Living in suburbia now even worse
Photo by pincusvt. Licensed under Creative Commons license 2.0.
Well, now we have proof that the New York Times is biased against flyover country. I mean, only a left-wing maniac would dare point out that living out in God's Country (away from those sinful cities) isn't all it's cracked up to be. And then they dare to point out that our glorious subdivisions might not be the most sustainable living arrangement. How dare they! I'm outraged.
Actually, I'm kididng. But I did want to point out this article that really puts into perspective how high gas prices are delivering a thumping to people who need to drive many miles to the store or to work. I grew up in a place like this, so I know the drill going to the grocery story is a ten minute drive, minimum. Bike or bus? Forget it. What I didn't think about was the possibility, quoted by the Times from an earlier article in in The Atlantic Monthly, that high fuel costs will make "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" (written by Christopher Leinberger, an urban land use expert). There's more to digest in the NYT piece - but the key is there are very, very people left who couldn't use a cleaner, more efficient vehicle right 'bout now.
[Source: New York Times]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
George Krpan 5:14PM (6/27/2008)
James Howard Kunstler has been saying this for years and years.
There will be multiple families living in the McMansions in the outer asteroid belt of farthest flung suburbia with crops growing in the front yard and livestock corralled in the back yard.
Reply
Wildgoosechase73 4:43PM (6/27/2008)
Note that this from the NY Time which of course urban biased. The theory that people will flee suburbia and flock to the cities goes against nature. Pretty much everything in higher concentration will dissapate into lower concentration, population is no different. The factor that would force the opposite is of course finacial means. Those with the means will remain is suburbia, and those without will flock to the city. The cities will in fact remain the slums.
Reply
Bill 4:47PM (6/27/2008)
City housing remains substantially more expensive than suburbia - cheaper to buy a couple of new Priuses than to move.
Reply
fnc 7:30PM (6/27/2008)
Well let's just ignore the march of technology while we're at it.
If you had told someone in 1880 that someday people would regularly travel dozens of miles in a single day at several times the maximum speed a horse could run, they would have thought you to be a lunatic. But tell people today that we can do it without using oil, and for some reason people who ~should~ know far more about how radically technology can change the way the world works won't believe you. These are people would have one day thought it impossible to light a city at night because there weren't enough whales in the world to supply that much lamp oil.
Reply
Dad 8:30PM (6/27/2008)
""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""
Mistaken. Look at England. Lot's areas (Suburbs) that thrive that require long EXPENSIVE commutes to get to the CITY.
I can see business making moves to suburbs (already happening) and van pools thriving.People love living in the quiet suburbs. Cities are expensive. I know folks who live in the city (insert name here) that drive to the suburbs to work.
The CITY (insert name here) is not the center of the universe.
Reply
ug 10:01PM (6/27/2008)
"If you had told someone in 1880 that someday people would regularly travel dozens of miles in a single day..."
If you told someone in 1880 that the world population would be 6.7 billion they wouldn't be surprised that there would be urban sprawl. You just can't pack the cities as much as the pundits would like you to believe.
The world is in dire need of:
1) plugin hybrids
2) more public transportation
3) CONDOMS!!!!!!
Reply
len simpson 11:39AM (6/28/2008)
Work online at home with vidconferencing while spouse is at the curb buying her staples & fresh produce from the air cond grocery mall on it,s daily run & will deliver preorders of meat & junkfood.
all other needs are just a click & a Fedex away. Hightech & lab people will live on already existing campuses where everything is in walking distance.
See the world on your HD widescreen
Homeschool online
" and let the rest of the world go by"
Reply
MarkR 8:24AM (6/30/2008)
I'm living proof that the city isn't the city of the universe. I live and work in the burbs. I live just out side of the city and work 9 miles further away. It's actually quite nice. And if it were up to me I'd live and work another 2 hrs away from the city.
While a big city is good for a lot of people, I'm just to country. I can't stand city life, to me city life is a sad existence. Going months if not years without being able to see the stars, breathe fresh air, and listen to the quite nights of the world. one word sums up all citys. pollution. everything from trash to noise to heat to CO2. While it may be more efficient than living in the burbs and commuting in to the city. It is still a sad existence, at least it is in my eyes.
Reply
TommyD 8:26AM (6/30/2008)
Did anyone here actually read this article? The flight from the suburbs started long before high gas prices, and the future is not in its favor for a number of reasons.
Cities are being revived and have less crime, more walkable livable streets and more excitement than most suburbs. Young people (and empty-nesters) are flocking to the cities, where property values are increasing (why? because people want to live there). If you love endless traffic, oversized homes and yards that need expensive heat and upkeep, decreasing value, and lifelessness after dark (along with increasing crime), stay in the burbs. I'm happier in the city.
Reply
Jon 10:03AM (6/30/2008)
As I see it, we are about to see a fairly ruthless re-ordering of Americans' priorities based on the long-ignored value of efficiency. We can quibble about this that and the other trend, but efficiency is going to rule. The ex-burbs are just grossly inefficient, and will suffer accordingly. They won't disappear, they'll just suffer.
The Atlantic article is great, here it is: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime
Reply
bill 10:13AM (6/30/2008)
The New York Times is old news and will die as a source of news in my lifetime.
Reply
BrunoT 3:25PM (6/30/2008)
More city biased BS.
1. The added cost of an urban home would completely dwarf any fuel savings, even at $6/gallon.
2. Homes are not selling out in the exhurbs because there are homes closer-in now available at reasonable prices since they have fallen from peaks. The reason people bought homes built in old cow pastures was that it was all they could afford at the time.
3. Long before suburbanites move to Townhomes in the city, employers will simply move out to the suburbs instead. Most of their workers live there already.
4. It's far cheaper to simply switch to more fuel efficient vehicles than to spend $100K more on a home in town, pay movers $5,000, and disrupt your entire lifestyle. Don't these writers or their kids have any friends? Do they realize that people don't just move away from schools and neighborhoods they like to save $150/month on commute costs?
This is yet another "story" caused by someone's editor, jumping on the bandwagon, demanding they find a story with a gas-price angle and give them 1,000 words on it by Monday. Unfortunately most writers lack the common sense to sort out the realtor's BS from reality. And they think we're stupid enough to believe this claptrap.
In the words of graham parker, "there are people in charge of pens, who shouldn't be in charge of brooms."
Reply
TommyD 8:53PM (6/30/2008)
BrunoT, I will repeat---did you read the article?
Reply