Saturday, March 14, 2009

Suburbia: R.I.P.??

"The downturn has accomplished what a generation of designers and planners could not: it has turned back the tide of suburban sprawl. In the wake of the foreclosure crisis many new subdivisions are left half built and more established suburbs face abandonment. Cul-de-sac neighborhoods once filled with the sound of backyard barbecues and playing children are falling silent. Communities like Elk Grove, Calif., and Windy Ridge, N.C., are slowly turning into ghost towns with overgrown lawns, vacant strip malls and squatters camping in empty homes. In Cleveland alone, one of every 13 houses is now vacant, according to an article published Sunday in The New York Times magazine."
------------
This article says suburbia is doomed and soon we will all be living in high-density urban area...in condominiums, no doubt. Provocative, but wrong. The demand for suburban single-family homes is far too strong to be frustrated by gas prices. The housing market will pick up again, and most of the new construction will be in suburbs, just as it was before. Why? Because that's where most people want to live.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

"The whole suburban idea was founded on disposable spending and the promise of cheap gas." Puuuhlease.

How about not everyone wants to live in a condo or in an 80 year old home or on a lot less than .10 acres in size? How about an expanding population needs a place to live?

How many of those suburbs were HOA environments? So much for HOAs preserving property values. They certainly never provided value for the alleged owners of the property.

The "urban planners" have been trying to make "urban" living the "cool", the "hip", etc. for awhile now. Cities love them because the "high density" means very high taxes on a small footprint and room for lots of footprints. However, not everyone wants to live in a condo regime (that's what they are called in the business). Indeed, the only one that likes the regime is the king.

Finally, what is this negativity about "sprawl"? I suppose the urbanists would prefer that the entire population of the United States (300+ million) be located at Plymouth Rock? If it weren't for "sprawl" we wouldn't have grown to 13 much less 50 states. "Sprawl" is far preferable to being subjected to a regime.