Urban Development

[Bruce]

I suspect that more than a few roadgeeks might, like myself, be interested in urban development.

Cities are booming across the U.S. thanks to a generation of young people who want to live in them, having grown up in the suburbs (which aren't great for the young and car-less).

There's some standout cities in particular, such as Seattle. The skyline is covered in cranes year-round and proposals for 400-foot skyscrapers are released just about every month. As of June 2016, there are 65 projects under construction in Downtown alone.


seattle sunset 12-7-16-8179ps by Chuck Hilliard, on Flickr

Here's a nice infographic of major projects and a map of them in relation to downtown:

[adventurernumber1]

I am incredibly interested in urban development. I find it intriguing to witness the rise of many cities around this country. One that has surprised me and impressed me the most with its growth is Austin, Texas. This city has grown tremendously throughout the last few decades, and especially since 2000. By fact of the 2000 Census, Austin had 656,562 people. Now, the 2015 estimate says 931,830 people, which causes Austin to currently clock in at being the 11th largest city in the U.S. That is amazing IMHO. An interesting thing about urban development is how it affects the road system. Cities like Buffalo and Rochester, that are losing population, are losing freeways. Cities like Austin, that are growing, are needing more.

[Bruce]

I am incredibly interested in urban development. I find it intriguing to witness the rise of many cities around this country. One that has surprised me and impressed me the most with its growth is Austin, Texas. This city has grown tremendously throughout the last few decades, and especially since 2000. By fact of the 2000 Census, Austin had 656,562 people. Now, the 2015 estimate says 931,830 people, which causes Austin to currently clock in at being the 11th largest city in the U.S. That is amazing IMHO. An interesting thing about urban development is how it affects the road system. Cities like Buffalo and Rochester, that are losing population, are losing freeways. Cities like Austin, that are growing, are needing more.

What's driving the growth in Austin? I'm not seeing mass annexations or mass housing sprees, so something is happening.

Seattle shot up from 563,374 in 2000 to 662,400 in 2015 exclusively through the building of new, dense housing (multi-family mostly). It's hemmed in by other suburbs and can't annex (except for a small area named White Center that is being courted by Burien, another suburb).

I also think Austin needs to build a real transit system first and foremost. It's a missing piece that peer cities have.

[PHLBOS]

Cities are booming across the U.S. thanks to a generation of young people who want to live in them, having grown up in the suburbs (which aren't great for the young and car-less).

I saw the this article in today's Philadelphia Inquirer which gives an opposing viewpoint regarding young people wanting to live in cities... at least with regards to Philadelphia:

If you believe everything you read in the news, you might think that millennials are leaving the suburbs in droves for the wonders of the "big city." The reality is that suburbs like Chester County are doing just fine at attracting the next generation of workers.

While there is no question that some college graduates prefer to live in the city, the corollary that the majority of them do not want to live in suburbs like Chester County is just not supported by the facts. In December, JLL Research revealed that the flow of young professionals into Philadelphia had flattened by 2015.

[ET21]

Chicago is undergoing a similar building boom with many major cranes and projects going up. Some of them:

-96 story Wanda Vista tower, which will be the third tallest in the city.
-Twin 870 foot condos on the south end of Grant Park
-873 foot condo near Navy Pier
A massive inter-city development called prairie park comprised of 6 seperate towers.

[Brandon]

Chicago is undergoing a similar building boom with many major cranes and projects going up. Some of them:

-96 story Wanda Vista tower, which will be the third tallest in the city.
-Twin 870 foot condos on the south end of Grant Park
-873 foot condo near Navy Pier
A massive inter-city development called prairie park comprised of 6 seperate towers.

However, all that is only in and near the Loop.  The rest of the city, south and west, is suffering.

[bandit957]

As long as there's no gentrification or other policies that deprive the poor and working-class of their homes.

I am sick and tired of the "economic cleansing" that has been taking place throughout America especially in the past 30 years or so.

[Desert Man]

Urban renewal is controversial, as some believe in rebuilding old forgotten sections of town, others feel it will raises rents to become unaffordable to mainly lower-income, long-time residents. In the 1960s during LBJ's administration, the oldest section of Indio CA (my hometown) from around 1900 was rebuild as a mini-mall, historic maps finds the square mile section is part of an earlier Indian Reservation in the 1870s-90s when Indio (originally Indian Wells) began as a railroad depot town. There are generations of Mexican/Latino and Native American (Cahuilla people) residents in old town Indio. We had two mostly Black/African-American sections, one bulldozed around 1990 for a failed nearby mall expansion (the mall is now closed) and the other still there nicknamed "Nairobi village" by locals for the Kenyan capital, both sections developed after WW2 when real estate segregation was legal and commonplace. The downtown on Miles Ave. from Oasis St. to Jackson St. which was the place to go from 1930 to 1980, was a ghost town in the 1990s-2000s, now a thriving place with art stores and hipster types discovered it on the way to the annual Coachella Music and Arts festival. And along Indio Blvd. (old US route 99/60/70) are century-old developments, a history of railroad company workers and their families as Indio was founded by the Southern/Union Pacific railroad, then the railroad depot closed in 1990. 

[ET21]

Chicago is undergoing a similar building boom with many major cranes and projects going up. Some of them:

-96 story Wanda Vista tower, which will be the third tallest in the city.
-Twin 870 foot condos on the south end of Grant Park
-873 foot condo near Navy Pier
A massive inter-city development called prairie park comprised of 6 seperate towers.

However, all that is only in and near the Loop.  The rest of the city, south and west, is suffering.

There's been some slight strides west, mainly along the 290 corridor. But the south and southwest.... bad news

[sparker]

Cities are booming across the U.S. thanks to a generation of young people who want to live in them, having grown up in the suburbs (which aren't great for the young and car-less).

I saw the this article in today's Philadelphia Inquirer which gives an opposing viewpoint regarding young people wanting to live in cities... at least with regards to Philadelphia:

If you believe everything you read in the news, you might think that millennials are leaving the suburbs in droves for the wonders of the "big city." The reality is that suburbs like Chester County are doing just fine at attracting the next generation of workers.

While there is no question that some college graduates prefer to live in the city, the corollary that the majority of them do not want to live in suburbs like Chester County is just not supported by the facts. In December, JLL Research revealed that the flow of young professionals into Philadelphia had flattened by 2015.

The concept of millennials flocking in droves to dense high-rise/condo development played out quite revealingly here in San Jose over the past thirty years or so.  North of downtown, much older housing and commercial properties were razed in the late '80's and early '90's to make room for massive condo and/or high-rise development, with the expressed intent to attract young professionals who would (a) rather avoid the hassles of maintaining property outside their immediate living area -- i.e., lack of yards or easements, and (b) wished to be within either walking distance or close transit distance from downtown amenities.  The regional light rail, in its nascent stages when all this development was occurring, was routed in a way that turned previous transit notions on its head -- the job centers (mostly IT-related) would be located at the city's periphery (particularly the north side of town, where Cisco and Oracle had purchased whole tracts, and IBM, with its longstanding hardware division south in Coyote Valley) with the served dense housing areas in and around downtown.  Thus, the N-S commuter flow would ostensibly be outward in the morning and inward during late afternoon.  But all the planning for this presumed the primacy of the '80's-defined "yuppie", complete with a high degree of self-absorption and a propensity to "flock" with their own subset.  And a number of those who did come to the area fitting that description actually took advantage of those urban amenities -- but most retained their auto ownership, and some condo developers were forced to purchase adjoining properties for parking garages (something not foreseen circa 1986-87, when the planning process was underway).  But the numbers of these folks never approached the original projections; a sizeable percentage of the condos went unpurchased -- and the developers were subsequently forced into the rental market to cover their investment. 

The city, VTA (the transit agency deploying the light rail & local buses), and the various developers had anticipated a certain "type" of client/resident; they didn't get enough of them to render the overall transit-oriented redevelopment a success.  What actually occurred was an influx of tech workers from overseas, who by and large were more likely to have intact families with them when they moved to the area.  Some of the larger tech corporations purchased or (long-term) leased many of the condo/apartment units arrayed from downtown all the way out to the job centers along Tasman Drive north of the city center and sublet them to employees new to the area (many with corporate subsidies defraying some or all of the rental costs).  But rather than stay in these condos/apartments for several years, many of these newcomers -- particularly those with families and with the higher-paying management or engineering positions -- would locate appropriate single-family housing in the surrounding suburbs (Campbell, Cupertino, Santa Clara, and several others) and move as soon as their finances allowed.  The upper level of these often sought more roomy and modern quarters, prompting the "teardown" phenomenon here in San Jose and environs, whereby an older house is purchased, razed, and a new "mansion" is erected on the lot (4 of these are presently underway within 2 blocks of my residence).  Thus the local "grand experiment" in urban housing and transit became, by and large, just another step in the longstanding trend toward individual home ownership.  There will always be those whose lifestyle leans more to condo/apartment living and thus more amenable to the choices made in their behalf some 30 years ago -- but they hardly constitute an overwhelming social trend, particularly in this ever-growing region! 

Chicago is undergoing a similar building boom with many major cranes and projects going up. Some of them:

-96 story Wanda Vista tower, which will be the third tallest in the city.
-Twin 870 foot condos on the south end of Grant Park
-873 foot condo near Navy Pier
A massive inter-city development called prairie park comprised of 6 seperate towers.

However, all that is only in and near the Loop.  The rest of the city, south and west, is suffering.

Same old story -- money follows money -- the same reasons the solvent are the group most likely to be approved for loans and other capital outlays.  Development will generally occur where there is likely to be a "pre-approved" customer base -- the basic rationale behind gentrification.  It usually requires an outcry by a broad cross-section of residents, those without and with means, to counter that happenstance.  But Chicago has, at least historically, much more in the way of activism regarding such matters; here in San Jose this would evoke a collective shrug of the shoulders!

[vdeane]

I think it's amazing that so many of these developments supposedly aimed at millennials are so expensive that I fail to see how anyone short of an established married couple could afford to live in them, and that demographic trends towards homes.  Who is living in these places?

[AsphaltPlanet]

A lot of "urban" lifestyle homes are only affordable for those who choose not to buy cars.  I love my car, but it's definitely a money pit.

[Rothman]

I think it's amazing that so many of these developments supposedly aimed at millennials are so expensive that I fail to see how anyone short of an established married couple could afford to live in them, and that demographic trends towards homes.  Who is living in these places?

There is a timely article in the NY Times on this:  They get help from their parents.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/upshot/a-secret-of-many-urban-20-somethings-their-parents-help-with-the-rent.html

[DTComposer]

The concept of millennials flocking in droves to dense high-rise/condo development played out quite revealingly here in San Jose over the past thirty years or so.  North of downtown, much older housing and commercial properties were razed in the late '80's and early '90's to make room for massive condo and/or high-rise development, with the expressed intent to attract young professionals who would (a) rather avoid the hassles of maintaining property outside their immediate living area -- i.e., lack of yards or easements, and (b) wished to be within either walking distance or close transit distance from downtown amenities.  The regional light rail, in its nascent stages when all this development was occurring, was routed in a way that turned previous transit notions on its head -- the job centers (mostly IT-related) would be located at the city's periphery (particularly the north side of town, where Cisco and Oracle had purchased whole tracts, and IBM, with its longstanding hardware division south in Coyote Valley) with the served dense housing areas in and around downtown.  Thus, the N-S commuter flow would ostensibly be outward in the morning and inward during late afternoon.  But all the planning for this presumed the primacy of the '80's-defined "yuppie", complete with a high degree of self-absorption and a propensity to "flock" with their own subset.  And a number of those who did come to the area fitting that description actually took advantage of those urban amenities -- but most retained their auto ownership, and some condo developers were forced to purchase adjoining properties for parking garages (something not foreseen circa 1986-87, when the planning process was underway).  But the numbers of these folks never approached the original projections; a sizeable percentage of the condos went unpurchased -- and the developers were subsequently forced into the rental market to cover their investment. 

The city, VTA (the transit agency deploying the light rail & local buses), and the various developers had anticipated a certain "type" of client/resident; they didn't get enough of them to render the overall transit-oriented redevelopment a success.  What actually occurred was an influx of tech workers from overseas, who by and large were more likely to have intact families with them when they moved to the area.  Some of the larger tech corporations purchased or (long-term) leased many of the condo/apartment units arrayed from downtown all the way out to the job centers along Tasman Drive north of the city center and sublet them to employees new to the area (many with corporate subsidies defraying some or all of the rental costs).  But rather than stay in these condos/apartments for several years, many of these newcomers -- particularly those with families and with the higher-paying management or engineering positions -- would locate appropriate single-family housing in the surrounding suburbs (Campbell, Cupertino, Santa Clara, and several others) and move as soon as their finances allowed.  The upper level of these often sought more roomy and modern quarters, prompting the "teardown" phenomenon here in San Jose and environs, whereby an older house is purchased, razed, and a new "mansion" is erected on the lot (4 of these are presently underway within 2 blocks of my residence).  Thus the local "grand experiment" in urban housing and transit became, by and large, just another step in the longstanding trend toward individual home ownership.  There will always be those whose lifestyle leans more to condo/apartment living and thus more amenable to the choices made in their behalf some 30 years ago -- but they hardly constitute an overwhelming social trend, particularly in this ever-growing region!

I would add a couple of things to this:

-The commuting trend away from the city center began well before the late '80s building boom - many of the office parks in Mountain View, Sunnyvale, North San Jose, etc. were developed in the '70s and early '80s as was the trend in the rest of the country. Meanwhile, Downtown San Jose was a fine size for a city of 150,000 in 1955, but when the swift suburban development of the late '50s and '60s happened, downtown did not keep up (and was hampered in any case by ill-fated "renewal projects" and the height limit on buildings due to the airport's proximity).

Since then, even though downtown has made tremendous strides, San Jose has continued to make decisions that, while keeping jobs and retail dollars within city limits, pull people away from downtown (Santana Row, North First Street). Downtown now is great for a city of perhaps 500,000, but certainly not for the million-plus who live here today.

-High-density housing is continuing to be built at an astounding rate, not just downtown, but throughout the city (near Diridon Station, South San Jose (particularly on the old IBM site)), and more is on the way (near the incoming BART stations).

-I've seen the tear-down/re-build happen most often in neighborhoods that, IMO, lack a lot of character to begin with ('60s/'70s tract developments), and while I'm absolutely not a fan of "build as close to the lot line as you can, 'cause who needs a yard anyway", I do like that properties are developing their own personalities and are not just cookie cutters of the other ten houses on the block. In older neighborhoods where this has happened more organically over time (Willow Glen, College Park) the houses are more often restorations than tear-downs (exceptions occur, of course).

[sparker]

Since then, even though downtown has made tremendous strides, San Jose has continued to make decisions that, while keeping jobs and retail dollars within city limits, pull people away from downtown (Santana Row, North First Street). Downtown now is great for a city of perhaps 500,000, but certainly not for the million-plus who live here today.

-High-density housing is continuing to be built at an astounding rate, not just downtown, but throughout the city (near Diridon Station, South San Jose (particularly on the old IBM site)), and more is on the way (near the incoming BART stations).

Much of that housing is laid out along the I-280 corridor flanking downtown to the south; much of that within the  "core" downtown region is geared toward attracting SJSU students (one of the effects of having a large university right downtown).  The densest of this development is between CA 87 and the I-880/CA 17 corridor, where massive amounts of what are termed "apartment homes" (usually individual units on one floor) or "townhouses" (multi-story units) have been constructed over the past 3 years or so.  Transit's a problem; the nearest light rail line to much of this new housing stock, the Winchester branch extending from downtown to Campbell, barely nicks the corner of the housing locale.  I've always wondered why a light rail line extending west from downtown and serving City College, the county medical center, Santana Row, and extending out at least to De Anza College in Cupertino, was not and has not been considered (it would almost certainly have substantial ridership as well as serving the newer dense housing).  Also, a direct light-rail line east via SJSU to the east side of town would be beneficial to the lower-income folks who live around or east of US 101; instead, the only line serving that area heads north through a corner of Milpitas before turning west along Tasman Ave (the thoroughfare featuring a significant amount of tech firms, anchored by the massive Cisco complex).  Only once on Tasman in "tech central" does the southbound line on First Street branch off toward downtown.  In this fashion, VTA (Valley Transit Authority) has ostensibly prioritized the tech firms and their staffs over the needs of those who are more prone to actually require efficient transit. 

At times I wonder if those making decisions in my home town think the only "clients" that matter are coders and engineers!

[golden eagle]

I am incredibly interested in urban development. I find it intriguing to witness the rise of many cities around this country. One that has surprised me and impressed me the most with its growth is Austin, Texas. This city has grown tremendously throughout the last few decades, and especially since 2000. By fact of the 2000 Census, Austin had 656,562 people. Now, the 2015 estimate says 931,830 people, which causes Austin to currently clock in at being the 11th largest city in the U.S. That is amazing IMHO. An interesting thing about urban development is how it affects the road system. Cities like Buffalo and Rochester, that are losing population, are losing freeways. Cities like Austin, that are growing, are needing more.

What's driving the growth in Austin? I'm not seeing mass annexations or mass housing sprees, so something is happening.

Most likely high-tech, dotcoms and University of Texas.