Homebuyers may still desire to live in the suburbs but they now may want a different kind of suburbia: a walkable, denser, vibrant place.
No longer are McMansions, white picket fences and sprawling square footage topping suburban buyers’ most-wanted list. Instead, proximity to a suburb’s downtown and easy access to restaurants, schools and parks are priorities. For many, walkable suburbs reign supreme…
The shift toward more walkable suburbs started over the past two decades, thanks to planning efforts concentrated on creating mini-downtowns to revive traditional suburban centers, said Kheir Al-Kodmany, a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago’s College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs…
A 2017 study by the National Association of Realtors found that walkers span the generations. Sixty-two percent of millennials and 55 percent of those born before 1944 prefer walkable communities and brief commutes, even if it means living in an apartment or town home. And 53 percent of Americans would give up a home with a large yard in exchange for a home with a smaller yard that’s within walking distance of the community’s amenities, according to the study. That figure is up from 48 percent in 2015…
A 2016 study from realty site Redfin seems to support Dunne’s point. The study took into account more than 1 million home sales between January 2014 and April 2016 and found that homes with higher walk scores tend to have higher sales prices than comparable homes in less walkable areas. One walk score point can increase a home’s price by an average of $3,250. In Chicago, the study found an increase of one walk score point can bump a home’s price by $2,437.
I intentionally cited the broader data from the article (and not just the anecdotes from buyers, realtors, and local suburbs) because there should be an open question involved with this article: do we have a certified trend toward more walkable suburbs? Do we have clear population data showing people moving to walkable suburbs rather than other places? For a variety of reasons, including enhancing local tax bases and environmental concerns, this has indeed been an emphasis in a number of suburbs across the United States in recent decades. But, I would also guess that it is primarily in suburbs that have more traditional downtowns and mass transit options. In the Chicago region, this means the “surban” experience is easier to create in communities founded before World War II and along the major passenger railroad lines.
This possible shift also does not fit easily into the common narrative that suburbs and cities are locked in mortal combat and there are clear winners and losers. What if in the long term Americans want some of both city and suburban life: a little less density, a single-family home with a yard, a smaller town or city where they feel they can influence local government or organizations if need be, and also walkable and not just a bedroom suburb? Arguably, this tension has been behind the American suburbs for over a century: Americans want a mix of urban and country life. A denser suburbia may just be the newest manifestation of this ongoing balance.
25 thoughts on “Walkable + suburban = desirable “surban” places”
Pingback: Why Americans love suburbs #1: single-family homes | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Why Americans love suburbs #5: cars and driving | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Resist the social engineering of mass transit but ignore the social engineering of suburbia | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Building amenity-filled suburban apartments to encourage community | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Will millennials kill McMansions? | Legally Sociable
Pingback: “To urbanists, suburbia is self-evidently evil” | Legally Sociable
Pingback: McMansion values still slow to recover in one wealthy Chicago suburb | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Bringing the cool parts of suburban life to urban settings | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Rethink Rezoning, Save Main responses share similar concerns – Part Two | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Alcohol and the gendered suburbs: suburban bros with beer versus suburban moms with wine | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Mapping vehicle emissions in the Chicago metropolitan region | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Looking for stories of millennials and young adults who want to and enjoy living in suburban homes | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Imagine the American suburbs shrunk by a factor of five | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Millennials looking for “hipsturbia”? | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Addressing the many less-than-3-mile trips in suburban settings | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Proposing the rowhouse as the solution to an over-priced housing, McMansion world | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Where will the new work from home people in suburbs and other places want to settle and spend their money? | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Paint a rural over windows to obscure sizable suburban development going up next door | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Reasons for suburban legislators leading the Illinois Democrats | Legally Sociable
Pingback: “Welcome to the Metroburb” in the NW Chicago suburbs | Legally Sociable
Pingback: A denser suburbia in California and the rest of the United States | Legally Sociable
Pingback: The real New (Sub)Urbanism in the United States: a 10 minute drive from daily needs | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Can a suburban newspaper call for less driving and two long-term options for minimizing driving in suburbs | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Building a car-free 1,000 person development in Arizona | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Two numbers that show how much space the United States devotes to parking | Legally Sociable