The Cycles of Development: A Reflection on Inequality and Housing

People's ability to choose where they can live is often dictated by what they can afford. Starting in the mid-twentieth century, white flight to the shiny, new suburbs became the norm. At the time, freeways allowed commuters to quickly travel to and from city jobs. Downtown areas, perceived as crime-ridden, outdated, and dirty, became increasingly undesirable. In contrast, new suburban neighborhoods with larger houses, spacious lots, and winding dead-end streets offered a more appealing lifestyle. These areas, with their shopping malls, schools, and other hubs of activity, were seen as highly desirable investments.

However, as the century progressed, a cultural shift began to unfold, and interest started to return to the city centers. The post-war construction boom had led to the rapid development of suburban housing, but much of it was no longer “shiny and new.” In fact, the quality of building materials and construction methods during this period were often inferior to that of older structures. This, combined with a mass exodus to the suburbs, led to overcrowding in urban areas and congestion on roads and highways that were never designed to accommodate such traffic. While the privacy and exclusivity of cul-de-sacs and dead-end neighborhoods may not have directly caused their decline, they certainly didn’t help. Windy, isolated subdivisions that feed into already-congested roads continue to be a point of contention in American cities, both functionally and in terms of desirability.

Now, two decades into the 21st century, the renewed interest in urban center investment continues to grow. Suburban office parks from the 1980s sit empty, along with many shopping malls from the same era. Meanwhile, the residential populations of downtown areas are exploding, as more people appreciate the convenience of having places to work, learn, and play within walking distance- or accessible via alternative transportation- rather than having to drive. The adage "what’s old is new again" rings true in many cases, and while there are exceptions, it has certainly held true in this era of urban rebirth. Even if downtown areas themselves aren’t the focal point, there’s a noticeable trend toward creating walkable neighborhoods that serve as one-stop shops for daily needs in cities across the country.

The days of single-use zoning across wide swaths of land are coming to an end. While the shift may be slow, the government is starting to catch up with changes to zoning laws and land development practices. As with many societal shifts, the private sector has often outpaced the public sector. This is evident in the way the tide has shifted over the past 60 to 70 years. In the past, non-white communities were excluded from affluent suburban areas, not only through income disparities exacerbated by systemic racism but also by discriminatory lending practices that reinforced the inaccessibility of the “American Dream.”

Today, while these practices may not be as overt, a reverse trend is unfolding. Wealthier, predominantly white populations are returning to city centers, buying up older housing stock, and either flipping or rebuilding properties. The homes being rebuilt are typically much larger, both in terms of square footage and cost. This often sets off a domino effect, where others in the area follow suit, renovating or rebuilding their own properties. However, without substantial financial assistance, longtime, lower-income residents are left behind as property values rise. The result is that many are forced out, despite having lived in these neighborhoods for generations.

This cycle raises an uncomfortable truth: in a system where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, many communities end up with the "leftovers" of gentrification. Government subsidies can only do so much to mitigate this process, and while developers may have good intentions, they cannot undo the larger market forces at play. Ultimately, a significant shift in the dynamics of the housing market is needed- but that change, unfortunately, does not seem to be on the immediate horizon.

The best way to address the continuing housing crisis is through outspoken advocacy and sustained pressure on policymakers. Only by pushing for real, systemic change can we hope to address the growing divide between wealthy and lower-income communities. Until then, the cycle will likely continue.