Many scoff at the idea people would want to abandon suburban life for a more urban setting, but researchers are noticing a trend in just that direction. If these forecasts are true, what will the ramifications be for all those low-density developments on the fringe of town? Here’s an article from Atlantic Monthly that should give city planners and developers something to think about:
Arthur C. Nelson, director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, has looked carefully at trends in American demographics, construction, house prices, and consumer preferences. In 2006, using recent consumer research, housing supply data, and population growth rates, he modeled future demand for various types of housing. The results were bracing: Nelson forecasts a likely surplus of 22 million large-lot homes (houses built on a sixth of an acre or more) by 2025—that’s roughly 40 percent of the large-lot homes in existence today.
For 60 years, Americans have pushed steadily into the suburbs, transforming the landscape and (until recently) leaving cities behind. But today the pendulum is swinging back toward urban living, and there are many reasons to believe this swing will continue. As it does, many low-density suburbs and McMansion subdivisions, including some that are lovely and affluent today, may become what inner cities became in the 1960s and ’70s—slums characterized by poverty, crime, and decay.
Hat tip: Chris Setti
That is an excellent article. This is what I have been thinking for some time.
The one thing I have been really thankful of is living in the central part of town with my wife 10 minutes to work north and I’m 10 to work downtown.
On a normal week I can fill my tank and go a week on it. The cost to living in the suburbs is high for so many reasons and gas prices are just one more thing. People think that they are living “green” by buying a hybrid but they live in a 4-5 bedroom McMansion on a acre lot and have to drive an hour to work and everything else they do. They use a lot more energy, fuel and natural resources than the average person living in town with a short commute. People are starting to get a clue but after a drive out to the Dunlop area you have to wonder when people will get it in the Peoria area. So many are out to impress with their big new house but they can’t afford their mortgage let alone have the money to furnish it or maintain it properly.
Peoriafan –
But there is a trade-off. I live close to work and just about anything I need, so I don’t burn a lot of gasoline getting to work, etc. However, my 80+ year old East Buff home is very drafty and my Ameren bills are probably 2-3 times of what a well insulated new “McMansion”. A couple more grand in new windows and upper 4 figures to have insulation blown into the walls and that may change…but until then….
The lots are so small in the newer subdivisions. I think people would like them to be larger, but who can afford to buy two lots? I would like a big back yard and side yard and not to be able to look out a window and see directly in a neighbor’s home. That’s too close.
…and the lots are not small in most of Peoria, especially the areas in which CJ and the other Peoria-centric bloggers seem to post so admirably about?
You either live in the city with squat for a lot or move outside the city and get an acre+.
I am happy to be one of those outside the city paying less in taxes than those that choose to live inside it.
Our lot is plenty big enough for us. You may pay less in taxes but you pay in other ways. What does it cost to maintain the acre+? Don’t you pay real estate taxes on the acres?
That’s nice you choose to live outside the city but you are part of a growing problem. Besides, if everyone keeps moving out then you will be right in the middle of what you are trying to get away from. Read that article and get a clue.
Chef Kevin,
You must admit though that even after spending money on those improvements you will still be way ahead of those that spent a quarter of million on a house the same size that is made of sticks.