# Americans Are Fleeing Big Cities



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

* Census: Americans Are Fleeing Big Cities*
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer
Thu Apr 20, 12:15 AM ET

Americans are leaving the nation's big cities in search of cheaper homes and open spaces farther out.

Nearly every large metropolitan area had more people move out than move in from 2000 to 2004, with a few exceptions in the South and Southwest, according to a report being released Thursday by the Census Bureau.

Northeasterners are moving South and West. West Coast residents are moving inland. Midwesterners are chasing better job markets. And just about everywhere, people are escaping to the outer suburbs, also known as exurbs.

"It's a case of middle class flight, a flight for housing affordability," said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. "But it's not just white middle class flight, it's Hispanics and blacks, too."

The Census Bureau measured domestic migration — people moving within the United States — from 1990 to 2000, and from 2000 to 2004. The report provides the number of people moving into and out of each state and the 25 largest metropolitan areas.

The states that attracted the most new residents: Florida, Arizona and Nevada. The states that lost the most: New York, California and Illinois.

Among the 25 largest metropolitan areas, 18 had more people move out than move in from 2000 to 2004. New York, Los Angeles and Chicago — the three biggest metropolitan areas — lost the most residents to domestic moves. The New York metropolitan area had a net loss of more than 210,000 residents a year from 2000 to 2004.

Richard Florida, a professor of public policy at George Mason University, said smaller, wealthier households are replacing larger families in many big metropolitan areas.

That drives up housing prices even as the population shrinks, chasing away even more members of the middle class.

"Because they are bidding up prices, they are forcing some people out to the exurbs and the fringe," Florida said. "Other people are forced to make moves in response to that. I don't have any sense of this abating."

The metropolitan area that attracted the most new residents was Riverside, Calif., which has been siphoning residents from Los Angeles for years. The Riverside area, which includes San Bernardino and Ontario, had a net gain of 81,000 people a year from 2000 to 2004.

Riverside has grown to become the 13th largest metropolitan area in the nation. It's a short drive to several mountain ranges, and it's within driving distance of the beach. Locally, it is known as the Inland Empire.

"When you look at housing prices in Southern California, along the beaches and coastlines, you're able to obtain a very large home for a much lower price" in Riverside, said Cindy Roth, president and CEO of the Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce.

Homes in Riverside aren't cheap. The median price — the point at which half cost more and half cost less — was $374,200 in 2005. But they are less expensive than Los Angeles, where the median price was $529,000.

Other areas that attracted a lot of new residents also have relatively inexpensive homes, even if they are not the cheapest in the country. Phoenix, Tampa-St. Petersburg, Fla., Atlanta and Dallas-Fort Worth round out the top five metropolitan areas.

___

On The Net:

Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Is it me or American is still the only country left in the West that still disrepects cities?


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

^^ Um is it me or most americans cant afford to live in big american cities, just think about it Miami, LA, Manhattan, San Fransisco, Seattle, Boston. The Average person in my city should be able to afford around 200,000 for a home now think of those cities and if you can afford anything with that there that isnt a one room run down shack, thats why high prices drive sprawl.


----------



## Jue (Mar 28, 2003)

People crave space. They want 4000 square foot houses with huge yards, even if they don't need it, which is usually the case. Yes, one can move to a cookie cutter Texas exurb, but to what avail? This is a day and time when people forget the concept of community or civic pride, all holed up in their McMansions.


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

Americans want more cheaper living space... and they can find it anywhere in this big country. In most big cities (like NYC) you can still find affordable homes, but the living space is smaller then elsewhere outside the city and the 'old suburbs'. Also people that move to 'small cities' move to bigger affordable homes in areas surrounding the 'downtown' area. There are also alot of small cities and big cities that keep adding districts so they keep gaining population in that manner. Other big cities (like NYC) can't never do that. Even though the whole metro is about 22 million people right now.


----------



## JBOB (Aug 26, 2005)

krull said:


> Americans want more cheaper living space... and they can find it anywhere in this big country. In most big cities (like NYC) you can still find affordable homes, but the living space is smaller then elsewhere outside the city and the 'old suburbs'. Also people that move to 'small cities' move to bigger affordable homes in areas surrounding the 'downtown' area. There are also alot of small cities and big cities that keep adding districts so they keep gaining population in that manner. Other big cities (like NYC) can't never do that. Even though the whole metro is about 22 million people right now.



That's absolutely correct.. In the early 1900's the migration was from the south to the North For Jobs and various opportunities. From the 1980's and now, people started migrating down south for the same reasons. In South Philly a decent size row home is going for 600k. In the Southeast NC, GEORGIA, Florida (most parts), etc.. I can have a swimming pool on a 1/2 acre to two acre lot.


----------



## ROCguy (Aug 15, 2005)

lol.... this isn't news. It's been happening for 55 years. I think you mis spoke when you said metropolitan areas though. Very few METRO areas are losing population, inner cities yes, but not the whole metro. The metro areas make up over 80% of America's population and that's only going to go up.


----------



## Jue (Mar 28, 2003)

Cheapness is relative though. Homes are ridiculously cheap in Texas; a respectable house with a sizable yard can be purchased for $150,000 here easily.


----------



## ROCguy (Aug 15, 2005)

As they can in some area of any state (except maybe CT NJ and CA) We are a HUGE country in land area compared to population. The whole western half of the lower 48 is essentially empty except for right along the coast and in a few population centers like Denver Phoenix and maybe Albuquerque, NM. And even some of the originaly settled areas along the east coast in New England remain very rural.


----------



## InTheBeach (Apr 20, 2006)

My brother is working in Houston on a contract. He bought a house in Cinco Ranch because he couldn't believe how cheap it was. 3300 sq. ft. for under 200K. I live in Toronto, and my house is 15 feet wide. It would fetch around 500K (US). Good thing that Toronto (not sure about the rest of Canada) is bucking this trend. Vs. other large centers in the Northeast, it is still affordable here.


----------



## ROCguy (Aug 15, 2005)

It's really all a matter of what side you are looking from. If you are a first time buyer looking to buy a house, than the skyrocketing real estate costs throughout most of America sucks. But if you are a current homeowner, you are making thousands of dollars by sitting on your ass in you own house. lol


----------



## DarkFenX (Jan 8, 2005)

Jue said:


> People crave space. They want 4000 square foot houses with huge yards, even if they don't need it, which is usually the case. Yes, one can move to a cookie cutter Texas exurb, but to what avail? This is a day and time when people forget the concept of community or civic pride, all holed up in their McMansions.


This is not true at all in some places. For example, in Boston, the only reason people aren't buying houses is the fact that it cost way too much. It's not because people want bigger space, it's the fact that they can't even afford it. Even though Boston is building more and more condos which lowers the price per unit, people can't even afford the reduced price. That's one thing I hate about these cities. Sure they can reduce a housing unit from $1million to $500,000 but it doesn't matter if you can't even afford that price.


----------



## grachtengordeldier (Mar 7, 2006)

How much square feet go in one square meter?
And...reading these prices, my god, are you all millionaires?
I rent a nice appartement in central Amsterdam (okay this was a thread about the US...) from 55 square meter for only 300 euro per month. And it's not a rundown shack but a social housing (as most houses here are) and in a very good state.
If I had to live in some suburbia I would die of boredom.


----------



## grachtengordeldier (Mar 7, 2006)

Ow yeas and I forgot to ask, if you would like to rent a house in a bigger American city, how much would you have to pay? I am talking about a "normal" house now, not a rundown shack, neither a villa.


----------



## Bobdreamz (Sep 12, 2002)

^ grach 10.763 sq. feet goes into 1 square meter...so 55 square meter = 592.015 square foot which is barely the size of a small studio in most major US cities...most 1 bedroom apartments are larger then that...as for rents they vary differently from city to city so it depends.


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

Why is the price for an apartment in the city center so high? The most people want to live in the suburb. So how are the high prices possible? I mean no demand = low prices?


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

^There's an insane amount of demand for housing in the city center, Tom_Green. The prices are high because of it---> pushing many people out to the suburbs.


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

pottebaum said:


> ^There's an insane amount of demand for housing in the city center, Tom_Green. The prices are high because of it---> pushing many people out to the suburbs.


But the thread titel say something different.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

Tom_Green said:


> Why is the price for an apartment in the city center so high? The most people want to live in the suburb. So how are the high prices possible? I mean no demand = low prices?


:crazy:


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

DonQui said:


> :crazy:





hkskyline said:


> Nearly every large metropolitan area had more people move out than move in from 2000 to 2004, with a few exceptions in the South and Southwest, according to a report being released Thursday by the Census Bureau.


You have a bubble in the USA.


----------



## DarkFenX (Jan 8, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> ^There's an insane amount of demand for housing in the city center, Tom_Green. The prices are high because of it---> pushing many people out to the suburbs.


Also it's because the city does not or will not supply the demand for apartments which are much cheaper than condos. Developers want money and the biggest profits are condos but these do not lower the price enough for the majority of the people wanting to live in the city. Only a small amount of people could actually afford condos leaving those who can't afford totally ignored.


----------



## Bobdreamz (Sep 12, 2002)

^ exactly...in south Florida the very few apartment buildings we have are being bought out & converted to condos as well decreasing the supply for rentals.


----------



## tuckerman (Aug 8, 2005)

ROCguy said:


> lol.... this isn't news. It's been happening for 55 years. I think you mis spoke when you said metropolitan areas though. Very few METRO areas are losing population, inner cities yes, but not the whole metro. The metro areas make up over 80% of America's population and that's only going to go up.



This is only looking at domestic migration - the gain in population in these areas is from external inmigration.


----------



## NaptownBoy (Jul 25, 2005)

Sprawl is just insane these days. the high prices in the city dont help. who really likes to drive 20 miles each way to come home to a winding maze of culs-de-sac where you find comfort in a 6000 sq ft mcmansion in a former forest or farmland
Two words: car-dependancy


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Well, this isn't new, Americans have been fleeing big cities for decades, but immigration and births usually stop the populations from actually declining.

But less people seem to be leaving in some areas, the article neglects this. 

For example: Connecticut average internal migration (per year) 
1990-2000: -22,798 
2000-2004: -4,171

Even though people are still leaving, at least less people are. Greater Hartford has actually seen 1,000 people from other states coming in than people leaving.


----------



## LordMandeep (Apr 10, 2006)

well thing is here in Toronto the city center is growing very fast with alot of new buildings and the suburbs are as well.

However the massive suburb explosion has stoped the city from growing at a fast rate.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

There are many more factors than the cost of housing. Jobs, for instance - inner city high paying jobs are dying out, and people have to move out to the office parks to find jobs now. People are stressed beyond belief in some areas, and the last thing they want to do is deal with any more people. That is a huge difference - it's not just the size of the house, but how far away from other people you get to be. And if anything people find those smaller exurbs acually are more social for them - they find communities where they fit in with everyone else, where everyone meets at the super market, where you can make your house and your yard look the way you want it to, not the way the landlord wants.

There's a lot of things that I think some urban designers miss when it comes to inner city living. They still are caught up on how it looks versus the other aspects. If cities want people to move back then they have to make it more enjoyable for the majority of people to live there.


----------



## premutos (Mar 17, 2006)

WHAT A HORRIBLE PLACE!!!

American cities are the big epythome of failure

totally dysfunctional, run down, unnaccesible etc.

the sprawls outside the cities is a disaster too, not only ecological but in functionability as well, you have to drive 2 hours to go to work and go home everyday

IT'S HORRIBLE!!!


----------



## Mosaic (Feb 18, 2005)

Why do American prefer to live outside of cities?


----------



## kub86 (Aug 13, 2004)

I thought the new trend was to live in the city? I thought the suburbs reached their peak in the 1990s.... And how can the new york metro area be losing people???

I thought I just read a different article saying how NYC is expected to absorb another 1 millioni people in the coming decade.


----------



## satama (Nov 26, 2005)

grachtengordeldier said:


> How much square feet go in one square meter?
> And...reading these prices, my god, are you all millionaires?
> I rent a nice appartement in central Amsterdam (okay this was a thread about the US...) from 55 square meter for only 300 euro per month. And it's not a rundown shack but a social housing (as most houses here are) and in a very good state.
> If I had to live in some suburbia I would die of boredom.


 :eek2: .................................. :eek2: ........................... :eek2: 

That's unbelievable! I will move to the Netherlands ASAP! In Finland with 300€ you get a 25-32m2 apartment in <50.000 towns, which are usually situated kilometers from the town center. These are social housing solutions too. In Helsinki (a city much smaller than Amst.) you'd have to pay ca. 600€ to live anywhere near the city center, and we're talking sub 50 square meter apartments here.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

Wow, I'm surprised about California having state outmigration numbers like that!


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Mosaic said:


> Why do American prefer to live outside of cities?


Lots of personal space, good schools, isolation, lack of taste etc.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

kub86 said:


> I thought the new trend was to live in the city? I thought the suburbs reached their peak in the 1990s.... And how can the new york metro area be losing people???
> 
> I thought I just read a different article saying how NYC is expected to absorb another 1 millioni people in the coming decade.


NYC is going to absorb another million by 2025. The metropolitan area will continue to grow as well. What is occuring in most big cities and metros, is domestic outward migration. Fortunately international inward migration is absorbing most of the impact.

NYC has gained 120,000 people since 2000. The Greater NYC metro has gained 450,000.

Los Angeles has gained 160,000 and it's metro has gained 1.2 milllion_. Actually , there has been a dramatic slow down in growth between 2004-2005. Since 2000, L.A. metro, gained 300,000 a year, but the 2005 estimates put it's growth at 150,000._

Chicago has been estimated to have lost 50,000 people with in the city limits since 2000, going from 2.9 million to 2.86 million (city officials dispute this). However the metropolitan area has gained 360,000.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

premutos said:


> WHAT A HORRIBLE PLACE!!!
> 
> American cities are the big epythome of failure
> 
> ...


It seems that you know less about American cities than anybody on this forum. What a joke. If you want to talk about a disaster in coming just look at the Chinese cities. In a few years the traffic will be so bad that they will have to go back to their bikes as the primary means of transportation.


----------



## ReddAlert (Nov 4, 2004)

premutos said:


> WHAT A HORRIBLE PLACE!!!
> 
> American cities are the big epythome of failure
> 
> ...


idiot.


----------



## Siopao (Jun 22, 2005)

^^ lol


----------



## miamicanes (Oct 31, 2002)

Personally, I lay most of the blame squarely on zoning laws that over-emphasize FAR (floor area ratio -- total floor area divided by lot area). Skyscrapers DO cost more to build than average single-family homes... but the REAL thing that drives square-foot costs through the stratosphere is the artificial scarcity caused by FAR limits. 

Let's suppose you're a kind-hearted developer who owns a 100 x 100 foot vacant lot in a downtown area somewhere in America. You want to encourage middle-class familes to buy units by giving them what they're likely to perceive as a good value for their money. So you naively hire an architect, and design a nice building. The first two floors occupy nearly every square inch of the lot... the parking garage entrance and exit are at the rear alley, along with the dumpster. The sidewalk facade consists of four two-story 18-foot wide townhomes and main entrance in the center. Then above the pedestal, is a 24 story tower that's ~48 feet wide and ~48 feet deep -- less than 25% of the lot's area. The building's facade faces south, so the tower is located at the pedestal's southern edge and centered from side to side to leave as much space as possible behind the tower and the neighbor to the rear for sunlight maximization. It has two 2-story units per pair of floors, each appriximately 2,100sf (the remainder going to the elevator shafts and fire stairs). You do the math, and figure that you can sell the units for $420k apiece and still make lots of money if you leave out the travertine, european kitchen appliances, and other expensive interior finishes. The pedestal roof is designed to look like an elegant walled park, complete with playground for kids, dog-walking area, and lush landscaping. Feeling civic-minded, proud, and ready to do your part to help bring middle-class Americans back into the city, you submit the plans for approval.

Two weeks later, you've been run through an emotional meat grinder. The planning department tells you it's too massive (you can only occupy 40% of the lot), too tall (10 stories or 100 feet, max), and has WAY more square feet than FAR allows (almost 70,000sf, vs 17,200). They helpfully point out, however, that you can actually build 36 units on the site, even though your original plans called for only 28 (24 in the tower, 4 lining the street). So, if you're a typical developer, you do one of two things in disgust: 

* You build an underground garage at staggering expense, eliminate the sidewalk-lining townhomes, chop the tower down to 10 stories, and slice it in half... ultimately, building 5 ultra-luxury units that sell for $1.8 million apiece. Assuming you don't end up losing your shirt first since you're now gambling on being able to recoup the construction costs (which are now 2-3X as much per square foot of floor area since you can't spread the fixed costs among as many units, plus the expensive luxury upgrades you had to build in to make them actually worth that much money... and hope you can find 5 uber-wealthy buyers who share your decorating tastes and sell the 5 units before the interest on the construction loan bankrupts you.

* You throw away the original plans, and build a squat 6-story building that occupies a little less than 30% of the lot area, with 6 one-bedroom units per floor. You do everything as cheaply as possible, but even if you're feeling kindhearted, you can't really sell them for less than $240k apiece because of the fixed costs of the crane, permits, fees, etc.

In either case, our hypothetical upper middle-class family who might have seriously considered buying a unit in the original building are going to be utterly priced out of the $1.8 million downscaled alternative... and run straight to the suburbs after seeing what they can buy downtown for the cost of a McMansion 40 miles away on a quarter-acre lot.

Costs DO increase with height, but for the most part, the raw marginal construction cost per square foot of carpeted concrete goes down as the building becomes larger. The main thing that drives square-foot costs into the stratosphere is the artificial scarcity induced by FAR limits. In most cities, it's legally impossible to build the equivalent of highrise McMansions. If zoning-induced artificial scarcity were removed from the equation, and the raw cost of building carpeted concrete were the only limiting factor (subject to setback limits for higher floors to allow sunlight to reach neighboring buildings), I suspect cities like Miami, Chicago, DC, and NY would see a sudden radical shift to tall-but-thin buildings on lot-filling 2-3 story pedestals. The first few thousand units would obviously be snapped up by wealthy residents craving more space, but eventually the market would saturate enough for the cost of smaller condos (that can be combined into bigger ones) and new big condos would become affordable to upper middle-class, then middle-middle-class residents.

A middle-class family might bite the bullet on a 30 or 40-year mortgage to buy a BIG $420k condo or townhome in a good neighborhood... but they're NOT going to overextend their credit and live within two paychecks of bankruptcy for the rest of their lives just to buy a condo barely larger than the 3-car garage in the new house they can comfortably buy for half as much money out in exurbia.


----------



## *UofT* (Jul 25, 2004)

People are always so quick to criticize the American public's psyche.

Listen, This is North America.. If you have the ability to live in a leafy suburb and suburb living is your thing then why not?

In the US they choose to live the way they do because they CAN!!.

Fuel prices and transportation is a whole new story, but don't HATE on the fact that American's can live big and think big because in North America you really can.


----------



## lazar22b (Oct 22, 2004)

@Miamicanes:

That was a great explanation of the way that FAR screws things up for developers. I've always wanted to go into development and I knew there were always limitations that actually hurt development but now I see how this happens. It is unfortunate that with such limitations buildings can't be built to maximum economic efficiency. This was a great explanation as to why so many people do choose to go and live in the suburbs.


----------



## ardecila (Jul 7, 2005)

Who are the major proponents of these FAR restrictions? Why were they enacted in the frst place, and if they're so harmful, why are they still on the books?

Obviously, the developer isn't profiting from this if it limits the amount of units he can sell off that lot.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

It is very simple!
Freedom and better educational systems! Of course that big mansion with lots of green space,lol!


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

lazar22b said:


> @Miamicanes:
> 
> That was a great explanation of the way that FAR screws things up for developers. I've always wanted to go into development and I knew there were always limitations that actually hurt development but now I see how this happens. It is unfortunate that with such limitations buildings can't be built to maximum economic efficiency. This was a great explanation as to why so many people do choose to go and live in the suburbs.


I'm in the same boat and have been wondering about this. Where do I find this information out about individual cities?


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

From: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...411&call_pageid=968350072197&col=969048863851
__________________________


> Suburbs sold as hedge against disaster
> Some downtown firms taking back-up office space in 905
> `Hot seats' offer protection from terrorists or catastrophe
> Apr. 22, 2006. 09:46 AM
> ...


----------



## Archiconnoisseur (Nov 4, 2004)

The title of this thread is misleading. In D.C. at least, houses are getting bigger and more luxurious and/or are being replaced by Class A office buildings. Since the boundaries of the District aren't getting any bigger, bigger houses and more office buildings equal less residential land which in turn equals higher prices. As a result, although DC's residential population continues to decrease, the affluence of its residents and the quality of its buildings continues to increase. Moreover, all of those office buildings get filled up during the daytime, so DC is denser and more populated during work hours than ever before.

What foreigners need to realize is that the average American home keeps getting bigger. All things being the same, this means that the total number of people living within a given area must decrease.


----------



## ROCguy (Aug 15, 2005)

*UofT* said:


> People are always so quick to criticize the American public's psyche.
> 
> Listen, This is North America.. If you have the ability to live in a leafy suburb and suburb living is your thing then why not?
> 
> ...


 :applause: :applause: :applause: 

WE HAVE THE ROOM. With the exception of the NYC metro area the US has the room for all of this. Yes, it is sad what has happened to the inner cities over the past few decades, but that is actually changing as many empty nesters from the suburbs and young college kids (more americans are going to college every year, it's now almost 70% of Highschool graduates that go on to college) who are moving to the cities and revitalizing them. But an American family with kids has it way better in the suburbs with a nice comfortable house with enough room, and a nice yard for the kids to play in. Don't hate; chances are you've never even seen US suburbia.


----------



## Jue (Mar 28, 2003)

polako said:


> It seems that you know less about American cities than anybody on this forum. What a joke. If you want to talk about a disaster in coming just look at the Chinese cities. In a few years the traffic will be so bad that they will have to go back to their bikes as the primary means of transportation.


That's why there's this thing called rail. Your statement applies to every major city, not just Chinese ones.

The problem with highway-oriented transport is that highways are gigantic eyesores and ecological disasters. Any highway must be far larger than average traffic demand to handle peak loads, which is a complete waste of taxpayer money. One rail line can handle more traffic by simply adding more trains, and subways require no right-of-way.


> WE HAVE THE ROOM. With the exception of the NYC metro area the US has the room for all of this. Yes, it is sad what has happened to the inner cities over the past few decades, but that is actually changing as many empty nesters from the suburbs and young college kids (more americans are going to college every year, it's now almost 70% of Highschool graduates that go on to college) who are moving to the cities and revitalizing them. But an American family with kids has it way better in the suburbs with a nice comfortable house with enough room, and a nice yard for the kids to play in. Don't hate; chances are you've never even seen US suburbia.


But I have seen it, and plenty of it. The general feel I get is of bland uniformity. I don't understand the argument of family orientation. Yes, toddlers might like crawling around the backyard, but all the older kids I have spoken to agree with me on that count: that suburbia is a mass-produced hellhole where momma has to chauffeur everybody around, completely inaccessible once they are old enough to have personal social lives. Kids watch television and play games all day long because there is nothing else to do. Even the nearest strip mall is often a 20 minute walk away. The parents I know seem to argue for suburban lifestyle in order to control their children. To raise them in an environment so sheltered that without natural street-smarts they are completely lost. It's always funny watching the new freshman class at the local university: people breaking down from confusion on insurance claims, or people trying to hail the bus like a taxi. These kinds of travesties do not occur on kids that grew up with responsibility and independence, things that are more easily found in the city. How can a child be independent if he cannot _get_ anywhere, much less get somewhere to work? Besides, they long for transit and density, just like snobby SSC'ers do.


----------



## miamicanes (Oct 31, 2002)

I have no idea where the original inspiration for FAR came from (any professional city planners here who know?)

I suspect it came about as a sledgehammer/meat-cleaver way of trying to avoid overcrowding of early 20th century cities, and was born during an era when tall NECESSARILY meant "massive" because modern engineering techniques like finite area analysis either didn't exist, or were utterly impractical without computers. For those who don't know, finite area analysis is the reason why modern freeway structures can be relatively sleek, slender, and long-spanning compared to the hulking monstrosities of even the fifties and sixties, and why buildings like most of the new 'scrapers in Asia can be tall and slender, yet relatively column-free on the inside compared to ancient buildings like the Empire State Building. Even 50 years ago, it wasn't practical to recursively calculate the EXACT load requirements of every beam and column in a building, so engineers just had to overdo everything by a comfortable safety margin and have faith that it would all work out in the end. I think this is what made Hoover Dam such an engineering marvel at the time... it was one of the first structures that literally WAS designed using FAA, taking advantage of the Great Depression to employ thousands of otherwise unemployed engineers to do (and re-do) the millions of individual calculations required.

But anyway, getting back to policy issues, there's a fundamental misunderstanding of height's impact on a surrounding area. Most laws fail to appreciate that a supertall, superthin tower blocks WAY less sunlight than a short one of equal area thanks to diffusion. 

People living in single-family homes nearby who freak out at the thought of people seeing into their backyards fail to realize that someone who's 30 stories high would probably have a hard time even determining the _gender_ of someone sunbathing nude in those backyards, let alone see anything meaningful if they actually cared to look. The answer isn't to force the developer of a propsed 50 story thin tower to make it 10 stories (so then EVERY SINGLE RESIDENT has a front-row seat to the neighbors' backyard activities), but rather to treat it like a zero-lot home and require that windows along the rear lower 30 stories of the building (that face the single-family backyards) be clerestory windows, frosted, glassblock, or otherwise avoid looking directly into those yards.

As far as pedestal mass goes, let's be honest... if you live in a single-family home behind a skyscraper, there's no meaningful difference between an 8 foot high fence or wall running along the rear property line, and a 12 foot high windowless parking garage wall running along the same line. Nor, for that matter, will it make much real difference to your yard's sunlight if the garage's second floor is another 12 feet high, but set back ~10-15 feet from the property line. If anything, the lot-filling indoor garage is an _improvement_, because the walls and roof will help to muffle the engine and car alarm noise. In fact, a 10-foot buffer of unbuilt yard behind the 'scraper will just turn into a trash-filled no-man's-land that ends up paved over or reverting to untamed jungle.

Getting back to economics for a moment, it CAN be cost-effective to build tall, thin towers. Let's suppose a developer who normally builds McMansions gets into the 'scraper business and buys a couple of adjacent lots. With a little planning, those adjacent 'scrapers can be built with the same production-line cost-saving techniques as single-family homes -- sharing a single crane, with work crews going from tower to tower to do the same subtask in all the towers before moving on to the next. They can save on the engineering costs (usually a major part of any 'scraper's construction cost) by using the same plans to build several more or less identical towers, outwardly differentiated just like homes in a typical suburban neighborhood -- changing the color, mirroring the plan, changing a window or two, etc. Or designing a few towers with similar footprints, and scattering the identical copies of small clusters of different towers over a larger area.

I want to believe Miami has the right idea with its upcoming new zoning law, but at the moment, "Miami21" is still the zoning equivalent of Microsoft Dotnet circa 2001 -- megabytes and megabytes of fluffy, buzzword-strewn documents that are nevertheless devoid of anything resembling a meaningful hard detail. It's no wonder developers are scrambling to get building plans approved so they can have a grandfathered fallback option... at this point, it's _impossible_ to design _anything_ that meaningfully takes the new law into account, and I wouldn't be surprised if Miami21 ends up becoming the equivalent of a 2 year de-facto building moratorium -- getting passed before it's really ready in an effort to "Do Something Now!", then endlessly amended week after week as NIMBY group after NIMBY group screams, lawsuits fly, and developers throw up their arms in disgust after collectively spending millions of dollars trying to chase a moving target that won't stay put long enough to get _anything_ approved, and _everything_ turns into a politically-charged game of "Mother, May I?".


----------



## Mosaic (Feb 18, 2005)

LtBk said:


> Lots of personal space, good schools, isolation, lack of taste etc.


Is that so?. That's quite interesting.


----------



## blink55184 (Nov 30, 2005)

cities are expensive with the way our economy is set up right now. I live in Boston and I pay alot for EVERYTHING.
Our economy is based around the suburbs right now.
This huge suburbanization of America started after WWII.


Do you see any WALMARTS in a city????


----------



## miamicanes (Oct 31, 2002)

> Do you see any WALMARTS in a city????


Yes. With a Sam's Club stacked above -- both adjacent to a big parking garage with free and abundant parking. Why should suburbanites be the only ones to benefit from low costs, abundance, and 24/7/365 convenience?


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

Don't think that all suburbs are endless tracks of identical homes stacked on on top of the other all surrounding a mega-highway. Unfortunately a lot of people only see the suburbs ironically as they are driving down the highway and that is all they see.

It's a way of life issue. While some people crave the excitement of a city, many people are so stressed with their lives right now in this country that they don't want any more excitement - they need calm and control. The suburbs give them that control - both on a personal level as well as a larger level. They have their own yard, their own house - they can make that look any way they want. They don't have to conform to what the rest of the tenants or the landloard want. Do they often look alike? Yes, that is because that happens to be the popular style. People aren't looking forward these days - they are looking to the past.

On a global scale suburbs offer them more of a chance to be heard and to shape their environment. Again, yes to many people this is pretty reculisive. But then again, many people don't have the same priorities or values as you. 

Instead of griping why people move to suburbs and insulting them, perhaps we need to look at WHY they move and WHY they choose that kind of living. Perhaps we can better understand what people are really looking for and how to better shape our cities.


----------



## ardecila (Jul 7, 2005)

Well, the reasons people move to suburbia are quite obvious.

Since our society has re-centered itself around suburban development, there are quite a few perceived advantages:

- Price - such houses are built to be as cheap as possible while still providing luxuries as part of the design.

- Advertising - seriously, when was the last time you heard anyone advertising family residences within a city on a major media outlet? (TV, radio, newspaper AD) Then look at the ads for Centex, for Neumann, Kirk, etc.

- American Dream - so long as this concept persists, it will continue to link sprawl with patriotism, and therefore appeal to a certain segment of the population. It started in the 50s, when people apparently thought that living in an tract of identical, cheaply-produced houses was somehow defying communism. Europe has no such connection, and as a result, they have been able to turn the tide against sprawl.

- 2nd-generation - the baby boomers and subsequent generations were largely brought up in suburban environments, so the hallmarks associated with raising kids in those environments attract them. The widespread junior sports leagues, the personal pools, the playing in the yards; and growing older, the idea of celebrating as soon as you get your drivers' license, of attending homecomings and proms, cheerleading and football. They want their kids to experience such things, and they don't see them happening in cities. Also, new parents feel they have an obligation to follow in their own parents' footsteps, because they are the ones who set the examples.

- Privacy/Safety - new parents don't want their children to have to grow up in a world where drugs, gun violence, police brutality, robbery, and such happen often. We lived in a very nice, "safe" area of Chicago, and we were robbed 3 times before I was 5 yrs old. Since moving to the burbs, we have not been robbed, broken into, trespassed upon, or otherwise violated once. It's not hard to see where such ideas come from. There's also the privacy issue; parents like the idea of two walls, a fence, and a whole yard seperating them and their problems from the ears of the neighbors.

- Dirt/Grime - the thinking behind the 50s/60s exodus, was that the cities were horrible, dirty, disease-ridden, unsafe packed-in places to live. Suburbs, the shining knight, offered a solution by removing people from one another. That thinking, although still taught in history classes, has largely remained in the guise of parental duty; parents think they must go get a big house with a yard to raise kids; otherwise, the kids will become Goths, worship Satan, and do all the other weird stuff that takes place in cities.

Any further suggestions for factors causing people to move to suburbia, throw them out there.

Personally, I am very much in favor of urban living. But at the same time, we cannot convert suburbia to urban-level density without huge population growth to fill it in. The reason that suburbia works in spite of its flaws is because of the luxuries, mass culture, and prosperity of its residents. If we all make a return to the cities, it will force the low-income/poor people into the suburban cities, which destroy community. And oftentimes, community is what keeps such people together.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

ardecila said:


> tract of identical, cheaply-produced houses


Kind of a side discussion, but I think this is one argument point that severly needs clarification, because it perhaps is the least convincing to non-urbanists.

To many people, suburban neighborhoods actually offer _more_ chances for individualization and are more personable than large aparment complexes. In a city situation, you are likely to be stuck either in a tall condo or apartment building where you have absolutely no control over the look of the building, which looks just like the office building down the street, or at bestr in a brownstone which still has no yard to fix and prehaps only a small facade you can customize.

When first built, yes the suburban neighborhood looks identical. But that is simply the base structure everyone starts from. People do their yards the way they want - some want a classic picket fence, some lots of flowers, other a few trees. They paint their houses, put on additions, furnish the interiors and built porchesz and patios. They have control over not just the interior, but exterior and the surroundings, too. They control whether their yard is taken up by a pool or a lawn or a driveway.


----------



## ardecila (Jul 7, 2005)

My point here was not that I didn't like the suburban house variation - I was poking fun at any thinking that says that such houses are helping to defeat communism.

Not only is it absurd thinking to begin with (the style of the house you live in really doesn't reflect the economic system of your country), but the idea of handcrafting something individually so it is unique, seems closer to capitalism to me.

If I had to take one aspect of suburbia, I'd keep the houses. I honestly have no problem with such houses, as long as they are built in good, solid neighborhoods that are walkable, don't cater mostly to autos, and have transit easily available. People may ridicule the design of such houses, but we've been doing similar things since the mid-1800s, when Sears and other companies began selling and shipping mass-produced houses out of their catalogs. Many of the cherished old homes in small towns came from this source. 

And as for living in cities - you do have a choice. You can choose the architectural style of your house, the type of residence it is, and the type of neighborhood it's in. There are rowhouses, high-rise condos and apartments, lofts, low-rise buildings, and yes, even many single-family homes. There are choices for every income level.

The thing I appreciate about buying in a city, is that you are almost guaranteed a quality construction and neighborhood. The test of time has proved most of the residences in a given city. Such a test has not proven the neighborhoods of suburbia, where the original tracts of the 1950s now house lower-working-class people and seniors. In many places, their original vitality of children running around, going to the neighborhood park, has disappeared. Why is this? The neighborhoods were planned poorly. Such vitality and growth is fleeting in the suburbs, moving further and further out to the newest houses of exurbia.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

In today's times, there is really no need for large yards for houses because most people don't use them anymore.


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

^^ THats why most suburban houses dont have big yards anymore also due to companies trying to build as big as they can on the lot.


----------



## LordMandeep (Apr 10, 2006)

Thats whats happening in Toronto. Massive houses on very small lots but it ads density. The Burbs here are mostly really nice houses with alot of minroity people.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

Front yards, no. But back yards are as popular as ever. Kids today are getting into more sports, and we are seeing a resurgence of familly groups. these tend to lead to increased use of the yard as a recreational space. The difference is that we have become increasingly concerned wioth privacy. We no longer like to sit in the front yard, to be seen by anyone who passes by. We instead move to the back yard where we have our privacy. We now construct fences and plant trees to shield ourselves from nosy neighbors.

Now this may not be happening in those suburbs which sit very close to an urban area. Those are the areas which are slowly becoming part of the city itself, and are being taken over by the wave of flotsam that surround the growing inner cores. Ironically growing cities may be one of the biggest causes of suburban decay - growth fucntions like ripples spreading from the central core - at some point you are going to pass thorugh a trough, and later you will hit the high point of the wave.


----------

