Suburbs - General Topics

[MNdible]

The bigger problem, I'd think, is that a lot of the jobs we're talking about aren't terribly permanent. Contract, short-term, high turnover, etc. Anecdotally, this seems true for the entire economy, but especially for lower paying jobs. Someday soon, we'll all be day laborers.

The upshot: even if there were affordable housing out in Eden Prairie, how much good does that do you when the job you moved there for disappears in 6 months and your next job is in Elk River?

[mattaudio]

Which quite easily highlights the modern problem with our auto-centric suburban fabric. I've heard a few people justify the suburbs saying it made sense in the days of a stable career at a company where someone could engineer their commute. But now that's not likely, and we're suffering from our lack of walkable, transit-connected nodes in the suburbs.

[Tcmetro]

It's a difficult dilemma. There absolutely needs to be more affordable housing (i.e. less zoning restrictions in the suburbs) and more public housing (investment into the PHA's) in the suburbs. The main obstacle are those suburbs themselves. Unwilling to provide opportunity for lower-cost housing to be built.

The transportation aspect is also a major factor. Certainly, living in the city is good for those who are poor as the transportation options are more abundant, but there is the lack of access to the blue-collar jobs that are increasingly in industrial parks outside of the 494/694 loop. A good point is made about how jobs are not as permanent, and how living in the suburbs near work can be a problem if you have to take a job on the opposite side of the metro.

There's no silver bullet here. Lots of money can be invested in public transit networks to provide mobility between suburban residential areas and suburban job centers. These are expensive and will likely be poor performers. The other option is to provide more government subsidies for poor people to own/operate cars. I think that is largely a political non-starter. The other choice that needs to be made is to provide relaxed zoning. The issue that comes into place is that a lot of 2nd and 3rd ring suburbs are already built out, and redevelopment is expensive. Any resulting zoning changes would probably affect the outer 3rd and 4th ring suburbs, and that is likely where more affordable housing will end up. If the job centers remain along the beltway, then it seems that lower-income folks will still face fairly long commutes.

An interesting topic that really needs to be addressed, as these problems will just become more exasperated over time.

[MNdible]

Which quite easily highlights the modern problem with our auto-centric suburban fabric. I've heard a few people justify the suburbs saying it made sense in the days of a stable career at a company where someone could engineer their commute. But now that's not likely, and we're suffering from our lack of walkable, transit-connected nodes in the suburbs.

I don't disagree with you here. On the other hand, it's difficult to make modern manufacturing or distribution facilities pedestrian friendly.

[WHS]

It's a difficult dilemma. There absolutely needs to be more affordable housing (i.e. less zoning restrictions in the suburbs) and more public housing (investment into the PHA's) in the suburbs. The main obstacle are those suburbs themselves. Unwilling to provide opportunity for lower-cost housing to be built.

This isn't really true. The main problem is that inner city development -- especially by nonprofit community developers, mostly based in the central cities and often with geographic constituencies in the poorest city neighborhoods -- is suctioning away all the money. They're generally acting with the tacit approval or even at the encouragement of the city housing agencies (which uses affordable subsidies as a kind substitute for economic development funding, which is scarce these days), the state housing agency (which has a lot of technical financial expertise but exhibits less concern for fair housing issues), and, most of all, the Met Council. For most of its major housing initiatives, the Met Council partners heavily with Minneapolis and Saint Paul-centric organizations like Family Housing Fund and the TCC Land Bank; Haigh herself is the former president of Habitat for Humanity. Also, in its (futile?) pursuit of inoffensive, technocratic projects, the Council seems to over-prioritize transit and then focus on clumping housing around transit, which isn't great when you just built a train line through the worst neighborhoods in the cities.

There is certainly some opposition from the suburbs themselves, but it's small-bore stuff. Fair housing advocates basically spent the entire span from 1968 to 1998 developing tools for overriding suburban opposition, and they were quite successful on the whole. Between the Met Council, state law, HUD, and the Fair Housing Act, it wouldn't be especially difficult to force a significant amount of housing on the suburbs -- the problem is that there are too many political forces committed to putting it elsewhere.

[mulad]

Anyone who is assuming we need to put affordable housing next to transit lines because everyone in the building is going to use transit is missing the point, but there's also the converse point -- Unless you can get some form of reliable transportation for every family in the building that allows them access to a reasonable slice of the job market and the ability to reach groceries, shops, and other places beyond 7 pm, you probably need to locate them in one of the central cities on a decent transit line. Many or most residents will own a car or be able to access one, and a few will do things like ride bikes or rent taxis, but there will be some who can't afford cars, and would probably be eaten alive by taxi fees. I do think that mixing affordable housing into more affluent areas is a good idea in general, but there is a notable constraint here.

Of course, I really wish we applied the same rules to housing in general, not just affordable housing.

[mulad]

Which quite easily highlights the modern problem with our auto-centric suburban fabric. I've heard a few people justify the suburbs saying it made sense in the days of a stable career at a company where someone could engineer their commute. But now that's not likely, and we're suffering from our lack of walkable, transit-connected nodes in the suburbs.

I don't disagree with you here. On the other hand, it's difficult to make modern manufacturing or distribution facilities pedestrian friendly.

I'm not sure I've seen anyone even try to make a decent commercial/industrial building for those roles. I'm pretty sure it could be done -- what's wrong with pulling the office area up to the street or nearest intersection, and stacking whatever you can? Just build some decent sidewalks and don't make the roads super-wide.

I suppose the old 6-10 story "warehouse district" structure from the railroad era isn't the best thing for efficiency in big operations, though most companies are small, and you can fit multiple small companies per floor in old-style buildings. One company I like is Adafruit Industries, which manufactures and distributes electronics from their space in a 10-story, 1920s commercial building in Lower Manhattan -- despite their location, I haven't noticed very significant differences in price compared to other similar online retailers.

Really big factories and warehouses might not be able to be helped much, though I have to think that many of them would function just fine across 2 or 3 floors rather than just one big flat area. Even if you can't stack the manufacturing/warehouse area, it might work to stack the parking above or below, removing the moat of asphalt that so many buildings have today.

I suspect that the conventional wisdom that a wide, flat building is more efficient is a bit of a misdirection. It makes more sense to me that these companies are just looking to slap cheap buildings on cheap land -- property taxes punish you for building a taller, more expensive building, so I can see why so many companies go the cheap route. I'm not sure a land value tax would change things significantly, but it's an option that still hasn't been explored all that much to encourage denser development.

[Wedgeguy]

Which quite easily highlights the modern problem with our auto-centric suburban fabric. I've heard a few people justify the suburbs saying it made sense in the days of a stable career at a company where someone could engineer their commute. But now that's not likely, and we're suffering from our lack of walkable, transit-connected nodes in the suburbs.

I don't disagree with you here. On the other hand, it's difficult to make modern manufacturing or distribution facilities pedestrian friendly.

I'm not sure I've seen anyone even try to make a decent commercial/industrial building for those roles. I'm pretty sure it could be done -- what's wrong with pulling the office area up to the street or nearest intersection, and stacking whatever you can? Just build some decent sidewalks and don't make the roads super-wide.

I suppose the old 6-10 story "warehouse district" structure from the railroad era isn't the best thing for efficiency in big operations, though most companies are small, and you can fit multiple small companies per floor in old-style buildings. One company I like is Adafruit Industries, which manufactures and distributes electronics from their space in a 10-story, 1920s commercial building in Lower Manhattan -- despite their location, I haven't noticed very significant differences in price compared to other similar online retailers.


Really big factories and warehouses might not be able to be helped much, though I have to think that many of them would function just fine across 2 or 3 floors rather than just one big flat area. Even if you can't stack the manufacturing/warehouse area, it might work to stack the parking above or below, removing the moat of asphalt that so many buildings have today.

I suspect that the conventional wisdom that a wide, flat building is more efficient is a bit of a misdirection. It makes more sense to me that these companies are just looking to slap cheap buildings on cheap land -- property taxes punish you for building a taller, more expensive building, so I can see why so many companies go the cheap route. I'm not sure a land value tax would change things significantly, but it's an option that still hasn't been explored all that much to encourage denser development.

Warehouses have several loading dock, Both coming in and going out. What company would want to be 3 to 4 stories above their loading dock. Then you have to move good between floors which would be space robbing ramps or elevators that will add maintenance cost to run. Manufacturing you are dealing with the same issues. Some site themselves to allow for future expansion.

[Rich]

Circling back to the Strib story…it’s worth noting that Keyona the temp and Alisha the waitress (and thousands like them) bring income from their suburban jobs back to Minneapolis and spend it. If they were to move to the suburbs, their money would move with them.

More than three-quarters of the jobs are being created in the suburbs. That’s a fairly tremendous economic suction away from the city. So if expanded transit options help stem some of that money flow by making it easier for people - and their incomes - to remain in Minneapolis, that’s a good thing, right?

[mplsjaromir]

Well if only 20% of the population lives in the central cities and only 25% of the jobs are created there, I would not exactly say that is a tremendous economic suction.

[Rich]

Isn’t it because of the economic suction that only 20% of the population lives in the central cities? If the central cities could create more jobs they’d retain more population, no?

[WHS]

More than three-quarters of the jobs are being created in the suburbs. That’s a fairly tremendous economic suction away from the city. So if expanded transit options help stem some of that money flow by making it easier for people - and their incomes - to remain in Minneapolis, that’s a good thing, right?

You're forgetting that the article is about entry-level jobs. These people aren't splashing around large amounts of cash.

But even if they were, I pretty strongly disagree that we should heap the poor into distressed neighborhoods just because it might somehow abstractly benefit the City of Minneapolis vis a vis the suburbs.

[Rich]

I pretty strongly disagree that we should heap the poor into distressed neighborhoods just because it might somehow abstractly benefit the City of Minneapolis vis a vis the suburbs.

Is there a better solution for distressed neighborhoods than access to jobs?

[mattaudio]

Honestly many suburban areas are going to be the "slums of the future" whether we want it or not. Large McMansions without a raison d'etre and without connectivity will be the first to go, either housing extended families who can pool together to live in a 4,000+ SF home, or they'll be split up into apartments. Just like the old mansions getting split up early last century, but without the character, time-tested materials and craftsmanship, and walkability. It's not going to be a pretty picture.

[mplsjaromir]

The central cities are only 5% of the land, so you might say that the cities are wildly more popular than the suburbs per square mile. One could even say that they deploy their resources much more wisely and efficiently than the suburbs.

It is not outside the realm of possibility that the metro area's growth could have taken place within the areas that were incorporated by 1940, but very unlikely. The suburbs use more land and resources to achieve the same end as the cities. Going forward planning for land use that supports more than just single occupancy automobiles should be a goal for metro area suburbs. We know the cities can mange to survive without widespread automobile ownership, it is unknown if the suburbs can.

[WHS]

I pretty strongly disagree that we should heap the poor into distressed neighborhoods just because it might somehow abstractly benefit the City of Minneapolis vis a vis the suburbs.

Is there a better solution for distressed neighborhoods than access to jobs?

I'm not looking for solutions for neighborhoods, I want to help the people who live in them. Long-term, the cities should move towards denser, less auto-oriented living patterns. But before that can happen, there are many thousands of people who just need to live somewhere with suitable jobs, good schools, and all the other benefits that economic integration brings.

[mattaudio]

One could even say that they deploy their resources much more wisely and efficiently than the suburbs. ... The suburbs use more land and resources to achieve the same end as the cities. Going forward planning for land use that supports more than just single occupancy automobiles should be a goal for metro area suburbs. We know the cities can mange to survive without widespread automobile ownership, it is unknown if the suburbs can.

Actually this is a very wise point, and another reason why the suburbs may not be the best place to get the most value out of limited affordable housing dollars. Many suburban areas are financially unproductive land uses. The only thing that's subsidizing them is the cash transfer social engineering of suburbia known as the "Minnesota Miracle" of the early 1970s. But when the bills come due, taxes are going to have to go up significantly in the suburbs just to maintain them. Some will end up with the Detroit problem, where they can't afford basic municipal services with skyrocketing cash flow liabilities coming due on a shrinking tax base. Some areas will just be unmaintained, and other areas that are maintained will require massive property tax increases just to make it happen. There are areas in the suburbs where the actual value generated by a particular land use only covers a single digit percentage of the built infrastructure necessary to serve that specific land use. And that doesn't even count all the other strains on cash flow that aren't land-use tied infrastructure liabilities.

[WHS]

One could even say that they deploy their resources much more wisely and efficiently than the suburbs. ... The suburbs use more land and resources to achieve the same end as the cities. Going forward planning for land use that supports more than just single occupancy automobiles should be a goal for metro area suburbs. We know the cities can mange to survive without widespread automobile ownership, it is unknown if the suburbs can.

Actually this is a very wise point, and another reason why the suburbs may not be the best place to get the most value out of limited affordable housing dollars. Many suburban areas are financially unproductive land uses. The only thing that's subsidizing them is the cash transfer social engineering of suburbia known as the "Minnesota Miracle" of the early 1970s. But when the bills come due, taxes are going to have to go up significantly in the suburbs just to maintain them. Some will end up with the Detroit problem, where they can't afford basic municipal services with skyrocketing cash flow liabilities coming due on a shrinking tax base. Some areas will just be unmaintained, and other areas that are maintained will require massive property tax increases just to make it happen. There are areas in the suburbs where the actual value generated by a particular land use only covers a single digit percentage of the built infrastructure necessary to serve that specific land use. And that doesn't even count all the other strains on cash flow that aren't land-use tied infrastructure liabilities.

But again, this is just a case against suburbs generally -- not against affordable housing in the suburbs. I don't mean to be snarky, but this is what I mentioned on the last page: I feel like urbanism's general antipathy towards suburbs bleeds over into antipathy towards affordable housing in suburbs, but they're separable issues.

[mattaudio]

If the people who could afford to build the suburbs are no longer going to be able or willing to pay for them in the future, how do we expect affordable housing capital to be a wise investment in the same place?

If some suburban areas are going to be for salvage value only, the market will actually provide affordable housing in some of those areas. When someone can buy a 4,000 SF McMansion for $100k and house an extended family there, it will happen on its own.

[WHS]

If the people who could afford to build the suburbs are no longer going to be able or willing to pay for them in the future, how do we expect affordable housing capital to be a wise investment in the same place?

If some suburban areas are going to be for salvage value only, the market will actually provide affordable housing in some of those areas. When someone can buy a 4,000 SF McMansion for $100k and house an extended family there, it will happen on its own.

"Sorry guys, I know you'd rather live in a nice suburban neighborhood, but in twenty or thirty years those places will probably be pretty affordable, so we're going to put our affordable housing stock in North instead. It'll get better soon, we promise!"

Incidentally, people were saying this exact same thing in the mid-90s.