Nightmare on Cul-de-Sac Street

So, a blogging buddy of mine just put up a post about the “death of the Suburbs” myth.  He discusses an article written in last Sunday’s LA Times that purports that the suburbs are not dying–and will not die because so many jobs moved to the suburbs in the last 20 years. 

At least the Times journalist and I agree on one thing–Many jobs did relocate to the suburbs and are still located their.  The transistion is a matter of historical perspective and economics. Suburban living became ubiquitous with the American Dream shortly after World War II. Couple that with the decline of cities as residents left for the suburbs greener pastures and it gave way to urban blight and decay. By the 1970’s, So many people had moved out of the city it not only made job retention sense, but economic sense to move a large company out to the The decision was two to the burbs. And lets not forget the incentive of cheap cheap cheap land, and there is the icing on the cake.

But then, the 90’s came and cities like NYC, Charlotte, Atlanta, Cleveland began to incentivize the  relocation of companies to revitalized in-town locations to make it not only “chic” but economically more attractive to be in-town.  Sprawl, traffic, and energy costs associated with sprawling corporate locations became less attractive.

For the last 10 years the trend away from suburban living has increased. People are changing the way in which they view how they prefer to live and work. Energy costs, traffic, and time spent commuting are making many–particularly young professionals, empty nesters, and to some degree young small families, rethink the benefits of far out, automobile fueled suburban living.

I think agree more with this guy. The suburbs may not be dead, but their ’sprawling mcmasion, two cars in the driveway’ dreams may be fading into the distance, and a new vision of transit and pedestrian orientated homestead may be the key to remaining desirable places to live.

Getting to Know All About You (And other mid-week tidbits)

Clearly, I have a penchant for old show-tune-ee, 50’s movie musical songs. But they are catchy, and appropos for this series of topics.

But I digress. On with the show.

Everyday there seems to be a new article about the cost of gas and what it means to the future of suburban America. As you might have guessed, I have long taken issue with the constant and consistent design of suburban subdivisions of “little boxes on the hillside”, and secretly look forward to the day they stop being so popular.  

But what does the increase in the cost of suburban living  mean to the current state of American livelihood? America and the term ’suburb’ are pratically ubiquitous. Since the end of War War II,  the last 60 years of infrastructure development has concentrated on the connection of suburbs. Most public transportation initiatives have been created for suburban ”choice riders”–the commuters who need to quickly get into the center city and just as quickly get out.  Our interstate system, more or less, has also been extended and expanded to do the same. 

The image of the suburb as the only way to live in a safe, clean environment has helped produce, a deep fear for many, of all things urban?  Does the ever climbing price of gas mean many will take a closer look at urban living?  Does this gas “issue” really mean that people will move to communities where there is not a quarter of an acre between them and there neighbor ? 

• Garrison Keillior says goodbye Winnebago…Hello, front porch

Darn, I always wanted to take a cross country trip in one…if I had only done it 5 years ago!

 

• Arthur J. Magida says the American Family Car Trip might be going the way of the Dodo bird.

Perhaps, more folks will do local stuff that can be reached by the commuter train, like here. 

• The U.K.’s,  Telegraph, thinks there is a broad cultural shift going on.

The question is, is this shift happening for families too? Seems the experts haven’t dug that deep yet.

• But, alas! In NYC, some families take the suburban dive–only to return to the city.

I wonder how much the “City Snob” factor has to do with that…after all NYC prides itself on being the exception, leader, to every rule.

The jury is still out on what gas prices and inflation will really mean to the livelihood of 2nd and 3rd tier suburbs which require a car to go to 7-11, but it can’t be helping when families are already squeezed by the ‘work harder make the less’ movement of the economy.  The big impact to me–is when families start moving closer to cities–and that would take either a significant fix to the public education system in most places or the decision to bite the bullet on private, charter, or montessori education. But that is a discussion for another day.

 

I Heart First Suburbs

This past weekend, I paid a visit to one of my favorite cities–Chicago. Though I have spent most of my adult life in New York City, and most of my childhood in the suburbs, Chicago to me is a much more palatable place. Perhaps, it’s the Midwestern charm, the fact that it actually has four seasons, or that it is such a well planned city (in this department it has nothing on NY).

 

While I love Chicago, it has many of the same issues of most cities I have lived. It is statistically diverse, but spatially quite segregated. (Chicago is constantly ranked as one of the most segregated cities in America and has regularly been the ’social laboratory’ for studying race and ethnicity)  My visit got me thinking about why I am always disappointed about city life when I think of it in terms of spatial diversity. I have lived in 6 different major cities and have yet to find a historically diverse in-city neighborhood to call home—that’s relatively affordable.

 

Over and over again, what surprises me the most in my search for communities that are economically healthy, racially diverse, and somewhat affordable to various income strata is that these communities tend not to be in the city limits. They are in the ‘suburbs’.

 

No. I am not talking about suburbs of the ‘5 variations of the same house, several hundred square feet of strip mall configuration du jour, or street names that are all based on variations of oak or elm with cul-de-sacs at the end of each of them’ variety. I’m talking about “first ring suburbs”. “First suburbs” are neither suburban nor urban. These communities generally have the benefits of both suburban and urban living.  Most are in close proximity to the city, have relatively easy access to public transportation, tend to be walkable , and often capitalize on green space.

 

Even though many of them are challenged by the growth or decline of their neighboring city, those that work well have been able to capitalize on the needs of younger families who desire to be close to the city and have access to better schools, as well as older people and low wage earners who need to have ready access to services and public transportation.   While it is true that many first rings are struggling to maintain population, good schools, and infrastructure, and are often more sensitive to the growth or decline of their big city neighbors, survival and political will have driven a number of first rings to figure out how to market their unique place in community development. And in my opinion, housing strategy, whether formal or informal is driving the engine.

 

The best of them, from what I have seen tend to have homes running the gamut from grandeur to simple, condominiums and town houses, market rate rental and affordable rentals. For example, Oak Park, a suburb of Chicago takes fair housing more seriously than many. So much so, that they went to bat against Fannie Mae over its declining market policy. Just this past weekend, at their Village Day resources for renters, homeowners, and first time buyers were readily available. Cleveland Heights, outside of Cleveland (a city that is clearly struggling,)is the only suburb that did not have flat growth or decline in population between 2005 and 2006, has a rich array of housing options including lofts, affordable rentals, mansions, townhouses, and market rate apartments—and has created the public and private marketing necessary to demonstrate that Cleveland Heights is a place where you can ‘age in place’.  And there is Mount Vernon, NY—a suburb of New York City that has capitalized on ‘aging in place’ with its housing stock as well.

 These are but a few examples, and it is not to say that these places don’t struggle against pervasive issues that arise with their more urban neighbors, but I do think they demonstrate the fact that housing variety and strategy can play a large role in creating and cultivating spatial diversity in terms of race and ethnicity as well as income.

 

While many cities I have lived in play lip service to mixed-income communities, they lack the political will—with New York being the exception out of pure necessity—and foresight to figure out how best to plan it with out creating the ‘other side of the tracks’.  While cities put pretty bows on ‘affordable housing boxes’, it seems a number of first rings are figuring out how to attract the most residents without negatively affecting image and life style—even if only out of necessity