Demographic Transition

Matt Yglesias says a changing population calls for a changing urban structure:

One thing that often comes up when I discuss policy shifts aimed at moving to a less car-dependent society is that someone will say that walkable urbanism may work for the callow and childless (like me!) but parents with children need their cars and suburbs. Since I was born and raised in Manhattan, that's not a point I would completely concede*, but obviously there's something to it. Only I think the force of the point militates in favor of a more urbanist policy dynamic. After all, the proportion of the population composed of families with children at home is on the decline...

The asterisk in the excerpt goes to a note suggesting that walkable places are probably better for families with teenagers, a point with which I'd absolutely agree. Suburban auto-dependency significantly reduces mobility for younger teens (and inconveniences their parents), while also ensuring that older teens spend way too much time behind a wheel. A flip side of the demographic argument Matt makes above is growth in the population of seniors corresponding to the aging of the boomers. That cohort will inevitably face deterioration in driving skills, but will also want to remain mobile and active. This will almost certainly translate into an increase in demand for walkable neighborhoods and public transit, which is all to the good. It's absurd that full participation in American society is a near impossibility for the carless (by choice or necessity).

It's interesting to think about this shift in demand in the context of this post by Yves Smith examining the relationship between demographic change, housing demand, and recovery. She links to a (rather unpleasant) post by David Goldman arguing that the decline of the nuclear family -- taken to mean two parents plus children -- made a housing crisis inevitable. Further, the continuation of this trend will retard economic recovery.

This is a little strange. It's not like the stagnation in the number of two parent households has meant stagnation in the number of households, period. That figure has continued to grow, and as best I can tell, non-two parent households enjoy the presence of a roof over their heads every bit as much as their two-parent counterparts. But there is a point to be made there. Demand for the prototypical suburban home -- three or more bedrooms, single-family detached, big back yard -- is going to decline. Given the very large supply of such homes in America at the moment (millions of which date to this decade alone) that could spell trouble. It is based, in part, on these trends that authors like Brookings' Chris Leinberger have predicted the coming of suburban slums.

But I think it's easy to overstate the potential for crisis. The American population is going to grow for the foreseeable future, which will mean an increase in national housing demand. That increase will mean that a bottom for the national housing market will be reached, which will end the bleeding for loan products tied to real estate. Moreover, the shift in demand will mean plenty of potential economic activity. There is already far too little available housing in walkable, transit-accessible neighborhoods (such areas have tended to outperform the broader market through this downturn), and with demand growing, construction opportunities will be plentiful.

The demographic shift will also allow a lot of suburban municipalities to stabilize themselves, as increasingly suburbs will look more like central cities. This process is already underway around the country. Inner suburbs are building streetcar lines, and replacing malls (indoor and strip) with mixed-use retail centers designed to look like main streets. Just as some cities sought to compete with the suburbs in the 1960s and 1970s by rebuilding themselves in an auto-centric fashion, suburbs will learn to accommodate a changing population.

The real wrench in the gears is the fact that government policies haven't yet caught up with the transition. Transportation funding formulas still make it much easier to build highway projects, and still allocate far more money to roads than to rails. And outdated zoning rules in cities and suburbs make it difficult to add density and build in a walkable fashion. There are indications that significant changes may be on the way (certainly the Obama administration seems to support rail). But given the potential boost to the economy that accommodation of this new demand could provide, one might expect them to pick up the pace of change a bit.