Growth And Migration In The U.S.

Posted by: Nate Berg

17 July 2007 - 2:00pm

Experts sound off on the state of American growth today and the cause of what people are calling "the greatest population re-distribution since the dust bowl".

"Today, Americans are abandoning traditional growth centers. What is behind this mass movement? Some argue the implications of affordability and metropolitan-growth management are playing a far bigger role in the housing market than the symptoms of subprime lending and ARM rollovers are."

"Brookings Institute scholar Robert Puentes says the shift is 'more significant than the migrations of the 1950s or 1970s'; University of Illinois professor of architecture and urban planning Robert Bruegmann calls it 'an undeniable trend'; Demographia Research founder Wendell Cox simply calls it 'radical.'"

"What's causing the shift remains unclear. If jobs and strong local economies were the sole motivators, Los Angeles would not be hemorrhaging population at a faster rate than Detroit, and Chicago would not be losing people more quickly than Pittsburgh."

"Could it be something as simple as housing affordability?"

Full Story: The Great American Migration

Source: Forbes, July 16, 2007

Login or register to post comments
Email this page

Sprawl, Density, And Affordability

Submitted by Charles Siegel on Wed, 07/18/2007 - 09:29.

People have to move to remote suburbs to find affordable housing because most zoning laws require low densities, making it impossible to build enough housing nearby.

A thought experiment: What if the zoning for all single-family housing built in the last 60 years required a minimum density of 10 units per acre (the density of a streetcar suburb), instead of a maximum density of maybe 4 or 6 units per acre (requiring sprawl suburbs)? There would be two obvious results:

1) less sprawl because there would be more housing in compact neighborhoods near the city.

2) greater affordability because there would not be the shortage of land for housing that we have today.

Note that, even with the minimum of 10 units per acre, the most remote housing would probably be lowest cost, and many people would move there because of its affordability. Nevertheless, there would not be sprawl.

The claim that we need sprawl to promote affordability is obviously false. In reality, sprawl zoning has created a shortage of land that drives up housing prices.

Charles Siegel

Yes and No

Submitted by contrarianplanner on Wed, 07/18/2007 - 12:33.

While it's true that low density zoning is one reason for the lack of supply of housing, it is one of many. You seem to be discounting the myriad other factors that are eluded to in the article. Also a factor are urban growth boundaries, growth moratoria, slow growth, slow, bogged down entitlement processes (mostly because of environmental litigation, NIMBYs, etc.). All of those things limit supply and drive up housing prices.

Housing prices do not discriminate, per se, between type of growth. It is more a matter of aggregate supply and demand. So, whether or not we need more sprawl or more new urbanism or whatever is somewhat irrelevant in this discussion.

I think the point of the article is that in today's relatively mobile American society, house price and associated trade-offs matter even more than before, so many people are fleeing high cost areas and moving to lower cost areas, all other things equal. Furthermore, the presence of the sprawl discussion was not related so much to the style of development as it was related to the perceived or real causes of higher-priced housing (in this case, restrictions, or so called anti-sprawl policy). That being said, there are a number of influences on house prices, but the regulatory factors that limit supply is high on that list.

One more thing. I agree with your assessment that increased density would be good in that in would result in less overall land development, however that appears to contradict your comment in regards to the Houston vs. Portland article that it's not simply about density, but about design. Aren't you suggesting here that it IS density that matters?

UGBs and land rents.

Submitted by Dano on Wed, 07/18/2007 - 13:40.

Also a factor are urban growth boundaries, growth moratoria, slow growth, slow, bogged down entitlement processes (mostly because of environmental litigation, NIMBYs, etc.). All of those things limit supply and drive up housing prices.

Not necessarily so with UGBs unless they are specifically designed to limit growth (as in CA). E.g OR is required to have a 20-yr supply within UGBs and it has been found that in OR UGBs per se have not resulted in price increases.

But certainly plan review, entitlement processes, etc can be sped up.

Best,

Not applicable in the midwest

Submitted by mstehlin on Wed, 07/18/2007 - 08:51.

The article's thesis: that affordability drives sprawl, and that lack of affordable housing in cities is driven by restrictive zoning is only a part of the story, and certainly is not the driving force for outward migration in the midwest.

The only two suburbs on the list in my region, Ohio, are Avon and Springboro. Avon is a suburb of Cleveland and Springboro is a suburb of Dayton. Both Cleveland and Dayton are among the most affordable cities in the country and neither is overly restrictive in their zoning.

The article's thesis may be true in other regions of the country, but here, the driving forces seem to be: desire for a "new" house, crime or perception thereof, schools, and the desire to buy an appreciating asset, which is a questionable proposition in cities like Dayton where empty homes are left to the rental market.