You are the one arguing that sprawl = economic growth, are you not? You are the one who constantly argues that suburbs = affluence, correct? Has that not been your position on this board for many years?
I don't have a study on hand that evidences my premise, but I do have basic facts. Go to Realtor.com and compare real estate values in walkable cores vs. average suburbs. Again, the Hamptoms are not representative of average American suburbs. They are vacation homes for wealthy city people. It's a poor comparison.
Allen park is not urban and it definitely is not walkable. Have you ever been there? It is post-war suburban. While homes may be on smaller lots and thus density may be somewhat higher than modern sprawldivisions, density is not the deciding factor of whether a location is desirable. Allen Park, like many of its contemporaries, has no sense of place. There's nowhere for people to go without their cars. It has no center or obvious core. There is no gathering point where people mingle. It has no town square consisting shops, parks, municipal buildings and housing. It lacks all of the physical attributes a growing majority of the populous care about in an area.Allen Park is walkable and relatively urban in the Metro Detroit context. Has the same density as Birmingham.
It, and nearby Melvindale, Lincoln Park, Ecorse, River Rouge, etc. should all be outperforming less dense places like Northville and Rochester, to say nothing of the real sprawlers out in Livingston. But they're doing far worse.
Now, I do not want to disparage Allen Park. I think AP has some good characteristics for some people. It has inexpensive housing, access to freeways, and some cute little homes that are good for raising a family. But, the reality is that a lot of people would like more out of a community than cheap housing with freeway access. This is why areas like AP will be less and less desirable as time goes on in comparison to walkable urban areas.
Bookmarks