Suburbs are unsustainable?

[ghettopalmetto]

Remember, the suburbs, like skyscrapers, are possibly unsustainable for not any one reason, but rather because of a mix of reasons culminating at a breaking flash point all in a relatively short amount of time. One of those reasons is that we [[USA) are currently fighting this new reality.

I would argue that automobile-oriented suburbs were *never* sustainable--until recently, though, the United States has been one of the few nations able to afford the massive investments in roads and loss of taxable revenue [[by using land for parking lots), spatial inefficiencies, massive consumption of land, and decaying cities. In other words, we've used money to paper over the shortcomings of automobile-oriented development.

Now that oil demand is skyrocketing [[while supplies are plummeting), the economy is in the crapper, population is growing, and real wage growth is virtually nil, we simply are no longer able to afford it. The bill's coming due, and the sooner we can acknowledge this and adapt, the better off we'll be in the long-term.

[mwilbert]

I don't see how this is an argument against cities. Cities have existed for thousands of years without natural gas, coal, oil, etc. How do you feel that this is an argument against cities in general?

The argument was intended to be that skyscrapers are not inherently more vulnerable to intermittent energy supplies than modern cities are. While it is absolutely true that pre-modern cities didn't need fossil fuels [[although they did need firewood and of course food), most people nowadays like central heating and electricity and sewage treatment, and if you want to provide those in a city, large buildings are more efficient than small ones. Less energy for heating and cooling, less energy for transport, and it should be easier for a large building to make provisions for intermittent energy supplies than for a lot of small buildings to do so.

Now 100 stories might be taller than optimal, and if energy supplies fall below some level, you won't be able to have modern cities at all, and no skyscrapers either, but I don't see that their fates are likely to be very different. If you think skyscrapers are doomed, then most likely the cities that spawned them are as well.

[Detroitnerd]

The argument was intended to be that skyscrapers are not inherently more vulnerable to intermittent energy supplies than modern cities are. While it is absolutely true that pre-modern cities didn't need fossil fuels [[although they did need firewood and of course food), most people nowadays like central heating and electricity and sewage treatment, and if you want to provide those in a city, large buildings are more efficient than small ones. Less energy for heating and cooling, less energy for transport, and it should be easier for a large building to make provisions for intermittent energy supplies than for a lot of small buildings to do so.

Now 100 stories might be taller than optimal, and if energy supplies fall below some level, you won't be able to have modern cities at all, and no skyscrapers either, but I don't see that their fates are likely to be very different. If you think skyscrapers are doomed, then most likely the cities that spawned them are as well.

Sorry, we get so used to people thinking that just because they repeat something, they must be die-hard believers in it. I am only repeating what Kunstler said because it seemed relevant, so you will have to find somebody else to defend his statements.

But let me ask you: Is Paris, France, a modern city? It seems that, with its low profile, walkability, mass transit, etc., that it's the kind of city that's much better adapted to intermittent supplies of power than, say, midtown Manhattan, which is pretty much THE model for a successful American city. In any event, I was under the impression that what allowed a building to be so tall was that it had a subway stop in the basement, not that it had a steady supply of energy.

[bartock]

I would argue that automobile-oriented suburbs were *never* sustainable--until recently, though, the United States has been one of the few nations able to afford the massive investments in roads and loss of taxable revenue [[by using land for parking lots), spatial inefficiencies, massive consumption of land, and decaying cities. In other words, we've used money to paper over the shortcomings of automobile-oriented development.

Now that oil demand is skyrocketing [[while supplies are plummeting), the economy is in the crapper, population is growing, and real wage growth is virtually nil, we simply are no longer able to afford it. The bill's coming due, and the sooner we can acknowledge this and adapt, the better off we'll be in the long-term.

This may be a bit more specific to Detroit suburbs, but Hermod I believe made a point recently about existing suburban areas becoming more infilled as a result of the oil crisis and not heading back into the City. Sort of a donut argument. There is already more retail and infrastructure, etc., along Hall Road than anywhere else in Metro Detroit that I'm aware of. It is massively congested with cars, and is an urbanists' nightmare. However, at what point does an area like that become self-sustaining, particularly as we continue to move towards service and away from manufacturing?

[Detroitnerd]

This may be a bit more specific to Detroit suburbs, but Hermod I believe made a point recently about existing suburban areas becoming more infilled as a result of the oil crisis and not heading back into the City. Sort of a donut argument. There is already more retail and infrastructure, etc., along Hall Road than anywhere else in Metro Detroit that I'm aware of. It is massively congested with cars, and is an urbanists' nightmare. However, at what point does an area like that become self-sustaining, particularly as we continue to move towards service and away from manufacturing?

An interesting point, with a few rubs.

The main rub is this: If GP's argument is correct, and we used our massive national wealth to paper over the inadequacies and oversights of car culture, why should we suddenly use our wealth for any other reason? And even if we did have the political will and insight to start in-filling suburbia, this is a MASSIVELY expensive proposition, just at a time when we find we don't have the money for mandatory stuff like police, fire and libraries. Think about the costs, financial and political, required to take all those 10-lane roads, cut them down to four, move the sidewalks and buildings closer together, move the buildings from the back onto the parking lots to the street frontage, etc. This is a multi-billion-dollar proposition, to say nothing of getting the variances approved for zoning, mixed-use, codes, etc. How to get a real estate industry that specializes in 13 or so approved buildout designs to smarten up in a few years and do this right? Etc., etc., etc.

The smarter path would be to build density where it has always been, the city and its inner-ring burbs. Hall Road? It should probably go back to what it was: And east-west state trunkline without development...

[bartock]

An interesting point, with a few rubs.

The main rub is this: If GP's argument is correct, and we used our massive national wealth to paper over the inadequacies and oversights of car culture, why should we suddenly use our wealth for any other reason? And even if we did have the political will and insight to start in-filling suburbia, this is a MASSIVELY expensive proposition, just at a time when we find we don't have the money for mandatory stuff like police, fire and libraries. Think about the costs, financial and political, required to take all those 10-lane roads, cut them down to four, move the sidewalks and buildings closer together, move the buildings from the back onto the parking lots to the street frontage, etc. This is a multi-billion-dollar proposition, to say nothing of getting the variances approved for zoning, mixed-use, codes, etc. How to get a real estate industry that specializes in 13 or so approved buildout designs to smarten up in a few years and do this right? Etc., etc., etc.

The smarter path would be to build density where it has always been, the city and its inner-ring burbs. Hall Road? It should probably go back to what it was: And east-west state trunkline without development...

So...I shouldn't start a thread on high-speed rail between Howell and Selfridge ANG?

Seriously, even leaving out the practical [[$$$$) arguments you made, your first point says it all. The regional attitude would not change overnight.

[ghettopalmetto]

So...I shouldn't start a thread on high-speed rail between Howell and Selfridge ANG?

Seriously, even leaving out the practical [[$$$$) arguments you made, your first point says it all. The regional attitude would not change overnight.

We're in a state of inertia that has been moving forward at 55 mph for the past 60 years. Currently, we're reduced to thinking about "urbanity" on the basis of parking. And then--inevitably--whereever there is a focus on sustainable development, like Portland, people complain that it "drives up property values". As if we should aspire to nothing other than absolute shitholes.

It's as if we collectively don't feel like we deserve anything more than a parking spot, and to not to be hit up for change.

[iheartthed]

So...I shouldn't start a thread on high-speed rail between Howell and Selfridge ANG?

Seriously, even leaving out the practical [[$$$$) arguments you made, your first point says it all. The regional attitude would not change overnight.

I think it would change pretty quickly if the cost of maintaining that sprawl wasn't so abstracted.

[Detroitnerd]

Good point. What are the costs of maintaining a square foot of parking?

In maintenance.

In keeping it lit day and night.

In lost tax revenues.

In environmental externalities.

In aesthetic costs.

Then, divide it by how often it is used and I think you'll find a dismal figure, especially for the square footage in the largest lots.

Has anybody already studied this?

[ghettopalmetto]

Good point. What are the costs of maintaining a square foot of parking?

In maintenance.

In keeping it lit day and night.

In lost tax revenues.

In environmental externalities.

In aesthetic costs.

Then, divide it by how often it is used and I think you'll find a dismal figure, especially for the square footage in the largest lots.

Has anybody already studied this?

I know Richard Porter, Professor Emeritus of Economics at UM, has written a book on the externalities of driving--I think it's called "Driven to Spend" or something like that. I'm not sure if his treatise touches on parking, though.

Think about this: there are four parking spots in the United States for each car. In other words, at any given time, there are 153 BILLION square feet [[3.5 million acres, 5500 square miles, 40 times the area of the City of Detroit) of parking space going unused [[200 sf per spot x 3 empty spots per car x 255 million cars). This is land doing *absolutely nothing*.

The average American city dedicates something like HALF of its land to automobile usage. Most of that is nontaxable, yet costs money to maintain.

[Detroitnerd]

I find that putting a dollar figure on things often helps some of our "conservative" friends see that they're actually favoring spendthrift policies...

[robyn]

Wow! This is such a hot topic! But doesn't it just boil down to personal preference? For me, it's the suburbs. I have children and want them in the best schools. But I don't fault anyone who wants to live in Detroit and raise their family there.

[Detroitnerd]

Wow! This is such a hot topic! But doesn't it just boil down to personal preference? For me, it's the suburbs. I have children and want them in the best schools. But I don't fault anyone who wants to live in Detroit and raise their family there.

Yeah. Totally. Like, take somebody who's poor. They have children and they want to raise them in the worst possible environment, so they choose to live in the city.

[ghettopalmetto]

Wow! This is such a hot topic! But doesn't it just boil down to personal preference? For me, it's the suburbs. I have children and want them in the best schools. But I don't fault anyone who wants to live in Detroit and raise their family there.

But in order to examine "personal preference", you have to examine how subsidies and policy have *directed* so-called "personal preference" over time. For example, I'm sure that $8/gallon gasoline [[as in Europe) would most certainly influence your "personal preferences".

And "suburb" is not equivalent to "good schools", just like "new" does not equate with "better". I can show you plenty of suburban schools that are absolutely atrocious, and I know of some inner-city schools that are downright stellar.

The theme of this thread is examining the money that we spend, as a society, to do little more than influence "personal preference". Hence, my point above about using money to paper-over natual and inherent inefficiencies in the automobile-oriented environment. The truth is, we've been conducting a massive and expensive social engineering experiment since World War II. We just can't afford it anymore, financially, socially, culturally, or economically.

[DetroitDad]

Cross post with the topic Where are the best suburbs?

An excerpt:

Boston Edison is much cheaper than Ferndale, but Dearborn is probably comparable. I do think that some otherwise nice suburbs face some problems with pricing and their dependence on certain institutions. For example, I think that prices in many places are far from bottoming out. In other places, a fall in standards of living and conditions are far from bottoming out.

This is something that we never got into in the sustainability threads, but generally some places are reliant on a good school district, for example. This, combined with a drop in median home prices, have made them obtainable by new lower income demographics formerly from city centers and the like. This may bring changes to the suburb which will significantly reduce that suburb's quality of life, stellar institutions, and the median home price. Essentially, some areas are poor choices for the long term because they are so desirable in the short term.

This subject has a lot to do with the topic of the collapsing of complex systems. Ask yourself why some neighborhoods in the city of Detroit have held on, despite the collapsing of Detroit. Arguably, our suburbs face many similar problems to what the city of Detroit faced, if not more problems. Furthermore, the solution to the multitude of problems appears to be adaptability, economic growth and social cohesion. Many, but not all, of our suburban communities will not be able to posses these solutions, much like many neighborhoods and suburbs in the city of Detroit.

This entire topic can also be related to other cities, and things like skyscrapers, as well.

[ferntruth]

Yeah. Totally. Like, take somebody who's poor. They have children and they want to raise them in the worst possible environment, so they choose to live in the city.

Well, if thats their choice, who are you to question it? I don't know why someone would want to raise children in the worst possible environment, but then again I think that most people who are parents, should NOT be.

[Detroitnerd]

Well, if thats their choice, who are you to question it? I don't know why someone would want to raise children in the worst possible environment, but then again I think that most people who are parents, should NOT be.

Sarcasm, Fern. Sarcasm.

[Bham1982]

Poor parents want what's best for their children too, which is why DPS has been emptying out and the "Schools of Choice" districts closer to Detroit have been diversifying so quickly.

And the reduction in property values is probably linked to demographic changes in schools. Grosse Pointe North used to be lily white, and now has a large and fast-growing black population. That's probably linked to cheap homes in GP Woods and Harper Woods.

[DetroitDad]

Black influx impacts school choice in Detroit suburb

Relevant if you think racist backward views as an impediment to the wellbeing and future of a society.

The number one question my wife and I get isn't whether we will be staying and send my daughter to an under performing school district, but rather whether we will be send our daughter to an all black school.

[coracle]

There are no benefits for this family to move to Detroit. Living in the suburbs allows them to enjoy the many great places to visit in Detroit but they don't have to suffer the disadvantages of the reported higher crime rate, lower quality schools, shortage of Malls, greater urban decay etc. etc. The 2010 census number underscores that people don't choose to move to Detroit. I love to visit it's downtown area and the River Front is beautiful on warm days, but I would not choose to live in Detroit.

[ghettopalmetto]

There are no benefits for this family to move to Detroit. Living in the suburbs allows them to enjoy the many great places to visit in Detroit but they don't have to suffer the disadvantages of the reported higher crime rate, lower quality schools, shortage of Malls, greater urban decay etc. etc. The 2010 census number underscores that people don't choose to move to Detroit. I love to visit it's downtown area and the River Front is beautiful on warm days, but I would not choose to live in Detroit.

My post from two weeks ago, which it seems you missed:


But in order to examine "personal preference", you have to examine how subsidies and policy have *directed* so-called "personal preference" over time. For example, I'm sure that $8/gallon gasoline [[as in Europe) would most certainly influence your "personal preferences".

[Hermod]

My post from two weeks ago, which it seems you missed:


But in order to examine "personal preference", you have to examine how subsidies and policy have *directed* so-called "personal preference" over time. For example, I'm sure that $8/gallon gasoline [[as in Europe) would most certainly influence your "personal preferences".

Certainly. There will be a big downsize in cars with $8 per gallon [[to the detriment of the auto companies' profitability and their ability to pay premium wages) Plus, people will seek housing closer to their work.

[DetroitDad]

There are no benefits for this family to move to Detroit. Living in the suburbs allows them to enjoy the many great places to visit in Detroit but they don't have to suffer the disadvantages of the reported higher crime rate, lower quality schools, shortage of Malls, greater urban decay etc. etc. The 2010 census number underscores that people don't choose to move to Detroit. I love to visit it's downtown area and the River Front is beautiful on warm days, but I would not choose to live in Detroit.

I posted a video entitled The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class. The premise is that the average middle class family lifestyle in America is not sustainable. If it were a business, it would be viewed as insolvent, being choked off by astronomical fixed costs and a decrease in wages and oppurtunities. For Millennials, this is even more so.

My main goal is to eliminate fixed costs.

For me, moving to a city allows me to eliminate the need for multiple cars. City transit systems act as a safety net if my car breaks down. I do not need a rental or a ride during emergency repairs. In other cities, I would also have additional benefits that would lower my fixed costs while increasing my quality of life.

Coracle, those are all problems, agreed. However, why can't we make our cities rewarding places to be? Cities aren't just for one income bracket, age, or race.

[coracle]

There is no question that living in a well run attractive city with ample public transport - like many European cities - is a great way to live [[would be for me and many others). But unfortunately Detroit has been allowed to deteriorate over time and is not now a desirable place to live for me. Not even social engineering like making gas $8 gall would change my mind. I think $8 gas might influence the crime rate in Detroit
I have worked in downtown and enjoyed it's atmosphere during the daytime but I also enjoyed driving back to my safe little nest at the end of the day.

[HistoryNotHisStory]

Downtown Diva,

Please note unsustainable does not mean not comfortable or livable.

Sustainable is defined as

"capable of being maintained at a steady level without exhausting natural resources or causing severe ecological damage: sustainable development . This also applies to energy sources and the economy."

Sure people prefer a more comfortable way of life outside of what appears to be urban decay, high taxes and high insurance, but this does not mean it is sustainable living.

The research has been done and Suburban Sprawl in America is unsustainable in the long term. It hinders the growth of the region. The infrastructure needs of our ever-increasing suburban sprawl in Southeast Michigan affect everyone.

For example, as communities on the outskirts of Detroit grows, Detroit Edison is has to build new substations and new power lines to reach customers on the outskirts and new communities. Who pays for this? Every ratepayer of Detroit Edison. However, if communities were more centralized in the region our cost would be lower.

Also, the Detroit Water & Sewerage Department, provides water to over 4 million people in Southeast Michigan. If the region was more centralized in population, then the Water Department would not have pump water to communites that are on the outskirts. It takes electricity to pump water. Therefore, Detroit Water Department is one of the largest customers to Detroit Edison. Millions of dollars each year is spent on paying their electric bills. Who pays for the increased billing? We all do! The rates has went up 8% for three years in a row! Compound Interest!


Furthermore, with Michigan roads being the worst in the nation, Do we really need brand new roads caused by new communities due to suburban sprawl. Presently, we cannot maintain the roads that we have. With continual suburban sprawl it gets worse.

Lastly, Suburban sprawl is unsustainable due to every-increase price of petroleum. As people move away from the central business areas and the city, daily commutes become longer. People who now commutes over with a driving time of 30 minutes or more will soon learn that living on the outskirts and far from their workplace is costly to their pocketbook. For more information see the film "THE END OF SUBURBIA: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of The American Dream" www.endofsuburbia.com