Originally Posted By jonvn Some people are starting to think that the suburbs as we know them are going to be a thing of the past. With massive hikes in gas prices, foreclosures, dropping house values, these nicely manicured areas are going to start to turn into slums filled with people who can't find jobs, and live there in section 8 housing. And it's kind of coming true already. House prices out in far flung suburbs are dropping, prices nearer in to SF are staying high, if not going higher. <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/03/14/carollloyd.DTL" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/03/14/carollloyd.DTL</a>
Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP I was just looking at an LA Times article that has LA County prices and OC prices down arround 10% overall, but downtown LA is dowm 16% (to a highly affordable $500,000 median, yuck). I do know that every dollar our gas goes up makes moving signifigantly closer to ElderP's work more appealing. However moving close increases our housepayment by arround $300. We won't quite save that much in gas, yet.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy People will continue to live in the suburbs because that's the "American dream." It's been marketed to people for so many decades, that it's not likely to change any time soon. The reason housing prices are falling faster in the suburbs is because greedy developers had so much more opportunity to barf up developments on vacant parcels of land on the edges of cities. And at the height of the housing bubble, they decided to barf up larger percentages of multi-family condos alongside traditional suburban tract homes. Nobody wants a condo in the suburbs, so you have large swaths of these things sitting empty along with all the other excess inventory there.
Originally Posted By fkurucz Plus don't underestimate telecommuting. My employer literally forces aboout 20% of our staff to work from their homes (it saves the company money), and the number is rising. Still, the high price of gas will takes its toll. I could see some of the overbuilt distant suburbs (some call them exurbs) undergoing the fate described by jonvn.
Originally Posted By dshyates I believe in the long run you will see smaller business move out into what were the suburbs to take advantage of the collapsing real estate market.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I could see some of the overbuilt distant suburbs (some call them exurbs) undergoing the fate described by jonvn. >> There was an article in the WSJ about this in recent months. It's actually the first tier suburbs (the ones closest to the cities) that are falling into economic blight most rapidly. That's where you find the out of date and run-down suburban strip malls, vacant storefronts, and decaying housing. On the opposite end of the spectrum are the far-flung suburbs farthest from the cities with the brand new big box stores and expanses of shiny-new tract homes. The economic blight hasn't hit the far-flung suburbs yet, even though they are filled with vacant homes and strip malls, too. They more resemble ghost towns than urban ghettos.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Of course, the real fall-out from all of this is going to be the collapse of the municipal bond market. Cities made a big bet on suburban expansion, sold a lot of bonds to pay for the expansion of roads, schools, city services, etc. City Councils let real estate developers have nearly free reign on barfing up tract homes and condos without any restraint. With collapsing real estate prices, and blocks of empty homes in foreclosure, the property tax revenues aren't going to be sufficient for cities to keep up with their bond payments. Suburbs are a massive drain on community resources compared to more densely developed areas, and cities cannot afford to maintain these suburbs now that the development Ponzi scheme is done.
Originally Posted By fkurucz << The economic blight hasn't hit the far-flung suburbs yet, even though they are filled with vacant homes and strip malls, too.>> Correct. These places are shiny and new after all. But it will be interesting to see what happens to those places when gas hits $10. A 100 mile RT to the office in that shiny SUV could cost $50 or more. That's why I think we will see a lot more telecommuting in the next few years. I already work 1-2 days a week at home, and my RT is only 30 miles.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ I have several people in my office who van pool. It's a bit frustrating for me because they are completely inflexible on the hours they can work based on the van pool schedule.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I think it is very hard to generalize. In the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area some of the highest property values are within city limits -- Kenwood-Lake of the Isles in Minneapolis and Summit-Ramsey Hill for St. Paul. The most highly developed retail in the area is in first ring (Edina, Roseville) and second ring (Bloomington) suburbs. Housing in the 'nice' first ring suburbs is currently holding its value far better than the far flung suburbs. On the other hand, there are areas in the two central cities and in some of the first ring suburbs that I would be afraid to walk in. So I don't know that you can make generalizations. Each suburb, as well as each area of the core cities, is different.
