One of the less talked about consequences of the back-to-the-city movement is that the cities are losing their urban character and becoming more like the suburbs. Gentrification not only brings more affluent people; as rents and property values rise, neighborhood stores and local restaurants give way to luxury brands and chains. It also means people want more space and bigger houses. And according to this report on New York City (h/t: Ian Swain, via Streetsblog), it also means people bringing the primary mode of suburban transportation – the car – into the city. It finds that residents of new developments are 40 to 50 percent more likely to own cars than current residents of the city. And you thought traffic was bad now. In what ways will this change the character of urban living itself?
September 1st, 2008 at 8:40 am
I think New Yorkers are lucky in the fact that they don’t “have” to drive. It’s healthier, cheaper, and you really can learn to appreciate the day-to-day sights that you pass by as you walk rather than speeding by in a car (though I don’t know who speeds successfully in NYC). When you live in the DC suburbs you don’t have much choice but to drive – also freeing in a way, but also an excuse to not get out and suck in some fresh air and your surroundings.
September 1st, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Private automobiles offer an unparalleled convenience. But so does living in a walkable neighborhood where you don’t have to fight traffic to buy groceries.
I don’t think slightly higher automobile ownership will necessarily change the character of an area that dramatically if the community is based around walking and/or transit.
In Europe many families and individuals own automobiles, but only use them on weekends or in the evenings. High gas prices and even some congestion prices discourages daily use in addition to high traffic.
What will change it is lower density housing — people converting older houses from multi-suite buildings into single-family dwellings. Or, families combining two apartment units into one larger space. Lower density will mean worse transit options, fewer retail businesses oriented toward locals (which might then allow the chains that attract a broader audience to move in).
September 2nd, 2008 at 7:23 am
“What will change it is lower density housing — people converting older houses from multi-suite buildings into single-family dwellings.”
I have noticed this where I live. A number of single family houses were cut up into apartments a number of years ago. Recently these houses were turned back into single family dwellings, often with one fifth the number of residents. I believe our retail area has suffered because of this reduction in density.
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:29 am
Here’s another source of urban low-density: folks who buy an apartment downtown as a second home, so they let it sit empty most of the time. I have heard that Miami is full of such apartments, owned by wealthy South Americans who use them as insurance against political unrest in the home country. Wealthy retirees also can own multiple homes, and buy downtown in order to enjoy urban life. If you get too many of them, the diluted density can damage the city’s ability to support the lifestyle these ‘metrobirds’ seek.
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:45 am
You’ll get a kick out of this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/nyregion/thecity/31hous.html
Suburban-style “little box” housing atop a Manhattan sky-scraper apartment building.
September 4th, 2008 at 8:42 am
[...] Writing a few days ago, he laments a new trend – that people moving back into the cities are bringing with them their cars: “residents of new developments are 40 to 50 percent more likely to own cars than current residents of the city.” [...]
September 5th, 2008 at 7:32 am
In city after city, buildings that once housed a large number of relatively low income families in small units are being transformed into bigger and bigger apartments. In Toronto, there is now an increasing sense that condos are “too small” – mainly 1 and 2 bedrooms and the market is for bigger and bigger 3 and 4 bedroom units. Those empty-nesters “need room” when the kids come back to visit. This is a large part of the reason why certain US cities shrink in population even as they grow in income.
But the suburbanization of the city goes deeper. I see this less in Toronto, with its neighborhoods and messy urbanism. But in so many US cities, as population groups change, so does the city’s character. Streets that once had a Jane Jacobs character, now become essentially a mall.
Here’s the best one for you: I’ve noticed suburbanites who move into the city for the first time seldom use the term neighborhood – they call it a “subdivision.”