The Future of Suburbia

• Richard Krier, AICP, President Midwest Planning and Design (Rkrier@mchsi.com)

• John Archer, PhD, Chair, Department of Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature (archer@umn.edu)

Quick look back using the Twin Cities as a growth Example

Recasting suburban planning based on the incorporation differences, growth and change in local conditions, personal circumstances, diversifying interests in American and global society

•Planning for the suburbia based on the paradigms that John is going to discuss

•Questions

Looking Back

• Nationally: – Population– Housing– Growth patterns– Transportation and Technology– Environment

• An Example: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area

One of the fastest growth rates

$25,000

1935-1939

Developed between 1935- 1939

Developed before 1935

Twin Cities Metropolitan AreaParcel Development

•Bi-polar nature of the Twin Cities Region

•9th Federal Reserve

•Splendid Isolation

•Extensive Land

1955-1959

Developed between 1955- 1959

Developed before 1955

Twin Cities Metropolitan AreaParcel Development

Suburbia Emerges:•Less dense than LA in the 1960s

•Cheap land and cheap oil

•Government promotion

•Lending institutions

•Annexation/ Minneapolis

•Rejection lead to State intervention

Parcel Development

Multiple Centers

•Located to protect private investments rather than form the structure of a Metropolitan Region

•Decision not to build rail mass transit system

Developed between 1975- 1979

Developed before 1975

Twin Cities Metropolitan Area

1975-1979

1995-1999

Developed between 1995- 1999

Developed before 1995

Twin Cities Metropolitan AreaParcel Development

•Growth Jumps the River

•Two Major Centers Added

•Regional Exodus of Major Corporate HQ

•Retention or new HQ in inner Subs

2000-2005

Developed between 2000- 2005

Developed before 2000

Twin Cities Metropolitan AreaParcel Development

TransitGrowth

skipping outside the MUSA

The changing American Dream• Rags to riches:

– Horatio Alger, Ragged Dick; or Street Life in New York with the Bootblacks, 1866

The changing American Dream• Opportunity for all to pull yourself up by your

bootstraps and build a better life:– Russell Conwell (1870s+)– Dale Carnegie (1936)– William Faulkner (1955)

The changing American Dream• The dream house:

– In music: Earle Foxe and Lynn Cowan (1926), Bing Crosby (1950), Red Sovine (1964);– In film: Modern Times (1936), Mr Blandings Builds His Dream House (1948)

The changing American Dream

The New Yorker, 20 July 1946 The Saturday Evening Post, 15 August 1959

The changing American Dream

Newsweek, 15 May 1995 USA Today, 7 April 1998

The changing American Dream

“Lifestyle Center”: The Shoppes at Arbor Lakes, Maple Grove, MN Lifestyle community: The Shire, Bend, OR

The changing American Dream

Dimensions of change:• economic resources: affluence/austerity• social resources: social capital, community• physical resources: land, energy, transport• cultural values and ideals: selfhood,

distinction, lifestyle, family, community• aesthetics: picturesque-pastoral, historical-

nostalgic, hip-and-smart

The changing American Dream

The changing global context

Suburbia embodies capitalism (it is not going away soon)

individual entrepreneurship +

property ownership=

the single-family detached house

The changing global context

Capital as a global resource is evolving. It is:• flexible– resources are rapidly accumulated, shifted, and

deployed• smart– capital can be selective and leveraged

• hybrid– accomplishing mixed, multiple ends

The changing finance of home ownership

• 1920s and earlier: 50% down payment, 5-year payoff• 1930s HOLC, FHA: small down payments, 30 year

term; later, adjustable rate mortgages, securitized subprime loans….

• Housing as a financial investment instrument• Housing as a commodity:– loses its identity with the person– instead becomes an instrument for lifestyle• lifestyles are codified in marketing

The changing agenda of planning

Where and how will suburbia grow? [1]

• Richard Florida: “Suburbia is ill-fitted to a creative, post-industrial economy.” Instead, growth will center on areas of dense clustering of the “creative class,” and places with high “metabolism.”

• Christopher Leinberger: “Once large-lot, suburban residential landscapes are built, they are hard to unbuild.” McMansions “face resale at rock-bottom prices to low-income families.”

• Joel Kotkin• Charles Leer

The changing agenda of planning

Where and how will suburbia grow? [2]

• Richard Florida• Christopher Leinberger• Joel Kotkin: fringe areas, many currently run down,

are cheap and hip; they afford great potential those who are comparatively less advantaged (lower capital costs, lower supply costs, lower cost of living). Think: bootstrapping the American Dream

• Charles Leer: $25,000 (maximum) three-year loans to bootstrap equity

The changing agenda of planning

How much to control?• MPCs: controls on design, use, change• Gated communities: controls on access too• Monocultural developments: controls on community– separate sectors for single family houses, town houses,

multifamily housing, etc– within sectors, clusters and neighborhoods of same-sized

units

Flexible planning

1(a). Flexible infrastructure• responsive, at various scales, to– changing demographics– changing resource supplies (capital, energy, building

materials, labor, land, public services, water)– advancing technologies (energy; Internet; media)– residents’ evolving aspirations, circumstances– cross-effects of multiple constraints at once

Flexible planning

1(b). Flexible infrastructure• “sustainable design,” “smart growth,” “green

building”: especially concerned with– changing resource supplies (capital, energy, building

materials, labor, land, public services, water)– advancing technologies (energy; Internet; media)

• compact planning and design– efficiencies of scale– efficiencies of proximity– enhanced “metabolism” (Richard Florida)

Flexible planning

2. Flexible planning units• clusters, neighborhoods, etc., that can evolve

in (limited) new or different ways over time to accommodate residents’ changing lives and needs

Flexible planning

3. Flexible social capital• neighborhoods evolve rather than turn over• for example: keeping empty nesters in the

community rather than expecting that they will move on

Flexible planning

4. Hybrid spaces• meld– desirable social features (e.g., activity clusters,

diverse populations?) with– longstanding, primary suburban characteristics:• selfhood• privacy• domesticity• lifestyle

Flexible planning

5. Flexible aesthetics: flexible codes and guidelines that

• allow residents to grow and change• afford opportunity for distinctly different (but

not necessarily opposed) interests such as– scenographic aesthetics (“Martha Stewart Living”)

and– practical, everyday living

Flexible planning

6. Flexible community• single-family vs. multifamily: myths and

prejudices• housing stock that can be resizable and

reconfigurable to suit residents’ changing circumstances and larger demographic changes (avoid building single-niche monocultures)

Flexible planning

7(a). Flexible design• Personalization, customization, affording

distinction

Flexible planning

7(b). Flexible design• Prefab/modular housing– Flatpak (Minneapolis)– Alchemy Architects (St Paul)

Flexible planning

7(c). Flexible design• Designing for change: Avi Friedman

The Adaptable House: DesigningHomes for Change, 2002

Planning the New Suburbia: Flexibilityby Design, 2002

Summary: the challenges in front of us

1. Setting expectations: the American Dream2. Global capital: suburbia is capitalism

embodied, capital is evolving rapidly3. Finance: housing as an investment, housing

as a lifestyle commodity4. The planning agenda: how will suburbia

grow?

Summary - flexible planning

1. Flexible infrastructure2. Flexible planning units3. Flexible social capital4. Hybrid spaces5. Flexible aesthetics (codes and guidelines)6. Flexible community7. Flexible design

Recasting Suburban Planning to fit the Future Suburb

• Recognize the diverse ways and populations that do and will make up suburbia.

• Building capacity for progressive and deliberate change

Planning based on the changing practice of everyday life or changing how we steer the boat

Lets get into some examples:– Expanding on traditional

methods– Non traditional methods– Social Improvements and

Social Capital Building

Traditional waysolder suburbs reacting to change•Housing and maintenance codes•Private market tear downs/ new homes• rehab loans to first time home buyers, •Senior Multi Family•Density increase, mixed use and employment centers

Bloomington Central Station, Health Central HQ and MOA

Medtronic's Head Quarters

Best Buy Head Quarters

But suburbia is changing creating a need for non traditional planning and interventions:•Population ages and diversifies

Expanding in home services and joint occupancy

Co-housing

Accessory Accessible Dwellings Cottage Care

New Arrival Assistance

•Housing and Neighborhoods

Incentives improvement programs

Flexible Design Programs

Rehabilitation Design Assistance

Mixed use includes the corner store

But suburbia is changing creating a need for non traditional planning and interventions:

Subdivisions with character

But suburbia is changing creating a need for non traditional planning and interventions:

Variety of Life Style Housing:

Live Work

Mixed use Senior Housing

Cluster Housing

Adaptive Re-use Co-Housing

Cottage housing

•Public Space: Creating places rather than spaces

Lineal connecting public space (Atlanta)

Multifunctional open places connecting it with stores and offices

But suburbia is changing creating a need for non traditional planning and interventions:

Centennial park, Edina

Edina’s Winter GardenWood Lake Nature Center, Richfield

Cottage Wood Plaza

What we talked about:revisit community standards and values for livability•Social Capital•Flexibility•Urgency•Promoting Choice•Livability/Sustainability•Equity

Beyond traditional services

Community in social capital building

Live Work Home

Granny FlatLife Cycle Housing

Alternatives and LID

Transit, Transit, Transit

Alternative Transport & Walkability

Livability/ Sustainable: Vital Public Life

Equity