Smart-growth advocates love to talk about how retiring baby boomers and other empty nesters will all want to move to high-density, inner-city housing. For millions of such This supplement is free from discount viagra pharmacy arising any harmful side effects. Kamagra is a kind of PDE5 inhibitor, which basically is meant to allow the erection to develop in viagra no prescription canada the normal circumstance by inhibiting the affected enzymes within the genital area. Using this viagra ordering individual without any complexity can receive joy in doing the desired thing without any trouble. These rips within the engagement ring might outcome the actual discomfort all-around vertebral nervousness creating agony, numbness along with weakness within the parts where nervousness travels. http://valsonindia.com/about-us/eco-friendly-manufacturing/ cheapest levitra people, the truth is just the opposite: they hope to move to small towns and rural areas. So much for rebuilding cities to higher densities.
Baby Boomers Heading for the Country
Bookmark the permalink.
It is funny that academics have predicted that boomers would want to move to inner cities. For one thing, the great retirement migration in America has been people moving from NYC to Florida when they retire, fleeing all the wonderful advantages of America’s largest urban area.
Sure, some retirees will want to live in urban areas — but not very many will want million dollar condos. It will be interesting to hear the reasons why cities should subsidize the lifestyles of millionaire retirees.
Not much room for nuance, Randal? Smart growthers never claimed that ALL retirees would want to move to high-density inner-city housing. We have said that A LOT of them would. Which is demonstrably true. A great deal do not want to take care of a large lot or house that they wanted/needed when they had children running about. If they’re not moving to inner cities, they are moving from the 2nd and 3rd ring suburbs into the 1st ring. A classic example that will blow your mind, Randal, is Addison, Texas, a town right outside Dallas. They’ve grown into a New Urbanism-like high-density urban environment (almost the whole town), and the town doesn’t even have a planning department. Who are their principle residents? Upstart DINKS and empty-nesters.
My grandfather, when he decided to retire, way back in 1946, moved to rural Maryland, even though he was still working in the District of Columbia, and had a long (40 miles one way) ride each way. He stayed there for the rest of his life, over 40 years.
My mother-in-law lived in Baltimore City with my late father-in-law for a while, but then they moved to utterly suburban Howard County, Maryland. Yes, a condo, but it’s age-restricted and not in an area served by mass transit.
My own Dad still lives in the same Montgomery County (yes, that’s a suburb). that I grew up in.
I have no intent of ever living in a home approved by the Smart Growth industry, in spite of its efforts.
Sometimes I think it’s funny how rural or at least small towns can get urbanism right. I think of like Crested Butte CO, with a nice main street, multi-family housing at an appropriate scale. Mixed income neighborhoods. “Free” (subsidized) public transit. Wide sidewalks. Everything you need with in about 2mi. Only 3,000 residents. There is a strong bureaucracy that regulates design on new and existing structures. It is a historic district and has strong growth management plans and regulations.
I don’t think any “smart growther” has a problem with living in a place like this, yet it’s “rural.” I don’t think I’ve heard them advocate for everybody moving to New York. It seems to me that the “smart growthers” want to see better performance and efficiency in the way we live, essentially. In C.P’s post for example he says that his parents moved into a retirement condo, that yes, is in the burbs, but probably incorporates some NU/SM principals and amenities (at least multi-family living). C.P, Do they have sidewalks? A cafeteria?
Isn’t there a big grey area in the B&W argument here?
P.S. Love the New/Old style of the blog. Much more user friendly.
“For one thing, the great retirement migration in America has been people moving from NYC to Florida when they retire, fleeing all the wonderful advantages of America’s largest urban area.”…
…for all the wonderful advantages of New Urbanism. Yes, Florida. Where city planning is mandated by the state. Bocca Raton is like a New Urban wet dream. Seaside??? Just about anywhere the New York retirees move to is called a “planned community.” Not saying it’s “smart growth” but it can’t be what “anti-planners” advocate for.
Bennett raises a good point in #6. I don’t deny that planning can improve lifestyle and value of housing. But government planning isn’t what built Florida — it was free market planning developing large areas of land at once, deliberately planning the developments to attract retirees from NYC and other areas. Some developments have created wonderful communities, and some have failed.
Government planning would never have developed Florida the way it is. Some will argue that is a good thing, but the pre-Boomers have voted with their feet.
Andy wrote:
> Government planning would never have developed Florida the way it is. Some will argue that is a good thing,
> but the pre-Boomers have voted with their feet.
[Emphasis added above]
It would seem that (at least in the U.S.) that people and employers tend to vote with their feet and move away from places that put great emphasis on rail transit systems. How many large companies have moved their corporate headquarters away from New York City over the past 20 or 30 years?
Andres Duany would defend a small town over a suburb subdivision any day of the week. I understand why people want to live in small towns when they retire, but for intensive purposes, a small town employs very urban principles: Connected street grid, a main street “village center”, modest homes on the outskirts, etc. New Urbanism is based off of this model almost entirely.
Yes, older people are leaving suburbia too, which constitutes most of the mileage of urban areas. I think the bigger picture is suburbia does not provide them with what they need, not the fact that core cities don’t provide them with what they need. And I seriously doubt that demographers were predicting older people were going to move to the core city when they retire in large numbers.
That is impossible. How could small towns have developed liveable communities without professional planners telling them how to do it?
“That is impossible. How could small towns have developed liveable communities without professional planners telling them how to do it?”
Any way you look at it, it’s a combination of individual choice and collective decision making. It may not be called “planning,” but that’s exactly what it is. A better question is how are small liveable towns destroyed by the “free market” (a.k.a wal-mart)? Wal-Mart killed the country store, rural main street and the likes. But hey, if mom and pop can’t compete…
Andy, therein lies the irony. New Urbanism, at least as emphasized by the model SmartCode, is much more market-based than traditional land development regulations (by traditional here, I mean post WWII zoning and subdivision regulations). New Urbanism is an attempt to get back to pre-WWII development patterns.
Andy:“That is impossible. How could small towns have developed liveable communities without professional planners telling them how to do it?”
ws: Geez, Andy, understand history. Suburbia was created by planners.
bennett,
Wal-Mart owes as much to government meddling for their success as their own methods. They’re masters of extracting sales-tax concessions from host cities, forcing zoning variances, and structuring their wages so that their workforce is on Medicaid instead of employer-funded health insurance.
Even further than “meddling,” it is poorly-founded economic policy by foreign governments with EPZs that set the table for WM’s success. WM was just the first major retailer to recognize the metes and bounds of the playing field for what they were and invest in infrastructure to take advantage. There’s no way WM eviscerates Main Street without being able to buy shoes and shirts for pennies on the dollar, assembled in sweatshops by indigenous workers barely scratching out an existence, from EPZs. On top of that, the EPZ host country usually features a corrupt dictator profiting off the back end of those operations. To paraphrase Elton John, “It’s the Circle of Liiiiiiiife….”, at least in the world of the retail supply chain.
People could decide that they aren’t going to fund wage slavery in Angola by refusing to buy at WM. It’s not unheard of. To cite a tangential example of anecdata, I won’t buy mined diamonds. I refuse to spend money that eventually filters through a cartel to a slave driver who mutilates African kids to force them to dig up carbon. I only buy lab-created diamonds (aka silicon carbide), the money from which goes to a Canadian or South Korean gem manufactory where workers are treated humanely. It’s a choice, and we all have them. WM just tips the scales and magnifies the attractiveness of their choice by taking advantage of the problems with the playing field. The choice still exists. Sometimes, the correct choice can be to not buy anything.
Mike,
When I say “free market” it’s generally meant to be taken sarcastically as you point out in the wal-mark example. I agree that wal-mart owes much of it’s success to the various government’s involved. As you say “It’s a choice, and we all have them.” And some of us decide to come together and take action collectively, by say, effectively keeping wal-mart (and the likes) out of their community. Again see: Crested Butte, CO. Where do we draw the line on collective and individual choice?
Actually Wal-Mart used to promote buy-American, and most of its initial expansion nationwide was done with mostly American made products. Since then, globalization happened and Wal Mart aggressively took advantage of it.
Go ahead and fight Wal Mart to prevent globalization. Then you have to boycott the internet and FedEx. The downtown district businesses pushed out other businesses when they came in, and something will push Wal Mart out some day.
To WS – If you agree that planners are the problem, then why are you vehemently anti-Antiplanner?
Andy:“To WS – If you agree that planners are the problem, then why are you vehemently anti-Antiplanner?”
ws: There’s good and bad planning. Let’s not conflate Brasila, Brazil type city planning or Communist USSR planning to modern day planning that occurs in the US.
I do believe that planners should be invested in roads, streets and general transportation planning. I disagree with highly intervening planning methods into the built environment such as density and parking requirements, but feel there are positive social requirement such as park space requirements, etc.
Regarding why I am anti-Antiplanner: ROT is a pseudo-libertarian and espouses low-density, automobile transportation w/o realizing that density and transit is a completely market based solution to the built environment. Point in case, this article is clearly a part of ROT’s low-density bias, routinely seen on this website. Here’s another: http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=1676
Last week’s article was regarding so called rail freight subsidies was asinine because it did not cover the entire picture at hand where highway freight movement is subsidized way more than freight actually is.
But you never see any articles of the “other side” of the issue from ROT or Wendell Cox or any of these ass-backwards “think tanks”. Never. Ever.
Crested Butte, CO:
This is a new urbanist’s dream.
Maximum street frontage, modest sized buildings, pedestrian accessibility, etc. No wonder baby boomers are leaving urban areas. They’re tired of the monotonous suburbia landscape.
To WS – Thank you for a good response, with substance and links to evidence. Please continue to provide an opposing view, but please do it without profanity and name calling. I would suggest not being more sarcastic or caustic the Antiplanner is with his posts, and frankly it is more persuasive if it was less than the Antiplanner.
TexanOkie: “Smart growthers never claimed that ALL retirees would want to move to high-density inner-city housing. We have said that A LOT of them would. … A classic example that will blow your mind, Randal, is Addison, Texas”
Are you arguing that retirees are moving to Addison, TX, in large numbers? I don’t think the demographics support such an assertion:
Population older than 44 years
Addison ……………… 24%
Collin County …….. 26%
Dallas County ………27%
Denton County ……..24%
Tarrant County ………28%
Addison has slightly fewer older residents than do the counties in the Metroplex.
I think Addison is more populated by 20-something and 30-something professionals. That should not be surprising. Addison is home to many office buildings, and the young professionals likely appreciate the lower relative cost of the high density housing surrounding those workplaces. I’m sure some are also attracted by the high concentration of alcohol-oriented restaurants, a holdover from the many years that surrounding communities were “dry”.
WS –> Zoom out on that map. As wonderful as Crested Butte is (despite being colder than a witches’ left titty for half the year), most of the growth in the area has occurred outside of the city. As for people moving there, with the median sale price for a home in the neighborhood of $750k, I don’t anticipate too many retirees choosing that remote ex-mining town.
prk166:
I did zoom out. Growth outside the “city”? There is no city and most of the growth is consistent and works its way outward concentrically (in a grid). Minus the cul-de-sacs on the edges, I see a very nice growth pattern with little “leap frog” development. Why is it so expensive to live there? Probably because these nice, small towns are so few in numbers in the US. Higher prices for small towns, traditional neighborhoods, etc. just reveals market forces at work.
People enjoy these homes and neighborhoods because they are in demand. People willingly choose to live in an old flat or 1900s home with terrible electrical outlets, bad plumbing and a shaky foundation and PAY MORE for it than a new home in a distant suburb with more square footage and appliances because homes of that era were built with character and community in mind. This is exactly how I know that many people want smart growth and new urbanism over traditional suburbia — the market already shows that traditional neighborhoods cost more money than typical sprawl subdivisions despite minimal parking, old crumbling houses, etc.
Assuming that this is what 90% of growth looked like in the US (traditional development patterns) and people had more of this option for living — you’d see housing prices in the Georgetowns, Alexandrias, Savannahs, Charlestons, etc. be much lower than they are today. That’s because these nice towns and small cities are so limited, and that in itself commands a higher dollar due to their limited availability.
ws, you really should bone up on Crested Butte. There is a city. Crested Butte is a statutory city in Colorado. It only has planning authority over it’s town. As you obeserved, it’s set up on a grid.
The problem with holding it up as an example of good planning is that most of the development in the valley has occurred outside the town. The town of Mt. Crested Butte has had a ton of development. Heck, it was founded for the purpose of development. There are several developments along the highway between Almont and Crested Butte. So yes, there are a few folks are capable and willing to pay $1 million for a 130 year Victorian in Crested Butte proper. But there are many more who chose to live outside of the quaint old mining village.
As for why it’s expensive… did you really mean to throw out the claim that there are so few in number for small towns? Really?
prk166:“As for why it’s expensive… did you really mean to throw out the claim that there are so few in number for small towns? Really?”
ws:First of all, I never said Crested Butte was a good example of city planning – nor am I holding it up as an example. I don’t even know why I defended any of its “planing” to begin with in my last post, as I misled to. I do think it has a main street and houses. Which is true, it’s a nice, small town. I am merely pointing out the similarities between small towns and urbanism / new urbanism.
The only major design difference between a Crested Butte, CO and downtown Denver is of scale and size.
Randall’s link about baby boomers moving to small towns is downright silly as most well-liked small towns utilize urban principles. This is just an omission that people enjoy good design championed by planners, architects and NU’s, in my opinion.
I never said there were very few small towns in the US. I said “nice” small towns and cities. Small towns that have maintained their character and development patterns throughout their entire boundaries and have not been gutted by a highway traffic levels going through their main streets are not abundant. Regarding bigger places than small towns — not everyone wants a smalllll town, but want a mid size town/city; there are very few examples like the gems of Charleston, Savannah, and Georgetown in the US. But people pay out the A for homes there. The homes aren’t made of gold, either, so that couldn’t account for their higher than average costs.
PRK:
You need to brush up on Crested Butte. The city has one of the best affordable housing programs I’ve seen. Yes there are a lot of 2nd home owners pushing up the prices of the big Victorians, but there is also a decent amount of “affordable” condos, duplexes and 3/4plexes. Rental housing is also affordable. The entire side of town east of 7th street has had various lots under construction for the last decade, almost all of which are built and lived in by locals (they’re not 80yr old $1mil Victorians).
The reason that here has not been much new development in CB in recent years is because the city hasn’t annexed more land (until a year ago)and it is effectively built out. Mt. CB is growing but it is growing up, not out so much (more SG/NU tenants?).
The city was also a large player in the Gunnison County Land Use Resolution. While it dosen’t have any authority outside of it’s city the cities influence has stretched all the way down to Almont.
The developments between Gunny and CB you speak of are just as full of overpriced 2nd homes as the City itself. There are many locals who live in these developments as well, but your claim that more live in Riverben dand and CB south is completely wrong. There are more year round residents in CB than in Mt. CB (which there are hardly any) or CB south. More people choose to live in the city, you are simply wrong.
The point in bringing up CB was two fold. 1, to show how small towns (i.e. non urban) are a bastian for SG and NU principals, thus refuting antiplanners continual point that people are fleeing cities to get away from planning. 2 to show how a collective can keep wal-mart, McDolanlds, Starbucks away, and that it’s not just about an individuals choice whether or not to shop at these places.
And now 3, to show how a resort town can keep the locals living in the city through affordable housing planning. “Crested Butte. What Aspen used to be and Vail never was.”
C. P. Zilliacus said: It would seem that (at least in the U.S.) that people and employers tend to vote with their feet and move away from places that put great emphasis on rail transit systems. How many large companies have moved their corporate headquarters away from New York City over the past 20 or 30 years?
THWM: In other words; People don’t go there any more, it’s too busy.
ws —> Thanks, that makes more sense. I didn’t think you’d be holding up CB as a model for successful planning, among other things but, at least the way my eyeballs and brain weren’t working at the time, it seemed like you might be. Grax!
Bennet –> That program is needed because ALL housing is incredibly expensive relative to local incomes. I fail to see how an $300k, 900 sq ft. condo is “affordable”. Between the mortgage, $200+ / month for association fees and such I’d struggle to make those payments let alone a median household for the area of @ $45k / year. The east side of town you speak of with new development has several homes worth $1m to $2.5m. Without poverty gulch, habitat for humanity and their deeds restrictions it’s unlikely anyone but the very rich could afford to buy much of anything in that town.
And yes, those developments outside the city have high priced housing. Just pointing them out in context of what people desire and don’t desire. MOst development in the area hasn’t been on the grid. Of course, CB’s an odd area, and most development in the area is being driven by different desires and motivations than what we’d likely find in Des Moines, Atlanta or Seattle.
Randal strawmanned:
Smart-growth advocates love to talk about how retiring baby boomers and other empty nesters will all want to move to high-density, inner-city housing.
No they don’t. Not even close. I call bullsh–.
DS