In light of our recent participation in the USGBC’s Multifamily Midrise Competiton, this post from the New Geography site was an interesting read.
It is true that there seem to be two very defined camps in the “Sprawl” argument, and nine times out of ten I definitely am in the against group. And yet I technically live in a suburb, albeit a suburb that was developed in 1949 and has since been woven into the urban fabric so completely I’m not sure it can be called a suburb any longer.
To me the thing that really defines a suburb is the distance of the commute. If the only direct way to get from your home to the CBD is via a major freeway – you live in a suburb. And lets face it – there are a lot of really good reasons to live in the ‘burbs that outweigh the inconvenience of long commutes.
If you spend any time on the real estate website HAR.com you’ve probably seen some tear downs and vacant lots in the near-in neighborhoods like Montrose, River Oaks and the Heights listed for WAY more $$ than a much larger, nicer, newer home in Missouri City, Katy, Pearland or Tomball. Even if you include the total cost of your commute (maintenance, fuel, time, etc.) buying in the ‘burbs is still probably much less than that inner loop property.
What galls me is that those inner loop properties sit vacant. They fall into further disrepair. They blight the neighborhoods they stand in. They catch fire or are damaged in a storm. And still they sit. No one is willing to pay the price they’re listed at – and the owners aren’t willing to accept a lower offer. So nobody wins… What a waste!
One could argue that dense, mixed use, urban renewal projects have not taken off because the demand isn’t there – but I think the demand is there – its just not in line with the perceived $$ value of the demand. What would it take to swing the balance? Oil Shortages ($$ goes up higher)? Increased mass transit options from the outskirts of town to the CBD and increased mobility within the urban core (demand is lowered)? Endless discussion of increasing density by focusing development in underutilized city centers is futile until the foundation for decreasing the cost of this development is established.
Also, I’m aware I largely left out the east part of town in my pondering here. I’ll admit I don’t know much about Pasadena, etc. but I suspect it floods severely. Is that accurate?
Chime In! What are the areas of town most due for renewal? Where are we wasting our breath? What has to happen before this issue gets legs (and walks down the block to grab a coffee with friends)?
