[...] However, I think we need to be cautious about promoting one-size-fits-all solutions

The point of multi-use and multi-modal development is precisely that it is not "one-size-fits-all".

Energy Independence: Retrofitting Outer Suburbia, The Transport Corridor (Daily Kos)

Energy Independence: Retrofitting Outer Suburbia, The Sketch (Daily Kos)

Suburban Retrofit Redux (Docudharma)

The viability of the inner burbs and the likelihood of successful regeneration as they age, seems to me to be a function of only a few key things – the strength of their associated inner urban core, the ease of access to that inner urban core (relative to the ease of access of the outer burbs), and the draw of the inner burb as a destination unto itself. I will use the examples of Washington DC (the Virginia suburbs, anyway) and Atlanta to illustrate my point.

In DC, the older, inner suburbs in Virginia, namely Arlington and Fairfax counties, have seen significant renewal and extended viability because the commute from the newer, outer burbs into Washington has become extreme. Arlington and Fairfax benefit from shorter commutes by car, but also have the Metro light rail/subway lines extended into the area. D.C. itself is still a very strong inner core, because the federal government has not “packed up and moved to the suburbs.” Thus, there is still a very powerful draw to the highly dense employment center that the federal district of D.C. And finally, Fairfax and Arlington, plus the city of Alexandria, are very strong employment centers on their own. So residents of these inner suburban areas have many reasons to prefer renewal/regeneration of the inner burbs over relocation to the ever further outer growth burbs. What’s more, these areas, particularly Fairfax County, have managed to maintain the hallmarks of suburban quality of life, namely top schools, low taxes, and amenities.

Atlanta, on the other hand offers some examples to the opposite extreme. Older, inner suburbs like Chamblee, Vinings, Dunwoody, and Sandy Springs, have begun to suffer the hollowing-out “doughnut” effect that you described in your blog post. These areas have been replaced by newer suburbs in Kennessaw, Alpharetta, and even Gainesville that offer ever larger lots and homes with the latest in-home amenities and features. But the lack of a substantial commuter rail system in Atlanta means that the car commute from the newer burbs isn’t all that much worse than that from the older burbs for those people who do commute to the city center. Additionally, the urban core of Atlanta has lost its drawing strength, as many firms have relocated or added jobs in the suburbs from the Perimeter and further out. More and more people are choosing the outer burbs because of the newness factor but also because that’s where many of the good jobs now are. So for older inner-burb places like Sandy Springs, people are commuting to both the core and to the new outer burbs, but there aren’t as many job opportunities within that inner ring of suburbs itself.

I can see the Atlanta example happening in Indy moreso than the D.C. example. With the growth of the suburban areas of Carmel, Noblesville, Avon, etc., is also coming job growth and the establishment of these suburbs as potential edge cities in and of themselves. And the disincentives to stay in the older suburbs are increasing – taxes, schools, etc. So areas like Butler-Tarkington, Wayne Township, and even Lawrence will need to figure out what they have to offer to the next generation of potential residents if they hope to avoid becoming a hollowed-out ring between a (hopefully) vibrant inner core and an outer ring of newness.

The basis of your argument…your first principle…requires a fundamental and radical change in a basic tenet of American life, including a significant change in interpretation of the Fifth Amendment clause “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

In other words, your concept is outside the present social and legal framework of the USA, and I suspect the vast majority wouldn’t go there.

…

To your other notion: I think it is entirely possible and plausible that the ratio of people who want to pay more for NU development vs. standard suburban sprawl is currently on the order of 1:1500.

See, one of the beauties of capitalism is that if someone sees a significant unmet demand for a specific product, s/he can make a significant profit by meeting the demand.

Right now, “old urbanism” meets the need…and there is no more need to tear up green fields for NU development than for standard-issue sprawl.

One thing I have noticed is that farmland is sometimes assessed at far below market value under special agricultural rates. This allows developers to land bank with impunity, since they can preserve low tax rates until they file for a rezoning – and even lease the land to real farmers for a profit in the meantime.

With this kind of subsidy, no ground is safe from development, not even if builders have to suspend the homes from helicopters.

Incidentally, notice that this 10,000% profit is virtually untaxed. If the speculator 1031 exchanges out of the newly created development land, even income tax is deferred indefinitely.

Notice also that this outrageous profit is neither “taxes” nor “spending” but is a government favor that is clearly a gigantic subsidy. See David Cay Johnston’s “Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill)” for a catalog of other such scams.

Our dearly departed president Bush owes 3/4 of his net worth to such a scam.

The Germans have a very simple, sensible policy that keeps the magic of the market, but removes the subsidy from edge cities: A German developer must sell his agricultural land to the local government at the agricultural land price, then re-purchase it at the development land price. The “unearned increment” stays in the hands of that local government.

In the U.S. such local governments are scrambling to find money, cutting programs right and left. In Germany, the arts budget for the City of Berlin exceeds the entire U.S.’s National Endowment for the Arts.

So don’t kid yourself that there’s no money for good government or collective action. The oligarchs who do this kind of speculation and government favor getting have plenty. It’s called “privatizing” the public realm.

Interesting fact: for the last 30 years, the bottom 90% of the population have experienced a 7% decline in real wages, despite increases in productivity that should have made real wage growth possible. During this period, the top 0.01% of income earners got a 497% increase.

Could the top 0.01% possibly be getting special favors?… Gee, I wonder…

As for whether the “free market” choses sprawl… Again, baloney!

Yes, there are people who want to live in sprawl, but there are still plenty who want New Urbanism. The average premium paid for NU developments is around 40%, with established NU communities — e.g., Duany’s Seaside Florida — commanding much higher premiums. Interior lots sell for as much as six times the neighboring sprawl.

So should sprawl still continue to be built 1500 times more than NU (according to an NU survey a few years ago)? Not unless inertia, or less-than-optimum public policy that subsidizes suburbs is what prevails.

Even Houston — a town without the “top down” planning that is such anathema to our libertarian friends — manages to be sprawl because a) road design, b) minimum lot sizes, c) underwriting standards for construction loans developed in sprawl areas and d) commercial tenants who see no reason to limit their parking (another covert subsidy) all conspire to produce the mediocrity that is sprawl.

…

About the topic: redevelopment of suburban densities is possible and viable as long as bicycles are included in the mix. Of course the cycling amenities are about as poorly developed as pedestrian amenities in sprawl, but it’s an important component that should not be overlooked unless we’re willing to write off the sunk costs of suburbia completely.