Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Report: Sacramento-area housing shift seen as suburban spreads lose appeal

The report released this week by the Urban Land Institute contends that Sacramento and other California metropolitan areas are about to discover they have an "oversupply" of classic subdivision housing, thanks to a sea change in what buyers want and can afford.

Younger people are postponing homebuying, the report says, and when they do buy, more of them will opt for denser, urban-style housing, including small-lot homes, town houses and condominiums near transit, jobs, nightlife and other amenities. A higher percentage are likely to rent indefinitely because they cannot afford a home. At the same time, more baby boomers will seek buyers for their suburban spreads.

If the ULI's view holds true, some middle class neighborhoods already hit by recession and foreclosures could deteriorate further. One local planner says he fears an end result could be community blight.

Jack Lessinger's 1990 prediction of downscaled suburban hoods along with the perfessor's prognostication that Privatopia will go condo. Especially in California, where condos have historically comprised the bulk of common interest developments versus planned unit developments. One homebuilder group however questions the report as ULI propaganda to promote urban infill development.


Anonymous said...

So people are moving from single-family homes which are unaffordable and undesirable into condominiums, which are an unsustainable and fictional form of property ownership?

It's the miracle of the market at work!

Anonymous said...

This is a ULI propaganda piece and it's promoting condos. Who does ULI really represent. It can't be homeowners because the vast majority of them have no desire to live in higher density housing. The push to create vertical sprawl/blight is to create maximal tax revenue per horizontal square foot with zero government services (connect to the edge).

ULI's "cure" is not a cure. The price of the "homes"/units is not going to be less expensive - it will be more expensive. One will own less because it will be a condo regime. The Feds have finally started to get smarter about limiting the financing for these things which also means that ULI's "solution" fails to address the "affordability" and "marketability" which were supposedly part of the impetus for the solution in the first place.

No thanks, ULI.