4 ms·

It's funny, we created communities that are too low density, and which contain almost no commercial or industrial development to support the tax base, and then

It's funny, we created communities that are too low density, and which contain almost no commercial or industrial development to support the tax base, and then we act surprised that they can't sustain themselves. These communities seem to me like unsustainable resorts built for the upper middle class of fifty years ago.

dublinben 9y ago
There's a reason why many of these places are called "bedroom communities" or "commuter towns." They exist solely to house the people working in nearest city, and provide a 'safe' place to raise their children. They have no other sustainable reason to exist.
- wmccullough 9y ago
  What do you think a good alternative is? Cities are too dense to house all the people.
  - SirZimzim 9y ago
    The argument is generally that American cities are not dense enough. Build taller, build better public transport, the rest of the world has been doing this for a long time. Our best example is NYC which has done a poor job keeping up with modern developments. There is a fundamental national issue with how things are done in the US that will bite us in the ass as we get even less competitive over the years.
peatmoss 9y ago
This is my feeling as well. The marginal cost of expensive infrastructure such as sewer, water, transportation, etc. is intrinsically higher the further out you go. When you were building on greenfields during suburban expansion, you overlooked that because relatively affluent people were getting a bargain on the land and thus the development costs looked more reasonable. Now the deferred maintenance on those bits of infrastructure is catching up and they want the central cities—the places where the marginal cost of infrastructure is low—to subsidize repairs to the infrastructure that allows for low density sprawl. To be fair, the article is talking about relatively close-in suburbs. Things will look worse when the even more farflung exurbs start having a lot of deferred maintenance catch up to them.
- ghaff 9y ago
  In many areas, far flung "exurbs" long predate many of the closer-in suburbs. The town I'm in was founded in 1653 or something like that. So this narrative that infrastructure for living outside of cities only exists because of subsidized greenfield development. Yes, many people in those outlying towns commute to work elsewhere but many of those jobs aren't actually in the major nearby cities. They're in other suburbs.
  - astura 9y ago
    Then it would more properly be classified as a small town rather than an exurb.
    - ghaff 9y ago
      "Small towns" constitute the vast majority of people living in more spread-out communities outside of New England cities. Some are more built up than others but most of them date to some degree or other to well before highways. FWIW ESRI classifies where I live an an exurb. New England is an older part of the US and patterns are obviously different with newer cities.
      - phil21 9y ago
        New England really isn't interesting to discuss for the most part when discussing US suburbs. New England is as close to "europe" style development as we get. The flyover states are really where this conversation needs to be focused on, as these are the communities that will first be hit hard. Small towns that eventually got absorbed into a giant metroplex are not the usual in the country. I think most folks see them as entirely different when it comes to sustainability models/etc.
        ghaff 9y ago
        That's somewhat fair although I'll point out that migration out of the urban cores in Boston/Cambridge was the norm until not that many years ago. So the dynamics weren't all that different. And there were basically no significant tech jobs left in the core urban area until about 20 years ago.
Shivetya 9y ago
seems to me counties do just fine, it is only when integrated within a city construct that issues arise. many counties are low density and doing splendid. I guess it all comes down to which view you wish to support. people who favor city living tend to ignore crime, noise, and pollution, while harping on suburbs as all being gate communities that consume taxes provided by cities. whereas those in the country, which is different than city subburbs tend to see it all in the reverse
acdha 9y ago
As with most American history, it makes no sense without discussing the role of racism. The exodus really got started when school integration became mandatory. Where I live now in DC that era’s suburbs are obviously designed to be unwelcoming to outsiders: no sidewalks, tangled street layouts which make walking/cycling difficult and driving confusing for anyone who doesn’t live there (more modern neighborhoods at least have easily visible street signs), public transit was either halfhearted or actively opposed (this is still ongoing: opposition to a subway expansion has included thinly-veiled references to “the wrong sorts of people”), etc. Combine that with redlining and so many of the weird patterns make sense: a suburb wasn’t designed to be a viable community as much as a de-facto private school district which only has students like your kids. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/09/25/prince-georges-white-flight-seen-linked-to-busing-order/13a8381f-9173-4ad9-9a24-4ffbf66b24b2/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/09/25/p... https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-racist-housing-policy-that-made-your-neighborhood/371439/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-rac...

dublinben 9y ago

There's a reason why many of these places are called "bedroom communities" or "commuter towns." They exist solely to house the people working in nearest city, and provide a 'safe' place to raise their children. They have no other sustainable reason to exist.

wmccullough 9y ago
What do you think a good alternative is? Cities are too dense to house all the people.
- SirZimzim 9y ago
  The argument is generally that American cities are not dense enough. Build taller, build better public transport, the rest of the world has been doing this for a long time. Our best example is NYC which has done a poor job keeping up with modern developments. There is a fundamental national issue with how things are done in the US that will bite us in the ass as we get even less competitive over the years.

peatmoss 9y ago

This is my feeling as well. The marginal cost of expensive infrastructure such as sewer, water, transportation, etc. is intrinsically higher the further out you go. When you were building on greenfields during suburban expansion, you overlooked that because relatively affluent people were getting a bargain on the land and thus the development costs looked more reasonable. Now the deferred maintenance on those bits of infrastructure is catching up and they want the central cities—the places where the marginal cost of infrastructure is low—to subsidize repairs to the infrastructure that allows for low density sprawl. To be fair, the article is talking about relatively close-in suburbs. Things will look worse when the even more farflung exurbs start having a lot of deferred maintenance catch up to them.

ghaff 9y ago
In many areas, far flung "exurbs" long predate many of the closer-in suburbs. The town I'm in was founded in 1653 or something like that. So this narrative that infrastructure for living outside of cities only exists because of subsidized greenfield development. Yes, many people in those outlying towns commute to work elsewhere but many of those jobs aren't actually in the major nearby cities. They're in other suburbs.
- astura 9y ago
  Then it would more properly be classified as a small town rather than an exurb.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    "Small towns" constitute the vast majority of people living in more spread-out communities outside of New England cities. Some are more built up than others but most of them date to some degree or other to well before highways. FWIW ESRI classifies where I live an an exurb. New England is an older part of the US and patterns are obviously different with newer cities.
    - phil21 9y ago
      New England really isn't interesting to discuss for the most part when discussing US suburbs. New England is as close to "europe" style development as we get. The flyover states are really where this conversation needs to be focused on, as these are the communities that will first be hit hard. Small towns that eventually got absorbed into a giant metroplex are not the usual in the country. I think most folks see them as entirely different when it comes to sustainability models/etc.
      - ghaff 9y ago
        That's somewhat fair although I'll point out that migration out of the urban cores in Boston/Cambridge was the norm until not that many years ago. So the dynamics weren't all that different. And there were basically no significant tech jobs left in the core urban area until about 20 years ago.

Shivetya 9y ago

seems to me counties do just fine, it is only when integrated within a city construct that issues arise. many counties are low density and doing splendid. I guess it all comes down to which view you wish to support. people who favor city living tend to ignore crime, noise, and pollution, while harping on suburbs as all being gate communities that consume taxes provided by cities. whereas those in the country, which is different than city subburbs tend to see it all in the reverse

acdha 9y ago

As with most American history, it makes no sense without discussing the role of racism. The exodus really got started when school integration became mandatory. Where I live now in DC that era’s suburbs are obviously designed to be unwelcoming to outsiders: no sidewalks, tangled street layouts which make walking/cycling difficult and driving confusing for anyone who doesn’t live there (more modern neighborhoods at least have easily visible street signs), public transit was either halfhearted or actively opposed (this is still ongoing: opposition to a subway expansion has included thinly-veiled references to “the wrong sorts of people”), etc. Combine that with redlining and so many of the weird patterns make sense: a suburb wasn’t designed to be a viable community as much as a de-facto private school district which only has students like your kids. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/09/25/prince-georges-white-flight-seen-linked-to-busing-order/13a8381f-9173-4ad9-9a24-4ffbf66b24b2/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/09/25/p... https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-racist-housing-policy-that-made-your-neighborhood/371439/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-rac...