Friday, February 25, 2005
The New York Times discovers New Urbanism isn't for everyone
What a surprise! Families with children don't want to live in high-density, walkable New Urban developments! "We want a big backyard with swimming pool," says one father. "Walk everywhere with five kids? I don't think so."
We've been saying for years that there is a market for New Urbanism, but it is mainly limited to young singles and double-income-no-children households. And maybe not even most of those.
The Times says that New Urban homes make up only about 10 percent of home sales today. Of course, the New Urbanists say that is because of oppressive zoning laws that prevent them from building for the market -- as if all developers in many cities aren't oppressed by complicated and restrictive zoning laws. A survey by the National Realtors Association found that only about 17 percent of homebuyers aspire to a New Urban development, so 10 percent may be just a little short of the full market.
We've been saying for years that there is a market for New Urbanism, but it is mainly limited to young singles and double-income-no-children households. And maybe not even most of those.
The Times says that New Urban homes make up only about 10 percent of home sales today. Of course, the New Urbanists say that is because of oppressive zoning laws that prevent them from building for the market -- as if all developers in many cities aren't oppressed by complicated and restrictive zoning laws. A survey by the National Realtors Association found that only about 17 percent of homebuyers aspire to a New Urban development, so 10 percent may be just a little short of the full market.
Comments:
1. What a surprise! Families with children don't want to live in high-density, walkable New Urban developments!
Wrong. There are tens of thousands of families living in high-density, walkable New Urban developements in New York City. Take a walk in Central Park on any Sunday afternoon and there are more children and families then ever before.
2. "We want a big backyard with swimming pool," says one father. "Walk everywhere with five kids?
Anyone who wants to have five kids today should have their head examined. The cost of raising and sending five kids to college is in the hundreds of thousands. We have enough of these large familes living below the poverty level and we don't need any more.
3. We've been saying for years that there is a market for New Urbanism, but it is mainly limited to young singles and double-income-no-children households.
The new urbanism is fine for young and old couples today. There are plenty of new homes being developed all the time and the MLS guide has hundreds of homes to choose from.
4. Of course, the New Urbanists say that is because of oppressive zoning laws that prevent them from building for the market
There are no oppressive zoning laws but COST that determines the building of new homes. There are new homes being developed all the time in urban districts resulting in revitalizing entire neighborhoods,
5. A survey by the National Realtors Association found that only about 17 percent of homebuyers aspire to a New Urban development, so 10 percent may be just a little short of the full market.
This is growing all the time so you better get a move on it. The days of driving out from the burbs into the cities for work will be impossible 20 years from now so you better move close to the city.
Wrong. There are tens of thousands of families living in high-density, walkable New Urban developements in New York City. Take a walk in Central Park on any Sunday afternoon and there are more children and families then ever before.
2. "We want a big backyard with swimming pool," says one father. "Walk everywhere with five kids?
Anyone who wants to have five kids today should have their head examined. The cost of raising and sending five kids to college is in the hundreds of thousands. We have enough of these large familes living below the poverty level and we don't need any more.
3. We've been saying for years that there is a market for New Urbanism, but it is mainly limited to young singles and double-income-no-children households.
The new urbanism is fine for young and old couples today. There are plenty of new homes being developed all the time and the MLS guide has hundreds of homes to choose from.
4. Of course, the New Urbanists say that is because of oppressive zoning laws that prevent them from building for the market
There are no oppressive zoning laws but COST that determines the building of new homes. There are new homes being developed all the time in urban districts resulting in revitalizing entire neighborhoods,
5. A survey by the National Realtors Association found that only about 17 percent of homebuyers aspire to a New Urban development, so 10 percent may be just a little short of the full market.
This is growing all the time so you better get a move on it. The days of driving out from the burbs into the cities for work will be impossible 20 years from now so you better move close to the city.
Living together
Comment by Catherine Heath
As a group, people can do wonderful things, design beautiful places to live, invent electricity, build roads, bring water right to your door, take away the refuse, promote cleaner living. These things come from the minds of humans when they are free to be creative. Too much government interference is stifling to the creative process. We can become spoiled though. We think there are guaranties that we will be supplied with convenience and protected from change. New Urbanist design should be allowed to test it's appeal in the MARKETPLACE. Along with any other design or lifestyle preference. Even ticky-tacky has it's place. Running the risk of having tacky move in next door is the price you pay for your freedom to live as you please, inside of YOUR property lines. If you want to live in a neighborhood with strong rules and restrictions, make it your own choice, don't force it on others. When Peter and James and Andres were sitting on that Florida deck trying to figure out how to help beauty overcome ugly in American design, they must have taken a wrong turn when they left for home. The planners of beautiful things succumbed to the temptation to fast track their vision. They made unholy alliances with other groups that had their own agendas of greed and power. Instead of cultivating the seeds of beauty and freedom from the ground up, this unholy alliance has taken the message from the top down and the results will not be beautiful when it is crammed down the throats of the unsuspecting and unwilling.
http://www.planetizen.com/oped/cmt_item.php?id=1003
Here in San Jose, #2 Smart Growth city, No single family homes on their own lot is being planned.
Comment by Catherine Heath
As a group, people can do wonderful things, design beautiful places to live, invent electricity, build roads, bring water right to your door, take away the refuse, promote cleaner living. These things come from the minds of humans when they are free to be creative. Too much government interference is stifling to the creative process. We can become spoiled though. We think there are guaranties that we will be supplied with convenience and protected from change. New Urbanist design should be allowed to test it's appeal in the MARKETPLACE. Along with any other design or lifestyle preference. Even ticky-tacky has it's place. Running the risk of having tacky move in next door is the price you pay for your freedom to live as you please, inside of YOUR property lines. If you want to live in a neighborhood with strong rules and restrictions, make it your own choice, don't force it on others. When Peter and James and Andres were sitting on that Florida deck trying to figure out how to help beauty overcome ugly in American design, they must have taken a wrong turn when they left for home. The planners of beautiful things succumbed to the temptation to fast track their vision. They made unholy alliances with other groups that had their own agendas of greed and power. Instead of cultivating the seeds of beauty and freedom from the ground up, this unholy alliance has taken the message from the top down and the results will not be beautiful when it is crammed down the throats of the unsuspecting and unwilling.
http://www.planetizen.com/oped/cmt_item.php?id=1003
Here in San Jose, #2 Smart Growth city, No single family homes on their own lot is being planned.
"New Urbanism" is simply a variant of suburbia. Check the model zoning codes put out by AIA - they suggest minimum densities (Portland style), with exceptions for "New Urban" developments. This is a tacit admission that the design philosophy of "New Urbanism" may in fact produce lower densities than many forms of traditional suburban development.
For a look at New Urbanism stemming from eased restrictions, check out Houston. Well in the 1990s, Houston had no density restrictions at all - but required all new homes to have at least 5000 square feet of lot.
This, naturally, led to a lopsided jumble of extreme sprawl (cottages and rowhouses were illegal) and towering high-rises (market density). The result was, actually, not that bad - and if you can look past the pollution, Houston has a jaw-dropping skyline and some very nice neighborhoods.
Things switched around in the late '90s. Houston deregulated the lot restrictions, so that you can now go town to 1400sqft. They also instituted a density cap of 27/acre, which still allows for fairly nice apartment blocks.
The result? Some very nice "New Urban" development indeed. Check this link, or Google "City Park"+Houston.
This illustrates where New Urbanism really has a family-oriented market - entry-level housing. If you have a family of five and $400,000 to blow on a house, chances are, you're not going to choose a 1/10th acre lot. If, on the other hand, all you can afford is 1200 square feet - why not live where you can walk to a park, a swimming pool, or even the store?
Things work out nicely when you stop regulating. "New Urbanism" and traditional large-lot "sprawl" coexist peacefully together. And Houston has one of the toughest minimum-parking restrictions in the country.
If you're really interested, check out http://www.houstonarchitecture.info. You won't be disappointed.
Post a Comment
For a look at New Urbanism stemming from eased restrictions, check out Houston. Well in the 1990s, Houston had no density restrictions at all - but required all new homes to have at least 5000 square feet of lot.
This, naturally, led to a lopsided jumble of extreme sprawl (cottages and rowhouses were illegal) and towering high-rises (market density). The result was, actually, not that bad - and if you can look past the pollution, Houston has a jaw-dropping skyline and some very nice neighborhoods.
Things switched around in the late '90s. Houston deregulated the lot restrictions, so that you can now go town to 1400sqft. They also instituted a density cap of 27/acre, which still allows for fairly nice apartment blocks.
The result? Some very nice "New Urban" development indeed. Check this link, or Google "City Park"+Houston.
This illustrates where New Urbanism really has a family-oriented market - entry-level housing. If you have a family of five and $400,000 to blow on a house, chances are, you're not going to choose a 1/10th acre lot. If, on the other hand, all you can afford is 1200 square feet - why not live where you can walk to a park, a swimming pool, or even the store?
Things work out nicely when you stop regulating. "New Urbanism" and traditional large-lot "sprawl" coexist peacefully together. And Houston has one of the toughest minimum-parking restrictions in the country.
If you're really interested, check out http://www.houstonarchitecture.info. You won't be disappointed.
