Atlantic Monthy magazine has an interesting article on future development trends in suburbs. The article is entitled "The Next Slum?" and is written by Christopher B. Leinberger, who is a fellow at the Brookings Institute, an urban planning professor at the University of Michigan and a real estate developer. He discusses the current subprime mortgage crisis and some of its impacts on neighborhoods but emphasizes that it is only the tip of the iceberg of changes that are impacting suburban development.
He notes that surveys in Boston and Atlanta indicate that about of third of respondents prefer close-knit walkable neighborhoods with services as opposed to another third who prefer conventional large lot development that requires driving to access services with another third with mixed feelings. He notes that while households with children constituted more than half of all households when baby boomers were growing up, they were only about one-third by 2000 and will decline further to about a quarter by 2025. Furthermore, the number of households with children in 2025 will be about 4 million more than in 2000, but more than 10 million single family homes have already been built. He speculates that the demand for large lot suburban housing on the fringes of metropolitan areas will decline and the some of the "McMansions" being built there today will be divided into apartments and become the slums of the future as urban living becomes more desirable. He says that suburbs with mixed use, walkable Town Centers will also remain desirable.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Town Center Survey Results
As part of the Planning Board’s study of development issues in the Town Center, a survey was sent out to all residents in January. The survey drew over 800 responses. The Planning Board appreciates the efforts of those who took the time to answer the questions and, for many, to provide written comments – some of which were refreshingly out of the box.
On the issue of establishing a public water supply primarily for the Town Center businesses and Town buildings, 54% of respondents supported the idea, slightly less than support indicated on last year’s ballot question, while 28% were opposed (the rest being neutral). The younger the respondent, incidentally, the more supportive the response – the under 40 crowd running at 71% versus 47% for those 60 and over. Assuming town-wide financial support for such a system, i.e. debt service, the responses overall flipped, with 26% in favor and 53% opposed. Those unsupportive numbers were virtually unchanged if residential properties along the water line were included. The lack of information about costs, how they might be shared and the uncertain location of the well may well have been factors contributing to significant opposition.
There was strong support (70%) for expanding business development within existing business district boundaries while only 31% were in favor of expansion beyond the boundaries. Similarly, respondents also indicated a significant interest (63%) in having an “anchor” outlet up to 7,500 sq. ft. while only 28% were interested in having a store as large as 10,000 sq. ft. Desires for retail establishments included a market similar to the Dover Market, a coffee shop, general store and specialty shops.
Somewhat surprising to us, the idea of additional residential development in or near the Town Center attracted only 25% support and only 36% were in favor if housing was age restricted to 55 and older. The idea of having affordable housing in or near the Town Center mustered a less than enthusiastic 33% support. We speculate that respondents felt that too much housing of any kind would compete with space that could otherwise be used for desirable retail outlets.
As a demographic footnote readers might be interested in knowing that according to the 2000 census 20% fell into the 25-39 year age group, 55% in the 40-59 year range and 25% were 60 and over. Relative to those numbers and the 2010 census projection, the younger group showed a substantial under-response to the survey while 60 and over were overrepresented by the same percentage point margin.
Copies of the survey results are on the Planning Board web site.
On the issue of establishing a public water supply primarily for the Town Center businesses and Town buildings, 54% of respondents supported the idea, slightly less than support indicated on last year’s ballot question, while 28% were opposed (the rest being neutral). The younger the respondent, incidentally, the more supportive the response – the under 40 crowd running at 71% versus 47% for those 60 and over. Assuming town-wide financial support for such a system, i.e. debt service, the responses overall flipped, with 26% in favor and 53% opposed. Those unsupportive numbers were virtually unchanged if residential properties along the water line were included. The lack of information about costs, how they might be shared and the uncertain location of the well may well have been factors contributing to significant opposition.
There was strong support (70%) for expanding business development within existing business district boundaries while only 31% were in favor of expansion beyond the boundaries. Similarly, respondents also indicated a significant interest (63%) in having an “anchor” outlet up to 7,500 sq. ft. while only 28% were interested in having a store as large as 10,000 sq. ft. Desires for retail establishments included a market similar to the Dover Market, a coffee shop, general store and specialty shops.
Somewhat surprising to us, the idea of additional residential development in or near the Town Center attracted only 25% support and only 36% were in favor if housing was age restricted to 55 and older. The idea of having affordable housing in or near the Town Center mustered a less than enthusiastic 33% support. We speculate that respondents felt that too much housing of any kind would compete with space that could otherwise be used for desirable retail outlets.
As a demographic footnote readers might be interested in knowing that according to the 2000 census 20% fell into the 25-39 year age group, 55% in the 40-59 year range and 25% were 60 and over. Relative to those numbers and the 2010 census projection, the younger group showed a substantial under-response to the survey while 60 and over were overrepresented by the same percentage point margin.
Copies of the survey results are on the Planning Board web site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
