4 ms·

They won't be because energy costs are still going to increase unless there's some as-of-yet unknown development on engine efficiency. The problem with suburbi

They won't be because energy costs are still going to increase unless there's some as-of-yet unknown development on engine efficiency. The problem with suburbia is that its is a horrendously inefficient way to use resources in a planet that is getting more and more constrained by them. It is an unsustainable lifestyle.

Zigurd 12y ago
Sorry, but the death of suburbs will have to wait. Efficient, automated, probably electric, personalized transportation is going to enable my exurban lifestyle 45 minutes from Boston pretty much indefinitely. I'll have a lo-opex electric lawn mowing robot for my two acres of lawn, too.
- Daishiman 12y ago
  Electric does nothing behind the source of power generation; if you're still generating electricity on fossil fuels that's not a net gain. Recall that the trend in the past decade in the US is that of reurbanization; youth are simply not interested in owning cars or suburban houses, and not just as a cultural statement, but because heating large homes and filling up gas tanks is becoming a proportionally larger expense as energy costs go up. It is reasonable to assume that eventually we'll reach a plateau in that trend when renewables become competitive against all forms of fossil fuels, but reurbanization doesn't have to do so much with large cities as it does with residencies clustering around small city centers, like much of Western Europe.
  - Zigurd 12y ago
    It appears that Boston and satellite cities like Lowell and Worcester have reversed urban decline. I'd guess that's at the expense of new exurban development, especially more than 1 hour out of Boston, and lower-cost suburbs with older housing. But it hasn't dinged the nicer suburbs at all, no matter the density: Cambridge is booming, Arlington, Lexington, Concord, Acton, and so on outward are all going up in price and have new speculative construction on the remaining open lots. That probably reflects what you are saying about the way Europe has developed. So while it may be the end of Chicago-like sprawl out across farmland that's 2 hours from the Loop, it mainly means that the focus will be on in-fill development in suburban residential areas. There is a huge amount of slack, even around older cities like Boston. Our commuter rail is getting a lot more riders but it has nothing like the schedule density of the Netherlands rail system. Some cities like Pittsburgh are coming back, but are still at half their peak population. Also, city schools in America still suck. Private school is about US$20-30k per year (more in high-cost cities). That's worth about a $200,000 higher mortgage in a suburb with good schools.
    - Daishiman 12y ago
      Nice suburbs will likely always be outliers since we're talking about an income group that can afford the extra expenses; I'm talking more about families in the $50K-100K yearly household income that work in NY but live in Jersey as my example. Those people will likely move into closer, more urbanized locations as time goes on. The matter in schooling is reflected by the district budgets, which are highly dependent on the tax base of its population (probably one of the biggest factors of inequalty in the US, but I digress), so as soon as you get wealthier people moving in and caring about teacher quality that will catch up. Gentrification also means that poor people end up moving out, so people with less opportunities will go to elsewhere (a huge topic by itself).
      - Zigurd 12y ago
        You are right in theory about schools, but in the US they are way behind cultural and commercial amenities and I can't find examples where they are catching up. That will keep suburbs in demand, and the outliers will be the unfortunate low-cost suburbs where the displaced poor end up, and those probably have bad schools already.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      Chicago is the 6th densest metro area in the country, ahead of SF, Pittsburgh, Portland, and DC. Houston is a sprawl city. Chicago just happens to be plopped in the middle of some of the most naturally arable land on the continent. :)
      - dctoedt 12y ago
        Houston inside the Loop (I-610) is getting increasingly dense. There's a housing shortage, in response to which luxury apartments are going up seemingly everywhere. Home prices inside the Loop continue to climb.
      - Zigurd 12y ago
        That just illustrates how lo-density the US is, overall. There fewer than 5 CDPs in the whole US that have the density of eight of the densest boroughs of London. This list of "densely" populated metro areas in the US includes the Detroit area, where Detroit proper has recently gone through population collapse. It's two hours from Crystal Lake to the UofC campus. That's not even a "fringe" suburb any more. And yet, my point was, that Crystal Lake, much less Shaumberg, isn't going to empty out any time soon, even as hipsters fill up Wicker Park.

Zigurd 12y ago

Sorry, but the death of suburbs will have to wait. Efficient, automated, probably electric, personalized transportation is going to enable my exurban lifestyle 45 minutes from Boston pretty much indefinitely. I'll have a lo-opex electric lawn mowing robot for my two acres of lawn, too.

Daishiman 12y ago
Electric does nothing behind the source of power generation; if you're still generating electricity on fossil fuels that's not a net gain. Recall that the trend in the past decade in the US is that of reurbanization; youth are simply not interested in owning cars or suburban houses, and not just as a cultural statement, but because heating large homes and filling up gas tanks is becoming a proportionally larger expense as energy costs go up. It is reasonable to assume that eventually we'll reach a plateau in that trend when renewables become competitive against all forms of fossil fuels, but reurbanization doesn't have to do so much with large cities as it does with residencies clustering around small city centers, like much of Western Europe.
- Zigurd 12y ago
  It appears that Boston and satellite cities like Lowell and Worcester have reversed urban decline. I'd guess that's at the expense of new exurban development, especially more than 1 hour out of Boston, and lower-cost suburbs with older housing. But it hasn't dinged the nicer suburbs at all, no matter the density: Cambridge is booming, Arlington, Lexington, Concord, Acton, and so on outward are all going up in price and have new speculative construction on the remaining open lots. That probably reflects what you are saying about the way Europe has developed. So while it may be the end of Chicago-like sprawl out across farmland that's 2 hours from the Loop, it mainly means that the focus will be on in-fill development in suburban residential areas. There is a huge amount of slack, even around older cities like Boston. Our commuter rail is getting a lot more riders but it has nothing like the schedule density of the Netherlands rail system. Some cities like Pittsburgh are coming back, but are still at half their peak population. Also, city schools in America still suck. Private school is about US$20-30k per year (more in high-cost cities). That's worth about a $200,000 higher mortgage in a suburb with good schools.
  - Daishiman 12y ago
    Nice suburbs will likely always be outliers since we're talking about an income group that can afford the extra expenses; I'm talking more about families in the $50K-100K yearly household income that work in NY but live in Jersey as my example. Those people will likely move into closer, more urbanized locations as time goes on. The matter in schooling is reflected by the district budgets, which are highly dependent on the tax base of its population (probably one of the biggest factors of inequalty in the US, but I digress), so as soon as you get wealthier people moving in and caring about teacher quality that will catch up. Gentrification also means that poor people end up moving out, so people with less opportunities will go to elsewhere (a huge topic by itself).
    - Zigurd 12y ago
      You are right in theory about schools, but in the US they are way behind cultural and commercial amenities and I can't find examples where they are catching up. That will keep suburbs in demand, and the outliers will be the unfortunate low-cost suburbs where the displaced poor end up, and those probably have bad schools already.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Chicago is the 6th densest metro area in the country, ahead of SF, Pittsburgh, Portland, and DC. Houston is a sprawl city. Chicago just happens to be plopped in the middle of some of the most naturally arable land on the continent. :)
    - dctoedt 12y ago
      Houston inside the Loop (I-610) is getting increasingly dense. There's a housing shortage, in response to which luxury apartments are going up seemingly everywhere. Home prices inside the Loop continue to climb.
    - Zigurd 12y ago
      That just illustrates how lo-density the US is, overall. There fewer than 5 CDPs in the whole US that have the density of eight of the densest boroughs of London. This list of "densely" populated metro areas in the US includes the Detroit area, where Detroit proper has recently gone through population collapse. It's two hours from Crystal Lake to the UofC campus. That's not even a "fringe" suburb any more. And yet, my point was, that Crystal Lake, much less Shaumberg, isn't going to empty out any time soon, even as hipsters fill up Wicker Park.