According to newly released US census data for 2010-2017 – which Brookings analyzed here – the “back to the city” movement appears to have peaked in 2012. (This is something that we’ve looked at before on the blog.)
Here is a graph from Brookings showing the annual growth rate for urban and suburban counties. Note how growth in the “urban core” peaked in 2012 and how growth in both the “emerging suburb” and “exurb” have increased since then.
The other finings from Brookings are that growth has slowed in large metropolitan areas (small metro areas and non metro areas, on the other hand are up) and that people are continuing to move from the Snow Belt to the Sun Belt.
If you look at population gains and losses from 2016-2017 for the 100 largest US metro areas, the only Snow Belt gainers within the top 20 are New York (15th), Columbus (19th), and Boston (20th). Dallas, a Sun Belt city, was first with a gain of 146,000 people.
So what’s going on? The narrative is that soon as the US economy and housing market recovered from the Great Recession of 2008, the trend lines simply reverted back to business as usual: sun and sprawl.
Here are the results from my primitive multi-unit building amenities survey:
Gym is number 1. No surprise there. 46% of respondents said it was in their top 3.
Rooftop outdoor space at number 2 was perhaps a bit surprising. But then again, who doesn’t love a good rooftop patio?
As for concierge service, I tend to think this was driven by package delivery. That’s certainly the biggest value add for me.
One standout near the top, for me at least, is co-working space. Andrew LeFleur made mention of this on Twitter and I think he’s right: The changing nature of work is making these spaces more valuable in multi-family dwellings.
And now some color on the above results.
436 amenity selections were made as part of this survey.
About half of the respondents were from the Greater Toronto Area, followed by Calgary, San Francisco, Ottawa, Boston, New York City, Denver, Los Angeles, Paris, Miami, and many other cities. Shoutout to whoever responded from Kuala Lumpur and Porto Alegre.
In terms of “Other” amenities, there were suggestions for a band rehearsal space, a vending machine, a grassy area for sports, and programming the helps you meet your neighbors.
In terms of this one last, it can be tricky for condo buildings. Developers only provide the space. It’s then up to management. But I’ve seen it done very well in rental buildings.
Are you surprised by any of the results from this survey?
Taylor Pearson recently compared crypto networks to cities and argued that the best crypto networks, much like the best cities, are formed from the bottom up.
The example he gives is that of Paris (bottom-up) vs. Brasilia (top-down). Paris is the hugely successful city and Brasilia is the failure of high-modernism.
I appreciate the argument he’s making and I do agree with him on the potential of decentralization, but I couldn’t help but dig into his city example a bit further.
The Paris we all know and love today is the result of an enormous centrally planned urban renewal exercise. Baron Haussmann carved, among many other things, long straight boulevards through Paris’ medieval fabric in order to modernize and rationalize the city.
What makes this top-down exercise different from that of Brasilia’s? Is it simply that Haussmann was constrained by Paris’ existing and decidedly urban fabric?
Because then we could turn our attention to New York City’s gridiron plan of 1811, which laid out – before the island of Manhattan had even fully developed – a relentless and orthogonal street network from Houston Street all the way up to 155th Street.
Is the difference that Brasilia was planned with suburban sensibilities in mind and Manhattan was not? Or was it the restrictive Euclidean zoning that did it in for Brasilia?
Whatever the case may be, history suggests that some top-down planning exercises may have worked out just fine. Though to be fair, each of them was not without their share of critics.
Photo by Rafael Leão on Unsplash