Don't Worry! Forbes Is Here To Assure Us That Suburbia Is Safe From "Urban-Living Fundamentalists"

[hatrack]

EDIT

But the bulk of growth will continue to be in the 'burbs. The main reason is simple enough for almost anyone but a planning professor, architect or pundit to comprehend: preference. Virtually every survey reveals that the vast majority of Americans--and around 80% of Californians--prefer single-family homes that generally are affordable only in suburban areas. The fact that jobs have also continued to move inexorably to the periphery--as a newly released bookings report demonstrates to liberal think tanks' own undisguised horror--makes living in the 'burbs even more attractive.

These trends lead developers like Randall Lewis in Upland, Calif., who has suffered the downturn in the Inland Empire, not to dismiss the suburban future. He takes note of a recent 10% to 20% surge in sales among the 18 projects his company is now working on, all in suburban projects in California and neighboring states."The basics of the suburbs are still there," Lewis suggests. "Schools are important, but also people like the sense of place. But the basic amenities are children, grandchildren, where people go to church, where their work networks and friends are."

Ed. - emphasis added

Lewis also rightly adds that a somewhat different suburbia will emerge from the crash. It will be a "melting pot," he suggests, "not just by race, but by ages and lifestyle." You will see more singles, empty-nesters and retirees as people choose to "age in place" close to where they have settled. There likely will be more smaller-lot, townhouse and other mixed-density developments closer to burgeoning suburban job centers.

But even as they change, the allure of suburbs--and the single-family house--will not fade and could even grow as they develop more city-like amenities. The fundamental desire to own a place of your own, to possess some private space and a relatively quiet environment has not died. Nor is it likely to without the imposition of a draconian planning regime. For right now, it's all enough to make George Guerrero a born-again optimist. "There's something healthy just beginning to happen out here," he says. "This time people with good credit are getting good deals at good prices. It's a wonderful thing to see."


EDIT/END

http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/06/suburbs-inner-cities-housing-mortgages-kotkin-opinions-columnists-california.html

Huh. Now, why would Mr. Lewis sound so optimistic? I've got to admit, I'm just stumped. :shrug:

[phantom power]

1. Wow, glad he's got our back.

I live in fear of the Creeping New Urbanism.

[hatrack]

2. Don't we all?

I can't think of anything that horrifies me more than the idea of living within walking distance of a good mid-sized grocery store or farmers' market!!

:scared:

[hunter]

3. The Easter Bunny is coming!

The suburbs are saved!

[XemaSab]

4. I got nothing

:shrug:

[Nihil]

6. Don't worry ...

... neither has he ...
:hug:

[happyslug]

5. He sounds about right for present trends, Long term is a different story

Suburbia is built on cheap gasoline, people will opt for the cheapest home they can buy and commute to work from. Right now, at #2 a gallon gasoline, Suburbs are the place to be. If you can buy a car and the fuel, you can get to work, especially since the 1960s more and more employment opportunities are in the Suburbs NOT the Inner city (again do to easier access if you have a car and can afford fuel).

The big push to inner city urban corps fall into two broad sections, senior citizens who no longer wanted to have to drive everywhere, or Yuppies whose did not have children or sent their children to private schools, and who wanted to live close to their work in the urban core. Both groups have a lot of access to money and could pay top dollar and thus the push for lofts and other inner city housing for both groups.

People who had children (And can NOT afford Private Schools) and could afford to move to the suburbs still make the move for suburban schools are still viewed as being better then inner city schools.

These have been the trend since the 1930s (Picking up steam in the 1950s) and all of it built on access to cheap oil. I have to agree with the writer, I do NOT see a change in the above EXCEPT if and when Gasoline goes back to being over $4.00 a gallon. Now, many people are assuming $4 or more for gasoline when they are looking at a home to buy, but many are not, buying the assumption that last summer price increase was solely do to market manipulation NOT that world wide oil production has peaked and is dropping (Slowly but surely). Now some of the price peaking of oil had to do with people manipulating the system, but such manipulation was do to the fact oil production had slowed down and thus permitted such manipulation then manipulation by and in itself (i.e. the underlying price increase to about $3.00 a gallon was based on peak oil then manipulated up to about $4.11 a Gallon). Basically when oil hit $4 a gallon, world wide trade died, no one could afford such prices for any length of time. This death of trade is why we are in the recession we are in AND why the price of oil is so low.

People who view the price of oil as to low, will base the buying of a home on $4-5 a gallon housing price. Other will ignore oil prices and look at what they can afford TODAY. The later group is the larger group and will set future housing purchasing (at least in the short term, long term high price of gasoline will force everyone to re-think the situation).

One last comment, most local politician get most of their campaign funds from developers. This is why it has been impossible to stop urban sprawl, any effective law would cut into the campaign funds for ALL local politicians, thus no truly effective law will ever pass. Urban Sprawl will die with cheap gasoline and cheap gasoline will also lead to rewrite of how political campaign (Some new way of funding will have to be found).