Hallelujah! Exurban migration may be coming to an end...

[ljbab728]

Another interesting story related to the re-urbanization of America.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/78420...#axzz1sSKa9bKU

Kerry, this is not just a trend among young americans. My brother in LA has been driving for about 50 years. He decided a few years ago to get rid of his car and hasn't had one since even though he lives in one of the most automobile centric areas in the country.

[Just the facts]

ljbab728 - I am 42 and I refuse to drive unless I have to. As soon as posssible I want to sell out suburban house and move closer to shopping, restaurants, and services.

[Snowman]

Last month I was in the Moore/South OKC area in a Home-Creations neighborhood for a get together, homes maybe about 5-10 years old and it looked like hell. I mean, really really bad. I was aghast at the neglect many of the homes had. There was a disturbing amount of “signs” you would expect from a neighborhood going in decline

My realtor (who is a family friend for decades) told me they would not be a party in selling me a Home-Creations home, they build terrible quality that does not keep it's value.

[Frustratedoptimist]

"Social isolation" - great perspective and points adaniel and JTF. We're trying to get downtown and down to one car too.

I don't blame Home Creations for the problems in Moore, they are filling the affordable housing gap. I blame the city for not requiring grid streets, more trees, landscaping and better site design. I have relatives there and 12 years ago, they paid $139K for a brand new 3 bedroom snout-house on a cul-de-sac. They want to sell, especially after they learned its worth only $140K today. Transportation costs are enormous, as they, and most of thier neighbors, mostly working class with kids, commute to OKC and Norman. IMO, this is one of the next big problems for suburbs - cash poor and senior homeowners in substandard housing, outside of any grid street system, unwalkable, far from transit and services. Isolating is an understatement.

[Just the facts]

Frustratedoptimist - based on your last post I highly suggest you check out Suburban Nation chapter 7: Victims of Sprawl. The individul sections are called Cul-De-Sac Kids, Soccer Moms, Bored Teenagers, Stranded Elderly, Weary Commuters, Bankrupt Municipalities, and The Immobile Poor.

Here is a preview:

Cul-De-Sac Kids
Perhaps most worrisome is the situation facing the children of suburbia. In one of the great ironies of our era, the cul-de-sac suburbs, originally conceived as youth's great playground, are proving to be less than ideal for America's young.

That suburban life may be bad for children comes as a surprise. After all, most families move to the suburbs precisely because they think it will be "good for the children." What do they mean by that? Better suburban schools—a phenomenon peculiar to the United States—are good for children. Big, safe, grassy fields to play on are also good for them. What is not so good for children, however, is the complete loss of autonomy they suffer in suburbia. In this environment where all activities are segregated and distances are measured on the odometer, a child's personal mobility extends no farther than the edge of the subdivision. Even the local softball held often exists beyond the child's independent reach.

The result is a new phenomenon: the 'cul-de-sac kid," the child who lives as a prisoner of a thoroughly safe and unchallenging environment. While this state of affairs may be acceptable, even desirable, through about age five, what of the next ten or twelve years? Dependent always on some adult to drive them around, children and adolescents are unable to practice at becoming adults. They cannot run so simple a household errand as picking up a carton of milk. They cannot bicycle to the toy store and spend their money on their own. They cannot drop in on their mother at work. Most cannot walk to school. Even pickup baseball games are a thing of the past, with parents now required to arrange car-pooling with near military precision, to transport the children at the appointed times.

Children are frozen in a form of infancy, utterly dependent on others, bereft of the ability to introduce variety into their own lives, robbed of the opportunity to make choices and exercise judgment. Typical suburban parents give their children an allowance, in order to empower them and encourage independence. "Feel free to spend it any way you like," they say. The child then says, "Thanks, Mom. When can you drive me to the mall?"

[betts]

I tried to give my children a bit more independence. But, sometimes it backfired. When my youngest was 6 or 7, he asked if he could go the park by himself. I remember being a bit nervous, although it was only 3 blocks away, but I knew I had to let him get out on his own. So, about 2 hours later a police squad car pulled up with my son inside, horribly embarrassed. He had, unbeknownst to me, taken his brother's paintball gun to the park (which bore no resemblance to a real gun). He told me he was playing James Bond, but he was smart enough not to take the gun out of the case. A mother was there hovering over her children (she lived across the street, but wouldn't let them go by themselves). She saw the case and opened it and saw the paintball gun inside. So, she called the police, who at her request escorted my son home. He never wanted to go there again.

In the same neighborhood, two boys were playing with a bb gun. Like boys will do when not being supervised, one of them pointed the bb gun at his friend and shot him in the butt. The bb didn't even penetrate the pocket of his jeans. However, his mother, whose name people would recognize if I used it, called the police and asked to file assault charges.

I agree that we are doing our children a disservice. When I was 5, I had charge of my 3 year old sister. We couldn't leave the block but since no one had fences and we had a very large block, we ran all over the neighborhood with our friends. At 6 I rode my bike to the ice cream store, to the school to play tether ball and hopscotch, to the candy store 5 blocks away. My father in law rode his bike from NYC to upstate NY with a friend at 9. If we were a little more relaxed with our children, we might have a few more trips to the ER, we might have someone with a bb permanently lodged in the skin of their arms, like a few of the boys in my childhood, but they also might have more fun being kids.

[Patrick]

It just depends on what city you're in. Growth isn't slowing by any means in the burbs here. And it's all based on schools here. Sure, there are a handful of good schools in the OKC school district, but as a whole the district still is not the greatest. All they've really done is concentrated the better students at schools like Classen SAS, Harding, and the other charter schools. And it's not like I see growth in places like Edmond and Norman slowing. So you have to interpret this article for what it is. It's very dependent on what city you're referring to. In a city like OKC, where traffic is not a problem and you can get anywhere in 20 minutes, I don't see suburban growth slowing anytime soon. Just look at all of the new suburban neighborhoods that are continuing to pop up. Sure, the growth is not where it was in the 1990's, but it's still pretty robust, at least here in OKC. And home values in the burbs here have almost completely recovered. But we never had the steep decline that suburbs in places like California had. And a lot of it's dependent on the economy too. If we see the economy boom again, I think you'll see suburban areas grow again.

It also depends on how you spin what they're saying. They say that growth in the urban areas has now surpassed that in the suburban areas. But, that isn't saying the growth in the urban areas has increased over what it was before. It's likely the same as before, and the only difference is that in comparison, growth in suburban areas has decreased.

[soonerguru]

It just depends on what city you're in. Growth isn't slowing by any means in the burbs here. And it's all based on schools here. Sure, there are a handful of good schools in the OKC school district, but as a whole the district still is not the greatest. All they've really done is concentrated the better students at schools like Classen SAS, Harding, and the other charter schools. And it's not like I see growth in places like Edmond and Norman slowing. So you have to interpret this article for what it is. It's very dependent on what city you're referring to. In a city like OKC, where traffic is not a problem and you can get anywhere in 20 minutes, I don't see suburban growth slowing anytime soon. Just look at all of the new suburban neighborhoods that are continuing to pop up. Sure, the growth is not where it was in the 1990's, but it's still pretty robust, at least here in OKC. And home values in the burbs here have almost completely recovered. But we never had the steep decline that suburbs in places like California had. And a lot of it's dependent on the economy too. If we see the economy boom again, I think you'll see suburban areas grow again.

It also depends on how you spin what they're saying. They say that growth in the urban areas has now surpassed that in the suburban areas. But, that isn't saying the growth in the urban areas has increased over what it was before. It's likely the same as before, and the only difference is that in comparison, growth in suburban areas has decreased.

I don't think this is a matter of "spin." Yes, there will always be people like yourself retreating to the 'burbs. The change is that there is more urbanization. And by the way, not everyone has kids.

[oneforone]

I don't think this is a matter of "spin." Yes, there will always be people like yourself retreating to the 'burbs. The change is that there is more urbanization. And by the way, not everyone has kids.

For a few more months/years it is still a free country therefore one can choose wherever they want to live. If you want to live in the sticks, the suburbs, or urban do it. Who cares what the self righteous want in this world. In due time stress will wear them down or put them down for a long peaceful rest with the worms and bugs.

Since you are so consumed with the actions of others, it might be time to find a hobby. Just simply because you can rant, rave and hold your breath all you want people are still going to do whatever they wish. Stop trying to control others and just focus on your own life. The second you make yourself the focus of your life and work at being the best person you will suddenly find a world that is happy and joyful. Worry about things you can control. Manage the things you can't. Otherwise you will be lucky if you live to see 80. Stress kills, happiness prolongs life.

[hatrick36]

Just to second some stuff from Sid.

Suburban movement was supported by VA loans to vets, FHA loans to lower middle class, and the Fannie Mae's purchasing and holding habits prior to its privatization in the 60's. There was an explicit bias on the part of loan underwriters and authorizers to move people into the Suburbs.

Two driving factors behind this were the Tiebout model of public choice and a vision of a civic market place. The other were the keynesian economic assumptions about achieving full employment--and new construction was seen as a better solution to demolition and infill. Also, Suburban homes (it was thought then) would retain or grow in value better than aging inner city homes of the time (40's, 50's, and 60's).

Coupled with this were laws that forced communities to desegregate housing and so the white flight intensified out to the 'burbs. And by the late 60's early 70's anyone with the money to do so was leaving the city for suburban communities.

The flip side of all this government chicanery of course is the actual existence of a middle class in America (homes are most American's largest financial asset and their value has traditionally increased over time), homeownership rates around 65% (today) instead of 40% prior to government involvement in the housing market in 1934, and generally low costs of credit because of 20/30 year fixed rate mortgages which were more or less invented by Fannie Mae in the late 30's.

But now what to do with the burbs, which we spent all this time and money building artificially? Huge sunk costs associated with all of this and a huge policy nightmare to sort out over time.

[PennyQuilts]

This is becoming a more urban country and this trend has been going on for decades. The topic of the loss of population in rural areas has been a subject of concern for many wildlife and conservation groups for years. It seems somewhat counter intuitive because you might think that getting people out of the rural areas would mean they were better protected and that the wildlife folk/conservation groups would applaud. It is a mixed bag, however. Farmers, fishermen and hunters have fewer children interested in those areas to replace them when they are gone. For people who don't like hunters, that might sound like a good idea but only if they realize that things must be kept in balance and many creatures that have no natural predators but man can throw things out of balance and create problems that ripple through large areas.

Some of the saddest issues these groups have been struggling with include a lack of connection to the land by the past couple of generations who are no longer raised on the farm, have families on the farm, spend time as children being allowed to explore, etc. Groups in S. Chicago and many other urban areas have extensive programs that attempt to fill the gap left by the urbanization of our children. There are tons of workshops aimed at volunteers and teachers to assist them in teaching urbanized children about nature. Sadly, many children have to learn what they DO learn in a classroom setting and lack the experiences their parents and grandparents have. And like all classrooms, they can only hit the high points so a true understanding of what nature is, and how man fits into it, is hard to "teach." Most of the volunteers for wildlife programs, when surveyed, list their childhood experiences in rural areas as why they want to reconnect with the land. The kids coming up now, sadly, often don't have that experience and aren't likely to ever have that experience. I am not writing this to be argumentative. It is just an observation of a trend that has been going on for a long time and likely will not reverse itself. For the people who see this as a wonderful thing the news is met with delight. For those of us who feel a strong connection to the land and wild things, there is a certain amount of grief involved. But either way, it isn't going to change the trend.

[BDK]

I have strong doubts about the political will to do anything about this in the near future.

For example, check out 62 O.S. 895 on OSCN (I'd post the link, but it's down now, for now it can be found here: http://www.okplanning.org/images/APA...0ENR%20_2_.pdf), which was passed last May. The legislature will continue to throw up roadblocks like this, even if the cities want to reverse course.

For what its worth, I wrote my comment for the law review on the statute, but it was more about the legal standards in the statute and it won't be published for some time.

[soonerguru]

This is becoming a more urban country and this trend has been going on for decades. The topic of the loss of population in rural areas has been a subject of concern for many wildlife and conservation groups for years. It seems somewhat counter intuitive because you might think that getting people out of the rural areas would mean they were better protected and that the wildlife folk/conservation groups would applaud. It is a mixed bag, however. Farmers, fishermen and hunters have fewer children interested in those areas to replace them when they are gone. For people who don't like hunters, that might sound like a good idea but only if they realize that things must be kept in balance and many creatures that have no natural predators but man can throw things out of balance and create problems that ripple through large areas.

Some of the saddest issues these groups have been struggling with include a lack of connection to the land by the past couple of generations who are no longer raised on the farm, have families on the farm, spend time as children being allowed to explore, etc. Groups in S. Chicago and many other urban areas have extensive programs that attempt to fill the gap left by the urbanization of our children. There are tons of workshops aimed at volunteers and teachers to assist them in teaching urbanized children about nature. Sadly, many children have to learn what they DO learn in a classroom setting and lack the experiences their parents and grandparents have. And like all classrooms, they can only hit the high points so a true understanding of what nature is, and how man fits into it, is hard to "teach." Most of the volunteers for wildlife programs, when surveyed, list their childhood experiences in rural areas as why they want to reconnect with the land. The kids coming up now, sadly, often don't have that experience and aren't likely to ever have that experience. I am not writing this to be argumentative. It is just an observation of a trend that has been going on for a long time and likely will not reverse itself. For the people who see this as a wonderful thing the news is met with delight. For those of us who feel a strong connection to the land and wild things, there is a certain amount of grief involved. But either way, it isn't going to change the trend.

Excellent post. You covered so much it's hard to discuss all of your points, but in my own situation, we have spent a lot of quality family time in our outdoors, visiting state parks, wildlife refuges, and national forests. I can only speak for my own family, but despite the fact that we're urbanites, we greatly value our state parks, national parks, wildlife refuges, and national forestland. Many of our most meaningful family vacations have been spent in these areas.

Similarly, our daughter enjoys horse riding, and we have visited organic farms operated by friends, and have emphasized the importance of our rural treasures with our daughter. We're as likely to take a vacation to the Ouachitas in southeastern Oklahoma as we are to fly to NYC.

Though we're not hunters, per se, we appreciate and value our state's -- and nation's -- natural wonders.

[ljbab728]

Though we're not hunters, per se, we appreciate and value our state's -- and nation's -- natural wonders.

You certainly don't have to be hunters for that. In fact, I would say it's just the opposite.

[NoOkie]

You certainly don't have to be hunters for that. In fact, I would say it's just the opposite.

I think you're very wrong there. I don't hunt, though I do make a point to befriend people that do. It gets me some deer in the freezer come fall, after all. The people I know that hunt don't have the typical liberal environmental ethos that I do, but they do have a respect and appreciation for nature. They have different viewpoints about how and what should be done with it, but a respect and appreciation all the same.

[flintysooner]

I don't know really what this has to do with the topic.

But I will say that in my experience there are a relatively few nice hunters that are respectful to property owners and ask permission to enter land that isn't theirs and even abide by the owners' decisions.

On the other hand there are a good many people who disrespect the land owner, the wildlife, and the environment.

[BDK]

I have strong doubts about the political will to do anything about this in the near future.

For example, check out 62 O.S. 895 on OSCN (I'd post the link, but it's down now, for now it can be found here: http://www.okplanning.org/images/APA...0ENR%20_2_.pdf), which was passed last May. The legislature will continue to throw up roadblocks like this, even if the cities want to reverse course.

For what its worth, I wrote my comment for the law review on the statute, but it was more about the legal standards in the statute and it won't be published for some time.

Here's the OSCN link. It was too late to edit the original post.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/osc...?CiteID=463751

[Just the facts]

Very interesting article today:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...robert-shiller

Maybe no housing rebound for a generation: Shiller

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Housing market is likely to remain weak and may take a generation or more to rebound, Yale economics professor Robert Shiller told Reuters Insider on Tuesday.

Shiller, the co-creator of the Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller home price index, said a weak labor market, high gas prices and a general sense of unease among consumers was outweighing low mortgage rates and would likely keep a lid on prices for the foreseeable future.

...

He said suburban areas in particular might endure further price declines as high gas prices increase demand for "walkable cities."

[CuatrodeMayo]

Archdaily.com has a great infographic on this subject here: http://www.archdaily.com/230276/info...bs-going-bust/

(I would post the graphic here, but it apparently exceeds my "quota". If somebody else could post it, that would be great.)

[Just the facts]

Here you go:



To comment on that last section - suburbia can't be retrofitted because of the street layout. It is cost prohibitive to change a suburban road network into a usable grid.

[Just the facts]

Here is the article that formed the foundation for the graphic.

http://sustainablecitiescollective.c...eath-sprawl-us

My wife, who talks with her hordes of suburban friends, is actually getting very worried about this trend. Several of the people she socializes with live in exurbia and many are contemplating walking away from their homes, not because they CAN'T afford them but because they don't WANT to afford them; the exurban lifestyle isn't what they hoped it would be. They all want to move to traditional urban neighborhoods. From our stand point she is getting concerned that by the time we are ready to move these people will have left their homes (thus driving down suburban prices even more) and buying traditional neighborhood homes (where we want to move) thus driving up those prices. Last week she asked me the unthinkable, should we go ahead and buy our traditional urban house now?

[soonerguru]

Revisiting this thread, in today's news, from the Associated Press:

Cities Outpacing Suburbs for Growth

By HOPE YEN, KRISTEN WYATT

updated 2 hours 38 minutes ago

WASHINGTON — For the first time in a century, most of America's largest cities are growing at a faster rate than their surrounding suburbs as young adults seeking a foothold in the weak job market shun home-buying and stay put in bustling urban centers.
New 2011 census estimates released Thursday highlight the dramatic switch.
Driving the resurgence are young adults, who are delaying careers, marriage and having children amid persistently high unemployment. Burdened with college debt or toiling in temporary, lower-wage positions, they are spurning homeownership in the suburbs for shorter-term, no-strings-attached apartment living, public transit and proximity to potential jobs in larger cities.

READ MORE

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/479924.../#.T-yIKRzIyjQ

[Plutonic Panda]

Newcastle is still within 20 miles of several large employment bases (Dell, FAA, downtown OKC, OU) so its not an exurb in the truest sense. The commute there is comparable distance wise to the Northern half of Edmond.

The trends are happening here, maybe just not to the extent you see in much larger cities. You can drive around newer neighborhoods on the outskirts of town with a ton of still-empty lots.

When I think of exurbs in OKC, I'm usually thinking of areas north of Edmond, east of Choctaw, south of Norman, and west of Yukon. I can only speak from experience but I know of at least 3 people that have put off moves to areas near Wellston, McCloud, and Blanchard respectively due to gas prices/commuting issues.

Logan county was ranked as I think the 73rd fastes growing county in the U.S.