|View from downtown Silver Spring, MD. Source: downtownsilverspring.com (Note: thanks to jcortright for setting me straight on the earlier photo.)
(Note: This originally appeared on The Corner Side Yard on July 29, 2014. I’ve brought it up again because of a recent study by Luke Juday of the Demographics Research Group at the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the University of Virginia that documents profound demographic changes taking places in American metro areas. I strongly encourage you to read the study because of its implications for cities, which have been much discussed, and for inner-ring suburbs, which haven’t. I’ll add an update at the end. -Pete)
Anybody who’s visited this blog has seen posts that speak to our nation being at a critical point in our development history. I’ve said before that we’ve probably left the Auto Era that defined the way we’ve developed cities and suburbs over the last 60 years, and something new will emerge. I’ve commented on how we could view the upcoming decades as the Great Congealing, as distinctions between city and suburb begin to disappear. Certainly we’ve seen growing evidence that a growing number of people are expressing preferences for city living, and in places city growth is outpacing suburban growth for the first time in nearly a century. But what I haven’t done is articulate a way that, a least on the suburban side of things, changes could be made that will begin to blur the current city/suburb distinction. Here’s a simple prescription that could set suburbs on the retrofitting path.
First, let’s define some of the challenges that impact the burbs. There are many, to be sure. Here, however, I’ll outline three that have broad application to a great many suburbs:
- Lack of housing diversity. One of the outcomes of the housing crisis and the Great Recession is that communities that were reliant on large percentages of single-family detached housing, without much in the way of other types, were particularly hard-hit by foreclosures. Many communities that had a balance of housing types have been quicker to recover, and more residents are looking at rental as an option instead of homeownership. Most conventional suburbs have yet to limit their exposure on this front.
- Jobs/housing imbalance. For decades, few people cared how far their work was from their home, as long as gas was cheap and traffic was clear. But now people are expressing greater interest in being closer to their place of work — and that puts many traditional “bedroom suburbs” at a distinct disadvantage.
- Empty and underperforming commercial areas. As homebuyers moved further out, retailers moved right along with them. Suburban municipalities were happy to welcome them to town, with the promise of sales and property tax revenues. However, we’ve since found that we’ve overbuilt for our commercial needs, and we’re stuck with half-empty strip malls, or completely empty greyfields. They are becoming an increasing challenge for suburbs.
- Allow an accessory housing unit within a suburb’s single-family detached zoning district. Multigenerational housing is becoming the norm in nearly all communities, with adult children and aging seniors both moving in with previously empty nesters. Allowing an accessory unit can add units without greatly altering the conventional suburban landscape.
- Create mixed use districts along arterial commercial corridors. Many suburbs are plagued with arterial roads that have waves of commercial development, often with vacancies. In many cases, commercial uses simply aren’t going to come back. Allowing residential uses to mix with commercial uses on the interior parts of such corridors can eliminate blight and also add to the supply of rental units. A related benefit — concentrating commercial uses while adding residents will create vitality where none previously existed.
- Convert greyfields through residential redevelopment. Related to the point above, it’s clear that many power centers or regional malls will never return. Converting them to residential uses can introduce other housing types, such as townhouses or mid-rise condos, that were often missing in many suburbs.
Update: So, I wrote the above in July 2014, as feasible and simple land use policy responses for suburbs in what I viewed to be a changing landscape. Just I couple months after I did this, Aaron Renn published his piece at his Urbanophile website about the emerging “New Donut” development pattern:
“We’ve got three decades of experience in downtown revitalization, but much less in dealing with this newer challenge zone. I’ve said that suburban revitalization may prove to be the big 21st century “urban” challenge. This is where it is happening in many cases. These areas have an inferior housing stock (often small post-war worker cottages or ranches), sometimes poor basic infrastructure, and are sometimes independent municipalities that, like Ferguson, MO, are often overlooked unless something really bad happens. Unlike the major downtown, they are often “out of sight, out of mind” for most regional movers and shakers.”
In that paragraph Aaron correctly identifies the empty part of today’s “New Donut” — the outlying city neighborhoods and inner-ring suburbs that were built in the first decades after World War II and are starting to have less appeal when compared to splashy downtowns with amenities or plush distant suburbs that offer peace, serenity and (if it’s your thing) homogeneity. In the last 30 years or so, our metro areas have transitioned from this:
Indicating an underinvested city core, mostly focused on downtown, surrounded by prosperous suburbs, to this:
Indicating an economically strong downtown, a new underinvested ring of outlying city neighborhoods and inner-ring suburbs, and a new prosperous ring of suburbs even further out.
Meanwhile, Luke Juday quantifies this transformation by exploring demographic changes by distance from city centers, and comparing that to earlier historical patterns. These are his findings:
- Since 1990, downtowns and central neighborhoods in cities across the country have attracted significantly more educated and higherincome residents.
- Young adults (22-34 years old) have increased as a proportion of residents in the center of nearly every city in the country, while falling as a proportion across all other areas.
- Older residents (ages 60 and up) form a smaller proportion of the inner-city population than they did in 1990.
- In most cities, a decrease in income and education levels from 1990 to 2012 is evident several miles outside the core. How far outside depends on the city, with the sharpest drop being anywhere from 4 to 15 miles from the center.
- Households below the federal poverty line are migrating outwards from city centers. The poverty rate has increased significantly several miles outside the core in many cities.
- Racial groups are less concentrated in particular rings than they once were.
- Most growth in housing units and population continues to come at the outer edges of cities. Residents of the outer ring tend to be more educated and have higher incomes. They are much less likely to be younger adults, however.
And the analysis leads to graphs that look like this, for Charlotte:
This graph means a substantial increase in the numbers of persons with a bachelor’s degree or more in the area within about two miles of Charlotte’s city center, followed by a rapid drop, and then another increase on the periphery.
Outlying city neighborhoods and inner-ring suburbs are located in that trough, and they need policy responses that will help them withstand this transformation.