Tuesday, December 11, 2007
[“New Suburbia”: This is one of a series on the changing aspects of suburbia.]
While most reports have emphasized the demand aspects of the home mortgage crisis -– homebuyers of meager means were given the ability by lenders to buy middle-class houses –- another way to look at the issue is from the “supply” side: High housing costs steered many homebuyers into risky loans for houses that, upon reflection, they could not afford. One way to avoid a repetition of this problem is for suburbs to offer more low-cost housing.
A handful of suburbs outside Chicago (not the most affluent, of course) are touting their efforts to plan for a greater variety of housing types over the next quarter-century. In particular, a recent report, published through Chicago Metropolis 2020 and the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus, notes that seniors and Latinos will constitute much of the growth in the area’s population, and that these groups will “likely seek out small single-family homes, townhomes and apartment units in larger complexes” –- the kind of housing that is not provided for in many suburbs, in large part because of the restrictions of land use law. (And there are more than 200 local jurisdictions in Chicagoland!). The report was discussed in a recent issue of the Economist.
The Chicago metro organizations have also published maps for workforce housing, showing where, for example, a local firefighter can afford to live. While a firefighter can afford to rent (if not own) in many of the affluent old north shore suburbs, the situation is worse in the outer suburbs. I suspect that this is because the old suburbs, many of which were built up before 1950, include a greater variety of housing stock, with greater density, than in newer areas. But this has not made today’s suburbanites shun these north shore suburbs …
[Note: Comments must be approved and thus take time to appear online.]
This blog is an Amazon affiliate. Help support Land Use Prof Blog by making purchases through Amazon links on this site at no cost to you.
- Stephen Miller on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Josh Galperin on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jesse Richardson on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jamie Baker Roskie on Uber Goes to the State House Seeking Preemption of Local Government Control
- Stephen R. Miller on Why are building inspectors so often on the take?
- Can UberPOOL Make Carpooling Cool?
- Are Earth Day cookies an endangered species?
- Fordham Urban Law Center's Sharing Economy | Sharing City Conference - April 24
- Land Use, Telescopes and Sacred Land in Paradise
- Tekle on Percent-for-Art Ordinances