4 ms·

Which is more likely to end the suburban madness: land war / security breakdown or carbon tax?

mirimir 7y ago
That's hard to say. The US sure painted itself into a corner with suburbanization. I doubt that it's reversible. Or at least, that it would ever be reversed before it was far too late.
- dashundchen 7y ago
  It already is too late for much of the of mass suburbanization in the US. They are not finanically sustainable. https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme A bit of a read in a 5 part series but well worth it. Strongtowns.org refers to suburban sprawl as the "growth ponzi scheme". Low density sprawl requires more infrastructure with less density to pay for it. The density of suburbs can never hope to pay for the renewal of roads, water, sewers, schools without massive transfer payments from denser areas. By the time the bill comes and the illusion of growth has stopped, the center of development has already moved out to the next ring of farms to pave over for subdivisions, shopping plazas and highway expansions.
lotsofpulp 7y ago
High cost of fuel to income ratios. People aren't going to give up single family detached homes with garages and yards until they have to. And they're sure as hell not going to vote for it. Alternatively, sufficient numbers of people stop having children altogether, and then don't mind living in dense cities.
- asdf21 7y ago
  I'd advocate for the opposite... I think everyone should own an acre or two, planted with as many trees as possible to stave off climate change. There are many more mental health issues in densely populated areas, much less biodiversity, more pollution, etc. >Alternatively, sufficient numbers of people stop having children altogether, We tried that, it was called billed as a "aging population crisis" and used as justification to import millions of people from other failed countries into the US.
  - bwanab 7y ago
    Lots of people living far away from each other - this is the recipe for mental health issues related to loneliness. Young people are voting with their feet by moving from such areas to urban areas and they're staying there.
    - asdf21 7y ago
      I'm one of those people.. and I hate it in the city. But I like making six figures and that's not currently possible where I'm from originally. >mental health issues related to loneliness Citation? It's a fact that urban living is associated with higher levels of mental illness, not just conjecture.
      - icebraining 7y ago
        I don't have a citation for loneliness per se, but suicide rates for young people are much higher in rural areas, "even after controlling for a broad array of county-level sociodemographic, economic, and health care system characteristics." https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2195006 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/... Of course, there's always the issue about whether suburbs and exurbs count as rural or urban, which leads to people talking past each other.
        DanBC 7y ago
        I can't see where they controlled for distance needed to travel to reach emergency departments after a suicide attempt. I'm sure they did, because it's a pretty big factor for how many people die from some methods, but it would have been nice to see this more clearly described.
        icebraining 7y ago
        Well, even if that accounts for part of the effect, it's still a benefit from urban living!
      - 7y ago
- darksaints 7y ago
  I gladly have given up single family homes with garages and yards, in order to raise my kid in a dense city. There is nothing inherently family-unfriendly about cities or density. You're approaching the idea from a perspective that has been tainted by a false consensus bias. If the desire for single family homes was really as pervasive as you believe, then heavily restrictive zoning that is intended to preserve SFH zones wouldn't be necessary in the slightest...you could dismantle the zoning system completely and nothing would change. It would never make financial sense to tear down single family homes and build apartments and condos if nobody wanted to live in them and everybody wanted to live in single family homes. In reality, increases in allowable density are almost always accompanied by increased actual density.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    Single family detached homes require wealth, and are an easy way to discriminate between those with well heeled families and those without. This results in school districts where children in the well heeled suburbs have greater chances of “success” than those in urban neighborhoods. Even if one doesn’t desire the actual quality of life of less dense areas, they rarely want to sacrifice the chances of their children’s future. See what is happening with NYC public education currently. Hence, the zoning requirements against high density housing is to keep certain socioeconomic classes of people out, especially as it would allow their children into the school system.
- naravara 7y ago
  >People aren't going to give up single family detached homes with garages and yards until they have to. That housing stock will eventually rot away as people age and their local governments can't afford to maintain the infrastructure anymore. Entropy will win eventually as future generations can no longer afford to live so far away from job centers. Plus, it's not as if you can't have urbanism and still have garages and yards. They just end up being smaller. Plenty of places have yards and garages in urban Pittsburgh or Philly. The template for density doesn't always have to be Manhattan or Hong Kong.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    That’s what I mean. High fuel costs are going to be the reason local government can’t afford to maintain infrastructure, and people can’t afford to commute. And not just cost in terms of money, but also environmental damage and whatnot, however it ends up being felt.
nine_zeros 7y ago
Gas prices. We're really really dependent on a finite resource
- BrandonMarc 7y ago
  Not if Elon Musk and Bill Gates have their way. Electric cars, using power provided by thorium reactors ... two massive game-changers for everybody.
naravara 7y ago
>Which is more likely to end the suburban madness: land war / security breakdown or carbon tax? The hollowing out of the middle class will get there first. Already the outer ring suburbs and excessive McMansions are becoming concentrations of poverty. As the jobs go, so will go the young people and these suburbs without any real economic anchors will become ghost towns of lonely, elderly folks with nobody to take care of them. They will be without the means to move elsewhere because they're stuck owning a house nobody wants to buy or rent. Their best bet is to hope someone builds a bus or metro line to the nearest job center so a real estate developer might come by and buy up a block.

That's hard to say. The US sure painted itself into a corner with suburbanization. I doubt that it's reversible. Or at least, that it would ever be reversed before it was far too late.

dashundchen 7y ago
It already is too late for much of the of mass suburbanization in the US. They are not finanically sustainable. https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme A bit of a read in a 5 part series but well worth it. Strongtowns.org refers to suburban sprawl as the "growth ponzi scheme". Low density sprawl requires more infrastructure with less density to pay for it. The density of suburbs can never hope to pay for the renewal of roads, water, sewers, schools without massive transfer payments from denser areas. By the time the bill comes and the illusion of growth has stopped, the center of development has already moved out to the next ring of farms to pave over for subdivisions, shopping plazas and highway expansions.

lotsofpulp 7y ago

High cost of fuel to income ratios. People aren't going to give up single family detached homes with garages and yards until they have to. And they're sure as hell not going to vote for it. Alternatively, sufficient numbers of people stop having children altogether, and then don't mind living in dense cities.

asdf21 7y ago
I'd advocate for the opposite... I think everyone should own an acre or two, planted with as many trees as possible to stave off climate change. There are many more mental health issues in densely populated areas, much less biodiversity, more pollution, etc. >Alternatively, sufficient numbers of people stop having children altogether, We tried that, it was called billed as a "aging population crisis" and used as justification to import millions of people from other failed countries into the US.
- bwanab 7y ago
  Lots of people living far away from each other - this is the recipe for mental health issues related to loneliness. Young people are voting with their feet by moving from such areas to urban areas and they're staying there.
  - asdf21 7y ago
    I'm one of those people.. and I hate it in the city. But I like making six figures and that's not currently possible where I'm from originally. >mental health issues related to loneliness Citation? It's a fact that urban living is associated with higher levels of mental illness, not just conjecture.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      I don't have a citation for loneliness per se, but suicide rates for young people are much higher in rural areas, "even after controlling for a broad array of county-level sociodemographic, economic, and health care system characteristics." https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2195006 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/... Of course, there's always the issue about whether suburbs and exurbs count as rural or urban, which leads to people talking past each other.
      - DanBC 7y ago
        I can't see where they controlled for distance needed to travel to reach emergency departments after a suicide attempt. I'm sure they did, because it's a pretty big factor for how many people die from some methods, but it would have been nice to see this more clearly described.
        icebraining 7y ago
        Well, even if that accounts for part of the effect, it's still a benefit from urban living!
    - 7y ago
darksaints 7y ago
I gladly have given up single family homes with garages and yards, in order to raise my kid in a dense city. There is nothing inherently family-unfriendly about cities or density. You're approaching the idea from a perspective that has been tainted by a false consensus bias. If the desire for single family homes was really as pervasive as you believe, then heavily restrictive zoning that is intended to preserve SFH zones wouldn't be necessary in the slightest...you could dismantle the zoning system completely and nothing would change. It would never make financial sense to tear down single family homes and build apartments and condos if nobody wanted to live in them and everybody wanted to live in single family homes. In reality, increases in allowable density are almost always accompanied by increased actual density.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  Single family detached homes require wealth, and are an easy way to discriminate between those with well heeled families and those without. This results in school districts where children in the well heeled suburbs have greater chances of “success” than those in urban neighborhoods. Even if one doesn’t desire the actual quality of life of less dense areas, they rarely want to sacrifice the chances of their children’s future. See what is happening with NYC public education currently. Hence, the zoning requirements against high density housing is to keep certain socioeconomic classes of people out, especially as it would allow their children into the school system.
naravara 7y ago
>People aren't going to give up single family detached homes with garages and yards until they have to. That housing stock will eventually rot away as people age and their local governments can't afford to maintain the infrastructure anymore. Entropy will win eventually as future generations can no longer afford to live so far away from job centers. Plus, it's not as if you can't have urbanism and still have garages and yards. They just end up being smaller. Plenty of places have yards and garages in urban Pittsburgh or Philly. The template for density doesn't always have to be Manhattan or Hong Kong.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  That’s what I mean. High fuel costs are going to be the reason local government can’t afford to maintain infrastructure, and people can’t afford to commute. And not just cost in terms of money, but also environmental damage and whatnot, however it ends up being felt.

nine_zeros 7y ago

Gas prices. We're really really dependent on a finite resource

BrandonMarc 7y ago
Not if Elon Musk and Bill Gates have their way. Electric cars, using power provided by thorium reactors ... two massive game-changers for everybody.

naravara 7y ago

>Which is more likely to end the suburban madness: land war / security breakdown or carbon tax? The hollowing out of the middle class will get there first. Already the outer ring suburbs and excessive McMansions are becoming concentrations of poverty. As the jobs go, so will go the young people and these suburbs without any real economic anchors will become ghost towns of lonely, elderly folks with nobody to take care of them. They will be without the means to move elsewhere because they're stuck owning a house nobody wants to buy or rent. Their best bet is to hope someone builds a bus or metro line to the nearest job center so a real estate developer might come by and buy up a block.