The March Atlantic Monthly includes a very interesting article about the future of American housing: "The subprime crisis is just the tip of the iceberg. Fundamental changes in American life may turn today’s McMansions into tomorrow’s tenements."
"In the Franklin Reserve neighborhood of Elk Grove, California, south of Sacramento, the houses . . . once sold for well over $500,000. Now many are empty; renters of dubious character occupy others. Graffiti, broken windows, and other markers of decay have multiplied. . . .
A structural change is under way in the housing market—a major shift in the way many Americans want to live and work. . . .
For 60 years, Americans have pushed steadily into the suburbs, transforming the landscape and (until recently) leaving cities behind. But today the pendulum is swinging back toward urban living, and there are many reasons to believe this swing will continue. As it does, many low-density suburbs and McMansion subdivisions, including some that are lovely and affluent today, may become what inner cities became in the 1960s and ’70s—slums characterized by poverty, crime, and decay. . . .
Urban areas—especially those well served by public transit—become more appealing as they are filled in and built up. . . .
In most metropolitan areas, only 5 to 10 percent of the housing stock is located in walkable urban places. . . . Yet recent consumer research suggests that roughly one in three homeowners would prefer to live in these types of places. . . .
Suburbs that are affluent and relatively close to central cities—especially those along rail lines—are likely to remain in high demand. Some, especially those that offer a thriving, walkable urban core, may find that even the large-lot, residential-only neighborhoods around that core increase in value. Single-family homes next to the downtowns of . . . Birmingham, Michigan, are likely to hold their values just fine.
On the other hand, many inner suburbs that are on the wrong side of town, and poorly served by public transport, are already suffering what looks like inexorable decline.
But much of the future decline is likely to occur on the fringes, in towns far away from the central city, not served by rail transit, and lacking any real core. In other words, some of the worst problems are likely to be seen in some of the country’s more recently developed areas—and not only those inhabited by subprime-mortgage borrowers. Many of these areas will become magnets for poverty, crime, and social dysfunction. . . .
The shift that’s under way toward walkable urban living is a healthy development. In the most literal sense, it may lead to better personal health and a slimmer population. The environment, of course, will also benefit. . . Perhaps most important, the shift to walkable urban environments will give more people what they seem to want. . . more of a balance between walkable and drivable communities—allowing people in most areas a wider variety of choices."