Signs of Suburbia's Demise (finally)?

[czsz]

The suburbs in the Sunbelt are at least densely built enough that one can imagine them being easily reconfigured into pedestrian-friendly transit villages. Stores in snout-house garages could help form the quaint, mixed-use Newbury Streets of tomorrow, while streetcar lines on former strip-mall lined arterial roads could lead to development that looks a lot like Commonwealth Ave. in Allston or Beacon St. in Brookline.

That's assuming, of course, that the economies in the Sunbelt ever fully recover from this speculative burst.

Meanwhile, the isolated-McMansion-on-an-acre-plus model of exurban development that persists in the Northeast is bound for doom if the regional economy does not perform as well as it has been - and particularly if progressive Northeastern governments opt for the gas tax model. Ironically, there could be clamoring for commuter rail to take the pressure off beleaguered gas consumers who can no longer drive downtown - but without the concomitant pressure for improved zonings in the towns the new rail lines will serve.

 

[Ron Newman]

if you mean the Lincolns, Westons, Dovers, and Hamiltons of our region, it would take an economic collapse much worse than the 1929-36 Great Depression to empty those places out. I'd hate to see circumstances that would produce that result.

 

[underground]

The question I have about that article (that I'd bet he answers in his book) is, what are the charectaristics of a suburb that can easily be converted to a higher density node, and how many of these places exist? I'm not personally researching this, so I can't present any evidence to back myself up, but I'd be willing to bet that the best areas for this transformation to happen are the smaller downtown areas that have recently been vacated as people have suburbanized. These areas are places like the downtown's of the Lawrences, Lowells, Fitchburgs, Lynns, and Naticks of the world. Luckily, there are a lot of these types of spots, and even more luckily, because housing is a very durable commodaty, there are a ton of buildings in these areas just waiting to be re-imagined.

 

[ablarc]

You have to lift or modify the zoning first. It's mostly the zoning that keeps these dysfunctional places from changing.

 

[czsz]

Abandoned house on cul-du-sac, Memphis:

Related story (warning: very sad):

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/31/business/economy/31memphis.html

 

[jass]

Good looking homes. Note how the garage is hidden, and not the centerpiece.

 

[Patrick]

The question I have about that article (that I'd bet he answers in his book) is, what are the charectaristics of a suburb that can easily be converted to a higher density node, and how many of these places exist? I'm not personally researching this, so I can't present any evidence to back myself up, but I'd be willing to bet that the best areas for this transformation to happen are the smaller downtown areas that have recently been vacated as people have suburbanized. These areas are places like the downtown's of the Lawrences, Lowells, Fitchburgs, Lynns, and Naticks of the world. Luckily, there are a lot of these types of spots, and even more luckily, because housing is a very durable commodaty, there are a ton of buildings in these areas just waiting to be re-imagined.

Good idea. What you have just spoken of is referred to in planning and architecture jargon as an integral portion of "Smart Growth" -- i.e., channeling new development to existing city and town centers, with pre-existing brownfields sites and infrastructure already in place. In fact, in further discussion of your Massachusetts-specific example, I read a while back that there were plans of doing this in exactly the towns and cities you mentioned in terms of accommodating greater Boston's continued residential growth. I can't remember where I read it, but it was part of a large state plan, and of course plans don't always (in fact they rarely) materialize as articulated.

Also, Ablarc, you are absolutely right about zoning. One of my favorite new urbanist inspired quotes is that, if the places we love (think portsmouth, back bay, etc.) were wiped out in a storm, it would be illegal to rebuild them today. This is ironic. We have, through zoning, prohibited many of the most desirable types of environments. When one considers that this is a phenomenon (single use zoning based on autos) driven by the widespread use of the automobile and the types of development patterns it compels, coupled with the fact that something like 80% of the built environment in the USA was constructed in the last 50 years, it is no wonder why suburban sprawl is as big of a problem as it has become.

My suggestion? Form based codes or completely scrapping all zoning. Of course, nuisance actions at common law would remain an option, and perhaps some limited form of city wide regulation applying to nuisances only could be retained, but I think zoning is a crock. Portland and Boston and Portsmouth and myriad other enjoyable towns had their best portions built BEFORE zoning. Zoning is constitutional, but NOT mandated by law at the highest level.