Brandon Donnelly

Daily insights for city builders, delivered every morning at 6 AM ET. I’m Brandon Donnelly — a Toronto-based real estate developer and founder of Globizen. I’ve been writing here since 2013.

Subscribe

Tag: suburbanization

  • Net domestic migration is still pretty suburban

    For years, the data has been clear. Many Americans are moving from expensive cities, like Los Angeles, to less expensive metropolitan areas like Dallas-Fort Worth.

    But Wendell Cox’s recent article over at New Geography is a good reminder that these data sets can be limited. The US Census Bureau currently tracks domestic migration at the county level only. This can be a bit of a problem as counties vary dramatically in terms of geography and population.

    The New York metropolitan area, for example, is comprised of 25 different counties averaging about 750,000 residents. The Los Angeles metropolitan area, on the other hand, is compromised of two counties averaging about 6.6 million residents.

    These sorts of nuances become important when you’re trying to figure out things like whether people are moving to/from urban cores or the suburbs. Case in point: The San Diego metro area is compromised of a single county. When people move there, the data says nothing about how urban or suburban they might be.

    Dallas-Fort Worth is a lot easier to read. Since 2010, it has had the largest net domestic migration of any metro area in the US: +443,000 residents. But county data reveals that it is entirely suburban. The core (Dallas County) actually lost 57,000 people from 2010 to 2019. And this is not unique to the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

    Photo by Gabriel Tovar on Unsplash

  • What tribe are you part of?

    This satirical piece in the Beaverton about “biking everywhere” is hilarious because it touches on so many cycling stereotypes:

    “It’s a great way to get around while also staying in shape,” said McFarlen as he biked through a red light. “From tattoo shops to my job at VICE to even the best Banh Mi in the city – I just hop on my bike and I’m there. Why does anyone drive ever? Gross!”

    But the other thing it does is speak to the trade-off between location and transportation costs. Brian McFarlen, the fictional protagonist from the article, is able to bike everywhere (low cost) because he allegedly lives in a central neighborhood (high cost):

    McFarlen, whose parents paid for him to go to film school and has no mortgage, kids, or debt, condemns people who drive in the city. “I hate cars – we should just get rid of all roads and replace them with bike lanes. Isn’t everyone able to live downtown and spend hours of their day biking around the city hitting up all the best micro breweries?”

    I think it’s natural for us humans to form tribes with others that are similar to ourselves. We have two wheels and you all have four wheels. We live in the city and you all don’t. All of these things make us different.

    But there’s certainly something to be said for having a bit of empathy for those outside of our particular tribes.

  • From urban to suburban

    The US Census Bureau just released its population estimates for 2018. As has been the case in previous years, the counties that added the most people (largest numeric growth) are all located in the south and west. Texas holds 4 out of the top 10 spots.

    Here is a Tweetstorm by Jed Kolko, the chief economist of Indeed, with a couple of graphs summarizing the findings (click through to see the full thread):

    Despite the narrative that people are returning to cities and urban centers, the data is pretty clear: the flow of domestic migration within the US is largely from dense urban counties to more suburban — and affordable — ones. Big cities are expensive.

  • The Great Recession only paused suburbanization

    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.

    image

    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.

  • Will autonomous vehicles make location irrelevant?

    I am not convinced that autonomous vehicles will make “location” irrelevant. 

    But I do agree with the following line from this recent Bloomberg article called, A Driverless Future Threatens the Laws of Real Estate.

    “The link between property and transport has been perhaps the most durable in human history.”

    So this remark by David Silver could very well be correct:

    “Real estate might be the industry that is most transformed by autonomous vehicles.”

    Technological advances in mobility have historically brought about decentralization because each advance – from streetcars to the automobile – made it reasonable to travel further distances.

    Of course, autonomous vehicles are also expected to free up our time and focus while in transit – although trains do that for us today albeit with that pesky last mile problem.

    But just like the internet in the late 90′s didn’t make location irrelevant (the opposite appears to have happened), I am similarly unconvinced when it comes to autonomous vehicles. What we consider a desirable location may simply shift.

    So this is not to say that the won’t see profound change in our cities. We will. Which is why we’re all trying to get ahead of it.

  • Five great surges of capital and technology, 1771-2017

    Carlota Perez is a professor that specializes in the social and economic impact of technological change. In 2002, she published an influential book called Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages.

    One of her arguments is that economic growth since the Industrial Revolution has occurred through a series of cycles and surges, ultimately culminating in a fifth great surge centered around information and telecommunications. This is our current economic environment.

    Perez was recently interviewed by strategy + business and they published this diagram (if it’s too small, click through to the article):

    The five surges of capital and technology since 1771 are:

    1. Industrial Revolution
    2. Steam and Railways
    3. Steel, Electricity, and Heavy Engineering
    4. Oil, Automobiles, and Mass Production 
    5. Information and Telecommunications

    Number 4 – oil, automobiles, and mass production – is what produced widespread suburbanization, a middle class filled with homeowners, and new forms of retail employment. And I am sure that most of you would agree that it’s not quite over yet.

    According to Perez, each cycle has two phases: an installation phase and a deployment phase. This latter phase is a “golden age.” But in between these two phases is a turning point that is typically characterized by some sort of crisis and recession. 

    Her belief is that we are in this turning point right now. You see it with Brexit. The demagogues being elected. And more. If you buy this, the key question naturally becomes: How do we cross this chasm and enter our next golden age?

    What’s also important to keep in mind about this theory is that it means that what we are seeing today, socio-economically, is not in fact new. We’ve been through this before. I’ll end with this quote from the interview with Perez:

    In the 1920s, wealth distribution looked the same as it does today. The top 1 percent received 25 percent of society’s total income. By the 1950s it was down to 10 percent. Every installation period brings inequality until the state comes back actively to reverse it and relieve social unrest.

    So what’s happening today may be temporary and it may be history repeating itself. If you’re interested in this topic, you can read the full interview here.

  • The top 10 most suburban cities in America

    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:

    1. Urban core-CBD: Employment density > 19,999 people per square mile
    2. Urban core-inner ring: Population density > 7,499 per square mile and > 19.9% transit/walk/bike modal split
    3. Earlier suburb: Not urban core or exurb, and median year house built before 1980
    4. Later suburb: Not urban core or exurb, and median year house built after 1979
    5. 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:

    image

    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.

  • Downstream effects of electric and autonomous vehicles

    I speculate a lot on this blog about what electric and autonomous vehicles will mean for the future of our cities. The reason it’s speculation is because it’s phenomenally difficult to know with any sort of certainty what the downstream effects of these technologies will be.

    I’ve seen some people claim that a car is still a car. That is, all of the same rules will apply even if they’re powered completely by renewals and we manage to make drivers obsolete (5-10 years?). But I fundamentally disagree with this line of thinking. There will be both positive and negative consequences. They are just yet to be seen.

    Benedict Evans recently wrote a post where he started to think about where some of these changes might happen. And so I thought it might be valuable to throw a few of these into the discussion mix. Here are some of his ideas:

    • About half of car maintenance spending in the US goes to things directly related to the internal combustion engine. Electric takes that away.
    • There are about 150,000 gas stations in the US. They go, along with their associated convenience stores, which is where the margins are made. Interestingly enough, more than half of all US tobacco sales happen at gas stations. Where does that go?
    • It is estimated that electric vehicles will increase overall electricity demand by 10-20%. But this could disappear with the battery storage and off-peak power.
    • Globally, about 1 million people die every year from car accidents. In the US, something like 90% of all accidents are thought to be caused by human error and about 1/3 of fatal accidents involve alcohol. Autonomy has the potential to take most of this away. Personally, I think we’ll look back and think about how dangerous driving used to be and wonder how/why we all did it.
    • A complete rethink of parking. This obviously gets talked about a lot. ~14% of LA’s land is thought to be used for parking. My guess is that parking ratios/requirements go way down (we’re already in the 0 to 0.3 per residential unit territory here in Toronto) and parking garages transform into yards for AVs.
    • Autonomous vehicles once again rewrite the retail real estate landscape. Benedict believes they will create more billionaires in real estate and retail than in tech or manufacturing. I like how he describes big box retailing as an arbitrage of land costs, transportation costs, and people’s willingness to drive and park. This point is likely about AVs + e-commerce. See yesterday’s post about Amazon.
    • Finally, his last point is that autonomous vehicles could become a kind of mobile Panopticon. The Panopticon was an institutional building typology conceived of by Jeremy Bentham in the late 18th century. It was based on the idea that inmates could all be monitored by a single watchman, without any of the inmates knowing if they were, in fact, being watched. It was a way of trying to impose strict obedience in prisons, and so on. Since virtually all autonomous vehicles require some sort of computer vision, Benedict argues that they could become the 21st century watchmen. Move over CCTV.

    The other big question is about decentralization. New transportation technologies have consistently promoted greater suburbanization – think streetcar suburbs to car suburbs. The fact that you’ll be able to use your time more productively in an autonomous vehicle is continually floated as an argument for this trend to continue. But I haven’t made up my mind about this one.

    Do you have any other thoughts on the downstream effects of electric and autonomous vehicles?

  • Young, educated, and urban

    The Wall Street Journal recently published this article talking about how the young and educated are flocking to high-density urban areas all across the United States. Here’s a set of charts from the article:

    There are many people who will point out – probably rightly – that despite the “return to cities” that we are currently seeing, the world is still suburbanizing. But, it doesn’t appear to be suburbanizing in quite the same way as it did for prior generations. There’s also a socioeconomic shift taking place.

    As an example, and to drive home the point that it’s not just the expensive coastal cities that are seeing rising home prices, the WSJ article focuses quite a bit on Ohio City – a neighborhood in Cleveland. Here’s what has been happening:

    In the Ohio City neighborhood, the median income skyrocketed to $93,000 from $23,000 since 2006, according to Ohio City Inc., a local nonprofit development group. Median home values shot up 800% since 2000 to $270,000, according to Ohio City Inc. Median rental prices in downtown Cleveland as a whole jumped 47% from late 2010 to late 2015, according to the Center for Population Dynamics at Cleveland State University.

    These are pretty dramatic increases – though $270,000 feels cheap to someone from Toronto. Still, it speaks to a trend. You and I both know that Ohio City isn’t the only neighborhood seeing those sorts of numbers.