 (Overly?) optimistic planners are declaring an end to sprawl. And they've got some intriguing evidence to support their assertion. First, we start with the Urban Land Institute (ULI). The nonprofit recently released a report [PDF] on the future of housing in California. In a nutshell, the report finds that in many parts of the state there is a glut of unwanted single-family dwellings. During the great housing boom developers constructed so many of these suburban domiciles that our current stock of conventional single-family homes will still outpace demand in 2035. It turns out that people are shunning these far-flung abodes for smaller units that are closer to job centers and transit. ULI predicts that by 2035, nine million units of transit-station area housing will need to be constructed (that's eight million more than we have today). In addition, demand for multifamily, townhomes, and small-lot housing is expected to soar. Demand for denser, more sustainable housing will rule the future. Planners, transit advocates, new urbanists, environmentalists and the like can break out the party hats and uncork the champagne! Underpinning this anticipated shift in demand are changing demographics, migration patterns, and economics. Let's start with demographics in the Golden State. Population wise, it's looking a lot like 1900. That's the last time that such a large portion of our state's residents have been California natives. High housing costs and a poor economy continues to make California an unattractive place to live. Within the U.S., the number of residents leaving California has long outpaced the flow of migrants from the other states. A poor national economy has ebbed the tide of immigration that has sustained the state's growth. The state's growth will, for the first time in a century, be driven by natural increase -- not immigration and migration. It's predicted that as these home-grown Californians enter the housing market in coming decades, they'll opt for smaller homes close to work and/or transit. This shift in demand is underpinned by changing economic realities. As Eduardo Peñalver at the Washington Post notes, sprawl "was built on the twin pillars of low gas prices and a relentless demand for housing." In a post-recession America, low gas prices are a fading memory and we've managed to create a substantial oversupply of housing. Americans, saddled with debt and faced with poor job prospects are staying put. Migration rates within the U.S. have reached historic lows, and new household formation is stagnating, further tempering demand for housing. Essentially, commuting is expensive and (in California) big homes are expensive. So consumers entering the housing market are predictably looking for smaller, more affordable housing options that are close to work, school, and entertainment (or close to a transit network that makes these things easily accessible). Based on this projected demand, developers are being urged to look more closely at infill development. But before declaring an end to sprawl, we need to take a measured approach. David Daddio from The City Fix cautions that "we can't just assume that today's crisis translates into some fundamental shift in the way that we build our cities." Economic dynamics might change and old patterns of development might reemerge. Even with high fuel prices, more energy efficient vehicles may ease the burden of long commutes, making living on the urban fringe more attractive. And, if cities do not invest in the creation of extensive transit networks that are convenient for residents, the demand for transit-station area housing may crumble. National policies that subsidize the costs of homeownership and the undying notion of the American Dream still reinforce the ideal of a single-family home on a large lot. The current economic situation has created a seismic shift in how we are consuming housing in the near-term. But it can't be taken for granted that everyone will give up their suburban shackles and flee to more thriving urban cores. The economic downturn has had the unintended effect of elevating more cohesive urban centers above their suburban and exurban counterparts. People are more rooted in their local settings, whether it's by choice or necessity. What's needed now is a comprehensive strategy and policy framework that harnesses this fleeting trend and transforms it into a sustained movement. | 
No comments:
Post a Comment