Stranded in Suburbia

[gz_]

Good op-ed by Paul Krugman (who actually is an economist.)

To see what I’m talking about, consider where I am at the moment: in a pleasant, middle-class neighborhood consisting mainly of four- or five-story apartment buildings, with easy access to public transit and plenty of local shopping.

It’s the kind of neighborhood in which people don’t have to drive a lot, but it’s also a kind of neighborhood that barely exists in America, even in big metropolitan areas. Greater Atlanta has roughly the same population as Greater Berlin — but Berlin is a city of trains, buses and bikes, while Atlanta is a city of cars, cars and cars.

And in the face of rising oil prices, which have left many Americans stranded in suburbia — utterly dependent on their cars, yet having a hard time affording gas — it’s starting to look as if Berlin had the better idea.

Changing the geography of American metropolitan areas will be hard. For one thing, houses last a lot longer than cars. Long after today’s S.U.V.’s have become antique collectors’ items, millions of people will still be living in subdivisions built when gas was $1.50 or less a gallon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/opinion/19krugman.html

[Platy]

Any serious reduction in American driving will require more than this — it will mean changing how and where many of us live.

Somebody clue me in. Is this a mainstream commentator writing in a mainstream paper? Or is it just the mad ravings of another one of us America-hating granola crunching hippie elitists?

[Roody]

Yeah we've been saying the same things for years already and everybody calls us lunatics. Now it MSM and the NYT at that! Krugman isn't giving us any credit for his "new" ideas!

[MrCjolsen]

I've been saying exactly what Mr. Krugman is saying for the last 15 years.

[gz_]

Somebody clue me in. Is this a mainstream commentator writing in a mainstream paper? Or is it just the mad ravings of another one of us America-hating granola crunching hippie elitists?

Kidding right?

[gerv]

Somebody clue me in. Is this a mainstream commentator writing in a mainstream paper? Or is it just the mad ravings of another one of us America-hating granola crunching hippie elitists?

Is the New York Times a mainstream media source? So where does that put Fox News? I wonder if you would hear such talk over there?

[Roody]

Kidding right?

I don't think so. A lot of us have been talking for years about things like alternative energy & transit, peak oil, sustainable and livable city design, and so on & so forth. Mostly we were told that we were lunatics, extremists and henny-pennies. Now it's starting to look like we were right all along.

This can cause some mixed feelings. It's like riding my bike all winter. I'm almost the only one out there in the snow and the cold wind. Then on the first warm spring day, I can hardly move because the fair-weather peddlers are back, thinking they invented the sport of cycling. On the one hand, I'm very glad to have the company. On the other hand.....

[gwd]

I don't think so. A lot of us have been talking for years about things like alternative energy & transit, peak oil, sustainable and livable city design, and so on & so forth. Mostly we were told that we were lunatics, extremists and henny-pennies. Now it's starting to look like we were right all along.

This can cause some mixed feelings. It's like riding my bike all winter. I'm almost the only one out there in the snow and the cold wind. Then on the first warm spring day, I can hardly move because the fair-weather peddlers are back, thinking they invented the sport of cycling. On the one hand, I'm very glad to have the company. On the other hand.....

Do you think the New York Times will get tons of letters and e-mails from people defending car-culture and suburbia to the same extent that we get here on LCF? Like, "People need cars to haul pet food." "If we don't drive cars our daughters and wives will be raped." "You're a bad parent if you don't raise your kids in suburbia and drive them everywhere." "If people sell their cars they'll suddenly become too stupid to know how to call a cab or an ambulance when they need help." Remember posts along those lines? LCF's readership is a tiny fraction of the New York Times.

[burbankbiker]

Great article from the great Paul Krugman.

I just moved to San Francisco for precisely this reason. My partner is swedish and she has always been seeking out a European living experience in the US... in terms of transit, population density, and cultural similarities. San Francisco is the closest thing there is.

We've been here a month and a half and love it more and more every day.

As my brother shops for a house in neighborhoods 35 miles from his job, I take comfort in my decision to start living car free in a small city that supports me locally.

[Roody]

Do you think the New York Times will get tons of letters and e-mails from people defending car-culture and suburbia to the same extent that we get here on LCF? Like, "People need cars to haul pet food." "If we don't drive cars our daughters and wives will be raped." "You're a bad parent if you don't raise your kids in suburbia and drive them everywhere." "If people sell their cars they'll suddenly become too stupid to know how to call a cab or an ambulance when they need help." Remember posts along those lines? LCF's readership is a tiny fraction of the New York Times.

I bet they will get similar comments. We'll have to check on this tomorrow and see. NYTimes.com also has some good blogs. Maybe one of them will pick up this story. It would be great for DotEarth (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/), which I think is one of the most thoughtful environmental blogs on the net.

[Tabor]

Do you think the New York Times will get tons of letters and e-mails from people defending car-culture and suburbia to the same extent that we get here on LCF? Like, "People need cars to haul pet food." "If we don't drive cars our daughters and wives will be raped." "You're a bad parent if you don't raise your kids in suburbia and drive them everywhere." "If people sell their cars they'll suddenly become too stupid to know how to call a cab or an ambulance when they need help." Remember posts along those lines? LCF's readership is a tiny fraction of the New York Times.

This sort of problem solves itself. Eventually gas will be too expensive for the average person to live in the suburbs and drive around in a flexfuel Suburban all day long.

[maddyfish]

AN economist came up with this fallacy? He doesn't think that big corps will see an opportunity to build buisness closer to suburbia? He doesn't think the highly skilled, and educated workers of suburbia will simply demand their jobs move closer to their homes? He doesn't think that more and more people will work from home?
He doesn't see that excluding S.F., N.Y.C., and a few others, big cities have nothing to offer skilled workers? There isn't even a big grocery store in downtown Cincinnati, Oh. The place is a ghost town at night, and on weekends. All it has to offer is jobs. And skilled workers will simply demand that those move closer to them, not the other way around.
Europe is the way it is, because after WWII, the coutryside was largely agricultural in nature, with little money. Here alot (most) of the money is in suburbia, the buisness (jobs, retail, so forth) will go where the money is, and where the skilled labor is. It is alot easier to build a new office in the suburbs, than to find skilled, educated labor in the middle of a typical american city. The typical american city will be even more abandoend than it is now. Sprawl will be worse than it is now. Instead of just housing, it will be a Kroger every 3 miles, a small office building every 5 miles, and tons of homes in between.

These things are already happening, and have been for several years. Maybe the economist needs to get out of N.Y.C. and see what's going on in the rest of the country.

[ericy]

This can cause some mixed feelings. It's like riding my bike all winter. I'm almost the only one out there in the snow and the cold wind. Then on the first warm spring day, I can hardly move because the fair-weather peddlers are back, thinking they invented the sport of cycling. On the one hand, I'm very glad to have the company. On the other hand.....

When people ask me about riding in the winter, I put it this way. People will spend lots of money to fly to a ski resort and ski all day long. Nobody gives it a second thought, and if you tell someone you are leaving on a ski trip everyone is jealous and wants to see pictures when you get back. You just need to wear the proper clothes. So why is it a big deal to ride a bicycle in the winter? I don't need to fly anywhere, I don't need to purchase a lift ticket, and I don't need to stand in line anywhere. And in our climate, we really don't need to deal with snow or ice very much either, really - it is just the cold and dark that we need to be prepared for.

[FXjohn]

I don't need to fly anywhere, I don't need to purchase a lift ticket, and I don't need to stand in line anywhere.

and you're not skiing down a beautiful mountain in the rockies either.
I don't see where you're coming from.

[botto]

I don't think so. A lot of us have been talking for years about things like alternative energy & transit, peak oil, sustainable and livable city design, and so on & so forth. Mostly we were told that we were lunatics, extremists and henny-pennies. Now it's starting to look like we were right all along.

This can cause some mixed feelings. It's like riding my bike all winter. I'm almost the only one out there in the snow and the cold wind. Then on the first warm spring day, I can hardly move because the fair-weather peddlers are back, thinking they invented the sport of cycling. On the one hand, I'm very glad to have the company. On the other hand.....

An elitist bike hippy, who would have ever thought?

[ericy]

and you're not skiing down a beautiful mountain in the rockies either.
I don't see where you're coming from.

Well, you do enjoy riding your bicycle, don't you? :D. It is certainly true that you aren't on a mountain in the rockies, but then again I can ride my bicycle any day I feel like it. For most skiers, they get 1 week a year in the Rockies, and the rest of the time the skis are just gathering dust in the closet. Either that or doing local skiing which around here is pretty awful.

[wahoonc]

AN economist came up with this fallacy? He doesn't think that big corps will see an opportunity to build buisness closer to suburbia? He doesn't think the highly skilled, and educated workers of suburbia will simply demand their jobs move closer to their homes? He doesn't think that more and more people will work from home?
He doesn't see that excluding S.F., N.Y.C., and a few others, big cities have nothing to offer skilled workers? There isn't even a big grocery store in downtown Cincinnati, Oh. The place is a ghost town at night, and on weekends. All it has to offer is jobs. And skilled workers will simply demand that those move closer to them, not the other way around.
Europe is the way it is, because after WWII, the coutryside was largely agricultural in nature, with little money. Here alot (most) of the money is in suburbia, the buisness (jobs, retail, so forth) will go where the money is, and where the skilled labor is. It is alot easier to build a new office in the suburbs, than to find skilled, educated labor in the middle of a typical american city. The typical american city will be even more abandoend than it is now. Sprawl will be worse than it is now. Instead of just housing, it will be a Kroger every 3 miles, a small office building every 5 miles, and tons of homes in between.

These things are already happening, and have been for several years. Maybe the economist needs to get out of N.Y.C. and see what's going on in the rest of the country.

Interesting point and I do agree with most of it. I think they will move offices and manufacturing closer to the worker... if zoning will allow it. We don't have Krogers anymore, but do have Food Lions every 6-7 miles and WM supercenters on 15 mile centers. If they would allow for access by anything other 6 lane arterial roads it would certainly be an improvement. We are also seeing an increase in the density of the suburbs around where I live. They have gone from 4 homes per acre to an average of 6-8...but they are still building them larger than they need to be IMHO, and they are still building "lollypop" subdivisions.

Aaron:)

[FXjohn]

Face it, not everyone wants to live stacked up in an apt building.
if people are spread out but their work and shopping is close by, why does it matter?

[Nightshade]

Good op-ed by Paul Krugman (who actually is an economist.)



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/opinion/19krugman.html

Stories like this get their author branded as a "tin hat" by the general public who is
living in denialville.

It kinda hard to see a future or the problems with your head stuck in the sand. :rolleyes:

[ericy]

Face it, not everyone wants to live stacked up in an apt building.
if people are spread out but their work and shopping is close by, why does it matter?

If work and shopping is close by then it doesn't matter as much, and by close I mean close enough that not driving is feasible. But for lots of Americans all of these things are far a way - that's the point.

Spread out also means that mass transit is less practical, so the car would still be needed for some trips..

[Tabor]

Stories like this get their author branded as a "tin hat" by the general public who is
living in denaliville.

Fixed!

http://www.edmunds.com/pictures/VEHICLE/2008/GMC/2008.gmc.yukon.20126302-396x249.jpg

[gwd]

Interesting point and I do agree with most of it. I think they will move offices and manufacturing closer to the worker... if zoning will allow it. We don't have Krogers anymore, but do have Food Lions every 6-7 miles and WM supercenters on 15 mile centers. If they would allow for access by anything other 6 lane arterial roads it would certainly be an improvement. We are also seeing an increase in the density of the suburbs around where I live. They have gone from 4 homes per acre to an average of 6-8...but they are still building them larger than they need to be IMHO, and they are still building "lollypop" subdivisions.

Aaron:)
Well if the density of the suburbs keeps increasing with work and shopping mixed in, they won't be suburbs anymore. You are talking about rebuilding the suburbs into cities where you don't need a car.

[Roody]

AN economist came up with this fallacy? He doesn't think that big corps will see an opportunity to build buisness closer to suburbia? He doesn't think the highly skilled, and educated workers of suburbia will simply demand their jobs move closer to their homes? He doesn't think that more and more people will work from home?
He doesn't see that excluding S.F., N.Y.C., and a few others, big cities have nothing to offer skilled workers? There isn't even a big grocery store in downtown Cincinnati, Oh. The place is a ghost town at night, and on weekends. All it has to offer is jobs. And skilled workers will simply demand that those move closer to them, not the other way around.
Europe is the way it is, because after WWII, the coutryside was largely agricultural in nature, with little money. Here alot (most) of the money is in suburbia, the buisness (jobs, retail, so forth) will go where the money is, and where the skilled labor is. It is alot easier to build a new office in the suburbs, than to find skilled, educated labor in the middle of a typical american city. The typical american city will be even more abandoend than it is now. Sprawl will be worse than it is now. Instead of just housing, it will be a Kroger every 3 miles, a small office building every 5 miles, and tons of homes in between.

These things are already happening, and have been for several years. Maybe the economist needs to get out of N.Y.C. and see what's going on in the rest of the country.

I agree that a lot of future development will be what I call "backfill" since I don't know the technical term. This is when new construction fills in the vast spaces between buildings in Sprawl City. Like an Applebees restaurant in Meijer's parking lot. Or. as you suggest, a Kroger or Walmart nestled into the empty land between two McMansion subdivisions, with developers paying big bucks to slice off the back acre of 4 acre housing lots.

But I think you're ignoring demographic trends that will popularize denser mixed use communities, whether in downtown areas or in the suburbs. Empty nest baby boomers don't need McMansions any more. They want easy care living that's close to restaurants and art galleries. Younger people are also adopting city life. They're more affluent and sophisticated in their 20s so they want to live in a downtown area that has a lot of clubs and social gathering places. They're having fewer children in their 30s, and they want to raise their small families in pleasant neighborhoods that are close to good schools. Overall many young people seem to be very allergic to the soccer-mom lifestyles of their own parents. They like denser communities so they can avoid schlepping the kids everywhere in minivans or SUVs.

In my rust belt city, the long abandoned (by residents) downtown now supports several hundred units of upscale lofts and condos, with much more residential development in the planning stages. There's a lot of talk about bringing a supermarket into the downtown area, but so far no investment in this.

[wahoonc]

Well if the density of the suburbs keeps increasing with work and shopping mixed in, they won't be suburbs anymore. You are talking about rebuilding the suburbs into cities where you don't need a car.

Yep it is happening in our area in two manners, PUD (planned urban development) and infill. The PUD's have tendency to be to expensive for the service people that are expected to work in the retail and food establishments and borderline for the managers.

Infill is working a bit better if they can keep from over gentrification.

It is going to take some major reworking of zoning and building codes to make allowances for denser development.

I don't particularly like apartment living either, but a decent townhouse or cluster home is still a better use of land than a 3000sf McMansion on a 1/4 acre lot. There is a mall very near where I am staying at the moment, I have never seen the parking lot over 1/3rd full, there are multiple empty buildings around the perimeter...how about some nice infill condos or cluster homes? A grocery store would be nice too. My biggest issue with current building is the massive amount of parking lot supposedly required. Until we can change that we are going to continue to have sprawl.

Aaron:)

[Roody]

Face it, not everyone wants to live stacked up in an apt building.
if people are spread out but their work and shopping is close by, why does it matter?

That's very true. Dense development doesn't have to be vertical or ghettoish.

I live in a charming old farmhouse with acres of fields and woods (a large city park) abutting my spacious backyard. I see deer, raccoons, hawks and other wildlife out my windows. Yet I'm only two miles from the state Capitol, downtown restaurants and art galleries, and a year-round farmer's market. Kroger and ACE Hardware are 1/2 mile away, work is a 15 minute bike commute. My rent is $650 with no 30 year ballooning mortgage.

This is what Krugman is asking for in the article. And, to me it isn't about sacrificing quality of life for the sake of the environment. This is just a great way to live my life that only happens to better for the environment.

[Platy]

Face it, not everyone wants to live stacked up in an apt building.
if people are spread out but their work and shopping is close by, why does it matter?
I like the old style "streetcar suburbs". Detached houses with enough of a yard for a little garden and for small kids to play in. A neighborhood park, schools and a retail area you can walk or bike to. A train station nearby that connects to employment and the other nearby neighborhoods. I think a fair number of people could be very happy there.

[gwd]

That's very true. Dense development doesn't have to be vertical or ghettoish.

I live in a charming old farmhouse with acres of fields and woods (a large city park) abutting my spacious backyard. I see deer, raccoons, hawks and other wildlife out my windows. Yet I'm only two miles from the state Capitol, downtown restaurants and art galleries, and a year-round farmer's market. Kroger and ACE Hardware are 1/2 mile away, work is a 15 minute bike commute. My rent is $650 with no 30 year ballooning mortgage.

This is what Krugman is asking for in the article. And, to me it isn't about sacrificing quality of life for the sake of the environment. This is just a great way to live my life that only happens to better for the environment.

Its logically impossible to have everyone spread out and everything close. I live in the densest part of the city and have a situation like Roody, but really like living in an apartment. There are some houses with yards in my ward but if all of us vertical people were in houses with yards we'd no longer be within walking distance of everything. It just so happens that the densest part of DC abuts a national park with all the wildlife like Roody describes. If we all spread out into houses with yards the wildlife would have to go. My apartment is quiet and more room than I need, I don't feel vertical or ghettoish or stacked up or crowded. When I drove a car and lived in the suburbs I felt more constrained by other people's behavior stuck in traffic. Other people don't seem to interfere with me as much without a car. If I want to spend time in the woods I do so. I can put my camping gear on my bike and go out in nature for many days staying at a different campsite each night. I can bike out to farms or walk to community gardens if I want to raise vegetables. The thing is if all the apartment dwellers were forced into single family homes the region would be a mess. I get the feeling that apartment living is stigmatized by real estate agents. The coarse language I hear from suburbanites disparaging city living doesn't match my experience. It seems like they have to have some bad fantasy about life in the city to make their lives stuck in traffic not seem so stupid.

[Roody]

Does anybody know, in fact, where most Americans actually live? City? Inner suburbs? Sprawlville?

How does this compare with other countries?

Where do we find these figures? Rural vs. urban is easy to find, but where are more detailed figures?

[gwd]

I like the old style "streetcar suburbs". Detached houses with enough of a yard for a little garden and for small kids to play in. A neighborhood park, schools and a retail area you can walk or bike to. A train station nearby that connects to employment and the other nearby neighborhoods. I think a fair number of people could be very happy there.
I used to live in such a neighborhood. You can still see that some of the houses used to be stores- with apartments above. The street car went to DC but many of the people who lived in the neighborhood when it was built also worked in the nearby rail yard. The rail yard is now a mall. The apartment blocks from the streetcar days are just two stories. The streetcars are gone, people drive to the mall so the small shops are gone. Many of the houses with yards are really sets of apartments with shared yards. Some of my neighbors were car free when I lived there. Where I live now with higher density has green space and safe places for kids but is much more convenient, many more choices for anything you want to do. My current neighborhood also used to have street cars.

[Elkhound]

I agree that a lot of future development will be what I call "backfill" since I don't know the technical term. This is when new construction fills in the vast spaces between buildings in Sprawl City. Like an Applebees restaurant in Meijer's parking lot. Or. as you suggest, a Kroger or Walmart nestled into the empty land between two McMansion subdivisions, with developers paying big bucks to slice off the back acre of 4 acre housing lots.

Close. "Infill." When I lived in Charlotte, there were lots of bits of undeveloped land right in the city; one of the big things to controll sprawl was to encourage building housing developments on these bits. Some people objected because it cut down on the green space in the city, but with more people moving to the area, they have to live somewhere, and better infill than sprawl, no?

[burbankbiker]

This is the world Krugman is referring to in his article.

http://www.mike-downey.com/blogphoto/bikesea.jpg

The train station outside of Upsala, Sweden is like nothing my American brain can comprehend. In fact, this picture is only able to capture a fraction of the image. Like a postcard of the grand canyon, one must realize that this scene continues to the left and right of this frame. Thousands of bikes... all commuters who have ridden to take the train into Stockholm. It's a 50 mile train ride that costs less than my 2 mile ride on BART into downtown San Francisco. Tens of thousands of Uppsalans commute this way to their jobs. Each bike parked here on any given weekday represents a likely car in our commuting system. Count each saddle you can see and multiply that number by 12,000. That's the pounds of CO2 that's not being emitted by these people!

Despite what some people have said in this thread, I don't think that it's a seismic shift needed to accomplish this lifestyle in the states. After all, the suburbs are a post WWII concept. For thousands of years people lived in dense clusters because it was a survival benefit. For only 60 years we've been spreading out. It shouldn't be that hard to re-contract.

[JeffS]

AN economist came up with this fallacy? He doesn't think that big corps will see an opportunity to build buisness closer to suburbia? He doesn't think the highly skilled, and educated workers of suburbia will simply demand their jobs move closer to their homes? He doesn't think that more and more people will work from home?
He doesn't see that excluding S.F., N.Y.C., and a few others, big cities have nothing to offer skilled workers? There isn't even a big grocery store in downtown Cincinnati, Oh. The place is a ghost town at night, and on weekends. All it has to offer is jobs. And skilled workers will simply demand that those move closer to them, not the other way around.
Europe is the way it is, because after WWII, the coutryside was largely agricultural in nature, with little money. Here alot (most) of the money is in suburbia, the buisness (jobs, retail, so forth) will go where the money is, and where the skilled labor is. It is alot easier to build a new office in the suburbs, than to find skilled, educated labor in the middle of a typical american city. The typical american city will be even more abandoend than it is now. Sprawl will be worse than it is now. Instead of just housing, it will be a Kroger every 3 miles, a small office building every 5 miles, and tons of homes in between.

These things are already happening, and have been for several years. Maybe the economist needs to get out of N.Y.C. and see what's going on in the rest of the country.


Are you off your meds again?

Are you seriously advocating increased sprawl as the solution to sprawl?
It probably will continue in this direction, but not because it makes sense, but because the "highly skilled and educated" are a little too attached to their cars, and a little too scared of brown skin.

[maddyfish]

^^^Well there's a racist view for you. No I'm not advocating it. I am pointing out what is already happening. 20 years ago, they'd just build a subdivision. Now, it is planned with retail, offices, and everything right there. Already happening.

[burbankbiker]

20 years ago, they'd just build a subdivision. Now, it is planned with retail, offices, and everything right there. Already happening.

20 years ago they'd build a strip mall nearby. The aesthetic has changed but it's largely still the same band-aid solution.

The problem with locating "offices" near each suburban subdivision is that you're effectively creating a micro version of "industry towns." When the big steel plant in Bugaboo, OH closes... all the workers in the town are doomed. So if the proposed solution to sprawl's finite ability to continue is to locate a few offices near each subdivision, people will be similarly vulnerable to the continued success of those limited businesses.

Likewise, the solution to build more grocery stores every "3 miles" may fix the consumer side of the equation but it vastly complicates the supplier side of the equation. More end points for distribution means more trucks, more driving, more gas, more overhead to run more stores, more wholesale cost, higher food prices... and ultimately we end up paying for it anyway.

[TuckertonRR]

I like the old style "streetcar suburbs". Detached houses with enough of a yard for a little garden and for small kids to play in. A neighborhood park, schools and a retail area you can walk or bike to. A train station nearby that connects to employment and the other nearby neighborhoods. I think a fair number of people could be very happy there.

I currently live in such an area. The towns were built along the streetcar line. Fortunately, it still runs. the development patterns I can see have somewhat changed over the years, but all the basics (food, libraries, hospital, etc. are pretty much within a 1/2 hr walking distance.

[roseskunk]

there are some interesting alternatives to the traditional suburb. her's one that i used to photograph.

http://www.prairiecrossing.com/pc/site/index.html

of course they're not for everyone, but i dare say that they attempt to address issues like commuting and cookie-cutter lawns.

[FXjohn]

There are some houses with yards in my ward but if all of us vertical people were in houses with yards we'd no longer be within walking distance of everything. .

depends on what your definition of "everything" is.

I like having wildlife and a garden on my property. maybe you don't care about stuff like that.

[gwd]

depends on what your definition of "everything" is.

I like having wildlife and a garden on my property. maybe you don't care about stuff like that.

Um, everything I walk to now. Some of it would have to be located farther away for some people in the neighborhood if we all lived in houses with yards.

I do have wildlife and a garden on my property, but wouldn't mind if I had to walk to the park to see it. I keep my binoculars out to check out the birds in the trees outside my window. I have to say that I see more wildlife in the city than in the suburbs. I think it is the park that attracts the coyote, fox, deer, hawk, raccoons, humming birds. I'm always seeing new birds, like I said in an earlier post this week I've been watching a new type of finch this year. Of course the neighborhood has the feral cats and rats and squirrels. It is artificial wildlife but the national zoo is so close I hear the gibbons in the morning and the big cats at feeding time. Even without the zoo with the park so close I'm probably regularly exposed to a greater variety of wildlife than most suburban folk. The zoo also has free concerts in summer time during which the zoo volunteers come out with gentle animals to show the kids. By building up, our building has a nice big lot so if I want to get into landscaping I can- the landscape committee is always looking for people. Besides the lot we have a roof deck where I'm allowed to grow anything I want within the law. A few years ago some joker had cannabis up there but we frown on that. Its beautiful. I attached a photo I took on my ride home from work, in the middle of the city, to prove that I don't need to go far to see wildlife.

[cooker]

AN economist came up with this fallacy? He doesn't think that big corps will see an opportunity to build buisness closer to suburbia? He doesn't think the highly skilled, and educated workers of suburbia will simply demand their jobs move closer to their homes? He doesn't think that more and more people will work from home?
He doesn't see that excluding S.F., N.Y.C., and a few others, big cities have nothing to offer skilled workers? There isn't even a big grocery store in downtown Cincinnati, Oh. The place is a ghost town at night, and on weekends. All it has to offer is jobs. And skilled workers will simply demand that those move closer to them, not the other way around.
Europe is the way it is, because after WWII, the coutryside was largely agricultural in nature, with little money. Here alot (most) of the money is in suburbia, the buisness (jobs, retail, so forth) will go where the money is, and where the skilled labor is. It is alot easier to build a new office in the suburbs, than to find skilled, educated labor in the middle of a typical american city. The typical american city will be even more abandoend than it is now. Sprawl will be worse than it is now. Instead of just housing, it will be a Kroger every 3 miles, a small office building every 5 miles, and tons of homes in between.

These things are already happening, and have been for several years. Maybe the economist needs to get out of N.Y.C. and see what's going on in the rest of the country.

You're missing the concept of density. In an older urban setting with mixed single family housing, apartments and businesses, the scale is walkable, or bikeable and even public transit can pretty much sustain itself from fares.

No amount of redistribution of industry and retail across suburbia is going to duplicate that efficiency. There may be nodules of suburban neighbourhoods that successfully intensify with residential infill and attract industry and retail, but many others are at risk of becoming rundown slums.

[cooker]

depends on what your definition of "everything" is.

I like having wildlife and a garden on my property. maybe you don't care about stuff like that.
You're a bit unique in that you can afford to live miles from work, or maybe you do some work from home, but a large proportion of suburban or exurban dwellers are at risk of severe transportion woes, since they bought without regard for future gas prices.

[cooker]

This sort of problem solves itself. Eventually gas will be too expensive for the average person to live in the suburbs and drive around in a flexfuel Suburban all day long.

All the more reason for people like Krugman to help them anticipate that future. After all, the free market works best if everyone has access to good information.

[FXjohn]

Um, everything I walk to now. Some of it would have to be located farther away for some people in the neighborhood if we all lived in houses with yards.

I.

hey nice concrete in that pic. I hope all that stuff you walk to makes you happy, I certainly enjoy the woods garden and lake i walk to

:beer:

[Platy]

Do you think the New York Times will get tons of letters and e-mails from people defending car-culture and suburbia to the same extent that we get here on LCF? Like, "People need cars to haul pet food." "If we don't drive cars our daughters and wives will be raped." "You're a bad parent if you don't raise your kids in suburbia and drive them everywhere." "If people sell their cars they'll suddenly become too stupid to know how to call a cab or an ambulance when they need help." Remember posts along those lines? LCF's readership is a tiny fraction of the New York Times.
Krugman's column was apparently an elaboration of an identically titled blog posting he made last week. There were 92 comments. I don't know how severely they were moderated, but every single one of the comments was interesting, incisive and well reasoned. Maybe 4-5 of them were in outright disagreement. All were polite.

I did get the sense that car free living was being discussed as a remote theoretical possibility by most of the commenters. It could be that some of the heated discussions we have here at the LCF forum revolve around the more practical day to day car free issues that come up in real life.

Stranded in Suburbia (NY Times blog posting) (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/stranded-in-suburbia/#comments)

[burbankbiker]

hey nice concrete in that pic.

An odd thing to mention with sarcastic antipathy on a biking forum.

[FXjohn]

An odd thing to mention with sarcastic antipathy on a biking forum.

why? you don't have to be surrounded by concrete to ride a bicycle.

[Roody]

The city mouse/country mouse argument seems pretty farfetched to me. Urban, suburban, rural--all three have a long way to go before they can be considered sustainable. No matter where we happen to live, I think most of us are doing what we can to move our own lives and our communities in the right direction.

[Dahon.Steve]

Great article from the great Paul Krugman.

I just moved to San Francisco for precisely this reason. My partner is swedish and she has always been seeking out a European living experience in the US... in terms of transit, population density, and cultural similarities. San Francisco is the closest thing there is.

We've been here a month and a half and love it more and more every day.

As my brother shops for a house in neighborhoods 35 miles from his job, I take comfort in my decision to start living car free in a small city that supports me locally.

San Francisco is one of the few places I would move if housing costs weren't so high.

[Roody]

I grew up in a planned community--Highland Park, Michigan, less than a mile from the world's first auto assembly line. Highland Park was rural when Henry Ford built his plant, and Ford's engineers pretty much designed the new city. Ironically, they designed it as practically a carfree suburb. Most of the houses were within walking distance of the plant. There was a shopping district that ran down the central avenue, so most homes were less than 3 or 4 blocks from a store. Schools were built every few blocks. The entire city was only about a mile square. It used to be one of the most desirable locations in the entire country.

I've often thought that this suburb, built by Henry Ford, could serve as a template for the carfree suburbs of the future.

[Lamplight]

I am pointing out what is already happening. 20 years ago, they'd just build a subdivision. Now, it is planned with retail, offices, and everything right there. Already happening.
It is indeed. In fact, what you described could be many places here in middle Tennessee. My town has about 100,000 people, and there are two super Walmarts, six Krogers, at least one Food Lion, three or four Publix, and probably a couple I'm forgetting. There are at least 400 restaurants here, and countless other stores, all spread out everywhere. One part of town, which my brother and I call "The Ninth Circle" is basically every car free person's worst nightmare. Out of control traffic, vast, miserable parking lots, and thousands and thousands of people trying to drive to the next restaurant or clothing store as quickly as possible so they can spend, spend, spend. That is the worst of my town.

The good part is, of course, older. We have a wonderful downtown area, with a convenient, grid-like street pattern, sidewalks, beautiful old houses, quite a few shops and businesses, and even a small grocery store. It's so much different you'd swear it wasn't the same town. I currently live closer to "The Ninth Circle", but I'm remodeling a house nearer to the good part. Yes, I'll have a yard (I currently live in an apartment), but I plan to grow as much of my own food as possible. Also, the house is pretty small (1000 Sq Ft) and older (mid 1940s). It has no insulation in the walls, yet it's cooler in the summer than my apartment (assuming I don't have the a/c on) which is great. I'll be less than a mile from the grocery store, a couple of miles from the doctor and dentist, same for the hospital, less than a mile from plenty of restaurants (with over 400, how could I not be?), and less than a mile from the bank, hardware store, and department store, less than a mile from the MUP, which I can take to get to parks and woods. So I'll have a reasonable house and a yard/garden, but still be in the middle of town. I can't wait.

[burbankbiker]

San Francisco is one of the few places I would move if housing costs weren't so high.

Yeah, housing costs are high but for us we've balanced it from where we were living (Los Angeles, which isn't much lower anyway). We're selling the car and saving almost 200 a month in insurance, about 150 a month in gas, and around 50 bucks a month in maintenance (if you spread annual maintenance costs throughout the year). The rent we're paying here is equal to the amount we had just learned our apartment in LA was about to rise to. And because most of SF is rent control (our apartment is), the cost is going to stay relatively manageable. We calculated it very carefully before we moved and we've worked it out so that we're actually going to be experiencing a next increase in disposable income from moving up here, despite certain costs going up.

I say "going to" because we're still carrying the car insurance bill until we can sell the car.