Walkable Neighborhoods Attracting Investments While Burbs Die

[memph]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

"These neighborhoods comprise a meager 1 percent of these metropolitan regions’ total area"...

Meanwhile, the rest of the us, the 99% live elsewhere.

Suburbs aren't dying. Suburban districts in the alpha city of a metropolitan region aren't dying either.

"Sprawl is over in Boston..."

Even with a dense core, overall the Boston MSA has one of the lowest population densities in the country and sprawls pretty far into New Hampshire. The 495 corridor is horrific sprawl, not to mention the inner 128 corridor. No sprawl there. Nope.

"LA’s suburbs are slowly urbanizing thanks to its investment in expanded rail and bus systems."
Ridership numbers have been steadily deceasing. Suburban Los Angeles has always been full of walkable urban centers in a built environment many times that of other cities' suburbs.

The existence of low density sprawl in Boston doesn't mean sprawl isn't over there. The question is, what are they building more of and what is gaining value?

If they're replacing 2 acre lot homes with 1/4 acre lot homes, I'd consider that a continuation of the sprawl model as well - 1/4 acre lot homes is still too low density to function as urban housing, especially if they're surrounded by low density exurban development.

If the exurbs are limiting new development to remain low density and as a result most new development is in the city and inner suburbs/old suburban town centres, then that means the Boston area is becoming more urban.

[plutonicpanda]

Suburbs aren't dying. Trains and streetcars are a relic of the past. Suburbs and cars are the future. PS, I am going to post a thread making my case on why induced demand is a fallacy and stats to back that up as well as how suburbs are growing and transit is failing becoming more costly than roads.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-a...ke-a-comeback/

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

Suburbs aren't dying. Trains and streetcars are a relic of the past. Suburbs and cars are the future.

Is this post from 1960?

[dubu]

cars are the future? you haved seen a flying motorcycle.

• Video Link

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Is this post from 1960?

No. It's reality. Suburbs will continue to absorb most of today's and tomorrow's growth and they'll do it without a street car to shuffle them to the marketplace downtown.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Is this post from 1960?

Continue to ignore facts all you like, it doesn't change reality.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by sun belt

no. It's reality. Suburbs will continue to absorb most of today's and tomorrow's growth and they'll do it without a street car to shuffle them to the marketplace downtown.

+1

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

No. It's reality. Suburbs will continue to absorb most of today's and tomorrow's growth and they'll do it without a street car to shuffle them to the marketplace downtown.

OK, and? That has absolutely nothing to do with the previous comment, and my response.

Of course suburbs, which hold most of the population, will have most of the growth, and obviously street cars will not be used for mobility.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by Crawford

OK, and? That has absolutely nothing to do with the previous comment, and my response.

Of course suburbs, which hold most of the population, will have most of the growth, and obviously street cars will not be used for mobility.

You are responding sarcastically to me comment acting like it is an outdated view and it is interesting how you would come to that conclusion. Though I understand what you meant by it, it is foolish. So basically a large majority of the population is living in the 1960's, even those like me who weren't born until 1993 or later.

[mhays]

Meanwhile suburbs are often becoming more urban. Functionally the inner city often goes way beyond the city limits, in nodes at least.

And some regions are doing a decent job of cutting sprawl and building more infill instead. It can be done.

[photoLith]

Every article since ever either state the cities are dying again and or the suburbs are dying again. Its kinda ridiculous.

[Sun Belt]

In the name of a climate action plan, you know what's happening, reduction of car lanes, despite actually having the room for vehicle traffic lanes.

Genius!!! Let's make cars idle longer while we create road diets, that'll cool the Earth. I love the idea. Totally awesome.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mhays

Meanwhile suburbs are often becoming more urban. Functionally the inner city often goes way beyond the city limits, in nodes at least.

Depends on the suburbs. Oak Park, IL may be getting more urban but Kingwood, TX is not getting more urban.

[the urban politician]

Most suburbs aren't getting more urban, probably the opposite really.

The only suburbs that are getting more urban are ones that were built in an urban form to begin with (ie pre-1930) and are simply getting denser, more infill development.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Most suburbs aren't getting more urban, probably the opposite really.

The only suburbs that are getting more urban are ones that were built in an urban form to begin with (ie pre-1930) and are simply getting denser, more infill development.

Aren't most MSA's becoming less dense?

This is America and we have the space and the means to grow, unlike Germany.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by JManc

Depends on the suburbs. Oak Park, IL may be getting more urban but Kingwood, TX is not getting more urban.

A number of metros, including all of the major ones on the West Coast, have legislative limits on sprawl. These augment the topographic limits they also have. The result is land for sprawl is relatively expensive and limited, and there's far more focus on infill.

This can cause an upward spiral. In my area, since 20-somethings tend to prefer urban neighborhoods (if they can afford them) and often don't have cars, their employers put a ton of value on being in districts with decent transit. So for example sprawly office parks are dirt cheap compared to their urban counterparts, despite much higher vacancy rates and almost no construction.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mhays

A number of metros, including all of the major ones on the West Coast, have legislative limits on sprawl. These augment the topographic limits they also have. The result is land for sprawl is relatively expensive and limited, and there's far more focus on infill.

I wish most were like that but fat chance of that happening in a Red state. Your city will eventually become a suburb of my city at the rate we are sprawling...

[dubu]

cities on the west coast can slow down sprawl, it kinda sucked when i lived in the country there was a forest where we would all dirt bike untill one day someone cut down the trees and built a house. but portland has a lot of land that is just waiting for houses to get built on. my sisters back yard might get something built there soon.

[jtown,man]

There is only ONE way I would support an urban growth boundary, and thats if the city does everything possible to encourage building in their cities. Too often governments make arbitrary limits on growth while not letting development in their cities grow at their full potential. Lessening the price to build development will create dense urban environments that could be "affordable" and limit suburban growth. Not doing that raises everyone's prices, doesn't create denser and more urban environments and it also encourages people to "jump" the boundary to escape high prices. It's a no-brainer, but governments(local in this case) usually aren't run by people with grand ideas.

[RCDC]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Aren't most MSA's becoming less dense?

This is America and we have the space and the means to grow, unlike Germany.

That's like saying Brazil has plenty of forest.