http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1713483,00.html

By Dan Kadlec     

Thursday, Feb. 14, 2008

Correction Appended: February 19, 2008

 Famed Money Manager is perhaps best known for his timeless wisdom that you can beat the pros by focusing on stocks of companies where you either work or shop or have some other edge. But a more relevant Lynchism today is this gem: Ignore the headlines. 

That’s no easy thing. How do you tune out all the chatter and ink on recession, housing, subprime woes, the credit crunch, rogue traders, insolvent bond insurers, $100 oil and nukes in Iran? It’s enough to make you sit on your thumbs and wait before making any big moves. But what, exactly, are you waiting for?

There has rarely been a moment in history when you couldn’t scare yourself into doing nothing. And yet, as Lynch observed nearly 20 years ago, “in spite of all the great and minor calamities that have occurred … all the thousands of reasons that the world might be coming to an end–owning stocks has continued to be twice as rewarding as owning bonds.”

A top reason to not buy stocks, in Lynch’s view, is if you don’t already own a home–in which case, that should be your first investment, since an owner-occupied home is nearly always profitable. Through a spokesman, Lynch reaffirmed these views to me–housing debacle and all.

When prices are falling, few people have the discipline to buy stocks, a house, gold, art or any other asset. But those who do pull the trigger excel in the long run. As John D. Rockefeller famously said, “The way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets.”

And the streets are stained crimson. Start with stocks. They have been pummeled this year. GDP braked sharply last quarter, and there has been plenty of panic about a recession. The Federal Reserve is slashing short-term interest rates at the fastest clip in decades. But if you stick to your steady, diversified plan while everyone else is retreating, you will be happy years from now. For one thing, Fed rate cuts always lift the economy eventually, and the stock market typically starts responding just as headlines get gloomiest. Sure, the market could fall again before recovering. But the recession may be half over already–or we may avoid one altogether. You just never know.

As for housing, certainly some skepticism is in order. Formerly sizzling markets in Florida, Nevada, Arizona and California probably haven’t seen the worst headlines just yet, though they may well be close. And “jumbo” mortgages, those more than $417,000, are likely to remain artificially high for a few more months while banks work through their credit issues.

But let’s say you are emotionally ready to be a homeowner. You have good credit, plan to stay put for five years and have been waiting for the perfect entry point. It’s time to get serious–before an inevitable rise in interest rates wipes out your advantage. “The thing that will make home prices stop falling is the very same thing that will push mortgage rates higher,” says Jim Svinth, chief economist at mortgage firm Lending Tree. So anything you gain by a further drop in prices might be offset by rising financing costs.

Consider a typical home that sells for $218,900. You put down 20% and get a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage at today’s rate of 5.5%. Monthly principal and interest come to $994.31. Let’s say that 12 months from now the same house goes for 10% less, or $197,010. But by then the recession is history and the Fed is jacking up rates to stem inflation. If mortgage costs rise a point, to 6.5%, your monthly payment would be $994.94 and you’d have saved nothing. Meanwhile, home prices might steady and sellers might become less willing to negotiate. And you have spent a year living someplace you’d rather not be.

It’s more complicated if you must sell before you can buy. But that logjam won’t persist forever–and if it appears you’ll be trapped for a few years, try to refinance at today’s lower rates. Risks always seem most acute when the headlines give you ulcers. But that’s exactly when you should think long term–and get off your thumbs.

http://finanhttp://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/104483/Is-Now-the-Time-to-Buy-a-1-Million-Home;

by Prashant Gopal
Monday, February 25, 2008provided by

For buyers with good credit and healthy bank accounts, a million dollars buys a lot more home than it did a few years ago

The Karsentis are jumping into South Florida real estate at a risky time: Home prices are down, foreclosures are up, and for-sale signs are as common as palm trees.

But entrepreneur Arnaud Karsenti and his wife, Rebecca, a doctor now pregnant with their first child, are confident that the $1.15 million home they have a contract to buy in the wealthy Miami suburb of Pinecrest, Fla., will prove to be a good investment.

“I see the real estate market declining, so it’s very difficult to stick a fork in the ground and take a position on something that could be overvalued six months down the road,” said Karsenti, a recent graduate of Harvard Business School. “Our decision is long term.”

Bargains in the Luxury Market

Buyers like the Karsentis who can afford million-dollar homes are getting more for their money than they might have during the peak of the housing boom a couple of years ago. These are families with enough income and other assets, as well as good credit. They aren’t worried about making mortgage and car payments, and are able to take advantage of historically low interest rates and falling home prices.

BusinessWeek.com’s survey of million-dollar homes in 20 markets across the country shows that buyers have plenty to choose from, and that their money will get them plenty of space and high-end amenities such as gourmet kitchens, patios, game rooms, and pools. Of course, in some areas a million dollars goes a lot further than in others. Living close to America’s priciest cities comes at a premium. A remodeled 1,757-sq.-ft. house in Belmont, Calif., about a half-hour outside San Francisco, for example, looks pretty modest compared with a stately 5,059-sq.-ft. mansion with a screened-in pool on an acre outside Charleston, S.C. (Both homes are listed for under $1 million.) But it’s not all bad news. In the pretty town of Brewster, N.Y., about 80 minutes from midtown Manhattan, a four-bedroom, clapboard home with an in-ground pool is on the market for $989,000.

Families like the Karsentis, with a net worth of more than $1 million—which includes the value of their homes minus outstanding mortgage liabilities—want to live well but many of them still don’t feel rich. But they know they have made enough money to afford, truly afford, to pay for what they’ve bought. And to many home buyers, being able to afford something with a $1 million price tag is a confirmation of their success, even if there are plenty of nice houses available for less.

A House That Says You’ve Arrived

In less expensive markets, such as Texas, buyers expect more for their $1 million, said Jan Poscovsky of Re/Max Heritage in Sugarland. Doctors, lawyers, and oil executives expect country-club amenities in the communities they move into, she said.

“There’s so much affordable housing here, and it is possible to get a really nice home with a large square footage for $400,000 to $600,000,” Poscovsky said. “They’re spending $1 million because they want something more than space. They’re buying a lifestyle and the prestige that goes with it.”

Homes that cost $1 million or more represent just about 2% of all transactions, according to the National Association of Realtors. And the credit crunch is not hurting only subprime borrowers. It’s been harder for borrowers to get so-called jumbo mortgages, which exceed $417,000. That means the majority of buyers in this category are those who have just a sold a house and are looking to buy again, or have liquid assets of more than half a million dollars.

It’s not just the amenities that home buyers are getting for their money. Often, these homes are located in the best school districts. Of course, potential buyers also need to keep in mind that good schools often translate to higher school taxes so they will need to factor in those, in addition to their mortgage and down payment, when calculating the affordability of a home.

The Sweet Spot for Bargains

Still Celia Chen, director of housing economics at Moody’s Economy.com, said the top 10% of the real estate market in terms of home price is doing better than the lower end of the market, which is impacted more by the credit crisis. Prices can be more sticky on the top end because “owners of very high-end homes can wait longer—they don’t have to accept a lowball price,” Chen said.

JoAnn Roberts of Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate in Pinecrest, said million-dollar homes in her area are doing much better than both the lower-priced homes and mansions at the top of the market. She said builders created an oversupply of $3 million to $4 million homes. Contracts are falling through on the lower end of the market because buyers are having trouble qualifying for loans, she said.

The Karsentis say they’re buying now because their family is growing, they love the home, and they know it’s impossible to time the real estate market.

“You can’t help but look over your shoulder and think there might be other opportunities down the road,” he said. “But though it’s difficult to sell at the peak, it’s also difficult to buy at the trough.”

Million-Dollar Home Deals 2008

For those with good credit and a solid income, the housing market hasn’t been this good in years for buyers. Here’s a look at what $1 million (or less) can buy you in 20 of the nicest suburbs of the nation’s largest cities.

Arizona

Suburb: Scottsdale
Address: 13839 E. Casey Lane
Price: $950,000
Closest major city: Phoenix
Commute: about 50 minutes
Bed/Baths: 4/3

The 3,970-square-foot home sits on 1.25 acres in the north Scottsdale foothills area. It has a separate guest house with a kitchenette and full bathroom and a 1,500-square-foot brick entry courtyard. The great room has a built-in audio/video center with wood insets, and the kitchen has a solid granite breakfast bar.

California

Suburb: Belmont
Address: 1914 Lyon Ave.
Price: $989,000
Closest major city: San Francisco
Commute: about 30 minutes
Bed/Baths: 3/2

The remodeled 1,757-square-foot house built in 1956 has views of the Santa Cruz mountain range. It has a marble master bathroom, a granite kitchen, crown moldings, central air conditioning, double-pane windows, and a finished basement media room.

ColoradoSuburb:Aurora
Address: 6091 S. Kalispell
Price: $999,000
Closest major city: Denver
Commute: 30 minutes
Bed/Baths: 4/4The 4,990-square-foot house has a two-story foyer with grand columns framing the entrance to the formal dining room. The curved staircase has a wrought-iron railing.

Suburb: Stamford
Address: 85 Harpsichord Turnpike
Price: $1,049,000
Closest major city: New York City
Commute: about 60 minutes
Bed/Baths: 4/2

The 3,000-square-foot colonial has a two-story entry, a country kitchen, family room, a living room with fireplace, and a library with doors to the patio and formal dining room.

Florida

Suburb: Pinecrest
Address: 7820 SW 126 Terrace
Price: $999,000
Closest major city: Miami
Commute: about 20 minutes
Bed/Baths: 4/3

The 3,047-square-foot house has a three-car garage, a guest house, and a resort-style pool. The master bedroom’s French doors open into a pool/patio area.

Georgia

Suburb: Marietta
Address: 3044 Canton Pines Place NE
Price: $999,000
Closest major city: Atlanta
Commute: about 25 minutes
Bed/Baths: 5/4

The house, built in 2006, has a gourmet kitchen, a butler’s pantry and breakfast area, a guest suite on the main level, a banquet-size dining room, a living room with a coffered ceiling, a mud room, a deck, and private backyard.

IllinoisSuburb: Glenview
Address: 3218 Knollwood Lane
Price: $1,049,000
Closest major city: Chicago
Commute: about 35 minutes
Bed/Baths: 5/5The brick-and-stone home has arched openings, a finished basement, a three-car garage, and a cook’s kitchen with stainless-steel appliances and granite countertops.Indiana

Suburb: Noblesville
Address: 16332 Valhalla Drive
Price: $995,000
Closest major city: Indianapolis
Commute: about 35 minutes
Bed/Baths: 4/4

This 6,162-square-foot home has a large gourmet kitchen with granite countertops, a SubZero fridge, and a walk-out lower level with a theater area. The house, built in 2002, overlooks the second hole at Sagamore Country Club.

See More Million Dollar Homes

Copyrighted, Business Week. All rights reserved.

In the Atlantic Monthly article below discusses forecast for the future suburban housing marketing and identifies Evanston, IL as having a strong foundation for the future.

The Next Slum?

by Christopher B. Leinberger , Atlantic monthly

The subprime crisis is just the tip of the iceberg. Fundamental changes in American life may turn today’s McMansions into tomorrow’s tenements.

Strange days are upon the residents of many a suburban cul-de-sac. Once-tidy yards have become overgrown, as the houses they front have gone vacant. Signs of physical and social disorder are spreading. At Windy Ridge, a recently built starter-home development seven miles northwest of Charlotte, North Carolina, 81 of the community’s 132 small, vinyl-sided houses were in foreclosure as of late last year. Vandals have kicked in doors and stripped the copper wire from vacant houses; drug users and homeless people have furtively moved in. In December, after a stray bullet blasted through her son’s bedroom and into her own, Laurie Talbot, who’d moved to Windy Ridge from New York in 2005, told The Charlotte Observer, “I thought I’d bought a home in Pleasantville. I never imagined in my wildest dreams that stuff like this would happen.” In the Franklin Reserve neighborhood of Elk Grove, California, south of Sacramento, the houses are nicer than those at Windy Ridge—many once sold for well over $500,000—but the phenomenon is the same. At the height of the boom, 10,000 new homes were built there in just four years. Now many are empty; renters of dubious character occupy others. Graffiti, broken windows, and other markers of decay have multiplied. Susan McDonald, president of the local residents’ association and an executive at a local bank, told the Associated Press, “There’s been gang activity. Things have really been changing, the last few years.” In the first half of last year, residential burglaries rose by 35 percent and robberies by 58 percent in suburban Lee County, Florida, where one in four houses stands empty. Charlotte’s crime rates have stayed flat overall in recent years—but from 2003 to 2006, in the 10 suburbs of the city that have experienced the highest foreclosure rates, crime rose 33 percent. Civic organizations in some suburbs have begun to mow the lawns around empty houses to keep up the appearance of stability. Police departments are mapping foreclosures in an effort to identify emerging criminal hot spots. The decline of places like Windy Ridge and Franklin Reserve is usually attributed to the subprime-mortgage crisis, with its wave of foreclosures. And the crisis has indeed catalyzed or intensified social problems in many communities. But the story of vacant suburban homes and declining suburban neighborhoods did not begin with the crisis, and will not end with it. A structural change is under way in the housing market—a major shift in the way many Americans want to live and work. It has shaped the current downturn, steering some of the worst problems away from the cities and toward the suburban fringes. And its effects will be felt more strongly, and more broadly, as the years pass. Its ultimate impact on the suburbs, and the cities, will be profound. Arthur C. Nelson, director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, has looked carefully at trends in American demographics, construction, house prices, and consumer preferences. In 2006, using recent consumer research, housing supply data, and population growth rates, he modeled future demand for various types of housing. The results were bracing: Nelson forecasts a likely surplus of 22 million large-lot homes (houses built on a sixth of an acre or more) by 2025—that’s roughly 40 percent of the large-lot homes in existence today. For 60 years, Americans have pushed steadily into the suburbs, transforming the landscape and (until recently) leaving cities behind. But today the pendulum is swinging back toward urban living, and there are many reasons to believe this swing will continue. As it does, many low-density suburbs and McMansion subdivisions, including some that are lovely and affluent today, may become what inner cities became in the 1960s and ’70s—slums characterized by poverty, crime, and decay.

The suburban dream began, arguably, at the New York World’s Fair of 1939 and ’40. “Highways and Horizons,” better known as “Futurama,” was overwhelmingly the fair’s most popular exhibit; perhaps 10 percent of the American population saw it. At the heart of the exhibit was a scale model, covering an area about the size of a football field, that showed what American cities and towns might look like in 1960. Visitors watched matchbox-sized cars zip down wide highways. Gone were the crowded tenements of the time; 1960s Americans would live in stand-alone houses with spacious yards and attached garages. The exhibit would not impress us today, but at the time, it inspired wonder. E. B. White wrote in Harper’s, “A ride on the Futurama … induces approximately the same emotional response as a trip through the Cathedral of St. John the Divine … I didn’t want to wake up.” The suburban transformation that began in 1946, as GIs returned home, took almost half a century to complete, as first people, then retail, then jobs moved out of cities and into new subdivisions, malls, and office parks. As families decamped for the suburbs, they left behind out-of-fashion real estate, a poorer residential base, and rising crime. Once-thriving central-city retail districts were killed off by the combination of regional suburban malls and the 1960s riots. By the end of the 1970s, people seeking safety and good schools generally had little alternative but to move to the suburbs. In 1981, Escape From New York, starring Kurt Russell, depicted a near future in which Manhattan had been abandoned, fenced off, and turned into an unsupervised penitentiary. Cities, of course, have made a long climb back since then. Just nine years after Russell escaped from the wreck of New York, Seinfeld—followed by Friends, then Sex and the City—began advertising the city’s renewed urban allure to Gen-Xers and Millennials. Many Americans, meanwhile, became disillusioned with the sprawl and stupor that sometimes characterize suburban life. These days, when Hollywood wants to portray soullessness, despair, or moral decay, it often looks to the suburbs—as The Sopranos and Desperate Housewives attest—for inspiration. In the past decade, as cities have gentrified, the suburbs have continued to grow at a breakneck pace. Atlanta’s sprawl has extended nearly to Chattanooga; Fort Worth and Dallas have merged; and Los Angeles has swung a leg over the 10,000-foot San Gabriel Mountains into the Mojave Desert. Some experts expect conventional suburbs to continue to sprawl ever outward. Yet today, American metropolitan residential patterns and cultural preferences are mirror opposites of those in the 1940s. Most Americans now live in single-family suburban houses that are segregated from work, shopping, and entertainment; but it is urban life, almost exclusively, that is culturally associated with excitement, freedom, and diverse daily life. And as in the 1940s, the real-estate market has begun to react.

Pent-up demand for urban living is evident in housing prices. Twenty years ago, urban housing was a bargain in most central cities. Today, it carries an enormous price premium. Per square foot, urban residential neighborhood space goes for 40 percent to 200 percent more than traditional suburban space in areas as diverse as New York City; Portland, Oregon; Seattle; and Washington, D.C. It’s crucial to note that these premiums have arisen not only in central cities, but also in suburban towns that have walkable urban centers offering a mix of residential and commercial development. For instance, luxury single-family homes in suburban Westchester County, just north of New York City, sell for $375 a square foot. A luxury condo in downtown White Plains, the county’s biggest suburban city, can cost you $750 a square foot. This same pattern can be seen in the suburbs of Detroit, or outside Seattle. People are being drawn to the convenience and culture of walkable urban neighborhoods across the country—even when those neighborhoods are small. Builders and developers tend to notice big price imbalances, and they are working to accommodate demand for urban living. New lofts and condo complexes have popped up all over many big cities. Suburban towns built in the 19th and early 20th centuries, featuring downtown street grids at their core, have seen a good deal of “in-filling” in recent years as well, with new condos and town houses, and renovated small-lot homes just outside their downtowns. And while urban construction may slow for a time because of the present housing bust, it will surely continue. Sprawling, large-lot suburbs become less attractive as they become more densely built, but urban areas—especially those well served by public transit—become more appealing as they are filled in and built up. Crowded sidewalks tend to be safe and lively, and bigger crowds can support more shops, restaurants, art galleries. But developers are also starting to find ways to bring the city to newer suburbs—and provide an alternative to conventional, car-based suburban life. “Lifestyle centers”—walkable developments that create an urban feel, even when built in previously undeveloped places—are becoming popular with some builders. They feature narrow streets and small storefronts that come up to the sidewalk, mixed in with housing and office space. Parking is mostly hidden underground or in the interior of faux city blocks. The granddaddy of all lifestyle centers is the Reston Town Center, located between Virginia’s Dulles International Airport and Washington, D.C. Since it opened in 1990, it has become the “downtown” for western Fairfax and eastern Loudoun counties; a place for the kids to see Santa and for teenagers to ice skate. People living in the town can stroll from the movie theater to restaurants and then back home. A 2006 study by the Brookings Institution showed that Reston’s apartments, condominiums, and office and retail space were all commanding about a 50 percent rent or price premium over the typically suburban houses, office parks, and strip malls nearby. Housing at Belmar, the new “downtown” in Lakewood, Colorado, a middle-income inner suburb of Denver, commands a 60 percent premium per square foot over the single-family homes in the neighborhoods around it. The development covers about 20 small blocks in all. What’s most noteworthy is its history: it was built on the site of a razed mall. Building lifestyle centers is far more complex than building McMansion developments (or malls). These new, faux-urban centers have many moving parts, and they need to achieve critical mass quickly to attract buyers and retailers. As a result, during the 1990s, lifestyle centers spread slowly. But real-estate developers are gaining more experience with this sort of building, and it is proliferating. Very few, if any, regional malls are being built these days—lifestyle centers are going up instead.

In most metropolitan areas, only 5 to 10 percent of the housing stock is located in walkable urban places (including places like downtown White Plains and Belmar). Yet recent consumer research by Jonathan Levine of the University of Michigan and Lawrence Frank of the University of British Columbia suggests that roughly one in three homeowners would prefer to live in these types of places. In one study, for instance, Levine and his colleagues asked more than 1,600 mostly suburban residents of the Atlanta and Boston metro areas to hypothetically trade off typical suburban amenities (such as large living spaces) against typical urban ones (like living within walking distance of retail districts). All in all, they found that only about a third of the people surveyed solidly preferred traditional suburban lifestyles, featuring large houses and lots of driving. Another third, roughly, had mixed feelings. The final third wanted to live in mixed-use, walkable urban areas—but most had no way to do so at an affordable price. Over time, as urban and faux-urban building continues, that will change. Demographic changes in the United States also are working against conventional suburban growth, and are likely to further weaken preferences for car-based suburban living. When the Baby Boomers were young, families with children made up more than half of all households; by 2000, they were only a third of households; and by 2025, they will be closer to a quarter. Young people are starting families later than earlier generations did, and having fewer children. The Boomers themselves are becoming empty-nesters, and many have voiced a preference for urban living. By 2025, the U.S. will contain about as many single-person households as families with children. Because the population is growing, families with children will still grow in absolute number—according to U.S. Census data, there will be about 4 million more households with children in 2025 than there were in 2000. But more than 10 million new single-family homes have already been built since 2000, most of them in the suburbs. If gasoline and heating costs continue to rise, conventional suburban living may not be much of a bargain in the future. And as more Americans, particularly affluent Americans, move into urban communities, families may find that some of the suburbs’ other big advantages—better schools and safer communities—have eroded. Schooling and safety are likely to improve in urban areas, as those areas continue to gentrify; they may worsen in many suburbs if the tax base—often highly dependent on house values and new development—deteriorates. Many of the fringe counties in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, for instance, are projecting big budget deficits in 2008. Only Washington itself is expecting a large surplus. Fifteen years ago, this budget situation was reversed.

The U.S. grows its total stock of housing and commercial space by, at most, 3 percent each year, so the imbalance between the supply of urban living options and the demand for them is not going to disappear overnight. But over the next 20 years, developers will likely produce many, many millions of new and newly renovated town houses, condos, and small-lot houses in and around both new and traditional downtowns. As conventional suburban lifestyles fall out of fashion and walkable urban alternatives proliferate, what will happen to obsolete large-lot houses? One might imagine culs-de-sac being converted to faux Main Streets, or McMansion developments being bulldozed and reforested or turned into parks. But these sorts of transformations are likely to be rare. Suburbia’s many small parcels of land, held by different owners with different motivations, make the purchase of whole neighborhoods almost unheard-of. Condemnation of single-family housing for “higher and better use” is politically difficult, and in most states it has become almost legally impossible in recent years. In any case, the infrastructure supporting large-lot suburban residential areas—roads, sewer and water lines—cannot support the dense development that urbanization would require, and is not easy to upgrade. Once large-lot, suburban residential landscapes are built, they are hard to unbuild. The experience of cities during the 1950s through the ’80s suggests that the fate of many single-family homes on the metropolitan fringes will be resale, at rock-bottom prices, to lower-income families—and in all likelihood, eventual conversion to apartments. This future is not likely to wear well on suburban housing. Many of the inner-city neighborhoods that began their decline in the 1960s consisted of sturdily built, turn-of-the-century row houses, tough enough to withstand being broken up into apartments, and requiring relatively little upkeep. By comparison, modern suburban houses, even high-end McMansions, are cheaply built. Hollow doors and wallboard are less durable than solid-oak doors and lath-and-plaster walls. The plywood floors that lurk under wood veneers or carpeting tend to break up and warp as the glue that holds the wood together dries out; asphalt-shingle roofs typically need replacing after 10 years. Many recently built houses take what structural integrity they have from drywall—their thin wooden frames are too flimsy to hold the houses up. As the residents of inner-city neighborhoods did before them, suburban homeowners will surely try to prevent the division of neighborhood houses into rental units, which would herald the arrival of the poor. And many will likely succeed, for a time. But eventually, the owners of these fringe houses will have to sell to someone, and they’re not likely to find many buyers; offers from would-be landlords will start to look better, and neighborhood restrictions will relax. Stopping a fundamental market shift by legislation or regulation is generally impossible. Of course, not all suburbs will suffer this fate. Those that are affluent and relatively close to central cities—especially those along rail lines—are likely to remain in high demand. Some, especially those that offer a thriving, walk able urban core, may find that even the large-lot, residential-only neighborhoods around that core increase in value. Single-family homes next to the downtowns of Redmond, Washington; Evanston, Illinois; and Birmingham, Michigan, for example, are likely to hold their values just fine. On the other hand, many inner suburbs that are on the wrong side of town, and poorly served by public transport, are already suffering what looks like inexorable decline. Low-income people, displaced from gentrifying inner cities, have moved in, and longtime residents, seeking more space and nicer neighborhoods, have moved out. But much of the future decline is likely to occur on the fringes, in towns far away from the central city, not served by rail transit, and lacking any real core. In other words, some of the worst problems are likely to be seen in some of the country’s more recently developed areas—and not only those inhabited by subprime-mortgage borrowers. Many of these areas will become magnets for poverty, crime, and social dysfunction.

Despite this glum forecast for many swaths of suburbia, we should not lose sight of the bigger picture—the shift that’s under way toward walkable urban living is a healthy development. In the most literal sense, it may lead to better personal health and a slimmer population. The environment, of course, will also benefit: if New York City were its own state, it would be the most energy-efficient state in the union; most Manhattanites not only walk or take public transit to get around, they unintentionally share heat with their upstairs neighbors. Perhaps most important, the shift to walkable urban environments will give more people what they seem to want. I doubt the swing toward urban living will ever proceed as far as the swing toward the suburbs did in the 20th century; many people will still prefer the bigger houses and car-based lifestyles of conventional suburbs. But there will almost certainly be more of a balance between walkable and drivable communities—allowing people in most areas a wider variety of choices. By the estimate of Virginia Tech’s Arthur Nelson, as much as half of all real-estate development on the ground in 2025 will not have existed in 2000. It’s exciting to imagine what the country will look like then. Building and residential migration seem to progress slowly from year to year, yet then one day, in retrospect, the landscape seems to have been transformed in the blink of an eye. Unfortunately, the next transformation, like the ones before it, will leave some places diminished. About 25 years ago, Escape From New York perfectly captured the zeitgeist of its moment. Two or three decades from now, the next Kurt Russell may find his breakout role in Escape From the Suburban Fringe.

The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago has reported a new time line for completion of the ongoing work by KENNY Construction Company to rehabilitate an existing 10-foot diameter sewer line.  The Evanston areas affected included Lake Street between Elmwood Avenue and the North Shore Channel.  KENNY Construction Company cites design issues encountered once in the field as the cause behind the significant delays, but all are said to be resolved. The project is expected to proceed uninterrupted until completion in July 2008. Highlights of the updated plan include:·         Street closures and detours already in place will remain until the project completion.  ·         The shaft originally planned for Florence Ave has been cancelled and the new location selected is at Wesley Avenue.  ·         The shaft originally planned for Elmwood Avenue has been deemed unnecessary and has been replaced by a smaller pumping operation. There will be no street closure at this location. ·         Grey Avenue: Began March 12, 2007 - Ends May 30, 2008·         Wesley Avenue: Began July 23, 2007 - Ends June 30, 2008·         Removal of pumping equipment and street restoration will begin on May 17, 2008 and is scheduled to be completed by June 13, 2008.   Contact Mr. Tom Gillis from KENNY Construction Company with questions regarding this project or in an emergency contact 877-775-3669.

On February 5, 2008, voters in Evanston, IL were presented a Real Estate Transfer Tax Referendum.  As reported by the Evanston City Clerk’s Office, the outcome of the referendum are as follows:

“With 100% of the 70 precincts counted, the Evanston Referendum regarding the Real Estate Transfer Tax was defeated. Totals are 8,783 (42.04%) voting YES and 12,110 (57.96%) voting NO.”

Source: http://www.cityofevanston.org/government/clerk/voter.shtml

The Downtowners

By Dan Rafter | SPECIAL TO THE TRIBUNE  February 17, 2008  Two more winters shoveling sidewalks and dumping salt on her front steps: That’s how Anne Jacobson is counting the moments until she can move into Winthrop Club, a 15-story luxury condo tower rising in downtown Evanston. Jacobson and her husband, Rick Kolsky, are early buyers in Winthrop Club, which will bring 98 units to 1567 Maple St. in the heart of downtown Evanston. The couple will not be alone. Evanston is seeing a miniature condo boom, with two new residential towers — Sienna, in the center of downtown, and Grand Bend at Green Bay on its edge — expected to be complete this spring and Winthrop Club due to finish in 2009. The three buildings will add more than 400 new condominium units. And that doesn’t count new condominium construction outside the suburb’s downtown area.In the last five years, 1,584 condos have come online in Evanston, according to Liz Drozdik, director of market research for Schaumburg’s Strategy Planning Associates. The figure includes completed condominium units and those currently under construction. Other old-line suburbs have not seen the same kind of growth. Des Plaines, for example, has added 977 condo units in the last five years, while Elmhurst has grown by just 123. But what real estate professionals, developers and Evanston officials see as a downtown revitalization, others say will turn the area into a congested mess and drive out small businesses.Jacobson, who’s lived in the same 80-year-old single-family home in Evanston for 22 years, can’t wait to join the boom.“Our house was perfect for raising a family,” Jacobson said. “But our children are grown now. We don’t need as much space as we used to. We don’t need to be within walking distance of the elementary school. The big back yard isn’t as important anymore.

“Evanston has a lot to offer. It has restaurants and businesses. It has a great diversity in its population. It’s located on the lake. It even has a major university,” Stern said. “It’s not surprising that people want to move here. Now, with the construction going on, the city can keep its empty- nesters too.”