Death of the suburbs?

Ok pretty much as i thought, same as with the condos then..

The thing with the older houses is, they've lasted long enough that we start to think of them as kind of invincible, and not requiring upkeep. but all housing is depreciating in quality (obviously older housing was of a better quality but this doesn't mean its somehow immortal, plus we are only seeing the older housing that has survived of course)

though I do know from personal experience that most homes built by volunteers at Habitat for Humanity are put together waaaaay better than the average "starter home" or whatever

as an aside, looks like the arm resets dont really start rolling till 2010 and 2011

http://bp3.blogger.com/_pMscxxELHEg/RxzD0s_7EYI/AAAAAAAABB4/ljDSXZhMG3o/s1600-h/IMFresets.jpg

I will definitely be trying to consult with I DIED when it comes condo hunting time. I have no interest in hearing from my neighbors or my neighbors hearing from me

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2008/02/25/daily20.html

id never heard that about the OUTER ring suburbs, thats really interesting - i know the inner ring is certainly experiencing a huge decline, and thats definitely true here in chicago where places like Dolton are basically the equivalent of inner city chicago circa the 80s-90s

-- deej, Monday, March 3, 2008 3:22 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

Really? I'd expect this to be more of an outer suburb phenomenon, due to the inner suburbs being more settled.

Anyone who has lived in old housing knows exactly how much upkeep it needs. :)

Really? I'd expect this to be more of an outer suburb phenomenon, due to the inner suburbs being more settled.

I'd heard this before too - basically because the people in the older, inner-ring suburbs wanted even bigger houses on giant lots so they took off to live even further out, making lots of houses available and therefore cheaper in the inner-ring suburbs. I think whatever I read had to do with Detroit, specifically.

Any thoughts on 'New Urbanism'?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRrl7LwNUtw

Has anyone been to or lived in any of these places (Kentlands, MD in this video, any other examples?)

And is the above only likely to make major inroads in another 10-20 years time?

Also has anyone spent any time in South Korea?

Tombot to thread.

New Urbanism was big with the Dwell (Magazine) crowd a few years ago ('good modernism') before I stopped reading it (I think they're onto prefab these days, which mysteriously costs no less than having shit built on site - dunno how they're managing that).

Part of the concept is good (pedestrian accessibility, community) but in a lot of ways it reminds me too much of the suburbs/chain stores they wish to replace. Urban locales grew organically, with their own culture and personality. The examples of new urbanism I've seen are basically block after block of samey shops and living areas that could have been plopped down pretty much anywhere and cater almost entirely to relatively well-off white people.

Marcel Breuer house in St. Paul, yo:

http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/440*292/1homegazing1229.jpg

re: modern homes won't stand up as well as those of days past - partially OTM, but also a little bit batshit and unrealistic. Because we see some structures from 1880 still standing and surviving, we think that all of them were better then - but we don't see all the other ones that failed in the last 130 years.

Real wood floors and oak doors would be awesome in every house (carpet being the devil's work) - if it weren't economically and ecologically unreasonable. (Though I'm not sure how solid interior doors are terribly important in a home anyway... exterior, sure.) Dunno how homes today are built with "thin wooden frames" compared to the old days - 2x4s are 2x4s, and if you build in a city you're working off internationally-established building codes. (Granted, big developers probably get away with cutting corners on this.)

The big problems with tract housing (whether it's $120k starter homes or McMansions) isn't really (IMO, not an expert, I mostly work with commercial remodeling and custom homes) with the concept of how they're build, but with the quality of material used and the assembly line process.

Wood framing has existed as long as humans have built shit, and a concrete foundation certainly isn't inferior to pier and beam - but when Ron Mexico Homes doesn't do the dirt work properly or pour the foundation correctly you're SOL. Or when your development is going to look like every exterior is stucco (to appear more upscale), and instead they used some new fake-stucco product that grew black mold like a high school locker room.

Asphalt-shingle roofs are warrantied from 25 to 50 years (they make 15, I think, but at a price point that doesn't make any sense when 25s are available). Down here the only time you need a new roof is after hail or wind damage - maybe up north the winters cause enough wear to kill them after 10? Seems hard to believe, but I dunno.

And then there's cutting corners with windows and insulation and that sort of stuff, though technically it should all be superior to anything built before (and probably is, but isn't as good as it could be).

Suburbs that are well-served by commuter trains will not decay in the same way as suburbs that live or die by the auto. But the death of those suburbs will be the same sort of long, drawn-out death as the inner cities had across the decades of 1950-2000. There's just too many dwellings and infrastructure in the suburbs for them to die off fast.

Good stuff Milo - I wasn't really aware of how much a 'thing' 'new urbanity' was/is (haven't read Dwell - is it something I should have a look at?). I can see the problems of these kind of neighborhoods being pushed heavily at well off white people (but then on the other hand isn't this how low density suburbia really got kick started in the first place)

Done properly.. higher density housing really should be the opposite of this. Cost effective and sustainable.

Aimless I totally agree (and is why I've revived some of the transit threads as well) - the role of transit really interesting over the next 25 years. And yes the death of auto-reliant suburbs I think will be a drawn out process also. This doesn't strike me as an overnight thing (even with the higher gas prices of the last few years), what cities are equipping themselves for the future, what transit is being put in place, how long can the dreams of low density single family buildings reliant on cars continue?

Also curious about the effects of when boomers drop out the system, who wants to be left holding onto these places then?

the boomers are never going to fucking retire.

the boomers are never going to die. steve jobs will invent something that will allow them to live forever.

Are the suburbs dead?

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/06/pandemic-suburbs-are-best/613300/

Suburbs dead? Nah. They're just aging in place.