Live data from Hacker News

Suburban sprawl is stifling the US economy

vox.com

51–60 of 75 posts

Re: Suburban sprawl is stifling the US economy

#51

An individual with the choice of living in the city or in suburbia is faced with a conundrum. Although you would think that by living in the city the individual will save money by expending significantly less natural resources and dramatically lowering his carbon footprint, it ironically costs him less money to do the exact opposite by living in the suburbs. This is because if the individual chooses to live in the ci…

In the last decade, that's exactly what's happened in NYC. young college graduates have flooded the city, pushing poorer people to the outskirts, and unlike their parents have not chosen to retreat to the suburbs to raise kids.

One time inner city ghettos like Bushwick, Bed-Stuy, and Crown Heights are gradually being gentrified into middle class neighborhoods. Property values are even rising in what were once the most entrenched slums, like East New York.

Meanwhile, the inner suburbs are beginning to decay as middle class professionals no longer move there to raise families. Low income residents displaced from the inner city are being pushed into these areas where rent is low - but still not saving money because they have to buy a car and pay for gas just to get groceries, and if they take transit to work it's now the 3-10x more expensive commuter rail rather than the affordable subway.

The outer suburbs where McMansions dominate are still thriving, but a few years ago I drove around the middle ring suburb where my dad grew up. In his childhood and even in mine it had been a solidly middle class Levittown clone. Tidy homes and yards, well-kept strip malls, and all. Now it's a textbook example of suburban decay. Entire blocks of houses that desperately need paint jobs and repairs. Deserted parking lots in strip malls with half the storefronts empty and the pavement cracked so badly a small child could get lost in the gaps. Independent businesses boarded up. Old people pushing grocery carts along nearly deserted sidewalks -- probably two or three miles each way to the supermarket. Not a pretty sight.

You see the same in Detroit, among other places. A suburb populated by wealthy or even middle class taxpayers can afford to keep up the infrastructure and economic engine to make it a pleasant place to live. One populated by low income people can't -- it soon becomes unlivable. That's going to be a conundrum for us to solve in this century. I hope we address it by building upwards and expanding public transit to make city-style living affordable again for everyone (which would also be a more efficient use of taxpayer dollars than repaving thousands of miles of roads and keeping up sprawling electric and water/sewer lines in suburbs where people wouldn't live if they could afford the city), but fear we haven't the political will to do so.

Re: Suburban sprawl is stifling the US economy

#52
I live in NYC, but I grew up in the Florida panhandle, a mile down a road from the main highway, at the beginning of which had no houses in sight, and passed about 5 visible houses on the way home. There was one house visible from our ranch-style house. To the side and back was swamp. To the front was all woods. I walked in the woods, stepped on ant hills and got bitten, and found rattle snakes, cotton mouths, mocassins, and garter snakes. Mosquitos, yellow flies, biting gnats, and horse flies combined to ensure that I would always have a few red splotches and bumps on my body when I came in. We even found gators once in a while.

We made long-time friends with a family a mile away by road, but I could get there in a quarter of a mile or so by woods and swamp. The trick to walking through the swamp was to try to step on clumps of grass sticking out of the muck. I would come across rotting tree trunks and knock them over to watch the termites. Sometimes our outdoors cats would join me and follow from a distance.

My dad drove 30 minutes to work, about 25 miles away, where he struggled to run a discount auto-parts distributorship employing too many people to be profitable. My mom stayed at home with me and my little brother.

My friends loved coming over. If we walked far enough past the swamp, we would be on the bay, which smelled kind of funky for being fresh-water, too far from the sea water to be even brackish though. It was just us, and maybe our neighbors who mostly stayed indoors. We didn't worry about break-ins. We left our door open a lot.

I currently pay a lot of money for a doorman for that kind of sense of security in NYC. As for being able to walk in the woods by myself, that's just about impossible, and you can't put a price tag on it. Unless I'm home alone, there's almost always someone in my field of view. I'm kind-of used to it, but a lot of people have a visceral distaste for it. Seems like I can't even get to work without getting into a subway car that smells like something died in it.

An economist might not have a direct way to measure the value we created for ourselves, but you might say we created a lot of value for ourselves by living where we did.

Re: Suburban sprawl is stifling the US economy

#53
post #40
post #13

This is not something I see in a city like Chicago. Even with a thinning population in the city proper, there are a wide variety of jobs reaching out from the city to the suburbs and more than adequate transportation with plenty of "walkable" neighborhoods. This is an interesting idea to explore, and I definitely have seen some more sprawling areas in this country (L.A., San Jose), but New York and Chicago don't fit…

I disagree. If you live in, say Westmont or Downer's Grove and want to get to O'Hare or Midway by public transport, you might as well give up before you start. It's a minimum two hour train journey that involves going all the way to Union station and then to the airport. It's not just the airports. My wife works at ANL. There are exactly two buses a day which go from our place to the lab. And this is after a ten minu…

Is this a new problem? The article talks about growing cities creating "endless commutes, growing pollution, and unwalkable neighborhoods." For someone trying to commute to the airport regularly, it's best to live in the NW suburbs. But Downer's Grove was established in 1873 so it's not as if this is a new problem. Additionally, I agree that it is not entirely convenient to travel between satellite areas of the city, but there are a number of opportunities local to any one part of the city/metro area.

I live in a suburb and recently spent a large amount of time looking for a new job, after living in a small part of California with limited opportunities, and while I didn't have the best time looking for a position as a Software Engineer, it's not as if there weren't jobs in any suburb or downtown that I couldn't achieve. I'm not someone who would look to regularly commute downtown but there are both Metra and L-stations that I could access and it's not as if we don't have roads.

This sort of sprawl as an issue seems to be targeted towards growing cities and suburbs that are undeveloped in terms of resources and infrastructure. Many of Chicago's suburbs and surrounding areas have really deep histories and local roots. In this sense they become their own neighborhoods, cities, towns, and villages instead of just rows of houses without sidewalks or an endless stretch of strip malls.

I think it's also easy to carpool or work around bus schedules if that's really an issue to a commute, or buying an electric car for short journeys like that.

The second city is also in a much better position than many other cities in the midwest. Indianapolis and Minneapolis-St. Paul are a lot harder to get around from outside the city, especially if you don't have a car, so I could understand how moving further and further out could be a detriment.

Re: Suburban sprawl is stifling the US economy

#54
post #11

An individual with the choice of living in the city or in suburbia is faced with a conundrum. Although you would think that by living in the city the individual will save money by expending significantly less natural resources and dramatically lowering his carbon footprint, it ironically costs him less money to do the exact opposite by living in the suburbs. This is because if the individual chooses to live in the ci…

> This is the only time in human history where living farther away from the city is actually cheaper then living closer. That is not in the slightest true. Your thing about oil is a red herring. Urban areas (farms back then) were ALWAYS cheaper than cities.

Think about the lifestyle we have today. If I live on the farm and work on the farm then yes it's cheaper. But I'm talking about suburbia, in which most people live outside the city but drive into the city to work everyday. That's a huge energy cost that can only be paid for through oil.

Perhaps this statement is more clear: Due to cheap oil this is the only time in history where living outside the city and driving miles and miles to work everyday is cheaper then living in the city right next to work.

Re: Suburban sprawl is stifling the US economy

#55
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, tech workers in SF making 150-300k certainly "can't afford to drive" I am sure.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but SF isn't the only city in the US.

It's one of the few with passable public transportation, and the in the others with passable public transportation (e.g. NYC, DC, Boston), many people who could afford to drive take public transportation.

Re: Suburban sprawl is stifling the US economy

#56
post #12

An individual with the choice of living in the city or in suburbia is faced with a conundrum. Although you would think that by living in the city the individual will save money by expending significantly less natural resources and dramatically lowering his carbon footprint, it ironically costs him less money to do the exact opposite by living in the suburbs. This is because if the individual chooses to live in the ci…

I'm not following. Capital gains?

Sorry shouldn't have wrote that. Capital gains represents income a person gains simply from owning an asset. No GDP or work is produced by that person yet by simply owning assets he gets money. Rent is a form of this.

Re: Suburban sprawl is stifling the US economy

#57

An individual with the choice of living in the city or in suburbia is faced with a conundrum. Although you would think that by living in the city the individual will save money by expending significantly less natural resources and dramatically lowering his carbon footprint, it ironically costs him less money to do the exact opposite by living in the suburbs. This is because if the individual chooses to live in the ci…

what if electric cars (tesla, nissan leaf, etc.) get more popular? then you can separate the source of energy from the consumer of energy.

Shifting power consumption away from gasoline onto the grid is definitely more efficient. However a significant amount of our grid is still powered by fossil fuels. It will depend on whether or not renewable sources have the capacity to support a car economy.

Re: Suburban sprawl is stifling the US economy

#58
post #33

An individual with the choice of living in the city or in suburbia is faced with a conundrum. Although you would think that by living in the city the individual will save money by expending significantly less natural resources and dramatically lowering his carbon footprint, it ironically costs him less money to do the exact opposite by living in the suburbs. This is because if the individual chooses to live in the ci…

Unlikely we'll run out of oil in the foreseeable future.

Hard to say. I can't find any reliable/definitive metric on this topic.

Re: Suburban sprawl is stifling the US economy

#59
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> excessively large public transit systems Because the "real" solution is for every single person to own and drive a car that seats 4, but 99% of the time only has 1 person in it?

People who can afford to do so usually avoid public transportation. Instead of posting a new edition of the same self-righteous HN thread bewailing other peoples' choices practically every single day of the week, it might be interesting to examine the apparent dissonance between the way amateur urban planners think things should work, and the way they actually do.

> People who can afford to do so usually avoid public transportation.

There are a number of factors at play here. To pretend that just because people act a certain way that the decision is based in fact and logic ignores reality.

People don't use public transit because:

1. They don't want to mingle with the "lower classes."

2. Driving a car for a long time was a status symbol. It's less of a status symbol today, but the effects of this are still embedded in American culture. Those "with money" can afford a car. If you take transit, then you are "poor."

So if you take transit you are signalling to others that you are "poor." Or you are afraid that you might have to sit across from someone that is "poor" and that would make you feel uncomfortable.

3. Buying a car for a long time was also "supporting America" (cue people chanting 'USA! USA!') because you were supporting the Big 3.

4. People get annoyed at having to wait for things like the bus. Even of the bus runs every 10 minutes, the fact that you might have to wait 10 minutes for something is enough for people to get upset about it.

Re: Suburban sprawl is stifling the US economy

#60
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No doubt true, but surprising. I'd rather bag groceries somewhere else than be a programmer in Boston or DC.

Being a programmer in NYC, I love it and wouldn't trade living anywhere else at the moment. I guess to each their own.

I think I'd like living in NYC, actually.
Post reply on HN