Are the American suburbs poised for another boom?

[fflint]

In the context of the nation as a whole (as opposed to specific metros), I expect suburbs will grow in the foreseeable future, but more slowly than they did in the 1950s-1990s. I do not expect to see a continent-wide "boom" in new suburban construction.

There's already a tremendous supply of existing suburban housing, and that supply will almost certainly grow as aging empty-nest Baby Boomers move into the city, into their adult children's houses, into nursing homes and, of course, when they pass away. Given the accelerating trend of younger generations prefering to eschew suburbia and the expanding supply of suburban houses, I really can't see demand outstripping supply such that a "boom" in new suburban construction would be economically justified.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by fflint

In the context of the nation as a whole (as opposed to specific metros), I expect suburbs will grow in the foreseeable future, but more slowly than they did in the 1950s-1990s. I do not expect to see a continent-wide "boom" in new suburban construction.

There's already a tremendous supply of existing suburban housing, and that supply will almost certainly grow as aging empty-nest Baby Boomers move into the city, into their adult children's houses, into nursing homes and, of course, when they pass away. Given the accelerating trend of younger generations prefering to eschew suburbia and the expanding supply of suburban houses, I really can't see demand outstripping supply such that a "boom" in new suburban construction would be economically justified.

i will say as a late generation x guy i appreciate millennials...they fill deep inner city bar rooms and are starting to rehab buildings in places i wrote off as dead.

i just figured everything was the end. (the moment i realised i was a gen-x'r)

[llamaorama]

I hate to say it but I almost think it would be a good sign if it meant more people had money and upward mobility.

A lot of people in expensive metros these days don't see urban revitalization, they just see a larger percent of their fixed income going towards housing and being unable to find a good place to live. The responsibility falls on planners and advocates of modern green urbanism to create something more inclusive, not expect people to settle and conform.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

^^^so i read somewhere that all those "point" towers in vancouver and toronto get away with smaller footprints by having only one staircase that wraps around the elevator bank but they can actually increase the size/amount of units, but in litigious happy america, we have to have two staircases and thus fatter buildings and smaller units, that probably has alot to do with it. portland has alot of new towers going up but the are huge and blocky, not what id call svelte design....also, do you sense lenders are starting to loosen up about condo financing a bit? a few big builders in portland are bucking the trend and going whole hog with some really big condo towers....

I've never been in a tower in Vancouver that only had one staircase. Even my four storey building has three. We have more regulations than America and are almost as litigious. The reason our towers are so skinny in Vancouver especially is because the land is so expensive and there are lots of view protection laws which cause buildings to be skinny and stubby. The size of master bedrooms you find in most Vancouver condos are acceptable only to asians who are already used to less than 10x10, and people who are desperate to just get into the market.

[kcexpress69]

Originally Posted by fflint

In the context of the nation as a whole (as opposed to specific metros), I expect suburbs will grow in the foreseeable future, but more slowly than they did in the 1950s-1990s. I do not expect to see a continent-wide "boom" in new suburban construction.

There's already a tremendous supply of existing suburban housing, and that supply will almost certainly grow as aging empty-nest Baby Boomers move into the city, into their adult children's houses, into nursing homes and, of course, when they pass away. Given the accelerating trend of younger generations prefering to eschew suburbia and the expanding supply of suburban houses, I really can't see demand outstripping supply such that a "boom" in new suburban construction would be economically justified.

I'm not tying to be Caption Obvious, but I would also say that as the U.S. continues to add approximately 30-40 million people each decade, especially through immigration, most will be flocking to the metro areas in search of work. Not sure what the trend is with rural areas, but it's easy to see that in places in the Midwest, such as Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas, they will continue to lose population, even if the state is continuing to grow. I'm glad to see that the growth is resurging in the Central Business Districts, but not surprised in the least that certain places even here in Kansas City, that new subdivisions are popping up further out.

[miketoronto]

The suburbs are going nowhere. Yes some people are moving back to the inner cities, but as regions grow, there is still going to be outward growth, and it is still going to be suburban for the most part.

As much as people want to promote otherwise, the small percentage of people moving into inner cities, does not cover the fact that the majority of American's are still happily choosing suburban developments. And this includes many many young people.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Pinion

I've never been in a tower in Vancouver that only had one staircase. Even my four storey building has three. We have more regulations than America and are almost as litigious. The reason our towers are so skinny in Vancouver especially is because the land is so expensive and there are lots of view protection laws which cause buildings to be skinny and stubby. The size of master bedrooms you find in most Vancouver condos are acceptable only to asians who are already used to less than 10x10, and people who are desperate to just get into the market.

Close. One stairwell, but two staircases in a configuration called a scissor stair. Roughly similar to a double helix of DNA. The stairs themselves and a wall in the middle are fire-rated with non-combustible materials, so if there is a fire in one stair it will not penetrate to the other for several hours giving the inhabitants plenty of time to escape. The advantage of building one stairwell instead of two is that you save on space. You can gain an extra 30-60sf of leasable area per floor.

This type of configuration is allowed in pretty much every American city for large buildings like arenas where you build several sets of scissor stairs at once (to increase capacity) but New York and Vancouver allowed a single scissor stair to meet the requirement for two stairs, with no other stairs provided. This allowed towers to be somewhat more slender and still pencil out economically.