The world is becoming even more suburban, and better for it.
December 9, 2014 12:40 PM Subscribe
Spoiler alert: This post's title, taken from the article's subtitle, is not reflected in the text. It makes a plausible case, backed by data, that suburbs are growing fast, despite media attention being given to reborn city cores. It says almost nothing about why that's "better." I expected to read a staunch, conservative defense of the suburbs that points out that lots of people prefer them and people ought to be able to live how they like. Unless I've missed something, this article doesn't so much counter the usual anti-suburban talking points (lack of diversity, environmental impact, etc), or even dismiss them, so much as completely ignore them.
posted by Tomorrowful at 1:11 PM on December 9, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by Tomorrowful at 1:11 PM on December 9, 2014 [8 favorites]
Yikes, not a single mention of zoning in the entire piece. They really should have had Ryan Avent vet this first.
posted by ripley_ at 1:23 PM on December 9, 2014
posted by ripley_ at 1:23 PM on December 9, 2014
I think it does ignore those anti-suburban talking points, but largely because those are not really very mainstream talking points. They're pro-city activist talking points, whereas this is talking sheerly about the forces bringing about suburbs and how they are likely to continue.
posted by corb at 1:29 PM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 1:29 PM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
CTRL-F "environment" 0 of 0
CTRL-F "arable land" 0 of 0
CTRL-F "carbon" 0 of 0
CTRL-F "emissions" 0 of 0
Not defending the article, but maybe try reading it first instead of just searching for key words to make a snap judgment?
posted by Librarypt at 1:30 PM on December 9, 2014 [7 favorites]
CTRL-F "arable land" 0 of 0
CTRL-F "carbon" 0 of 0
CTRL-F "emissions" 0 of 0
Not defending the article, but maybe try reading it first instead of just searching for key words to make a snap judgment?
posted by Librarypt at 1:30 PM on December 9, 2014 [7 favorites]
Not defending the article, but maybe try reading it first instead of just searching for key words to make a snap judgment?
Ctrl-F "turns out" 1 of 2
I wasn't impressed.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:42 PM on December 9, 2014 [2 favorites]
Ctrl-F "turns out" 1 of 2
I wasn't impressed.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:42 PM on December 9, 2014 [2 favorites]
A conservative case against the suburbs
posted by parmanparman at 1:45 PM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by parmanparman at 1:45 PM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
I think it does ignore those anti-suburban talking points, but largely because those are not really very mainstream talking points. They're pro-city activist talking points, whereas this is talking sheerly about the forces bringing about suburbs and how they are likely to continue.
I'd agree that the article isn't really concerned with the good or ill of the suburbs, but if talking about the environmental impact of suburban living is "not mainstream" then that's a complete an utter failure of the mainstream conversation; you can't talk about suburban living without talking about that.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 1:47 PM on December 9, 2014 [6 favorites]
I'd agree that the article isn't really concerned with the good or ill of the suburbs, but if talking about the environmental impact of suburban living is "not mainstream" then that's a complete an utter failure of the mainstream conversation; you can't talk about suburban living without talking about that.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 1:47 PM on December 9, 2014 [6 favorites]
The title is misleading from an isolationist point of view. Section three is on the state of U.S. suburbs, and it's by far the weakest section of the article.
A summary: India is getting richer. American suburbs have bounced back since 2008. London's experiment at restricting sprawl failed.
This article is much like the contrarian articles that tell folks the world is getting richer, never mind the poor Americans who can't find a decent paying job.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 1:48 PM on December 9, 2014
A summary: India is getting richer. American suburbs have bounced back since 2008. London's experiment at restricting sprawl failed.
This article is much like the contrarian articles that tell folks the world is getting richer, never mind the poor Americans who can't find a decent paying job.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 1:48 PM on December 9, 2014
Suburbs are nice if you are a kid and want to ride your bike.
posted by vapidave at 1:51 PM on December 9, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by vapidave at 1:51 PM on December 9, 2014 [2 favorites]
I understand where the "lack of diversity" complaint about the suburbs comes from, having grown up in a series of almost entirely white southern suburbs twenty plus years ago. But I wonder if that's not already becoming untrue. After all, the number of racially diverse suburbs in the US increased by 37% from 2000 to 2010. Not all cases of this have gone smoothly, mind you. See: Ferguson. But still, the idea of suburbs as lily white is looking increasingly out of date.
But then, I'm just a white dude born in the US myself. With an Eastern European immigrant wife. Who lives with me in the 'burbs next door to an Assyrian family. With Poles next door to them. And Indians, Japanese, more Poles, and a family from the Ivory Coast across the street.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 1:53 PM on December 9, 2014 [4 favorites]
But then, I'm just a white dude born in the US myself. With an Eastern European immigrant wife. Who lives with me in the 'burbs next door to an Assyrian family. With Poles next door to them. And Indians, Japanese, more Poles, and a family from the Ivory Coast across the street.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 1:53 PM on December 9, 2014 [4 favorites]
Suburbs are nice if you are a kid and want to ride your bike.
.. and not get anywhere except more suburb without hitting an arterial road that's too dangerous to bike on.
posted by Space Coyote at 2:14 PM on December 9, 2014 [13 favorites]
.. and not get anywhere except more suburb without hitting an arterial road that's too dangerous to bike on.
posted by Space Coyote at 2:14 PM on December 9, 2014 [13 favorites]
My kid grew up in the suburbs and we had to drive him to a park if so that he could bike safely. No sidewalks and busy roads full of giant SUVs and pickup trucks.
posted by octothorpe at 2:22 PM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by octothorpe at 2:22 PM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
Not every article and/or post needs to include judgements,moralizing, lectures or be value driven. I thoroughly enjoyed just reading it and learning something of which I was not aware and even misinformed. Thanks for posting
posted by rmhsinc at 2:29 PM on December 9, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by rmhsinc at 2:29 PM on December 9, 2014 [5 favorites]
Not every article and/or post needs to include judgements,moralizing, lectures or be value driven.
YEAH!
posted by lalochezia at 2:47 PM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
YEAH!
posted by lalochezia at 2:47 PM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
In 1920 Chicago squeezed 59 people into each hectare of land; now, by his reckoning, it manages just 16.
Seems like every neighborhood association here in Chicago is dedicated to preventing density. There has been some backlash resulting in some "transit oriented development" being allowed, but it's been very limited. Almost every building in my neighborhood (15 minutes on the train to downtown, a 30-40 min walk) is a single family development. It's really bad, but I can't fault people who moved to the city from the burbs just during its revival for wanting to keep its semi-suburban character.
That plus the public schools in Chicago has actually made some of the suburbs more diverse than the city. If you want great Korean, Indian, Japanese and many other types of food, you go to the burbs now.
posted by melissam at 3:06 PM on December 9, 2014 [2 favorites]
Seems like every neighborhood association here in Chicago is dedicated to preventing density. There has been some backlash resulting in some "transit oriented development" being allowed, but it's been very limited. Almost every building in my neighborhood (15 minutes on the train to downtown, a 30-40 min walk) is a single family development. It's really bad, but I can't fault people who moved to the city from the burbs just during its revival for wanting to keep its semi-suburban character.
That plus the public schools in Chicago has actually made some of the suburbs more diverse than the city. If you want great Korean, Indian, Japanese and many other types of food, you go to the burbs now.
posted by melissam at 3:06 PM on December 9, 2014 [2 favorites]
"This article is much like the contrarian articles that tell folks the world is getting richer, never mind the poor Americans who can't find a decent paying job." I didn't see the phrase "never mind", and I believe much of the world's population is in fact getting richer/wealthier (income increasing) and some Americans can not find a job paying a living wage ( as is the case in much of the world).
posted by rmhsinc at 3:11 PM on December 9, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by rmhsinc at 3:11 PM on December 9, 2014 [2 favorites]
So I guess it's settled then. We are going to literally destroy the climate that allowed human civilization to happen, and take a good portion of the arable farmland that this brave new climate preserves to boot. All because having everyone live in a pastiche of a mid-20th-century American farmhouse and rely on two tons of metal to get anywhere is somehow a desirable state of affairs.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 3:19 PM on December 9, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by [expletive deleted] at 3:19 PM on December 9, 2014 [9 favorites]
and not get anywhere except more suburb without hitting an arterial road that's too dangerous to bike on.
My kid grew up in the suburbs and we had to drive him to a park if so that he could bike safely. No sidewalks and busy roads full of giant SUVs and pickup trucks.
That some places are designed very badly (designed by developers only looking to make a quick buck?) doesn't indicate that that is what suburbs are. By contrast, I (and countless others) grew up in the suburbia of a decently bikeable city, and had none of those problems. Exploring far and wide by bike at a young age set me up to see cycling as a practical way to go anywhere, a habit that stuck to adulthood, where cycle-commuting to work saves me a lot of money and time.
(In my experience, it's the inner city that was a bad environment for me to learn cycling. It feels more like I graduated to inner-city cycling after having honed the foundations in the safety of the suburbs. YMMV)
If suburbs aren't great places for kids to bike safely to great destinations, people screwed up. People are good at screwing up, they do it a lot. I guess what I'm saying is, don't extrapolate too sweepingly from screw-ups.
posted by anonymisc at 3:26 PM on December 9, 2014 [3 favorites]
My kid grew up in the suburbs and we had to drive him to a park if so that he could bike safely. No sidewalks and busy roads full of giant SUVs and pickup trucks.
That some places are designed very badly (designed by developers only looking to make a quick buck?) doesn't indicate that that is what suburbs are. By contrast, I (and countless others) grew up in the suburbia of a decently bikeable city, and had none of those problems. Exploring far and wide by bike at a young age set me up to see cycling as a practical way to go anywhere, a habit that stuck to adulthood, where cycle-commuting to work saves me a lot of money and time.
(In my experience, it's the inner city that was a bad environment for me to learn cycling. It feels more like I graduated to inner-city cycling after having honed the foundations in the safety of the suburbs. YMMV)
If suburbs aren't great places for kids to bike safely to great destinations, people screwed up. People are good at screwing up, they do it a lot. I guess what I'm saying is, don't extrapolate too sweepingly from screw-ups.
posted by anonymisc at 3:26 PM on December 9, 2014 [3 favorites]
So I guess it's settled then. We are going to literally destroy the climate that allowed human civilization to happen, and take a good portion of the arable farmland that this brave new climate preserves to boot. All because having everyone live in a pastiche of a mid-20th-century American farmhouse and rely on two tons of metal to get anywhere is somehow a desirable state of affairs.
Well, making everything mind-numbingly boring is a rational course of action if the events you describe are certain to come about. The apocalypse will bring welcome novelty to the survivors and blessed relief to the less fortunate. Mow your lawns more frequently, and turn the AC up, brethren, to speed the end of days. We won't have to watch the TV anymore, on the glorious day when shit gets Hobbesian.
uhm hamburger
posted by busted_crayons at 3:32 PM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
Well, making everything mind-numbingly boring is a rational course of action if the events you describe are certain to come about. The apocalypse will bring welcome novelty to the survivors and blessed relief to the less fortunate. Mow your lawns more frequently, and turn the AC up, brethren, to speed the end of days. We won't have to watch the TV anymore, on the glorious day when shit gets Hobbesian.
uhm hamburger
posted by busted_crayons at 3:32 PM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
"Not every article and/or post needs to include judgements,moralizing, lectures or be value driven. I thoroughly enjoyed just reading it and learning something of which I was not aware and even misinformed. Thanks for posting"
No, but an article that argues one side of a case while ignoring the counterpoints will be rightly criticized as incomplete and misleading.
Suburbs are likely coming back, and that's not really a good thing. It's also something that's fairly (planning-wise) easy to obviate, while being very difficult politically.
posted by klangklangston at 3:59 PM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
No, but an article that argues one side of a case while ignoring the counterpoints will be rightly criticized as incomplete and misleading.
Suburbs are likely coming back, and that's not really a good thing. It's also something that's fairly (planning-wise) easy to obviate, while being very difficult politically.
posted by klangklangston at 3:59 PM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
Suburbs are nice if you are a kid and want to ride your bike.
They're a desolate wasteland if you're anywhere from 11 to 16, which are some pretty formative years.
Back in the day when my mom was a school superintendent, she often remarked on the fact that the ostensibly "tough" inner-city schools had to pay about $1k/year to deal with vandalism - almost entirely paint-and-marker stuff - but that the suburban schools regularly had annual bills of $100k or more, major vandalism. And that it was largely because there was absolutely nothing else to do, apart from sex and stealing your parents' booze, drugs if you could find them, for miles in any direction. No sidewalks, you're not allowed to play games in the street, nothing, at just the time in your life when you're ready to start playing at being a grownup.
Community centres you have to drive 5k to get to just aren't enough.
posted by mhoye at 4:03 PM on December 9, 2014 [2 favorites]
They're a desolate wasteland if you're anywhere from 11 to 16, which are some pretty formative years.
Back in the day when my mom was a school superintendent, she often remarked on the fact that the ostensibly "tough" inner-city schools had to pay about $1k/year to deal with vandalism - almost entirely paint-and-marker stuff - but that the suburban schools regularly had annual bills of $100k or more, major vandalism. And that it was largely because there was absolutely nothing else to do, apart from sex and stealing your parents' booze, drugs if you could find them, for miles in any direction. No sidewalks, you're not allowed to play games in the street, nothing, at just the time in your life when you're ready to start playing at being a grownup.
Community centres you have to drive 5k to get to just aren't enough.
posted by mhoye at 4:03 PM on December 9, 2014 [2 favorites]
"argues one side of a case while ignoring the counterpoints will be rightly criticized as incomplete and misleading" other than the title I did not see it arguing either side--some pros and some cons. How was it misleading?
posted by rmhsinc at 4:06 PM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by rmhsinc at 4:06 PM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
I think the internet helps to ease some of that isolation these days, at least.
posted by corb at 4:19 PM on December 9, 2014
posted by corb at 4:19 PM on December 9, 2014
Well, a title is sort of quite an important part of a text.
posted by Anything at 5:05 PM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Anything at 5:05 PM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
"How was it misleading?"
By consistently framing the increase of suburbanization as a good thing without mentioning the massive costs that suburban development inflicts, e.g. carbon output. When framing London's green belt, for example, the author describes the "massive cost" of the ban on development without recognizing the substantial gains that pressing that density inward provides. And, frankly, any discussion of development that doesn't mention environmental concerns is omitting crucial information.
Cities and suburbs (and exurbs, etc.) all do have costs — I'm not trying to beat an anti-suburb drum over this — but this article picked a particular viewpoint to advance while pretending to be an unbiased evaluation. That's OK, but that's why people were so quick to push back.
posted by klangklangston at 5:16 PM on December 9, 2014 [4 favorites]
By consistently framing the increase of suburbanization as a good thing without mentioning the massive costs that suburban development inflicts, e.g. carbon output. When framing London's green belt, for example, the author describes the "massive cost" of the ban on development without recognizing the substantial gains that pressing that density inward provides. And, frankly, any discussion of development that doesn't mention environmental concerns is omitting crucial information.
Cities and suburbs (and exurbs, etc.) all do have costs — I'm not trying to beat an anti-suburb drum over this — but this article picked a particular viewpoint to advance while pretending to be an unbiased evaluation. That's OK, but that's why people were so quick to push back.
posted by klangklangston at 5:16 PM on December 9, 2014 [4 favorites]
"Well, a title is sort of quite an important part of a text."
I tend to give more of a pass on titles because it's very rare that the author wrote them.
posted by klangklangston at 5:17 PM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
I tend to give more of a pass on titles because it's very rare that the author wrote them.
posted by klangklangston at 5:17 PM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
Yeah I wouldn't attack the writer either but it's still a sketchy decision by the publication.
posted by Anything at 5:33 PM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Anything at 5:33 PM on December 9, 2014 [1 favorite]
Suburbs are likely coming back, and that's not really a good thing.
Well, they're awful, we all agree, and nobody should live in them. Until middle and upper class people agree with that notion as well and move back to the city. Then it's all "Oh noos! Gentrification! The rents are going up! The wrong sort of people are moving into our urban neighborhoods!"
posted by happyroach at 5:51 PM on December 9, 2014 [10 favorites]
Well, they're awful, we all agree, and nobody should live in them. Until middle and upper class people agree with that notion as well and move back to the city. Then it's all "Oh noos! Gentrification! The rents are going up! The wrong sort of people are moving into our urban neighborhoods!"
posted by happyroach at 5:51 PM on December 9, 2014 [10 favorites]
By consistently framing the increase of suburbanization as a good thing without mentioning the massive costs that suburban development inflicts, e.g. carbon output.
So I guess the thing is, despite a lot of talk around in lefty urban circles about carbon footprints, it seems like this is not something really on the radar for most people. Most people - at least, so it seems anecdatally to me - plain don't care. Environmentalism just never comes up. Honestly it doesn't even get raised in some lefty circles too, who are like "who cares about that, we can solve it after we solve [insert problem here]." The most I hear from other people these days is talk of conservation of forest land, and that's mostly for hunting purposes. Carbon is this far-off distant thing that doesn't even touch on their reality. I mean, I'm even aware that it is a real thing myself, but most of the time I never think about it and don't let it impact my daily life or activism at all.
So saying that they're not talking about carbon output isn't this damning critique, when they're writing for a middle-of-the road audience more concerned about finance than global warming. Global warming matters, but it is happening too slowly to catastrophically affect most people's lifetimes, and so it's not as real as, say, living in a cramped apartment versus living in your house.
posted by corb at 9:24 AM on December 10, 2014
So I guess the thing is, despite a lot of talk around in lefty urban circles about carbon footprints, it seems like this is not something really on the radar for most people. Most people - at least, so it seems anecdatally to me - plain don't care. Environmentalism just never comes up. Honestly it doesn't even get raised in some lefty circles too, who are like "who cares about that, we can solve it after we solve [insert problem here]." The most I hear from other people these days is talk of conservation of forest land, and that's mostly for hunting purposes. Carbon is this far-off distant thing that doesn't even touch on their reality. I mean, I'm even aware that it is a real thing myself, but most of the time I never think about it and don't let it impact my daily life or activism at all.
So saying that they're not talking about carbon output isn't this damning critique, when they're writing for a middle-of-the road audience more concerned about finance than global warming. Global warming matters, but it is happening too slowly to catastrophically affect most people's lifetimes, and so it's not as real as, say, living in a cramped apartment versus living in your house.
posted by corb at 9:24 AM on December 10, 2014
".. and not get anywhere except more suburb without hitting an arterial road that's too dangerous to bike on."
Get anywhere? Why does riding a bicycle have to get you anywhere? When you are pedaling your bike you are there. Biking is its own thing, pedaling and going faster than you can run, setting your foot to the pedal advancing ten feet for every turn of the crank, feeling the wind and the speed is a joy when you are a kid, and when you are an adult.
posted by vapidave at 9:59 AM on December 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
Get anywhere? Why does riding a bicycle have to get you anywhere? When you are pedaling your bike you are there. Biking is its own thing, pedaling and going faster than you can run, setting your foot to the pedal advancing ten feet for every turn of the crank, feeling the wind and the speed is a joy when you are a kid, and when you are an adult.
posted by vapidave at 9:59 AM on December 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
That's very zen, but making it possible to (safely) ride a bike to a destination allows people to get out of their cars (good for the environment, their wallet, other motorists, etc.) and moving under their own steam (good for their health). I love going on an aimless ride as much as anyone, but I'd also like people to feel comfortable riding their bike to the store, to work, to school.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:58 AM on December 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 10:58 AM on December 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
"The most I hear from other people these days is talk of conservation of forest land, and that's mostly for hunting purposes. Carbon is this far-off distant thing that doesn't even touch on their reality. I mean, I'm even aware that it is a real thing myself, but most of the time I never think about it and don't let it impact my daily life or activism at all. "
First off, you're not necessarily getting a very good sample of what people care about. And since, e.g. the U.S.-China carbon accord has been headline news over the last few weeks, including in the Economist, it's not exactly a fringe concern.
Second off, this is in the context of developmental economics. Within that realm, the arguments over developmental externalities, of which carbon output is one, are pretty central to a lot of writing about planning in general. Pretty much all developments and planning documents have to go through environmental review, and that includes discussions over carbon footprints.
This is not a weird lefty thing — this is part of mainstream policy decisions pretty much everywhere. If this was an article about a niche concern within the broader urban and suburban planning discussion, like talking only about suburban culture or the influences that led to the cookie-cutter post-war house, it wouldn't need to be included. But as we talk about the future of development overall, including suburban versus urban development, omitting environmental concerns is a glaring error.
posted by klangklangston at 11:17 AM on December 10, 2014 [6 favorites]
First off, you're not necessarily getting a very good sample of what people care about. And since, e.g. the U.S.-China carbon accord has been headline news over the last few weeks, including in the Economist, it's not exactly a fringe concern.
Second off, this is in the context of developmental economics. Within that realm, the arguments over developmental externalities, of which carbon output is one, are pretty central to a lot of writing about planning in general. Pretty much all developments and planning documents have to go through environmental review, and that includes discussions over carbon footprints.
This is not a weird lefty thing — this is part of mainstream policy decisions pretty much everywhere. If this was an article about a niche concern within the broader urban and suburban planning discussion, like talking only about suburban culture or the influences that led to the cookie-cutter post-war house, it wouldn't need to be included. But as we talk about the future of development overall, including suburban versus urban development, omitting environmental concerns is a glaring error.
posted by klangklangston at 11:17 AM on December 10, 2014 [6 favorites]
Pretty much all developments and planning documents have to go through environmental review, and that includes discussions over carbon footprints.
Interesting! I was not aware of that. When did that start? Is it widespread, or regional/urban?
posted by corb at 11:26 AM on December 10, 2014
Interesting! I was not aware of that. When did that start? Is it widespread, or regional/urban?
posted by corb at 11:26 AM on December 10, 2014
Two points:
1) Whilst the data as presented indicates the patterns between cities and suburbs, a big part of the real story is going to be that both are pulling from rural America. In 1910, the vast majority of Americans lived in rural areas, whereas in 2010, only a small fraction did. It's been said for some time that the future is about cities, however, cities include both urban cores and suburbs.
An architect discussed the future of the suburb in London (the European suburb), and he said that the suburb of tomorrow looks very different from the suburb of today. Rather than endless tracts of housing divided by usage (commercial vs. residential), the popularity of mixed-use destinations in urban environments is informing suburban development as well.
Perhaps one of the largest shifts underscoring that is the move of retail consumption from real-world to online/delivery channels. Rather than needed suburban cores for retail, they'll be re-invented as leisure destinations. This is driven by the costs of retail, essential 'warehousing' products on shelves. It's much cheaper to store the products near several suburbs and distribute those products in real-time. Hence, the idea of retail as the centre of suburban areas will fade, replaced by leisure and services.
Overall, those shifts, both rural > non-rural (either urban or suburban), and refactoring commercial retail property to leisure and services, will mean that the suburbs we see tomorrow will be wholly different from the suburbs we see today.
The subtext to that being that initially, suburbs existed as the counter to urban cores. Urban cores were crowded centres of commerce and dense living environments. The reality is that the new value of urban cores are tremendous opportunities and network effects (point #2). If the genesis of urban areas was an organic advantage of co-location, the underly point is more of a 'hive' mentality. Armed with that knowledge, I expect we'll see suburbs that are mini-urban cores, rather than something entirely different from them.
2) The network advantage of urban areas is both obvious and interesting in a demographic sense. In San Francisco, New York, and London, I have noticed a distinct pattern. That living in urban areas is often connected to stage of life. I most strongly observed this is San Francisco and London, and tacitly in New York.
In both London and San Francisco, there is a fundamental pattern that emerges. Each is a collector of young people, from university age. That's the first collection point. The second collection point is after university. Young people move to cities because cities are teeming with opportunities. They're often single, and their priorities are career opportunities and mating opportunities. Factors like schools, volume of space, safety and the rest are secondary, if even considered.
In San Francisco, the pattern was most obvious. People move to San Francisco itself, sort a job and begin building their career. Along the path, they also date. At some point in life, when they have achieved both a stable career, and also a partner, they often leave the city when it is time to have a family. Moving to the suburbs that ring the city. When schools, volumes of space, and safety become more important than career and mating opportunities – because the those have been sorted.
Thus, there's a self-renewing flow of people moving into the city and then out to the suburbs. Taken with point #1, this is another driver of suburbs as mini-urban cores, for we're starting to see that the suburbs are now being shaped in the format of the urban core. Keeping the experiential and community orientations, whilst leaving behind the absolute volumes of networks and interactions.
If I were to hazard a guess as to what the future of the trend is, London's Crossrail provides the answer. A high-speed subway connecting far-flung suburbs directly to core urban areas. The future looks less like the gate-kept model we've seen in London, Paris, New York, and San Francisco. Where there are two distinct transit networks, one in urban centre, and another spidering out to the peripheries.
The RER is a good example of Version 1 of this, however it's still a complete separate transit network. Crossrail will literally remove the distance between several London suburbs, and the centre of the city. In the end, I expect we'll see a demographic structure to cities, more than a zoning structure.
Young life > Immediate suburbs (with parents)
Young adult life > Urban core
Young family life > Immediate suburbs
Post-family life > Distant suburbs
Old age > Retirement-oriented suburbs.
The demographic orientation becomes fascinating because we then see an oscillation into the urban core, and then back out of it, with young families replacing post-families, and new suburbs for the aged at the rural borders.
Of course, this is for the working class. The wealthy will live an decidedly different lifestyle, oscillating simply between urban cores and rural areas, as they largely have always done.
posted by nickrussell at 11:59 AM on December 10, 2014 [6 favorites]
1) Whilst the data as presented indicates the patterns between cities and suburbs, a big part of the real story is going to be that both are pulling from rural America. In 1910, the vast majority of Americans lived in rural areas, whereas in 2010, only a small fraction did. It's been said for some time that the future is about cities, however, cities include both urban cores and suburbs.
An architect discussed the future of the suburb in London (the European suburb), and he said that the suburb of tomorrow looks very different from the suburb of today. Rather than endless tracts of housing divided by usage (commercial vs. residential), the popularity of mixed-use destinations in urban environments is informing suburban development as well.
Perhaps one of the largest shifts underscoring that is the move of retail consumption from real-world to online/delivery channels. Rather than needed suburban cores for retail, they'll be re-invented as leisure destinations. This is driven by the costs of retail, essential 'warehousing' products on shelves. It's much cheaper to store the products near several suburbs and distribute those products in real-time. Hence, the idea of retail as the centre of suburban areas will fade, replaced by leisure and services.
Overall, those shifts, both rural > non-rural (either urban or suburban), and refactoring commercial retail property to leisure and services, will mean that the suburbs we see tomorrow will be wholly different from the suburbs we see today.
The subtext to that being that initially, suburbs existed as the counter to urban cores. Urban cores were crowded centres of commerce and dense living environments. The reality is that the new value of urban cores are tremendous opportunities and network effects (point #2). If the genesis of urban areas was an organic advantage of co-location, the underly point is more of a 'hive' mentality. Armed with that knowledge, I expect we'll see suburbs that are mini-urban cores, rather than something entirely different from them.
2) The network advantage of urban areas is both obvious and interesting in a demographic sense. In San Francisco, New York, and London, I have noticed a distinct pattern. That living in urban areas is often connected to stage of life. I most strongly observed this is San Francisco and London, and tacitly in New York.
In both London and San Francisco, there is a fundamental pattern that emerges. Each is a collector of young people, from university age. That's the first collection point. The second collection point is after university. Young people move to cities because cities are teeming with opportunities. They're often single, and their priorities are career opportunities and mating opportunities. Factors like schools, volume of space, safety and the rest are secondary, if even considered.
In San Francisco, the pattern was most obvious. People move to San Francisco itself, sort a job and begin building their career. Along the path, they also date. At some point in life, when they have achieved both a stable career, and also a partner, they often leave the city when it is time to have a family. Moving to the suburbs that ring the city. When schools, volumes of space, and safety become more important than career and mating opportunities – because the those have been sorted.
Thus, there's a self-renewing flow of people moving into the city and then out to the suburbs. Taken with point #1, this is another driver of suburbs as mini-urban cores, for we're starting to see that the suburbs are now being shaped in the format of the urban core. Keeping the experiential and community orientations, whilst leaving behind the absolute volumes of networks and interactions.
If I were to hazard a guess as to what the future of the trend is, London's Crossrail provides the answer. A high-speed subway connecting far-flung suburbs directly to core urban areas. The future looks less like the gate-kept model we've seen in London, Paris, New York, and San Francisco. Where there are two distinct transit networks, one in urban centre, and another spidering out to the peripheries.
The RER is a good example of Version 1 of this, however it's still a complete separate transit network. Crossrail will literally remove the distance between several London suburbs, and the centre of the city. In the end, I expect we'll see a demographic structure to cities, more than a zoning structure.
Young life > Immediate suburbs (with parents)
Young adult life > Urban core
Young family life > Immediate suburbs
Post-family life > Distant suburbs
Old age > Retirement-oriented suburbs.
The demographic orientation becomes fascinating because we then see an oscillation into the urban core, and then back out of it, with young families replacing post-families, and new suburbs for the aged at the rural borders.
Of course, this is for the working class. The wealthy will live an decidedly different lifestyle, oscillating simply between urban cores and rural areas, as they largely have always done.
posted by nickrussell at 11:59 AM on December 10, 2014 [6 favorites]
"Interesting! I was not aware of that. When did that start? Is it widespread, or regional/urban?"
They really took hold in the US in around 1970, as part of the National Environmental Policy Act, which required them for most federal contracts. Since then, a bunch of states and municipalities (often county or regional planning commissions) have moved to require them. There are cut-offs for size; you're unlikely to need an environmental impact statement to add a granny flat but you're likely to need one to widen a street or connect a new development to utilities. Like many things that are mostly governed at the local level, there's an incredibly amount of variance in what's required, what can be appealed, etc. By now, environmental review has extended globally — any state with a reasonably strong central government likely requires them, but as is mentioned in the article, places like India vary on how enforceable that requirement is.
But because urban/suburban planning almost always includes state and federal infrastructure decisions, that means that almost all planning includes some form of environmental review.
The other thing that's important to know about environmental review is that the statements are almost always framed as "environmental impact" without a value judgment about the advisability or how values should be weighted. So it might tell you that a proposed power plant would release 200,000 tons of CO2, but it wouldn't say whether or not that was a good trade off — that's a political decision (though, and I'm probably getting into the weeds here, as the impacts are almost always speculative, there's a lot of politics that goes into just how those speculations are formed too).
posted by klangklangston at 1:07 PM on December 10, 2014
They really took hold in the US in around 1970, as part of the National Environmental Policy Act, which required them for most federal contracts. Since then, a bunch of states and municipalities (often county or regional planning commissions) have moved to require them. There are cut-offs for size; you're unlikely to need an environmental impact statement to add a granny flat but you're likely to need one to widen a street or connect a new development to utilities. Like many things that are mostly governed at the local level, there's an incredibly amount of variance in what's required, what can be appealed, etc. By now, environmental review has extended globally — any state with a reasonably strong central government likely requires them, but as is mentioned in the article, places like India vary on how enforceable that requirement is.
But because urban/suburban planning almost always includes state and federal infrastructure decisions, that means that almost all planning includes some form of environmental review.
The other thing that's important to know about environmental review is that the statements are almost always framed as "environmental impact" without a value judgment about the advisability or how values should be weighted. So it might tell you that a proposed power plant would release 200,000 tons of CO2, but it wouldn't say whether or not that was a good trade off — that's a political decision (though, and I'm probably getting into the weeds here, as the impacts are almost always speculative, there's a lot of politics that goes into just how those speculations are formed too).
posted by klangklangston at 1:07 PM on December 10, 2014
« Older They should have sent a poet | I like soft things. I like being near water. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
CTRL-F "arable land" 0 of 0
CTRL-F "carbon" 0 of 0
CTRL-F "emissions" 0 of 0
Better, you say?
posted by entropicamericana at 12:55 PM on December 9, 2014 [18 favorites]