According to NewGeography, ~85% of the population in the 53 major metropolitan areas in the U.S. lives in the suburbs or the exurbs. (Data from 2011-2015.) And according to some definitions, a number of these cities could be classified as being 100% suburban.
NewGeography recently looked at America’s most suburbanized cities using the “City Sector Model” of classification. Here’s generally how it works:
Urban core-CBD: Employment density > 19,999 people per square mile
Urban core-inner ring: Population density > 7,499 per square mile and > 19.9% transit/walk/bike modal split
Earlier suburb: Not urban core or exurb, and median year house built before 1980
Later suburb: Not urban core or exurb, and median year house built after 1979
Exurb: Outside of 2010 principal urban area or under 250 people per square mile
Based on the above criteria, here are the top 10 most suburban cities in America:
All of these cities have virtually no urban core. To break the 10 way tie, they were simply sorted based on the size of their exurban population. To see all 53 metropolitan areas, click here.
Zillow.com recently published some research where they looked at U.S. home prices broken down according to location: urban, suburban, and rural.
Here’s what they found:
As you can see, urban homes across the U.S. largely trailed their suburban counterparts in terms of absolute value up until the end of 2014. At that point, urban homes then surpassed suburban homes for the first time in the last two decades. (I wonder if this is a first or there was another crossover point before the late 1990s.)
But if you dig a little deeper and look at both the rate of appreciation and prices per square foot (as opposed to just absolute value), urban home prices appear even stronger.
Here’s a snippet from Zillow’s post:
“Over the past five years (2010-2015), average urban home values have grown 28.4 percent, compared to 21.1 percent for suburban home values. In the past year alone, U.S. urban home values grew 7.5 percent, compared to 5.9 percent for suburban homes.
On a per-square-foot-basis, homes in urban areas nationwide used to be worth roughly the same as suburban homes, before a gap started emerging in the late 1990s which has become progressively wider over the past roughly two decades. Currently the gap stands at 24.5 percent, with suburban homes valued at $156 per-square-foot and average U.S. urban homes worth $198 per-square-foot.”
And here is that same chart showing per square foot prices:
Everyone who reads this blog knows that there is a growing interest in urban centers. But if you look at the above charts for specific cities, there are still many cases where urban home prices are well below suburban ones.
To me, that serves as a reminder of the spikiness of this urban transformation, but also that it is likely still in its infancy. As recent as 20 years ago, Toronto largely didn’t believe that people would want to live downtown in modern apartments. Today we take that for granted.
So even with all of the gushing about urban centers, I still think we are only just getting started when it comes to creating the great urban neighborhoods of the future.
Earlier this week a good friend of mine sent me a scanned article from this month’s issue of Urban Land Magazine called: Rethinking PADs–Private Accessory Dwellings. He said, I know you have a thing for PADs, so here you go.
PADs, or private accessory dwellings, is simply another term for nanny flat or laneway house. Whatever you want to call it, the concept is the same. It’s about taking a single family house and adding an additional dwelling onto that same lot.
In many cities around the world, this is not allowed. Each lot is to have only one dwelling unit. And that’s because the single family home – particularly in North America – has been considered sacrosanct.
But as I’ve argued and demonstrated before, I think we’re on the cusp of this changing. Here’s a snippet from the Urban Land article (unfortunately, I don’t think the full article is available online):
“If PADs can be added in appropriate scale and number, existing housing, zoned land, and current infrastructure could be efficiently used to increase housing supply and to stabilize and even reduce housing prices. Moreover, since PADs are by definition smaller than existing dwellings, they will attract both younger and older residents who will enrich the intergenerational composition of both urban and suburban communities.”
I’m happy to see Urban Land (the magazine of the Urban Land Institute) giving this topic some air time. There are a number of social, economic, and environmental benefits to intensifying single family neighborhoods. And the most progressive cities in the world are already doing it.
What is your city’s position on accessory dwellings? Toronto doesn’t support them. But there are instances where people have gotten them approved.
Image: Kensington Market Laneway House, Toronto via Flickr