The death of the suburbs

[grannymiller]

Kuntsler is right about some things - but wrong about a lot.

Because he has no use for the suburbs, KFC,fat people and SUV's, he seems to go out of his way to factor all of them into his peak oil apocalyptic daydreams.

I happen to think he's wrong that the burbs aren't going to make out better than urban areas in the next economy.
You can't grow food on the sidewalk Jim and do you actually think people are going to climb the stairs to the 57th floor?

[sarahjoanna]

I seriously doubt that the "death of the suburbs" is upon us (although I wouldn't mind!), too many people think that living in suburbia, driving their SUVs down the block from their mcmansions to get to the strip mall is what American culture is, and they wouldn't give it up for the world.

I would love to live in the city, but at the moment I am still stuck in the suburbs. I commute to work in Manhattan every day, but I take the train, and so do the vast majority of people I know who commute to work in the tri-state area.

Better public transportation systems around the country, not just within cities, but also in the suburbs, are a necessity, and with ever increasing gas prices, even SUV-loving suburbanites are willing to take it.

[yoder]

One thing that I sometimes have a hard time remembering is that each suburb was at one time a fairly self sufficient town. They supplied good jobs and other opportunities as well as entertainment. Many suburbs still are fairly self sufficient to a degree and it would not be impossible for all suburbs to become more self sufficient. As they do so, people will be able to live, work and play without the need to travel to the main city or beyond.

[mikebeavis]

One thing that I sometimes have a hard time remembering is that each suburb was at one time a fairly self sufficient town. They supplied good jobs and other opportunities as well as entertainment. Many suburbs still are fairly self sufficient to a degree and it would not be impossible for all suburbs to become more self sufficient. As they do so, people will be able to live, work and play without the need to travel to the main city or beyond.

Don't forget, too, that much of what's now part of a city started out as a suburb of the city (cheaper housing, little backyards, sound familiar?). When public transport expanded to that area, and the city grew out to meet the "suburb" then it was simply incorporated into the city. Many areas of cities filled with late 19th century and early 20th century row houses started this way, as well as some suburbs that we'd recognize as more "modern" suburbs with grass all the way around each house.

[dan27]

I agree with everyone's comments that New Urban is not for everyone, but I wish it was for MORE people. I think if there was enough places like this people would start to accept them. 1 Acres, 14 Units. You can't beat that kind of resourcefulness.

[lh_newbie]

Don't forget, too, that much of what's now part of a city started out as a suburb of the city (cheaper housing, little backyards, sound familiar?). When public transport expanded to that area, and the city grew out to meet the "suburb" then it was simply incorporated into the city. Many areas of cities filled with late 19th century and early 20th century row houses started this way, as well as some suburbs that we'd recognize as more "modern" suburbs with grass all the way around each house.

This is very true and often overlooked. My area of Dallas ("Lake Highlands") was built in the 70's as one of the original "white flight suburbs". Due to this, we have many, many large trees, which is why I love my area (as you go over a hill, you don't see all the roof tops like in the new suburbs. Instead, you see an urban forest with a few homes peaking here and there. Lots of infill projects - here's links to two of them that are increasing density and public transit accessibility:

Lake Highlands Town center - http://www.lakehighlandstowncenter.com
Removal of 70's garden style apartments (using LEED standards for recycling the materials). 6-month long asbestos abatement process. Using passive solar design to minimize operating costs. Adding a local light rail station to the tracks that already go through the property. Mixed use - retail, residential, office. Extension of the existing hike/bike trail. 10 minute walk from my house (very excited about this). They're even relocating 100 mature trees to the northern and southern tips of the property while the new facilities are being built, then they will be encorporated back into the project. $400M project.

Park Lane Project - http://www.parklanedallas.com/
Massive mixed use project with an over-the-road pedestrian extension to the light rail station. Will house retail, residential, hotel and offices. $800M project.

There are several already existing such properties in Dallas - West Village and Mockingbird Station are two of the best existing examples. Dallas has a very sharp focus on building TOD (transit oriented destinations) to increase the usage of the light rail system already in place, along with extending the system to include a new NW-SE line heading up to Carrollton's (suburb) historic downtown, which will also house a new rail system going all the way up to Denton (another city with several colleges). By 2012 or 2013 (I forget which one), the light rail will extend all the way into the DFW International airport.

Even the downtown central business district is going through massive changes. 5-10 years ago, residential population was measured in the 100's. Through conversion of several empty commercial high rises and the addition of new residential or mixed-use properties, CBD has surpassed 5K residents and is something like 18 months away from crossing 10K - which is believed to be the critical mass number needed to accelerate this trend.

Dallas really has it's act together and is definitely trending toward a much more sustainable and pedestrian friendly place to live. In 10 years, Dallas won't seem like the same place.[/url]

[axual]

The question is moot. First, the price of gas is not high enough to force people to move. People will drive less or use more efficient methods. And where would they move, to a big city? Who wants that (people, smog, traffic, noise, etc.).

The price of water is too expensive. Shall I move to where water is less expensive?

[stevejust]

Comparing the cost of gas to the cost of water doesn't accomplish the goal you're thinking it does. First of all, the price of water coming from your tap is extremely cheap. If you set aside overpriced bottled water, your argument doesn't even get out of the gate.

Secondly, aside from the superficial appeal that maybe they’re both “inelastic,” you are missing the point that at some price, gasoline is going to become very elastic. Right now, your argument is basically that people will continue to buy gas because they have no choice. Well, that faulty reasoning led to people buying radically over-priced houses in the suburbs, too, and we all know where that logic got us. When gasoline is $6 or $8 or $12.55 a gallon, you’re going to see riots and looting and all kinds of crazy. And it is coming-- the only question is when. And the follow up question is will we have enough alternative energy sources in place by the time it happens, because it becomes more expensive to create wind and solar, to ship those raw materials and finished items, to pay for the copper needed to wire those installations – as the price of everything rises with gasoline.

The reasons why the suburbs will collapse have been explored at length in things like the movies The End of Suburbia, Subdivided, or in anything that Kuntsler has ever written or said. I am sure it’s coming, the question is really one of timing. In 2003 when GM was saying people don’t want more fuel efficient cars and they were spending millions to advertise the Hummer H2 – I said that gas would reach $4.00 a gallon by summer of 2006. I was only off by two years. Not bad considering a barrel of crude was $33 back when I was predicting $4 a gallon gas.

And back then I was saying people who spent $50,000 on their H2s in 2003 could have instead spent $25,000 on a Prius and $25,000 on a nice PV array. That would have been a way smarter way to spend that $50,000. And only when people start doing this, and planting gardens in their back yards will suburbia have any hope of a future. But it won’t look like it does today, that’s for sure.

None of this is to say that suburbia will disappear as so many foreclosed McMansions stand idle on former prairies – but the suburbs will necessarily have to reinvent themselves and become less energy intensive. There’s zero question about that. But who'd want to read a thread entitled, "The death of the suburbs as we know them and their inevitable transformation into something new and qualitatively different" ???


http://www.endofsuburbia.com
http://www.subdivided.net
http://www.kunstler.com

[lh_newbie]

None of this is to say that suburbia will disappear as so many foreclosed McMansions stand idle on former prairies – but the suburbs will necessarily have to reinvent themselves and become less energy intensive. There’s zero question about that. But who'd want to read a thread entitled, "The death of the suburbs as we know them and their inevitable transformation into something new and qualitatively different" ???

ROFLMAO! That last statement is so true. Things seem to be sensationalized in order to gain readership - whether it be main stream media or online forums.

Since a vast majority of US citizens live in suburbia - it's not like they're going to just leave their homes to move into the city. That in itself would be a waste of resources (all these new homes sitting idle). Instead, I think your statement is definitely accurate. I think we'll see many of these McMansions subdivided into duplexes or become generational homes along with people upgrading their efficiency and installing solar. The advent of less expensive solar and electric cars will probably retain the feasibility of the suburban lifestyle, along with an increase in telecommuting. Things will merely change.

Brian

[suburbantomboy]

I think the suburbs will die the same way the dinosaurs went extinct. In other words, they will adapt and evolve into something different, not just die out.

Many suburban areas have the skeletal structure to allow for an evolution to a more sustainable pattern. What is needed is more transportation options (bike lanes, sidewalk improvements, pedestrian passaged linking cul-de-sac communities, maybe please a light rail or trolley line running along the state highways that split many suburban communities), a return to smaller scale commercial districts that are at a walkable scale, more investment in local business, and an increased appreciation in local agriculture.

It can happen if the procedural obstacles are removed and planning boards shift their focus from the xenophobic need to outzone higher density housing to planning for more realistic, efficient, and sustainable patterns. Combine a new philosophy of planning with a public that wants (needs!) to drive their cars less, and things will change.

Bitch and moan about urban sprawl if you like, but you're unlikely to stop it. Lots of people just don't want to live in cities, want a bit of yard/garden of their own.

If properly designed, you can have that in an urban setting. New Urbanist/ TND, whatever you want to call it, people can have 2500-3000 square foot traditional houses with private yards and gardens and 3 car garage, all with in walking distance from metro areas.

The problem is Joe Builder buys 20 acres 40 miles away from the nearest town, and 20 stock plans from Cookie Cutter Houses R Us, puts up a gate, and calls it a community. Had there been land planners and architects involved, he could of gotten the same number of units, from a smaller plot of land closer to town, made it sustainable, and made more money.

While I agree with you about the benefits of a New Urbanist design, I think assigning blame for sprawl to builders alone in not accurate. Many builders want to build higher density with less infrastructure. They want to put more units on less land at less expense because then they make more money!

Here in NJ, it's the local planning boards demanding the lower density and accelerating sprawl. The costs of bringing in a project with a higher density than the zoning allows are obscene (one client I worked for spent $17,000 fighting for one extra unit and was denied). Since builders are profit motivated, they rarely want to pay the extra money fighting for higher density, clustering, transfer of development rights, or any other non-permitted creative development plan that would drain their bank accounts just in the approval (or denial!) process.

If you want to see higher density development in walkable areas and less sprawl in active farmland and rural areas, aim your efforts at the people writing the master plans and zoning ordinances, not at the builders who are following them. Hopefully higher gas prices and a public that wants more transportation options will encourage these boards to rethink higher density and mixed use patterns, which in turn will encourage the evolution of suburbia to a more sustainable form.

[suburbantomboy]

Since a vast majority of US citizens live in suburbia - it's not like they're going to just leave their homes to move into the city. That in itself would be a waste of resources (all these new homes sitting idle). Instead, I think your statement is definitely accurate. I think we'll see many of these McMansions subdivided into duplexes or become generational homes along with people upgrading their efficiency and installing solar. The advent of less expensive solar and electric cars will probably retain the feasibility of the suburban lifestyle, along with an increase in telecommuting. Things will merely change.

Brian

Agreed. There's going to be a tough transition period, but it's doable.

Electric power generation could also become a community scale thing. A lot of suburbs have huge school complexes with a lot of shade-free roof real estate that could generate power for more than just the school buildings themselves.

[BobTrips]

I'm sort of amazed at the amount of non-critical thinking going on here.

Just consider for a moment....

Europe has been paying $6+ for their gas for a long time, they have a significant non-urban population, and their civilization has not crashed.

The US has been living for a while with $3+ gas and our civilization has not crashed.

If we enter the world of $6 gas all that need be done by people who need to travel significant distances for work/shopping is 1) trade their 20 MPG car for a 40 MPG car or 2) car pool with one other person or) use public transportation part of the time.

[wsharp]

I read these discussions about the death of the suburbs and I can agree that there might be some shrinkage of far-off suburbs (30-60+ miles from job centers) but I think suburbs also have lots of advantages not be be ignored:

1. Roof space for solar install...solar will come down in price in the next few days...may a full roof system will be $25k.

2. Some fairly easy upgrades possible such as geothermal heat pumps...savings of 70% over current heating/cooling bills but the $20k initial outlay is a lot.

3. Individual land to grow food. Someone in an urban setting has very little room to grow food so are stuck always buying it. My 1/4 + 2500 square foot house gives me ample room to grow a lot of food.

These three things together (along with people just driving less, more efficient cars, different power source such as batteries) gives the suburbs some real advantages to an urban environment.

[stevejust]

I'm sort of amazed at the amount of non-critical thinking going on here.

Just consider for a moment....

Europe has been paying $6+ for their gas for a long time, they have a significant non-urban population, and their civilization has not crashed.

The US has been living for a while with $3+ gas and our civilization has not crashed.

If we enter the world of $6 gas all that need be done by people who need to travel significant distances for work/shopping is 1) trade their 20 MPG car for a 40 MPG car or 2) car pool with one other person or) use public transportation part of the time.

Big sigh. Bob, I always appreciate your posts about solar energy, etc.,.

But be careful about pointing your fingers at non-critical thinking.

Consider the image on this site for a moment, because it basically refutes your entire post:

Size of US compared to Europe

combined with this from the frontpage:

Gas riots in Spain and Elsewhere

And suppose people trade in 20 mpg cars for 40 mpg cars. Note too, that the small Toyota Corolla only gets 35 mpg HIGHWAY. There's actually a very small number of cars that get 40 mpg. Actually, there's just two that get over 40 mpg. The Prius and the Honda Civic Hybrid. A Mini Cooper doesn't. A Smart might make 41mpg on the highway but not in the city. So everyone buys a Prius or Civic Hybrid. Fine.

But how long until gas doubles in price from $4 to $8 a gallon? That's the problem. It's a vicous cycle that can't be won until we get off of it and try something different. Like riding a (bi)cycle.

[EnergyExpert]

I'm sort of amazed at the amount of non-critical thinking going on here.

Just consider for a moment....

Europe has been paying $6+ for their gas for a long time, they have a significant non-urban population, and their civilization has not crashed.

The US has been living for a while with $3+ gas and our civilization has not crashed.

If we enter the world of $6 gas all that need be done by people who need to travel significant distances for work/shopping is 1) trade their 20 MPG car for a 40 MPG car or 2) car pool with one other person or) use public transportation part of the time.

Absolutely! I keep hearing people make these ridiculous projections about millions of empty homes. I'm sure there are many people who would abandon their $500k home rather than pay $30k for a new Prius or EV or PHEV...sure that makes sense.

The fuel cost per mile of an electric car that is powered with PV cells (at current PV costs -- which is about 3x current retail electric rates) is about equal to a 20 mpg car using $3/gallon gas. People somehow think the world will be paralyzed and no one will react to price increases...they are very wrong.