I’d love to see a study more controlled for cost of living.
> In the early 2010s, after the financial crisis walloped the housing market, average growth rates in cities with populations greater than 250,000 outpaced the suburbs. But over the past five years, the average annual growth in America’s big cities has slowed by 40%, to 0.69%, according to census estimates.
I think it’s no coincidence that when prices dropped significantly, Millennials flocked to cities. That’s where the jobs are, and they could afford it.
Since most cities are not really accommodating growth, prices have ballooned, and people are being priced out.
I used to live in Raleigh and I knew a few people who moved to Apex. It was always the same story: “I’d rather stay in Raleigh but we can afford Apex.” That’s not to knock on Apex, it is a cute town, but the migration was driven much more by the simple price tag than anything else.
The thing that blows my mind the most is how easy it is to accommodate massive growth by simply requiring a connected street grid — what almost every American town and city did before WW2 and the suburban design social engineering projects of the FDR and Eisenhower eras. A grid can scale. The stupid cul-de-sac design is literally engineered to create traffic congestion. How much more land are we going to inflict that abomination on?
Really that’s what this all comes down to: there are straightforward, known solutions to scale urban populations well beyond the relatively modest growth that we have in the US, but as long as we refuse to pull our heads out of the sand and grow intentionally we will continue to have this phenomenon where growth ruins places - first in quality of life, and fiscally in a generation when Apex is not the hot new suburb any more but is saddled with the maintenance cost for hundreds of miles of unproductive infrastructure.
> The thing that blows my mind the most is how easy it is to accommodate massive growth by simply requiring a connected street grid — what almost every American town and city did before WW2 and the suburban design social engineering projects of the FDR and Eisenhower eras. A grid can scale. The stupid cul-de-sac design is literally engineered to create traffic congestion. How much more land are we going to inflict that abomination on?
Cul-de-sac design (and the related 3-leaf clover design where you have multiple cul-de-sacs all emptying into a single artery, allow for more private front porch experiences and kid-play areas.
It was a reaction to the inability of most residential towns to keep out the gangs, racers and high-speed commuters (ie, bad combo with pedestrians, kids playing in the street).
Cul-de-sacs without pedestrian (or cycle) path cut-throughs make journeys that could be a 3 minute walk unnecessarily long on foot, leading to a general increase in car use.
You said it in your reply: all the streets emptying onto a single artery.
The fears of gangs etc that you cite are the common defenses of why people left specific inner cities in the 60s, but small towns (like Apex, in the source article) don’t have that problem and they do have the grids.
The main issue affecting safety is simply traffic speed and street width. It’s quite easy to design a safe street for children by making it hard for cars to go fast, the best example of this being the Dutch “voonerf,” (https://youtu.be/bSBdshn2tUM). You can accomplish the same thing with more spread out garden style homes as well.
I appreciate your perspective, given that you've spent time in the area (PNW local here). I'm confused, though, since it seems like Apex has been far more expensive than Raleigh since 2015 (and likely long before). [1] Is this a function of micro-communities within the two cities? Any ideas what is going on here? I just can't believe the $758K home in Apex as a discount option (per the family in the article).
Agree with you on the unintentional growth at the root of all this. Even the article calls out the schools not funded/steered by the city itself. I wouldn't be surprised if more folly lies in municipal codes near Apex.
Raleigh includes everything from downtown apartments to suburbs. There's quite a spread. Apex is mostly suburbs, albeit the nicer suburbs where stores are a quick drive (5-10 minutes) away.
$700K is definitely at the upper range of new construction in Apex. That new house will also have a lot of upgrades. There's also a particular part of Apex (the parts that are basically Cary) where you'll see those prices. Move further south away from Cary and Raleigh and the prices in Apex drop very quickly.
I think where you'll also see the "We could afford Apex but not Raleigh" also has to do with the age of the home. ~$450K will get you a nice new home in Apex in a community with amenities (e.g. a pool, clubhouse, etc). In Raleigh you may end up in a smaller older home that needs a substantial amount of renovation.
There are 1000 other nuances of course, but hopefully you get the idea.
$700K+ is not a "discount option" in Apex. It's at the high end of the market. Average new construction (let alone existing home sales) in the area is probably around $400K for a 2500 sf house. The house in question is probably over 4000 sf on a decent sized lot (most lots for new construction are under 1/4 acre) and built by one of the "luxury" homebuilders like Toll Brothers.
Definitely still depends on the area within the town/city, but Apex in general is still cheaper than Raleigh comparing neighborhoods of similar demographics.
> In the early 2010s, after the financial crisis walloped the housing market, average growth rates in cities with populations greater than 250,000 outpaced the suburbs. But over the past five years, the average annual growth in America’s big cities has slowed by 40%, to 0.69%, according to census estimates.
I think it’s no coincidence that when prices dropped significantly, Millennials flocked to cities. That’s where the jobs are, and they could afford it.
Since most cities are not really accommodating growth, prices have ballooned, and people are being priced out.
I used to live in Raleigh and I knew a few people who moved to Apex. It was always the same story: “I’d rather stay in Raleigh but we can afford Apex.” That’s not to knock on Apex, it is a cute town, but the migration was driven much more by the simple price tag than anything else.
Meanwhile what’s happening in Apex now is pretty much the definition of the Growth Ponzi Scheme (ref: https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme).
The thing that blows my mind the most is how easy it is to accommodate massive growth by simply requiring a connected street grid — what almost every American town and city did before WW2 and the suburban design social engineering projects of the FDR and Eisenhower eras. A grid can scale. The stupid cul-de-sac design is literally engineered to create traffic congestion. How much more land are we going to inflict that abomination on?
Really that’s what this all comes down to: there are straightforward, known solutions to scale urban populations well beyond the relatively modest growth that we have in the US, but as long as we refuse to pull our heads out of the sand and grow intentionally we will continue to have this phenomenon where growth ruins places - first in quality of life, and fiscally in a generation when Apex is not the hot new suburb any more but is saddled with the maintenance cost for hundreds of miles of unproductive infrastructure.