So, a blogging buddy of mine just put up a post about the “death of the Suburbs” myth. He discusses an article written in last Sunday’s LA Times that purports that the suburbs are not dying–and will not die because so many jobs moved to the suburbs in the last 20 years.
At least the Times journalist and I agree on one thing–Many jobs did relocate to the suburbs and are still located their. The transistion is a matter of historical perspective and economics. Suburban living became ubiquitous with the American Dream shortly after World War II. Couple that with the decline of cities as residents left for the suburbs greener pastures and it gave way to urban blight and decay. By the 1970’s, So many people had moved out of the city it not only made job retention sense, but economic sense to move a large company out to the The decision was two to the burbs. And lets not forget the incentive of cheap cheap cheap land, and there is the icing on the cake.
But then, the 90’s came and cities like NYC, Charlotte, Atlanta, Cleveland began to incentivize the relocation of companies to revitalized in-town locations to make it not only “chic” but economically more attractive to be in-town. Sprawl, traffic, and energy costs associated with sprawling corporate locations became less attractive.
For the last 10 years the trend away from suburban living has increased. People are changing the way in which they view how they prefer to live and work. Energy costs, traffic, and time spent commuting are making many–particularly young professionals, empty nesters, and to some degree young small families, rethink the benefits of far out, automobile fueled suburban living.
I think agree more with this guy. The suburbs may not be dead, but their ’sprawling mcmasion, two cars in the driveway’ dreams may be fading into the distance, and a new vision of transit and pedestrian orientated homestead may be the key to remaining desirable places to live.
10 responses so far ↓
Tom Lindmark // July 9, 2008 at 5:17 am |
Good article. But I still contend that the outcome is anything but certain. The transformation will be evolutionary and never discount the drive of the dream of a house with a yard in suburbia.
Eric Bowman // July 11, 2008 at 8:47 pm |
What you called “automobile fueled suburban living” is definitely on the decline. Urban living will be the future whether we currently like it or not.
Resource consumption (oil, water, etc.) and the subsequent effects (carbon, etc.) will be the define characteristics moving forward. There are few more wasteful ways of living then in suburbia where everyone must drives oversized vehicles and heat oversized poorly built homes.
The suburbs may have been a powerful engine for the post-WWII American economy, but they were never a good idea. We’ve consumed our best farmland, forests and open spaces and squandered our dwindling resources for the sake of our own egos.
Our grandchildren will look back at how we chose to organize our civilization and economy the same way we now view slavery and medieval stockades: with disbelief, wonder and horror.
Thanks for covering this trend.
Edward Harris // July 11, 2008 at 8:55 pm |
I liked the article very much. I do believe that Dallas is an urban area that is experiencing a rebirth of the urban core. The price tag for new units ownership or rental is not as high as Cali, but were are geetting there. The inucmbent low income are being squeezed out of valuable land. Public housing occupies valuable land in the urban core and redevelopment needs that land bad and will pay the price. So we give those that can’t afford the price tag on these single oriented lofts and townhomes, a voucher, now you have to find a landlord that will accept the voucher in the suburbs. Good Luck
Rich // July 11, 2008 at 8:57 pm |
Interesting points. My take is that there will be an opportunity for cities to capitalize on commuting costs and demographics trending toward those who prefer urban living. The extent to which that happens is largely dependant upon how well cities cater to those preferences.
How many cities have effective mass transit beyond the few that are always mentioned? Of those that don’t, is there sufficient demographic sway to get the approvals for the capital expenditure and disruption of the existing areas through which new transit lines will travel.
Steve Graham // July 11, 2008 at 10:33 pm |
The suburbs are so much the result of air conditioning and television. Community in the sense of interaction with other live people is no longer required for entertainment as we can stay inside and be entertained by our big screen TV. I hope that reversal of the suburbia trend will also reverse our trend toward ever greater isolation but that will only happen if community gathering is purposefully encouraged by community planners. If moving back to the urban core leaves you sitting atop retail malls and restaurants with insufficient FREE-USE communal space (indoors or out) then we will have once again proven ourselves unenlightened and destined to a continuing deterioration of our community fabric. (Maybe that’s what those with the land have always intended?!)
Ed Dodson // July 14, 2008 at 2:53 pm |
My views are pretty well known: bad tax policy stimulates land speculation and land speculation results in sprawl. Also, dysfunctional land markets add enormous stress to individual financial circumstances (e.g., constantly rising apartment rents and property taxes) and on businesses (e.g., rising costs of doing business when prices for goods and many services are determined by global market forces, which means companies must move to protect profit margins).
We have entered a period in which every aspect of our economic system is reaching a crisis stage at the same time. We are experiencing multiple shocks to the system simultaneously.
woullard lett // July 14, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
I think a cursory review of the american mind and mission, history and future that attributes the growth of the suburbs and the decline of the cities with the analysis that “Suburban living became ubiquitous with the American Dream shortly after World War II. Couple that with the decline of cities” excludes, ignores and obfuscates many significant factors and trends that were relevant to then and today.
The sense of racial superiority, subscription to materialist dreams and submission to capitalist demands for increased consumption to match expanding production which combined to privilege some, and disadvantage others will continue to force our hand, feed our dysfunction and create a world where the solutions are problems.
Ed Dodson // July 14, 2008 at 4:46 pm |
Whether what occurred is part of what woullard lett describes as “the American Dream” is worth extensive discussion. Because so many cities were rather nasty places to live for the majority of residents, the migration to the suburbs after WWII was hardly a surprise. Construction of the interstate highway system accelerated the migration, enabling developers to acquire land easily and cheaply; inexpensive housing (and FHA/VA mortgages) and affordable automobiles made it possible for workers to live further from work.
Cities then gradually lost their employment bases, not only to the suburbs but to other regions of the country (particularly California and then the Southeast and Southwest once air-conditioning became a standard amenity).
So, the processes fed on themselves — fueled by cheap fossil fuels and credit.
Still, some cities have managed better than others to revitalize themselves in spite of the above forces. New York City has had the advantage of constant in-migration from foreigners. Most of the nation’s cities could have experienced a renaissance over the decades if they had gradually moved toward a system of raising revenue that removed the tax burdens on wage earners and on commerce. Such taxes impose what many economists refer to as “dead weight losses) on a city’s economy. Conversely, there are no dead weight losses when revenue is obtained by “land value capture” (i.e., revenue equal to the annual rental value of locations) because such values are community- rather than individually-created.
Thus, the most serious source of “privilege” and the fundamental “dysfunction” is the private appropriation of publicly-created economic value, while confiscating via taxation individually-created economic values. Change this upside down tax structure and market forces will work to our common good.
Kit (Keep It Trill) // July 19, 2008 at 6:36 am |
Another great post, Jonzee. The link to the Atlantic article reminds me of Kunstler’s essays. BTW, you’ve got to read his past few ones at kunstler.com. Awesome.
One worry I have however. As society shifts deeper into a post cheap gas stage and a Great Depression, we can can expect lots of civil unrest that will hit the cities the hardest, at the same time when suburbanites will be unable to afford to drive to work or pay their utilities. The suburbs have malls, but there’s theories that the big box stores like Wal-Mart will go under because transporting stuff from China and driving it all over the country will eat up any profits, and unless suburbs ‘go local’ with food production and small businesses that make things people actually need, they’ll turn into slums or ghost towns. Unimaginable, eh?
Hope it doesn’t come to this, because it would be like choosing to live in a rock or a hard place – the city or the ‘burbs.
Impohymnhip // August 3, 2008 at 5:21 am |
Thank you