So after experiencing decades of growth and popularity during the 1950-1970 time period and another decade of stability, inner ring suburbs across the US are now largely (but not exclusively) experiencing a decline in property values, stagnant or declining population and the fastest growth rates of population living in poverty comparied to central cities, rural towns or more distant suburbs.
Why?
In the 1980s, schools were good, crime was low, access to central cities was good, new edge cities with their 5,000,000SF of office space were nearby -- what is not to like? The houses.
Volume builders can put up lots of new houses at a size and with amenities that middle and upper middle households find most desirable at a very reasonable cost. Older suburbs have older, smaller houses that are really expensive to replace. As a result, when new families are looking for a place to live, they look further out. So who moves in? It isn't like houses become vacant? With property values lower than in the new suburbs, the new residents tend to be more diverse economically and ethnically. Since social problems and school quality tend to be correlated with low income, the quality of life indicators that realtors and new home buyers look at might tip ever so slightly and the slide has begun.
Because of their location close to the central city, if the land were still agricultural, most of these cities would developed now as exclusive suburbs. Location does matter. But the smaller and aging housing stock makes such redevelopment impossible.
But recent experience tells us that while some midopolises are headed for collapse, others experience a rebirth -- although rebirth should not be confused with turning back the clock to become what they once were.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There is definitely an issue with the houses. Some people clearly would not consider an older home in an inner ring town. For some they want the features of newer houses, and others its akin to buying used underwear. But there is definitely a smaller percentage of the market that loves the older houses, hate new houses, and actually would never live anywhere else. Now I think this is a smaller part of the market, but I think it has always been enough to keep the small inner ring towns in my region filled. If anything I would expect growing congestion and the growing time & money cost of commuting would be strengthening their position.
ReplyDeleteI think there are several "it depends" answers to some of this. I grew up in a newer part of an older "Streetcar Suburb" outside Chicago. Much of it was developed in the 1890-1940 era along a commuter rail line. As the first folks to move out of the central city were more wealthy, the houses built in that time period were a mix of sizes, but plenty of them were in the 3000-5000 SF range. These houses have historical pedigree and despite a lull in values in the 1950s-1980s while nearby land was filled with newer houses, these old Victorians and other neo-traditional homes of the era are now quite valuable. This historic nature, even of the smaller homes, is a draw. Most post-war inner ring suburbs from the 1950s-1960s are largely full of 1000-2000SF ranch houses that have not quite caught the imagination of the population.
ReplyDeleteCongestion is a big unknown. As more and more office space is built in edge cities, you can still live in a far out suburb and still be within a 25 minute commute of one or more employment sub-centers on the edge. In most urban areas, less than 15% of employment is still in the old central city downtown area. In fact, most of it is in suburban spaces between the edge cities. What inner-ring suburbs do offer though is better access to more suburban employment.
So the two big "it depends" are access to jobs and attractiveness of the old housing. I am sure there are dozens of other factors, but these are the main ones.
As you describe it being in the outer ring communities offers as much job access as inner city or inner ring. But I think it practice it is not so. A job shift on the perimeter can result in a giant commute across a piece of the pie that represents the metro area. Where as an inner ring location can have a shorter commute to many more inner city and outer ring employment centers. I think that this is what in fact happens, that outer ring residents end up taking on colossal commutes when employment changes, rather than uproot, change schools, and move the family.
ReplyDeleteI guess I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I completely believe that the greatest benefit the inner ring offers is the absolute lowest cost access to the greatest percentage of employment options in any metro areas (with one important caveat, keep reading).
ReplyDeleteMost MSAs have experienced a suburban boon in one direction. So inner ring suburbs in that direction have that benefit. Older suburbs that are not in that direction have poor access to anything but the central city.
You could argue that the central city offers the better access, but as more edge cities pop up in the outter ring, inner ring locations will be more remote than the inner ring in the favored direction.
I have to look for the source of this fact, but I have heard that after decreasing through the 70s and 80s average commute times have now stablized at about 25 minutes. Once I have time to varify that, I'll make it the subject of a post.
But also, here is another interesting fact: suburban subcenters (edge cities) tend to specialize in a set of industries. So while one might focus on telecom, another might be a center for financial services, or insurance, or software, or media, etc. This tends to reduce the variability of possible job locations. However, two-worker households make a central location even more important. This is really why I believe the inner ring (at least in the direction of the most outter ring development) has the best access to what people want access to. The question is how congested does the highway system have to be before that superior access trumps the quality of the housing stock.