One of the articles of faith among smart-growth advocates is that retiring baby boomers will want to move into downtown or suburban high-density, mixed-use developments. In 2009, “Chris” Nelson himself came to Damascus, a very low-density suburb of Portland, to tell residents how wonderful it would be if they rezoned their city for high-density housing. (Nelson is the University of Utah planning professor who claims the United States will have 22 million “surplus” single-family homes by 2025 because so many Americans will prefer to live in multifamily housing.)
A recent survey of affluent baby boomers tossed some water on this theory. The survey found that 65 percent of baby boomers plan to stay in their current homes when they return (down from 80 percent of their parents). Of the remaining 35 percent, only 4 percent say they want to move to a downtown condominium and just 3 percent say they want to live in a suburban condo. By comparison, 14 percent say they hope to move to a resort community.
By refocusing on self you become aware of unresourceful programs and conditioning which are bought that levitra prescription creating your own reality. purchase at pharmacy store viagra prices The 100mg tablets make it easier to deal with penile erection for an agreeable time span. Activated through lack of urge for food or possibly a tadalafil tablets prices devensec.com consuming binges. 8. Beautiful wooden toys that can be cherished for years to come, http://www.devensec.com/ch498/dec4981A.html on line viagra that cover everything fundamental a kid needs to learn.
This suggests that twice as many want to move to lower densities as those who aspire to higher densities. While this survey was only of high-income baby boomers, I suspect the answers of other baby boomers wouldn’t be much different. Any investors who put money into downtown or suburban condos based on Nelson’s ideas are likely to lose that money.
And to think if Nelson had bothered to do an actual survey and honestly ask people questions………Oh, well when Nelson retires in the downtown condo with few neighbors to play shuffleboard with.
There is not an equivalence between affluent boomers and everyone else. The stated preference for moving away from a sea of residential roofs is to be more connected and for more proximate services, easily accessible by something other than a car. That is: more choices. Those with the means and desire to continue to age in place have the means to continue to age in place. Those whose portfolios took hits from Enron, housing bubble, tech bubble, etc don’t have those options. And continued economic contraction and reduction in old-age pensions, SS, etc aren’t helping either.
Jus’ sayin’. Not reflective of the population as a whole. Wealth greater than 800K is not the majority of retirees, as the document says. ~175k people is that segment, compared to tens of millions of others.
Yet another hasty generalization as an argument.
DS
“While this survey was only of high-income baby boomers, I suspect the answers of other baby boomers wouldn’t be much different.”
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised, but baby boomers are a pretty diverse cohort despite your assumption.
“Any investors who put money into downtown or suburban condos based on Nelson’s ideas are likely to lose that money.”
Developers of high density, high intensity downtown projects probably use relatively advanced market analysis before pulling the trigger. I don’t know any real estate developer or investor that would use a single theory from a academic in Utah to base their financial decisions on.
I would also like to point out that several HUGE condo projects in Austin started in 05,06, and 07 and have done very well once online, even with the housing market downturn. I’m not sure the demographics of the occupants, but the demand is there.
Also, I think there are ways to increase density in suburban style developments without compromising the character of the neighborhood (See: granny flats, garage apartments, alley flats). That’s a topic for another day.
Dan – “The stated preference for moving away from a sea of residential roofs is to be more connected and for more proximate services, easily accessible by something other than a car. That is: more choices. ”
You assume that the “choices” provided are desirable to those now living in the suburbs when they get old? I’m 50 years old and after reviewing the “Choices” available to me in “Smart Growth” Portland, Oregon, I’ll prefer to stay far away from anything to do with the lifestyle offered there. Close proximity to medical services aside, I will still prefer the suburbs where I can choose between Fishing, Camping, Hiking, and skiing. High Density living out of the earshot of families, and children playing is HELL on earth – just like high density “Smart Growth” living. I am not a package to be warehoused as a commodity for the convenience of the political/government class.
My mother-in-law and late father-in-law (not Baby Boomers) sold their single-family detached home in utterly suburban Anne Arundel County, Maryland and moved to a condo on the edge of downtown Baltimore City (a nice neighborhood, not what was seen in The Corner and The Wire) some years ago.
They lived there for about 10 years, then decided to move to another condo unit – in suburban Howard County, Maryland. This was about the same time that the Baltimore City condo market crashed and burned, and they had a devil of a time selling that (nice) condo unit, though they finally were able to unload it, after it cost them a lot of money.
“There is not an equivalence between affluent boomers and everyone else. “
You’re right, there isn’t. Affluent boomers are probably much more likely to uproot from their familiar suburban surroundings and head downtown. The less well-off will not find any attraction in city life and will, if they don’t head farther out into the rural hinterlands, stay put.
I am not a package to be warehoused as a commodity for the convenience of the political/government class.
What about warehoused by the developer class? Because they are responding to consumer demand, and constructing (or were) what many elderly are asking for, which is what you quoted. But not all construction will be Agenda 21 collectivist hovels – many want to age in place right where they are. Others will move somewhere else. Some will go to Costa Rica. Some to flyover country. No demographic or SES group is monolithic or homogenous.
Thanks!
DS
Sorry Dan, but “Demand” by government planners is the ONLY thing fueling high density development in Portland. The “Developer Class” is subsidized, and coerced by the government class to develop “Planned” Density. The problem is that they aren’t building it for current residents, because most current residents don’t have the equity to “buy-in”. Portland uses current residents tax dollars to subsidize the construction of condominiums for people who don’t live in Portland, or the NW. The Planners of Portland’s “Smart Growth” deliberately “plan” for residents who don’t live here yet, and won’t for another 30-40 years.
The middle class is fast disappearing in Portland’s central core, and jobs, and people are leaving, in fact 30,000 jobs have left the central core for the suburbs since 2001.
Here’s my anecdote. My own fairly established, financially secure parents – i.e. they possess the means to make their own choices rather than have circumstances impose the outcome; had to make a decision about where to live as they are now in their seventies and may require more care and attention in the future. My own mother, has occasional seizures and can’t drive anymore. Thus far, in their lives, they have always chosen to reside in the suburbs.
They weighed all the factors, and ended up buying a house one mile from my own in the distant suburbs of Houston. The single overarching factor in their decision was proximity to a family member who could assist them and drive them when necessary.
I deal with a great number of retirees in my business and few if any care about, density, proximity to public transport or cultural amenities. Mostly, they worry about the location of their doctor, the hospital, the drug store, the grocery store, the movie house and the public library and most importantly who will take them there if they can’t drive.
Jardinero1 says: “I deal with a great number of retirees in my business and few if any care about, density, proximity to public transport or cultural amenities. Mostly, they worry about the location of their doctor, the hospital, the drug store, the grocery store, the movie house and the public library and most importantly who will take them there if they can’t drive.”
I too deal with a great number of retirees and can second the statement about the concerns of the elderly. I can also tell you that if the don’t have the luxury of living close to their children, like your parents, they will often rely on public and/or non-emergency medical transportation services to a great extent. So much of what rural transit systems do is take seniors to the doctor; Seniors who would otherwise have no other way of getting to their appointments on a regular basis. These services are the most heavily subsidized services in the transit business, and I for one am proud of my country for stepping up to help those that need it most. (I suppose if the Tea Party was in charge we could just “Let ’em die!”)
I deal with a great number of retirees in my business and few if any care about, density, proximity to public transport or cultural amenities. Mostly, they worry about the location of their doctor, the hospital, the drug store, the grocery store, the movie house and the public library and most importantly who will take them there if they can’t drive.
Good points. There are two stages of aging after retirement, and the last one is where do you live in failing health. Prior to that, where you live is dependent on how much extra money you have and if you enjoy doing things. There’s an interesting recent USDA paper (don’t know what I did with the link right now) that looked at this phenomenon wrt land conversion away from ag. and boomer migration. I’ll try and find it if I can, as there are good charts that help inform this issue (and disagree with Randal’s generaliations, but still). Anyway, you are right that seniors want proximate services and a nearby Walgreens. Such developments are found in pre-WWII neighborhoods and modern developments that eschew single-use zoning.
DS
Baby Boom Migration and its Impact on Rural America
Macro paper.
DS
Dan – you have yet to explain this “Consumer Demand” for “Smart Growth”? Every “Smart Growth” High Density Development – Here in Portland has to be subsidized by the City of Portland to attract residents, and most “Loans” made to developers for this housing are usually defaulted on. We have a shortage of “Affordable Housing” caused by our Urban Growth Boundary which prohibits new families, and those just entering the workforce from building wealth in the suburbs, because the cost of housing is kept artificially high due to the boundary, so they don’t have the opportunity to live in more affluent areas close in. Also as the “Smart Growth” displaced businesses they left so we have 30,000 fewer jobs in Downtown Portland than we did 10 years ago. “Smart Growth” and the assumptions that go with it sure seem to have manifested itself here, as “Stupid Growth Assumptions” that the EPA still lauds, but that have been a total failure, and have limited the Central Core to the most affluent, and worse those who live here now won’t be able to afford to live there in the future.
Dan – you have yet to explain this “Consumer Demand†for “Smart Growth�
Minimum 50x on this site.
Thanks!
DS
The lying planner has not explained anything, ever. He occassionally cherry picks a favorable statistic from one of his favorite statist authors, which he then uses to justify whatever boondoggle/crazy planning fad he’s defending. Afterwards, when asked to present to proof for his ideas, he just clamors:
“it’s been explained at least 50 times on this site”,
naturally, with some condescending phrases such as “Yet another hasty generalization as an argument.”
I can hardly wait for five years in the future. The asshole Dan will surely be unemployed. The city government will be in tatters, and no private employer will hire an abomination like Dan, who speaks out of one side of his mouth on his personal website, and out the other side on relatively anonymous forums like this one.
OK Dan – Explain why it is not working in Portland, Oregon? Why are Business and jobs leaving the “Smart Growth” areas – Could it be because “Smart Growth” has displaced Business, artificially raising the price of real estate, making it uncompetitive to stay? Part of “Smart Growth” seem to be dividing the city in to income groups around “Business Centers” yet the “Business Centers” surrounded by middle to lower income neighborhood cannot seem to support the businesses in the designated “Business Center” and they leave, why? Now it seems we must subsidize lower income resident to live in “Smart Growth”, yet few choose to take advantage, because they can’t afford to shop in the more affluent areas, for food, medicine, and don’t have a job nearby, why?
You hear that silence? Get used to it.
Dangit. I thought Randal had banned the annoying little prick. Sure was nice and quiet around here for a while.
OK Dan – Explain why it is not working in Portland, Oregon?
I can’t speak to PDX Tom. Despite your confusion of several issues and mixing them together, as a general statement the SG developments are more desirable and thus are bid up to obtain, and during the housing bubble and collapse, such areas have lower foreclosures and have held their value better than far-flung suburbs, as has been commented on here many times, over and over. I don’t know what ‘business centers’ you are talking about so I can’t speak to them. No one is forcing you to live in a SG area. If you don’t like them, don’t live there. If you don’t like them going up in a town you don’t live in or a state far away, don’t move there. You won’t be warehoused in a granny flat and forced to ride your bike to the grocery store, never fear.
DS
Thanks Dan for your comments.
The antiplanner loves to split hairs, and yet, assumes that a survey of affluent baby boomers represents the plans of all baby boomers.
Affluent people have more choices, whether baby boomers or not, whereas the plans of others are inlfuenced much more by what people can afford. The plans of non-affluent baby boomers could vary greatly. People might stay where they are, and for baby boomers, that would put them in the auto dependent suburbs, with no other extended family near then to take care of them if it ever came to that. And no way of getting around if they weren’t able to drive.
But putting that aside, many people might be planning to stay where they are, that is the suburbs, simply because they can’t afford to sell and move because the market is lousy right now, and most of their wealth is in their single family home.
Dan,
thanks for the link to the report on Baby Boomers.
It will be interesting to read about where I have decided to live when the time comes for me to retire.
Sorry Dan, It sure seems that you don’t respect those that just can’t seem to see or experience the “Nirvana” of what the EPA refers to as “Smart Growth”? I grew up here, and people like you want to compel me to live as you wish or move, regardless of who you hurt economically, and the active displacement of those who can’t or won’t buy into smart growth certainly seems to be a mater of ego for you, only because you are wrong. You are wrong because Smart Growth doesn’t work ANYWHERE unless the lower income – or undesirables – are displaced, and driven from their homes to suit you ego. I live in the ruins of Smart Growth everyday, and if that makes me a prick, I can’t imagine what that makes you.
One, Tom, you aren’t the prick and two, I’m sorry you don’t like market trends. Agenda 21 doesn’t direct developers to build warehouses for the elderly, despite what a few energetic underinformeds insist.
DS
Dan says: “No one is forcing you to live in a SG area. If you don’t like them, don’t live there.”
and then…
Tombdragon says: “Sorry Dan… people like you want to compel me to live as you wish…”
Here we are again, spinning our wheels. If we can’t agree on what is literally typed on the page, I’m afraid growth management is a lost cause.
Some people simply need to believe stuff to maintain their self-identity. Psychology is learning how brain wiring leads to political ideology, fascinating work with fear receptors. We also see how vested interests seek to motivate by inspecting the rhetoric, phrasing and framing in the OP.
DS
Tombdragon said:
“You are wrong because Smart Growth doesn’t work ANYWHERE unless the lower income – or undesirables – are displaced, and driven from their homes to suit you ego.”
I guess you’ve never been to Boston in places like the South End, Dorchester, and Roxbury, where Smart Growth works without displacing those, how you delicately put it, “undesirables”.
Street Car Suburb – “Smart Growth”, and the Urban Renewal Dollars used to build high density housing – that couldn’t be filled here – even before the economic downturn has damaged our economy, driven jobs from the region, and siphoned dollars from the region effecting infrastructure replacement, and maintenance. I would love to have the opportunity Boston had with their “Big Dig” replacing their 40 – 60 year old freeways with modern ones that have seen the median income of the Boston area rise over 20% in the last 10 years. We also have transit oriented development with the promise to develop retail business along public transit – except less that half the development has been populated with business in the last 30 years since they started it – it stands empty, and vacant – all smart growth that doesn’t seem to work in a 1,200 square mile area with only 1.5 million people. The all encompassing growth policies are just not a one-size-fits-all solution when you don’t have the population, business volume, and income in the community to support it. Smart Growth policies, perpetuated by “planners” who don’t have to live here has bankrupted our community, and I’m sure its failure of being the promised nirvana will soon lead to the planning community ignoring their failure here, and our poverty.
Tomdragon,
There are many reasons why storefronts are empty, but you don’t know if “Smart Growth” is the cause.
The economy is in a downturn. Highway plazas that cater to auto oriented development also remain empty, can I blame the auto only oriented development on the fact that I drive by many empty highway plazas on my way to work?