Category: suburbs

What’s a city and what’s a suburb, and what’s their future?

Large totems mark the “center” of the Ballantyne development in south Charlotte. Photo: Google Street View

I’ve long been interested in how people use the terms “suburban” and “urban,” because their definitions seem to wobble all over the map. Thanks to the state’s formerly easy annexation law, the city I live in, Charlotte, has large areas well inside city limits – places that in another metro area would be separate municipalities or unincorporated sprawl. People here call them “suburbs,” though by some definitions they’d be “city,” not “suburb.”

But the issue of suburban vs. urban living is just as lively here as anywhere. So I’ve been interested to read two recent articles that tackle that broad topic, though in different ways.

First, Josh Stephens’ review in the California Planning and Development Report of the latest Joel Kotkin book, The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us, dissects, or at least tries to dissect, what Kotkin means by “the rest of us.” Who is his “us”? And why does he assume that everyone who lives in a suburban-form landscape does so by choice, rather than because of housing affordability or job location or doubts about schools?  Hat tip to Planetizen for alerting me to this excellent piece, Fetishizing Families: Review of ‘The Human City.’

Next is an analysis from Daniel Hertz in the sometimes wonderfully contrarian City Observatory, about DuPage County, Ill., just outside Chicago. In “A Mystery in the Suburbs,” he looks at the county, where growth in recent decades has been of the ubiquitous automobile-centric, focused on highways pattern focusing on highways. Once robust, in recent years DuPage has seen some siphoning off of economic energy, as companies move back to downtown. 

This put me in mind of Ballantyne, a large suburban-style development at the far southern reaches of Charlotte city
limits built over in the past 20 years. There is, in fact, more mixing of uses in Ballantyne than in most 1980s or 1990s developments, but it’s in the style of houses here, shopping center there, offices across the street. It’s jammed with cars and not at all walkable unless you like to get mowed down on multilane freeway interchanges or giant thoroughfares. The developers have just announced a vast new development at the far western edge of the city.

Hertz writes:  … The spread-out nature of development means that no one bus line can have easy access to many homes or businesses either—and even someone who steps out of a bus relatively close to their destination has to navigate roads and parking lots that aren’t designed for walking. Partly as a result, the buses simply don’t come that often: at best, every 15 minutes at rush hour, which may be on the edge of acceptability for show-up-and-go service in the afternoon or late in the evening, but is a burden for someone who really needs to be on time for a job. Other buses come much less frequently, even at rush hour.”

Gee, does that sound like anywhere I know? Charlotte’s development pattern has made bus service difficult with the never-adequate funding available.

Hertz goes on: “Someone who wanted to commute to their job in DuPage County by transit would discover 26 rail stations which are probably within walking distance of neither their home nor their job, and a network of buses that aren’t much better, most of which come too infrequently to be reliable for very time-sensitive trips like a commute, and which require getting to and from stops that are located on roads that are hostile or dangerous for walking.

“In other words, the decisions of planners and developers over the last several decades have created a land use pattern that essentially locks in transportation choices for all future residents, who are now stuck commuting in ways they say they’d rather not. And DuPage, like other car-dependent suburbs around the country, may be losing some of its economic base as a result.”

Is that the future of Ballantyne, 30 years out? Will Charlotte, seeing massive population growth, continue to wave into being more large, suburban-style developments at the edge of the city where transit service is at best iffy, and whose future may be less than anyone would wish?

Lost in Cary, an American suburb

I was amused recently by an article about the state’s über-suburb, Cary – “Lost in Cary? Officials hope to show the way.”  It seems people get lost there – a lot.
If you’re not familiar with Cary, it’s a municipality just west of Raleigh. With 135,000 people, it’s now the state’s seventh largest municipality, bigger than the historic port city of Wilmington and furniture-famous High Point. But because Cary has grown so dramatically during the past few decades – America’s age of suburban-style growth – it doesn’t really have what most of us would think of as a downtown.
Bing Maps view of Cary Town Hall in “downtown” Cary
 “We used to hear a lot of people say that they didn’t know Cary had a downtown, they didn’t know where it was, particularly from people who said they didn’t live in Cary,” the News & Observer article quotes Cary  Planning Manager Philip Smith as saying.

The article also says the town has set aside tens of millions of dollars to make its downtown a destination again, not just to west Cary but to the entire region. “The plan is to seed the old town heart with arts and cultural venues, a new reason to make a half-hour trip across Cary,” the article says.

It’s a dilemma for more places than just Cary. Cornelius and Huntersville, two robust Charlotte suburbs in northern Mecklenburg County that began their lives as hamlets along a railroad line and sprouted vast subdivisions and strip shopping centers, have each been trying to build something like a downtown for a couple of decades now.  The Charlotte suburb of Harrisburg, perched just over the Cabarrus County line from UNC Charlotte, took a stab at building a downtown-type center, too. Here’s what the website I run, PlanCharlotte.org, reported earlier this year about Harrisburg’s town center: “Harrisburg N.C.: In search of a town center.”

Can Cary figure out how to make different parts of the town look different enough so that people don’t get lost? Should it? I have my own ideas (you’ll not be surprised to learn!) but I wonder what others think. I should also note here that Cary has had a reputation among many of North Carolina’s planners as a well-planned municipality.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/11/26/2508857/lost-in-cary.html#storylink=cpy

Do cities matter? Whither the suburbs?

Do cities matter? Are the suburbs declining or healthy? I’m sharing a variety of links today that take differing looks at things. Note – I don’t necessarily agree with everything written here, but found the articles of interest.

First, the Center for American Progress writes about “Trouble in the Suburbs: Poverty Rises in Areas Outside Cities.” This is not unexpected: As center cities have gentrified, some of the low-income families who were displaced have moved farther out. And as jobs have moved to the suburbs, workers have followed, including those earning lower incomes. Then, the recession is forcing some middle-income families into the ranks of the poor.

The article links to a 2000 paper by the UNC Center for Community Capitalism, “Facing the New Suburban Housing Crunch,” which found that the problem of finding affordable housing is not just a problem for the poor but is moving deeper into the middle class.

The article also links to this Brookings look at the new map of poverty in the U.S. It reports, “The number of poor people in large metro areas grew by 5.5 million from 1999 to 2009, and more than two-thirds of that growth occurred in suburbs.” Last March Brookings had an interesting report, “Job Sprawl and the Suburbanization of Poverty.”

The natural order of land values would hold that being near the center would make land more valuable, hence most costly, hence center cities would be home to the wealthier people. That’s the pattern in European cities, where the poor live in the suburbs. (The very rich have in-town homes and villas or chateaux in the country.) The U.S. has been different, due in part to federal involvement in housing programs dating to the mid-20th century, when federal loan programs specifically encouraged suburban housing and pretty much forbade federally backed loans in neighborhoods inhabited by black people or other ethnic groups. That had the effect of reserving the suburbs for white, middle-class homeowners. Of course, the disinclination of many white people to live next door to black people played a huge role, too. And large-lot, single-family zoning created large areas where only middle- or upper-income homeowners could afford to settle.

But the end of those discriminatory policies and the efforts of many cities to add more multifamily housing in the suburbs seems to be changing the U.S. suburban landscape as well.

In some ways, spreading low-income families through the suburbs is not a bad thing. As several of the articles point out, it means poverty is less concentrated. But social services and public transportation are not as readily accessible in the suburbs, where local governments may not be equipped to serve the poor the way city governments are. (This, of course, raises the question of what is “suburban”? In a city such as Charlotte, with liberal annexation laws, the city limits themselves take in plenty of “suburban” neighborhoods that, in other areas of the country, would be separate municipalities.)

Changing topics, here’s a provocative piece from National Resources Defense Council blogger Kaid Benfield: ” ‘Cities’ may not matter as much as we think – regions and neighborhoods are where things actually happen.”

He starts off noting that, of course, cities do matter. He also notes the problem of city limit lines having little to do with the reality of a metro region’s functioning. But, he says, not enough attention is being focused on the suburbs (he means separate municipalities). He writes: “Stormwater runoff per capita is much worse in suburban sprawl, as are emissions of all sorts (CO2 per capita from transportation). One can even make the case that we should be going easier on cities than on sprawling places: To paraphrase David Owen, why put skinny people on diets? My personal view is that our environmental framework absolutely should be tougher on sprawling places than urban ones, but that urban ones should also do their fair share to heal our ecosystems, through appropriate standards, safeguards and mitigation.”

He continues: “Unfortunately, I think we remain relatively less attentive to the suburbs, largely because our crazy patchwork of municipalities makes them legally so diffuse and with very rare exceptions there simply is no regional authority to address them as a group.”

Illustration from San Jose Mercury News/MCT

Do cities matter? Whither the suburbs?

Do cities matter? Are the suburbs declining or healthy? I’m sharing a variety of links today that take differing looks at things. Note – I don’t necessarily agree with everything written here, but found the articles of interest.

First, the Center for American Progress writes about “Trouble in the Suburbs: Poverty Rises in Areas Outside Cities.” This is not unexpected: As center cities have gentrified, some of the low-income families who were displaced have moved farther out. And as jobs have moved to the suburbs, workers have followed, including those earning lower incomes. Then, the recession is forcing some middle-income families into the ranks of the poor.

The article links to a 2000 paper by the UNC Center for Community Capitalism, “Facing the New Suburban Housing Crunch,” which found that the problem of finding affordable housing is not just a problem for the poor but is moving deeper into the middle class.

The article also links to this Brookings look at the new map of poverty in the U.S. It reports, “The number of poor people in large metro areas grew by 5.5 million from 1999 to 2009, and more than two-thirds of that growth occurred in suburbs.” Last March Brookings had an interesting report, “Job Sprawl and the Suburbanization of Poverty.”

The natural order of land values would hold that being near the center would make land more valuable, hence most costly, hence center cities would be home to the wealthier people. That’s the pattern in European cities, where the poor live in the suburbs. (The very rich have in-town homes and villas or chateaux in the country.) The U.S. has been different, due in part to federal involvement in housing programs dating to the mid-20th century, when federal loan programs specifically encouraged suburban housing and pretty much forbade federally backed loans in neighborhoods inhabited by black people or other ethnic groups. That had the effect of reserving the suburbs for white, middle-class homeowners. Of course, the disinclination of many white people to live next door to black people played a huge role, too. And large-lot, single-family zoning created large areas where only middle- or upper-income homeowners could afford to settle.

But the end of those discriminatory policies and the efforts of many cities to add more multifamily housing in the suburbs seems to be changing the U.S. suburban landscape as well.

In some ways, spreading low-income families through the suburbs is not a bad thing. As several of the articles point out, it means poverty is less concentrated. But social services and public transportation are not as readily accessible in the suburbs, where local governments may not be equipped to serve the poor the way city governments are. (This, of course, raises the question of what is “suburban”? In a city such as Charlotte, with liberal annexation laws, the city limits themselves take in plenty of “suburban” neighborhoods that, in other areas of the country, would be separate municipalities.)

Changing topics, here’s a provocative piece from National Resources Defense Council blogger Kaid Benfield: ” ‘Cities’ may not matter as much as we think – regions and neighborhoods are where things actually happen.”

He starts off noting that, of course, cities do matter. He also notes the problem of city limit lines having little to do with the reality of a metro region’s functioning. But, he says, not enough attention is being focused on the suburbs (he means separate municipalities). He writes: “Stormwater runoff per capita is much worse in suburban sprawl, as are emissions of all sorts (CO2 per capita from transportation). One can even make the case that we should be going easier on cities than on sprawling places: To paraphrase David Owen, why put skinny people on diets? My personal view is that our environmental framework absolutely should be tougher on sprawling places than urban ones, but that urban ones should also do their fair share to heal our ecosystems, through appropriate standards, safeguards and mitigation.”

He continues: “Unfortunately, I think we remain relatively less attentive to the suburbs, largely because our crazy patchwork of municipalities makes them legally so diffuse and with very rare exceptions there simply is no regional authority to address them as a group.”

Illustration from San Jose Mercury News/MCT

The Saturday lawn edition of Naked City

Two lawn-related items of interest popped into my inbox this week – just in time for your weekend. If you have a suburban lot as I do, you know that lawns take time. The darn things grow and need mowing. The darn weeds grow much faster than the lawn. Because I don’t like too many chemicals we are plagued with ground ivy and clover and crabgrass and things I don’t know the name of. I have spent 20 years battling wild onions (the best solution I have found is to dig up the whole clump, dirt and all, even though it leaves the ground looking as if you’d been hit with some sort of miniature bombardment blitz). I’m afraid to jinx it but I think the dig it all out technique seems to have worked.

And I really do enjoy gardening and yard work. Up to a point. Mowing the lawn is beyond that point, and it takes time away from the things I really like: planting and harvesting flowers and veggies. My husband hates it. Our teenaged daughter hates it unless she is being paid really really well and it’s under 85 degrees.

So I felt kinship with Ventura, Calif., City Manager Rick Cole, who decided “No Lawn!” Ventura is on the coast, northwest of Los Angeles, and it sounds as if grass isn’t any easier to grow there than in Charlotte, where our summers are too hot for cold-weather grasses and our winters are too cold for hot-weather grasses. Cole writes a city manager’s blog. Take a look. (As a wonk I confess to being as interested in the entries on California taxes as on lawns. Apparently the California state government is raiding municipalities’ property tax revenues. Shhh. Don’t tell the folks in Raleigh!)

And I laughed at this offering from Phil Clutts of Harrisburg, occasional correspondent as well as limerick writer. He can’t trace the original authorship online. The first reference I saw on a Nexis.com search came in 1999 and it was being shared even then. It’s possible I was the last American not to have read this.
The Lord and St. Francis

“Winterize your lawn” the big sign outside the garden store commanded. I’ve fed it, watered it, mowed it, raked it and watched a lot of it die anyway. Now I’m supposed to winterize it? I hope it’s too late. Grass lawns have to be the stupidest things we’ve come up with outside of thong swimsuits! We constantly battle dandelions, Queen Anne’s lace, thistle, violets, chicory and clover that thrive naturally, so we can grow grass that must be nursed through an annual four step chemical dependency.

Imagine the conversation The Creator might have with St. Francis about this:

“Frank, you know all about gardens and nature. What in the world is going on down there in the Midwest? What happened to the dandelions, violets, thistle and stuff I started aeons ago? I had a perfect, no-maintenance garden plan. Those plants grow in any type of soil, withstand drought and multiply with abandon. The nectar from the long-lasting blossoms attracted butterflies, honey bees and flocks of songbirds. I expected to see a vast garden of colors by now. But all I see are these green rectangles”.

“It’s the tribes that settled there, Lord, The Suburbanites. They started calling your flowers ‘weeds’ and went to great extent to kill them and replace them with grass.”

“Grass? But it’s so boring. It’s not colorful. It doesn’t attract butterflies, birds and bees, only grubs and sod worms. It’s temperamental with temperatures. Do these Suburbanites really want all that grass growing there?”

“Apparently so, Lord. They go to great pains to grow it and keep it green. They begin each spring by fertilizing grass and poisoning any other plant that crops up in the lawn.”

“The spring rains and cool weather probably make grass grow really fast. That must make the Suburbanites happy.”

“Apparently not, Lord. As soon as it grows a little, they cut it – sometimes twice a week.”

“They cut it? Do they then bale it like hay?”

“Not exactly, Lord. Most of them rake it up and put it in bags.”

“They bag it? Why? Is it a cash crop? Do they sell it?”

“No, sir. Just the opposite. They pay to throw it away.”

“Now let me get this straight. They fertilize grass so it will grow. And when it does grow, they cut it off and pay to throw it away?”

“Yes, sir”.

“These Suburbanites must be relieved in the summer when we cut back on the rain and turn up the heat. That surely slows the growth and saves them a lot of work.”

“You aren’t going to believe this, Lord. When the grass stops growing so fast, they drag out hoses and pay more money to water it so they can continue to mow it and pay to get rid of it.”

“What nonsense! At least they kept some of the trees. That was a sheer stroke of genius, if I do say so myself. The trees grow leaves in the spring to provide beauty and shade in the summer. In the autumn they fall to the ground and form a natural blanket to keep moisture in the soil and protect the trees and bushes. Plus, as they rot, the leaves form compost to enhance the soil. It’s a natural circle of life.”

“You better sit down, Lord. The Suburbanites have drawn a new circle. As soon as the leaves fall, they rake them into great piles and have them hauled away.”

“No! What do they do to protect the shrub and tree roots in the winter and keep the soil moist and loose?”

“After throwing away your leaves, they go out and buy something they call mulch. They haul it home and spread it around in place of the leaves.”

“And where do they get this mulch?”

“They cut down trees and grind them up.”

“Enough! I don’t want to think about this anymore. Saint Catherine, you’re in charge of the arts. What movie have you scheduled for us tonight?”

“ ‘Dumb and dumber,’ Lord. It’s a real stupid movie about…”

“Never mind. I think I just heard the whole story.”

Suburb slums? (Shhhh, don’t tell Ballantyne)

I caught an intriguing “Urban Vs. Suburban” discussion on WFAE’s Charlotte Talks this morning, interviewing Christopher Leinberger, author of the March 2008 article in The Atlantic magazine, “The Next Slum?”

His article opened with an anecdote from the Windy Ridge subdivision in northwest Charlotte. (A Charlotte Observer article later, in January 2009, reported that half the homes in Windy Ridge had been through foreclosure. And six months after, in July 2009, another Observer article said it’s one of the neighborhoods hit so badly by foreclosures that Habitat for Humanity is buying the houses, now costing less than what Habitat would spend building a new one, and will rehab them and sell them to Habitat-worthy families.)

Also on the show was Jen Pilla Taylor, who wrote a piece for the January edition of Charlotte magazine, “Tale of Two Cities” in which she writes about the growing divide between urban and suburban parts of Charlotte.

“Much of the time, the two worlds are largely indifferent toward one another,” she wrote. “Much of the suburban set is apathetic about the city, with many suburbanites rarely if ever visiting uptown unless they work there. Urban dwellers see the ‘burbs as too far away, too rural, too cookie-cutter. But tensions bubble up in public spats fought primarily by activists and elected officials.”

But Leinberger, a planning professor at the University of Michigan as well as a real estate developer, talked about the market forces and trends that, he has predicted, will bludgeon property values for suburban and ex-urban houses – due to oversupply and to a growing preference for “walkable” neighborhoods. He said on WFAE that the federal bailout of suburban housing has been much larger than the bank or auto industry bailouts. Interesting way to look at it. (This may buttress his point: A November 2008 Observer story reported, “Because it has such a high concentration of foreclosures and subprime mortgages, Charlotte is in line to get $5.4 million [in federal money] to help stabilize its neighborhoods.)

More recently, MSN Real Estate took on the same topic, “Is your suburb the next slum?” a sort of “Leinberger Lite” that quoted Leinberger and some of the same data.

All the articles make clear that not all suburban neighborhoods are the same and that many are thriving and will continue to. Nor do they present every urban neighborhood as nirvana.

But the data show that the more walkable areas with neighborhood centers of stores and workplaces are more likely to do better in the future real estate market than those made up only of auto-oriented single-family housing.

I guess we won’t know whose predictions are coming to pass until the local real estate market revives.

Raising teens: City v. Suburbs

I got this e-mail from a planner-type I know who has lived in bigger cities than Charlotte, though he’s been here for a few years now. He referred me to this article by Mark Hinshaw, an urban designer in Seattle: “Why Raise Your Kids in the Suburbs?”

But my planner friend, who raised HIS kids in the suburbs, also sent along some of his own thoughts and observations. If you’re like most of us, raising your own kids in the ‘burbs, you may enjoy his reminiscences and conclusions.

As a kid, I was raised in urban neighborhoods on Cleveland’s westside and close-in suburbs. We walked nearly everywhere and took the bus when it was too far.

As a result, we got to know a variety of people and have a range of experiences. As an adult parent, I (and my wife) raised our kids in the suburbs where they had their own yard, a small circle of friends and we had to drive them everywhere. Despite my wife’s and my best efforts, looking at our now-grown children, I believe that their suburban upbringing deprived them of many things, including how to interact with unfamiliar people and out-of-the-ordinary experiences.

Our society today suffers from many maladies. To me, an underlying problem is people’s inability to relate to others who are different, and the fear and distrust this engenders. The old urban neighborhoods where people sat out on their front porches, walked and rode public transit helped people relate to and experience other people, including those who were different. Today’s suburban developments with their dependency on the automobile have given us years of people driving around in their steel cocoons (cars) and retreating to their backyards (instead of their front porches), and as a result have helped create an America where people have trouble relating to others, particularly those who are different.

In the last two suburban neighborhoods (in Cleveland and Charlotte) I have lived in, I hardly knew my neighbors. Some I only saw when they drove by in their car.

On the flipside, something I have experienced firsthand in Boston, Seattle and Cleveland is what I affectionately call the “back of the bus (or streetcar)” phenomenon. People who are regular transit commuters tend to take the same trip to and from work each day. Over time they get to know each other and develop friendships.

In Boston on the Green Line/Beacon St. there was a bunch of us who regularly talked and exchanged information and experiences. In Seattle and in Cleveland on the express trips I used, a regular group of people (myself included) sat in the back of the bus and developed into a real group of friends, that resulted in us actually doing things together socially. While I have not had that same experience in Charlotte (my own schedule and limited service keeps me from regular transit usage), I have heard of it happening on some of CATS routes (i.e. Route 61 from the Arboretum, some Route 77x trips).

Public transit usage brings people together by definition.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that getting more people to use transit will solve all of society’s problems. It will help, though.

Raising teens: City v. Suburbs

I got this e-mail from a planner-type I know who has lived in bigger cities than Charlotte, though he’s been here for a few years now. He referred me to this article by Mark Hinshaw, an urban designer in Seattle: “Why Raise Your Kids in the Suburbs?”

But my planner friend, who raised HIS kids in the suburbs, also sent along some of his own thoughts and observations. If you’re like most of us, raising your own kids in the ‘burbs, you may enjoy his reminiscences and conclusions.

As a kid, I was raised in urban neighborhoods on Cleveland’s westside and close-in suburbs. We walked nearly everywhere and took the bus when it was too far.

As a result, we got to know a variety of people and have a range of experiences. As an adult parent, I (and my wife) raised our kids in the suburbs where they had their own yard, a small circle of friends and we had to drive them everywhere. Despite my wife’s and my best efforts, looking at our now-grown children, I believe that their suburban upbringing deprived them of many things, including how to interact with unfamiliar people and out-of-the-ordinary experiences.

Our society today suffers from many maladies. To me, an underlying problem is people’s inability to relate to others who are different, and the fear and distrust this engenders. The old urban neighborhoods where people sat out on their front porches, walked and rode public transit helped people relate to and experience other people, including those who were different. Today’s suburban developments with their dependency on the automobile have given us years of people driving around in their steel cocoons (cars) and retreating to their backyards (instead of their front porches), and as a result have helped create an America where people have trouble relating to others, particularly those who are different.

In the last two suburban neighborhoods (in Cleveland and Charlotte) I have lived in, I hardly knew my neighbors. Some I only saw when they drove by in their car.

On the flipside, something I have experienced firsthand in Boston, Seattle and Cleveland is what I affectionately call the “back of the bus (or streetcar)” phenomenon. People who are regular transit commuters tend to take the same trip to and from work each day. Over time they get to know each other and develop friendships.

In Boston on the Green Line/Beacon St. there was a bunch of us who regularly talked and exchanged information and experiences. In Seattle and in Cleveland on the express trips I used, a regular group of people (myself included) sat in the back of the bus and developed into a real group of friends, that resulted in us actually doing things together socially. While I have not had that same experience in Charlotte (my own schedule and limited service keeps me from regular transit usage), I have heard of it happening on some of CATS routes (i.e. Route 61 from the Arboretum, some Route 77x trips).

Public transit usage brings people together by definition.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that getting more people to use transit will solve all of society’s problems. It will help, though.