An article in today's Seattle Times promises that the economic realities of 2008 and beyond may cause a migration that looks like sprawl ... rewound.
Writer Elizabeth Rhodes covers recent studies that indicate a shift in priorities among homebuyers. Gas prices—now widely expected to remain high rather than fluctuate as they have in the past—are now a major factor in the most important real estate decision of all: location (both Alex and the Sightline Institute have recently discussed this topic). And, whereas cheap gas and cheap land in the second half of the last century fueled the creation of the massive sprawl we see today, the resulting shift in attitude is expected to once again reshape development of U.S. metropolitan areas, this time in the opposite direction:
[Economist Joe] Cortright says he's starting to see proof of change in cities nationwide — from Los Angeles to Pittsburgh, from Tampa to Seattle.
"Statistically, home prices are down more in the most distant suburbs and still relatively strong in the closer-in neighborhoods," he says. "The closer you are to downtown Seattle, the stronger the single-family residential market is."
Cities that offer attractive close-in housing will be more economically successful than those that continue to "follow sprawling development patterns," Cortright says.
Reading this article this morning got me thinking about how this shift from sprawl back to city will affect both those who move, and the neighborhoods that become their new homes.
At Worldchanging (and in sustainability circles worldwide), we like to imagine that compact urban living is idyllic: wake up in your efficiently designed not-so-big home, savor a cup of coffee while you walk to work (or devour a novel while riding public transit), do most of your shopping on foot, have a car-sharing membership on hand for those occasional big trips. For many people, that lifestyle sounds exciting, convenient and utterly pleasant. But as outside factors encourage more and more suburban residents to move to the city, urban communities will not merely need to absorb more people. They will also have to start reflecting an even more diverse set of values, needs and desires, as ex-suburbans bring their rural-living mindsets into the city proper.
Of course, it may be a very long time before we see a migration of the most set-in-their-ways suburbanites. The Times says as much, quoting one resident in particular who said he would prefer to maintain his 52-mile round trip commute and stay in the suburbs "until gas goes to $10 a gallon."
But with Seattle's neighborhoods growing at an incredible pace (in the past 3 years, neighborhoods like Ballard and Eastlake have already built more new units than the city predicted they'd have in 2024), it's probably wise to think about how to make even the most reticent new urbanites excited to embrace the compact lifestyle. Building the cities of the future will mean enhancing the best parts of urban proximity: transportation improvements that make public transit more reliable, cleaner and faster; attractive ground-floor development that invites and protects pedestrians and cyclists; neighborhoods within walking distance of universal amenities like grocery stores and libraries; increased product-service systems. But I think it will also be important to glean the best parts of suburban life for our cities: easy-to-access urban green space; improved urban schools; better noise control; a sense of public security.
If you were helping design your ideal urban community, what would be your priorities, and why? Please weigh in with your comments!
