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.

[Canadian Visitor]

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.

Toronto has a sprawl wall around it. Its called the Greenbelt.

The province passed a law, a number of years back, drawing the line beyond which 'urban' boundaries could not grow. Reserving the greenbelt to farms, nature, limited industry [[quarries) and grandfathered uses.

A link to the maps/area here:

http://www.greenbelt.ca/maps

On the whole, it has worked well, and is very popular.

The limitations are that the area isn't so large that developers can't leapfrog it in places. [[and are), as well as those who question the role this is having in Toronto's ever spiraling house prices [[up 33% in the last year).

However, it should be noted, Toronto still has lots of whitebelt [[areas not yet developed, but zoned for literally more than 100,000 acres of single family homes. So I think that's a pretty specious linkage.

[Bham1982]

Toronto has a sprawl wall around it. Its called the Greenbelt.

The province passed a law, a number of years back, drawing the line beyond which 'urban' boundaries could not grow. Reserving the greenbelt to farms, nature, limited industry [[quarries) and grandfathered uses.

A link to the maps/area here:

http://www.greenbelt.ca/maps

On the whole, it has worked well, and is very popular.

What are you talking about? The "sprawl wall" has been a disaster.

Toronto has lower median household incomes than Metro Detroit, yet home prices are about 5x higher. People spend $1 million to buy crapboxes in Scarborough that would look low-end even for Warren, MI.

Something like 40% of young adult Torontonians live with their parents, because they're shut out of the market, and elderly residents refuse to sell their homes, because there's nowhere to go.

New home communities are a joke; with McMansions built two inches from one another, so you're living tenement-style, yet out in some isolated farm field.

The Toronto real estate market is basically a catastrophe, and would be the last place to look for sensible regional planning. The whole market is basically govt. collusion with wealthy foreigners using straw buyers to destroy local housing conditions.

[Canadian Visitor]

What are you talking about? The "sprawl wall" has been a disaster.

Toronto has lower median household incomes than Metro Detroit, yet home prices are about 5x higher. People spend $1 million to buy crapboxes in Scarborough that would look low-end even for Warren, MI.

Something like 40% of young adult Torontonians live with their parents, because they're shut out of the market, and elderly residents refuse to sell their homes, because there's nowhere to go.

New home communities are a joke; with McMansions built two inches from one another, so you're living tenement-style, yet out in some isolated farm field.

The Toronto real estate market is basically a catastrophe, and would be the last place to look for sensible regional planning. The whole market is basically govt. collusion with wealthy foreigners using straw buyers to destroy local housing conditions.

This is why I tend to disrespect your posts. You not only engage in hyperbole, you say things that emphatically aren't true at all and bare no resemblance to the truth.

The median income for the Detroit-Warren-Livonia is around $53,000US [[$72,000 CAD)

The median income for Toronto is $73,000

Yes, housing prices are higher, though its important to make distinctions. Toronto's 'average' price is heavily stilted by single-family, detached homes, near downtown.

While suburban prices are at historic highs, and too high in my opinion, they are, nonetheless not 5x higher than comparable properties in Detroit.

$1,000,000 in Scarborough doesn't go as far as it should.....but crap box? Also, please make the adjustment to USD and note that this is then, a $740,000 property

https://www.realtor.ca/Residential/S...E1R4-Guildwood

Smaller homes, more modest in finish, can still be had for under 600k. [[$456,000 USD)

https://www.realtor.ca/Residential/S...-M1J2R4-Woburn

Yes, that's astronomically higher than pockets of inner Detroit, but only about a 2x premium to more desirable suburbs.


****

As noted, in respect of the greenbelt there are still over 100,000 acres worth of land zoned for development, but not yet built on.

That would likely feature about 300,000 homes.

Its impact on realty prices is likely immaterial.

There is speculation in the market to be sure, along w/explosive growth [[adding 120,000 people a year).

That along w/the normal things that happen in bubbles; are driving prices to excess.

Albeit belatedly, the government has begun to take action, including a Foreign buyers tax [[non-resident speculation tax is their euphemism) and a Vacant homes tax is likely coming by 2018 as well.

[canuck]

Toronto has a sprawl wall around it. Its called the Greenbelt.

The province passed a law, a number of years back, drawing the line beyond which 'urban' boundaries could not grow. Reserving the greenbelt to farms, nature, limited industry [[quarries) and grandfathered uses.

A link to the maps/area here:

http://www.greenbelt.ca/maps

On the whole, it has worked well, and is very popular.

The limitations are that the area isn't so large that developers can't leapfrog it in places. [[and are), as well as those who question the role this is having in Toronto's ever spiraling house prices [[up 33% in the last year).

However, it should be noted, Toronto still has lots of whitebelt [[areas not yet developed, but zoned for literally more than 100,000 acres of single family homes. So I think that's a pretty specious linkage.

I think you are in the business of selling real estate are you not?

Don't you think that a one year 33% raise in home prices is insane?

This wannabe Vancouver style overheat was unleashed again to profit developers. Everybody is out for himself and damn the consequences. The consequences are that builders can profit from selling property at a high premium and also build expensive rentals across your region to a sizable population of not so upwardly mobile renters.

Mind you, it is not a very complicated game. It is the old idea that one squeezes the most out of them that one can.

[Canadian Visitor]

I think you are in the business of selling real estate are you not?

Don't you think that a one year 33% raise in home prices is insane?

This wannabe Vancouver style overheat was unleashed again to profit developers. Everybody is out for himself and damn the consequences. The consequences are that builders can profit from selling property at a high premium and also build expensive rentals across your region to a sizable population of not so upwardly mobile renters.

Mind you, it is not a very complicated game. It is the old idea that one squeezes the most out of them that one can.

Yes, 33% is insane.

No, I am not in real estate, LOL

My point was not that Toronto was not overvalued..... which is rather off topic for the thread....

Rather in correcting a previous poster I was simply chastising his proclivity for utter hyperbole.

He was implying comparable properties, adjusted for currency were different by a factor of five. [[Metro Detroit vs Greater Toronto).

That simply isn't the case, as I noted. Depending on area and home, one could make a case for a factor difference of 2x and at the extremes 3x.

That takes nothing away from Toronto [[and Vancouver) being in a bubble-ish, frothy and over-valued state.

But perhaps, back to the point of the thread which was a more general argument about ex-urbia, its merits and costs and secular trends towards or against it.

[professorscott]

But perhaps, back to the point of the thread which was a more general argument about ex-urbia, its merits and costs and secular trends towards or against it.

OK, if we are going to get back to the point [[and you see how difficult this is), let me throw in my $0.02.

Exurbia exists because it is subsidized. Developers can buy inexpensive farmland and build subdivisions with hundreds or, cumulatively, thousands of houses. Then in response to this, exurban communities, or the counties in which they exist, have to scramble to provide adequate access roads, upgrade water delivery systems and sewage treatment plants, and so on, and at least in states like Michigan [[and this is absolutely fucking insane) cannot put the developers on the hook for any of these exorbitant costs.

That is why there is exurbia and why the trends have been what they have been, and if you want to fix it, you have to somehow inject sanity into the equation. In Michigan, with its idiotic "home rule" constitutional provisions, this has proven impossible.

[canuck]

Yes, 33% is insane.

No, I am not in real estate, LOL

My point was not that Toronto was not overvalued..... which is rather off topic for the thread....

Rather in correcting a previous poster I was simply chastising his proclivity for utter hyperbole.

He was implying comparable properties, adjusted for currency were different by a factor of five. [[Metro Detroit vs Greater Toronto).

That simply isn't the case, as I noted. Depending on area and home, one could make a case for a factor difference of 2x and at the extremes 3x.

That takes nothing away from Toronto [[and Vancouver) being in a bubble-ish, frothy and over-valued state.

But perhaps, back to the point of the thread which was a more general argument about ex-urbia, its merits and costs and secular trends towards or against it.

Just one of many articles on the reaaons for overvaluation in Van and T.O. of late. Incidentally, no amount of government measures can bring down property values since these are perceived as sacrosanct. The latest increases due to abnormal market conditions are punishing potential first time buyers but greasing owners, speculators and lenders. Good times ahead.

http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/ne...ate=2017-05-08

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[royce]

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.

Thx, Hermod.

[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.