The United States of build, baby build!

[Marcus Allen]

So, what is going on in our current economy that many cities are experiencing development rarely seen before!? Thoughts? And, do we attribute this to the Obama regime, or is it just a natural economic occurance? We seem to be rebounding and many metroplexes are reflecting that. What is the current drive? Or are we setting ourselves up for an even bigger collapse say circa, 2019?!

[lithiumaneurysm]

I think part of this is an urban renaissance that's revitalizing the inner cores of many American cities. There was plenty of growth across the country in the 90s, but since so much of it was suburban it just wasn't notable. Mixed-use, walkable living is far more popular now, and new development is showing that. The tides are turning against suburbanism and I figure that'll only get stronger as energy prices remain high and younger generations age to the point where they're able to act on their desires to live in more culturally relevant inner-city communities. The suburbs are fast becoming a bittersweet relic from the 1950s, when the American economy was strong enough to fuel that sort of car-centric excess. I don't think the 21st century will be nearly as kind to that model of development.

 

Coming out of a recession also helps, as well as deeper integration with a global economy that looks favorably towards major American cities (those expats just love their condos). Is it Obama? Hell, I don't know. But it's cool to watch for sure.

[Luminare]

It's a slippery slop to attribute anything related to the economy to ANY president when so many aren't involved in the process. Not to mention many of our presidents have never really understood economics to the effect where they could opine in a rational manner and make serious contribute. The biggest thing is that they just don't F@#K it up lol. I mean one guy politically that I hate with a passion is James Carville, but he was wise enough to keep a pretty liberal president moderate by focusing on the economy. Btw this is through the lens of a libertarian Obama certainly (i hate using this word) inherit some bad circumstances which put him in the hot seat early on in his presidency and think that most people just didn't want him to cock it up and make it even worse which it sorta did, and sorta didn't. The case is still out on this one and we won't know for awhile where he really did prevent a 2nd depression or whether the market had already hit rock bottom and was just starting to go up. What you have to ask yourself though is did he really accomplish anything in this "recovery" or was just there to make sure it didn't get worse. I choose the later. Obama has been sort of a figurehead president. I does give a very good speech and I'm sure if things were different he probably would have been a decent speaker of the house, but as president....m eh. That's what his presidency I think will be remembered by. Just one big m eh lol. Nobody got what they wanted. Republicans are just as retarded as ever. Democrats are just as delusional as ever, and nothing is getting done because nobody wants to compromise....which is partly Obama's fault....as was Bush's fault. Obama is pretty much Bush lite if they were beer brands.

 

The scarest part of the economy right now is that we are experiencing growth, but it's unusually slow. I mean really unusual. Even in the most conservative or liberal of presidencies it would have at least taken a significant bounce by now, but instead it's just been kinda..m eh. A little limp for lack of a better word. You combine this extremely slow growth with extremely low (almost absurd, and frankly irresponsible) low interest rates, and it's freaking people out over whether we might see hyper inflation. Also even though the employment rate is going up, people that are in the work force is going down, and jobs are still leaving overseas. unemployment benefits (a stupid mark of if the economy is doing fine (thanks CNN you retards)) is going down, but again people are leaving the work force. Nobody R or D is trying to fix this btw.

 

What's scarier than all this is what will happen with the next president (R or D (I hope neither)) is that they will ultimately have to contend with the Tsunami wave of baby boomers retiring leaving behind a very depleted workforce because there won't be enough people to replace them and an over burden social welfare system which they didn't even bother to fix themselves!!! Will probably collapse.

 

Now for the other stuff. City growth. Really if you leave Texas you will find that a good majority of America is still trying to get off it's feet. I mean nobody is saying this is the best recovery ever! Even the most fanatic of Obama's supports understand this, but it's not as doom and gloom as neo-cons and conservatives in general think. Its again..m eh. Don't get me wrong you are seeing some interesting buildings being built but it's nothing compared to what it could be. Houston, on the other hand is a enormous anomaly! We have the benefit of being the Oil Mecca, Medical Mecca, cheap a s s land, and of course you can't leave out one of the largest ports in the world The Port of Houston. This crazy cocktail is what has created the growth we are experiencing, but again not as good as it could be because the rest of the nation still has probably one of the worst cases of blue balls in the last several decades.

 

I would be a little more in depth or talk a little bit more, but.....I need to go to bed. This is one of the few times I will ever talk politics btw lol. So nice job.

[august948]

So, what is going on in our current economy that many cities are experiencing development rarely seen before!? Thoughts? And, do we attribute this to the Obama regime, or is it just a natural economic occurance? We seem to be rebounding and many metroplexes are reflecting that. What is the current drive? Or are we setting ourselves up for an even bigger collapse say circa, 2019?!

 

Obama is about as responsible for a rebound as Perry is responsible for Texas' successes of late.   But both will claim all the credit and blame any downsides on the opposition.  That's just the nature of politics.

 

[august948]

I think part of this is an urban renaissance that's revitalizing the inner cores of many American cities. There was plenty of growth across the country in the 90s, but since so much of it was suburban it just wasn't notable. Mixed-use, walkable living is far more popular now, and new development is showing that. The tides are turning against suburbanism and I figure that'll only get stronger as energy prices remain high and younger generations age to the point where they're able to act on their desires to live in more culturally relevant inner-city communities. The suburbs are fast becoming a bittersweet relic from the 1950s, when the American economy was strong enough to fuel that sort of car-centric excess. I don't think the 21st century will be nearly as kind to that model of development.

 

Coming out of a recession also helps, as well as deeper integration with a global economy that looks favorably towards major American cities (those expats just love their condos). Is it Obama? Hell, I don't know. But it's cool to watch for sure.

 

As it stands right now, mixed-use, walkable living is oriented (and priced) to the upper level socio-economic demographics.  Since that will never be the majority, there's a limit on how far that will go unless they can make it work for the middle and lower income majority.  The suburbs also aren't going to just dry up and blow away as some fantasize.  Instead, some of that mixed-use, walkable living will be (and is being) built in suburban edge cities where housing is more affordable and thus more people live.  Fracking has also put off whatever effects peak oil might have had at least for a generation, if not more.  No doubt by the time, far in the future, when oil prices spike like was predicted before 2007 we'll have much better electric vehicles.  Once that happens, there's no real issue for the continuance of the personal auto and thus car-centric living.

 

[lithiumaneurysm]

As it stands right now, mixed-use, walkable living is oriented (and priced) to the upper level socio-economic demographics.  Since that will never be the majority, there's a limit on how far that will go unless they can make it work for the middle and lower income majority.  The suburbs also aren't going to just dry up and blow away as some fantasize.  Instead, some of that mixed-use, walkable living will be (and is being) built in suburban edge cities where housing is more affordable and thus more people live.  Fracking has also put off whatever effects peak oil might have had at least for a generation, if not more.  No doubt by the time, far in the future, when oil prices spike like was predicted before 2007 we'll have much better electric vehicles.  Once that happens, there's no real issue for the continuance of the personal auto and thus car-centric living.

 

 

I agree, the traditional city form (I'm talking 19th century) just isn't going to happen again. That sort of dense living is probably going to remain where it already exists – in Europe and the Northeast – and expand slightly in the cores of most American cities. It'll be a long time before the walkable mixed use that's all the rage right now really makes it to the lower classes, and even at that point it'll probably be in a different form. The edge cities are really a sign of the future (at least for the next 50 years), mostly because they offer so much in the way of living options. Still, the traditional suburban form won't stay the same either. It's bound to evolve into something slightly higher density, even if that just means smaller lot sizes.

 

However, when Marcus talks about this sudden wave of development, I still think it's because of the newfound popularity of dense mixed-use. Wealthy people are pouring their money into those environments, and developers are happily shifting their focus. It's more noticeable because large mixed use projects generally have more architectural flair and the scale to impact the skylines/cityscapes of the places they're erected. By "development rarely seen before" I assumed things like Salesforce Tower, Wilshire Grand Tower and whatever's going on in Miami. These things are intentionally iconic and geared to the 1%, and the prevalence of all these projects in big cities gives of the impression of some great economic resurgence. At the end of the day, big shiny towers are just a lot more notable than the suburbs spreading out another 10 miles, although both require a lot of growth and investment.

[august948]

The edge cities are really a sign of the future (at least for the next 50 years), mostly because they offer so much in the way of living options. Still, the traditional suburban form won't stay the same either. It's bound to evolve into something slightly higher density, even if that just means smaller lot sizes.

 

You can see that going on already in master planned communities.  Up until the 70's or 80's most suburban neighborhoods were built on a smaller scale, with perhaps a playground and maybe tennis courts and/or swimming pool in some cases.  Now the trend is to build on a grander scale and include retail, larger parks, lakes, golf courses, etc.  Smaller neighborhoods continue to be built, of course, but the trend is now for a developer to buy a really large piece of land and subcontract segments of it to different builders.  MPC's focus themselves a little more inward, seeking to be something like a small town with all the basic ammenities included or nearby.  In the end that may also include some form of mass transit as it is easier to designate some center of focus in the MPC as a pickup/dropoff point for commuter service.  It also give rise to "town centers" built by the developers and frequently including some sort of mixed use concept.