America's Fastest-Growing Counties: The 'Burbs Are Back

[cpzilliacus]

NewGeography.com: America's Fastest-Growing Counties: The 'Burbs Are Back

[SSOWorld]

A county is not always a good judge of suburban growth - just ask Phoenix.

[Stephane Dumas]

A bit related, I spotted this thread on Skyscraperpage mentionning an article of the Toronto Star about Toronto's suburbs
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=207652
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/09/25/look_for_torontos_urban_future_in_the_booming_suburbs.html

[Laura]

People will go where it is affordable and where they believe they will get the most bang for their buck.

Many suburbs have literally outpriced younger homeowners, which draws them closer to or in the city, where houses are less expensive (example: Baltimore). However, in other cities, housing in or near the city is very expensive, so younger homeowners must go further out (example: DC). It's no surprise to me that two of the counties on that list are Prince William and Loudon, VA. Of course they are growing - it's super expensive to live in or near DC.

[froggie]

As a general rule in a metropolitan area, those sub-areas with the lowest housing costs tend to have the highest transportation costs, and vice versa.  True, housing's cheap out in Prince William or Loudoun, but unless you happen to work in the same county, your commute is going to be hell on both your time and your pocketbook.

[triplemultiplex]

Another problem; if you have a mostly rural county on the fringe of a major city, it doesn't take very many actual new residents to create a large apparent growth rate.  So this statistic can be misleading.  Add a thousand residents to a county with 30k people and it's a much larger percent increase than adding a thousand people to a county with 300k people.  It's the same as adding 10,000 to the larger county.
The next county closer to the city from all of those probably has more real growth/sprawl.

[Doctor Whom]

Even when close-in neighborhoods have inexpensive housing, many buyers may avoid them and choose worse commutes for other reasons, e.g., crime and the quality of public schools.  IOW, there is a reason why such neighborhoods are so inexpensive despite being close in.  Consider Prince George's County, MD.

[cpzilliacus]

As a general rule in a metropolitan area, those sub-areas with the lowest housing costs tend to have the highest transportation costs, and vice versa.  True, housing's cheap out in Prince William or Loudoun, but unless you happen to work in the same county, your commute is going to be hell on both your time and your pocketbook.

Prince William has traditionally been cheap, but I do not think that is true in Loudoun, which has had too much growth of high-paying employment (much of it related to Dulles Airport) to stay cheap.

[Brandon]

As a general rule in a metropolitan area, those sub-areas with the lowest housing costs tend to have the highest transportation costs, and vice versa.  True, housing's cheap out in Prince William or Loudoun, but unless you happen to work in the same county, your commute is going to be hell on both your time and your pocketbook.

It depends on where that commute is to.  Around Chicago, a common mistake is to assume everyone works in the Loop.  They don't, in fact, it's far from it.  There are major centers of employment scattered throughout the region with major nodes in Oak Brook and Schaumburg.  Thus, a commute from Spring Grove to Chicago can look far and costly, but that person may only be going as far as Naperville for a work, not the Loop.

DC is a bit rare and odd in having the main center of employment being well within the central city.

[realjd]

As a general rule in a metropolitan area, those sub-areas with the lowest housing costs tend to have the highest transportation costs, and vice versa.  True, housing's cheap out in Prince William or Loudoun, but unless you happen to work in the same county, your commute is going to be hell on both your time and your pocketbook.

It depends on where that commute is to.  Around Chicago, a common mistake is to assume everyone works in the Loop.  They don't, in fact, it's far from it.  There are major centers of employment scattered throughout the region with major nodes in Oak Brook and Schaumburg.  Thus, a commute from Spring Grove to Chicago can look far and costly, but that person may only be going as far as Naperville for a work, not the Loop.

DC is a bit rare and odd in having the main center of employment being well within the central city.

That's less true than you think. There's a LOT of industry in Fairfax, Tyson's Corner, Silver Springs, etc.. I have a number of friends in the DC area and only one, the GS gov't employee, works in DC.

[formulanone]

Even when close-in neighborhoods have inexpensive housing, many buyers may avoid them and choose worse commutes for other reasons, e.g., crime and the quality of public schools.

This, especially if you have children and two cars.

Most new-home/condo development within the urban city center is expensive, and you wind up house-poor if you're not making good money. It's typically expensive to keep out the riff-raff.

What irks me is that a lot of the so-called New Urban development I've seen looks somewhat attractive; but putting a sushi bar, a cell phone store, a ladies' boutique, and an ice cream store aren't exactly places I'm going to visit on a frequent basis. What you really need on a regular basis is a grocery store and a department store. The catch-22 is that Big Boxes drive more vehicular traffic, although it sure makes it a lot more convenient to those who live within walking distance. Sure, saying "I live above a Target or Wal-Mart" is about as trendy-sounding as grandma's underwear, but that's actually putting people where they need (not want) stuff (the stores, that is).

Anyhow, viva la suburbia...in on the backs of cars.

[Laura]

As a general rule in a metropolitan area, those sub-areas with the lowest housing costs tend to have the highest transportation costs, and vice versa.  True, housing's cheap out in Prince William or Loudoun, but unless you happen to work in the same county, your commute is going to be hell on both your time and your pocketbook.

True, although two of my college roommates were from Manassas and one was from Leesburg and all of them had parents who worked in DC. One college friend commutes from Gainesville to DC, another from Lessburg to DC, and still another from Winchester to DC.

Even when close-in neighborhoods have inexpensive housing, many buyers may avoid them and choose worse commutes for other reasons, e.g., crime and the quality of public schools.  IOW, there is a reason why such neighborhoods are so inexpensive despite being close in.  Consider Prince George's County, MD.

Yep, crime and public schools are the reasons these people all endure a longer commute. Schools especially. People will go out of their way to make sure their kids live in a certain school district.

What irks me is that a lot of the so-called New Urban development I've seen looks somewhat attractive; but putting a sushi bar, a cell phone store, a ladies' boutique, and an ice cream store aren't exactly places I'm going to visit on a frequent basis.

Mike and I aren't ready to buy a house yet, but when the time comes, I really want to buy something that has good schools and a great walk score to useful things! We live in suburbia and I go out of my way to walk/run to useful stuff. Much healthier and much more fun that running on a treadmill at the gym or running around the same cul-de-sacs over and over. I agree, a lot of new urban developments are full of fluff boutiques when they need useful businesses, like groceries, pharmacies, department stores, banks, home cookin' restaurants, etc.

It always shocks people when I tell them that (on the days I do not carpool with Mike) I walk 1/2 mile to the bus stop in the morning and walk/run 2 miles home from the bus stop (different bus route) in the afternoon (with a 20 pound backpack), yet these same people will drive x miles to the gym and walk/run/bike further than this while staring at a tv screen or at the gym wall.

[Desert Man]

Suburban sprawl is a problematic thorny issue in many communities outside the metro areas experienced some thousands of new homes appear on former farmlands and open spaces. The Inland Empire region of Southern California of Riverside and San Bernardino had over 40 years of endless development, turned a number of small towns into larger cities connected to the Los Angeles area and Orange County. Sure, people have to live somewhere...but suburban sprawl looks ugly and altered communities not in their favor, and older neighborhoods can improve, be fairly affordable and provide amentities.

Newer suburbs today which we think are great places to live, raise families and to retire, will turn into uncomfortable ones when housing value deprication and urban blight appear. This has happened to a number of suburbs built between World War II and the 1970's to become similar to our inner-cities, like Rialto, Fontana, Ontario, Moreno Valley and Perris are in local news reports for high crime, gangs, drug activity, neo-Nazis and widespread house foreclosures. Suburbs need to have better management to promote job growth and educational opportunities, as well to expand public city services and social issues arise by large-scale development, population growth and environmental concerns.

[vtk]

Most of Columbus's suburbs fit within Franklin County, with a fair amount of spillover into Delaware County, and a little in Fairfield and Licking Counties.  For the last few decades, growth has been strongest (by percentage) in Delaware County – over the whole state of Ohio.  Actual population-added figures have of course been highest in Frannklin County.  But in the most-recent year-over-year growth estimates, Franklin County beat out Delaware County and the rest of the state in growth by percentage.  And Franklin County is already the second most populous county in the state.  It won't stay in second place for long, at this rate.

[cpzilliacus]

As a general rule in a metropolitan area, those sub-areas with the lowest housing costs tend to have the highest transportation costs, and vice versa.  True, housing's cheap out in Prince William or Loudoun, but unless you happen to work in the same county, your commute is going to be hell on both your time and your pocketbook.

It depends on where that commute is to.  Around Chicago, a common mistake is to assume everyone works in the Loop.  They don't, in fact, it's far from it.  There are major centers of employment scattered throughout the region with major nodes in Oak Brook and Schaumburg.  Thus, a commute from Spring Grove to Chicago can look far and costly, but that person may only be going as far as Naperville for a work, not the Loop.

DC is a bit rare and odd in having the main center of employment being well within the central city.

That's less true than you think. There's a LOT of industry in Fairfax, Tyson's Corner, Silver Springs, etc.. I have a number of friends in the DC area and only one, the GS gov't employee, works in DC.

Grrr. There's no Silver Springs in Maryland.  There is a Silver Spring (singular, where I grew up).  There was (maybe still is) a spring next to Md. 410 (East West Highway) near the District of Columbia border which is where the name originated.

On a more serious note, since about 1980, the Virginia suburbs of D.C. have badly outpaced the Maryland counties in terms of job growth, and more than a few Maryland employers have left for Virginia because of a better business climate south of the Potomac River.

[cpzilliacus]

Suburban sprawl is a problematic thorny issue in many communities outside the metro areas experienced some thousands of new homes appear on former farmlands and open spaces. The Inland Empire region of Southern California of Riverside and San Bernardino had over 40 years of endless development, turned a number of small towns into larger cities connected to the Los Angeles area and Orange County. Sure, people have to live somewhere...but suburban sprawl looks ugly and altered communities not in their favor, and older neighborhoods can improve, be fairly affordable and provide amentities.

Newer suburbs today which we think are great places to live, raise families and to retire, will turn into uncomfortable ones when housing value deprication and urban blight appear. This has happened to a number of suburbs built between World War II and the 1970's to become similar to our inner-cities, like Rialto, Fontana, Ontario, Moreno Valley and Perris are in local news reports for high crime, gangs, drug activity, neo-Nazis and widespread house foreclosures. Suburbs need to have better management to promote job growth and educational opportunities, as well to expand public city services and social issues arise by large-scale development, population growth and environmental concerns.

But there are plenty of suburbs that have aged gracefully.

Perhaps the definitive post-World War II suburbs, the Levittowns built in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland, have aged pretty decently.

Greenbelt, Maryland, one of the original high-density  suburbs (planning and development  was closely supervised by  Elanor Roosevelt) continues to be a desirable place to live.

I disagree regarding regulation.  My home county, Montgomery County, Md. has imposed extremely heavy-handed regulation on all development under its control since the early 1970's (most of the county is unincorporated, so the county is the first and last say on land use matters), yet that has not prevented suburban blight, especially in high-density areas far from Metrorail stations.