by hull3551 » Fri 10 Jun 2005, 14:25:29
Well I think there are a lot of reasons that people are moving back to the tier-I suburbs, and the article touched on them nicely.
I personally am amazed at the crappy quality of the new homes and the shoddy materials used to construct them. I am even more surprised what people pay for these. As the article stated, the houses built in the earlier part of the 1900’s were built with far-superior material, including old-growth lumber, plaster, etc. These houses were naturally cooler (based upon design and trees, etc.) so in many climates you can actually keep the windows open in the summer, versus the constant drone (and energy requirements) of central air. There is also the fact that so many of these homes have character and uniqueness, as compared to the inferior cookie-cutter crap homes these people buy in the newer suburbs.
Add to this the overburdened infrastructure, the crowded schools, unfriendly pedestrian environments, and people will soon enough realize it isn’t really worth it to live in the ex-burbs.
I think the crime issue almost contrasts what was posted here (for now, at least). Criminals are not stupid. They are going to the ‘burbs to perpetrate their crimes, and people realize they are not that much safer forty miles as compared to five miles outside the cities. Obviously, post-PO, you will see an overall drop in popularity of the ex-burbs – whether new money, crime, or investment overall.