Other than a few metropolitan areas, such as Washington, D.C. or New York City, where unemployment doesn’t seem to be as big an issue as it is in the remainder of the county, there remains a huge housing inventory. With absorption (demand) running about one third of its norm, and the recovery limping slowly along, it will be awhile before that inventory is sufficiently reduced to justify significant new residential development.
When that time comes, however, where will new development and redevelopment occur? The pundits want us to believe that it will take place in the urban core, not in greenfields or suburban areas. Are they right, or is there something wrong with their logic? I believe it’s the latter. Let me explain my heretical view.
· Major metropolitan areas have a distinct, 24/7 “downtown” or urban core. Most other cities and towns, including those with public transit systems, don’t have this type of 24/7 destination center with strong employment opportunities, shopping, and entertainment facilities.
· Humans are not lab mice. We’re like the grains of sand on a beach; no two are exactly the same. You can’t generalize about the behavior of individuals.
o Not all retiring Baby Boomers want to sell the house and cars, move to a high rise downtown, and resort to walking or riding a bike everywhere.
o Not all members of Gen-Y, or Millennials, want to live, work, and play in the same place twenty-four hours a day. Once members of their generation begin having children, many of them will want to move to places where they will have some space around them and less 24/7 activities which aren’t necessarily positive for the wellbeing of the kids.
· Much of the impetus for pushing everyone into residing in the urban core comes from misguided environmentalists who think getting people out of automobiles will save the planet, as well as urban planners who have been brainwashed by the current popular rhetoric. It’s the path of least resistance. It’s also wishful thinking, and it’s very shortsighted.
· It’s also very much about the benjamins. No, not that nice family down the street; the Founding Father whose face adorns the hundred-dollar bill. In other words, money. Compact urban development means putting more in less area. It means, in a phrase, greater density. We’re not talking about public housing. At the end of the day, the development has to prove profitable. The cost of land typically is higher in the urban core. Also, there are the costs of retrofitting frequently inadequate or outdated infrastructure, construction staging in an area that already is developed, and numerous other added expenses. Profitability in this type of milieu requires greater density; sometimes much greater density, and that often is very unpopular.
· Even when public sector planners, appointed planning commission members, and elected officials understand the requirement for greater density, they are aware that the electorate often doesn’t get it. And the public sector necessarily is very sensitive and responsive to the wishes of the electorate regardless whether voters are well informed and can connect the dots between the more efficient use of land which leads to fewer issues relating to sprawl and the resulting need for higher density.
Consequently, I believe it’s clear that demand for suburban and exurban living will remain a viable part of residential development in future.
No comments:
Post a Comment