Sunbelt City Transformation?

[dc_denizen]

when will we see the rise of mega-city one, that's what I want to know.

[Qubert]

Originally Posted by brickell

Urban living and suburban development are not mutually exclusive.

Thank you.

If one wanted to be a smartypants, by the definitions in this thread, NYC isn't doing enough in the urban department since it's sprawling massively too. The fact is that the sunbelt cities are going to both densify in their central regions as well has sprawl horizontally. The real tipping point will be when the cores of each respective city reach a critical mass to become the true center of gravity of the region. It's this that really separates SF/BOS/NYC/CHI/DC from DAL/HOS/ATL/LA/Charlotte. It's this development that leads to things like heavy rail, artists colonies, skyscrapers and progressive zoning that we all seek.

Dallas could sprawl to Oklahoma but if it has a core dense and vibrant enough to become the economic/cultural/wealth center of the region that will go a long way to shifting the paradigm of development. This is why even LA, which for a sunbelt city was built with excellent bones, is focusing on it's downtown again. Multiple nodes might work for East Asia/Europe, but here in the states we need to get back to making downtown the place where people go to work/play/meet if we really want to get urbanity on the right footing.

[Leo the Dog]

Aside from the obvious big cities I'll nominate a small city, that's often over-looked.

Charleston, SC has seen dramatic physical and social change in the 25 years since Cat 4 Hurricane Hugo. I would imagine the next 25 years will bring more dramatic changes.

Much of the region had to be rebuilt. The central city has been preserved and has wonderful shopping and dining in areas that were once very seedy. The crime rate has plummeted. Housing prices along their barrier islands and the central city are in the multi millions. Rentals are, however, still affordable.

Boeing is building a huge campus there. Very large military presence. The military will continue to provide high paying contracts to the private sector. World class resorts will continue to attract and expose the region to outsiders.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by brickell

LA and Miami because they have to.

Also geographic boundaries and limitations might I add. South Florida essentially can't sprawl anymore due to the everglades and is forced to become denser. Only way is up. Likewise for the Los Angeles Basin. The sprawl is essentially built to the max. Central Florida is a different story.

But on the topic of sprawl, it really is an American crutch. Its here to stay and the only thing that we can do is to try to make it better in the sense of mass transit and efficiency. While our cities will grow, we must also accept that the suburbs will outpace core growth for the most part and has been since the 50's.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Also geographic boundaries and limitations might I add. South Florida essentially can't sprawl anymore due to the everglades and is forced to become denser. Only way is up. Likewise for the Los Angeles Basin. The sprawl is essentially built to the max. Central Florida is a different story

Let's not forget San Diego. Absolutely no where left to sprawl. Plenty of room for in-fill though.

I think the ghetto areas of the South Bay will transform in a huge way in the next couple decades. The micro-climate is coastal, with bay views, transit infrastructure in place (LRT/Freeways) and close proximity to downtown.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by chris08876

For Texas, it's bound to happen. Population is estimated to grow to 33 million by 2030. Plenty of room for growth. If not in the cities, the suburbs will get denser. Midrises will be the future for Texan cities. Given the high cost of highrise living, while they will surely be built, for the masses, 6-10 story structures will be the norm. Thats assuming theres a big shift towards urban living. I just can't see how these cities can sprawl even more. Not sustainable in the long run and dreadfully inefficient.

The cheap option is woodframe. Woodframe in my region is limited to five levels and 85' peak height, and I suspect that's fairly standard, due to structural reasons and fire department ladders. So you get a lot of 1-2 story retail or townhouse podiums (or parking dog forbid) with five levels of wood above.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by mhays

The cheap option is woodframe. Woodframe in my region is limited to five levels and 85' peak height, and I suspect that's fairly standard, due to structural reasons and fire department ladders. So you get a lot of 1-2 story retail or townhouse podiums (or parking dog forbid) with five levels of wood above.

We've got 5 or 6 story wood frame over concrete garage or concrete base all over Texas. Austin is full of these buildings surrounding downtown. I always find myself concerned about potential fire danger with such large wooden structures.

[chris08876]

Quick question for the Texan Members: I notice that there are a lot of single story homes when browsing through aerials via Bing for many of these large cities.

Are these actually single unit homes or do they have multiple units in them?

Here in NJ, if we look at aerials of certain towns, they can pass for single units, but a lot of them actually are split between two or three families and have separate doors. So while they make look like the typical family home, they are really apartments in the sense. Do places like Houston or Dallas share this similarity, or are they mostly single units?

[DenseCityPlease]

I'll add on to the dog pile. As far as the prospect of future urban transformation in the large sunbelt cities, the list looks like this:

1) L.A.
-
-
2) Miami
-
-
-
-
-
-
3) All the rest


What's more, L.A. is currently in the midst of the largest rail transit expansion in America since the 1970s (when BART/MARTA/WMATA were built) and has pro-density and pro-walkability city leadership, meaning it will likely become even more urban and do so at an even faster pace than anywhere else.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Qubert

If one wanted to be a smartypants, by the definitions in this thread, NYC isn't doing enough in the urban department since it's sprawling massively too.

Except it isn't.

Outside of luxury infill homes in existing neighborhoods, the NYC region builds very little suburban single family housing these days. Growth rates for the suburban fringe are close to zero. The majority of housing construction and population growth in the NYC region is urban and multifamily.

In contrast, somewhere like Dallas has a massive amount of single family homes being built on the suburban fringe, even if overall housing construction numbers are lower than that of the NYC area, and the population growth is driven by huge population gains in the most suburban counties.

[chris08876]

Thats the distinction between NYC and Dallas. The NY metro is essentially built out. Little room for single family homes. Even in NJ, a lot of the developments are multi-unit. They are popping all over the place, especially amongst the rail corridors. Areas such as in Texas have plenty of room to continue to sprawl. While not desirable from an urbanist standpoint, the means is there, and the land prices justify it. Places like LA need to build up and are doing so. Likewise for S. Florida. If there are developments within the 2 or 3 story range, they tend to be apartments or dense townhouses.

The problem for cities in the U.S. is also that the suburbs have become functioning units that don't rely on the core city. This in turn will result in less developments versus if the core city was the sole provider of jobs or shopping. The suburbs have become a place where jobs, shopping, entertainment can be found and this in turn decreases the rate at which many cities will see these new developments. Residents are able to live their lives, work and play all in the suburbs without ever setting foot in a city. Office parks also contribute to this.

So while we may see increased density, most of this change will really occur in the fringes and the exurbs.

[RC14]

1.) Many people living in Miami will want to live close to the beach. Land along the cost will only become more expensive and Miami will have to build up.
2.) LA is already on track to become a mega city
3-4.) between Dallas and Atlanta probably Atlanta first.
5.) Houston

[jpdivola]

I doubt any of the sunbelt cities will truly transform into urban cities in the next 20 years or so.

For the foreseeable future, sunbelt cities are going to be primarily suburban places where most people shop at strip malls, live in SFHs and garden apartments, work in office parks and get around by car. But, what will change is that some of the sprawling suburbs will be retrofit with small new urbanism mixed-use town center developments and sunbelt cities will likely build up their central cities with a large vibrant mixed-use central area like Greater Downtown Seattle.

Basically, urban living will go from almost non-existent to a modest niche in a broader sprawling MSA. MSAs that are currently 95% suburban, will see maybe 40% of their new development be a “urban” over the next 20 years. Assuming a 20% growth rate in the MSA, the MSA will still be 90% suburban in 20 years.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by RC14

1.) Many people living in Miami will want to live close to the beach. Land along the cost will only become more expensive and Miami will have to build up.
2.) LA is already on track to become a mega city
3-4.) between Dallas and Atlanta probably Atlanta first.
5.) Houston

Miami is already built up along the coast. It's currently the third largest skyline in the USA and right now there is a 1,000ft observation tower and a 800+ft building under construction (and countless 500+ft). The urban portion of the city is slowly growing west and with the downtown train station under construction, this should soon happen quicker.

Not trying to start a city vs city argument here but I think some people are in the dark about what's happening down here.

[chris08876]

Its the SSP Miami bias at work. Either denial or just envy. I think envy about what's occurring in the region.

In terms of skyscrapers, really the whole region is getting a ton of them. High Rises too. Biscayne Landing has something like 6000 units planned over 20 + high rises and thats just one of many developments. Also several unknown high rises going around the region. Many of these are in the suburbs too. While most think that its just condos for people who show up during the various seasons and hotels, its more then that. These developments actually have people in them most of the year and its a housing solution for the growing Miami-Dade County area.

[ATXboom]

IMO the ingredients for post-auto transformation in cityscape, population and overall feel are:

- land scarcity (driven by the attributes below or natural geography)
- price per sq foot (product of high demand which only increased supply can moderate)
- traffic congestion (worse traffic will drive demand for increased supply in a smaller area - density!)
- cultural demand (do people want to live in within walkable proximity to existing cultural amenities? If not there isn't much reason for density to increase)
- young population in-migration (younger generations tend to seek belonging through density. As such they are more YIMBY oriented which is necessary to overcome the NIMBY vocal minority)
- international in-migration (foreigners are comfortable living in dense neighborhoods and multi-family units)
- young city leaders (they are needed to change regulation - it's critical to incentivize a modern form of brownstones in newer cities to replace single family homes as well as build out holistic mass transit solutions)
- parks & outdoor space (with density, yards go away for the most part... but people still want to be able to take children out to play, go for a run, walk the dog, etc... great cities have great park systems)


A quick glance at costs and in-migration suggest LA, San Diego, Miami, Austin and Houston are most likely to transform the most.

[Omaharocks]

I think llamaorama hit the nail on the head. The original question was about transformation, not infill/densification.

Per capita, Austin may continue to lead in infill, but the major sunbelt cities will all likely continue to densify at a fairly similar rate.

To understand which cities are most likely to actually transform physically and culturally, you have to look at ongoing planning efforts and potential. And you have to have a civic environment where people want to see transformation. Austin has the livability, so it won't change fundamentally, nor does it's populace want to - but it will quickly continue the path to becoming a more urban city. L.A. has potential to change substantially as far as transportation, but not so much in land use. As others have noted, it's been on the same densification track for a long period of time.

Atlanta is going to transform the most over the next 20 years. You have the BeltLine - the largest redevelopment project in the country, the promise of transit expansion, the very beginning of TOD at numerous MARTA stations, a downtown that has urban bones and is also seeing the very beginning of the turn towards residential, and a number of streetcar suburbs that form an easy basis for clustered walkable infill. And because the sprawl is so bad, you have a city that wants to be something completely different than it is. The suburbanization of poverty is also more pronounced in Atlanta.

[chris08876]

Lots of potential:



Credit:
1) Jon Bowles; https://www.flickr.com/people/36850503@N04/
2) Gesine Kelly; https://www.flickr.com/people/32360501@N06/


Once all of the major projects are complete, its going to be amazing.

The New York of the South! And scenes like the second pic extend all over the East Coast of Florida. Miles and miles of high rises. Not only on the coast/barrier islands, but inland.

[AviationGuy]

I think some SSP'ers may not be aware that Houston, Dallas, and Austin are growing both upward and outward (including a lot of highrise residential as well as mid-rise). They should monitor the city development threads more closely. It seems unfortunate that suburban sprawl in those metros continues unabated, but as has been emphasized repeatedly here, the general population doesn't live solely to satisfy the desires of SSP members. It's what a lot of Americans want (or can afford) all over the country.

[dc_denizen]

I think another way to look at this is - how much land adjacent to each city's core is fallow? If a lot of it is, you can tell that urbanism is just getting started, or that the demand just isn't there for urban living.

Based on a cursory look at google maps, reading threads here, and my visits to some of these cities -

Dallas - not a lot of fallow land, pretty filled in. Nice new parks/infrastructure
Miami - some fallow land, despite all the development although some lots might be developer owned.
Houston - parking lots downtown still there unfortunately, but being developed, surrounding nabes while filling in, have plenty of holes. Could probably double number of single family homes in the inner loop by adding on empty parcels.
LA - nearly none, few remaining parking lots filling in and lot of infill.
Atlanta - nearly none, few open spaces left and plenty of new high-grade housing next to downtown.
Austin - still some empty lots, surprisingly despite the progress. Not Portland by any means yet.
Phoenix - few empty lots, but lots of low-grade housing and few signs of new construction