I guess priced out of the old family homestead. The new ones are a wide mixture of young college educated graduates, illegal undocumented Latino nationals, white trash, some pushed out former South Central Black Americans, gang members from various gangs, and a few old timers here and there. It seems that our skyrocketing fuel, house and condo prices (along with rent prices and lack of available units) makes people desperate for anything in the wind and put up with things and people they would not tolerate a few years ago.

[chicbicyclist]

Indeed, I forgot to mention my very own city. San Diego is not known for its urban living, but over the past 5 years, I've seen at least 15 new high rises(and those include "real" skyscrapers that altered the skyling majorly) built up in the downtown area, especially when the new ballpark opened. Even uptown, where I live, things are roaring with alot of dense and mixed used development going on. I'm planning on taking pictures on my errand run a bit later. It's about a 10 mile route, round trip but I pass by quite alot of developments and I'll be sure to post the link here.

[same time]

What's interesting about the OP's article, and the "glass half empty" articles, is that it's possible for a city to be attracting thousands of new residents every year, but still decline in overall population.

Here in DC, young couples with no kids are buying homes and moving in, while older families and group home renters are moving out. As the number of people per household goes down, the overall population of the city goes down.

The families and group home residents who move out are going to the suburbs, feeding the massive suburban expansion around DC. And, before long, the city's young couples have kids, and they move out to the suburbs looking for good schools. The suburbs gain people per household, the city loses it.

And all those people moving to the suburbs need cars to get around...

[patc]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12254224/

Very interesting. Seems like my generation are going to supplement the baby boomers in urban rennaisance in response to the banality of the car-centric suburbs. I hope this will mean more efficient public transit, bicycle friendly and less automobile-centric developments.

I have seen this trend here as well - both in new housing developments downtown, and in plans to make the urban core more livable. Good trend, hope it continues.

[chicbicyclist]

What's interesting about the OP's article, and the "glass half empty" articles, is that it's possible for a city to be attracting thousands of new residents every year, but still decline in overall population.

Here in DC, young couples with no kids are buying homes and moving in, while older families and group home renters are moving out. As the number of people per household goes down, the overall population of the city goes down.

The families and group home residents who move out are going to the suburbs, feeding the massive suburban expansion around DC. And, before long, the city's young couples have kids, and they move out to the suburbs looking for good schools. The suburbs gain people per household, the city loses it.

And all those people moving to the suburbs need cars to get around...


It's a start. At least, urban decay is finally stopping and urban cores are starting to become more attractive both economically and socially.

[chicbicyclist]

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=187523 - As promised. 56k modem users warning though, alot of pictures!!

[mike]

Maybe not for everybody, but for many, the cost of commuter driving of personal cars for long distances is going to hurt as gasoline prices skyrockets.

I know people that built houses 30+ miles from their work - in fact, 30+ miles from any possible employment when gas was well under two dollars per gallon. Now, with gas prices pushing over $3.00 per gallon and rising, commute distance is finally becoming a relevant consideration in housing location. Perhaps it has been a consideration in some cities, but for most of the USA for many years proximity to work was secondary to the desire to have a big new house in some sprawl area.

I will be glad to see some curbing of the endless sprawl in the USA and a slow down to the big gulp losses of forests praries, and farms.

[Poguemahone]

Believe it or not, my neighbourhood in RVA has people who commute to DC... cheaper urban living, I suppose. We're on the edge of being DC sprawl now. Dear heaven, a 90 mile commute boggles my little mind. It would drive me completely insane.

[yespatterns]

Hey Poque, what 'hood are you in?

[gwd]

Here in DC, young couples with no kids are buying homes and moving in, while older families and group home renters are moving out. As the number of people per household goes down, the overall population of the city goes down.

The families and group home residents who move out are going to the suburbs, feeding the massive suburban expansion around DC. And, before long, the city's young couples have kids, and they move out to the suburbs looking for good schools. The suburbs gain people per household, the city loses it.

And all those people moving to the suburbs need cars to get around...

In this year's master education plan available through http://www.k12.dc.us/dcps/home.html
on page 19 there is a graph showing that enrollment in the public schools in DC is not declining significantly since 1998. Proof of residency is required to enroll, children are required to go to school. So DC's population of children is not declining. The graph does not count all the affluent kids in private schools nor does it count the kids in religious or home schooling. Maybe the private schools are going belly up and it is those families who are leaving?

[same time]

Maybe the private schools are going belly up and it is those families who are leaving?

:)

That's an encouraging graph - I've never seen the numbers presented that way before, with the Charter school kids added on top of the DCPS kids. I had no idea that Charter enrollment was that big. Usually all you read about is DCPS dropping about 3,000 kids per year.

Total number is hovering around 80k, and it looks like they included all the Pre-K programs in that number. Charter schools = first few grades, right? I'd love to think the District is experiencing a boom in Pre-K, K, and first few grade kids. That might mean a big restructuring of the high schools by the time my daughter is that age.

It's encouraging, until you compare it to Fairfax County schools.

[gwd]

:)

Charter schools = first few grades, right? I'd love to think the District is experiencing a boom in Pre-K, K, and first few grade kids. That might mean a big restructuring of the high schools by the time my daughter is that age.

The charter situation is confusing. At least 10 or so have grades 9-12. Some are grades 6-12. The good charter schools have waiting lists and lotteries for placement. One that I ride past every morning has a bike rack and several parents bring their kids by bike or the kids ride their little bikes. Unfortunately many more parents drive the kids. If you have a kid in DC you might want to get off bikeforums and get on DCUrbanmoms or something and get connected with the good schools that take advantage of all the resources in town.

[LittleBigMan]

Maybe not for everybody, but for many, the cost of commuter driving of personal cars for long distances is going to hurt as gasoline prices skyrockets.

I know people that built houses 30+ miles from their work - in fact, 30+ miles from any possible employment when gas was well under two dollars per gallon. Now, with gas prices pushing over $3.00 per gallon and rising, commute distance is finally becoming a relevant consideration in housing location. Perhaps it has been a consideration in some cities, but for most of the USA for many years proximity to work was secondary to the desire to have a big new house in some sprawl area.

I will be glad to see some curbing of the endless sprawl in the USA and a slow down to the big gulp losses of forests praries, and farms.
Me too.

I'm amazed that some people commute 4 or more hours a day...wait a minute, I commuted almost three hours yesterday--I took a long detour on my bike!

:D

(Where ya been, mike? :) )

[Roody]

This trend is occurrring in smaller cities too. Here in lansing, there are four or five loft, townhouse and condo developments that will make the downtown truly mixed use. The governor of Michigan has a big campaign to encourage "Cool Cities" with a primary emphasis on getting young college grads to stay in michigan to establish professional careers.

[TuckertonRR]

It's a start. At least, urban decay is finally stopping and urban cores are starting to become more attractive both economically and socially.
At least in Philly, urban decay hasn't stopped - its' slowly getting better around the Center City area and esp. to the NW and NE of CC (Fairmount/Brewerytown & FIshtown/Old Kensignton) slowly but sureley, it is improving, but its' not exaclty yuppie condo heaven ad brochures make it out to be....

But the city on the whole , as others have mentioned, is still LOSING population. And, the city council is going to raise property assessments WAY UP in the next few years. Don't forget, all these "city living" condos have 10-15 year tax abatements. lets' see if the residents will stay after the abatement expires....