available online at:
http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2008/04/01/opinion/columns/rich_lewis/doc47f223f291c5b780161512.txtOne generation’s dream, next’s nightmare
By Rich Lewis, March 6, 2008
Like many areas in Cumberland County, my neighborhood a few miles outside Carlisle has undergone a dramatic transformation since we moved there in 1987.
Many dozens of new houses have been built on the farmland that once surrounded us, and many dozens more are on the way.
Some of these new homes are modest in size and design; others are what are often called “McMansions” — huge structures with multiple garages, vast interior spaces and dazzlingly complex rooflines.
I don’t mind any of that. It’s sad to see the open fields disappear, but it’s nice to have new friends and neighbors, and we have benefited from the new roads and services that have come along with the houses. The mail now gets delivered to our door, for example, and not to a box a third of a mile down a dirt lane like it used to.
Still, I have often looked at this explosion of houses and wondered where the people — and the money — to buy them and maintain them is coming from. And will new buyers and new money be there when the present owners decide to move on?
For that reason, I was intrigued by an article in this month’s The Atlantic magazine — which addresses this issue and makes some startling predictions about the future of the nation’s suburban housing.
The article is titled, “The Next Slum?” — and the sub-head pretty much sums up author Christopher B. Leinberger’s argument: “Fundamental changes in American life may turn today’s McMansions into tomorrow’s tenements.”
Leinberger, a professor of urban planning at the University of Michigan, says that several increasingly powerful forces are reversing a decades-long trend in housing patterns.
“For 60 years, Americans have pushed steadily into the suburbs, transforming the landscape, and (until recently) leaving cities behind,” he writes. “But today, the pendulum is swinging back toward urban living and there are many reasons to believe this swing will continue.”
The consequence, Leinberger argues, is that “many low-density suburbs and McMansion subdivisions, including many that are lovely and affluent today, may become what inner cities became in the 1960s and 1970s — slums characterized by poverty, crime and decay.”
Leinberger notes that most Americans now live in single-family suburban houses “that are segregated from work, shopping and entertainment,” but are increasingly drawn to urban life because it is “culturally associated with excitement, freedom and diverse daily life.”
He also notes that aging Baby Boomers are becoming “empty-nesters and many have voiced a preference for urban living.” Younger people are having fewer children, and having them later, further reducing demand for huge houses away from urban attractions.
Economic concerns are also coming in to play. Given the rapidly rising cost of fuel for transportation and heating, “conventional suburban living may not be much of a bargain in the future.”
And as the shift away from suburbs and toward cities gains momentum, “families may find that some of the suburbs’ other big advantages — better schools and safer communities — have eroded” as suburban tax bases worsen.
The net effect, Leinberger says, will be that “the fate of many single-family homes on the metropolitan fringes will be resale, at rock-bottom prices, to lower-income families — and in all likelihood, conversion to apartments.” The new owners and tenants are unlikely to have the commitment, or the cash, to maintain these suburban houses.
Leinberger acknowledges that “not all suburbs will suffer this fate” — but the most likely to survive are those located near central cities and along rail lines.
Much of this resonates with my personal experience. Most young people I know want to live in cities. Many of my older friends talk about moving closer to a city after retirement. Leinberger is on to something here.
I have no idea if these trends will reach Cumberland County. Many of the people here are committed to rural living and view cities as places to visit, not to live in.
Still, local life is much less “rural” and much more “suburban” than it once was, and we are largely cut off from the benefits of city living — the ability to walk to stores and museums and other attractions, access to public transportation, engagement with diverse peoples and activities. Perhaps our suburbs and developments will feel the pinch, if not the full force, of what Leinberger predicts.
It also strikes me that Leinberger’s argument may hold promise for the future of Carlisle itself, especially the downtown, which has been badly damaged by the flight of people and businesses to outlying areas. Despite its many problems, Carlisle’s downtown is exactly the kind of small “core,” as Leinberger calls it, around which a compromise of suburban and city living can be built.
On the other hand, Carlisle could become a small, urban ghost-town as its suburbs expand and then weaken.
Leinberger doubts that the “swing toward urban living will ever proceed as far as the swing toward the suburbs did in the 20th century” but there will “certainly be more of a balance” in the future.
It’s a point that all of us — residents, builders and planners — should keep in mind as we look to the future of our community.
——
Rich Lewis’ e-mail address is: rlcolumn@comcast.net
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
