News   Jan 30, 2026
 5.2K     10 
News   Jan 30, 2026
 6.4K     1 
News   Jan 30, 2026
 676     0 

Suburbs - our new slums?

Brandon716

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
0
Location
Niagara Region
This article is from the Sunday April 5th edition of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. While its not a Canadian article, I think a lot of the scenarios talked about are worth a discussion.

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/09095/960370-109.stm?cmpid=newspanel1

Sunday Forum: Suburbs - our new slums?

The burbs are in decline as more poor move out from the cities and more suburbanites struggle to stay in the middle class, reports DAVID VILLANO

Sunday, April 05, 2009

Anita Dufalla/Post-GazetteThe financial meltdown has produced a vast patchwork of foreclosed and abandoned single-family homes across America, accelerating the decades-long migration of our nation's poor from cities to the suburban fringe. In 2005, as rising property values reduced affordable housing stock in inner-city neighborhoods, suburban poverty, in raw numbers, topped urban poverty for the first time.

The trend will continue. By 2025, predicts planning expert Arthur C. Nelson, America will face a market surplus of 22 million large-lot homes (a sixth of an acre or more), attracting millions of low-income residents deeper into suburbia where decay and social and geographic isolation will pose challenges few see coming.

"As a society, we have fundamentally failed to address our housing policy," said Mr. Nelson, director of metropolitan research at the University of Utah. "Suburbia is overbuilt and yet we will keep on building there. Most policy makers don't see the consequences, and those who do are denying reality."

Mr. Nelson and others warn that suburbia's least desirable neighborhoods -- aging, middle-class tract-home developments far from city centers and mass transit lines -- are America's emerging slums, characterized by poverty, crime and other social ills. Treating those ills is complicated by the same qualities that once defined suburbia's appeal -- seclusion, homogeneity and low population density. "We built too much of the suburban dream, and now it's coming back to haunt us," Mr. Nelson said.

To be sure, the low-income drift to suburbia has less to do with bucolic appeal and more to do with economics. Over the past two decades, the gospel of urbanism has spread though the American mainstream. But it is the young, the affluent, the professional class and empty-nesters who are reclaiming the urban living experience -- dense, walkable, diverse, mixed-use neighborhoods in and around city centers -- while the poor disperse outward in search of cheap rent. Low-income residents often subdivide suburban homes, sharing them with multiple families.

Meanwhile, layoffs and other effects of the economic crisis are contributing to higher poverty rates in once-solidly middle-class communities.

Most experts believe the market-driven migration of the poor to suburbs and the affluent to urban zones -- sometimes called "demographic inversion" -- will continue for decades.

"Americans are disillusioned with sprawl, they're tired of driving, they recognize the soullessness of suburban life, and yet we keep on adding more suburban communities," said Christopher B. Leinberger, a land-use expert at the University of Michigan. He said consumer preference is reflected by Hollywood: "People identify with 'Sex and the City' and 'Seinfeld.' So why are we still building like 'Leave it to Beaver?' "

Mr. Leinberger is an unabashed urbanist who preaches the gospel of dense, mixed-use communities like a missionary saving souls in the jungle. As a visiting fellow this year at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., he walks to his office and to appointments around the city. He argues, with few dissenters, that suburbs are losing favor because they make little sense, forcing people into their cars, limiting social interaction and discouraging racial and socio-economic diversity. Enlightened planners across the country are promoting compact "24/7" urban centers where people live, work and play in close proximity. Virtually every major U.S. city is targeting once-gritty urban neighborhoods for revitalization and, inevitably, gentrification.

The displaced poor find value in the aging, outer-ring tract-home developments that once promised easy living far from the city's hustle and bustle. And housing officials, resolved to breaking up pockets of concentrated poverty, are thrilled. The federal Section 8 housing program, which allows recipients to negotiate government-subsidized rentals anywhere, is grounded in the belief that a safe, stable neighborhood can help unbuckle the straps of poverty.

But the positive benefits of moving to a neighborhood of less poverty diminish as the number of poor relocating there increases, new research suggests. Families are far less likely to pull themselves out of poverty when their exposure to other poor families reaches a kind of tipping point.

George C. Galster, a professor of urban affairs at Wayne State University, has quantified this poverty threshold as roughly 15 to 20 percent of a neighborhood. If the poverty rate exceeds that, Mr. Galster said, "All hell breaks loose" in the form of crime, drop outs, teen pregnancies, drug use and, in turn, declining property values.

Mr. Galster warns that polices to break up concentrated poverty may be backfiring. While the number of Americans living in the poorest neighborhoods has notably declined since 1990, by about 25 percent, poverty elsewhere has inched up. Mr. Galster worries that the rush to relocate the urban poor, through Section 8 and other poverty redistribution programs, has pushed many less-desirable suburban neighborhoods to this tipping point.

And when they tip, he added, neighborhoods tend to spiral deeper into poverty: Declining property values attract more poor residents, gradually displacing the middle-class families that provide stability, further depressing prices.

Miami real estate broker Adrian Salgado said he's witnessing the spiral, even within newer tract-home development in the region's southern and western fringes. With many areas overbuilt, and foreclosure rates high, Section 8 tenants and other low-income renters are finding deals too good to pass up. "I know everybody needs a place to live, but we're creating a social disaster," said Mr. Salgado, noting that many early middle-class buyers in these transition neighborhoods are desperate to sell but can't.

Although national data is thin, local officials across the country are reporting an increase in violent crime, gang activity, drug use and other social breakdowns within suburban neighborhoods. In places like New York City, Atlanta and Chicago, urban crime rates are dropping while rising on the outskirts of town.

Crime is also rising in the fast-growing sunbelt communities hit hard with foreclosures. Mr. Leinberger noted that in Lee County, Fla., where nearly 25 percent of the homes stand empty, robberies were up nearly 50 percent last year.

Indeed, police in some cities are monitoring suburban foreclosures to identify neighborhoods at risk for increased crime, while others look at Section 8 relocations, arguing that a sudden rise in low-income rental densities is among their most reliable indicators of a coming crime spike.

Such tactics rankle some anti-poverty advocates, but a growing body of research is challenging suburban relocation as a remedy for poverty. Ed Goetz, a housing specialist at the University of Minnesota, said the suburban dream often fades for poor families because old support systems are severed, and access to programs and services -- day care, after-school programs, job training, drug treatment and counseling -- are greatly hampered by shear distance.

"The isolation can be both physical and emotional," Mr. Goetz said. "The frequency of interaction with neighbors declines, social networks break down. We haven't considered that carefully enough." Mr. Goetz said studies show a surprising willingness among the suburban poor to return to urban, high-poverty neighborhoods where services are more accessible and mass transit more convenient.

But the suburban diaspora of America's poor is unlikely to subside, most experts agree, posing complex challenges for policy makers. If anything, added Alan Berube, a housing expert at the Brookings Institution, suburban poverty will grow not just from in-migration of the poor but from within as the economic crisis "pushes middle-class families down the economic ladder."

With that in mind, Mr. Galster recommends strict monitoring of suburban poverty rates to prevent neighborhoods from reaching the so-called tipping point. Such data would allow housing officials to push for laws requiring property owners in low-poverty neighborhoods to accept Section 8 tenants (the existing program is voluntary), something he recommends. Conversely, he argued, laws should prevent landlords from accepting low-income tenants when neighborhood poverty rates exceed designated levels.

Mr. Nelson, whose research predicts the vast oversupply of large-lot homes in the coming decades and the growing "suburbanization of poverty," said much can be done today to reshape the residential landscape. Most of the homes he expects to exist in 2025 have yet to be built. He said planners can reduce that oversupply by crafting long-term growth policies that reflect a careful assessment of regional demands for all housing types over a generation or more. What they will find, he said, is a preference among all income groups for denser, mixed-use communities with access to mass transit.

Mr. Leinberger agreed, arguing that planners should acknowledge that the suburban experiment has failed. "I wouldn't add another new road in America today," he said. "The changing geography of poverty is another reminder that our housing policies today will be felt for years to come, and in ways nobody ever imagined."
 
Commenting on downfall of suburbia while ignoring the downfall of manufacturing and industrial employment and its typical location, and how it supported suburban residents does little to expand our knowledge. Suburbia reflected the preference of people. It was viable when employment trends supported it. People aren't fleeing suburbia because it doesn't work. They are fleeing because they are not working.
 
Interesting comment, I haven't thought of "first, inner ring" suburbs as manufacturing based.
 
The relationship is temporal. Look at the time of construction and proximity to employment.

The problem I find with a number of Urban Planners, is that they are philosphising from a single perspective. Much like how a cluster of symptoms looks like cancer to an oncologist and an autoimmune disorder to a immunologist. Ignoring the access to employment part of the equation when trying to determine 'choice' or ' desirability' is a fools errand.
 
Suburbia the new slum? Yes and no. Some suburbs that were once middle-class will definately be the slums of the future while others will remain middle-class and still others will gain in affluence. You can count on further stratification of neighbourhoods along economic lines but overall our city region and those throughout North America will likely become more patchwork, likely with an increasingly affluent core.
 
First of all, I believe you have to distinguish what Americans refer to as suburbs is really what came on the scene in the last decade or so - exurbia.
That region that has housing and nothing beyond.

Compare, say the nortwest (North York/Etobicoke) or northeast part of Toronto (Scarborough); not only are these areas about 25 minutes from the downtown core, but also less than 25 minutes to job intensive 905.

Understanding what we consider to be suburban is slowly transforming to urban; witness the development of European styled rail encircling the outer burbs and connecting with the north south and east west main lines.

By definition of suburbs, the real problems will be in the Miltons and Brooklins. The only there there is housing. Whereas the current whipping boy of suburbia - Scarborough - has several post secondary campuses (UTSC, Centennial, HP Campus); three hospitals, and soon enough about 4 LRT lines.

Who could have predicted the growth around Skydome 20 years ago? What if the $200Million Pan Am facility gets built at UTSC; what happens when Greenwood Racetrack and the surrounding area gets built up; what happens when the Pickering airport gets build a decade out and manufacturing gets retooled to the east as this will be a cargo airport....

Don't let static numbers and today alone influence thought on the future. We live in a dynamic world...and yes that includes the suburbs and exurbs.
 
I think both the inner-ring suburbs and the more farflung suburbs/exurbs could slum-ify a little bit over the next few decades, but for different reasons. The former due to gentrifying forces downtown and and the latter due to oil prices and transportation issues.

Toronto's core is being gentrified all over, albeit slowly in places. The gang members were pushed away from Yonge-Dundas. The East side is moving that way through the Regent Park project, Dundas E's quiet loft-ication, and the seemingly expanding borders of Cabbagetown, Corktown and St. Lawrence. Low-income people get pushed outside the core and spread to the inner suburbs. (Even with the Regent Park redevelopment, which I think has been more than fair with its RGI units, the net result will likely be some low-income people pushed out of the core.)

For more far-flung places, well, imagine the price of gas jumped to five dollars a litre tomorrow. I think you'd almost instantaneously see conditions deteriorate in the aforementioned Milton, plus Georgetown/Acton, and the north-of-the-QEW areas of Burlington and Oakville. Basically, anywhere where 'cul de sac' is as common as 'street' would be in a lot of trouble.
 
... For more far-flung places, well, imagine the price of gas jumped to five dollars a litre tomorrow. I think you'd almost instantaneously see conditions deteriorate in the aforementioned Milton, plus Georgetown/Acton, and the north-of-the-QEW areas of Burlington and Oakville. Basically, anywhere where 'cul de sac' is as common as 'street' would be in a lot of trouble.

No, I think it's more nuanced than that. As has been reported just within the last day or two, the 905 is becoming more and more job intensive. There are huge numbers of jobs in Mississauga, Brampton, Vaughan, etc. ...

The suburbs themselves are beginning to stratify, as the 416 has been doing. There will be suburbs which are largely residential areas without jobs (as in Milton, mentioned as an example), and those which have a mix of jobs and residences, in some proportion. It's not a disaster, as many of the jobs are moving outwards to areas which formerly had none. This is a function of land prices, among other factors. Milton may be a bit job-short at present, but (and it's a big but): (a) they are within easy driving distance of areas that have jobs, and (b) they are acquiring more jobs / places of employment. The employment providers are moving outward, as are the residential districts, but with a time lag of a few years.

I mention Milton as it was previously mentioned as the example of the supposedly jobless residentail suburb, but the same comment applies to other areas. Mixed land uses are alive and well in many suburban areas, and for those where this isn't the case, check back in five years.

I do understand that the challenge in all of this is transportation, particularly public transit. That's a separate discussion, but it will certainly have to be held.
 
No, I think it's more nuanced than that. As has been reported just within the last day or two, the 905 is becoming more and more job intensive. There are huge numbers of jobs in Mississauga, Brampton, Vaughan, etc. ...

The suburbs themselves are beginning to stratify, as the 416 has been doing. There will be suburbs which are largely residential areas without jobs (as in Milton, mentioned as an example), and those which have a mix of jobs and residences, in some proportion. It's not a disaster, as many of the jobs are moving outwards to areas which formerly had none. This is a function of land prices, among other factors. Milton may be a bit job-short at present, but (and it's a big but): (a) they are within easy driving distance of areas that have jobs, and (b) they are acquiring more jobs / places of employment. The employment providers are moving outward, as are the residential districts, but with a time lag of a few years.

I mention Milton as it was previously mentioned as the example of the supposedly jobless residentail suburb, but the same comment applies to other areas. Mixed land uses are alive and well in many suburban areas, and for those where this isn't the case, check back in five years.

I do understand that the challenge in all of this is transportation, particularly public transit. That's a separate discussion, but it will certainly have to be held.


Ding ding ding...we have a winner.

So refreshing to read a writer and THINKER from this website who sees the dynamic that process and progress is. The URBAN NAZIS who seem to think that the only form of urbanism that will survive is that which is already in existence obviously pays no attention to history.

In time, the Milton's etc...will transform to survive and THRIVE. The same goes for the northern Etobicoke's and Scarborough's due to LRT's; proximty to MULITPLE job zones in the downtown core and York/Peel regions.

The Pickering airport is on the radar for the next decade. Once this gets built Durham becomes a player. What does all this mean?

Quit judging based on what you can't see past your nose...

[end rant]...ha ha...
 
Stim,

I guess that is my point. The process of urbanization will transform many areas.

The pov here (from many posters) is that the gta will transform into clearly slumified areas (typical assertion is that it will be the suburbs) as per the assertion of this thread and many like minded authors.

They (urban nazis) don't even know the burbs are transforming as their boundaries are the few blocks they live in and the 'net....

The term Urban Nazi is for those who believe theirs is the only urban reality...when in fact the urban is all around them and evolving. In essence the joke is on them - because the burbs are urbanifying....ha ha...And no the poor will not live in the burbs....they will live where they always have...in large rental apartment complexes, not single family homes...
 
The term Urban Nazi is for those who believe theirs is the only urban reality...when in fact the urban is all around them and evolving. In essence the joke is on them - because the burbs are urbanifying....ha ha...And no the poor will not live in the burbs....they will live where they always have...in large rental apartment complexes, not single family homes...

What about when the "single family homes" get subdivided into de facto rooming houses? (Though that's a kind of "urbanification" in its own right. And it's a source of a lot of the municipal controversy over basement apartments, etc, out there. Who says that suburbanites can't be NIMBY/Nazi-ish, either.)

Remember that "slumminess" can be expressed not just through abandonment, but its reverse...
 
lol so many people have basement apartments.

Most people do not use their basements and they charge 900-$1000 for people to rent them.

I remember in our old house it paid our mortgage.
 
lol so many people have basement apartments.

Most people do not use their basements and they charge 900-$1000 for people to rent them.

I remember in our old house it paid our mortgage.

The suburbs have tried to ban apartments in "single family" houses, but most houses have done so. Some without permits or as apartments for their "relatives". Others rent out the extra bedrooms of large houses.

Most do so to help pay off their mortgages. With the recession, I think more will rent the basement if they have lost jobs.
 
The suburbs have tried to ban apartments in "single family" houses, but most houses have done so. Some without permits or as apartments for their "relatives". Others rent out the extra bedrooms of large houses.

Most do so to help pay off their mortgages. With the recession, I think more will rent the basement if they have lost jobs.

The intrinsic value of a house is measured by Owners Equivalent Rent, or Rent Ratio, or Income Ratio. Using the Rental Ratio, the typical norm in the US (since little data is available in Canada) is a mutliple of 15.

15 x annual rent = fmv of house; 15 x $48,000 = $720,000; now that could be a single family house in the inner core with one renter; or it could be a MURB (multiple unit residential building - or house) in the burbs with multiple renter. The Market Value of the house.

All assets are eventually valued based on cash flow. The irrational RE pricing of the last several years is over. It's over across the globe. Wait till it hits here...watching the correction will be both fascinating and amusing.

Most high end homes already have basement renters in the core. That it is spreading to the burbs is the reality....urbanization!!!!!!

The assertion that multiple family dwellings in the burbs is slumified is a gross lie. Let me buy an asset for $350k that generates $48k a year....the asset pays for itself and me in Costa Rica for a month... When the broader public wakes up to asset pricing based on cash flow...
 

Back
Top