The problem with articles like these is that they make attempts to solve one problem without a solution not related to the original cause.

The common running opinion of many pro-new urbanism these days seems to be that by somehow developing better urban environments, this will serve to correct the effects of an outside influence- mainly the effects of commuters whom must drive in and out of large metros to obtain jobs that enable them to afford an increasingly expensive urban core. I’m one of them. Not because I own a house or that my rent is high, but because if I entertain the idea of buying in this area, I must save up several hundred thousand dollars to do so, which means the pressure to continuously seek jobs that pay more.Everyone else is doing the same.Especially those who are homeowners.

In the case of those who couldn’t wait and wound up buying anyway, they did like a huge percentage of Bay Area residents did, which was to move to the suburbs.

Suburbs are nothing new. But their original intent has changed. They were built as relief valves for those who wanted the better salaries of the metro areas, but wanted a more stable and comfortable living standard that would eventually embody the classic middle class: A average home, car, and so forth.More importantly, to live within close proximity to their jobs via the more recent introduction of the freeway system.

The problem all along for suburbs has been that the typical suburb is reliant on the larger metro core to fuel it’s income. For a number of decades, this worked out quite well since the inhabitants of such communities could access their jobs with ease and that homes were plentiful and considerably less expensive and within reach, which easily offset the costs involved with commuting. But as the population grew and these suburbs grew into small cities of their own, the infrastructure necessary to support the daily commuter traffic began to fail.Homes became more expensive which int turn created exurbs for those who suddenly couldn’t afford the suburbs. The road system became congested. Many of these Suburbs got just as caught up in the housing bubble as the inner cores of the metros, which was doubly devastating to its inhabitants.

In my mind, the answer to solving this problem isn’t to do away with the suburbs and build quaint little walking communities of the sort that I assure you would be expensive anyway. The solution is to instead start finding ways to alter the American professional landscape and the suburban system that many now call home.

The missing link is that many suburbs are totally reliant on the larger metro cores for economic support. If focus was put into developing these suburbs to be more self sufficient,with their own independent economies, then much of the problems people and cities face would be alleviated. Large corporations could develop more satellite offices and count more on employees that are increasingly mobile, alleviating the need for employees to converge are large centralized offices. This would also free of the highways, which in turn would also mean less traffic within the metro cores. In other words, it is widely known that large metro areas are rank with problems. But the problem is stemming from several outside sources, the largest being the Suburbs. Address the suburbs first. Then move inward.

But in regards to development within metro areas, looking at the problem from none other than a cold and mathematical perspective, I think it is safe to say that between booms and busts, the cost of homes ratchets upward in jerky movements. With each passing boom, standards of housing change. It used to be the massive Victorians and other fancy homes were for strictly for the wealthy. With this passing wave, we saw crappy little 800 square foot starter homes priced at levels that only the well-heeled could afford. Clearly the pendulum swings wildly.

So with that somewhat predictable cycle, perhaps a better approach would be a system of building smaller and smaller. Every city needs realistic housing arrangements for its inhabitants. Of course homebuilding is merely another Capitalistic affair with those companies seeking out the best way to make a buck. I think Bayport if a prime example of that, with homes that would otherwise be 150k nationwide being priced at 800k+. But what if companies like these were given incentives to build… smaller.

I know for a fact that there’s a huge demand for homes that are more reasonable. That demand will also never diminish. So to accommodate, a sort of equation should be worked out as to what can be done to efficiently maximize the available space within larger metro areas that lends itself to acceptable community development, but on an increasingly smaller scale. This would work out well because by doing so would assure that there would always be a starter home market, with the previous generation “starter” home being the next move-up level, and so on.

By approaching the problem with nothing more than a simple size versus cost equation, the need for affordable housing would be met, the increasing pressure to build on a smaller footprint would be realized, and market stability would also be more obtainable versus the series of strains the system currently undergoes in 5-10 year cycles.

Of course the biggest blockade against any of this is a massive roll of red tape. But I’ll pretend that these regulations don’t exist.

Anyhow, that’s my thoughts.

Put into that perspective, I don’t agree with the overriding tone of the article that the suburbs are doomed and that the cities are bound to garner an enormous new burden of people whom which will choose the said style of decelopment.

If you look at some of the more rapidly developing areas of the country, these tend to be developing in the method that is most often despised by people in major metros… aka- urban sprawl. But I also think many who view urban sprawl as negative also don’t comprehend the fact that many of these more recent fresh growth cities have different ways of developing, of which much has to do with a few key components:

Space, Cost, infrastructure, and population along with jobs, the cost of living, and the cost of fuel. In almost all of the fresh growth cities, the populations tend to be a small fraction of those in the older, more established cities. Land and housing is signifigantly less because there is less population to force demand. In many cases, the Freeways are actually over-adequate. Good example- last time I visited my parents, I flew into Nashville and drove to Knoxville. That’s halfway across the state, yet I drove it in less than 3 hours because the freeway traffic was approximately 75MPH the entire way. That would be like driving to Sacramento if there was no traffic, which would mean a 45 minute commute.

So when we say that the suburbs are dead, it really depends on what kind of suburb we’re talking about. If we’re talking Stockton or Manteca, then yes- these places are doomed to an extent because their prices were pushed beyond anything supportable expect by Bay Area wages. The long commutes with the immense amount of traffic, higher fuel costs, and so on puts places like Stockton in a very bad position.

But on the other hand, my parents who have been commuting 30 minutes each way to work for years live out in the sticks but will be fine because their infrastructure and environment isn’t under the same pressure from traffic, the cost of living, and so on. Whether that will remain so is a good question, but this also brings up a second valid point, which is that growth is organic thing and applies especially to human development. The difference here is how to manage congested, long established and subsequently more expensive areas with less wiggle room for change versus areas that are still less densely populated and hence more flexible in terms of what they can do with their infrastructures to adapt.

I don’t agree that EVERYONE wants to live in the types of neighborhoods that the article mentions. Frankly, I’d rather live on a farm with lots of land.

In summary, as mentioned before, none of these ideas as far as housing developments and walkable this and that mean anything if they all simply become expensive communities for the rich.