# Decaying suburbs in the United States



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

LtBk said:


> That's because many McMansions fall apart after a decade or so. Besides with fewer people having kids, there is no need for large ass houses unless they have a huge family.


I never understood the appeal of McMansions either, especially since older homes fare better than newer homes over the years regarding maintence, since most newer homes are shoddily built with inferior materials and low quality craftsmanship.

Not to mention the costs involved with heating and cooling such a large space.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Not to mention how ugly and cheap looking McMansions are looking. It's a good thing they are slowly dying out.


----------



## Tom 958 (Apr 24, 2007)

Allowing older suburbs to decay is how the US provides affordable housing.


----------



## aaabbbccc (Mar 8, 2009)

I live in an older inner ring suburb of Orlando it is called Winter park , it is a very nice well established city of 25,000 , even the low income areas of Winter park looks decent and people take care of their lawns and homes , renters too take care of their homes as well for the most part . Some inner rings suburbs are very nice while others are in bad shape


----------



## fish.01 (Jul 7, 2009)

bayviews said:


> While I've no idea of where those suburbs might be located, I'd guess that their inland, well back from Sydney's beautiful waterfront?
> 
> Or maybe not?


Claymore is 54km inland from Sydney's CBD. Still looks better than the American suburbs mentioned but not sure if comparing apples with apples.


----------



## aaabbbccc (Mar 8, 2009)

I hear Sydney is gorgeous never been there I would love to go there some day


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

diablo234 said:


> I never understood the appeal of McMansions either, especially since older homes fare better than newer homes over the years regarding maintence, since most newer homes are shoddily built with inferior materials and low quality craftsmanship.
> 
> Not to mention the costs involved with heating and cooling such a large space.


Me neither. Some people even try to furnish the added 2,000 sf when they move "up." 

A ton of people got bigger houses in the last decade, far more than presumably any other recent decade. I bet a huge percentage didn't think about the cost or effort of maintenance, furnishing, eventual renovations, heating/cooling/lighting, and so on. Many probably didn't think enough about gas prices. Now McMansions have dropped farther than the overall market in value, and I'm guessing their square footage will be a disadvantage long-term.

Hell, even a basic repaint every 10-20 years will be a hell of a lot more expensive, particularly with "cathedral" ceilings at the enty.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

*off topic*

There were many 'McMansions' built in my city over the last 12 years. Few if any of them are falling apart but resale values for them have fallen farther than the smaller tract homes and infill townhomes. What's falling apart is an unfinished 10 story condo building in the heart of downtown as well as a couple urban condo developments that have sat mostly empty when the would-be buyers who barely qualified for a $400k mortgage vanished.

*on topic*

I think some older suburbs like Cheektowaga NY outside Buffalo will never recover from the steady loss of inhabitants. So bulldozers may be roaming those neighborhoods soon. In more thriving cities, the antidote is economic growth and a return to a healthy housing market.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Not falling apart yet. Big+shoddy is a recipe for a lot of repairs (possibly major ones), lots of ongoing problems, and fewer renovation/reuse options. 

As for the urban condos, sometimes that's about level of urgency...a developer, or a bank that took control of the property, will often do a fire sale. If there's at least some demand, that can at least fill the building. My building opened in 2008 and it's full today for this reason. Even if it's empty, there's less room for deterioration from thieves or the weather.


----------



## Skyrazer (Sep 9, 2009)

aaabbbccc said:


> I hear Sydney is gorgeous never been there I would love to go there some day


Not really. Yeah sure the harbour and the beaches are glitzy and all, but most of the population live out in the western regions of the city which is just monotonous suburban sprawl. Those "gorgeous" parts you see on postcards are only tiny portions of the city and every city has its "gorgeous" attractions. There are Sydneysiders who haven't seen the harbour nor any beaches for years and years.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Few cities have anything as gorgeous as Sydney's harbor, peninsulas, etc.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

desertpunk said:


> The post-war housing stock is now 60 years old, the same age as urban housing stock during the post-war migration out of cities. In order to replace that aging housing stock in inner suburbs, much of which are small, cramped houses with few of the ammenities homebuyers want these days, there has to be a big rise in property values such that doing tear-downs becomes financially feasible. Or enough equity in those homes to finance big renovations. In the current housing market, there's not much of either. But before 2008, we were seeing many inner suburbs where the housing stock was being converted. Hinsdale Il. was a classic example. What I'm seeing in my city are older post-war homes being refreshed before a sale while neighboring houses slowly decline.


Interesting, 60 years old is not considered particularly old here and certainly houses of that age are not considered in need of replacement, 20% of the housing stock dates to before 1914.

It's true that modern tastes are different but people tend to accommodate that by refurbishment and knocking through walls in old houses to create more open spaces.

The average home size in the UK is only 92sqm/1000sqft.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Skyrazer said:


> Not really. Yeah sure the harbour and the beaches are glitzy and all, but most of the population live out in the western regions of the city which is just monotonous suburban sprawl. Those "gorgeous" parts you see on postcards are only tiny portions of the city and every city has its "gorgeous" attractions. There are Sydneysiders who haven't seen the harbour nor any beaches for years and years.


Anywhere near the harbour seems to be incredibly expensive.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

McMansions are over-perceived. Immense houses (talking about >4000ft / 400m² of main construction without garage/porch etc.) are not that common.

People have different ways to think about life and how to spend money, and SSC is severely skewed in that sense. Many here will think that it is "insane" to spend money heating a 200m² house for a couple with no children instead of travelling abroad, going out or buying fancy design-smart furniture, but many others disagree and spend accordingly.

The problem affecting older (1950s/1960s) housing stock, as desertpunk put it nicely, is more about layout, something difficult to change in any building. By that time, there was a trend in which the kitchen was supposed to be a "mechanical room", set apart from the rest of the house while a separate space would be used for eating, and yet another space (if the house was big enough) used as living room with the TV at its center. Many of those houses had only one bigger bathroom whereas today the norm for middle-class families is to have two bathrooms, one for the couple, one for the kids, sometimes a toilet for visitors.

Now, things have changes, open plans are valued and


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Jonesy55 said:


> Interesting, 60 years old is not considered particularly old here and certainly houses of that age are not considered in need of replacement, 20% of the housing stock dates to before 1914.
> 
> It's true that modern tastes are different but people tend to accommodate that by refurbishment and knocking through walls in old houses to create more open spaces.
> 
> The average home size in the UK is only 92sqm/1000sqft.


UK houses tend to be made of brick rather than wood, so age somewhat better.

New builds in the UK are even smaller, just 900 sq ft.
http://www.architecture.com/Files/R...rchAndDevelopment/Symposium/2008/MikeRoys.pdf


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Yes, in recent years planning policy has been very restrictive on greenbelt land and focussed on redeveloping urban sites, which has its good points and city centres are certainly improved by that but...

Proportion of apartments in new-build homes rose from 25% in the early 90s to 50% in the late 00s with the consequence that new homes are actually smaller than the average of the existing housing stock. Is there any other developed country where that is the case?


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

It's true for central city housing in my area, since we're going from a single-family vernacular to multifamily having recently become the majority of all homes. But suburban averages might have increased in recent decades (bigger houses, but also more multifamily). 

London might be similar...? While Greater London is fairly tight, the commuter towns could be different. Though in the UK, the commuter towns are generally land-restricted too.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

Montreal's are most decrepit.

This is a problem the world over, not just in the US; the temporariness of them all around this continent merely reflects the notion of redevelopment. Actually, riding down inner Montreal's The Main and St-Urbain today revealed how decrepit these highly dense arteries (for this continent) themselves are, never mind all the --uhm-- gentrification (many >-100-year-old buildings); the city itself looks dumpy as ever.


----------



## aaabbbccc (Mar 8, 2009)

Casablanca Morocco is now experiencing what the United States did after WW2 , the city of Casablanca is becoming more and more decayed with higher crime rates in certain areas and now new suburban areas are rising , sure some suburbs are very dumpy with slums everywhere but other suburbs are gorgeous , the people who are moving out of the city of Casablanca are moving to these new suburbs resulting in a shrinking middle class in the city and a rising middle class and upper class in some of the suburbs , I am not saying the entire city is a shit hole some parts of the inner city is stunning and beautiful , there is a suburb ( older suburb and the wealthiest one in Casablanca ) called the city of California ( named after the state ) this southern suburbs average home price is 4 million dollars , Casablanca is a strange and unique city both an amazing area and a dump as well , you see it all there


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

Yesterday's







:_Curbing sprawl tops urban agenda

Public weighs in; 20-year plan must be approved soon



... 

"There was an incredible reaction on the part of the public," ...

"We have never had as big or as strong a reaction to a proposed planning document in Quebec. The population has said
loudly and clearly that they would like more green space and blue space (wetlands, streams and rivers, shorelines) to be
protected and enhanced._

...​Spanking brand new, the photo reveals dreadfulness ... at least in greater Vancouver's Lower Mainland, they refrain
from clear-cutting.


----------

