The conversation becomes non-starter at "If money were no object"

The question ought to be "given an amount (one which is rationally assumable) of resources you will acquire in your lifetime, what lifestyle would you choose to best maximize the value (not just monetary) you create for yourself and others?".

And at some point, a discussion needs to be had about the true costs of living (both low and high density) and the overall impact made by both types of living so that a consensus understanding of cost can factor into the answer.

I've said before, people want their acreage but they don't want to pay the tax rate necessary to provide services to that acreage.
Really? I haven't seen that. We have our acreage and haven't squawked over paying for it, notwithstanding that we don't get nearly the services out here.

RTD and the resulting TOD - yet more new urbanism. Good point about MAPS II, but keep in mind MAPS II was necessitated by sprawl in the first place as we abandoned existing schools and spent large portions of the school budget on new sprawling 20 acre schools and a fortune on a school bus system that is one of the most inefficient modes of transportation on the planet because it tries to service low density areas with mass transit.

If you took the $770 million from MAPS III and spread it evenly across 650 sq. miles over 12 years what could you build with it? Answer, nothing. I am not even sure you can plant and maintain grass for that price; but concentrate the majority of that money in a small area and you can change the whole City.

I live in the city far from DT - how would that change my life other than drive up taxes?

Really? I haven't seen that. We have our acreage and haven't squawked over paying for it, notwithstanding that we don't get nearly the services out here.

What if you had pay the true cost of a gallon of gasoline - which in 2012 was estimated to be $15.14 per gallon? Instead, you pay about $3.25 per gallon and the taxpayers and government borrowing cover the rest.

And why is MAPS for Kids always left out of the discussion, when it was not at all downtown-centric?

I have a feeling that that is a question that contains its own answer.

Everyone should be charged accordingly. On that note...we should assess a tax on every new downtown OKC resident to pay suburbia back for all the money we've handed over to revitalize downtown for them. $1 million a year per resident wouldn't begin to cover it for some years to come but it would be a good start.

Less the benefit that the entire city has gotten out of a revitalized downtown (including Moore/Edmond/Norman/etc) and $1 million/year per resident is simply not even close.

Building an arena on Reno/Harvey is not revitalizing downtown, it's revitalizing the entire OKC metro area from SE 119th and Post to NW 122nd and Council.

That's not a downtown project, it's a city project. Very few of the MAPS projects that have been located downtown can be fairly called "Downtown Projects" most of the are legitimately "Metropolitan Area Projects" because they best serve the entire city being located downtown.

How much a certain project serves downtown as opposed to the entire city is another discussion, but it is disingenuous to paint anything that occurs downtown as downtown centric.

And while we're at it, Devon has publicly stated that a move to Houston was likely had OKC not invested money in improving the city, and particularly downtown…and I suspect CLR would also no be here had that not happened. These types of realities heavily change the game in terms of what area of the city has contributed what amount of growth/value creation/etc.

If you could come up with a way to charge people for the lifestyle/landuse decisions I would be all for it. Any idea what the real cost of a gallon gasoline is?I would say around $6 a gallon. In Bahrain, gas is like 70 cents a gallon though(converted).

What if you had pay the true cost of a gallon of gasoline - which in 2012 was estimated to be $15.14 per gallon? Instead, you pay about $3.25 per gallon and the taxpayers and government borrowing cover the rest.

Why is that? I rarely even drive to OKC, proper, and they rarely send anything my way in terms of services, either (except water and electricity but I pay for them). I also live on a private road.

Less the benefit that the entire city has gotten out of a revitalized downtown (including Moore/Edmond/Norman/etc) and $1 million/year per resident is simply not even close.

Building an arena on Reno/Harvey is not revitalizing downtown, it's revitalizing the entire OKC metro area from SE 119th and Post to NW 122nd and Council.

That's not a downtown project, it's a city project. Very few of the MAPS projects that have been located downtown can be fairly called "Downtown Projects" most of the are legitimately "Metropolitan Area Projects" because they best serve the entire city being located downtown.

How much a certain project serves downtown as opposed to the entire city is another discussion, but it is disingenuous to paint anything that occurs downtown as downtown centric.

And while we're at it, Devon has publicly stated that a move to Houston was likely had OKC not invested money in improving the city, and particularly downtown…and I suspect CLR would also no be here had that not happened. These types of realities heavily change the game in terms of what area of the city has contributed what amount of growth/value creation/etc.



Likewise for improving other parts of the city where people live, work go to school and generate the tax dollars that paid and pay for improvements to downtown.

And why is MAPS for Kids always left out of the discussion, when it was not at all downtown-centric?

Wait. I thought when I voted for that I was sending a secret mandate for New Urbanism. Can I have a revote?

Why is that? I rarely even drive to OKC, proper, and they rarely send anything my way in terms of services, either (except water and electricity but I pay for them). I also live on a private road.

That just it though, at the base you are paying the average cost of providing electric and water to all people. If you had to pay the incremental cost of getting utilities to your house you couldn't afford it. That is why on my phone bill (and everyone else's phone bill) there is a line item tax for rural phone service. Otherwise, rural phone service would cost so much you couldn't have a phone.

It is really petty simple. Imagine 2 streets 1/2 mile long. The streets contain pavement, water lines, sewer lines, telephone lines, internet lines, electrical lines, and cable tv lines and residents along the street need police and fire protection. One street has high density housing along it and contains 1000 housing units, plus first floor retail and commercial services that allow the residents to walk to daily needs. The second street is low density and has 10 housing units, and is a single use area so residents have to drive for everything. If you take the cost of operating each which is cheaper on a per capita basis, the one where the cost of all the infrastructure is shared by 1000 units or the one where it is shared by 10 units? The obvious answer in the one with 1,000 people paying. So wouldn't it be fair if people paid the incremental costs of their housing choices? How much more would it cost if instead of 1000 housing units on a 1/2 mile street we all lived at the density of the second street?

No one is saying you can live on the 10 house street, we're just saying you should pay for that decision, and if you can't afford it what does that say about your housing choice? For nearly 60 years the federal government has spent trillions to make suburban living possible but that money is drying up. So what happens, do we keep piling up the debt or do we come up with plan B (which 60 years ago used to be plan A)?

I would say around $6 a gallon. In Bahrain, gas is like 70 cents a gallon though(converted).

In case you missed it in my other post - it is over $15 per gallon. The difference between what you pay and the $15 price is made up by the taxpayers and government borrowing.

That just it though, at the base you are paying the average cost of providing electric and water to all people. If you had to pay the incremental cost of getting utilities to your house you couldn't afford it. That is why on my phone bill (and everyone else's phone bill) there is a line item tax for rural phone service. Otherwise, rural phone service would cost so much you couldn't have a phone.
We have OEC for electricity. It is a co-op. We do not have city water but have our own wells. Actually we don't have telephone service.


It is really petty simple. Imagine 2 streets 1/2 mile long. The streets contain pavement, water lines, sewer lines, telephone lines, internet lines, electrical lines, and cable tv lines and residents along the street need police and fire protection. One street has high density housing along it and contains 1000 housing units, plus first floor retail and commercial services that allow the residents to walk to daily needs. The second street is low density and has 10 housing units, and is a single use area so residents have to drive for everything. If you take the cost of operating each which is cheaper on a per capita basis, the one where the cost of all the infrastructure is shared by 1000 units or the one where it is shared by 10 units? The obvious answer in the one with 1,000 people paying. So wouldn't it be fair if people paid the incremental costs of their housing choices? How much more would it cost if instead of 1000 housing units on a 1/2 mile street we all lived at the density of the second street?

No one is saying you can live on the 10 house street, we're just saying you should pay for that decision, and if you can't afford it what does that say about your housing choice? For nearly 60 years the federal government has spent trillions to make suburban living possible but that money is drying up. So what happens, do we keep piling up the debt or do we come up with plan B (which 60 years ago used to be plan A)?
Like I stated previously the roads were not provided by the City nor does the City maintain them.

There is virtually no fire or police service provided by Oklahoma City at least that can be counted on.

You should actually move to an ex-urban or rural area and try it out to see what the City services are.

flintysooner - if you can live far enough out to not use/require City services and are happy then by all means keep living out there. After all, T2 (rural) is still part of New Urbanism. The problem arises when people want to live in T2 (rural) but expect the amenities and services of living in the city.

Center for Applied Transect Studies (http://www.transect.org/transect.html)

You know, maybe this is where the misunderstanding stems from. New Urbanism runs the range from T1 - Untouched Nature to T6 - Urban Core. New Urbanism principles simply try to create efficiency no matter which zone you choose to live in. You can be a New Urbanist and live in a cabin the woods. Even the Unabomber lived efficiently.

Coincidentally I am reading Happy City: Transforming Our Lives Through Urban Design by Charles Montgomery and just read this passage and immediately thought of this thread:


We are torn between competing needs. None are more contradictory than the push-pull between proximity and isolation. In some ways our needs are at war with each other.

We need the nourishing, helping warmth of other people, but we also need the healing touch of nature. We need to connect, but we also need to retreat. We benefit from the conveniences of proximity, but these conveniences can come with the price of overstimulation and crowding. We will not solve the conundrum of sustainable city living unless we understand these contradictory forces and resolve the tension between them. How much space, privacy, and distance from other people do we need?

Do you think the City leaders in 1993 picked a downtown location totally by accident? Whether you knew it or not, you were voting for higher density and walkability way back in 1993. MAPS I had 9 projects:

Downtown Baseball Stadium
Downtown Arena
Downtown Canal
Downtown Library
Downtown Transit Link
Downtown River
Downtown Convention Center Rehab
Downtown Civic Center Rehab
Fairground Improvement

Did you ever wonder why 8 of 9 these were centered around downtown?Being a suburbanite that did vote for this I don't see it the way you do. And you haven't convinced my that the city leaders had density or walkability in mind either. All but the library and transit link are destinations for us suburbanites to drive to. And my guess would be that the vast majority of the users of these amenities do exactly that.

To the original question. I would never, by choice, live anywhere but in the burbs. I love having a yard with birds, squirrels and an occasional wild bunny and even a possum once. And Home Depot, Walmart, etc. are 2 or 3 minutes away. I also like having an area like DT with the ball park, arena and Bricktown to go to for an afternoon or evening. If the amenities DT also breed residential and retail those are fine too.

To the original question. I would never, by choice, live anywhere but in the burbs. I love having a yard with birds, squirrels and an occasional wild bunny and even a possum once. And Home Depot, Walmart, etc. are 2 or 3 minutes away. I also like having an area like DT with the ball park, arena and Bricktown to go to for an afternoon or evening. If the amenities DT also breed residential and retail those are fine too.

Softail, this is not directed at you. I'm just replying to this post as a springboard for my comment.
Friends, You do not need to defend your choice to live in the 'burbs. The argument that stems out of this is often one that starts from ignorance or inconsideration combined with selective reading / hearing and oversensitive feelings. In the best possible city (and OKC is making huge strides towards that, IMO) the 'burbs are just as essential as the downtown residences (and all the urban transects). Its more than a yin / yang or order / chaos thing. Its synergy and the best possible metropolitan situation recognizes and encourages both in moderation.
There, now group hug.

Even Paris has suburbs...

Sid, maybe start a "Good Suburban" thread with some examples?

Excellent point Sid - too often this discussion devolves into an all or nothing debate about which is better. The real solution is balance and understanding the costs associated with urban and suburban development and living. I don't think anyone would deny OKC shifted almost exclusively toward a suburban development pattern for decades and now, rightfully, the focus is on balancing that with good urban development. The lingering problem is that it is common in OKC for suburban development to be "forced" into urban areas; that is often the source of strong objections from people who want to restore the balance that was lost over several decades.

Let me just add that suburban spawl (which is what OKC has in spades) and new urbanism suburbs are NOT the same thing. Suburbia in new urbanism is still based on the 5 minute pedestrian shed, where every house is still within a 5 minute walk to most everyday needs and a transit stop.

Even people who have adopted the highest density options of new urbanism (Deep Deuce, Midtown, etc) are still clinging to single-use development ideas. For example, the desire for a downtown grocery store. Instead of single 'buy everything in one place' people should be asking for speciality sidewalk shops.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/Paris%20New%20Years%202013-14/Montmartre/CAM00428_zpsw3mleguq.jpg (http://s1178.photobucket.com/user/KerryinJax/media/Paris%20New%20Years%202013-14/Montmartre/CAM00428_zpsw3mleguq.jpg.html)

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/Paris%20New%20Years%202013-14/Montmartre/CAM00414_zpsmt85ixdg.jpg (http://s1178.photobucket.com/user/KerryinJax/media/Paris%20New%20Years%202013-14/Montmartre/CAM00414_zpsmt85ixdg.jpg.html)

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/Paris%20New%20Years%202013-14/Montmartre/CAM00413_zpsqsluryjc.jpg (http://s1178.photobucket.com/user/KerryinJax/media/Paris%20New%20Years%202013-14/Montmartre/CAM00413_zpsqsluryjc.jpg.html)

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/Paris%20New%20Years%202013-14/Montmartre/CAM00410_zpspt8hbe1u.jpg (http://s1178.photobucket.com/user/KerryinJax/media/Paris%20New%20Years%202013-14/Montmartre/CAM00410_zpspt8hbe1u.jpg.html)

It's far more enjoyable. Small shop owners, you get to know them & they know you.

... and profits and wages are kept in the community. Not to go political but income disperity is becoming a hot topic and this is a big reason why.

Here are just a few of the differences between a New Urbanism suburb and a Euclidian suburb.

New Urbanism Suburb
A) Connected street network
B) Five minute pedestrian shed
C) Mass transit accessible
D) Open space consist of public square
E) Parks and water are accessible and inviting
F) Homes have uniform setback and front porches with living space at the front of the house to keep eyes on the street
G) Garages located at read of home via an alley
H) Sidewalks on both sides of street
I) Narrow streets, on-street parking, tree colonnades and other traffic calming techniques
J) Residential out structures (garage apartments/granny flats/etc)

Euclidian Suburb
A) Dendritic street network with cul-de-sacs
B) Not walkable to anywhere
C) Not transit accessible
D) Open space is useless buffers between compatible land uses
E) Private ownership of park and water frontage
F) Homes don't have front porches and living space is set at the back of the house away from the street
G) Garages are dominant feature facing the street
H) Usually no sidewalks but sometimes on one side street
I) No traffic calming (in fact, most streets are engineered for 45 mph and higher speeds)
J) Residential out structures not allowed

Let me just add that suburban spawl (which is what OKC has in spades) and new urbanism suburbs are NOT the same thing. Suburbia in new urbanism is still based on the 5 minute pedestrian shed, where every house is still within a 5 minute walk to most everyday needs and a transit stop.

Even people who have adopted the highest density options of new urbanism (Deep Deuce, Midtown, etc) are still clinging to single-use development ideas. For example, the desire for a downtown grocery store. Instead of single 'buy everything in one place' people should be asking for speciality sidewalk shops.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/Paris%20New%20Years%202013-14/Montmartre/CAM00428_zpsw3mleguq.jpg (http://s1178.photobucket.com/user/KerryinJax/media/Paris%20New%20Years%202013-14/Montmartre/CAM00428_zpsw3mleguq.jpg.html)

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/Paris%20New%20Years%202013-14/Montmartre/CAM00414_zpsmt85ixdg.jpg (http://s1178.photobucket.com/user/KerryinJax/media/Paris%20New%20Years%202013-14/Montmartre/CAM00414_zpsmt85ixdg.jpg.html)

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/Paris%20New%20Years%202013-14/Montmartre/CAM00413_zpsqsluryjc.jpg (http://s1178.photobucket.com/user/KerryinJax/media/Paris%20New%20Years%202013-14/Montmartre/CAM00413_zpsqsluryjc.jpg.html)

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/Paris%20New%20Years%202013-14/Montmartre/CAM00410_zpspt8hbe1u.jpg (http://s1178.photobucket.com/user/KerryinJax/media/Paris%20New%20Years%202013-14/Montmartre/CAM00410_zpspt8hbe1u.jpg.html)That is not a suburb bro, this is

http://www.wickerassociates.com/wp-content/themes/realestate/images/Hickory-St-Aerial-1024x660.jpg
http://s.lnimg.com/photo/poster/d9886c11fca24020b34d3e45a2228716.jpg
http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/00/32/07/13_big.jpg

Here are just a few of the differences between a New Urbanism suburb and a Euclidian suburb.

New Urbanism Suburb


A) Connected street network
Every street is pretty much connected; please explain further what you mean by this


B) Five minute pedestrian shed
Not something I care about, but an option and district for that is needed for people that do


C) Mass transit accessible
Which is great! Mass transit should be available is all great cities. Don't move to a suburb though, expecting walkability and transit similar to downtown Manhattan


D) Open space consist of public square
There is open space and public squares in suburbs.


E) Parks and water are accessible and inviting
If I want to go to a park, I'm going to a park. The Myriad Gardens are no more inviting than Mitch Park in north Edmond.


F) Homes have uniform setback and front porches with living space at the front of the house to keep eyes on the street
It boils down to choice. Keeping eyes on the street is not a good point as my house as well as others have windows and front porches that face streets, so that is not a valid issue


G) Garages located at read of home via an alley
Plano, Frisco, Richardson--in fact most suburbs in Dallas--all have alleyways for garages


H) Sidewalks on both sides of street
This is where we agree. Nearly every street should have a sidewalk with very few exceptions. All new development in Edmond is required to have sidewalks placed.


I) Narrow streets, on-street parking, tree colonnades and other traffic calming techniques
This is nice. Something I would expect in a pedestrian centric urban environment. Keeps people safe when crossing and adds to personal taste.


J) Residential out structures (garage apartments/granny flats/etc)
Please explain more on this. You say suburban out structures are not allowed, but if they are what I think they are, they exist in numbers around Edmond.

Euclidian Suburb


A) Dendritic street network with cul-de-sacs
I see nothing wrong cul-de-sacs and like them in fact.


B) Not walkable to anywhere
I walk/bike/jog/run etc. all around Edmond. Did the same thing when I lived in Richardson(Dallas suburb).


C) Not transit accessible
We have some mass transit here and Edmond plans on expanding it; but like I said, don't move to a suburb expecting world class mass transit


D) Open space is useless buffers between compatible land uses
It is most certainly not useless and provides another plus for people wanting to live in an open environment.


E) Private ownership of park and water frontage
First off, that is just because residences are not stacked on top of each other. Secondly, there is plenty of private park and water frontage in urban areas. Third, Arcadia lake in Edmond is deemed as a public lake and has a public bike/hiking trail surrounding the entire lake, so what the hell are you talking about? For city parks, some front streets, some are in neighborhoods, some sit right next to schools etc. Just because they are right next to 3+story apartment/condo mid/high-rise, doesn't mean they are less inviting and are private. What an absorb argument.


F) Homes don't have front porches and living space is set at the back of the house away from the street
BECAUSE WE WANT ARE DAMN PRIVACY MAN!!!!! It is so nice being able to go in the back yard have all of my tropical plants, banana trees, coy pond, deck, hot tub etc. and being able to relax. It is nice getting in the hot tub naked with a girl during cold weather. It is nice going to my coy/bamboo garden and meditating with no concrete blocks hanging over me.


G) Garages are dominant feature facing the street
They take up like 15-20% of the street facing side of the house, hardly dominant.


H) Usually no sidewalks but sometimes on one side street
This is a negative(for me) living in suburbs, the lack of sidewalks. This slowly being changed however as I stated earlier on.


I) No traffic calming (in fact, most streets are engineered for 45 mph and higher speeds)
Doesn't need to be. 45MPH is a perfect speed and 50MPH is just fine as well for some roads. In an auto centric area you are going to have auto centric benefits such as being able to travel at higher speeds than urban areas.


J) Residential out structures not allowed
Again..... ?????

Plutonic Panda - I think if you ever spent time in a New Urbanism style suburb you might be surprised how much more you like it. If you ever make your way down to Jacksonville I'll be happy to give you a personal tour of some suburban places you would never want to leave. That offer goes to everyone else as well.

The Harbortown New Urbanist development in Memphis incorporates the best of urban and suburban design. Lots of single family homes, with plenty of privacy, but its also a planned, walkable community with a "town center" with retail, restaurants, bars, etc.

Plutonic Panda - I think if you ever spent time in a New Urbanism style suburb you might be surprised how much more you like it. If you ever make your way down to Jacksonville I'll be happy to give you a personal tour of some suburban places you would never want to leave. That offer goes to everyone else as well.I might have to take you up on that offer this summer. I'll likely be stopping by Jacksonville for a few days and then off to Port Charlotte to see my aunt.

Suburbia is coming back


Signs of a Suburban Comeback
More Americans Returning to the Land of Lawns and Malls, Census Data Show

The long tug of war between big cities and suburbs is tilting ever so slightly back to the land of lawns and malls. After two years of solid urban growth, more Americans are moving again to suburbs and beyond.

Fourteen of the nation's 20 biggest cities saw their growth slow or their populations fall outright in 2012-2013 compared with 2011-2012, led by cities such as Detroit and Philadelphia, according to data released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau.

In some cases, fast-growing cities are slowing down: Austin's growth rate decreased from 3.1% to 2.4%. In other instances, slower-growing cities grew at an even more diminished pace: New York's rate decreased to 0.7% from 0.9%.

A year earlier, 17 of the nation's 20 largest cities showed faster population growth than the previous year. Suburbs and areas beyond suburbs within the same metro known as exurbs, meanwhile, are seeing an uptick in growth after expanding more slowly during the recession and its aftermath.

All told, just 18 of America's 51 metropolitan areas with more than 1 million people had cities growing faster than their suburbs last year, down from 25 in 2012, according to an analysis of census data by William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution.

"City growth may be bottoming out, as well as the downsizing of the outer suburbs," Mr. Frey said. He said it remains unclear "whether the city slowdown signals a return to renewed suburban growth."

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-CB250_SUBURB_G_20140521184504.jpg

- Signs of a Suburban Comeback - WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303749904579576440578771478?mg=ren o64-wsj)

An interesting article from New Geography that lead to the article above:


According to the Wall Street Journal, there are "Signs of a Suburban Comeback." This is a turnaround from the typical media coverage of US population estimates in recent years, which have more often than not heralded a "return to the cities" generally more rooted in anecdote than data.

There were always at least two problems with the "return to the city" thesis. First of all, most people who live in the suburbs came from areas outside metropolitan areas and they couldn't return to where they had never lived (see Cities and Suburbs: The Unexpected Truth). More importantly, in every year for which there is data, the net inward migration to suburbs has been far greater than to the core counties, which have nearly always had net outward migration (see Special Report: 2013 Metropolitan Area Population Estimates. Under these conditions, there could not have been net migration from the suburbs to the core municipalities.

Historical Core Municipalities: The Differences

I have classified historical core municipalities based on their extent of automobile oriented suburbanization (Figure 1). The break point is World War II, after which the great automobile suburbanization occurred in the United States. There had been automobile oriented suburbanization before 1940. During the 1920s, annual rates of suburban growth exceeded five percent in the 14 metropolitan areas with more than 500,000 population. The decade of the Great Depression (1930 to 1940) saw annual growth rates drop three quarters (Note). By the end of World War II, transit had seen its motorized urban travel market share restored to 35 percent, equal to early 1920s levels, a figure that has since fallen to under two percent.

http://www.newgeography.com/files/wendell-suburbs-13-1.png

http://www.newgeography.com/files/wendell-suburbs-13-2.png

Core Municipality Growth

Most of the 2010 to 2013 core growth occurred in municipalities with a larger suburban component. The core municipalities that have little suburban development ("Pre-War & Non-Suburban") had 43 percent of the core population in 2010. Yet they attracted only 27 percent of the growth (Figure 3). The two other categories, which include large areas of functional suburbanization (low density and strong automobile orientation) attracted 73 percent of the core population (Figure 3). These include suburbanized pre-War core municipalities, such as Los Angeles, Seattle, and Atlanta. They also include cores that are nearly all suburban, with nearly all of their population growth having occurred during the great automobile suburbanization (such as Austin, Sacramento, Phoenix, and San Jose).

http://www.newgeography.com/files/wendell-suburbs-13-3.png

------------------

Suburban Areas: Top Gainers

The largest suburban gains were in Dallas-Fort Worth (325,000), Houston (296,000), Washington (269,000), Miami (245,000) and Los Angeles (211,000). Atlanta, which had virtually set the world standard for suburbanization before the Great Financial Crisis, managed to re-emerge with the sixth fastest largest suburban increase (208,000).

Measured on a percentage basis, Texas dominated the suburban gains. The suburbs of Houston added 7.8 percent to their population between 2010 and 2013. Austin added 7.7 percent, San Antonio added 6.6 percent, and Dallas-Fort Worth 6.2 percent. The only non-Texas entry in the top five was Raleigh, which, like Austin, posted a 7.7 percent increase.

The metropolitan area and historical core municipality data is summarized in the Table.

- read more here: From Anecdotes to Data: Core & Suburban Growth Trends 2010-2013 | Newgeography.com (http://www.newgeography.com/content/004329-from-anecdotes-data-core-suburban-growth-trends-2010-2013)

Also, this is pretty interesting seeing as car is nearly the main form of transport for every major economy.

http://www.newgeography.com/files/wendell-worldtrans-3.png

China's Ascent in World Transport | Newgeography.com (http://www.newgeography.com/content/004323-chinas-ascent-world-transport)

I think the more interesting thing is that China has 3 times as many people and significantly less car travel.

That chart is also in billion passenger kilometers - kilometers being the operative measurement there. One person driving 40 kilometers to work off-sets 20 train riders going 2 kilometers each. Since we know that people who drive do so because of the distance and that mass transit is mostly in high density areas, it would make sense that any measurement which includes 'distance' would be dominated by the automobile.

I also wonder what the chart would look like if car AND bus were not in the same category. You know whomever made that chart combined those two modes of transportation into the same category on purpose, because the raw data would have been collected separately. Wonder why they combined them.

Suburbia is coming back

Interesting how USAToday took the same information and ran it under the headline "Decade of the City."

Of course the truth is always somewhere in between. I do find the title of the WSJ article highly deceptive. They buried these little nuggets in their story.


Overall, cities are still growing slightly faster than the suburbs—a historical anomaly after decades of American migration to the burbs. Some of the growth has been fueled by younger Americans and retirees preferring city life, either for life-style reasons or to downsize their living arrangements.

Anything resembling the post-World War II trend of Americans streaming to the suburbs appears unlikely given the difficulties many debt-strapped young Americans face in buying a home. Still, the Census numbers show a cooling off in the growth rate of urban dwellers.


Cities in metro areas greater than 1 million people grew at a 1.02% annual rate in 2012-2013, down from 1.13% in 2011-12, according to Mr. Frey's analysis. Suburban areas, by contrast, grew at a rate of 0.96%, roughly on par with the 0.95% the prior year, Mr. Frey's analysis shows.

Millennials who want to live in vibrant, walkable neighborhoods in their twenties will likely be looking at suburbia once they get married and have children. I expect to see a significant suburban housing boom as todays twentysomethings get into their thirties. Why? Regardless of how much this generation would enjoy to live without a car, good schools will come first.

Millennials who want to live in vibrant, walkable neighborhoods in their twenties will likely be looking at suburbia once they get married and have children. I expect to see a significant suburban housing boom as todays twentysomethings get into their thirties. Why? Regardless of how much this generation would enjoy to live without a car, good schools will come first.

I wouldn't bet on it because the data trends aren't showing that.

The Millenials in the Plaza district don't, for the most part, even have kids (yet), but they are already being deeply involved in both Gatewood Elementary and Eugene Fields Elementary. These darn kids aren't going to take "bad schools" for an answer!

I wouldn't bet on it because the data trends aren't showing that.

Do we even have reliable data that shows us that? Given that the oldest millennials are just now approaching 30, and the fact most data we have was likely compiled on the coasts and big cities where people marry and have children later, I don't think we can say for sure yet that their affection for urban living will continue into their child-rearing years.

Well I just turned 30 and got married last year. Lived in Edgemere for 6 years and loved every minute of it. Well my priorites have changed since getting eloped. Moved to SW Edmond into much bigger house with big yard and a pool, closer to schools that we plan on sending kids too. Yet I still enjoy going to the city center just live farther away and I have no problem with that. Someone young will take my spot and the cycle will continue. However just by looking at it the inflow is starting to become more than the outflow so no one should really be alarmed.

Do we even have reliable data that shows us that? Given that the oldest millennials are just now approaching 30, and the fact most data we have was likely compiled on the coasts and big cities where people marry and have children later, I don't think we can say for sure yet that their affection for urban living will continue into their child-rearing years.

What more data do you need the John Rex Elementary?

Do we even have reliable data that shows us that? Given that the oldest millennials are just now approaching 30, and the fact most data we have was likely compiled on the coasts and big cities where people marry and have children later, I don't think we can say for sure yet that their affection for urban living will continue into their child-rearing years.

I would say that yes the data points are there. I'm going to do my best Just the facts impersonation now LOL

Living in the city was a lifestyle preference for the longest but given certain economic and demographic shifts it is increasingly a "pocketbook" decision for a lot of people, myself included.

You are right people are waiting later to have children if at all. Whether thats a good thing is certainly up for debate but nowadays 67% of households in this nation are childless, so living in a place with top schools and paying the high property taxes that come with that is a nonfactor for a lot of people.

Don't forget the soaring cost of commuting. Gas isn't getting any cheaper and a new car averages well over 30K nowadays. Add to that the increasing likelihood of more toll roads and it's simply not feasible to live so far out. The number of miles driven per person in the US has stayed flat for about 7 years.

Last time I checked the homeowner rate for millenials is 28%, which is well lower than Baby Boomers and Gen X at this same point. Home ownership is losing its appeal across all age groups and with a national debt of $16 trillion, the mortgage interest tax deduction is living on borrowed time. Much like the decline in birth rates we can argue if this is a good thing for society but it is what it is. The rampant NIMBYism in suburbs means rentals are far more accessible in the city.

FWIW OKC is one of the places where the urban center is growing faster than the suburbs. While its true OKC is nowhere near as dense as most other large cities, the higher growth rate is a reversal from even last decade. It also looks like Oklahoma County is capturing the majority of the metro's growth, which is also a reversal. So even here where real estate is cheap and commutes are compartively short I think people are really thinking about where they want to live.

I try to look at things through a utalitarian perspective. Suburbs themselves grew out of a growing middle class, cheap fuel, easily accessible mortgages and tax incentives, and better schools. At this point, the first three of those are under serious pressure. So people have adjusted accordingly.

I never want to disparage anyone for chosing a certain lifestyle over another. This is the USA and you have that freedom...most high quality suburbs, the Edmonds and Normans of the world, aren't going anywhere. At the same time, I have a problem with people who rear back in their seat arrogantly and say "those urban hipsters will be back here in the burbs...they always come back." These people fail to realize just how much the world has changed and if they fail to adjust to it, they only have themselves to blame.

Millennials who want to live in vibrant, walkable neighborhoods in their twenties will likely be looking at suburbia once they get married and have children. I expect to see a significant suburban housing boom as todays twentysomethings get into their thirties. Why? Regardless of how much this generation would enjoy to live without a car, good schools will come first.

I'm a married Millennial with a child that is specifically looking to avoid the suburbs. That's why we live in Lincoln Terrace.

I'm a married Millennial with a child that is specifically looking to avoid the suburbs. That's why we live in Lincoln Terrace.

Don't give him examples. He has a narrative in his head that no matter what evidence you give him that shows the opposite, he'll still cling to the narrative. Almost every subject is the same too. Retail, bars, music, restaurants, lifestyle choices of millennials. He knows the truth no matter the evidence that someone else produces.

Don't give him examples. He has a narrative in his head that no matter what evidence you give him that shows the opposite, he'll still cling to the narrative. Almost every subject is the same too. Retail, bars, music, restaurants, lifestyle choices of millennials. He knows the truth no matter the evidence that someone else produces.

My narrative is no more or less true than the narratives of many other posters on this site. Somebody passionately promoting new urbanism will spin the data to support their agenda. Likewise to somebody passionately promoting suburbia. I take a look at the facts on both sides of the issue and accept them for what they are. Yes, urban living is in the upswing but suburbia is in no danger of dying. Millennials are not abandoning their cars en masse. The future is one of choice. In the past, one either had to live in and embrace suburbia or move to a major city. We are headed into an era where even in small cities like OKC, Jacksonville, etc people will be able to live an urban life if that's what they desire.

I never want to disparage anyone for chosing a certain lifestyle over another. This is the USA and you have that freedom...most high quality suburbs, the Edmonds and Normans of the world, aren't going anywhere. At the same time, I have a problem with people who rear back in their seat arrogantly and say "those urban hipsters will be back here in the burbs...they always come back." These people fail to realize just how much the world has changed and if they fail to adjust to it, they only have themselves to blame.

I don't necessarily disagree with you that lifestyles trends are changing but I also think back to my twenties when I thought I would never be like my father. As I grow older and priorities and different realities that were not there in my twenties come into play, what I want adapts to the next level. I will be curious what the trends show over the next ten years.

Another interesting aspect is people moving back downtown for the schools...not because they wanted to live downtown. My old neighbors in Heritage Hills East moved there from Norman because they wanted to get their kids into the Classen School of Arts. They liked Norman but moved strictly for the school.

I think the more interesting thing is that China has 3 times as many people and significantly less car travel.

Not really that interesting or even surprising. In 2009 the rate of ownership of mv's in this country was 828/1000 inhabitants. In China the rate was 58/1000 which is well below developed countries. 2009 was the latest I could find numbers for.

Not really that interesting or even surprising. In 2009 the rate of ownership of mv's in this country was 828/1000 inhabitants. In China the rate was 58/1000 which is well below developed countries. 2009 was the latest I could find numbers for.

My point was, I think the chart is an attempt by the poster to say 'hey, look. we're not the only ones in the world who drive this much.' But we are.

I think the more interesting thing is that China has 3 times as many people and significantly less car travel.Jeeze..... can't think to why that is :p

When you have a country that is 1.4 billion vs. a country that has 320 million, they are likely going to outrank you as to how many do what on nearly every scale.

That chart is also in billion passenger kilometers - kilometers being the operative measurement there.Yes, the standard measuring system of the world. Quite a bit of their other post when comparing international countries use metric even when posting articles that favor urbanism over suburban, so no bias there.


I also wonder what the chart would look like if car AND bus were not in the same category. You know whomever made that chart combined those two modes of transportation into the same category on purpose, because the raw data would have been collected separately. Wonder why they combined them.Not sure. I'll dig around and see if I can't find a chart that separates bus from car but is similar to this one. Not sure why they lumped it in, but I highly doubt it to purposely skew data. There is so much more data that favors suburbs over urban cores there is no reason to attempt to skew something this minor.

Interesting how USAToday took the same information and ran it under the headline "Decade of the City."

Of course the truth is always somewhere in between. I do find the title of the WSJ article highly deceptive. They buried these little nuggets in their story.You can find tons of different little bits that contradict other pieces. It goes both ways man.

Population growth for MSA vs. city core
http://www.newgeography.com/files/wendell-suburbs-13-2.png

I wouldn't bet on it because the data trends aren't showing that.I would bet on it. I see it every day. I know about 15 different people who ditched urban living for a better suburban lifestyle. Our neighbors found a job here and relocated from London because they are now 30 with 2 kids and wanted to live in a suburban lifestyle. They have been here for a few years now and they have said time and time again they love it.

The Millenials in the Plaza district don't, for the most part, even have kids (yet), but they are already being deeply involved in both Gatewood Elementary and Eugene Fields Elementary. These darn kids aren't going to take "bad schools" for an answer!I wouldn't doubt it at all. As OKC improves its schools(which I think it's doing), you'll see more and more people take pride and have better families staying and living the core for that reason. No one is saying everyone is going to flee to suburbs and I know quite a bit of people who are fleeing FROM the suburbs.

What more data do you need the John Rex Elementary?JTF, I'm sure there is some chart out there that shows something, but using John Rex Elementary as an example doesn't make much sense. It accommodating a growing core; that is great thing. That doesn't refute that a bunch of millennials are going to leave the core for the suburbs just because an elementary school is being built downtown. A bunch of cities have them. Need I remind you OKC is growing and growing very fast, so part of a maturing city is a maturing core that offers all aspects of what suburbia has, just in different forms.

I agreed with some of your other points, so I don't want to think I ignored them.


Don't forget the soaring cost of commuting. Gas isn't getting any cheaper and a new car averages well over 30K nowadays. Add to that the increasing likelihood of more toll roads and it's simply not feasible to live so far out. The number of miles driven per person in the US has stayed flat for about 7 years.

I want to say that the argument of gas not getting cheaper is being countered with much higher fuel efficiency in cars. Hell, the new F150 is likely going to score above 23 MPG with other cars reaching 50-100 mpg becoming more and more common. I drove a Toyota Yaris hauling ass down the highway at about 90mph to Sayre awhile back and made it there **AND** back in half a tank. That is pretty freakin good.

Coped with new technology lowering the cost of roads and highways while making them last longer and new concepts like solar roads that can actually pay for themselves by creating energy is countering the argument that it is costing too much to build and maintain highways. That argument will soon become outdated. I have been meaning to find this article and I will about a new composite material that could be used for road ways that has the potential to last 100+ years. It may or may not happen, but the research is happening and the tech is being developed and tested; it is only a matter of time.

------------

As far as growth in downtown OKC outpacing growth vs. it's suburbs: are you talking about each individual suburb or its MSA as a whole. Last report was OKC's MSA grew faster than OKC did.

Like you, I want options and I want quality options for people to choose.

Not really that interesting or even surprising. In 2009 the rate of ownership of mv's in this country was 828/1000 inhabitants. In China the rate was 58/1000 which is well below developed countries. 2009 was the latest I could find numbers for.Didn't China also overtake America as having the most cars of any country in terms of sheer numbers?

I wish okc and the surrounding areas could focus on making things aesthetically appealing. Too many of our urban as well as suburban areas just look terrible. Terrible designs, terrible building materials, ill thought out interactions with their surroundings, non existent transportation options, and so on. Of all the things that kind of get to me here, that's the one I find most depressing.

I don't have a problem with urban or suburban areas, I think both appeal to different types of people and diversity is good. I just wish we could pull it (both) off better.

I wish okc and the surrounding areas could focus on making things aesthetically appealing. Too many of our urban as well as suburban areas just look terrible. Terrible designs, terrible building materials, ill thought out interactions with their surroundings, non existent transportation options, and so on. Of all the things that kind of get to me here, that's the one I find most depressing.

I don't have a problem with urban or suburban areas, I think both appeal to different types of people and diversity is good. I just wish we could pull it (both) off better.

I was in Norman last night (haven't spent much time there) and was astounded by the aesthetic difference compared to most of OKC. That proves that the ugliness of OKC cannot be blamed on the climate or natural terrain. Edmond has some nice areas as well. You can always tell when you cross into OKC city limits because there is all of a sudden no landscaping, no or minimal streetlights, and no sidewalks. If the road had a median w/double turn lanes it narrows to a four lane road with no median.

I like what OKC is doing in the core but wish the city wouldn't let its suburban areas just rot like it has a history of doing.

I was in Norman last night (haven't spent much time there) and was astounded by the aesthetic difference compared to most of OKC. That proves that the ugliness of OKC cannot be blamed on the climate or natural terrain. Edmond has some nice areas as well. You can always tell when you cross into OKC city limits because there is all of a sudden no landscaping, no or minimal streetlights, and no sidewalks. If the road had a median w/double turn lanes it narrows to a four lane road with no median.

I like what OKC is doing in the core but wish the city wouldn't let its suburban areas just rot like it has a history of doing.

Surely, if they have been hit by big hail storms, the suburban areas have been looking better from owners making claims for damage on their home insurance policies. That's why Stillwater looks less like a dump now after a couple of hail storms in 2009.