Why the Exurbs Are Poised to Take Off

[Paris_of_the_Midwest]

Interesting read. And particularly interesting in light of the many articles in recent years predicting exactly the opposite, that there would be a migration toward city centers in America and away from this style of living.

"Some cities will continue to grow, but migration out of cities will surge, particularly to exurbs 50 miles or more from a city centers—giving rise to new micro economies where people live, work and play. By 2025, the U.S. exurban population could outstrip the urban center population. This migration already has begun: Six million Americans moved out of city centers in the past decade, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. Although some center-city population levels have held steady or even risen, their share of the population has been dropping since 1990, while the exurbs' share has been rising. ...

Bain analysis shows movement to the U.S. exurbs in the next 10 years could match Americans exodus to the suburbs in the 1950s and 1960s, which reached an annual peak of 8% of the population."

https://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2017/04/19/why-the-exurbs-are-poised-to-take-off-in-the-coming-years/

[Scottathew]

My wife's family is from the Howell area. Over the past decade many of them have slowly been migrating closer and closer to Detroit or Grand Rapids. The need for [[well paying) jobs is the influence.

[Lowell]

It seems the bad news is for the old inner and middle ring burbs. City centers are reviving and sprawl rolls on. Hopefully that will build suburban support for ending sprawl. Build the sprawl wall now.

[Honky Tonk]

Build the sprawl wall now.

And make them pay for it!

[casscorridor]

Herein lies one major problem with capitalism. It fails to recognize costs and trends that can't be calculated by the market alone. For if we continue to build and occupy such sprawling cities, or 'exurbs', there will be massive ecological costs. Call me a socialist, but the answer to global population expansion and its damage to the environment is to live in high-density and compact cities, while simultaneously reducing the amount of land used for agriculture through advancements in technology [[such as greenhouses, genetic engineering, etc). Other land should be returned back to nature, uninhibited by human activity. This is the only way to continue population growth for the coming centuries, as we simply do not have enough land for everyone in the world to live in low density suburbs.

[Scottathew]

It seems the bad news is for the old inner and middle ring burbs. City centers are reviving and sprawl rolls on. Hopefully that will build suburban support for ending sprawl. Build the sprawl wall now.

I very much agree. We need to contain the sprawl. Let the places beyond the sprawl be our preserved forests or wind and solar farms. Land within the sprawl wall will become more valuable. Regional transit will become more feasible.

Next step would be to implement regional services that will save communities lots of money.

[ABetterDetroit]

How in the world would there be any chance of slowing sprawl when the outer rings continuously have a property tax rate that is 50% to 70% lower than the core and the inner rings?

You can't stop people from voting with their wallet. It's impossible. If they can get more house out of the monthly payment by paying a lower tax rate further out, it will never stop. The wrong tax is flat in Michigan and it has costed us many Billions in failing communities with only more to come until something changes.

[Scottathew]

How in the world would there be any chance of slowing sprawl when the outer rings continuously have a property tax rate that is 50% to 70% lower than the core and the inner rings?

I moved from Warren to Rochester Hills. My Warren tax rates were higher, but I paid less in taxes due to the house being worth 1/3 of my house in Rochester Hills.

[Atticus]

A few key points... and they all center around the central idea of the new technology allows people to live where they want to.

1) A certain portion of the population is going to be drawn to the density, character, walkability, etc. of the inner city. There is a portion of the population that would prefer to live in that environment above all others, and they are not going to move to some far away exurb because they are able to now.
As for the "data" in the article, take Detroit for example. People are moving into downtown, midtown, etc. and populations are increasing in those areas. However, more people are moving out of the neighborhoods outside that central core. And thus, the central city in sum is losing population, even though the core of Detroit [[like the core of most large cities) is increasing in population.

2) Adding on to point one, the use of "Central City" creates misleading data. The city limits of Detroit [[like any city limit) do not effectively delineate where the core urban area is and is not. As a result, the central city is comprised of both areas that are dense [[or semi-dense) urban neighborhoods, and neighborhoods that are more suburb like [[say outside Grand Blvd). If the article used urban core population figures, the data would have more standing. However what constitutes the urban core is subjective, and probably very difficult if not impossible to get widespread accurate data on.

3) Outside the core urban area, save for a few "mini-downtownesque neighborhoods", the rest of the City of Detroit [[and other large cities as well) function as suburban neighborhoods. The problem is, they are non-desirable suburban neighborhoods.
The home in the suburban portion of the City of Detroit, and other inner ring suburbs, were [[mostly) built cheaply and close together. That combination means the homes don't age well, which means they become less desirable, which means bad schools follow, which means lower income residents move in, which means other problems follow [[mean as it is to say).

This brings me to the overall point, which is people are going to be able to choose where they live. Some are going to chose an urban lifestyle, which means the greater downtown will continue to grow. Others are going to want a suburban lifestyle, and by just about any measure, they are going to choose the "better suburbs" of Novi, Brighton, and Canton over outer-city-Detroit, Dearborn Heights, Melvindale, etc.

I think there has been a great awakening the last 15 years or so on urban design, and what makes for a great urban community. But I think the insight on what makes a great suburban community is not well understood, because most urbanists scoff at the idea of a suburban lifestyle in the first place.

[professorscott]

analysis shows movement to the U.S. exurbs in the next 10 years could match Americans exodus to the suburbs in the 1950s and 1960s

"Analysis" which purports to predict the future in this way is guesswork and nothing but. There is a certain kind of educated guess possible when you have voluminous data and the trends don't rely on changing demographics; think of weather forecasting - but even that is more guesswork than you might imagine; the "8 day forecast" that the TV stations love to give you is almost nothing beyond a blind guess.

Like the blind men and the elephant, a dozen "analysts" can look at the same data, plug them into computer programs [[because people tend to believe guesses more when computers do them) and come up with a dozen completely different results.

Allow your kindly old Professor an indulgence; I'd like to make a prediction. In the future, the predictions people make today will prove to be entirely garbage, including this one

[archfan]

A few key points... and they all center around the central idea of the new technology allows people to live where they want to.

...
3) Outside the core urban area, save for a few "mini-downtownesque neighborhoods", the rest of the City of Detroit [[and other large cities as well) function as suburban neighborhoods. The problem is, they are non-desirable suburban neighborhoods.
The home in the suburban portion of the City of Detroit, and other inner ring suburbs, were [[mostly) built cheaply and close together. That combination means the homes don't age well, which means they become less desirable, which means bad schools follow, which means lower income residents move in, which means other problems follow [[mean as it is to say).

That's an interesting point: the outer portions of the Detroit are really more like the first inner ring of the suburbs. Warrendale and East English Village have a lot more in common with Redford and Harper Woods than they do with downtown. That thinking may shift how we approach revitalizing all of those areas.

[royce]

How in the world would there be any chance of slowing sprawl when the outer rings continuously have a property tax rate that is 50% to 70% lower than the core and the inner rings?

You can't stop people from voting with their wallet. It's impossible. If they can get more house out of the monthly payment by paying a lower tax rate further out, it will never stop. The wrong tax is flat in Michigan and it has costed us many Billions in failing communities with only more to come until something changes.

Somebody help me out here. Don't those in the exburbs have to pay property taxes for the same services that the city and inner-ring suburbs pay? Don't their property taxes pay for police and fire protection; schools, parks, roads, and garbage pickup? So how is it that the tax rate in exburbs is 50% to 70% lower than the city and inner-ring suburbs?

[emu steve]

Interesting article, although a 'conservative' reading of the data [[not including the 2025 projection or forecast) is that the central city / suburban [[and its subset, exurban) divide is stabilizing.

In order to believe ex-urbanization is going to 'take off' one has to agree with that 2025 projection. I'm not sure demographers are there yet.

there is no doubt about the strength of sub-urbanization and with it ex-urbanization.

If I was going to take a 'wild guess' as to what will drive the next big demographic shift it would be the residential choices of retiring baby boomers.

Do retired baby boomers want big, big houses to keep up? Do they want to be say 25 miles from their children?

As far as those in the labor force, I'm not convinced that we are at the point where someone lives 35 miles from the office and works from home remotely in their pajamas.

As far as central cities [[as census bureau calls them), last I looked at data for major cities e.g., NYC, L.A. S.F. Seattle, Denver, etc. almost all have had linear growth patterns. Sun belt cities even more so, e.g., Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, etc. Cities in the Midwest and mid-Atlantic and northeast are a mixed bag. Some doing well [[e.g., D.C., Boston, etc.) ; others not to much e.g., Cleveland, Pittsburgh, etc.

[Hermod]

Somebody help me out here. Don't those in the exburbs have to pay property taxes for the same services that the city and inner-ring suburbs pay? Don't their property taxes pay for police and fire protection; schools, parks, roads, and garbage pickup? So how is it that the tax rate in exburbs is 50% to 70% lower than the city and inner-ring suburbs?

1. They have very low legacy costs for employee retirement [[which will change as they age).

2. The requirement for policemen per capita will be quite a bit lower because of a lower crime rate.

3. Low density means fewer firemen and less fire equipment.

4. Tax collection costs and delinquency rates will be much lower.

5. Parkinson's Law hasn't had enough time to affect the size and complexity of their bureaucracy.

[masterblaster]

2) Adding on to point one, the use of "Central City" creates misleading data. The city limits of Detroit [[like any city limit) do not effectively delineate where the core urban area is and is not. As a result, the central city is comprised of both areas that are dense [[or semi-dense) urban neighborhoods, and neighborhoods that are more suburb like [[say outside Grand Blvd). If the article used urban core population figures, the data would have more standing. However what constitutes the urban core is subjective, and probably very difficult if not impossible to get widespread accurate data on.

3) Outside the core urban area, save for a few "mini-downtownesque neighborhoods", the rest of the City of Detroit [[and other large cities as well) function as suburban neighborhoods. The problem is, they are non-desirable suburban neighborhoods.
The home in the suburban portion of the City of Detroit, and other inner ring suburbs, were [[mostly) built cheaply and close together. That combination means the homes don't age well, which means they become less desirable, which means bad schools follow, which means lower income residents move in, which means other problems follow [[mean as it is to say).

This brings me to the overall point, which is people are going to be able to choose where they live. Some are going to chose an urban lifestyle, which means the greater downtown will continue to grow. Others are going to want a suburban lifestyle, and by just about any measure, they are going to choose the "better suburbs" of Novi, Brighton, and Canton over outer-city-Detroit, Dearborn Heights, Melvindale, etc.

There are/were at least 15 or so of those "mini-downtownesque neighborhoods" [[Think downtown Berkley or downtown Ferndale) in Detroit, not just a few. Most of them are in great disrepair, or half demolished, and two of them, Harper & Van Dyke and Seven Mile & Gratiot, are completely obliterated.

The difference between Canton and Novi, is that even though the neighborhoods of Detroit are semi-suburban, they are still walkable. Where ever you live in the city, you are still less than a 1/2 mile from a commercial street that is lined with [[mostly vacant) storefronts.

That's an interesting point: the outer portions of the Detroit are really more like the first inner ring of the suburbs. Warrendale and East English Village have a lot more in common with Redford and Harper Woods than they do with downtown. That thinking may shift how we approach revitalizing all of those areas.

But at the southern edge of East English Village is a strip of East Warren that is an intact stretch of storefronts that go several blocks. It looks very similar to "downtown" Berkley.

Google Maps Streetview of East Warren
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4032...8i6656!6m1!1e1

So the housing has a suburban feel, however if suburbs built in the same way such as Berkley and Ferndale can be very desirable, vibrant walkable communities, then so can neighborhoods like Old Redford, East English Village, Jefferson-Chalmers, Greenfield-Grand River, etc.

[Hermod]

So the housing has a suburban feel, however if suburbs built in the same way such as Berkley and Ferndale can be very desirable, vibrant walkable communities, then so can neighborhoods like Old Redford, East English Village, Jefferson-Chalmers, Greenfield-Grand River, etc.

"Walkability" has several components. You are looking at only the "short distances" component. There is also the "sidewalks in good repair" component and the "personal safety" component.

[Wesley Mouch]

1. They have very low legacy costs for employee retirement [[which will change as they age).
...snip...

Given the major portion of budgets that are going to pay for your parents employee costs, this may be the single biggest issue to be addressed for the health of our cities.

Collective bargaining between unions and government management doesn't seem to be the right way to ensure good employees nor fair benefits. Some benefit disproportionately to their contributions. And of course we could also fix this by 'accounting' for the future cost today -- but that's politically toxic.

[Hermod]

Given the major portion of budgets that are going to pay for your parents employee costs, this may be the single biggest issue to be addressed for the health of our cities.

Collective bargaining between unions and government management doesn't seem to be the right way to ensure good employees nor fair benefits. Some benefit disproportionately to their contributions. And of course we could also fix this by 'accounting' for the future cost today -- but that's politically toxic.

Bingo: The politicians incurring huge legacy costs expect to be long gone when the ordure contacts the rotating blades and taxes have to be raised.

[Bham1982]

Somebody help me out here. Don't those in the exburbs have to pay property taxes for the same services that the city and inner-ring suburbs pay? Don't their property taxes pay for police and fire protection; schools, parks, roads, and garbage pickup? So how is it that the tax rate in exburbs is 50% to 70% lower than the city and inner-ring suburbs?

I don't know where people get the idea that newer suburbs have low property taxes. Places like Northville, Novi, Rochester, West Bloomfield, Bloomfield, etc. aren't particularly low tax. Birmingham is fairly high tax. They have high property values and generally high-ish tax rates. In Birmingham there are people living in modest bungalows paying 10k in annual taxes.

They aren't as high as places like Detroit, but cities with ridiculously low valuations will always have high rates.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

I don't know where people get the idea that newer suburbs have low property taxes. Places like Northville, Novi, Rochester, West Bloomfield, Bloomfield, etc. aren't particularly low tax. Birmingham is fairly high tax. They have high property values and generally high-ish tax rates. In Birmingham there are people living in modest bungalows paying 10k in annual taxes.

They aren't as high as places like Detroit, but cities with ridiculously low valuations will always have high rates.

I have to agreed with this. Southfield and Lathrup Villiage. also has high property taxes.

[Atticus]

I realize this is an urban forum.... but since this is relevant to the topic, let's talk about what suburbanites want... and in some cases it is obviously much different than what some in an urban lifestyle value.

In regards to the population who prefers the suburban lifestyle:
#1 Many simply just want a brand new [[freshly built) home. They like this because either 1) they can control exactly how the home is laid out, thus getting their preferred home layout designed specifically for them.. and/or 2) they like the freshness of the new home, and not having to [[likely) worry about replacing the roof, furnace, or other maintenance projects because everything is new.

#2 There are some who prefer the denser "walkable" neighborhoods, but truth be told, most suburbanites want as much land and separation as they can get between their neighbors. They don't want to interact with their neighbors, and they don't want to see, hear, or smell the neighbors either..., so they need as much space between homes to help accomplish this. Yes, I know this goes against so many positives of urban design, but this is what the people want.

You can get #1 and 2 in a Novi, Canton, etc.., but those things are much harder to get in a Redford, Hazel Park, etc.

The final piece is the quality of the home. Look at the homes in NW Detroit. They mostly are all small, cheaply built, and closely spaced, which are the exact things suburbanites don't want. This is why suburbanites will spend more to live in Canton, drive farther, and eat bland chain restaurant food... because the suburban portions of the City of Detroit [[with a few exceptions) is comprised of a residential layout no one wants.

[BankruptcyGuy]

"Analysis" which purports to predict the future in this way is guesswork and nothing but. There is a certain kind of educated guess possible when you have voluminous data and the trends don't rely on changing demographics; think of weather forecasting - but even that is more guesswork than you might imagine; the "8 day forecast" that the TV stations love to give you is almost nothing beyond a blind guess.

Like the blind men and the elephant, a dozen "analysts" can look at the same data, plug them into computer programs [[because people tend to believe guesses more when computers do them) and come up with a dozen completely different results.

Allow your kindly old Professor an indulgence; I'd like to make a prediction. In the future, the predictions people make today will prove to be entirely garbage, including this one

But you see, Professor, if I write "I really don't know what the future will hold," no one will click on my website!

[BankruptcyGuy]

I don't know where people get the idea that newer suburbs have low property taxes. Places like Northville, Novi, Rochester, West Bloomfield, Bloomfield, etc. aren't particularly low tax. Birmingham is fairly high tax. They have high property values and generally high-ish tax rates. In Birmingham there are people living in modest bungalows paying 10k in annual taxes.

They aren't as high as places like Detroit, but cities with ridiculously low valuations will always have high rates.

Recent article in that regard.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/...th_michig.html

[O3H]

Some industrialized cities in Michigan have ""given away the tax base"
to the corporations, via incentives, essentially legalized bribes,
while the elderly home owners who lived there 50 years
shouldered a large part of the taxation.
Property taxes are not cheap, because industrial parks exist nearby.

[Dan Wesson]

Just exactly what is a micro economy? Is it a 50/50 mix of consumerism and employment based opportunities? Just who are these people? Are they 50% that are working or the 50% no longer in the workforce?