The Fall of Suburbia(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
The Fall of Suburbia
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime
29 comments
The article is a lot of wishful thinking on behalf of its author. The news of the death of the suburbs has been greatly exaggerated.
No doubt, basic bedroom communities with a lack of transportation options for commuting will suffer with increased energy costs. However, the suburbs that provide a balanced business, commercial, and housing ecosystem and have diverse transportation options to the main destinations outside will actually thrive and prosper.
The simple fact is that not everyone likes nor wants to live in more densely populated areas. Believe it or not, walkability can be nice, but not everyone cares about that.
Signed, A Happy Suburban Dweller
/ I actually do love visiting downtowns like Boston and San Fran and walking to places.
// Fortunately, my home suburb in the Twin Cities (Eden Prairie) has hundreds of miles of dedicated bike paths to get around...
// ...and my commute to work is within the suburb itself.
/// Economically, it would take a tremendous shock to get me to move away. Perhaps, I'm just lucky to live in the RIGHT suburb! ;-)
No doubt, basic bedroom communities with a lack of transportation options for commuting will suffer with increased energy costs. However, the suburbs that provide a balanced business, commercial, and housing ecosystem and have diverse transportation options to the main destinations outside will actually thrive and prosper.
The simple fact is that not everyone likes nor wants to live in more densely populated areas. Believe it or not, walkability can be nice, but not everyone cares about that.
Signed, A Happy Suburban Dweller
/ I actually do love visiting downtowns like Boston and San Fran and walking to places.
// Fortunately, my home suburb in the Twin Cities (Eden Prairie) has hundreds of miles of dedicated bike paths to get around...
// ...and my commute to work is within the suburb itself.
/// Economically, it would take a tremendous shock to get me to move away. Perhaps, I'm just lucky to live in the RIGHT suburb! ;-)
"However, the suburbs that provide a balanced business, commercial, and housing ecosystem and have diverse transportation options to the main destinations outside will actually thrive and prosper."
Technically, then, it's not a suburb. Depending on population, it's closer to an edge city. The fact is that suburban sprawl like one of the examples specifically decried in the article (Windy Ridge is less that 45 minutes from where I live) consists of acre upon acre of packed chipboard-and-vinyl houses that aren't designed to last without extraordinary upkeep. It's predicated upon the notion of cheap, readily available energy, never-ending road construction, and a continual stream of both upwardly-mobile homebuyers looking to move up to something nicer, and first-time homebuyers looking for something cheap they can sell at a profit in a few years.
It's simply not a sustainable model. Sooner or later the market will bust, and in the interim, there's a good chances these cheap-and-cheery neighborhoods will come apart at the seams. They aren't built worth a damn, and they're miles from critical services and commerce. It's already starting to happen here. I hate to think what'll happen if gas spikes and sticks.
(In the interest of full disclosure: I skipped right over "suburban" to "exurban" living. I have over an acre on the outskirts of a small town about 25 miles from the nearest big city. So I'm happy out here, too. But gas bills are already putting a crimp in my lifestyle, so that might well change.)
Technically, then, it's not a suburb. Depending on population, it's closer to an edge city. The fact is that suburban sprawl like one of the examples specifically decried in the article (Windy Ridge is less that 45 minutes from where I live) consists of acre upon acre of packed chipboard-and-vinyl houses that aren't designed to last without extraordinary upkeep. It's predicated upon the notion of cheap, readily available energy, never-ending road construction, and a continual stream of both upwardly-mobile homebuyers looking to move up to something nicer, and first-time homebuyers looking for something cheap they can sell at a profit in a few years.
It's simply not a sustainable model. Sooner or later the market will bust, and in the interim, there's a good chances these cheap-and-cheery neighborhoods will come apart at the seams. They aren't built worth a damn, and they're miles from critical services and commerce. It's already starting to happen here. I hate to think what'll happen if gas spikes and sticks.
(In the interest of full disclosure: I skipped right over "suburban" to "exurban" living. I have over an acre on the outskirts of a small town about 25 miles from the nearest big city. So I'm happy out here, too. But gas bills are already putting a crimp in my lifestyle, so that might well change.)
>Perhaps, I'm just lucky to live in the RIGHT suburb!
yes. eden prarie was a tiny town until the 1970s that just happened to get swallowed up by the twin cities sprawl. thus it does have some history and character of its own. other suburbs in the twin cities are already slummy: richfield, robbinsdale, fridley, crystal, brooklyn center, etc. any suburb in the midwest where more people rent than own is not a good place.
yes. eden prarie was a tiny town until the 1970s that just happened to get swallowed up by the twin cities sprawl. thus it does have some history and character of its own. other suburbs in the twin cities are already slummy: richfield, robbinsdale, fridley, crystal, brooklyn center, etc. any suburb in the midwest where more people rent than own is not a good place.
>The news of the death of the suburbs has been greatly exaggerated ... The simple fact is that not everyone likes nor wants to live in more densely populated areas.
The article addresses this issue head-on with actual data, did you see that?
The article addresses this issue head-on with actual data, did you see that?
> the suburbs that provide a balanced business, commercial, and housing ecosystem and have diverse transportation options to the main destinations outside will actually thrive and prosper.
There are only a handful of places that match this description, and they're mostly pre-WWII vintage and right next to cities. Suburbia is overwhelmingly about strict zoning of housing, businesses, and entertainment and the use of highways to shuttle between the zones. This paradigm is breaking.
Suburbia never really worked in the first place. It was built because it made developers and road contractors rich, and they control local politics. At the national level the auto and highway lobby beat the street-car lobby.
Contrary to the claims of this article, there's little evidence people originally preferred the suburban paradigm. People had to move to suburbia in the post-war era because A) big businesses relocated jobs outside cities on sites requiring a car commute (the businesses moved first, not the housing); B) Suburban housing was all that was built. Loads of aging urban housing was simply ripped down and never replaced. The new housing was built in the suburbs. It's easy to spin this change in supply as a simple response to changing demand, but it was really concerted by all levels of the government along with politically connected business interests.
Arguably, there's also a reason C: city governments got too dysfunctional. But it's difficult to distinguish that as cause or correlation relative to A and B.
There are only a handful of places that match this description, and they're mostly pre-WWII vintage and right next to cities. Suburbia is overwhelmingly about strict zoning of housing, businesses, and entertainment and the use of highways to shuttle between the zones. This paradigm is breaking.
Suburbia never really worked in the first place. It was built because it made developers and road contractors rich, and they control local politics. At the national level the auto and highway lobby beat the street-car lobby.
Contrary to the claims of this article, there's little evidence people originally preferred the suburban paradigm. People had to move to suburbia in the post-war era because A) big businesses relocated jobs outside cities on sites requiring a car commute (the businesses moved first, not the housing); B) Suburban housing was all that was built. Loads of aging urban housing was simply ripped down and never replaced. The new housing was built in the suburbs. It's easy to spin this change in supply as a simple response to changing demand, but it was really concerted by all levels of the government along with politically connected business interests.
Arguably, there's also a reason C: city governments got too dysfunctional. But it's difficult to distinguish that as cause or correlation relative to A and B.
"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."
That's progress for you.
That's progress for you.
Thank you parent poster. This was the other part I wanted to cover in my post above but didn't think I could find hard data for. It seems like the contracting business has attracted large amounts of ethically-challenged scum, who are building houses that aren't likely to last as long as the mortgages paying for them. It kind of explains why new-home starts have seemed to be recession-proof in the last decade -- Say's Law lives in a very real sense here -- but at the same time it's hard to build stable neighborhoods around disposable homes.
Reasonably astute summary of the situation. This is the gospel Jim Kunstler and others have been preaching for years now (http://www.kunstler.com/). If you accept the idea of peak oil, you can readily see where the intersection of PO and the re-urbanization trend will spell disaster for the suburbs.
There is a lot of wishful thinking and very little fact in this article.
For one, only now, after some 2 years of $3 a gallon gas, has fuel economy begun to make itself felt in new car purchasers' decisions; where it is now in third place. It would take a lot more pain at the pump to get people to give up their quarter acre.
For one, only now, after some 2 years of $3 a gallon gas, has fuel economy begun to make itself felt in new car purchasers' decisions; where it is now in third place. It would take a lot more pain at the pump to get people to give up their quarter acre.
I think the whole sticker-shock issue with the price of gas is a chimera. Everyone I know has complained about the price of gas since it passed $1 for the last time in 1999. The price could be 60 cents a gallon and people would complain if they could remember a time when it was only 50 cents. The reason people complain about $3 gas is not because they can't afford it or are unwilling to afford it, it's because they remember paying 79 cents a gallon only 10 years ago. (Like I did with my first car!)
Our current lifestyle means 90% of the gas we buy is an unavoidable cost. If I (living in Lawrence, KS) decided to stop buying gas, or for some financial reason needed to buy less of it, I couldn't get to work, which would definitely make things worse. I also couldn't go buy food, or do much of anything else. People in Manhattan or any European city could probably cut back by using public transport, but that isn't a (realistic) option for me, and I suspect the vast majority of Americans are in a similar situation (if we are anything in Kansas, we are average). I'd be more likely to cut back on food and drop my cell phone than cut back on gas.
The only way to cut gas consumption is a more efficient car... or carpooling. Both are pretty drastic for the average person. Spending $30k to save on gas only makes sense sometimes, and setting up realistic carpooling is harder than paying $3/gallon.
So I bet gas could be $8 a gallon and you wouldn't see (significantly) lower consumption. Like you said, to think people will actually move just to save on gas is far fetched.
I'd move to an urban center just because I like being able to walk/ride everywhere (after living in Madrid)... not because gas is too expensive.
Our current lifestyle means 90% of the gas we buy is an unavoidable cost. If I (living in Lawrence, KS) decided to stop buying gas, or for some financial reason needed to buy less of it, I couldn't get to work, which would definitely make things worse. I also couldn't go buy food, or do much of anything else. People in Manhattan or any European city could probably cut back by using public transport, but that isn't a (realistic) option for me, and I suspect the vast majority of Americans are in a similar situation (if we are anything in Kansas, we are average). I'd be more likely to cut back on food and drop my cell phone than cut back on gas.
The only way to cut gas consumption is a more efficient car... or carpooling. Both are pretty drastic for the average person. Spending $30k to save on gas only makes sense sometimes, and setting up realistic carpooling is harder than paying $3/gallon.
So I bet gas could be $8 a gallon and you wouldn't see (significantly) lower consumption. Like you said, to think people will actually move just to save on gas is far fetched.
I'd move to an urban center just because I like being able to walk/ride everywhere (after living in Madrid)... not because gas is too expensive.
This concept is called "elasticity of demand":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand
They may not move just to save on gas, but if they're moving anyway for other reasons, you can bet that gas prices will be a factor in where.
I don't think anyone is asserting that gas prices alone will cause people to move. Over the next 20 years or so, many people will have to move anyway, whether they're getting a new job, moving out of their parent's house, moving from an apartment to a house to have kids, or retiring to a smaller house, or any number of other reasons. For these people gas prices and neighborhood walkability might be a significant consideration in where they choose to live compared to people who moved 10 years ago, especially if they were previously living in the suburbs and have felt all the ill effects of it.
>It would take a lot more pain at the pump to get people to give up their quarter acre.
All signs are that "a lot more pain at the pump" is very much on the way.
All signs are that "a lot more pain at the pump" is very much on the way.
The last bout of irrational exuberance gave us a lot of dark fiber and that obviously had positive effects. However, unsavory elements (porn) and respectable ones (news.yc ? :)) can coexist in peace because of the impermeable barriers of bit packets. Social dynamics are osmotic and will lead to re-invention of the new and newly cheap neighborhoods. But will these reinvented neighborhoods be slums? Changes (the more disturbing ones) observed in the article might be temporary aberration, for slums seem to need a combination of cheap housing and proximity to unskilled jobs that pay by the hour; the daily opportunity cost of the commute is quite literal.
"slums seem to need a combination of cheap housing and proximity to unskilled jobs that pay by the hour"
Actually, they need cheap, undesirable housing, and not much else. Slum neighborhoods are more often characterized by their _lack_ of job opportunities, pay-by-the-hour or otherwise. This is one of the things that makes escaping a slum so difficult -- the need to pay to get to any kind of work that enables you to live.
Actually, they need cheap, undesirable housing, and not much else. Slum neighborhoods are more often characterized by their _lack_ of job opportunities, pay-by-the-hour or otherwise. This is one of the things that makes escaping a slum so difficult -- the need to pay to get to any kind of work that enables you to live.
broken windows. Thats all they need.
Hardly anybody knows about opportunity cost. And in the case of many poor people, all they have in abundance is time anyway. Sad, but true.
Imagine when gas hits $5/gallon.
ObHacker: Densely populated neighborhoods can be more cheaply wired for broadband.
Book recommendation: Sprawl: A Compact History
Read it for a book club a long time ago. Need to find it again.
Read it for a book club a long time ago. Need to find it again.
good post. As a hacker, i just hate the american suburbia. Boring, non-inspiring, and soul drenching.
soul drenching?
[deleted]
sell sell sell!
In the same vein, most of the country never had a housing crunch like the Bay Area and metro Boston, but home building has been consistently outstripping the economy. Population grows at 0.9% annually, or about 2.7 million people per year; From 2000-2006, the net increase in housing units was 9.0% over the whole span, or 1.4% per year. In 2006 alone there were 1.8 million family units created, and over 2 million in 2005. With 2.3 or 2.4 people per household on average, there should only be 1.2 million new homes per year.
Unless household size is rapidly shrinking, there just aren't enough families to fill the houses being produced.