One of the things that intrigued me about Charter Homes’ “Independence” TND thing was the fact that it was so large, so different - but Charter Homes obviously had a good expectation that there would be sufficient demand for that kind of community, that kind of “lifestyle.”
Curious, then, to see this piece (dunno if you’ll be able to see it if you’re not an Atlantic subscribers, but try anyway) in this month’s Atlantic Magazine by Christopher E. Leinberger, suggesting that this is exactly what a growing demographic wants; that in fact the traditional suburban model may be even less sustainable than we imagine:
Arthur C. Nelson, director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, has looked carefully at trends in American demographics, construction, house prices, and consumer preferences. In 2006, using recent consumer research, housing supply data, and population growth rates, he modeled future demand for various types of housing. The results were bracing: Nelson forecasts a likely surplus of 22 million large-lot homes (houses built on a sixth of an acre or more) by 2025—that’s roughly 40 percent of the large-lot homes in existence today.
For 60 years, Americans have pushed steadily into the suburbs, transforming the landscape and (until recently) leaving cities behind. But today the pendulum is swinging back toward urban living, and there are many reasons to believe this swing will continue. As it does, many low-density suburbs and McMansion subdivisions, including some that are lovely and affluent today, may become what inner cities became in the 1960s and ’70s—slums characterized by poverty, crime, and decay.
There’s a lot in here which smacks of pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking; but his overall conclusion is that as the percentage of households with children, particular small children shrinks (even as the number of such households continues to increase), and in a world where the price of gasoline is what it is, there is going to be less and less demand for the McMansion-style development:
If gasoline and heating costs continue to rise, conventional suburban living may not be much of a bargain in the future. And as more Americans, particularly affluent Americans, move into urban communities, families may find that some of the suburbs’ other big advantages—better schools and safer communities—have eroded. Schooling and safety are likely to improve in urban areas, as those areas continue to gentrify; they may worsen in many suburbs if the tax base—often highly dependent on house values and new development—deteriorates. Many of the fringe counties in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, for instance, are projecting big budget deficits in 2008. Only Washington itself is expecting a large surplus. Fifteen years ago, this budget situation was reversed.
The obvious critique here is, OK, so why build “urbanized” development anew; why not just revitalize what we already have. And the quick answer is that it’s simply cheaper to build anew; there’s more space available, developers don’t have to deal with “historic” ordinances that force them to spend money to retain facades or other features. And - in the case of Independence - potential homebuyers can have that “urbanized” experience without having to send their kids to an urban school district (and read into that what you will; race/diversity probably would be one factor, but hardly the only one, as the city’s tax rate is higher and test scores lower).
Nevertheless, what really struck me about Leinberger’s article - something he didn’t really get into - was that if he’s right, if McMansion suburbia is on the far side of the bell curve, it ultimately becomes even harder to construct new “urbanized” developments than it already is - because the people who own those McMansions will have an obvious incentive to fight tooth and nail to protect their equity. Assuming they have some.
If in fact the market is evolving, and more people want a different style of living - you now have an added incentive to prevent any more of that style of housing from being built in your community, because it further devalues your 3,000 square feet on the half-acre. You don’t want people to have that option.
I doubt this was a factor in the local battle over Independence, but it does suggest that such a development might affect property values for a different reason than we’ve typically assumed. The conventional thinking goes that denser housing nearby decreases existing property values because it’s less desirable. But perhaps there comes a day when it decreases existing property values because it’s more desirable. The effect is the same. And so, I suspect, will be the resolve to resist it.
