Source: The Urbanophile
Last week the Urban Land Institute released its 30-year-old annual report on emerging trends in the real estate industry -- and revealed that the industry is shifting away from sprawl and overbuilding to investing in shareable, sustainable neighborhoods:
Next-generation projects will orient to infill, urbanizing suburbs, and transit-oriented development. Smaller housing units--close to mass transit, work, and 24-hour amenities--gain favor over large houses on big lots at the suburban edge. People will continue to seek greater convenience and want to reduce energy expenses. Shorter commutes and smaller heating bills make up for higher infill real estate costs....
Road congestion, higher energy costs, and climate change concerns combine to alter people's thinking about where they decide to live and work. The lifestyle cost-of-living equation starts to swing away more dramatically from bigger houses on bigger lots at the suburban edge to greater convenience and efficiencies gained from infill housing closer to work. These homes may be more expensive on a price-per-pound basis, but reduced driving costs and lower heating/cooling bills provide offsets . . . "near-in suburbs will do well especially if they link to business cores by mass transportation."
Industry readers are advised to avoid investing in areas "with long car commutes or where getting a quart of milk means taking a 15- minute drive." Instead, the report recommends investing in urban areas and green buildings, citing buyer and tenant demand as well as operating efficiencies.
It's important to emphasize that this report -- which is based on a survey of 900 investors, developers, lenders, brokers, and planners -- reflects mainstream opinion in the real estate industry, and that it represents a startling shift in direction. For decades, the industry as a whole fought against green building, and in favor of the loose regulatory structures that led to overbuilding and the foreclosure crisis.
When I talked with these folks at last week's massive Urban Land Institute gathering in San Francisco, many of them stressed that this shift hasn't been triggered by sudden concern about climate change or people who lost their homes to foreclosure.
Instead, the industry is reacting to the catastrophic collapse of the housing market, a changing regulatory environment and increasing focus on urban development by the federal government, more consumer demand for walkable built environments, and technological evolution.
In fact, the overall tone of the report is extremely pessimistic, tossing about words like "awful" and "doomed" to describe the state of the real estate industry. But I think the report gives the rest of us grounds for optimism--the real estate industry's loss is a gain for the planet and for our society.
Is this a permanent shift in a hopeful direction or just a tactical course correction in the face of a crisis? Kaid Benfield, director of NRDC's Smart Growth program, argues that the shift was starting to happen even before the collapse of the market. He cites the findings of a survey of registered voters conducted by the National Association of Realtors in 2007:
- 57% agree that "business and homes should be built closer together" so stores and shops are within walking distance
- 61% agree that new home construction should be limited in outlying areas and encouraged in very urban areas
- 81% want to redevelop older areas rather than building new
- 83% support "building communities where people can walk places and use their cars less"
- 88% support more public transportation
Benfield cites another study by Arthur C. Nelson at the University of Utah:
Fully three-fourths of Americans now prefer either attached housing (apartments, condos, townhouses) or homes on small lots of approximately one sixth of an acre or smaller. Twenty-five percent express a preference for homes on larger lots above one sixth of an acre in size. Perhaps putting their money where their stated preferences are, Americans have lowered the average amount of land claimed per person for new development by half since as recently as 2001. Transit use is way up as well, and overall rates have driving are now in decline for the first time in decades.
In other words, people are driving many of these changes, not an industry in immediate crisis. I think the challenge, for those of us who see sharing as a solution to our various environmental and social crises, is to do what we can to leverage these gains and amplify the voices of those in the industry who are embracing the shift.
Rate this article
Comments
Essential reading on this topic: Richard Florida, "How the Crash Will Reshape America."
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200903/meltdown-geography?x=54&y=4
Key prescription: eliminate federal tax breaks that encourage home ownership. Ancillary prescription: encourage higher rates of rental housing in key urban areas. In my view this last is central. Massive market investment returning to projects that pass as "smart growth" or "sustainable" will, if not affordable, only perpetuate the outward drive to development of cheaper land at the periphery, because most of the new urban infill will be too expensive to bring the middle classes back into the city. And, if not coupled with significant, long-range Federal commitment to mass transit infrastructure, the outward drive will only continue barring more $4 spikes in the price of oil.
The positive in the ULI report is its suggestion that it is -- finally -- the market that may be poised to drive smart growth, rather than non-profit advocates. That's a big shift. Individual preferences make a huge difference and, ultimately, are what policy has to follow.
The problem with Richard Florida is that he buys into the commodification of housing. All of his hit analyses deal with where the next boom might be, how to attract the next generators of economic activity, where to invest in the next smart city. What he misses, and the process we have interrupted, is that housing is part of a system of civilization. It is place making, child rearing, life cycle supporting. If the so-called members of creative economy actually create these ghettos of like minded uniformity that will quickly discover that they want places for their little people. They will want stability. They will reconnect with their parents. They will crave diversity, for its own sake. They might actually re-construct something that was alive and well in the old cities that have been abandoned, community.
As if! In a free market, not one dominated by an industry that controls the entire process of shelter building, people would actually have choice. Then their preferences might be expressed and their options multiplied. It is always amazing to hear people return from abroad, having walked through truly carless cities, or lived in unique spaces built of indigenous material, expressed in buildings constructed without architects. They have passed through places where community is expressed in evening paseo, or common festive activity, and wonder why they can't have that here.
I think Will must have missed the ULI conference. Changing zoning laws to allow for auxiliary apartments is a huge push of ULI as a way to create more affordable housing. There was in fact a lot of discussion on designing development and growth patterns for the aging population (actual home modification would be more appropriate at an AIA Conference). I am not sure where Will was in the multitude of workshops on Green Building of redevelopment (increasing utilization of the built environment), but since this was a building industry think tank conference they must not have really happened. I am still trying to figure out which free market societies have built those utopian areas of shelter where "community is expressed in evening paseo, or common festive activity." Come on!
The positive in the ULI report is its suggestion that it is -- finally -- the market that may be poised to drive smart growth, rather than non-profit advocates. That's a big shift. Individual preferences make a huge difference and, ultimately, are what policy has to follow.
Related Articles
- Interviewed: David Harvey on Rebel Cities
- Hurricane Sandy, Public Banks and Urban Resilience
- How to Map the New Economy in Your City
- Have Your Cake & Eat Someone Else's Too!
- Is Peer-to-Peer Bikesharing Viable?
- Harvesting the City
- Asheville: A Shareable Mountain Town
- Adventures in SideCar-ing
- Honest Buildings: Greener Real Estate by Sharing Data
- Complete Streets Are For Everyone: the Top 10 Policies of 2012
Community Blog Posts
-
By Drew Little
-
By Tim West
-
By Liz Elam
Recent comments
-
17 hours 2 min ago
-
22 hours 22 min ago
-
22 hours 22 min ago
-
22 hours 48 min ago
-
1 day 2 hours ago




Sessions that were not held at the ULI (the building industry think tank) annual meeting:
Ending homelessness forever
Restructuring home loans on behalf of the homeowner
Changing zoning laws to allow auxiliary units
Creating non-profit shelter exchanges to match students, seniors, and singles with those who have space to share
Home modification for the aging population
Creating construction standards that child proof a home from inception
Maximizing built-ins to improve efficiency
Importing highly efficient appliances from around the world
Increasing the utilization of the existing built environment