The Death of the Fringe Suburb

[Mulligan]

To me, it seems like many who responded to this thread disagree with the conclusions of the article and the "two full books devoted to the trend". That's all. Although somewhere on the big wide world of the internet there are undubitably some other articles and "full books" disputing the trend or reasons implied for such a trend, nobody posted links to them. Instead, most people tend to simply post their own personal observations that differ when discussing an article they don't agree with. Just a fact of life on message boards, I guess.

If all real estate is local, as is often said, then I suppose it is inevitable that choice of home location would respond at least locally and temporarily (if not in a broader sense) to simultaneously rising gas prices and sinking home prices. However, the directions in which these two are changing could easily reverse, possibly (though not necessarily) reversing the trend or rate of change affecting the trend as well.

Your correct W2R. My perspective is based on my area I live in. And in the STL area, it is still following the classic model. The city proper is still losing people, the county surrounding it that had been absorbing the out-flight is now starting to lose people, and the recipients are outlaying areas.

St. Louis was the nation's eighth-largest city with a population of 856,795 in 1950. Now, for a couple of decades, it hasn't even been Missouri's largest city. Kansas City's population grew to 460,000 in the latest census, widening the gap over St. Louis, though the St. Louis metro area remains significantly larger.
Since the mid-20th century, the exodus of St. Louis residents to the suburbs has been startling. And people keep moving farther away from the urban core. St. Louis County lost population in 2010 for the first time, down 1.7 percent to 998,954 in 2010, as residents relocate to communities like St. Charles, O'Fallon, Wentzville and Troy.
"This is a time for an urgent rethinking of how we do everything as a region," Slay said. "If this doesn't jump-start a discussion about the city re-entering the county and how we start thinking more as a region, nothing will."
St. Louis is unique in that it is its own county. St. Louis city and St. Louis County are completely separate entities. Slay said that leads to redundancies of service that are unnecessary.

 

[samclem]

Although somewhere on the big wide world of the internet there are undubitably some other articles and "full books" disputing the trend or reasons implied for such a trend, nobody posted links to them.

Okay.

From a global perspective: Urban Legends: Why Suburbs, Not Dense Cities, are the Future Synopsis: Does not refute that megacities are growing, but does show that this may not be a favorable development and may not represent the druthers of the populace. When they get money, they leave as soon as practical.

U.S.-centric: The Future of Suburbs: Suburbs are the Future. The article mentions the present facts (population growth is occurring primarily in suburbs, not in cities) and that modifications of present suburbs ("smart sprawl") can allow them to adapt to new demands:

Repeat after me again: “mixed-use.” OK? I’m not talking about New Urbanism or smart growth, which are concepts whose utility and desirability are debatable. I’m talking about the availability, in a suburban setting, to access services and amenities, or what Wally Siembab calls “smart sprawl” – retrofitting suburbs of any density so that residents can shop, obtain services and work all within a mile or two of their home.

Also mentions how long people have been predicting the end of suburbs.

I recently saw a good article about re-use of large shopping malls out in the 'burbs. It turns out they make good locations for businesses that need a lot of cubicle space (and adequate parking). And employees can buy homes closer to work than if the business was in the city center. Mixed-use.

 

[W2R]

Thanks, guys. Also let me try again to respond to Midpack's original post in a way that might be more what he had hoped to read:

I just read a blog that referred to this NYT Op-Ed from a few months ago. We're in a fringe neighborhood IMO and I'm a little nervous about resale longer term. I believe there's a good chance this trend will continue and plan to buy our next home in a walkable, urban area or equivalent - in or near a large metro area with good prospects.

I've also read two convincing books on the topic, The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050 and The Great Reset.

Even if we're wrong, hedging in this direction holds little if any downside for us. Time will tell...


[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/26/opinion/the-death-of-the-fringe-suburb.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print[/URL]

I do not think the article's conclusions necessarily will be reflected in any one particular location, such as your fringe neighborhood. My explanation is that I believe the common notion that all real estate is local. Therefore, I think it would be foolish to let this article influence your decision of whether or not to buy your next home in or near a large metro area.

1. The article could be wrong. Or, it could be right. Who knows? It's not based on the laws of physics and there is always some degree of probability that any article like this could be wrong.

2. Even if it isn't wrong in general, it could be 180 off in any given location. All real estate is local.

3. You are 100% right that even if the article is wrong, there is little downside to you, assuming that you really want to live in an urban walkable neighborhood anyway. The important factor in such a decision, IMO, is knowing exactly what you want and going for it. I think living in an urban walkable neighborhood sounds like fun and wish you the best of luck.

 

[Bestwifeever]

I don't see anything wrong with adding a little grain of salt to thought-provoking threads. I do doubt that the typical fringe-living boomer is going to want to sell to go live downtown. I don't think the gentrification that took place in the three city neighborhoods in the article was pushed by retirees.

 

[haha]

I don't see anything wrong with adding a little grain of salt to thought-provoking threads. I do doubt that the typical fringe-living boomer is going to want to sell to go live downtown. I don't think the gentrification that took place in the three city neighborhoods in the article was pushed by retirees.

I believe that gentrification is always or almost always pushed by young, mostly single people. They are not so fearful, or set in their ways, and are often looking for lively urban type amenities.

That being said, once the neighborhood gets up and running and looks safe, there are plenty middle aged people in the restaurants, though never a majority. If boomers became a large group, younger people would find someplace else to go.

Ha

 

[Lsbcal]

I believe that gentrification is always or almost always pushed by young, mostly single people. They are not so fearful, or set in their ways, and are often looking for lively urban type amenities.
...(snip)...

Probably you are right about single people in the forefront on this. I'd question the "whys" that you mentioned and hope we could put it more positively regarding the middle aged and older crowd.

The young singles are often there because they can live near their jobs and maybe transportation is then cheaper. They need the night life because they're into the mating game -- nothing wrong with that, just a fact of life. These are just my theories and I'll defer to others on this as I've no experience except watching young singles in SF restaurants we occasionally visit -- from our edge of the suburb home. I sometimes wonder how I'd do things if I was young again.

 

[treypar]

I live in a semi urban neighrborhood with older homes but do not see any benefits in housing appreciation. I can walk to restaurants, shopping, and a transit station. I think that our city is just auto oriented and people don't mind driving 30 miles more for a new home in the fringe despite the traffic. I expect that this will change at some point.

 

[ziggy29]

There are actually two different forces at work that exert conflicting pressures on these "fringe" suburbs: the obvious one is that increased highway congestion and higher gas prices will make them less attractive to commuters and thus are likely to be left in favor of something "closer to work", maybe even close enough to not need to own a car.

But with technology enabling more and more people to work at home -- many people, myself included, need only a telephone, a computer and a broadband internet connection -- it will be easier to live in a place that far enough away from the masses, noise and congestion of the city, but close enough for the occasional trip for the educational, cultural and retail options that can be found in (and close to) the cities.

As recently as 10-15 years ago there was no way I could get paid to do what I do in a town of 3,500 people which is more than an hour away from "the city" and the physical location of all the technical jobs -- unless I wanted to do the 80-minute commute (each way) to our Austin office every day. But now it's a reality and my "commute" is from the bedroom to the kitchen to grab breakfast and coffee, and then to the other bedroom which doubles as my office. As that becomes possible for more people, I don't think they're as likely to want to live in the city, and maybe not even the near suburbs.

 

[Ally]

I think we will stay in our home in our community of 200,000 for a few years. Our mortgage is paid, the medical community is great, and there's lots to do. At some point, we will probably move closer to our daughter's family, depending where they live at the time. We have no desire to live in a larger city and have traffic, etc.

 

[Independent]

I live in what is generally considered to be Seattle's most walkable community, but there are quite a few others very similar. I find your assertion to be doubtful at least with respect to this community, with regard to any of the needs you mention. Within 1/2 mile I have 3 Roman Catholic churches, 2 Greek Orthodox, one synagogue, and 10 or 12 Protestant churches. In this same area are 6 supermarkets or specialty stores like Trader Joe. There are 5 large general hospitals, also maybe half the clinics in Seattle. Although various upzoning propositions are often being discussed, few happen. In a very small area near the most urban part (where the hospitals are) new buildings can be 18 or so storeys, on major arterials 6 max, and on most arterials and certain side streets 3 max. There are also many elegant older SFH, and a few modern, expensive SFH. These as might be expected cost $1mm and well up from there. Lots of newer Town Homes, some with architectural interest, and some ugly. There are trees and attractive landscaping everywhere. There are at least 5 parks in this area, some quite large, and much larger non- urban areas and a nice beach within an easy 1-2.5 mile bus ride. The area mostly appeals to younger people, so there are probably 15 upscale mini-gyms, 10 yoga studios, including some "hot yoga", ~100 restaurants many with sidewalk seating, and another ~100 bars and nightclubs, catering to the finest slice and dice of interests and orientation that I could ever imagine, and never would have imagined before moving here.

There is a major university with ~20,000 students 4 blocks away, and another community college of the same or larger size about 7 blocks. Also within 4 blocks are 4 or 5 private middle schools and high schools so the neighborhood does not seem like an adults only zone.

The most elegant older residential streets have the biggest trees, as they have been in place the longest. But these same areas are hard on walkers or drivers, as the city cannot keep up with the damage the large tree roots do to sidewalks and streets.

There is however only one hardware store, but it is an old fashioned place with well informed clerks. Still, to compare to the suburbs, I can catch a bus 7 blocks away and with no transfers be at Lowe's within 15'.

I can walk to downtown easily enough, but if it is raining or I am in a hurry, I have any of 4 buses within 5 blocks to take to various areas downtown in less than 15' in heaviest traffic, and another bus 7 blocks away to take me to the University District or Ballard, both great walking destinations.

Parking is at a premium as might be expected.

If one can pay much more, he can get almost the same amenities and friendlier street manners. This is fairly urban, and compared to my last neighborhood only 1/2 mile away but much more upscale, this has a colder big city feel on the street.

In summary, everyone has differing needs, but with a moderate budget and some flexibility wrt to renting or downsizing space and parking needs, this is hard to imagine being inadequate for those benighted, confused few who imagine that they might like urban living.

Ha

Sounds great. Seattle is high on my list of want-to-visit cities.
Any idea of "newer townhouse" prices?
Do you have a recommended hotel in the area?

 

[Katsmeow]

FWIW, this thread wasn't about personal preferences. Nor was it an attempt to tell anyone what to think, that's up to the reader as always.

It's just one of those enduring things...what people want to talk about may not be what the OP wanted to talk about. Sometimes, as the OP, I wish it wasn't that way...but that is just how it is. FWIW, people in this thread sometimes wanted to talk about personal preference.

AS far as the larger issue, I think it depends a lot on local conditions and stage of life.

 

[Midpack]

There are actually two different forces at work that exert conflicting pressures on these "fringe" suburbs: the obvious one is that increased highway congestion and higher gas prices will make them less attractive to commuters and thus are likely to be left in favor of something "closer to work", maybe even close enough to not need to own a car.

But with technology enabling more and more people to work at home -- many people, myself included, need only a telephone, a computer and a broadband internet connection -- it will be easier to live in a place that far enough away from the masses, noise and congestion of the city, but close enough for the occasional trip for the educational, cultural and retail options that can be found in (and close to) the cities.

As recently as 10-15 years ago there was no way I could get paid to do what I do in a town of 3,500 people which is more than an hour away from "the city" and the physical location of all the technical jobs -- unless I wanted to do the 80-minute commute (each way) to our Austin office every day. But now it's a reality and my "commute" is from the bedroom to the kitchen to grab breakfast and coffee, and then to the other bedroom which doubles as my office. As that becomes possible for more people, I don't think they're as likely to want to live in the city, and maybe not even the near suburbs.

Very good point WRT the influence of work/commuting on the issue/trend, thanks.

 

[W2R]

Very good point WRT the influence of work/commuting on the issue/trend, thanks.

According to this article,

Work Shifting - How Many People Actually Telecommute?

I lean toward Census data. They ask employed workers where their principal place of work was during the survey week. Granted, some may have had an unusual week, but the numbers for 2008 show that 5.9 million called home their principal place of work. Of those, 3.1 million were home based businesses. That means that only 2.5 million employees, 1.9% of the working population, worked at home most of the time.

I wonder if these numbers are big enough in a country with population of 313 million to make a trend, even if we assume these four year old statistics are now, say, double what they were four years ago.

 

[Iowaboy1]

……….Frankly, my impression of a 55+ community is that it will be quiet -- which is a reason I'm likely to look into those at some point after I reach the age where age discrimination in housing becomes legal.

As you age your hearing may decline and that may make quietness less important

 

[Katsmeow]

According to this article,

Work Shifting - How Many People Actually Telecommute?



I wonder if these numbers are big enough in a country with population of 313 million to make a trend, even if we assume these four year old statistics are now, say, double what they were four years ago.

My guess is that they have increased quite a bit. I also wonder what they mean by working at home "most of the time." I know people who work at home a lot but still go into the office or an office some period of time. I personally do a significant part of my part-time work from home but I'm not sure if it would be considered "most." I have also known people who work at home 3 weeks of the month and then go into the office (even in another state) for 1 week or so.

 

[W2R]

My guess is that they have increased quite a bit.

Even if they doubled in less than four years, the numbers telecommuting most of the time still is a miniscule fraction of the total working population.

]I also wonder what they mean by working at home "most of the time." I know people who work at home a lot but still go into the office or an office some period of time. I personally do a significant part of my part-time work from home but I'm not sure if it would be considered "most." I have also known people who work at home 3 weeks of the month and then go into the office (even in another state) for 1 week or so.

Call me weird, but if I was working I'd choose my house location based on wherever I was working "most of the time" (the majority of the time), not where I was working once in a while.

 

[samclem]

I recommend we settle on mutually consistent causes for the demise of the suburbs. If the high cost of gas is going to doom them because few people will be able to afford to drive, we should probably avoid saying that traffic congestion will be the cause of their death.

"Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded"
-- Attributed to Yogi Berra

 

[Katsmeow]

Call me weird, but if I was working I'd choose my house location based on wherever I was working "most of the time" (the majority of the time), not where I was working once in a while.

Well, I don't know. I mean if you could choose the "most of the time" would you choose one that was a long way from where you worked part of the time?

At our old house, there was a couple who moved to the area recently and they both work for Google. They work at home (in Texas) I think 3 weeks out of the month and then go to California for one week. Then, at our current house, there is a neighbor who is here for several weeks but apparently commutes for some period of time to Alaska (I don't know the details for how long they spend here versus Alaska).

I guess this works for both of these but I personally wouldn't really like having to regularly fly like that.

 

[W2R]

I guess this works for both of these but I personally wouldn't really like having to regularly fly like that.

Oh, I'm sorry!!! Misunderstood. I thought we were talking about people who (like Ziggy29 apparently) are content in the fringe suburbs surrounding a city, rather than downtown in that city, because they only needed to go in occasionally if at all. Different situation, I agree..

 

[ziggy29]

I wonder if these numbers are big enough in a country with population of 313 million to make a trend, even if we assume these four year old statistics are now, say, double what they were four years ago.

IMO, not quite yet -- I suspect the pull of high gas prices and worsening traffic will, for at least some time, more than offset the increase in people who no longer have to commute into the city. But at some point it would not surprise me if they reached an equilibrium, and perhaps within the next 10 years -- the higher gas prices get, the more valuable a cheap "employee benefit" it will be to allow more telecommuting. Heck, some employers (mine included) are actually starting to encourage it where feasible, because they need to own/lease less office space and pay lower facilities costs since they need less square footage.

In fact, in my case, the reason I became a *full time* work-at-home employee is because my employer wanted to consolidate office space to save money 3-4 years ago, and they wanted to know if I'd be willing to give up my office on the Austin campus since I was only there about two days a week on average. I told them I'd be glad to relinquish it if they'd agree to let me exclusively work from home, and they quickly agreed. Never underestimate the power of the ability of Corporate America to "go cheap" -- I think that is in itself a trend that isn't about to end.

 

[W2R]

In fact, in my case, the reason I became a *full time* work-at-home employee is because [-]my employer wanted to consolidate office space to save money 3-4 years ago[/-] I am outlandishly good at what I do, and I could probably ask for the moon and they might give it to me...

There, FIFY. You are modest and humble, but I have a pretty good idea that you can work miracles at work on a regular basis and evidently your employer knows that very well too.

 

[Katsmeow]

Oh, I'm sorry!!! Misunderstood. I thought we were talking about people who (like Ziggy29 apparently) are content in the fringe suburbs surrounding a city, rather than downtown in that city, because they only needed to go in occasionally if at all. Different situation, I agree..

Yes. Right now, we live in a house that is a little over an hour from my office. At one time we had a house closer in than this house and we moved because I hated the drive. But, now, I only go to the office once or twice a week since I work part time and do a lot of work at home. In that situation, I'm very happy with where we bought since it allows us to have the acreage that we wanted and to have our pets. And, once I fully retire we will rarely have to go into the big city and can do most everything in the suburban area.

 

[Midpack]

Very good point WRT the influence of work/commuting on the issue/trend, thanks.

May have been too subtle, but my point was also that access to everything other than work is also a factor. Though there are more and more online alternatives, you'll never be able to telecommute for groceries, haircuts, restaurants, bars, museums, live theater, live sports, to engage in sports & outdoor activities and many other of life's activities. If the price of gas puts them increasingly out of reach, I'd think it would (subtly or markedly) shift the balance of personal preferences away from fringe suburbs. Work is a very significant component (and Ziggy's point was well taken), but not the only one...

 

[W2R]

May have been too subtle, but my point was also that access to everything other than work is also a factor. Though there are more and more online alternatives, you'll never be able to telecommute for groceries, haircuts, restaurants, bars, museums, live theater, live sports, to engage in sports & outdoor activities and many other of life's activities. If the price of gas puts them increasingly out of reach, I'd think it would shift the balance of personal preferences away from fringe suburbs. Work is a very significant component (and Ziggy's point was well taken), but not the only one...

I really do like living close to all of those businesses, events, and amenities you listed. That is one reason why I don't use much gas; everything is close by. At one point the fringe suburbs were supposed to have lower crime than my area, and I would greatly appreciate lower crime. However, in the past few years rumor has it that that several of the fringe suburbs have developed a higher crime rate as well.

In other words, to bring this out of the anecdotal realm and into the generalization realm, growing crime rates in some fringe suburbs are likely to be a factor affecting this trend as well.

 

[Midpack]

We're not about to downsize just because somebody says we should.

Who said you should?