50 Years After Passage Of The Fair Housing Act, It’s Time To Sue The Suburbs

[iheartthed]

Suburbs in the South and West can at least benefit from overall population growth. Suburbs in the Northeast and Midwest don't really have that luxury. Again, hard to see how they stay competitive.

[The North One]

Most of the lack of property value growth in exurban mansions is due to competing new construction. Why would you get a mcmansion from the 90's or 2000's when you can get new construction for the same price? A big reason why exurban homes will always be a horrible personal investment.

Believe me, I'd love to sit here and cheer "Suburbia is dead! It's dead!", but it's not. Not as long as it keeps getting subsidized to hell by the government.

[wwmiv]

Let’s cite some facts or data, y’all, instead of just postulating something without any evidence whatsoever (which EVERYONE above seems to be doing). The latter style is an opinion, the former an informed argument.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/328268/...ed-appeal.aspx

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- About half of Americans (48%) at the end of 2020 said that, if able to live anywhere they wished, they would choose a town (17%) or rural area (31%) rather than a city or suburb. This is a shift from 2018, when 39% thought a town or rural area would be ideal.

The recent increase in Americans' penchant for country living -- those choosing a town or rural area -- has been accompanied by a decline in those preferring to live in a suburb, down six percentage points to 25%. The percentage favoring cities has been steadier, with 27% today -- close to the 29% in 2018 -- saying they would prefer living in a big (11%) or small (16%) city.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Let’s cite some facts or data, y’all, instead of just postulating something without any evidence whatsoever (which EVERYONE above seems to be doing). The latter style is an opinion, the former an informed argument.

A Gallup poll most certainly isn't "an informed argument". And a hypothetical preference has nothing to do with reality. I hypothetically prefer my own South Pacific island.

Property values are objective data, and show that property values in walkable urbanity massively outperform property values in sprawl.

And what is "country living"? What is a "city"? Totally subjective. People in Riverdale, Bronx, claim they live in the country. Hell, half of Westchester/Fairfield counties are labeled as "backcountry" and they've been settled for a century and commuter rail-oriented for 150 years.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Suburbs in the South and West can at least benefit from overall population growth. Suburbs in the Northeast and Midwest don't really have that luxury. Again, hard to see how they stay competitive.

Right, and even in the Sunbelt, you see the same trends. The highest property value gains are in older, more urban, mixed use neighborhoods, even in places like Dallas, Houston and Phoenix.

But the Sunbelt exurban sprawl is generally healthier than in say, Cleveland, because the overall population is growing, so even the undesirable areas are doing OK. It's the same reason that South Central LA was never abandoned like the East Side of Cleveland. Doesn't mean that it didn't suffer from similar issues during the postwar decades, but the regional population boom raised the tides in even the least desirable areas.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JManc

I'm from the northeast. They are pretty rare up there too. Yes, you get the odd masterplannend community where the deed restrictions call for some massive house on some acreage but the vast majority of these far flung communities are just your typical sprawlburb with modest houses on modest lots. You might see more of this near NYC because of the wealth and the population but they're an outlier in every possible way. I lived in metro Boston and of course Upstate NY and rarely saw these communities apart for some rich family buying up a piece of property and building their own house.

It isn't an outlier, it's the norm. Look at the exurban areas around the Northeast and all will have exurbs dominated by multiacre minimum lot sizes and multifamily bans. It's true in NY, Boston, Philly, DC and Baltimore. All these exurbs are having huge demographic issues.

The Northeastern suburbs that are doing well are all denser, older, mixed-use suburbs on transit lines, with small(er) homes and walkability.

You can pretty much predict the relative property gains by measuring the distance to the nearest rail station or bus hub with direct service to Manhattan. Case in point - when NJ Transit built the Montclair Connector (a direct rail line through a corridor of older suburbia) around 20 years ago, property values exploded, while the property values stagnated in towns a few miles further from the rail, and cratered in the woodsy backcountry towns.

[craigs]

My grandparents' house in a minimum one-acre neighborhood with zero transit service and a walk score of 9/100, about 20 miles outside Boston, is worth more than ever per Zillow. In fact, it has increased in value nearly 20% since Feb. 2019 (and even more than that since last February). It's nothing like the family's California properties, but the disparity has never been smaller.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

It isn't an outlier, it's the norm. Look at the exurban areas around the Northeast and all will have exurbs dominated by multiacre minimum lot sizes and multifamily bans. It's true in NY, Boston, Philly, DC and Baltimore. All these exurbs are having huge demographic issues.

The Northeastern suburbs that are doing well are all denser, older, mixed-use suburbs on transit lines, with small(er) homes and walkability.

You can pretty much predict the relative property gains by measuring the distance to the nearest rail station or bus hub with direct service to Manhattan. Case in point - when NJ Transit built the Montclair Connector (a direct rail line through a corridor of older suburbia) around 20 years ago, property values exploded, while the property values stagnated in towns a few miles further from the rail, and cratered in the woodsy backcountry towns.

Huge houses built within the past 20-30-40 years and inhabited by the original owners who are downsizing are probably in dire need of updating. The property might have appreciated somewhat but you're going to have to put close to that amount in remodeling. That's a major issue with where I am; neighborhood was built in the 70's and 80's. Nice big custom homes but most of them still original which less attractive to prospective buyers. Lots of paneling and formica. We are currently spending a small fortune remodeling the Reagan era out of our house.

Anyway, I'm not sure the need to build multi family in these areas. They were more or less designed to exude an open and rural vibe so plunking down an apartment or condo building defeats the purpose. If and when these neighborhoods fall out of favor and deteriorate, a developer will swoop in and buy the properties and flip them into something else. Perhaps multi family should the market turn that way.

When I lived outside of Boston, 'suburbs' were concentrated and grew from established towns with some newer ugly crap on the fringes. The areas you are referring to are typically expensive and gated types.

[the urban politician]

9 out of 10 of my patients (I being perhaps one of the few people in this conversation who actually physically sees and talks to the public every single day?) works from home now.

Think about how staggering that is. Now sure, there will be a return to the office, but it will never return to what it was.

I think that many here are in denial. This "being near the train so that I can commute to Manhattan" appeal of the pre-COVID years is gone. It's not coming back to the full force that it once was.

Having your own private space where you can gabble away on a Zoom meeting while still amazingly collecting a paycheck (still baffles me), being able to walk to your fridge to grab an apple, go to your private bathroom to pee, relax in front of your TV for 20 min between meetings, etc. Irresistible. The cat is out of the bag on this one, and America ain't going back!

Americans are discovering the comforts of more personal space, while simultaneously having been shut out of all of the joys of city living (in Chicago's case: lakefront closed, dining and bars closed, museums closed, etc etc). I mean, why would anyone but the most die-hard Urbanists or people without a choice still stick around?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

9 out of 10 of my patients (I being perhaps one of the few people in this conversation who actually physically sees and talks to the public every single day?) works from home now.

Think about how staggering that is. Now sure, there will be a return to the office, but it will never return to what it was.

I think that many here are in denial. This "being near the train so that I can commute to Manhattan" appeal of the pre-COVID years is gone. It's not coming back to the full force that it once was.

Having your own private space where you can gabble away on a Zoom meeting while still amazingly collecting a paycheck (still baffles me), being able to walk to your fridge to grab an apple, go to your private bathroom to pee, relax in front of your TV for 20 min between meetings, etc. Irresistible. The cat is out of the bag on this one, and America ain't going back!

Americans are discovering the comforts of more personal space, while simultaneously having been shut out of all of the joys of city living (in Chicago's case: lakefront closed, dining and bars closed, museums closed, etc etc). I mean, why would anyone but the most die-hard Urbanists or people without a choice still stick around?

Many companies will move to a flexible working model post-COVID, which is a trend that started many years ago, but most white collar workers will continue working from an office location at least part time.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Having your own private space where you can gabble away on a Zoom meeting while still amazingly collecting a paycheck (still baffles me), being able to walk to your fridge to grab an apple, go to your private bathroom to pee, relax in front of your TV for 20 min between meetings, etc. Irresistible. The cat is out of the bag on this one, and America ain't going back!

Yeah, except all of these things make you less productive .

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Yeah, except all of these things make you less productive .

Then those companies that require in-office employees will have a competitive advantage and the free market will take care of the rest, theoretically.

I do think companies will re-evaluate WFH once the pandemic is over.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Yeah, except all of these things make you less productive .

You know what's unproductive? Commuting to/from work every day.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

You know what's unproductive? Commuting to/from work every day.

Depends on the commute. If it's a half hour or less, not big deal. If you're sitting in traffic for an hour, then ya probably. I think most people, however, feel more productive in the office around their co-workers and away from distractions at home.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

You know what's unproductive? Commuting to/from work every day.

eh not really, it's part exercise (which you need anyway), part reading articles/e-mails on my phone. Or I can bust out my laptop for some actual work.

[Crawford]

If long commutes are the problem, not a good argument for single family housing far from employment centers and amenities.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

You know what's unproductive? Commuting to/from work every day.

People often combine an errand or two with their commutes. People working from home are still going to have to ferry their kids to baseball practice, band, etc. They're still going to have to put their kids in daycare (ahem, drive them there in the morning and pick them up in the afternoon) since you can't contain a 4 year-old while on a serious zoom meeting.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by JManc

Depends on the commute. If it's a half hour or less, not big deal. If you're sitting in traffic for an hour, then ya probably. I think most people, however, feel more productive in the office around their co-workers and away from distractions at home.

Of course it depends on the commute, not everyone in the workforce has the exact same commute time. Read the comment i was responding too, where the poster called out things like pissing at home as unproductive.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

people often combine an errand or two with their commutes. People working from home are still going to have to ferry their kids to baseball practice, band, etc. They're still going to have to put their kids in daycare (ahem, drive them there in the morning and pick them up in the afternoon) since you can't contain a 4 year-old while on a serious zoom meeting.

ok?

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

Of course it depends on the commute, not everyone in the workforce has the exact same commute time. Read the comment i was responding too, where the poster called out things like pissing at home as unproductive.

I worked from home for a British consulting firm for ten years, it was amazing how easily distracted I could get plus, there was no synergy or cohesion among the team since everyone was virtual. Don't know if I could do again on a permanent basis even if it meant a shitty commute.