Suburban Sprawl

Maybe it's living in the west my whole life, most of the time in relatively unpopulated areas compared to major cities, but I'm finding it hard to get too worked up over this:

Suburban Cowboys, by Ben Adler, The American Prospect: You know your conservative pet cause has arrived when it gets an event at the Heritage Foundation. Every kooky right-wing crusade, from denying global warming to teaching creationism in public schools, will eventually have its moment in the sun at the conservative think tank.

So it is no surprise that the honor was recently granted to a growing group of reactionaries who think that America's sprawling, post-war development pattern is actually a good thing -- and that the nascent anti-sprawl "smart growth" movement needs to be stopped. These pro-sprawl views have begun to find their voice on the op-ed pages and, on May 22nd, with a discussion at Heritage modestly titled "War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life."

The event took its name from the title of a new book by Wendell Cox, a public policy consultant (critics call him a "hired gun for the roadway industry") and visiting fellow at Heritage. Cox was introduced by another Heritage fellow, Ron Utt, who is perhaps best known as the man who led the Reagan administration's privatization efforts. ...

The new right-wing bogeyman that Utt and Cox devote considerable energy to destroying is the smart growth movement. Smart growth advocates seek to present an alternative to the suburban-sprawl model of development. They also suggest that local governments undo restrictions that require separation of residential and commercial property, and requirements that every business be surrounded by a massive parking lot. Simultaneously, they seek to redress the severe imbalance of public funding that currently favors highways over mass transit. The desired result is a walkable, transit-accessible, mixed-use community that is more integrated and has less environmental impact than its suburban counterparts.

But commentators like Utt and Cox counter that sprawl enables home-buying by constructing cheap new houses in cornfields, and cuts down on congestion by dispersing traffic into ever-expanding networks of new highways. Of course, there are elements of truth in both propositions, but Utt and Cox never address whether their preferred pattern is environmentally sustainable or culturally desirable.

The shallow logic of the pro-sprawl propagandists is apparent in ... Cox and Utt's discussion... Utt noted ... that housing prices are lower in Houston and Atlanta than in Washington, D.C. or Chicago, implying that the greater affordability of the Southern cities can be explained by their sprawling development patterns.

This is an interesting inversion of the typical conservative faith in the efficiency of the market. Says Dan Emerine, project manager for the Smart Growth Network..., "One of the problems that isn't being addressed in such a claim is simply the desirability of living in those locations. To the extent that there is a premium for living in such locations as D.C. or Chicago, it's because those locations are scarce. If you have a scarce good, simple economics tells you that you will get a higher price than otherwise might exist." He went on to explain that smart-growth advocates want to level the playing field to ensure that all communities can develop in ways that allow "many more opportunities for people to live in communities that are transit-oriented and pedestrian friendly." ...

James Howard Kunstler." ...  is the author of several books on sprawl..., and an ardent opponent of sprawl on aesthetic, spiritual, and ecological grounds. ... Kunstler told the Prospect that Cox is part of "an interesting cohort of observers whose basic argument is that suburbia is OK because people seem to like it." ...

"The interesting thing is that their argument doesn't go beyond that," Kunstler says. "It absolutely fails to take into account whether circumstances will permit us to keep living this way. The fact that people like something doesn't mean it's sustainable." Like many smart-growth advocates, Kunstler argues that the era of cheap oil cannot last forever, and that the environmental impact of paving over ever more land and driving greater distances is devastating. Even if the suburban lifestyle offers a higher quality of life, as Cox maintains, it simply cannot be accommodated indefinitely. ...

Ultimately the pro-sprawl reaction, a sort of Reagonomics of urban planning, betrays many of the peculiar traits of modern conservatism: the impulse to demonize any opposition, no matter how minimal or common-sense, and a proclivity to selectively pull bits of information out of context ...

As the Smart Growth Network's Emerine argues, "I think the criticism stems from a real misunderstanding of what advocates of smart growth and better community planning are trying to accomplish. I think the evidence shows that we are really about leveling the playing field for the market and types of development that there is a real market demand for." The question is, why don't pro-sprawl conservatives like Utt and Cox want to allow the free market to work?

One part did catch my attention (beyond the confusing parts about free-markets), the part that says that living in D.C. or Chicago is preferable to living elsewhere, so that's why houses are so much more expensive.

Overlooking the condescension in the statements (I can't speak for Houston and Atlanta, or for other people, but I just don't think Chicago or D.C. are more desirable places to live than where I live), is it demand as claimed? Are housing prices higher because D.C., Chicago, and other places because they are such desirable places to live? Here's another view from Edward Glaeser:

Glaeser's recent work on real estate addresses the issues of supply rather than of demand. He is far more interested in the forces shaping land development and residential building in the United States than in the forces shaping buyers' motivations and actions. He views supply as crucial to appreciating what has happened to the U.S. real-estate market over the past 30 years. ... Between 1980 and 2000, four of the five cities in the U.S. with the fastest-growing housing prices were in Boston's metropolitan area... Glaeser and several colleagues considered two explanations. First, the possibility that builders in the metro area were running out of land and that home prices reflected that scarcity. The second hypothesis was that building permits were scarce, not land. Had the 187 townships in the metro area created a web of regulations that hindered building to such a degree that demand far outstripped supply, driving prices up?

Almost as a rule, Glaeser is skeptical of the lack-of-land argument. He has previously noted ... that 95 percent of the United States remains undeveloped and that if every American were given a house on a quarter acre, so that every family of four had a full acre, that distribution would not use up half the land in Texas. Most of Boston's metro area, he concluded, wasn't particularly dense, and even in places where it was, like the centers of Boston and Cambridge, there was ample opportunity to construct higher buildings with more housing units.

So, after sorting through a mountain of data, Glaeser decided that the housing crisis was man-made. The region's zoning regulations — which were enacted ... in the first half of the 20th century to separate residential land from commercial and industrial land and which generally promoted the orderly growth of suburbs — had become so various and complex in the second half of the 20th century that they were limiting growth. Land-use rules of the 1920's were meant to assure homeowners that their neighbors wouldn't raise hogs in their backyards, throw up a shack on a sliver of land nearby or build a factory next door, but the zoning rules of the 1970's and 1980's were different in nature and effect. ...

The objections in the article to urban sprawl are "aesthetic, spiritual, and ecological." I don't have much to say about aesthetics and spirituality, though its hard to see why suburban areas can't posses these traits, and I'd rather not have someone else's utopian vision imposed upon me. So I'll take the main objection to be ecological, and that in turn boils down to cars, driving, and carbon if I am reading this right. If so, let's solve the problem in a way that gives people as much choice as we can in how they respond and reorganize in response to the policy change. Part of that can be a cautious reexamination of zoning restrictions and better public transportation systems, but much more than that will be needed and, as has been widely discussed, carbon taxes or cap and trade policies address the environmental issues in a way that preserves choice and avoids the need for direct government mandates and interventions.

Comments

[Outside the Box]

Tax gasoline, dump the non safety zoning regs/permit restrictions, and let the market sort it out. The market has shown itself to be more effective at allocating resources efficiently than gov bureaucrats, barring externalities (dealt with by the gas tax).

[reason]

OTB..
actually this is a very difficult and important issue. I note that both sides are for changing some regulations on land use. The big issue for new urbanists is WALKABLE communities, and unfortunately some parts of the US don't even have sidewalks.

Individuals can't actually do much about it, because they are impacted by what neighbours and businesses do. If you live in a widely dispersed neighbourhood, you need several cars per household, because there is no alternative way of getting somewhere. This in turn ensures that more space is devoted to roads and parking, and parking is especially wasteful in zoned land development because each car needs several parking spaces (one at night, one in the day). There is also the aspect that if houses are denser, you need more public space to allow children, dogs etc place to play. Modern design should also encourage the separation of automobile and pedestrian/bicycle traffic.

The interaction of public and private decisions are what makes this difficult to just leave it to the market.

[reason]

The short version:
nowhere do externalities count for more than where you live. Unfortunately, individualistic markets tend to ignore externalities.

[Outside the Box]

True, but people tend to buy homes in neighborhoods that suit their needs, if given a choice. Customers generally can figure out what they want better than politicians can. If a builder with competition wants to survive, he will build what the customer wants. A family park with playgrounds for families, small homes for singles, and low maintenance communities for the elderly. The customer will then decide which one he wants to live in. The customer almost always gets a closer approximation of what he wants if he can choose for himself.

Politicians tend to make decisions based on factors other than what customers want, such as maximizing the tax base by requiring large homes. A single person might not need or want a large home, but has no choice under the current system. Politicians demand that all homes be large in many areas. An elderly couple may want a small lot because they have a hard time cutting the lawn, but again they have no choice if politicians set zoning regs demanding large lots.

The free market is far from perfect, but it has historically provided better results than central planning, most of the time. Customers usually know what suits their needs better than politicians do, and the free market will give them what they want.

[reason]

otb..
and who elects the politicians? Remember we are talking local politicians here. For political problems there is a political solution.
And how can a builder build public facilities (he may only own a fraction of the land) and then he definitely can't be held responsible for maintaining them (and why should he - it costs him).

[Outside the Box]

Unfortunately, the fact that politicians are elected, does not make them any more adept at central planning.

You are right that builders can only build facilities on the land they own, which limits what they can build. Some communities maintain a few pools, parks and such with homeowners' association fees. This has the advantage of people paying only for those facilities that they actually want. Not everyone wants or needs large public facilities nearby. For some people, public parks are an expense that they derive no benefit from.

Of course, people of an area could still vote that the gov buy some land, and build a park. It is not necessary to specify the square footage of every home in a city before a park can be built there. Roads are built with the gas tax, which would be increased, so they would still be in adequate supply with customer chosen home sizes. The only real difference is that people would have the size/type of homes that they actually want, instead of homes chosen by politicians.

I don't see the problem with that.

[suburbanite]

This is a classic case of economic theory being unable to adequately account for reality. The idea that the market will respond to demand and builders will supply the types of housing people want is a big simplification. There are economies of scale that favour low-quality tract housing. Governments sell land to developers not individual builders and there are a whole bunch of tax laws and transactional costs in different places which influence when people sell and move to other types of accommodation that might be more suitable for their changing circumstances. There is also massive subsidization for new infrastructure for greenfield developments which have more to do with politics than market pricing. New home buyers don't necessarily buy the house they want, but rather the house they can afford at the time of purchase. Once they have it there are large barriers to changing once they realise they are living an energy inefficient lifestyle in a suburban wasteland with rising energy costs. I recently heard another of the developer's mouth pieces saying on a televised debate "nobody likes catching public transport", well nobody likes sitting in gridlock either.

[jonfernquest]

"...the smart growth movement. Smart growth advocates seek to present an alternative to the suburban-sprawl model of development. They also suggest that local governments **undo restrictions that require separation of residential and commercial property**, and requirements that every business be surrounded by a massive parking lot. Simultaneously, they seek to redress the severe imbalance of public funding that currently favors highways over **mass transit**. The desired result is a **walkable, transit-accessible, mixed-use community** that is more integrated and has less environmental impact than its suburban counterparts."**

Thanks for telling me what my dream community is called, though should add trees, lakes, grass, dogs, and cows too.

Also above could describe an Asian city like Seoul, South Korea. Compare the San Francisco Bay Area, the difference in population density between the two places is radical. Seoul is dominated by upscale high-rise apartments near subway lines. In the SF area there are multiple-unit buildings but high-rise is almost non-existent. In Seoul there is a subway system that goes virtually everywhere that required massive eminent domain and public impositions over decades to construct that would probably dissolve into a mass of lawsuits in the US. In the SF area, a car is usually a necessary first step to get to the mass transportation.

IMHO Low density sprawl emphasizing private ownership of cars seems too deeply embedded in mainstream culture to change very easily but an alternative walkable community might be viable in one of those enlightened university communities like Berkeley or Boulder that could legislate themselves into "aesthetic, spiritual, and ecological" harmony.

[evagrius]

This will all be resolved when the price of gasoline shoots up.
Those 4 hour round trip commutes to work and back to home will become more ridiculous than they are now.

[Adam]

Different parts of the country have different problems. Near Boston where I live, Glaesar correctly points out that the reason that we have high prices and relatively low-density housing is because of zoning restricting the density of housing. A raise of gas tax isn't going to allow the density to increase. Also to the degree that more public transportation is what people want, raising the gas tax isn't going to coordinate or build that.

The fact that communities are taking an active role in what their cities and towns look like is a good thing. Unbridaled captialism will lead to a strip mall hell that I don't want to live in. In Mass the fact that homeowners continue to restrict development will continue to keep their property values high and drive sprawl further from the city.

[david]

What suburbanite said. Glaeser is unconvincing.

The land use policies (no mixed-use) infrastructure investments (no trains, big roads) and manufactured consumer preferences (oh sorry, everybody really just needs four bedrooms and and it makes them feel better, how on earth could that possibly have come about? Edward, meet Thorsten) combine to create suboptimal housing in a market that should shame those with a narrow view of consumer choice.

All housing is dependent on regulatory and government intervention, it has to be, at least in the US, only a handful are going to live off grid. The question is whether we do it sensibly, and reduce carbon in the process, which is the overwhelmingly most important part right now; or whether we listen to the Glaesers of the world and drop regulations, and end it with Houstons boiling over and flooded.

[Steven Engelhardt]

One part did catch my attention (beyond the confusing parts about free-markets), the part that says that living in D.C. or Chicago is preferable to living elsewhere, so that's why houses are so much more expensive.

Overlooking the condescension in the statements (I can't speak for Houston and Atlanta, or for other people, but I just don't think Chicago or D.C. are more desirable places to live than where I live), is it demand as claimed?

More desirable for you, no. More desirable in aggregate, maybe.

[richard]

"This will all be resolved when the price of gasoline shoots up. Those 4 hour round trip commutes to work and back to home will become more ridiculous than they are now."

Unfortunately, I fear this is not so.

When the price of oil is sufficiently high, shale and tar will become viable sources of energy. But they will be even more heavily polluting than oil is, perhaps causing Mark to re-think his indifference to suburban organization.

[Holly W.]

This will all be resolved when the price of gasoline shoots up.

I dunno; that might just raise the price of housing near urban centers to even more ridiculous levels than it already is -- at least here in the Boston area, while decimating the value of residences the outlying suburbs. And a high cost of fuel won't help make public transportation any cheaper, either, will it?

[Holly W.]

Here in MA, sprawl seems to be inadvertently created by towns with one- and two-acre zoning requirements for housing. Communities are desperate to get the highest property taxes they can combined with the fewest number of children possible. So, 55+ housing developments are popular; small houses that average-income families can afford, not so much. Towns are willing to approve multi-family housing only if the developer assures them that only a small number of children (typically fewer than 80 kids for a 550-unit development) will move in. As a result, alot of land in this state seems to be disappearing to house very few people, really.

This kind of sprawl seems to me to be a political problem and nothing to do with market forces or how "most" people would like to live.

[nodakdude]

I can't tell from that article whether the author accurately presented the Heritage guys' argument, but it sounds like the Heritage guys are confusing the issue. If you want cheaper housing you need more units, and it's a lot easier to build more units where high density is allowed than where low density is enforced (as is the case with current zoning laws in many places). Moreover, higher density makes it far cheaper to deliver services such as water, sewer, utilities, and road maintenance.

[reason]

Holly,
that is of course very short sighted of communities. (They will end up having to spend a fortune on making everything wheelchair friendly).

Of course the problem comes back to a specifically american problem, the local financing of schools. In the countries that I have lived (Australia, UK, Germany) financing schools is done by a higher branch of government (State, Bundesland). Local financing of schools creates a vicious circle as poorer communities end up with worse poorly financed schools. I think the US needs a root and branch reform of its political system, but I can't say I see such a thing as easy.

[save_the_rustbelt]

I put a slightly related post on Angry Bear this morning, dealing specifically with southern CA.

There are many factors at play, for example the area in a 75 mile radius from the White House is growing, crowded and prosperous because $2.5 TR funnels through the federal government and that requires/attracts a lot of people in and out of government.

[evagrius]

If shale and tar are going to be used in order to maintain an unsustainable mode of living, then there really won't be any resolution to the problem.

Most of this sprawl is a result of a cultural need for everyone to have a little kingdom of their own. It's the American Dream.

[Holly W.]

Reason, thanks for giving me a little chuckle! I love that image of all these communities that want old people over families getting bit in the behind as a result.

It is an interesting vicious circle, especially considering that elderly people routinely vote down any property tax increases/over-rides, so attracting alot of grey-hairs really isn't the best way to improve one's town's bottom line. It's also ironic that school quality is often the prime determinant of home values, but if you replace families with old people, who's got any interest in maintaining that quality?

Do property values in the other countries you've lived in vary as much based on school quality as they do in the States?

[pollster]

In my city, there have been noticeable smart-growth policies in place for some time now. The usual suspects identified in the article above do a lot of grumbling and demagoguery on the subject (even though it largely does not affect them - they're typically not the ones living in more vibrant urban areas). The effects of the policy are noticeable, and largely positive. I use more public transport (and spend the same or maybe less time in traffic/parking). I walk more. I *want* to be outside more. The density means that several friends live within easy walking distance. I feel lucky, and I wish everyone had a chance to experience the massive simplification and time-savings of such an arrangement (dense residential space mixed with small business districts).

The population of the city I live in has increased steadily over the past decade. Yet we use less water than we did ten years ago, in absolute terms. Although short-sighted development plans in the 60s, 70s, and continuing up through very recently make it almost necessary to have a car, the shortage of easy-motoring parking spaces seem to feedback into people's automotive choices: more small cars, compacts, shared-car services, scooters, motorcycles, minivans, etc.

Does it cost more up front to pay the rent in this part of the city? Yes. My friends who live 45 minutes out of town express amazement at the rent bill (a couple hundred higher than theirs, at least!). I express astonishment that they have completely internalized and accepted the idea that owning a motor vehicle for every individual in the household over 16 is necessary and desirable. I guess that is one cost of the "cheaper" lifestyle.

[Mark Thoma]

I expected to get hammered for my views - I was trying to be a bit provocative (though I am resistant to government telling me what to do) - I need to do a much better job of thinking through the market failure aspects of all of this to better understand where government intervention can play a positive role.

[donna]

I recommend Bruce Babbitt's "Cities in the Wilderness". It's a good read on what a lot of the real issues involved in sprawl are - water use, watershed protection, etc...

says...

There is a time-tested way to solve the local land-use problem efficiently. See Mason Gaffney's article, Rebuilding New Orleans.

[david]

One of the key points to consider is that the government is already telling you what to do.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Mark:

No need for apologies.

Much of the tension comes from our desire to be free to do what we want, while at the same time expecting the government to provide the infrastructure and protection we need and desire.

[vorpal]

1) Oil shale and tar sands will never be anywhere close to helping the world situations. This has been studied.
2) The world produces about 85 million barrels a day...and probably will never make it to 90 mbd.
3) If the world consumed like the US, it would take 400 million barrels a day of petroleum liquids. This will not happen.
4) The US is being financed to the tune of $800 billion a year. This will eventually (soon) end. As this happens, the price of all imports will rise. Oil, cars and consumer goods. Perhaps also interest rates.

[vorpal]

Most suburban areas are unfit for human habitation without a car. Because of the above, owning a car will be very expensive. A nation of people that require the cost of the personal automobile will be uncompetitive in the global market. They will cost too much to employ. As the price of oil rises, this expense will only get worse.
With a massive trade deficit and an infrastructure unfit for international manufacture, the US will be at a loss when it comes time to pay for its imports. Interest rates will climb.
Given these facts, maintaining the American 'Way of Life' will soon prove to be a difficult challenge.

[JRossi]

We're visiting relatives on the East coast as I type this. The Poor dumb bastards don't know any better than to live here. On the other hand, if they all came to the rural west where I live, it would be ruined. Gated communities, neighbors that don't look at you, greedy contractors, absolutely fantastic traffic jams and air pollution--I love this country! They seem happy though.

[reason]

Mark,
everyone, this really is a universal individual trade-off here. I love where I live, but aspects of it are tiresome. I cannot afford my own garden (well actually I have one, just not where my house is) and my wife finds having neighbours tiresome (doesn't bother me so much because I'm not home so much and don't take complaints about noisy kids so seriously). What I love about where I am, is that we only need one car and can do almost everything by walking. But heavily serviced land like that is very expensive. Because so much of a car is sunk cost, people never realise how much it costs them.

My sister and her husband never got driving licences and paid off their house amazingly quickly. And when you have kids, you realise quickly how restictive cars are for children. Lots of space becomes off-limits for them and there is always danger around (so they need to be accompanied everywhere).

Cars also give people an exagerrated sense of power and entitlement and isolate people from one another. They are not good for the "soul" if you like. Read "Having and Being" Erich Fromm.

Then read Jane Jacobs "Life and Death of Great American Cities", she says it better.

For good communities we need a compromise between private space and public space. And a large part of the value of public space is that it is PUBLIC (i.e. neutral ground, free for all).

[reason]

Please note also, that sprawl has lots of public space, it is just that it is all reserved for motor vehicles.

[reason]

Just to complete a personal view, I grew up in Suburbia, but near a railway line. I was one of five children, so as a teenager, my live was dependent on public transport. The same goes for many older people. So it is not even true that car-dependent suburbs are a viable way of living for all the people that live there. People who might otherwise become independent become dependent on others.

Personally, I hate driving, I'm a day dreamer but have a strong sense of responsibility. So driving is stressful for me. I can read on the train. I love walking. Other people can have suburbia, it is not for me.

[jonfernquest]

"For good communities we need a compromise between private space and public space. And a large part of the value of public space is that it is PUBLIC (i.e. neutral ground, free for all)."

Many places in rural Thailand have quite successfully reclaimed private space for the public. I work in the center of Bangkok but when I go home to our little farm house in Chiang Rai near the northern border it is a whole different world. A block from our home is the "old airport" a long strip surrounded by trees that a significant fraction of the town just started exercising on every evening and reclaimed for themselves, turning it into a "health park" a place that people go to run, walk, play badminton, bump into friends, see, be seen, etc. A major section of the downtown was turned into a "night bazaar" , a beehive of community activity on the weekends.

Walking is a more viable form of transport because little variety stores are found down almost every street, walking distance away, and the small motorcycle makes minor errands a lot easier, and makes everything a lot more public, also makes a car quite optional since buses and trains are readily available for longer distances. You see people and know who they are when everyone is riding a motorcycle around town. Same with walking. The closest analogue to this in the US is the small university town, Berkeley, Santa Cruz, Boulder...Thanks for the Jane Jacobs and Erich Fromm recommendations.

[reason]

One thing to remember is that the market for housing, like the employment and spouse markets is a market in unique products.

There is a whole package there, size, space, location, form - and location brings with it a whole heap package of available services. Simply building a house, doesn't provide the whole package that comes with a home. The builder cannot provide this whole package. Smart growth tries to find out how best this whole package can come together. Many of the crucial ideas come from Jane Jacobs ideas - short blocks, mixed use, high density, wide sidewalks. One idea that complete new developments cannot have is a mixture of age (and size) of buildings (specifically desireable because of different rental values). It is not unregulated, but it is differently regulated. Note that it is possible to have some low density housing, particularly on the outskirts of high density development. (The key aspect is walking distance from the center - so long narrow blocks on the outskirts will not affect the end result).

[reason]

Mark,
I would be interested in how your kids feel about sprawl. As I said the experience of sprawl is different for kids, especially if they then go to one of the nicer university towns or livelier cities afterwards.

[real person from the real world]

Lots of interesting comments. I group up in Chicago with lots of transportation, and neighborhoods where you could walk to buy groceries. With a subway/bus transfer, I could go from the southside up to an exotic noth suburban mall. It took hours, but you could do it, and fairly cheaply. Downtown areas though, were strating to suffer from blight.

When my sister married and moved to the suburbs with their nice new houses where you picked what you wanted to build, and the malls with exotic shops, and neighbors coming over for coffee, I thought this was really the life and looked forward to moving to a suburb someday, and later I did.

Now I am older, less money, a mortgage, and I have to hire someone to mow my lawn, or my neigbors wouldn't like it. I need a car to get to any store, and they are all in huge busy malls. Gas is expensive. Seems funny, at one time you had a department store where you could buy most anything you needed, now you almost have to go to 10 different stores.

I miss being able to walk to the store.

Surburban neighbors now-a-days have little to do with other neighbors, unless you both have kids, and kids and all the paraphenalia and acativities to do with kids are a major preoccupation. When I was a kid, the adults didn't ignore what your were doing, but weren't as preoccupied with you and your activities, and it seemed like it was easier to be a kid back then.

[Farrar Richardson]

Another testimonial, this time from France. We had lived in the country for most of the last 30 years. It wasn't exactly suburbia but it was beginning to look like it. We were in a summer vacation area, so it was overcrowded in summer and dead in the winter. Still it was very pleasant most of the time.

Then prices of gas and propane started to rise and water became scarce, making it difficult to keep our garden looking good in summer.

About the same time we had to take an apartment in the city for a couple of years for business reasons. This was a real revelation to us. We hadn't realized it, but we had become slaves to our house and country life style. In the city, we were free - close to theatre, concerts and cinema, and always close to public transportation.

So, soon after we retired, we sold our oversized house and bought an apartment in the center of a middle sized city. We are one block from a growing tram network, four blocks from the cinema, and about ten blocks from the opera house. There's a small mall across the street and a park next door.. Obviously, the first thing we did was sell our car.

The downside - extra noise, despite double glazing, (we are going to get ear plugs) more air pollution since we are close to heavy car and truck traffic, but the mayor is also minister of the environment, so we hope that will improve. Also, most of the furniture and handyman stores have followed the new homes to the suburbs, and delivery costs are high.

We are retired and carefree, but a lot of younger couples raise children in similar circumstances.

Urban or semi-urban (higher density) living has obvious advantages, and it's a wonder to me that so many keep fighting traffic and struggling to support that 4000 sq ft McMansion.

[sam]

"Most suburban areas are unfit for human habitation without a car."

I think they shall convert their hummers into ploughshares, and commute no more. But seriously, in a transport cost intensive environment, the sprawled suburb has one advantage of being able to grow its own food.

This debate is not really between urbanists and suburbanists. It is between established suburbs and new suburbs. Urbanists love additional people since the essence of the city is density. Each new person benefits the neighborhood, supporting more amenties.

Suburbanists see each new resident as a threat to the current residents who contribute to congestion and reduce the bucolic amenities that attracted them (at least after their burb acheive critical mass to support a Walmart stripmall). Old suburbs contribute to pushing new suburbs further and further out.

If "Smart Growth" advocates can change the suburbanists model, more power to them. Unfortunately, in many cases it is being used by old suburbs to justify keeping out the hapless.

[ki]

I just thought of a little funny phenomenon.

I go to college in Boston and for the past two years I have lived almost on top of the T (subway in Boston) and it is a little noisy but not unbearable considering that the trains come about every 10 mins both ways.
In Boston, the closer to the T you are the better, so owners usually charge a higher rent if they are closer to the public transportation.

I also know that they are building a commuter rail in Weymouth (a suburb about a 25 min drive from Boston). And the houses that near the track were selling like hotcakes. Pretty much every house down a street near the new T line had a "For Sale" sign. And I am fairly sure they were selling below value just to get away.

So I think that maybe those who live in the suburbs do not want to be around public transportation. They would rather drive and pay more than be part of the city. City-type living is not for everyone and thus public transportation is not for everyone as well.

says...

asdfa