The Death of Sprawl?

[Big E]

http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/07/technol ... tm?cnn=yes

I hate being right al the time. ;)

It's not the OWH so here's the whole thing:

The next real estate boom

SAN FRANCISCO (Business 2.0 Magazine) -- Picture the scene: it's 2025, and you and your family are living in a beautiful, leafy-green village that seems more 19th century than 21st, even though it has only been in existence for ten years and is just 20 miles from a major American city.

You know all of the 150 or so souls in the village; you see them at the market where you pick up a box of locally-grown produce once a week. You see half of them in the morning as they board the commuter train for school or work in the city; the other half are the network warriors who work from home or, on warm days, use the free Wi-Fi in the village square.

It all seems a world away from the crumbling old 20th-century suburbs people used to live in, if you could call it living. You shudder to think you could still be living there. Oh, and you see that really nice house just down the bicycle lane? That's yours, the fruits of your smart move to plunk down a payment on a piece of the hottest new trend in real estate.

Streetcar stops desired
Sounds like a far-off future? You can already see such a development opening up in Hercules, Calif., 20 miles northeast of San Francisco. And you can bet on seeing many more across the country if changing consumer desires and economic trends dictate the direction of the housing market.

"New Villages," as community planner Robert McIntyre dubs them in the latest issue of The Futurist magazine, are compact, pleasantly urban settlements located well away from city centers. They share some of the charms and amenities of cities, thanks to their density, but have the mostly rural surroundings that originally drew people out to the suburbs, as well as the friendly feel of a small town where you know your neighbors.

The concept of New Villages shares some similarities with the so-called "transit villages" you can already see around the country. Starting in the mid-'90s, when architects and local planners became more interested in more pedestrian-friendly, urban developments, transit villages started to spring up outside cities along revitalized rail lines, from Mission Valley near San Diego, to Ballston and Bethesda outside Washington, D.C.

They were very attractive to young city workers and empty-nest parents. Their defining characteristics: They were eminently walkable, densely constructed without feeling overcrowded, and offered a real community feeling with plenty of common spaces.

The difference between transit villages and New Villages is location: While transit villages mostly reinvented older suburbs that are close to cities, New Villages promise to reinvent the sprawl further out.

The demand for such developments is real, and it's only going to get greater as consumer preferences rapidly shift away from the McMansions preferred by boomers. According to a study by the nonprofit Congress for New Urbanism, while less than 25 percent of middle-aged Americans are interested in living in dense areas, 53 percent of 24-34 year olds would choose to live in transit-rich, walkable neighborhoods, if they had the choice.

Demand for housing within walking distance of transit will more than double by 2025, according to another nonprofit, the Center for Transit-Oriented Development. Even now, properties within a 5- or 10-minute walk to a train stop are selling for 20 to 25 percent more than comparable properties further away - a price premium that's likely to increase as traffic jams worsen.

And as the effects of the Internet continue to kick in, it won't be so necessary to be in the big city - you'll just want access to it every once in a while, for the occasional business meeting or nightclub outing. But as social animals we'll still want to cluster together for face-to-face contact, local food and local culture.

The payoff
All of these consumer trends suggest that New Villages just may be the future. But there are also compelling economic arguments for developers to build and sell such properties, as well as for consumers to buy them.

Rising oil prices notwithstanding, sprawling car-culture cities and vast suburbs simply do not make economic sense in the long run. As much as 50 percent of the land surface area in any given city or subdivision - we're talking prime real estate - is taken up by roadways. For developers, less space given over to roads means more space for housing.

Not only are roads a drain on landlords' potential income, they're a turnoff for residents -- and are only going to become more so as gridlock, road repairs and air pollution increase.

While you might assume that a higher density community would have more traffic, you'd be wrong. When neighborhoods are dense and walkable, studies show, people make fewer car trips. And some may even forgo owning a second car, especially as families realize that living with one less car can save them $6,000 a year on average (and again, that's not counting price rises at the pump).

And then there's simple math. While standard subdivisions have five units per acre, transit villages tend to pack in 20 to 25 per acre - still mostly single-family dwellings or townhomes, but without the vast lawns and backyards of suburbia. And with transit village homes selling for more than similar houses in traditional, sprawling suburbs, developers will make considerably more per acre, while fostering community and being kinder to the environment.

Pocketing a nice real-estate gain while saving the planet? That should help you sleep very well at night in your nice, safe, quiet, neighborly New Village home.[/b]

[NovakOmaha]

...and then you wake up, comrade...

[vauxhall]

I sometimes wonder what life would be like in this country if:

1) Our very successful car manufacturers had not been churning out an endless supply of automobiles in the early 20th century and 2) The government had not forsaken rail travel for the building of endless miles of roads and freeways during the middle 20th century.

Would we be better off? Less stressed? Less sprawl? Less global warming? I think so. Because most cities lack the infrastructure and funds for good public transportation, I don't see the concept really taking off except for in a few areas. It's too bad. Sounds like a great way to live to me.

[Big E]

Nice argument, Novak. Care to expand?

-Big E

[Uffda]

I read this too the other but they are talking about these "New Villages" not being downtown any where

You can already see such a development opening up in Hercules, Calif., 20 miles northeast of San Francisco

They share some of the charms and amenities of cities, thanks to their density, but have the mostly rural surroundings that originally drew people out to the suburbs, as well as the friendly feel of a small town where you know your neighbors.

[Big E]

I have no problem with them being not downtown. If you're going to build out (and let's face it, that's inevitbale), show me a better way than this.

-Big E

[Swift]

I sometimes wonder what life would be like in this country if:

1) Our very successful car manufacturers had not been churning out an endless supply of automobiles in the early 20th century and 2) The government had not forsaken rail travel for the building of endless miles of roads and freeways during the middle 20th century.

Would we be better off? Less stressed? Less sprawl? Less global warming? I think so. Because most cities lack the infrastructure and funds for good public transportation, I don't see the concept really taking off except for in a few areas. It's too bad. Sounds like a great way to live to me.

Or maybe if GM hadn't bought several streetcar systems only to shut them down.

[icejammer]

Or maybe if GM hadn't bought several streetcar systems only to shut them down.

Not to mention the involvement of Goodyear and Firestone pimping busses to replace streetcars so to sell more rubber tires.

[joeglow]

Sounds great. I will be more than willing to forsake my backyard if I have a neighborhood park for my children that is not filled with bums, gang graphitti and bodily fluids regularly being spilled on the equipment. I think this would be awesome to live in.

[icejammer]

And then there's simple math. While standard subdivisions have five units per acre, transit villages tend to pack in 20 to 25 per acre - still mostly single-family dwellings or townhomes, but without the vast lawns and backyards of suburbia.

Interesting concept. While I think that may work very well around large metros on the coast that have seen the small villages long-ago swallowed up by development, the concept around here is still a ways off, as we still have plenty of small-town living available (not to mention a dearth of public transportation).

20-25 units per acre. Wow, somewhere between 1750 and 2175 sq. ft. per lot, not much of a future for lawn care professionals!

[ModestMouse]

wow, 1700 square feet? for the life of me, I love my garden and I love my lawn, and if I have to pay 300,000 dollars for a 1700 square foot plot of land...I'd rather live in a friggin condo.

[Southbay]

This article term of "new villages" dances around what it better known across the country as New Urbanism, which is the fastest growing development trend of the last decade. Urban Villages can be built anywhere, as long as they posess the qualities referred to in the article (walkable, mixed use, density, defined public realm, usable civic spaces etc..). Without a running list at hand, there may be over 1000 of these developments across the country taking shape as either traditional neigborhood or transit oriented (TND and TOD respectively) developments. In the midwest, most major metros have some form of this going on, with Denver and Dallas with very strong examples (Stapleton in Denver is awesome). Lincoln has two developments, Fallbrook and Village Gardens, that are being built with many design principles of New Urbanism. I would imagine that Omaha has to have something in the pipeline soon, but it is disappointing that something has yet to be built.

Many realtors and developers avoid the term "New Urbanism" because of the knee jerk reaction people have to the world "urbanism", which to many, implies overcrowded, traffic congested, dirty conditions. Case in point, the "25 units per acre" comment made earlier. The question is what does 25 units per acre look like? A comprehensive design approach makes a big difference in how density is perceived by a home buyer.

[midtown charlie]

We have Aksarben Village, North Downtown, Mutual of Omaha east campus and the desination midtown project however none of these have been built yet. Until they are I won't hold my breath. Sure we have Omaha by Design (and this would have moved us to the forefront in the country), but the developers are dragging their (and the cities) heals on the 4 corners retail development. I was told that these four corners style developments are more expensive for the developers. Can it be that much more expensive? How is it the hottest thing in the country? Can some of you people in the development industry on here chime in? Is it really more expensive or are they just afraid of change. I would think with these new design standards you would have less wasted space...ie less land that the developer has to buy that sits idle in the form of setbacks. I don't know??

The problem with these Little Villages here and there is that they don't solve the overall problems of the suburban city and most of these projects seem to really only benefit the upper middle class. Are there some good examples of ones that include the lower middle class to lower class? The Omaha by design guidelines would have benefited everyone.

I hate to keep harping on this issue but until I see something that proves me wrong I am going to keep the flame lit. Yes I have emailed Omaha by design but I have not heard back yet. I guess next is my councilman. It is sad that the Omaha World Herald hasn't even questioned this other than to make one passing comment many months ago. I guess they have better things to do like covering the peaches of mass destruction over at the crossroads mall.

[DTO Luv]

Many realtors and developers avoid the term "New Urbanism" because of the knee jerk reaction people have to the world "urbanism", which to many, implies overcrowded, traffic congested, dirty conditions.

When I think of urban places like Dundee, the Gold Coast, and Midtown the words overcrowded, congested and dirty always come to mind. With maybe the exception of dirty that sounds more like a description of a suburb than an urban hood.

[Southbay]

but I am a New Urbanist, so here are my two cents on a few of your questions.

New Urbanism (at least greenfield NU) is a market driven phenomenon and is most common in metros that have a heightened concern for the environment and/or have a high growth rate and related sprawl issues.

Since Omaha has neither of those issues at the forefront of its politics (or the general population thats fed up with being stuck in traffic), developers may not feel that there is a niche in the market to fill as of yet. Add in that banking institutions are often unwilling to back a new type of development in a unproven market and that little of has been asked of the development community for greater design standards and there ya go...

Your Omaha examples are great examples of New Urbanist infill development that may be more closing tied to the increasing demographic of emtpy nesters and unmarried Gen X'ers that are not infatuated with 3 car gargages and 1/2 acre lots!

The village concept supports the concept of growth by multiplicity and if it was implied across an entire metro/region it would go a long way to solve the "suburban city" and sustainability issues that type of city creates.

You are correct that it does seem to only benefit the upper middle class, but that is often tied to its successes. TND's should have a mix of housing types and sizes that could support a wide demographic. The market demand for the housing in TND's often price out the lower middle class. This problem could take a lot of work, but there are examples. HUD's Hope VI projects use TND principles to build low income housing (Park DuValle in Louisville is a great example), a TND in Chaska, MN uses prefab houses to keep prices down and another builder in the Dallas area is experimenting with a similiar concept where entire portions of homes are built in a warehouse on the developmment site.

thats it

[midtown charlie]

Since Omaha has neither of those issues at the forefront of its politics (or the general population thats fed up with being stuck in traffic), developers may not feel that there is a niche in the market to fill as of yet. Add in that banking institutions are often unwilling to back a new type of development in a unproven market and that little of has been asked of the development community for greater design standards and there ya go...

I would agree with you in most cities except for the fact that Omaha is much different. City leaders, OWH, developers, various city departments, business leaders and average citizens met and spent over a year coming up with a plan of how they want to develop the city. It's titled Omaha by Design and it is very detailed. Since developers had a say in Omaha by Design's final product, why did they wait until it was finished just to lobby against the parts they didn't like. (that's a rhetorical question) (I am making the assumption that those developers who are lobbying against it even bothered to give input/show up during those meetings) To me the developers had their chance back then! Why isn't the OWH even asking these questions? Why aren't they at least asking when the city is going to implement the remaing parts of Omaha by design? I am sure there is an answer out there and I trying to find it? Next stop emailing the OWH and my councilman!!

[omadweller]

EPA Study Reveals Shift in Housing Developments Across the U.S. / More communities embrace redevelopment

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.ns ... enDocument

http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/construction_trends.htm

http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/resi ... trends.pdf  (Omaha is page 25) (cool map on page 15)

Per the EPA:

nearly three out of four large metropolitan regions saw an increased share of new housing development in previously developed areas during 2005 - 2009 compared to 2000 - 2004.

In eight regions, redevelopment in urban neighborhoods accounted for one-quarter to one-half of new construction:

Chicago.
Dallas.
Los Angeles.
Miami.
Norfolk/Virginia Beach, Va.
Portland, Ore.
San Diego.
San Francisco.

Maybe sprawl isn't dying, but is over the hill?

It appears Omaha had more infill in the first half of the decade than the last half.

[Big E]

Tuna....?

[Linkin5]

Tuna....?

What?

[Garrett]

almightytuna.

[Big E]

Tuna....?

What?

Can a brother get a thread revival?

[Linkin5]

Tuna....?

What?

Can a brother get a thread revival?

Oh snap!  Didn't even think of that.

[almighty_tuna]