Suburban decay

When I go to sleep, I dont want to hear music or traffic or factories or the subway. I want to hear the chirping of nature in the couple of acres of woods around my suburban McMansion. Those downtown lofts can be cute and chic, but really after visiting the city for a nice meal and a romantic walk I cant wait to get the heck out of there and get back to my suburban refuge. Besides, my hobbies include trail running and working on my car. There are no several-hundred acre forests in the town for running and hiking, and your chances of finding a home with a large garage for all your shop tools is nil. Listen, for you pub crawlers and starbucks n books crowd, the city is for you. My family and our interests are completely unaligned with what the city has to offer.

Oil futures just hit $100 a barrel--and that's as we're entering a recession, when energy usage is supposed to be declining. A daily hourlong commute to work, or a mandatory drive whenever you need milk, is simply not going to be affordable for people in the exurbs.

Not having to drink and drive.......not having to drive everywhere is more appealing for my lifestyle and for many folks who prefer the city.

Suburbs were built based on cheap gas. Every action requires a trip in the car.
With the country in recession, and gas topping $3 a gallon, people will soon question if they want to continue spending so much of their paycheck just to fill up the SUV.

The city is awesome, esp Boston. I love it. But it becomes less feasable if you're into dogs. Even kids can do really well in the city, and grow up close to so much culture, as long as they have parks to play in, even condo complex commons. Dogs can be more complicated. Since I have them, I hope suburb prices go down... but don't look forward to ghetto. Maybe houses along old country roads are the answer.

Vincent - Choosing where to live simply based on consuming alcohol is a silly. I dont even drink. Individual transportation will continue to get less expensive. People who live in the city hope and pray that conditions will evolve to force everybody into the city and drive up prices, but it isnt going to happen. Besides, you can always make buildings taller and create housing literally out of thin air; only the developers will really make out. If you can share a business project with somebody in Mumbai India, you can just as easily work with somebody in Natick or Berlin MA. City is nice for a visit - Suburbia is nice for living!

The old captains of industry purposely built well-designed McMansions in the suburbs to distance themselves and their families from the shabby "huddled masses and hooligans" in the city. Class conscious in every way, they sought to create private elite fiefdoms. Over the last 25-30 years, interest has shifted from country to city. Bright lights, big city in contrast to muted, insular suburbia! Still, the town fathers haven't caught on to overhauling the infrastructure, namely - efficient mass transit - that would give young professional suburbanites a direct link to urban amenities.

Individual transportation will continue to get less expensive.

Um, no.

I suggest you read the Atlantic article. It isn't clear that you have.

I have everything I need or want here in Essex. What I don't want is more city folk moving here. Boston is an over-priced, filthy, crime ridden, bum infested hellhole. The only way I will go there is in a MedFlight heliocopter.

I enjoyed both this post and the accompanying article in the Atlantic, but this still feels like two separate issues to me:
1. that houses in the suburbs, or on the suburban fringe may be taken over, so to speak, by landlords & renters and split up, leading to decay of those once attractive new communities.... 2. that a lot of people moved out of the city to McMansion developments only to find that they lack the vibrance and walkability of the urban areas, so they're now building lifestyle centers.

Am I off the mark? Was the author trying to say that Issue #1 will happen BECAUSE of Issue #2? Because that seems far-fetched to me.

--Oh, and John Marshall: too bad the top-notch city hospital to which you'll need to be MedFlighted someday wasn't developled in Essex, huh? Nice attitude, you entitled, over-simplifying, judgmental waste of atmosphere.--

I would be in the one-third group with mixed feelings. I like my 1950's Cape house on one acre in the 'burbs, but I do miss the days when I lived in an apartment in Allston. My town has sidewalks, but not really a downtown, so the only reason I walk is for my dog. If I need milk, I have to drive but at least I can drive to my local dairy and get personal service. I guess that is why Metrowest is so popular. You can be in the 'burbs but have quick access to the city.

Um, isn't it a choice? Everyone is acting like there is a right answer and a wrong answer. Different styles of living for different people. Some prefer city, others suburbs; it's a matter of preference.

Since the median sales price dropped in Essex 25% from 2006 to 2007 while Boston's rose over the same period, I think we have our answer.

It's fascinating to read remarks from people who think their own whims and desires determine market movements. Not unlike sellers who "know" what their unsold houses are worth.

The future of the suburbs will be determined by the ever-rising price of oil, failing development projects, skyrocketing property taxes, the credit crunch, the aging of the baby boom and other big-scale factors, not whether an individual likes the sound of birdies over breakfast.

I grew up in East Boston... I have been thrilled since I moved out to the suburbs 7 yrs ago. I agree with everything that was said in Post #1. You couldn't convince me to ever move back to Boston.

"Boston is an over-priced, filthy, crime ridden, bum infested hellhole"

Well said by a complete ignoramus. The majority of crime in Boston occurs in certain sections of Roxbury & Dorchester, with violent crime peaking between the hours of 12:00am - 4:00am amongst 18-35 year olds. If you don't hang out on Blue Hill Ave. at 3:00am, you're probably not going to have any trouble there.

Boston ranks in the top 10 cities with the LEAST number of homeless per capita, with cities such as Seattle topping the list. Do your homework before you trash talk my city.

I grew up in Hyde Park but left for burbs 15 years ago. I live at the end of cul-de-sac and have some wooded area in back. I love that my kids can run all over the place (street, yard, woods) without any worries. When i was a kid we had to contend with all the noise, over crowded streets, thugs, etc. Our yard was so small you could cut the lawn with a pair of scissors. I would never want to go back.

Why can't developers build village style developments outside of major cities? If they built the houses closer together and had a central business area with all the amenities within walking distance, then it has the same advantages of city living at a smaler, more manageable scale. Not to mention that this type of development is more sustainable than the McMansion, every house has 2 acres of lawn type of development. I lived in Davis Square in Somerville and it developed into an awesome "village" type of environment in the years I lived there. The only downside is you have to be able to deal with the dense housing...but people who want to live in urban areas are already willing to do that. Those who want more space will live in the far burbs.

I grew up in the sticks, the likes of which doesn't even really exist in Massachusetts save for a few spots out west. I hated it so much- I couldn't wait to grow up and move to the city. Now after 8 years of college, grad school and work- there is nothing I want more than to GO HOME! Half your income on housing? Condo associations fining you for decorating at Christmas or Halloween? The great Dog War- you know, how there is no off leash areas, how condo people want to see your big happy pup dead? $15 martinis? On street parking where your car gets banged up to h$((? Jump through every hoop under the sun just to keep my hunting rifle? Yeah- great quality of life... The only way city living is worth it is if you are incredibly wealthy and can afford to live like a normal person and not an urban plebian. You think the suburbs and country are dying? Then tell me this- why is the new Bass Pro Shop in Foxboro bursting at the seems with people who want nothing to do with city life? What we are seeing is a clear divide in the population based on living preference. I was a booster of urban living for a long time- until it trampled over every personal freedom I have ever held dear. There is no freedom in the city (esp Boston) unless you are a liberal democrat focusing on the choice liberal freedoms- everything else gets thrown out with the dog crap... I see no reason why I should pay $400,000 for a 1000 sq ft "condo" where I have to let people tell me what I can and can't do anyway. Are overpriced restaurants and bars and salons, etc really worth it? As for fuel- maybe people will just be smarter about usage moving forward- like not going to the store just to buy milk- BUY IN BULK! This whole article and spotlight issue is nothing more than liberal urban hipster propaganda, I would expect nothing less from the Globe.

I'd love to live (but live well) in the city, but simply cant afford it. I live as close as I can to it, but it would be so much better to be right in town. I have friends living in the city and quite frankly, I'm jealous. But they married better than I did.. :) The possibilities for how to spend your weekends are endless. You need a lot of money to live the good life in Boston. BTW my own personal tastes run well beyond a marsh town with 2 restaurants and a few old antique shops. In sprawling suburbia were relatives and other friends live, its as boring as wonder bread. It amazes me how asleep everyone is...go to work, come home, mow their lawn on the weekend and go to bed at 9pm with that twice a month visit to some chain restaurant or a movie. What a YAWN!!

I think it depends on what stage of your life you are at.

I lived in the city while single and without children and it was perfect for that stage. Plenty of things to do and see. Living in a chic and interesting space was fun and it didn't matter if it was only big enough to comfortably fit two people.

Going into another phase that will involve marriage, children, pets, and lots of career focus - its easier living in the suburbs. There's more room to have a family (it does require space to be comfortable). Think of having to go out in the middle of the night to get formula and having to circle for a parking spot? Or ok, if you have a deeded parking spot - fine - but you'll have $20K in day care every year, and a $20K parking spot. Trust me - it's easier to have a driveway.

After this phase is over, we'll probably go back to the city. Unless it becomes easier to raise kids in a city you're better off spending your child-rearing years in the burbs.

I just left Manhattan. Good look finding anyone hip moving to The Village, Soho, etc.. Now that 'city sophistication' is tv-series, middle-American mainstream, look for the soulful, bargain life to go suburban, at least.

My wife and I lasted in the suburbs for less than one and half years. To each is own, there are no right arguments. I would rather spend my money on $15 martinis than $50 worth of Exxon shuttling to and from strip malls, but that's me, not the other guy. I don't own a hunting rifle, but if you do, that's fine, but you may be better suited to Pittfield than Boston. Some people like a cul de sac so their kids can run around, nothing wrong with that, my kids seem to be perfectly happy here in the city. You can't sling mud at someone elses agenda, just because it's not yours. That contributes to so much strife between all people. If you live in the suburbs, great, come into Boston, spend your money, and go home. If you live in the city, get out and enjoy some of the suburbs once and while, spend your money, and go back to the city. Just stop posting ridiculous trash like Mr or Ms. Decade of City Life.

I think the article was talking about suburbs like Randolph

Hey StarboardLean,

In response to your question "Why can't developers build village style developments outside of major cities?"- they can, and there is an entire urban planning movement called "New Urbanism" devoted to this concept. You can also look at the "Smart Growth" movement which is similar. The problem is that most towns have zoning requiring large lots and single family homes and prohibit "infill" (building between existing structures) and multi-unit dwellings. So the towns that could benefit potentially shoot themlselves in the foot. Not to mention that for dwellings that close you need a municipal water and sewer system, septic tanks and wells can't be that close together... so it's much more complex than most people realize. Maybe some of the residents in communities with existing infrastructure to support this type of growth will read this blog and become inspired to change local zoning laws....

>Oil futures just hit $100 a barrel--and that's as we're entering a recession, when
>energy usage is supposed to be declining. A daily hourlong commute to work, or
>a mandatory drive whenever you need milk, is simply not going to be affordable
>for people in the exurbs.

Bzzzzzttttt...wrong answer.

Yeah, oil gets expensive. People will adjust, marginally, the price differential they're willing to pay for housing in the 'burbs. If everyone is moving to the cities, that WILL raise the price of housing in the cities relative to the suburbs and people will offset energy expenditures with housing savings.

Long term, society will drive the development of nuclear power, geothermal, and plugin hybrids. The economy, for the suburbs around major metropolitan areas, would not tolerate the loss of equity that sudden, sharp drops in home prices would cause if no one could afford to live there, or the discount to make up for energy prices becomes to great. Or of the vast suburban office parks and factories. We will simply shift to alternative sources of energy -- and I hope it's nuclear during a transition period to eventual geothermal, that's only a hope because clearly coal is the cheapest way to get off $100 barrel oil.

The suburbs, in my opinion, are really the blended cumulation of the worst of what two worlds offer. One would expect (and hope) that sitting halfway between urban and rural settings, you would get the best of both – i.e. inexpensive housing coupled with chic design, lots of space but access to culture, increased restaurant choices from good Americana cooking to European-inspired fine dining, leading to a very high quality of life.

Unfortunately, the converse is true. New suburban houses are not unique, they are mostly uninspired, cookie-cutter designs with perhaps a few finishes as seen on Extreme House Makeover, stock with furniture from Bernie and Phyl's. They are also expensive, even in this market. Diversity is non-existent with respect to race or orientation. Dining is just as (non)diverse; there are choices like TGIF, Chili's or for special occasions The Olive Garden (which a friend convinced me are all the same with an underground, giant rotating food-delivery system brought to you by the folks at Sysco). There are no country/family-owned stores, all big box franchises. And then add to this the well-known 2 hour car commute and you end up with a horrid quality of life for you and your family.

So if quality of life is important, move into a vibrant city or out to the relaxing country; just don't get caught floundering around in the manila-grayish middle. You'll end up fat, unhappy and probably sitting in traffic.

$400k for a 1000 sqft condo in downtown Boston?? Boy, show me where!! These days if you want that much space in the city center market, expect to pay upwards of $600 to $800k.

Pretty incredible, isn't it? I live in the Back Bay but honestly don't understand how most people can afford to live here. I totally adore living in the city but I can completely understand why others wouldn't want to. It's incredibly expensive and there are all sorts of small inconveniences that make it a challenge: parking, lack of space, noise, density, lack of connection to nature. But for me, it works. I'm single, gay, no kids to save for college educations and enjoy all the amenities that people have mentioned.

There's a cliche about who city living is for which applies to Boston. It's for "the newly wed and nearly dead". I.e. recently married couples with no kids, and older empty nesters. Oh and gay people. Basically if you have children you don't want to be in Boston. Nobody wants to send their kids to Boston public schools. Any predictions that the suburbs will decline is complete hogwash, at least as far as Mass is concerned.

This goes to Middle's comments -- so, you like to fix your car and run in the woods and don't think that you can do that in the city? Ever heard of the cities of Somerville and Medford? You can have a house or apartment with a driveway and be within a five minute drive of the Middlesex Fells that has acres and acres of land for you to run in. If you like living in the suburbs, just say so. Just don't be ignorant about the amenities that cities have to offer.

I think the point is that someday, relatively soon, it won't matter whether you prefer the suburbs or not. Most suburbs, as they currently exist, are not sustainable. We are hitting "peak oil"and it may become financially unrealistic for you to drive a gas powered vehicle to get groceries, go to work, visit family etc. Also, high gas prices may put many chain stores in suburban mini-malls out of business as the cost of moving goods rises higher and higher. Hybrid/alternative energy vehicles may never be able to fill the extremely large void that the lack of cheap oil will create.
For suburbs to survive they will need significant changes to their transportation infrastructure and a complete reinvigoration/redesign of their town centers so that they can fulfill the needs of the residents.

Everything ebbs and flows. Some suburbs that relied on manufacturing will certainly become slums, but the ones with diverse businesses and good commuter access will always thrive. Houses are still selling like hotcakes in my metrowest bedroom community, no major housing slump here! Comparing Eastern Massachusetts to NC is beyond "apples & oranges", it is more like comparing a donkey to a tomato... sheesh!!!

People forget that the biggest variable here is socio-economic class. After the Second World War, people flocked to newly built suburbs. Cities were post-industrial hell holes. Boston, for example, had the lowest bond rating in the country. The city was overwhelmingly poor and slummy.

There's been a remarkable reversal on a national scale. Probably as a result of the decline in manufacturing and a transition to a service economy, American cities have been undergoing a renaissance for twenty years. Cities are fast becoming playgrounds for the rich while suburbs (especially the nasty ranchhouse places like Marshfield and Holbrook) are growing as destination for the middle and working class. I grew up in Boston and went to Boston public schools. When I think of the hundreds of guys I grew up with, I realize that the least ambitious and least successful always ended up moving to Walpole and Franklin and Millis.

Well, if there is any truth to this article it is only because the suburbs have become so overbuilt that all the open space and nature where farms and subdivisions used to exist together in a more pastoral setting ... is gone. At least inside 128, unless you live near one of the 10 or 12 great public parks or reservations, or one of the few dozen smaller parks, then you are no longer getting the traditional suburban experience. Living on a half acre lot doesn't make much difference, if your neighborhood has been wrecked by a 40B apartment complex that was built on the neighboring farm. The farm which used to be where you could go for a nice walk as a kid or for apple picking at the end of the Summer. When you have to leave the State to get the feel of a traditional New England character in anything other than a few boutique tourist towns then I think something has gone wrong in Massachusetts. It didn't need to be like this. We could have preserved more of our heritage and farmland, but our politicians are more interested in padding their payrolls with the property taxes that come from more building. We've sacrificed quality chasing growth for growth's sake.

I'm an in betweener. Like Mikey in #16 I grew up in Hyde Park. I thought it was the best of both worlds and would go back in a heart beat if I didn't live out of state and married to a stuck up suburban girl. The freedom I had growing up v. my kids today in the 'burbs can't be compared. I have to drive them everywhere and make appointments for play dates. When I was coming up we had Smith field, an Ice rink, MDC pool, Stony Brook reservation, Cleary Square, a nice library, the Y, the Muni. My old man never drove me anywhere. You have nice single family houses with a garage and a bit of lawn and only 15 minutes to South Station via the Fairmount Line. What's not to love.

Cities and States are taxing people and business out of the cities. As the tax base dwindles the people with money are moving to the suburbs to escape the growing costs and crime.

I believe that eventually all the empty office space will be turned into Condos (ala NYC except on a bigger scale) as more and more companies move either out of State or into towns and cities with lower taxation and bigger incentives. As this happens the expansion of the sububrs will slow and then reverse itself. People will be commuting to their jobs in the suburbs from their homes (condo high-risers) in the cities. Mass transit might then becomes a reality ala the towns along the railroad lines in the 1900s. The poorer citiy dwellers will be force to inhabit the decaying suburbs which is a reverse of the current situation.

I thought Hyde Park was the burbs... I think when they talk about movement to live in the city, they are talking about downtown (Back Bay, Beacon Hill, South End, the Waterfront...) not the entire metropolitan city. I live downtown, and my building of over 150 units is filled with empty nesters moving to the city to experience an active, exciting, and full life. And as one ages, you may not be able to drive or take care of your lawn... but by living in the city, you can really have a very nice life with many options and exist within a few block radius. Sounds pretty good to me.

I am 26 and live with my parents in East Bridgewater, MA. It's a small suburban town with a few scattered farms. It's peaceful, but intensely boring. My fiance and I dream of living in a city, but our funds are in the negative. I recently graduated from college and want to be where the culture and good jobs are. Driving everywhere is annoying, especially in frequent heavy traffic. On a good day, it takes me at least 10 minutes just to drive to the highway. My house isn't even within reasonable walking distance of a convenience store. Also, when traveling to and from Boston on the train, the trip is so long that I often feel the urge to fall asleep. When I get there, however, I always feel energized and a strong sense of belonging.

Why are you people even discussing the "rising price of oil" here? I suspect it's because you don't fully understand that oil is a dollar based commodity. The largest reason for the rise of oil prices over the last 3 years is the devaluation of the USD. Same thing for gold and other USD based commodities, yet I don't see anyone saying that no one will want to live in the burbs because of the "ever rising price of gold".

You people are funny. Everyone here knows everything and what's best for everyone. Marcus and Christian and John Marshall et al all know what's best for everyone else.

Here's the thing...some people are fine with 1500 sq ft of living space...some like 3000. Some like driving to a supermarket that has lower prices and more selection...some like walking to the corner store and having a limited selection with higher prices. Some like driving around for an hour to park, some like driving home for an hour and parking in their driveway. Who really cares? Anyone with half a brain knows that city living is more expensive than non city living. There isn't a major metro in the entire US that will buck that trend.

To each their own. I will never understand why people feel the need to "convert" others into their living choices...

People who love the deep suburbs and rural areas of NE should sing hosannas to the people who chose to live in the cities- because if we all chose to live "outside" of the city- those lovely leafy green suburbs would all eventually look like the suburbs in LA- big ugly sprawl. Also, the folks in the less dense burbs are often subsidized by the taxes paid in the high density areas( you don't think the 4000 people who live in Carlisle actually pay for the roads that get them there do you?)
I grew up in a truly rural area, and understand the romance and the beauty- but I find the city is a much better alternative than the suburbs. Moved here 10 years ago, cut 12 hours of commuting out of my life ( and two cars) and have never looked back... And besides- its green!

It's definitely all about personal preference. One thing that's clear is that there is a definite unmet demand for city living, hence the premium one must pay to live there. The pendulum is slowly swinging back from the idea of suburban utopia after all of our sprawling resulted in too much car-dependency and the associated effects of that (congestion, lack of physical activity, nightmare commutes, pollution).

There are certainly different levels of urban. Compare downtown Boston to Cambridge or Somerville or Arlington. What the article points out, and is becoming more and more apparent, is that the older cities and towns that were built around people as opposed to cars are the ones in the highest demand.

It's all about the land use, really. Make neighborhoods and business districts walkable and bikeable, with buildings fronting the street edge instead of parking lots. Provide parking, but hide it, and minimize the number of driveways. Cluster development together. Locate transit stops in the center. Mix retail, business, and residential together. It's the same general way people built villages 100 years ago. Little did we realize how smart they really were.

Relax poeple it not that serious!!!

So, 1 Decade, you're saying you agree with the article - that cities are now fashionable for the wealthy again.

Awful lot of ranting, not a whole lot of relevance.

In post #12, Joe wrote: "Um, isn't it a choice? "

And in post #17 StarboardLean wrote: "Why can't developers build village style developments outside of major cities?"

I think these two posts get to the heart of the issue. As we use up more of the finite space and resources available for human habitation on the planet, we are, unfortunately, running out of choices, Joe, or our choices actually have significant impact on others. StarboardLean's model is the reasonable solution to these problems, but not everyone will like that solution because it eliminates choice.

I

I moved from Boston to charlotte 4 years ago and it is great! The context of the story that this author took the whole story from is that its bad in the Neighbors that were built in the last 10 years, 5-10 miles from the center of the city and at a price range of $80k-180k. But in the $200k+ range there really are not many problems at all its really flourishing.

I don't think the Boston Area has too much to worry about as most homes are older neighborhoods more established and prices much higher. Poor people or people living above there means foreclose, and let there property decay, generally not people who can afford at least $300k

I've been a city girl at heart all my life and would happily live in Boston, London, or any city where pedestrians are not entirely marginalized by design that works well for cars but not people on foot. Living in Boston was out of reach for us with two children. We lived in a suburb, more dependent on cars than we wanted to be to get around. We moved almost two years ago to a New Urbanism development in Louisville. We walk to shops, the pediatrician, a pub, hair salon, and more. The development will have more businesses, schools, parks, cycling trails, and fitness facilities soon. Our teenager got her first job here, too--at a gelato shop just four minutes walking time from our house. The best part of this experience has been seeing my kids get red-faced from running around while playing with other neighboring kids in the green we all share on our street.

Well, obviously, urban dwellers are smart, enlightened, open-minded people who embrace diversity and are going straight to that great big rainbow triangled place in the sky. On the other hand, we suburbanites are SUV-driving, racist, GOP-loving whitebread twits intent on leaving as large a carbon footprint as possible.

Good point. Really.

I've oftern wondered if McMansions would end up sub-divided into apartments like Victorians were once subdivided when people could no longer afford to maintain them. It's interesting to read that others have also contemplated this idea.

The Atlantic Monthly is known for it's fiction...

Amusing to read all the comments of the wishing-makes-it-so variety. Sure, we'll just flip a lever and switch from oil to cold fusion, since that would be convenient for me and therefore it will automatically happen.

It's not about personal preference. You can prefer whatever you want to. It doesn't matter. The forces that will determine the fate of suburbia over the next decades--peak oil, maxed-out refinery capacity, growing global energy demand, a financial and banking system teetering on the edge of collapse, tens of millions of homeowners upside-down on their mortgages--are impersonal, systemic, and really don't give a fig whether you like your cul-de-sac or not.

et I don't see anyone saying that no one will want to live in the burbs because of the "ever rising price of gold".

The Internet is really the world's premiere source for unintentional humor.

Jeff you are right -- oil isn't getting more expensive in real terms, the dollar is simply going down in value. As the Federal Reserve pumps more and more dollars into the economy (largely to finance government spending), every dollar becomes worth less and less. That's the essence of inflation.

Yes, it hits us all, but people particularly dependent on goods priced on the world market will be hurt worse -- e.g. people with long car commutes dependent on oil prices.

Silliness. Oil prices in pounds and Euros doubled between 2004 and 2007. The weakness of the dollar as Bernanke prints money to prop up the stock market and inflate away trillions in bad mortgage debt only compounds the problem--but it sure isn't the only reason. The rise in global demand in 2008 will be mostly driven by non-US consumption. And anyway, OPEC may soon be pricing oil in Euros.

None of this will make daily drivers very happy.

Having moved to Central Sq, Cambridge from a Philadelphia suburb, I can say my quality of life has doubled. What hasn't doubled is my cost of living. My wife got rid of her car, I drive maybe once every two weeks or something like that. Combined we save more than $500 a month in gas/car costs (I had a long commute in Pa), which more than offsets the slight increase in housing costs. Cost of living is roughly the same between the Pa suburbs and urban Boston. I would never trade everything the city has to offer for the bland suburbs again.

BA - you have a knack for finding these provocative articles. I agree with the views expressed by StarboardLean #17. I believe that we are all in the process of defining a new "American Dream" that differs from the mid to late 20th century suburban lifestyle and for most will also not embody the classic rugged individualism of previous eras. It will instead incorporate Internet Connectivity, the need to feel a part of a community (village), and increased geographic mobility.

For families, suburban living with it's gargantuan impersonal unconnected tract homes and long interhome distances will increasingly not supply these needs. These inflexible living situations will become less desireable. Creative architects, community planners, and designers will help us find housing and community settings that are better suited to lifestyles that did not exist 50 years ago. Urban or semiurban living now provide a variety of liveable enclaves and settings, a variety that does not exist in suburbia. Current builders are trying to force a lifestyle (trying to define what we want) in order to sell their large inventories of huge suburban homes. But most of us are realizing that this is not what we want for ourselves or our families.

I was impressed by comments made by the residents of Harbor Towers in a recent Boston Magazine article. They describe a community of individuals that differs from the cold impersonal stereotype of high rise living. It emphasize to me how much this is about people with changing needs and lifestyles, compared to society of 50 years ago.

Traditional suburban communities (as created by the current large home building companies) will simply not provide us with these needs as we move forward. What the suburban builders are creating is not a field of [our new] dreams; they can build it, but increasingly we will not come. I believe that the movement to urban centers is as much about our need to feel a part of a connected community and a need to define our new "American Dream" as any practical consideration of oil price, automobile cost, or home maintenance concerns.

The premise of the article is a little rediculous: Some recent housing developments were built that really shouldn't have been, and they were bought by people who really shouldn't have bought them. So, yes, those housing developments are a disaster. That's hardly indicative of a general trend.

The article did make one good point:
"When the Baby Boomers were young, families with children made up more than half of all households; by 2000, they were only a third of households; and by 2025, they will be closer to a quarter."

If there a reason for suburbs to become less popular than urban areas in the future, this is it. As others have pointed out, cities are great places to live when you don't have kids, but aren't so great when you do. (I do think dense towns like Arlington can manage to have the best of both worlds to some extent).

I don't see any dramatic changes happening in the future. People with families are going to continue to want decent size houses with yards their kids can play in. (If the price of oil goes up so much that this demand is significantly affected, we will be in deep trouble, regardless). Young people and some empty nesters are going to want to live in the more vibrant city. To counteract the lack of culture in suburbia, I do see developers continuing to build "town centers" or "lifstyle-centers" which in my mind are a worthwhile attempt to recreate the downtowns that have pretty much disappeared through out most of the county. Unfortunately, they are going to be filled with the same stores that are in all the malls. With any luck, though, there might be a few good local restaurants in them.

I read the article in The Atlantic.... complete silliness.

Not a shred of real evidence to support the hypothesis. Sounds more likely wishful thinking from one of the urban elites who hate the suburbs.

> BA - you have a knack for finding these provocative articles.

Thanks GB. This one certainly has provoked a lot of conversation. I'm thrilled to see so many thoughtful responses, including quite a few points and perspectives that had never crossed my mind. (The writer who wonders whether McMansions will be subdivided like VIctorians made a comparison I hadn't considered.)

I must say I'm struck by how closely this group resembles the world described by the U. Michigan study. We've got people who love the suburbs, all of whom live there; people who hate the suburbs, most of whom (but not all) live in the city; and quite a few people with mixed feelings about both kinds of living.

Thanks to all who posted (and obviously feel free to keep posting).

Hey Jeff in #37: Why are you suggesting I think I know what's best for people? I was looking for clarification in my post, not trying to ' "convert" others into their living choices' - I was annoyed at another poster for being rude & inflexible!

After living in the Boston suburbs for 1/2 my life & New York/Boston for the other, I am trying to determine in where I want to live now with my family. I am one of those "mixed feelings" folks that BA mentions above.

There are pros & cons for each town/city around here, but if your only conclusions are that 1. oil's not more expensive, the $ is devalued, 2. "Who really cares?", and 3. City living is more expensive, then I guess you've got it all figured.

This is a great discussion, and I agree with you: to each his own, but I enjoy hearing from those who have insight into what's great & not-great about the choice they made.

The suburbs were nice until they started looking like a rats nest of disgusting traffic and horrible architecture. Sure, there are exceptions but..... cmon...look around folks! Look at the shoddy ugly development. Most of the suburbs these days are ugly while the inner cities are improving. And at least people in the cities know who their services are provided by. I would move to the city if I could afford to move my family there.

One interesting thing to consider is that although housing in cities is more expensive, transportation costs are significantly less. I recently learned that the total cost on housing and transportation is about the same for suburbs vs city. What's different is the percentage of each.

I'd like to project into the future a little bit. I have an ominous view of lower-income to middle-class suburbs and exurbs as being isolated ghettos. Imagine being stuck there.
This is not about a personal preference of low crime, non-existent homeless, chirping birds, a white picket fence, pets galore, pizza delivery, etc.
To the point, it's more about an over-valued home, growing family, stagnant wages, and fuel prices that steadily climb (fuel prices will never decline, never have, never will), along with any sort of commute that will eventually make the suburban/exurban lifestyle untenable.
I do not imagine the urban life 10 or 20 years being any different than today, accounting for natural ebb and flow of the common ills that plague city centers.
But I do and can imagine the surrounding cities, townships, villages isolated by space and time as becoming vectors of the ills that commonly plague cities but compounding at a higher rate.
For those that would have to travel any moderate to long distance for food, fuel, and durable goods as these necessities become more valuable to a corresponding erosion of what a person can afford to acquire these items, this will become unsustainable.