NY Times: Is suburban sprawl on its way back?

[JNA]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/su...dayspaper&_r=0

The price of sprawl has become been increasingly undeniable. Moderate-income families have seen their transportation costs balloon to more than a quarter of their income. Cities have discovered that low-density developments fail to pay for their own infrastructure. More recently, a new study of economic mobility suggested that sprawl, and its accompanying lack of transportation options, prevented access to higher paying jobs.

Is it really ?
What are the factors ?

[ColoGI]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/su...dayspaper&_r=0



Is it really ?
What are the factors ?

I think there are plenty of notsmart/lazy developers out there who are completely content to slap up the same subdivisions they have been for the past 20-25 years. As long as the city will permit them, why change?

[hilldweller]

I thought the suburbs were becoming obsolete?

[docwatson]

I think we still, as planners, need to distinguish between suburbs/suburban development and "sprawl" - which has specific attributes, density being only one of them. There are a few good articles I've read on the topic. A growing region will no doubt need more housing of all types, including single-family housing. And, absent strong growth controls that distort the market (either through large minimum lot sizes on one extreme, to anti-growth policies on the other), developers will provide this and perhaps more. I am still a little disappointed when I hear fellow planners refer to anything that is not infill as "sprawl" or question whether a fulfilling life can be had in anything other than a North American bungalow. IMO, the goal of growth management is to accommodate and direct growth - not skew the market away from (or towards) a particular housing choice. I think of the kinds of analysis that are required by the Oregon and Washington growth management acts accomplish this by requiring land for a full spectrum of housing choices based on expected population growth. So, the question, I think, is not will single-family development and suburban development come back - IMO that should be self-evident as both the US and Canada will be adding tens of millions of people in coming years. I think the question should be, what is the quality of new development on a number of attributes - including connectivity/walkability, diversity of housing choice, size of lots, mix of uses, access to amenities, and support for transit? And, is it balanced with healthy infill development?

I know projections done by Calthorpe, for example, show that the downsizing of baby boomers and changing preferences mean we have too many large-lot homes already - but these same projections show a need for small-lot homes. Given that infill is mostly multi-family, I think this points to more suburban development. I have also always wanted to see what the assumptions are on downsizing that drive these stats - I see many people choosing to remain in their homes, rather than downsize to a condominium ...

I agree with Smart Growth America's Geoff Anderson to a point (quoted in the article as saying there is a market for sprawl and a market for smart growth) ... but wonder if we can avoid the worst excesses of sprawl while providing a range of housing choices ...

[PennPlanner]

These developers are very sensitive to the market and they build what the market wants.

People are not in business to go out of business. It's simple as that.

I think there are plenty of notsmart/lazy developers out there who are completely content to slap up the same subdivisions they have been for the past 20-25 years. As long as the city will permit them, why change?

Since it's the great and mighty and know it all NYTimes, let's offer the other extreme end of the spectrum.

Let's say you're a low income worker who has a decent apartment in the Bronx.

A better job comes up in Queens.

Oh. That's a pretty damn long and expensive commute too.

And all in a very high density urban area.

I'm not unsympathetic to the plights of sprawl. Not at all. But life is always about making choices within the context you find yourself in.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/su...dayspaper&_r=0



Is it really ?
What are the factors ?

[rcgplanner]

I think the sprawling suburbs of the 1980's and 1990's, where someone gets up at 6:00 am and drives 60-90 minutes to their job downtown, are a relic of the past. This is not to say that there still won't be a segement of our population that does that, but the idea of having to commute to the central city for work is no longer the case for many people. Many suburban communities are becoming more than just bedrooms and shopping, more jobs are being relocated to these communities.

A great example is ExxonMobil's new corporate campus. Exxon is moving many of their white-collar jobs to a massive 10,000 job corporate campus in The Woodlands, a far-flung suburb 30 miles from downtown Houston. 8,000 Houston-area workers will be relocated to The Woodlands, and many of those workers will move to The Woodlands to be closer to their office, because The Woodlands offers many of the suburban amenties that familes are looking for. Changing demographics also means that the demand for typical large-lot suburban subdivisions will decrease. More and more young people are deciding that having kids is something they don't want, nearly 20% of women now end their child-bearing years childless, which means less need for the big suburban house. There will always be some demand for the suburban development of the past, but the movement of jobs, demographic changes, and the still raw memories of the recession will temper some of those demands, and I think we will see many suburban communites further urbanize and reinvent themselves.

[ColoGI]

These developers are very sensitive to the market and they build what the market wants.

People are not in business to go out of business. It's simple as that.

Are you asserting The Market^TM would choose the same house farther from work than closer to work, all things being equal?!?!?

[nrschmid]

I think the sprawling suburbs of the 1980's and 1990's, where someone gets up at 6:00 am and drives 60-90 minutes to their job downtown, are a relic of the past. This is not to say that there still won't be a segement of our population that does that, but the idea of having to commute to the central city for work is no longer the case for many people. Many suburban communities are becoming more than just bedrooms and shopping, more jobs are being relocated to these communities.

A great example is ExxonMobil's new corporate campus. Exxon is moving many of their white-collar jobs to a massive 10,000 job corporate campus in The Woodlands, a far-flung suburb 30 miles from downtown Houston. 8,000 Houston-area workers will be relocated to The Woodlands, and many of those workers will move to The Woodlands to be closer to their office, because The Woodlands offers many of the suburban amenties that familes are looking for. Changing demographics also means that the demand for typical large-lot suburban subdivisions will decrease. More and more young people are deciding that having kids is something they don't want, nearly 20% of women now end their child-bearing years childless, which means less need for the big suburban house. There will always be some demand for the suburban development of the past, but the movement of jobs, demographic changes, and the still raw memories of the recession will temper some of those demands, and I think we will see many suburban communites further urbanize and reinvent themselves.

I read the NYT article and kicked back and read this thread. As a designer who is creating these subdivisions and master planned communities in Houston (but also in other states) here is my two cents:

1. People want certain types of houses. Some people want to live in a micro apartment in Seattle, some people want a city lot in Philadelphia, some people want a "smaller" 4,000 SF building pad. The market dictates the types of houses. Does this equate to sprawl? Absolutely. However, it is what the market dictates. I design some products that have 100' building pad widths, with only 5' side yard setbacks, and a 10' rear yard. They are huge houses with no yards, and they are selling like hotcakes. I design town homes as narrow as 20' in width, and other town homes are 4,000-5,000 SF in size with shared walls.
2. The Woodlands is a town center concept with a township government, and is not a suburb. Approximately 8,000 workers will be relocating to the Houston metro area. I don't think the Woodlands itself has enough size to accommodate THAT many workers. However, I am designing tracts within a 25 mile radius of Exxon Mobil on tracts ranging from 300-1,000 acres. I am a native Chicagoan and grew up with mass transit and commuter rails. Houston has a LONG way to go before buying into mass transit and alternate forms of transit.
3. Mass transit is not as easy as moving around land uses on a comprehensive plan. The chances of building a mixed use retail-residential structure is much greater than actually laying out a few miles of track. There are far too many hoops to go through at the local, state, regional, and federal levels to approve mass transit today, yet so many long range and conceptual plans draw rail as if it were going to be laid out tomorrow.
4. The City of Houston development code, which doesn't include zoning, has different development regulations determined by interstate expressways as boundaries. Urban development regulations occur within the Loop (610) and suburban development regulations occur outside of that area. This has recently been changed to include urban development regulations up to the Sam Houston Beltway (8). A good chunk of the current development occurs within Houston's ETJ and is subject to suburban development regulations. Therefore, there are few if any opportunities to have higher density growth in the outlying areas. Exxon Mobil is being built in Spring TX, and is census designated place to the north of Houston's ETJ. There is a lot of development occurring to the north of there in Montgomery County, which I am designing. However, there are developments further to the west on the other side of the metro area that will house workers for this corporate campus. I don't think the corporate campus is going to drastically change the subdivision designs in Houston's that much. We just keep on building further out.
5. I can't speak for other designers/developers, but I am making a point of including more open space and trails in my subdivision designs and master plans. Some developers want this and others want to maximize the number of lots on tracts.

[hilldweller]

Are you asserting The Market^TM would choose the same house farther from work than closer to work, all things being equal?!?!?

Rarely is the situation "all things being equal", so that's a bit of a red herring. There are too many variables to consider when it comes to lifestyle choices. I don't think planners know the market (in terms of housing demand) any better than developers. Developers are at least motivated by profit, whereas planners often have an agenda which may not line up with reality (see "smart growth").

[rcgplanner]

I read the NYT article and kicked back and read this thread. As a designer who is creating these subdivisions and master planned communities in Houston (but also in other states) here is my two cents:

1. People want certain types of houses. Some people want to live in a micro apartment in Seattle, some people want a city lot in Philadelphia, some people want a "smaller" 4,000 SF building pad. The market dictates the types of houses. Does this equate to sprawl? Absolutely. However, it is what the market dictates. I design some products that have 100' building pad widths, with only 5' side yard setbacks, and a 10' rear yard. They are huge houses with no yards, and they are selling like hotcakes. I design town homes as narrow as 20' in width, and other town homes are 4,000-5,000 SF in size with shared walls.
2. The Woodlands is a town center concept with a township government, and is not a suburb. Approximately 8,000 workers will be relocating to the Houston metro area. I don't think the Woodlands itself has enough size to accommodate THAT many workers. However, I am designing tracts within a 25 mile radius of Exxon Mobil on tracts ranging from 300-1,000 acres. I am a native Chicagoan and grew up with mass transit and commuter rails. Houston has a LONG way to go before buying into mass transit and alternate forms of transit.
3. Mass transit is not as easy as moving around land uses on a comprehensive plan. The chances of building a mixed use retail-residential structure is much greater than actually laying out a few miles of track. There are far too many hoops to go through at the local, state, regional, and federal levels to approve mass transit today, yet so many long range and conceptual plans draw rail as if it were going to be laid out tomorrow.
4. The City of Houston development code, which doesn't include zoning, has different development regulations determined by interstate expressways as boundaries. Urban development regulations occur within the Loop (610) and suburban development regulations occur outside of that area. This has recently been changed to include urban development regulations up to the Sam Houston Beltway (8). A good chunk of the current development occurs within Houston's ETJ and is subject to suburban development regulations. Therefore, there are few if any opportunities to have higher density growth in the outlying areas. Exxon Mobil is being built in Spring TX, and is census designated place to the north of Houston's ETJ. There is a lot of development occurring to the north of there in Montgomery County, which I am designing. However, there are developments further to the west on the other side of the metro area that will house workers for this corporate campus. I don't think the corporate campus is going to drastically change the subdivision designs in Houston's that much. We just keep on building further out.
5. I can't speak for other designers/developers, but I am making a point of including more open space and trails in my subdivision designs and master plans. Some developers want this and others want to maximize the number of lots on tracts.

Wonderful analysis nrschmid. I agree The Woodlands can't handle another 8,000 families, but places like Spring, Humble, Kingwood, and even north to Conroe will handle some of the new families. The Woodlands isn't an incorporated place, but has the same characteristics as a suburb, with a large percentage of their population making the 60-90 minute commute south on I-45 and the Hardy Toll Road everyday. When I lived in the Houston area, every time I went to The Woodlands I was always surprised how far it was from Houston, it is nearly 20 miles outside of the Beltway. I am surprised that Exxon is moving from the Energy Corridor and downtown, but the planner in me is happy to see them consolidating space. For all of the flack that Houston gets for not having zoning, the city is very dense in places, especially inside the Loop, and there is a lot of good development happening in the city. There is still a large percentage of the population in Houston who don't even balk about an hour plus commute from Katy, Sugar Land, Clear Lake or The Woodlands, but from attending many of the visioning meetings from HGAC's Sustainability Plan, a growing portion of the population wants better transit options, trails and open space, bicycle accommodations. Houston is a fascinating place from the planning perspective.

[PennPlanner]

All things being equal is a red herring as it's rarely, if ever, equal.

Given the context of the housing market and sprawl the market is driven by people looking for a balance between distance to work versus affordability of housing, quality of housing and quality of schools. For them the best balance is found in exurbia. Not everyone can afford the hip urban areas or close in suburbs, or the schools aren't good (so many of the thriving urban neighborhoods have terrible public schools). And of course affordability is the big factor. A high percentage of the 60-90 minute commutes are found in the expensive metro areas such as DC or New York or the California cities. In the context of Washington it's almost impossible to find a decent family house for under 500K with decent to good schools inside the beltway or even within a five or so miles radius of the beltway. And 500K is way out of the budget for most people.

The situation facing people isn't so much spending 1MM on a large house in exurbia versus 1MM on a large house in a closer in suburb or urban neighborhood when the office is closer to the latter, but spending 250K on a cramped condo or a cramped 1950s rancher in a shabby first ring suburb versus a larger single family house in a new area with higher scoring schools...

Then there's the nature of the job market. Private sector employees move around constantly. Working for the same company for 20, 30 or 40 years is increasingly rare. Are you going to move house every time you move jobs? Or in these days of dual income families the two jobs can be in very different areas.

Are you asserting The Market^TM would choose the same house farther from work than closer to work, all things being equal?!?!?

[nrschmid]

You can spend upwards of 90 minutes one way on the Metra from Chicago to some exurb. You can spend upwards of 60 minutes stopping every 2 blocks on the CTA Red Line from the Loop to Evanston, and that's only if the train crews aren't fixing 100 year old tracks with Elmer's glue, otherwise it can be over 90 minutes. All interstates converge in downtown. If I am living in the suburbs and I want to visit friends who live on the north side, I have to spend close to an hour from when I get off the interstate, driving 5 mph behind a bus that stops every 2 blocks, and then a stop sign every 4 blocks, then a stop light every 4-8 blocks. Then I have to find metered parking. When you add the time it takes me to even get to the interstate exit from the suburbs (at least 30-45 minutes depending on where I am coming) you are looking at easily 60-75 minutes, and that's not including rush hour.

True, Houston is spread out, but we have a hub and spoke system with interstates with 14-18 lanes (if you include frontage roads). We get bottlenecks and traffic jams like any other city, and yes, people drive 20-30 miles to and from work.

[PennPlanner]

Yeah.

Plus there's the psychological difference between being stuck in stop-go traffic for 45 minutes over 10 miles to get to the office/home, versus smooth sailing for 60+ minutes over 40 miles.

You can spend upwards of 90 minutes one way on the Metra from Chicago to some exurb. You can spend upwards of 60 minutes stopping every 2 blocks on the CTA Red Line from the Loop to Evanston, and that's only if the train crews aren't fixing 100 year old tracks with Elmer's glue, otherwise it can be over 90 minutes. All interstates converge in downtown. If I am living in the suburbs and I want to visit friends who live on the north side, I have to spend close to an hour from when I get off the interstate, driving 5 mph behind a bus that stops every 2 blocks, and then a stop sign every 4 blocks, then a stop light every 4-8 blocks. Then I have to find metered parking. When you add the time it takes me to even get to the interstate exit from the suburbs (at least 30-45 minutes depending on where I am coming) you are looking at easily 60-75 minutes, and that's not including rush hour.

True, Houston is spread out, but we have a hub and spoke system with interstates with 14-18 lanes (if you include frontage roads). We get bottlenecks and traffic jams like any other city, and yes, people drive 20-30 miles to and from work.

[hilldweller]

Yeah.

Plus there's the psychological difference between being stuck in stop-go traffic for 45 minutes over 10 miles to get to the office/home, versus smooth sailing for 60+ minutes over 40 miles.

Government planners really idealize the congested scenario though, don't they?

[rcgplanner]

I agree that living the urban or inner-ring suburb life is not for everyone and is full of its own problems. There is a concern when people have to commute 40-50 miles round trip a day to work and have no other choice but have to use personal vehicles. Major spikes in energy prices have a greater effect on someone who is driving 250-300 miles a week for work, versus someone who is only driving 50-100 miles a week. Several of the post-mortums I have read of the economic downturn shows that one of the aggravating factors of the housing collapse was when fuel prices spiked in 2008. For many families that was the straw that broke the camel's back. These families were already stretched thin, adding an additional couple hundred dollars a month in commuting costs caused them to stretch too much. Now of course other factors were far greater reasons for the economic downturn, but the economic downturn hurt the suburbs the worst.

Both professionally and personally, I think sprawl is something that should be avoided. I am glad to see that many suburban communities are urbanizing and becoming more dense in parts and that alternative transportation options are at least being considered. Will we go back to sprawling subdivisions in farm fields far flung from the central city? I think those developments will continue to occur, as there is a segement of the population that want the large home on a 1/2 acre lot, but I think they will not be as prevalant as before the recession. Changing demographics and economic realities will make those development less interesting to people.

[ColoGI]

All things being equal is a red herring as it's rarely, if ever, equal.

Given the context of the housing market and sprawl the market is driven by people looking for a balance between distance to work versus affordability of housing, quality of housing and quality of schools. For them the best balance is found in exurbia. Not everyone can afford the hip urban areas or close in suburbs, or the schools aren't good (...

I'm merely taking exception with your (IMHO) incorrect assertion that builders build to what the market wants. And the incorrect assertion that there is a "balance" in exurbia. We're way out here in some cr@ptacular McSuburb not because of "balance", but because its what we can afford. We don't feel "balanced" out here in the cr@ptacular McSuburb, we feel "afforded". And surely had these developers build a more attractive home we would be living in it. There was no "Market^TM driven design" out here. They built what they could get away with and thought would sell to these people out here - that they are agitating City Council to loosen building restrictions to slap up cheaper cr@ptacular houses is a big clue. /rant :o\

[PennPlanner]

Builders don't build what the market wants?

Hmm. Ok. There's a bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale. You interested?

Man, I can just hear all the conversations among prospective buyers viewing model homes in exurbia.

Wife: "My god, this house is so ugly."

Husband: "Yeah. And way too big for us. Look at that enormous family room and kitchen."

Wife: "First floor master suite. I mean, who really wants a first floor master suite. Huge yard too. I don't want to be spending all my time taking care of it."

Husband: "Honesty, this is totally the wrong house for us. We work 150 miles away from here."

Wife: "And so badly built too. This place will just crumble in a few years."

Agent: "So what do you think of the house?"

Couple: "We'll take it."



Your "afforded" is the balance I referred too.

It may shock you to realize that people willingly chose to move to exurbia. And it was all done out of free will, not at gunpoint. There's no cabal of developers and highway engineers working hand in hand to hoodwink the great American public. We all make choices about where to live based on a balance of what we can afford and our priorities. If I had my way I'd be living in a custom designed house on the water in Nantucket. But that's not happening and for many people the houses of exurbia suits their needs, regardless of what you think of their architectural values. You may not like these houses (and I don't for the most part either) but people bought them. People queued up to buy them during the boom. That's market driven.

I'm merely taking exception with your (IMHO) incorrect assertion that builders build to what the market wants. And the incorrect assertion that there is a "balance" in exurbia. We're way out here in some cr@ptacular McSuburb not because of "balance", but because its what we can afford. We don't feel "balanced" out here in the cr@ptacular McSuburb, we feel "afforded". And surely had these developers build a more attractive home we would be living in it. There was no "Market^TM driven design" out here. They built what they could get away with and thought would sell to these people out here - that they are agitating City Council to loosen building restrictions to slap up cheaper cr@ptacular houses is a big clue. /rant :o\