

A planet of suburbs - Turukawa
http://www.economist.com/suburbs

======
michaelochurch
Hating "suburbia" is actually a _deeply suburban_ stance. The upper-middle-
class, isolationist people who are now crowding into Williamsburg are the same
sorts of provincial people that their forebears (the artists who can no longer
afford to live there) fled suburbia to escape. That suburbia's biggest haters
are (in origin and mindset) quite suburban is _actually_ ironic rather than
just sarcastic.

All this said, it's somewhat subjective what is a "suburb" versus what is a
legitimate (and possibly charming) small town. And while Los Angeles is a
large city, it's sprawling and ugly and has no moral high ground over some
town adjacent to Philadelphia or Boston that happens to be "suburban" because
it has a different city-name on its postal address.

All of this said, car culture is objectively bad. Suburbia was supposed to
make it possible for middle-class people to save instead of throwing their
disposable income away for the benefit of urban landlords, but over time the
car (through escalating costs and the catastrophic time loss of traffic)
became the new landlord. The clearing and leveling of forests to build
tasteless, cookie-cutter houses is also objectively bad. The environment
doesn't have a vote, but it should, because I'd rather have a healthy
environment than 4600 SF of unneeded housing space for everyone. Suburbia gets
such a bad rap in the U.S. because it's done wrong, both in terms of
aesthetics and in terms of ecological footprint.

~~~
_dps
I agree broadly, but I feel obliged to stand up and defend Los Angeles here
(needless to say, I am biased; I used to live there but do not currently).

If you have lived in a big city but have not lived in Los Angeles, it is not
reasonable to use your experience to model Los Angeles. It is much more like a
loose federation of nearby townships than it is a city like New York City.
This is as much a cause is it is an effect of car culture and freeways; the
two feed each other and cannot be meaningfully separated into cause and effect
as far as I am concerned.

There are parts of "LA Metro" that I find charming, and parts that I find
terrible. But there is nothing that I would call representative of the whole.
Downtown vs Santa Monica vs Redondo vs San Fernando vs Eagle Rock vs Alhambra
etc. Treating LA as a monolith is not a useful approximation. (to be clear, I
spent a substantial amount of time living in major cities across Europe and
the US, including London and San Francisco, so I'm speaking with a moderate
amount of diverse experience).

~~~
cfallin
> It is much more like a loose federation of nearby townships than it is a
> city

I'm finding this same pattern in the Bay Area too (moved to Mountain View last
spring). Does this match your experience? I've never explored LA.

In any case, the many-small-town structure is kind of disorienting coming from
a another city with a central, lively downtown, but I can also sort of see an
appeal that the locality has. People who live in e.g. Mountain View or Palo
Alto or Redwood City feel like they have a nice, small-town "main street"
nearby in a way that most suburbs don't. Done right, small federated towns are
not necessarily a bad way to scale. (Putting housing-density issues aside, of
course; Mountain View in particular has a really nasty supply-constraint
problem now that more and denser apartment buildings would go a long way
toward solving.)

That said, there are things that you can't find in your own town, so you rely
on the regional federated structure for those things, and then you have
transportation issues because (i) it's less efficient to cover the
decentralized area with mass transit than to build a spoke-and-hub system
around a real downtown, and (ii) regional political coordination to
build/improve systems like Caltrain/BART is _much_ harder when you have a
distributed governance structure. (Does LA have similar problems with
coordinating city governments?)

So I think I prefer the 'single big central lively downtown' model better but
both models are interesting, IMHO.

~~~
_dps
You touch on many things I have thought about for years :)

I think the Mountain View / Palo Alto / Sunnyvale area mirrors the San Gabriel
valley structure pretty closely (with Palo Alto ~= Pasadena, Menlo
Park+Atherton ~= San Marino, Sunnyvale+Mountain View ~= Glendale+Burbank). So
in that sense they are similar in one particular region.

On the other hand, LA downtown is _surrounded_ by confederate townships. San
Francisco is in some sense a city on a hill. Similarly, there is nothing like
the Venice / Santa Monica / Malibu cluster providing "coastal" political
influence to the city. There is no way that, e.g., Pacifica or Half Moon Bay
would ever be able to be first class citizens in local politics the way that
Venice/Santa Monica/Malibu are in LA politics.

Continuing the contrast, the LA area doesn't really have anything like the
East Bay.

I could go on and on, but I will leave it at that for now. I do think that
anyone who thinks they have an opinion on LA, but hasn't lived there, should
take a moment and think that maybe it really is different from their
expectations or previous experience of large cities.

Edit: one could, I suppose, say that Long Beach is, in some sense, analogous
to the East Bay. They are parallel in an economic and social class sense, but
I still think the East Bay is much more of a cultural component of SFBA than
Long Beach is of LA Metro.

------
martythemaniak
Amazing that with so many words, none were devoted to a major objection
towards suburbs - the increased costs of servicing lower-density living is
usually not bourne by its inhabitants.

I may object to a car-centric lifestyle based on my aesthetics but that's not
enough to make me actually _do_ something. OTOH, demanding a subsidy and
lowering my quality of life so you can enjoy your lifestyle, that's something
which will make me vote/support a politician etc.

The extent of this subsidy varies greatly from place to place, but that is the
primary cause of urban-suburban tension.

~~~
zo1
I'm confused... What subsidy do you speak of exactly? Please, guide me through
your reasoning here. You say suburbians are demanding some sort of subsidy?
Lowering your quality of life? How?

My word, really, you'll definitely have to come up with some backing behind
your comments, please. Because blaming people with such direct and specific
words such as "demanding/getting subsidy", and "lowering quality of life"
simply by virtue of them not choosing to live the way _you_ deem the most
"efficient" is quite arrogant.

> _" I may object to a car-centric lifestyle based on my aesthetics but that's
> not enough to make me actually do something. OTOH, demanding a subsidy and
> lowering my quality of life so you can enjoy your lifestyle, that's
> something which will make me vote/support a politician etc."_

Way to turn around the blame here. You've taken a purely simple, innocent
action such as "choosing to live in a quiet, less-populated area, away from
traffic", into some hostile, directed act. You then claim that them doing so
is justification for you to actually vote against them or their way of life. I
don't see you mentioning what that voting or politician will do to fix this
supposed problem, but I can bet you that whatever it is, it's more hostile,
directed, and purposeful than what you claim these people did to make you vote
that way in the first place.

~~~
salmonellaeater
A major subsidy to the suburban lifestyle is free parking[1]. In heavily urban
areas like New York, the space required for parking is priced (mostly)
according to the market. In less dense cities with a higher percentage of car
owners, street parking is often free when it should not be. Free parking
causes three main problems:

* Tons of street space is provided by the public for parking that would otherwise be used more efficiently.

* Parking spots become scarce, causing drivers to waste a lot of time and cause extra congestion while searching for parking spots. It's nice for people who have more time than money, but taxpayers can't collect that wasted time.

* Because voters have an expectation of unlimited free parking, local government requires new construction to include parking spaces so the additional residents don't consume existing street parking. This increases the cost of construction and wastes space, and it reduces the possibilities for land use. You can't have dense communities when half the space is consumed by parking garages.

[1] "The High Cost of Free Parking"
[http://www.uctc.net/papers/351.pdf](http://www.uctc.net/papers/351.pdf)

~~~
waterlesscloud
Street parking has almost no place in the suburban lifestyle.

~~~
prawn
In my experience, every urban street in Australia is full of parked cars. It
wasn't like this when I was growing up and we would ride up and down our cul-
de-sac or kick a football, but now that same street would have 12-20 cars
parked within a one block segment at any given time.

People can afford more cars and would rather make use of the public space for
parking than fill their driveway or have to shuffle cars if they're parked
behind one another.

I leave my second car parked out front because it's slightly more convenient
than using my double driveway (crammed to get kids in the car when two cars
are parked there), and because I have a pool table and table tennis table in
my double garage. I am a part of the problem!

------
siliconc0w
I think a sweet spot are neighborhoods ~10-15 minutes from city centers. You
usually get a nice mix between city benefits and suburban ones.

Once you get further than that your total transit time starts to grow compared
to the average time you'll spend at your destination (i.e shopping, eating,
going to a show, whatever). A good ratio for me is about .25 - i.e if I'm
going to spend a total of 30 minutes in transit and I have a reason to stay ~>
2 hours then I'm likely to go.

The distance 10-15minutes equates to varies by place and I imagine the
transportation options can also move the dial as well.

~~~
kcorbitt
Whether this works or not depends a great deal on the size and geography of
the city you're talking about. Where I grew up outside of Seattle, we could
get from our very suburban home in Bellevue into downtown Seattle in about 20
minutes, close to your range. Where I live now in London, on the other hand,
it takes 45 minutes to get into the center and I would still consider my zone
very urban, with few or none of the benefits (space, isolation, safer
neighborhoods, etc) that suburbia brings.

When I have children, I fully intend to move back into the suburban ring
around a mid-sized city where I can regain those benefits without cutting
myself off from civilization entirely.

~~~
goodJobWalrus
> with few or none of the benefits (space, isolation, safer neighborhoods,
> etc) that suburbia brings.

isolation is a benefit?

~~~
ams6110
Some people prefer to live with more than a sheet of drywall between
themselves and their neighbors.

------
jrapdx3
The article and discussion make me wonder about Portland, OR where I live. The
city and metro area have become more population dense over time. In fact, the
population of Portland _per se_ has doubled since the 1970's while its
boundaries haven't changed a bit.

Cities in Oregon have been constrained by "urban growth boundaries" since
1973, the idea is preventing sprawl and encroachment on farm land. That
guarantees population increases will require "infill" and that's exactly
what's happening.

This is a polar contrast to Phoenix, AZ, which happens to be the place I grew
up in. Even as a kid it was easy to observe the immense sprawl associated with
the region's inbred suburban culture.

The article's commentary about the sharp edges of development in the Phoenix
area points ironically to a similar-appearing phenomenon in the Portland area.
There are a number of roads a few miles from the center of the city where one
side is jam-packed with dense residential construction, and the other
traditional farm land stretching to the horizon.

It gives another meaning to the phrase, "keeping Portland weird".

------
nickhalfasleep
I wonder if the suburbs will see a resurgence when it becomes a haven for
those who need a bit more area for agriculture, or more solar to sell or work
in micro-manufacturing. Also self-driving cars for travel and package delivery
could find a healthy niche.

------
tokenadult
The article reports, "Mr Angel also finds that almost every city is becoming
less dense. In 1920 Chicago squeezed 59 people into each hectare of land; now,
by his reckoning, it manages just 16. The urbanised area of Mexico City is
about half as densely populated as it was in 1940. Beijing’s population
density has collapsed from 425 people per hectare in 1970 to just 65 people
per hectare, or about the same as Chicago at its most crowded." That's
certainly true where I live. The city that defines my metropolitan area had
its peak population during my lifetime the year I was born, and has been
losing population each year since until quite recently. Now the city is
regaining a bit of population, and some of the inner-ring suburbs where I grew
up (but not all of them) have embraced "new urbanism" and are as densely
populated as they have ever been, but even many of the inner-ring suburbs are
losing population, while the metropolitan area continues to grow as the
children who grew up in the inner ring now bring up their children in bigger
houses on bigger lots even farther away from the city. This is generally
happening everywhere as countries reach a certain level of economic
development. The story of Taiwan, the other country where I have lived long-
term, was leaving the countryside for cities during my childhood, but there
too (in a national context of birthrates below replacement, and thus an
eventually declining population) the core cities are beginning to empty out as
the surrounding suburban cities grow, and housing development is spreading up
hillsides and into other areas where there is more space for yards and larger
houses for ever-smaller households.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Beijing has a density of 150 people/hectare in built up areas, which is less
than Tianjin, Shanghai, or Guangzhou, but still pretty respectable by American
standards.

Beijing municipality includes a lots of rural land (and suburbs) which brings
the density down a lot, but I would hardly call those urban areas.

------
swatow
Suburbs also have specific connotations when it comes to race and class
divides. Accurate or not, they are seen as promoting monoculture, relative to
cities. I think a lot of discussion of suburbs vs cities, is influenced by
these connotations.

------
kmontenegro
the presentation or site engineering that went into the story is really great!
it's wonderful to see data design used to enhance rather than distract from
the story.

as far as intimation/subtext that suburbs are ultimately good, i disagree BUT
i'm really appreciative of how the article is laid out in terms of substantive
content.

glad it was shared.

------
mikerichards
The article talked a lot about the leftist/statist hatred of suburbs, but
never gave the real reason why. Suburbs aren't dense enough and humans are the
scourge of the planet.

~~~
prostoalex
It's overall a greater tax on society resources to maintain suburbs than dense
urban housing. Just the total mileage of roads, waterways, gas pipes that need
to be built out and maintained pretty much forever.

That's just the tax money. From the personal perspective a mandate of car
ownership (and until recently oil purchases) is ridding consumer of disposable
income that could be spent somewhere else.

~~~
zo1
But it is their willing choice to live that way. And they pay taxes, just like
the rest of society. Remember, we're all equal under the law, so they say.

Next thing you'll be telling people "No, you can't have only one person per
apartment/room, you have to share with at least 3 people in bunkbeds. One
person per home/room is 'too great a tax on society's resourced to
maintain'.".

Yes, that's a slippery slope. But one that points out the futility of
arguments such as yours. Namely, that you've drawn an arbitrary line where
_you_ find convenient. And along with it, you've conveniently neglected to
acknowledge that other people would have drawn that line further, or closer.

~~~
prawn
Are the taxes proportional to that mode of living and the costs of servicing
it?

~~~
zo1
I'm not sure... Probably not directly (if you could even quantify it).
However, lemme ask you this: Do sick people pay more taxes because they use
more healthcare? I hope not.

But, now that I think about it. I think they do, especially if it's
represented by a usage tax. Say fuel levies, or property taxes.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
> I'm not sure... Probably not directly (if you could even quantify it).
> However, lemme ask you this: Do sick people pay more taxes because they use
> more healthcare? I hope not.

A) Sick people are not making a deliberate lifestyle choice.

B) Public healthcare is something provided by public decision-making and
majority vote.

Therefore, frankly, if the public decides it yields greater public benefit to
pour taxes taken from urban areas into improving urban areas rather than into
subsidizing the suburban minority of the population, _that is our democratic
right_.

It's also important to note the actual population shift taking place: it used
to be in the USA that _most_ people lived in either rural areas, outer
suburbs, or inner suburbs, with the center cities containing only a minority
of the population _and_ lacking a plurality of economic productivity.
Everything was _genuinely_ more spread out.

Nowadays, things have developed away from the post-WW2 pattern and back
towards the pattern of the Industrial Revolution: heavy urbanization of the
population _and_ the economy. _Most_ people now live in either the core cities
or the inner suburbs, and so does most of the economic value-creation.

Which means that there's an entirely legitimate reason why urban issues are
back on the agenda!

Now, the _stick up our asses_ we city-dwelling types have got, is that thanks
to various aspects of the districting systems, _our vote counts for less_ than
that of a rural-dweller in deciding what to do with our own damn tax money.

~~~
zo1
>" _A) Sick people are not making a deliberate lifestyle choice._ "

Most likely that is the case, yes. But you can't know for sure, as there are
many actual life-style choices out there that negatively or positively impact
health, and as a consequence, individuals' level of healthcare need.

>" _B) Public healthcare is something provided by public decision-making and
majority vote._ "

And we've also, by majority vote, decided that people should live where they
please. And by majority vote, we've elected and chosen representatives that
represent that. Let's not argue democracy here by claiming that healthcare is
somehow more "democratic" or more "democratically chosen" than housing and
urban-planning.

>" _Therefore, frankly, if the public decides it yields greater public benefit
to pour taxes taken from urban areas into improving urban areas rather than
into subsidizing the suburban minority of the population, that is our
democratic right._ "

Isn't that why we're discussing this? The public already chose and/or allowed
people to live freely and in areas they choose. Not only that, but they've
given tacit permission (by virtue of democratic vote) to representatives and
government officials to plan the way they have, and that includes suburbia.

>" _Nowadays, things have developed away from the post-WW2 pattern and back
towards the pattern of the Industrial Revolution: heavy urbanization of the
population and the economy. Most people now live in either the core cities or
the inner suburbs, and so does most of the economic value-creation._ "

I don't see how this has any relevance or bearing on where people are allowed
to live. Just because _you_ deem it most efficient to optimize "economic
value-creation" by packing people into as small a space as possible (seemingly
against their will as they're picking suburban living now), doesn't make it
the right way, or the moral way.

>" _Now, the stick up our asses we city-dwelling types have got, is that
thanks to various aspects of the districting systems, our vote counts for less
than that of a rural-dweller in deciding what to do with our own damn tax
money._ "

That's unfortunate. You should really get that fixed up. But let me get
something a little clear, as I'm not 100% aware of the voting issues in
America. Are you saying that individuals that live in suburban areas are part
of a separate district? And their vote counts more than yours? That honestly
doesn't sound very "democratic" to me.

~~~
prawn
_I don 't see how this has any relevance or bearing on where people are
allowed to live._

No one's said "allowed to live", but where they've chosen to live. People
choose to live in the suburbs for private garaging, private gardens, larger
spaces, distance to neighbours, etc. No one's saying they're not nice things -
I have them where I live - just that they cost more in terms of utilities/etc.

 _And we 've also, by majority vote, decided that people should live where
they please. And by majority vote, we've elected and chosen representatives
that represent that._

The original point (that you were arguing poorly against) was that those
living in denser areas could press their elected officials for adjusted
distribution of taxes based on these sorts of costs.

I pay a water bill at my home (suburbs) and at my office (dense CBD). Even
though my home uses a great deal more water (showers/baths, washing dishes and
clothes, irrigation), my water bill at home is cheaper. A significant portion
of water bills where I live are based on property value, and a smaller
component on actual water use. So even though providing water to CBD offices
and residences is probably much cheaper, that is not reflected in the pricing.

