High gas prices supporting an urban renaissance -- and who gains?

Two very interesting items in the N&O on Tuesday look at the impact of high energy costs and of changing patterns of residential demand, from two different angles.

The Raleigh fishwrap's lead story on Tuesday dealt with the impact of gas prices on commuter's choices, noting that the drive-till-you-qualify days of inexpensive suburbs and exurbs drawing home buyers seemed to be running out of gas, with some of the towns that featured the more distant drives feeling the pinch at the closing table:

Now anecdotal evidence and home data suggest that many are moving back -- a migration that could reverse the character of towns that thrive from residential construction and it could dash the fortunes of suburban homeowners and landlords....

Of the 30 top-selling residential communities in June, six experienced both a drop in average price per square foot and a widening gap between asking price and closing price from a year ago, data from the Triangle Multiple Listing Service show. Those losing ground were in Holly Springs, Apex, Wake Forest and far northeast Raleigh -- communities away from the region's biggest employment hubs.

Developers have long expected higher gas prices to drive demand toward more urban centers. Their bets stoked centers such as North Hills in Raleigh, which combines homes, shops and offices and touts walkability. It was a welcome concept after hurricanes Katrina and Rita spiked fuel costs in 2005. But that surge wasn't high enough -- or prolonged enough -- to spur serious residential shifts.

The N&O yesterday also had an intriguing if apparently accidental counterpoint, the N&O's "Ideas" editor and blogger J. Peder Zane -- whose name and eager, Norman Rockwell-style photo make you ask the eternal question, "Is he real or is he an embed from The Onion?"

In any case, Zane opines on his "What's the Big Idea?" blog about the changing nature of inner-city residents, pointing out some interesting demographic trends:

For as long as I can remember the "inner city" has been used as a code word for African-Americans. Following the great white flight to the suburbs in the 1950s and 60s, blacks and other minorities tended to dominate many larger American cities.

A recent article in The New Republic says this is changing, arguing that a profound 'demographic inversion" is taking place as gentrification becomes whitification. Focusing on Chicago, writer Alan Ehrenhalt, notes that many wealthy whites are moving back to its center city....

"While we have been focusing on Baghdad and Kabul, our own cities have been changing right in front of us. Atlanta, for example, is shifting from an overwhelmingly black to what is likely to soon be a minority-black city.

This is happening in part because the white middle class is moving inside the city borders, but more so because blacks are moving out. Between 1990 and 2006, according to research by William Frey of the Brookings Institution, the white population of Atlanta has increased from roughly 30 percent to 35 percent while the black population has declined from 67 percent to 55 percent. In this decade alone, two of Atlanta's huge suburban counties, Clayton and DeKalb, have acquired substantial black majorities, and immigrants arriving from foreign countries are settling primarily there or in similar outlying areas, not within the city itself. The numbers for Washington, D.C. are similar."

The interplay between the two items is fascinating, while raising questions of the big-picture gentrification sort that both fascinate and trouble.

The long road back from the days of distal, exurban living -- and trust me, it's a very long road from Fuquay-Varina to RTP -- is something it seems like society is ready to tackle, with renewed interest in a more core lifestyle visible in trends as suburban as the demand for homes in Southwest Durham and Brier Creek, to the increased interest in denser developments like Davis Park, to the uptick in interest in Durham's urban core neighborhoods (some of which are, it must be noted, farther from RTP employment centers than the dreaded Brier Creek.)

It also goes without saying to long-time readers of this blog that I'm a big fan of inclusionary zoning, and of taking the steps needed to ensure that communities (and sections of communities) find ways to bear their share of residents from throughout the socioeconomic strata, rich and poor.

Getting the latter to happen, though, is a slow process and one much more likely to be seen in new developments than old. Instead, these two competing development and residential pressures do in fact raise a spectre of core urban neighborhoods becoming wealthier over the course of the next couple of decades, while sububan, distant locales become the new inexpensive housing for the traditional inner-city resident.

The challenge there, of course, lies in losing the advantages an impoverished urban resident has: access to public transportation, shorter commutes by car that save money on gas, access to government and social services.

One of the commenters on the N&O commuting story asks an interesting question about the economic divide in some of the 'new urban' neighborhoods:

I have a question. How many thousands of us can afford to move to & live in urban centers such as North Hills? How nice that the developers thought enough of the majority of us to keep us in mind in their developing! How hoity-toity of these far-seeking developers (with dollar signs only, in their eyes - like most of America). Higher gas prices sure have driven demand. Demand for cheaper living, not more expensive.

To my mind, there's two key reasons for this. First, urban living of the North Hills sort has until recently disproportionately appealed to the childless DINKs and singletons or one-child, two-wage-earner families; these kind of family structures tend to have more disposable income and larger housing budgets. Secondly, in the days of cheaper gas, I suspect these options were more appealing to individuals with a higher educational attainment, who might be more likely attracted to urban living and cultural amenities, and for whom higher income is strongly correlated.

And of course, there's the density fear that was so inherent in our story here Tuesday about the Fairfield at Hillandale project. If it's dense and not luxury, some seem to think, you'll let "them" in -- renters, criminals, the undesirables. Thus a strong pressure for "upscale" infill development.

Yet in an America where wealth is disproportionately spread between the haves and the more numerous have-nots, a central question in Durham and elsewhere in the twenty or so years it will take to see this trend play out is, quite simply, how do we make sure we don't repeat the mistakes of post-WW2 suburban resettlement, just in the opposite direction this time round?

Comments

[B]

"...Durham's urban core neighborhoods (some of which are, it must be noted, farther from RTP employment centers than the dreaded Brier Creek.)"

Ah, but my commute from central Durham to RTP is usually shorter (in time) than many of my colleagues who live in that area, b/c traffic on 147 is much, much less than on 40/540.

A group from work went to the Federal for dinner after work a few weeks back, and everyone (who lives in North Raleigh or CH) was simply amazed at how quickly we got there...

[Derek]

The N&O story was a near carbon-copy of a similar story on the front of the Washington Post yesterday. Both McClatchy paper. Coincidence?

[Michael Bacon]

WaPo isn't McClatchy. They're still a single paper ownership group. McClatchy inherited Knight-Ridder's highly respected Washington bureau, but that's as close as I can see it coming.

WaPo might have run McClatchy's story though, since they, like every other paper, use wire services as well.

[GreenLantern]

I keeping trying to convince my co-workers here in RTP, who live as far away as Angier, to move to Southeast/Far East Durham. My commute is less than five miles, and the housing around here is less than $90/sq ft, even in Brightleaf if you don't count the high-end builder. They are still afraid that we are too close to East Durham and it's problems, in addition to our high taxes and reputation.

Our side of the county needs more growth in higher-end residential $250K+, but to get that we need more private schools and more shopping choices that don't require us to go to Brier Creek or the other sides of Durham. We would like to see the Eno Drive (NE Durham Parkway) completed as soon as possible. Landowners around here WANT to sell parcels for high-end quality development. Existing homeowners who have suffered because of the low-performing schools like Neal and Southern, WANT more private school choices for their children, so they can get a good education and we can start seeing some appreciation in our property values. Instead, our efforts are blocked by folks from DCABP and city council members who want to maintain the status quo in our public schools--that result from lack of good parenting, of course. Unless we get support for growth and development projects from residents/council members in other more prosperous school districts, I'm afraid SE/Far East Durham is going to lag behind.

If Home Depot, Target, or Kroger expresses interest in our corner of the county, please support those rezoning requests. If another developer offers to give land to the DCPS, or put in a private school, please support their proposals. I promise you it's what the silent middle-class majority out here wants, black and white alike.

[Jonahtan Jones]

The Washington Post is not a single newspaper ownership group, either. It's publishing arm is small, but includes two other dailies and a mess of weeklies.

http://www.washpostco.com/business-newspapers.htm

[gonzo]

More private schools? Are the kids in SE Durham not smoking enough pot these days? I didn't realize weed usage had declined so precipitously that we needed more private schools to solve the problem...

[Derek]

My mistake on the newspaper ownership. Maybe the same topic on the same day was just a coincidence. I read both and I'm almost certain it was not a wire matter; the Post's story was independently written and focused on the DC area. The N&O's story was not quite as good and focused on this area. There was little overlap.

[Wes]

"More private schools? Are the kids in SE Durham not smoking enough pot these days? I didn't realize weed usage had declined so precipitously that we needed more private schools to solve the problem..."

Why do so many of you have a chip on your shoulder about private schools?

[tina]

*****"Yet in an America where wealth is disproportionately spread between the haves and the more numerous have-nots, a central question in Durham and elsewhere in the twenty or so years it will take to see this trend play out is, quite simply, how do we make sure we don't repeat the mistakes of post-WW2 suburban resettlement, just in the opposite direction this time round?"

Kevin, I agree that this is the 100 million dollar question. 25 years ago Portland, Oregon's downtown started a revitalization and as a result the neighborhoods close to downtown saw a revitalization too. North Portland was historically an African American neighborhood. (Unfortunately historic prejudices are even found in liberal bastions such as Portland.) North Portland offered the "last affordable" neighborhoods in the city. And now these neighborhoods too have become gentrified.

The city has tried to maintain affordable housing in the area. In 2003/4 Portland's Housing Authority torn down the 82 acre run down projects called Columbia and rebuilt it with a joint public / private effort that had a $95 million price tag. New Columbia has low income rentals like the previous projects. But also had moderately priced single family and town homes for sale on. New Columbia has many services that "old" Columbia lacked. A few are an onsite elementary school, community college classes, parks and rec services, and they even incorporated community garden plots so residents can grow their own vegetables. The city recently started a similar second project in North Portland, Humboldt Gardens.

Both of these old areas had serious gang and drive by shooting issues. These projects have cleaned up these neighborhoods. But unfortunately the gang activity has moved outside the city limits to neighboring suburbs that were built in the 50s & 60s. This particular city does not have as much money to deal with the gang issues so citizens there feel that Portland just used it's money & influence to push the issue into their town.

New Columbia and Humboldt have gotten mixed reviews. There are several people who moved in and purchased the moderately priced homes that love it. They can afford to live in the city, they have a neighborhood of diversity, and there are many new amenities. And it's safe. The "old" Columbia residents who have moved back to New Columbia have mixed reviews. Some like the fact that it's safe, clean, and better facilities. Others miss their old neighbors, sense of community that they had. Others resent their neighborhood being gentrified by young, white urbanites. The city and local churches hold public forums regarding the conflicts that have arose. The purpose it to get the two sides to see others perspectives and hear each other's voices.

So even when cities "try" in pockets to prevent the post-WWII suburban settlement in reverse, there are consequences. I don't know what the solution is to your 100 million dollar question. But I'm hoping that someone wiser than I has the answer.

[gonzo]

wes: because some of us actually went to private schools briefly, and have seen what they look like from the inside. or, we've read the data that show that private schools don't do a damn thing except cluster a bunch of kids who, based on demographics, would have been high performing anyway into the same school.

by all means build a bunch of private schools. rich kids who don't have enough to do need a place to smoke weed in safety.