The END of the Suburbs?

The END of the Suburbs?

Rental Property Investor · Las Palmas de Gran Canaria · Member since 2014 · 220 posts · 256 votes

With an eye to the future, should we really be buying in remote suburbs, or is that like investing in VHS rental shop in a digital age? I’m seeing what looks like a massive urbanization trend.

I am a buy and holder. Other people put their end of year profits and personal savings into 401k plans. My wife and I buy properties for the future. Putting aside the (highly important) factor of micro-environments for the purpose of this thread, we have been talking a lot about trends. Julie & I learned in 2008 the impact of macro trends. Before that we only thought locally, but seeing the how monetary policy shaped real estate and affected our personal bottom line the way it did, I'm raising my vision to keep an eye on larger forces. If and when the interest rates finally rise and inflation hits to correct market tampering, we'll find ourselves in a very different economic and real estate environment. I’m locking in as many long term low interest loans as I can. 

In the same way that I see a tidal wave of inflation, Julie and I have been watching a steady flow of wealthy people migrating to city cores. In the past 50+ years our poor lived in inner city ghettos and the wealthy escaped to their suburban McMansions. But we are personally experiencing an inversion. We invest in Seattle and I've watched neighborhoods go from hooker to hipster. In the bay area, where we live now, San Francisco rents and prices exploded, which overflowed into an Oakland renaissance. Where do the poor go? Further out to where they now can afford to live. It makes me wonder if the suburbs might just end up our new ghettos. I don't see large companies moving their HQs to suburbs as they did in the past, but rather closing their branches to centralize in major metros. Where the jobs go, people follow.

For the long term investor, where should we park our chips?

5Reply
368 views

Most Popular Reply

Joel OwensBusiness Member
Moderator
Real Estate Broker · Canton, GA · Member since 2010 · 15k+ posts · 11k+ votes
11y

I guess it can be area dependent.

Here where I am the suburbs are alive and well. In fact growth is incredible and the areas keep getting better and better. Some people do not want to live in urban core......... : )

I like my privacy and peace and not feeling like I am in a footprint squished in like a sardine to fit. Some people enjoy the extreme hustle and bustle. I love serenity. If anything we have more crime here in the downtown cities close to Atlanta. That element couldn't afford in masses to live in the burbs here in nice areas. 

Maybe Cali is shifting like you say but I do not see a whole country phenomenon happening with that.

See this reply in the discussion

98 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Sherman Oaks, CA · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    11y

    LA County will be ground zero if it happens. UCLA forecasters say there will be some real estate issues moving forward with these backwards demographics starting in 2020. Mostly centered around folks having no more kids and population trends for walkability .

    We are seeing a switch of crime stats from the city to the outer burbs already. 

    Here is a small clip from UCLA Anderson School talking a little about it. The need for MultiFamily housing will be huge and SFRs will be tailing off eventually starting 2020.

    http://vimeo.com/97828187

    thx

  • Rental Property Investor · Las Palmas de Gran Canaria · Member since 2014 · 220 posts · 256 votes
    11y

    LA county is a bit of an odd bird for a county as it kind of seems that its cultural centers and economic centers aren't physically aligned in the same way as they are in higher density locations like San Francisco. I guess it begets a question, what in the case of LA is a suburb Vs an economic center?

  • Joel OwensBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Real Estate Broker · Canton, GA · Member since 2010 · 15k+ posts · 11k+ votes
    11y

    I guess it can be area dependent.

    Here where I am the suburbs are alive and well. In fact growth is incredible and the areas keep getting better and better. Some people do not want to live in urban core......... : )

    I like my privacy and peace and not feeling like I am in a footprint squished in like a sardine to fit. Some people enjoy the extreme hustle and bustle. I love serenity. If anything we have more crime here in the downtown cities close to Atlanta. That element couldn't afford in masses to live in the burbs here in nice areas. 

    Maybe Cali is shifting like you say but I do not see a whole country phenomenon happening with that.

  • Investor · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2013 · 231 posts · 260 votes
    11y

    @Shane Pearlman ,

    Not sure I'd call it the end of the suburbs, but I think the trend is alive and well and has been in full effect for years now, especially on the West Coast.  I am amazed at what is happening in some of the formerly very rough neighborhoods in Central Los Angeles that I never would have dreamed of 15 years ago.  There was an article in today's LA Times on such a neighborhood.

    I saw in a Bay Area newspaper last year how real estate had performed across the Bay Area since the end of the recession.  The more expensive inner city areas had vastly outperformed the cheaper outer suburban areas.  I think this goes against conventional wisdom since people think that most buyers would choose bigger lots and less crowded areas with cheaper homes.

    Lots of reasons why starting with the fact that millennials don't want to sit in a car 2 hours a day and have largely rejected the cookie cutter nature of the suburbs and even home ownership to an extent to the rise of childless couples and delayed child bearing.

    Of course this doesn't mean every inner city neighborhood will turn to gold and every exurb will turn to dust.  Not at all. 

  • Austin, TX · Member since 2014 · 139 posts · 89 votes
    11y

    It's an interesting question and one I've been pondering myself.

    Gas is expensive. Traffic sucks. And thanks to the drought my lawn looks like crap. So why wouldn't I want to live close to downtown?

    (Answer: I hate crowds and I work from home so I'm not overly concerned about traffic. But a trend I do not make.)

    Another aspect of this tend would be these new shopping centers that are designed to look like fashionable, graffiti free, downtown areas instead of the malls we grew up with. Several of them include residential space so you can walk to your shops and restaurants even though you're really out in suburbia.

  • Sherman Oaks, CA · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    11y

    LA is getting more centralized it appears. More downtownish if you will. But yes there are several hubs spread across, media, tech, entertainment, shopping etc and getting more concentrated. Nearby those hubs I see multis exploding vs the ever expansive SFR suburb development plans we experienced in previous decades. 10.2 mil population and the needs are shifting. Some burbs will run out of kids...schools closing etc...

  • Real Estate Consultant · Dallas, TX · Member since 2012 · 12 posts · 3 votes
    11y
    As quoted from the CCIM Thrive Conference in LA: "There are no backyards in San Francisco" https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10152842544507069&id=65245472068
  • Rental Property Investor · Las Palmas de Gran Canaria · Member since 2014 · 220 posts · 256 votes
    11y

    I'm with you @Scott Pigman. I personally find the idea of being packed in tightly claustrophobic and measure the quality of my life by the waves and running trails I have access to. The trend of a distributed workforce would in theory disrupt the need for physical proximity to work (I've worked from home for 14 years) . That said, we aren't there yet. I was looking at a survey of the local tech employee base in santa cruz where I live which included nearly 20k people who commute 1 - 2 hours a day to work in the valley for google, facebook and so many other juggernauts. 74% said they would gladly take a pay cut to work close to home and not commute the mountain. They value the amenities, culture and lifestyle afforded by living here enough to do make the commute. they certainly don't live here to save money as it is more expensive.

    @Matt R. - there is an interesting feedback loop that comes from successful urbanization. Affluence drives taxes. Taxes fund great infrastructure (broadband, transportation...). Solid infrastructure creates a fertile bed for new innovation, community. The debate is how to predict the trend line right? We have this absurdly odd phenomena in Santa Cruz, where I live. We happened to place our drug users and abusers on the beach, by what should be the best real estate in the darn county. You would think with property prices breaking a 700k - a million+ for a 3br house in that neighborhood, gentrification would have worked its way through it long ago. And it is happening, but much slower than I had imagined. I have no interest in being a getto-landlord, so I have avoid buying there. But the minute I can see the inflection point, I'd buy every single house I can. Question is how to identify it and not be too early an adopter and suffer, or too late and miss the opportunity.

  • Sherman Oaks, CA · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    11y

    UCLA has called the county officially settled. We no longer are getting in the immigrants who were having the large families. They are going to NV, AZ, FL and mostly Texas. Now were left with a majority local born population for the first time in decades. Some of these local kids don't even want a car or learn how to drive. This was never the case before. Everyone wanted car as soon as they turned 16...I mean it is LA....well for some it is optional now. It feels more concentrated and they can click uber 24/7.

  • Investor · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2013 · 231 posts · 260 votes
    11y

    @Shane Pearlman , I am sure you find like in Santa Cruz that the lines of gentrification along with urban ills like homelessness is often blurred.  I know in places here like Venice and the Eastern parts of Downtown it can be quite shocking to see high end residential right on top of huge homeless populations.

  • Investor · Atlanta, GA · Member since 2014 · 389 posts · 250 votes
    11y

    I'm with Joel on this.   In Atlanta I see, not the opposite, but a different trend, more like 'hubification' rather than urbanification.  The rural areas are what's losing out.  Folks are moving intown.  'Intown' is pushing outward from trendy Atlanta neighborhoods out to the southeast (IP Decatur neighborhoods like Belvedere & Midway) and southwest (West End/Adair Park) in what used to be city suburbs, with 1950s-1980s SFHs.  At the same time, the satellite areas are alive and growing solidly -- there are a number of  Dekalb County areas wanting to incorporate their own little cities, and further out, metro suburban like Peachtree City and Dunwoody are thriving, related to but also somewhat independent of Atlanta proper.  I think that's the medium-trend here. In 15 years? Anybody with more ATL experience 

  • Herndon, VA · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 324 votes
    11y

    I think the trend is towards mixed development vs. work areas/shopping areas and residential all being generally separate.  I think areas that are set-up this way or can be adapted will see the most appreciation.  

    The overbuilt outer suburbs seem likely to be the worst prospect for appreciation.  Not to say the McMansions an hour plus from job centers will be torn down, but the trends seem to prefer other housing.

    Rural decline has been happening for a long time.  The ability to telecommute could reverse this somewhat, but I think rural areas will need something besides just being rural to be attractive.

    One area that is interesting is the inner suburbs.  Some of these are urbanizing and offer a lot of opportunities, others seem to be getting a lot of the urban problems with fewer of the benefits as urban cores gentrify.

    Having said this, things will depend on local factors as much as national trends.  Also just because a market is bad doesn't mean there aren't opportunities.  Conversely there are chances of bad deals in areas with a lot of potential.

  • Bedford, NH · Member since 2012 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y

    Outer suburbs have become less attractive as the expense of commuting, in money and time, has increased.  

    But I don't think that means an inevitable trend toward urbanization.  And the reason is the impact of technology.

    The area I live and invest in is a rural area on the far outer reaches of the Boston commuting zone.  And virtually everyone I have met who has moved here in the last several years shares two characteristics in common.  They are attracted to small town/rural living (and the generally good schools and very low crime rates that come with it) and they (at least one member of the household) works primarily from home.

    As more and more people work largely on-line (and that really is something close to inevitable; the internal and external costs of the current "commute to an office building" model are hard to justify) then more and more people will be able to live in whatever environment they like.  And that will not mean cities for all of them.

    I do think there will be changes.  The most stereotypical, soulless suburbs will have to adapt.  Become more "urban" in some ways.  Mixed-use development, no more huge subdivisions of virtually identical SFRs, real town centers.  Become more like villages.  Villages have been the basic human habitat for thousands of years; it is only when economic factors require it that people choose to live either very remotely from others, or in crowded cities.

    The other thing that will matter is climate.  If you can live anywhere at all, how many will choose places that are cold?  I don't really foresee a re-population of the Great Plains.

    The only thing keeping many from moving South now is the form development has often taken there.  My firm asked me at one point if I would be interested in taking over our Dallas office.  Honestly, Dallas is something close to my vision of Hell on Earth (sorry Texans).  And large parts of Florida are even worse.  And Vegas is no place and no way for humans to live.

    So my prediction for the future is that there will be many places like Celebration, Florida, only without the same degree of rigid central planning.  Villages with walkable centers, mixed-use buildings, density greater than a traditional exurb but way less than a city, largely in places with good weather.

  • Investor · Dallas, TX · Member since 2014 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y

    Don't worry Richard. Texans have thick skin! For the record, there are more and more suburbs around DFW that are modeling themselves after a village, either by virtue of planning or organic composition. I live in Grapevine. It has maintained a very small town (That's what we call villages in Texas.) atmosphere, with an historic downtown area that is lovely to walk to and through. Southlake has a town center that, while much more commercial in nature, is exceedingly walkable. I could go on, but you get the point. The real difference in Texas is the availability of developable land, which is - by North Eastern standards - close in to the metropolitan areas.

    I have friends who live on farms, because they choose that lifesyle. Their commute to Dallas every day is < 1-hour. People in Long Island spend more time than that just trying to get to Manhattan.

    It's all relative, but I long for the day when every company adopts a realistic work from home policy. There is nothing about the work I do that benefits from the "synergy" of being co-located with others. I'm not in a creative functional area. I'm much more productive at home, in my PJ's!

  • Mechanicsburg, PA · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    11y

    @Shane Pearlman 

    Yes and No.

    Yes there is gentrification going on in many places revitalizing neighborhoods.  And yes gas prices have double over the last 6 years.  And yes there are not many new highways being built and traffic is a problem in many places.

    However, counterpoint is some people like more space.  they like the idea that they can play their music loud and burn a fire in the fireplace without their neighbors calling the police.  And with tele-communting people can live anywhere and still work from home.  And more people are doing natural farming, orchards, vineyards or other agricultural activities that just can't be done downtown.   Spreading the fields with manure, probably won't be well received down town!  Here in PA the number one industry is farming and I don't see that changing as long as people are still eating real food.

  • Sherman Oaks, CA · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    11y

    It is not like the suburbs will crumble. In LA, the suburbs are still going to be very nice places to live and have tremendous value....the question is how much more value will they experience especially when all their local kids want to bail the burbs for the cities fast growing advantages.  With the area considered settled, less people are going to need the 5+3 with a one hour commute moving forward. UCLA predicts an absolute collapse of those demographics starting 2020. 

  • Investor · Washington, DC · Member since 2014 · 60 posts · 26 votes
    11y

    Here in DC, yes, it's the same trend. Young working people want to work and live in the city and even young families are opting to raise their babies here in DC. Since I've moved here 7 yrs ago, the city's offering more nightlife, unique restaurants, etc. With high rent prices, yes, it's harder for poorer families to stay in the city; many end up fleeing to MD/PG county. The city is working w/developers to create subsidized housing, but I think it's not enough. 

  • Bedford, NH · Member since 2012 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y

    I honestly think the only thing that might END the suburbs is school vouchers or other massive change to the education system.  The reason I am skeptical that those young families in DC will stay in DC once their kids hit school age is that DC has some dreadful schools.

    There is a street in Hartford/West Hartford Connecticut that is the border between the two municipalities.  It is Hartford on one side, West Hartford (a separate city; a suburb of Hartford) on the other.  Both sides of the street lined with some great old Victorians.  Tree shaded street with wide flagstone sidewalks.  Obviously both sides of the street are equally proximate to jobs, restaurants, cultural attractions, etc.

    The houses on the West Hartford side of the street, on the rare occasions they come on the market, are worth 2 to 2 1/2 times as much as the houses on the Hartford side.  ANd this is a great improvement; 15 or 20 years ago they were worth often as much as 3 or even 4 times as much.

    And the reason is schools, period.  West Hartford has excellent public schools, and Hartford dreadful public schools.  In spite of the fact that more dollars are spent per student in Hartford.  So if you buy on the Hartford side of the street, you either have non kids (huge old Victorians; not likely) or you have to price in private school tuition.

  • Sherman Oaks, CA · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    11y

    That is an interesting point on the schools. Think about where that new top teacher grad wants to work and live. Out in the boring burbs with the declining kid demos and lower job security or in that growing cityscape with all the cool stuff happening nearby. At this point in LA, some schools that were crap are quickly getting 8 and 9s. Otherwise the few kids these folks have private schools can fill in the blanks.

  • Bedford, NH · Member since 2012 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y

    The difference on the performance of a public school that is attracting "that new top teacher grad" and one that is attracting "that just fine new teacher grad" is negligible.  Demographics matter much, much, much more.

    And that results in a chicken and egg problem. Some people need to be willing to (or feel they have no choice but to) put their kids in terrible schools, and then start to work changing those schools.  Tough sell for anyone with options.

    And again, that whole "growing cityscape with cool stuff" is literally across the street in many cases.

    Real estate values are not, fundamentally, about ethnic restaurants and chi-chi boutiques and cool coffeeshops and so on.  They are about employment.  That, historically, is why people have lived in cities (or suburbs thereof); because that is where the jobs are.  In a world where fewer and fewer peoples' employment is tied to geography, people will be able to live whereever they like.  For some, that will be cities, for others cabins in the deep woods, for others some sort of new-urbanist village.

    But some of the grubbier, often smaller cities in my part of the country?  I think they're doomed.  Living in Boston or SF or Austin?  Sure OK.  But Worcester, MA?  Or Bridgeport, CT?  Why, if not for employment?  

  • Mechanicsburg, PA · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    11y

    @Richard C. 

    The divide happens all over the place.  The schools and crime are two of the biggest determinant for housing choices, whether its renting or buying.  Look at 8 Mile Rd. one side is Detroit, other side is Detroit suburbs.

    I've seen young singles, young couples, and even couples with small kids move to the inner city, then move out when the kids get to school age.

    I've also seen the other side where parents move to a good school district then move out when the kids graduate from school, and that's both renters and owners. 

  • Sherman Oaks, CA · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    11y

    Agreed Richard, these schools that are turning around are organically improving. Attracting the top teachers is kind of an after effect. Then that snowballs into even more top teachers taking those jobs in the most attractive zones. Now 10 years later it is a 9 rated public school with the worlds best teachers.

  • Mechanicsburg, PA · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    11y

    Another type of person looking to live outside the city is the off the grid.  many zoning codes do not permit occupancy of a house without connection to public utilities.  Outhouses are outlawed in the city.  Windmills are outlawed in the city.  Codes require things like the "fall zone" has to be contained on your property.  Many codes prohibit use of septic tanks if public sewer is available.  The codes also sometime prohibit the use of wells where public water is available.

    And you might be surprised at some of the ways codes are changing.  In one municipality in a zone that was 1 acre minimum lot size the town changed the minimum lot size to 3 acres.  In another municipality a zoning was changed from 1 acre min lot size to 5 acres min lot size.  so while there are efforts for greater density, there are also initiatives in the opposite direction.  Just as there is a movement into the city, there's still people moving out of the city.

    I've known several people who when they retired from Washington DC and moved to State College, Pa. Another person worked at the Baltimore main post office moved to rural southern VA. Two Baltimore city detectives while still working in Baltimore city bought a primary residence from me in PA for their family who they didn't want living in the city.

  • Sherman Oaks, CA · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    11y

    For sure David State College is a wonderful place to live. It has a special vibe that many cityscapes or suburbs don't offer. I know many who would trade to live there. The way the campus is woven in is unique. It consistantly makes top 10 list for a bunch of stuff. That area near campus with the mid century designed homes is pretty sweet too.

  • Investor · Pittsburgh, PA · Member since 2014 · 266 posts · 240 votes
    11y

    Here in my fair city, I could have moved into the city proper and sent my kids to terrible/below average (public) schools or pay a few more bucks and send my kids to the best (public) schools in the state.  With that in mind, it was not a terribly difficult decision, and I can live without being able to walk to the local Indian restaurant.  

    I don't have the patience, determination, and/or ignorance to try and enact social change on the scale of inner-city education reform.  Maybe that makes me part of the problem, I dunno, but I'm not willing to use my kids as pawns in some high risk/high reward sociological experiment.

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.