Stranded in Suburbia

[JDC]

Great column from Paul Krugman on gas prices that compares the American landscape and way of life to those of Berlin. This piece neatly sums up many of the reasons I'm going to school to study urban planning.

from the New York Times: Stranded in Suburbia

"Greater Atlanta has roughly the same population as Greater Berlin

[Zackman]

I liked his comments comparing our present and future transportation and housing needs to the chicken and egg. Most of the USA developed post WWII is in a real catch-22 when it comes to housing and public transportation. I hope our leaders and politicans can see clearly to the future and start really emphising transporation orientated development.

[richyb83]

Nice article. Gas won't get any cheaper for sure; dense urban villages should be the growing trend. I realize Atlanta is the poster-child for sprawl; but they do have a transit system called M.A.R.T.A. don't they??

[teshadoh]

MARTA is in 2 counties & 3 other counties have their own bus systems - service except for the very central city core of Atlanta is very poor though.

[suburban george3]

I think he is correct that we will have to change how we live and plan our cities. I could even see, as some have suggested, that far flung subdivisions and suburbs may even fall into disfavor and see their fortunes fade. It will take at least one or two generations to change the attitude of most families to want to live in a central core of a city, but I would say the next 100 years will see significant changes in the American metro area and the American way of life.

[monsoon]

I am not sure that I buy into this theory. When gasoline was not only high priced in the 1970s, but also unavailable (you couldn't buy it at any price) people did not all of a sudden sell their homes and move back to the city. They instead got rid of their gas guzzlers and started driving more efficient vehicles. So many people left NYC during the 1970s during the oil shocks of the period the city filed for bankruptcy in 1979.

The people live in suburbs because tax policies and federal subsidies for road building encourage it. When that changes then you might see a change in how the American landscape is developed.

[teshadoh]

I don't see land use practices being questioned - that essentially is a threat to what we have perceived as the 'American Way Of Life'. Despite sprawl being one of the leading contributors to our gas shortage as well as real estate crisis - I can promise you, no leading politician particularly any running for office this year will ever point a finger at sprawl, or exurban flight, or decentralization of the office market. We're in this far too deep for anyone to suggest we have to cut our suburban manifest destiny.

[Twoaday]

People moving further away from cities is why we use more and more gasoline and drive more and more. Vehicle Miles Traveled and the number of trips take have both consistently increased overtime because of sprawling development so the idea of moving further apart to alleviate things well doesn't hold any water. People are welcome to try but it has been shown that the further you live from the urban core the more you pay as a portion of your income on transportation costs. (recent reports).

Further I don't believe American's don't like cities. It has been to a large part public policy has encouraged suburbias growth. (freeway spending, mortgage programs, zoning regulations and yes even government funded advertisements).

[Captain Worley]

I think cloudship nailed it. Americans don't like living on top of one another. I could see perimeter tons and office parks springing up before I could see a general large scale movement back to the cities. We love our space and our cars. As monsoon said, we'll by more fuel efficient cars.

[RaleighRob]

Further I don't believe American's don't like cities. It has been to a large part public policy has encouraged suburbias growth. (freeway spending, mortgage programs, zoning regulations and yes even government funded advertisements).

[buster]

I think the main reason, by far, that most Americans choose suburbia is because the public schools in so many cities are lousy.

[Spartan]

Most cities have great schools that are located in town which is where the "old money" send their kids. The schools are good because of the people, not the other way around. As people continue to move back to the city, you will see more inner city schools improve and become good places to go to school again.

Further I don't believe American's don't like cities. It has been to a large part public policy has encouraged suburbias growth. (freeway spending, mortgage programs, zoning regulations and yes even government funded advertisements).

[ChiefJoJo]

I think the opposite is going to happen, and that is what we need to deal with. The American people simply do not, in general, like living on top of one another and don't like density. They like privacy and room to move around, and in general are far more in tune with nature than development.

What I am afraid of is that as gas prices go higher, people are going to save money by simply moving farther away for the cities. The cities after all are usually where the rent or mortgages are higher, prices are higher, you spend more on meals, etc. And the more wasteful sections of driving are the stop and go traffic around dense areas, not free-flowing highway travel. People are simply going to choose to work in office parks located right off the highway. And businesses are going to relocate out of the city to these parks. And that means that when it comes time to cut back, the first things to go will be urban redevelopment and natural preservation, as everything is turned into an office park.

I think right now we really need to focus on how to make the cities coexist with the suburbs and the exurbs. We need good transportation, but transportation that actually works with cars and works with suburbs, not forcing people to choose one or the other. We also need to focus on exactly what is so important about cities. those people who like cities realistically are dwarfed by those who don't. I would like to see cities become more focused on providing services and entertainment, and less trying to be all things to all people. Lastly, I think we need to focus on making our suburbs more community focused, not urban design but suburban design.

[monsoon]

I think that people are getting messed up on this old fashioned notion that people drive into cities for work. For some this is true, but like suburbia, jobs have also dispersed into the suburban landscape. More likely you have people making long commutes to other suburban locations for work than you do into an urban core.

[ChiefJoJo]

I agree that financial issues are going to be a major, if not the most prevalent, driving force. But I think the assumption you are making is that the cities and the suburbs are going to stay the same, and the only thing that will change is the price of gas. You are right in that people are no longer able to afford to commute to the big city. But they aren't going to move to the big city in that case, they are just as likely to find work outside of the city. And ultimately, those people ar4e also the ones who decide zoning and development regulations. The will eventually restructure those regulations to allow for more development of traditional city jobs in the suburban neighborhoods. ultimately we are then encouraging businesses to move out of the city and into the suburban business park.

Another thing about those "lifestyle centers" - they are the same thing as suburbia. It's important to separate aesthetics from lifestyle and structure. Just because it looks all pretty and city like, it is still ultimately a development with a nearby mall. If what you want isn't in this particular mall, you get in your car and drive to one that does. Which brings me back to the point of needing to focus on what it is we really like about cities and what we really dislike about suburbs, and to fix those problems, not destroy suburbs all together.

[suburban george3]

If energy prices keep climbing, we will see a 'reordering' of cities, suburbs, and exurbs with exurbs faring the worst. However, even some exurban subdivisons may still flourish as some people will budget to live that lifestyle. I do think urban centers, inner ring suburbs, and suburbs with a type of town center will fare the best.

[geszes]

I've lived in Virginia Beach, VA for three years, in a single-family home, albeit (very) close to the primary commercial corridor. Yet to conduct my daily business, I had to attend High School; the myriad extra programs I was in required me to drive for my senior year, as buses only ran at a set time. Shopping consisted of driving to the third-closest grocery store, a mixture of brand loyalty and preference for quality. And perhaps once a month, an obligatory trip to Costco some 8 miles away was in order.

This odd suburban, yet US-recognized category-wise, "urban" development that's prevalent everywhere in the US (think of a 2x4 lane artery, with malls and restaurants lining it, there's probably one within 20 miles of where you live) is not only spread-out, function-segregated, and impossible to navigate without cars, but is also the norm.

Compared to that, an exurb offers increased privacy and safety, and when your only shopping choices are Wal-Mart and Home Depot in the same just-off-the-freeway mall, the trips are more concentrated. In effect, it's the American, car-oriented interpretation of the concept of a "market town".

Furthermore, industrial and/or office parks are typically found in proximity of highways, airports, or existing industrial parks, the latter two of which are in turn usually adjacent to highways. Thus middle and upper-class exurbanites are more likely to work in exurbs, though usually not the same one. Because the trends in US highway construction has historically favored running them through cities instead of around them, exurb-to-exurb traffic is a significant portion of daily city freeway traffic.

The fundamental difference between Europe and the US that the article fails to mention, is how European cities are structured differently. (I was born and raised in Europe, so I have seen this firsthand). In Europe, an identifiable downtown core consists of a few wide arterials in a spoke pattern usually equipped with some mass transit network, and a network of small, narrow streets that connect them. Three-to-six-story apartment buildings with courtyards are the norm. Commercial establishments are located on the ground floors of such buildings, along the arterials. As you move further out from the center, you will find either high-density housing estates (especially common in Germany and Eastern Europe), or smaller apartment buildings, then finally single-family homes. Property values for the inner city are very high, but most residents enjoy living there, and little property gets sold or bought.

In the United States, there simply isn't enough density. The downtown core of an "average" city (not NYC, LA, Chicago, etc) spans a couple blocks and is almost purely commercial (mainly office, not even retail), then single-family homes follow in all directions in a neatly-arranged grid. Transition between retail and residential is sudden and haphazard along corridors. Yet the street patterns do not allow these areas to be walkable. Oftentimes, even the crosswalks or worse, sidewalks are missing. Notoriously, the downtowns are adjacent to low-income, high-crime areas. For this reason, the higher-income populace resides in the suburbs, completely opposite of the trend in Europe.

So while Atlanta and Berlin might have similar populations, and it'd be certainly nice it Atlanta embarked on transit-oriented redevelopment, the more likely option is that exurbs will become (almost) self-contained small towns with concentrated retail and services and pleasant single-family housing. While this does seem to perpetuate sprawl, it's paradoxically a reimplementation of the basic structure of a town on an automobile-friendly scale. Unless the fundamental structure of existing cities were changed (which is unlikely to happen), exurbs are a way of ignoring the chaos of American cities and recreating the way towns should work. Now if these exurbs were walkable, transit-oriented towns, that would be progress. Unfortunately, however, mass transit and Wal-Mart are almost directly antithetical... I can't see middle-class stay-at-home women lugging hundreds of bags on a light rail system. Smart growth is the answer: build the exurbs as mixed-use, and link them with other, similarly structured exurbs. It's nice to dream.

(Disclaimer: I am a huge supporter of mass transit, but it's hard to ignore reality.)

[JDC]

So while Atlanta and Berlin might have similar populations, and it'd be certainly nice it Atlanta embarked on transit-oriented redevelopment, the more likely option is that exurbs will become (almost) self-contained small towns with concentrated retail and services and pleasant single-family housing. While this does seem to perpetuate sprawl, it's paradoxically a reimplementation of the basic structure of a town on an automobile-friendly scale. Unless the fundamental structure of existing cities were changed (which is unlikely to happen), exurbs are a way of ignoring the chaos of American cities and recreating the way towns should work. Now if these exurbs were walkable, transit-oriented towns, that would be progress. Unfortunately, however, mass transit and Wal-Mart are almost directly antithetical... I can't see middle-class stay-at-home women lugging hundreds of bags on a light rail system. Smart growth is the answer: build the exurbs as mixed-use, and link them with other, similarly structured exurbs. It's nice to dream.

[suburban george3]

We can't force people to be urbanists. But we can try and find a more pleasant, more efficient style of living that works for everyone.

[ChiefJoJo]

I hope the "we can't force people to be urbanists" comment was not directed at me. I--nor anyone on this thread that I've noticed--has proposed that. It's funny too, because that's the typical "red scare" reactionary response that many folks in the suburbs try to argue when opposing anything resembling increased density, transit, etc. Again, the market for urbanism has been rapidly increasing for at least a decade in most markets in the US... a look at any major city's downtown reveals that. Now, the double whammy of the mortgage crisis plus energy prices is placing even more pressure on many exurban communities. People can't sell their auto-dependent, suburban homes *and* are having to eat high gas prices. Not a good combination.

Yes, a lot of people are addicted or attached to a suburban lifestyle... big SUV, big lot, spacious home, big electric bill, big transportation costs. Hey, that's fine with me. The 'you'll only take my Hummer keys from my cold, dead, hands' types will do what they please, regardless of the consequences. I just think that most Americans aren't like that. The reality is that those folks will have less disposable income to spend on their family due to increased energy costs, and over time, some of those people will decide that their family (time, money) is more important than that energy-intensive lifestyle they have come to live. Throw in the trends of the younger 20/30s crowd entering the workplace and housing markets, and I still think you will see a strong growth trend towards more urban living and working.

[suburban george3]

The "self-contained small town," as you put it, will be a fixture of the American landscape in the future. Some exist today, but thanks in part to the automobile's dominance over the last few decades, many have faded with their economies being outsourced to the chains and rearranged along busy thoroughfares.

So much of Europe was built hundreds of years before the automobile existed, so you can bet there are plenty of self-contained small cities and towns throughout the continent. Some American exurbs will be better suited for the future, especially if they're located near a railway or water, or if they already have the infrastructure to support a more densely-populated center.

A lot of these towns are a bit off the "beaten path," meaning they're not along interstates or major highways, which helps to explain why their downtowns haven't been completely abandoned. My sister lives in one of these towns. It's about a 30 minute drive to the expressway, but she's in walking distance to all kinds of amenities in the center of town. It's not even one of these new "mixed-use" communities or "lifestyle centers." Most of the houses and buildings were built in the early 1900s. Without even realizing how well-suited her town is for a future of high gas prices, she told me that she likes it because when she goes for a walk, she can actually walk TO something (i.e. the post office, coffee shop, convenience store) instead of just taking a trip around a cul-de-sac and back home.

[ChiefJoJo]

But what I am getting at is that you can't view the situation as this completely black and white my lifestyle is right your's is wrong attitude. True quality communities come from a good balance, meeting peoples needs both as individuals and as a society. Instead of trying to eradicate the competition, I really would like to see more working together to find better solutions.

For instance, I think there really is a big need for good public transportation. we have an all or nothing approach to it - give up the car completely or live by the car completely. Cars make sense when you have scattered points with light traffic between them. Transit makes sense when you have few heavy focused stops. So we need to tailor transit to functioning with teh automobile so that it does become an attractive alternative. I think a big focus on longer distance mass transit (trains) and localized light weight transit for city center travel is far more advisable than trying to develop single line light rail which doesn't go where the suburbanites want to go. I thin we need to investigate what it is that makes good neighborhood design, why we "hate" the McMansion sprawl - is it a social thing or an esthetic thing? And I think we need to build support for community and involvement, not anonymity.

[JDC]

To that end, what folks need to realize is that the past 60 years of designing for the car have largely been an aberration in human history. This is not to say the car should not be a significant part of the equation going forward. But, we need to realize that large portions of the built environment in many American cities are not well designed for the current and future energy crisis (as we have already seen), and that some fairly signficant changes will need to take place in the coming years to adjust to a new economic paradigm. Yes, that will include room for plenty of cars, but it should also include much expended options for transit, intercity high-speed rail, biking, and plenty of communities and public spaces designed primarily for people, and not cars.

[RaleighRob]

I understand how difficult this is for some people to understand. Even with gas prices all over the news, my family still expects me to buy a house in the suburbs in a few years once I finish grad school and start having kids. Because as we all know, it's simply impossible to raise children in an urban environment.

[Miesian Corners]

This appeared on MSNBC's website today http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25722409/ . Basically, it tells the story of how people can't afford to live in suburbs anymore. Gas is too expensive to commute great distances.

What hasn't been pointed out yet is that we are going to have to change our entire way of life. It's not just that our work commutes are expensive, it's that our retail (including grocery) options are designed on the "car or be damned" platform. Even traveling to our friend's homes is difficult because even though they might be a mere three miles away as the crow flies, our subdivisions (there's that word, "division") don't connect to one another, causing us to drive six miles to get to their house. Walking? Forget about it. Here in NC, the state won't even put sidewalks on a state-maintained road that runs directly in front of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, a school with 25,000 students! The entire system is broken. We have designed everything for the automobile and nothing for the pedestrian.

This is a giant wake up call for us and our suburban consumerist mindset. We are addicted to petroleum. Beyond our dependence on private automobiles and the oil that it takes to power them, we use petroleum for food (fertilizers and mechanized farming) and for getting that food to the marketplace (trucking), for medical care (plastics), cosmetics, and as feedstock for a myriad of products such as anti-freeze, bases for paints, cleaning agents, detergents, dyes, explosives, industrial resins, synthetic fibers (nylon, polyester, rayon), synthetic rubber, solvents, thinners, waxes for the interior of milk cartons, water repellents, and varnishes. It's everywhere.

Sorry to ramble, but here's the gist. It's not just commuting that is going to cost more, everything from a gallon of milk to a tube of lipstick is going to cost more. We are missing the forest for the trees.