What lies ahead for suburbia, the dominant development type in our nation?
It's a valid question, especially as so much of our national attention has shifted to the growth and revitalization of our largest cities. This is indeed an urban moment, unmatched in its magnitude by any period since the first third of the twentieth century. Sadly, however, I don't see much thought about the suburban future. While the small subset of Americans who are urbanists discuss and debate the future of suburbs, the vast majority of Americans still take the suburbs for granted. Many urbanists say the suburbs should become more urbanized and city-like; most others say the suburbs have significant advantages that outweigh any disadvantages, clearly remain the preferred development option for the majority of Americans, and are virtually immune from absolute decline.
It's not that simple.
Planetizen blogger Michael Lewyn put forth his evaluation of suburban futures earlier this year. Basically, he takes the immune-from-decline position:
One set of advantages relates to social homogeneity—that is, a wealthy, well-educated citizenry, which usually leads to low crime and schools with good reputations (because children from privileged backgrounds tend to have high test scores and to avoid violent behavior towards neighbors). Like it or not, well-off people tend to prefer places full of similarly affluent people.
A second set of advantages relate to cost: in high-cost cities, many people escape the high costs of urban housing by moving to cheaper suburbs. Even in low-cost cities like Pittsburgh, people priced out of the most desirable urban neighborhoods might choose suburbs over less expensive (but also more socially troubled) working-class urban places. However, cheap housing alone is not enough to save a high-crime suburb such as Philadelphia's Camden or East St. Louis, Illinois."
Lewyn goes on to say that wealthier suburbs will have stronger prospects for continued prosperity because they are, well, wealthier. Good schools, low crime, high education levels and high home values will continue to insulate parts of suburbia from decline. Lewyn does acknowledge, however, that suburbs with less good schools, less low crime, lesser education levels and lower home values will not do as well.
Um, OK.
Meanwhile, Johnny Sanphillippo of granolashotgun.com wrote a more well thought out piece on a possible suburban future by examining a non-descript New Jersey suburb:
"This suburb hasn’t held up well over the years. It’s typical of places all across the country that were leapfrogged as the prosperous middle class migrated to the next new place slightly farther out or boomeranged back to the city. It isn’t a terrible place. It isn’t a high crime area. It isn’t depopulated. The housing stock is serviceable enough. It has ready access to all the same jobs, culture, and opportunity as anyplace else in the metro region. It’s just… drab.
Fifteen minutes away in one direction is a different municipality and school district where the homes are a generation newer, much larger, and the subdivisions are buffered by more nature and open space. It’s hard to find a house in this area for less than $260,000.
Fifteen minutes away in the opposite direction is a thriving city neighborhood where condos sell for north of $350,000. Hipster cafes, brew pubs, boutiques, and bicycles abound."
Johnny continues by saying that drab suburbia would benefit from being the "best bargain around"; not as pricey as the sprawly suburban estates on the periphery or the amenity-laden city neighborhoods. They would be viewed as affordable alternatives to either, offering the chance to actually live in a community, rather than speculate on its appreciation.
That's reasonable, and a possible future for some suburbs. But I think we can consider suburban futures on a spectrum.
Existing wealth in suburbs will exert less influence in suburbia over time, especially as more and more suburbs become the low-cost alternative to high urban housing prices as Lewyn suggests. Other things like school quality, low crime and social homogeneity or social capital will matter less as well. What will matter? Increasingly, I think access, location and amenities will matter -- as well as the public policy response to suburban change.
Moving forward I think we'll see suburbs prosper based on their accessibility, and I see four broad categories that they could be placed within in a given metro area. Metros that have a comprehensive regional public transit system will have suburbs that fare best, led by access-rich suburbs: places with public transit (usually commuter rail) and interstate highway access. If an access-rich suburb has a town center focused on either of its main access corridors, it will prosper. Absent an interstate highway exit, transit-focused suburbs located on a public transit corridor will likely fare well also. Transit will enable these suburbs to maintain connections with the core city and other suburbs without auto dependence. Places without transit connections but with interstate highway connections, or highway-focused suburbs, will have a mixed future. Existing wealth will indeed have an impact on the length of future prosperity in these suburbs. Wealthier ones will either become enclaves or decline slowly; middle-class ones may decline faster. Those suburbs faring worst will be access-deficient suburbs, or those with neither a transit or interstate highway connection within their boundaries. These classic bedroom communities, often built because of a nearby factory, industrial park or office park that may no longer functioning at its peak, could be under the greatest threat.
But there are mitigating factors that could impact future suburban prosperity. One is location. Inner ring suburbs may be able to bask in the glow of urban revitalization in ways that outlying city neighborhoods may not. They will offer the same housing and neighborhood commercial experience, but with greater local control of schools and police than city neighborhoods might have. The other factor will be openness to adaptability. The suburb that is willing to modify its built environment -- increase its number of multi-family rental units, mixed uses, becoming more walkable -- will prosper. The suburb that is simply waiting for a return of the pre-Great Recession paradigm of suburban hegemony will not.
That's largely in the hands of the suburban residents themselves, and the elected officials they choose to represent them.
Here's a visualization of how I see future suburban prospects:
Or, for the tl;dr version:
Without thinking too hard, I think many urbanists familiar with how metro areas have developed can think of a suburb that fits any one of these categories.
This formulation also brings to light another observation. Suburbs within metros with regional public transit may have a higher ceiling than those without it. In fact, regional public transit could render the inner ring/outer ring distinction less relevant as well. Any revitalization in a Rust Belt city like Detroit or Milwaukee, regions without significant coordinated regional public transit at this time, may be relatively self-contained. Great for the respective cities, but possibly bad for the region. The same could be said for Sun Belt metros like Houston or Phoenix. But transit connectivity might be able to make suburban locations in New York, the Bay Area, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington and other places much more palatable.
It's time for us to consider what a plausible future for suburbia might be, and what we want for it. With two-thirds of residents in American metro areas, the suburbs will not go away soon. But they are changing in ways clear yet also unforeseen.
