The future of the suburbs

I think if gas stays at these levels, or moves higher, things will be much different in the next few decades. If gas goes back to $2/gallon, all bets are off. We are already starting to see changes. In general, Americans will be going "small". Cars, houses, vacations, etc.

For example, sales of new SUVs and pickups are almost non-existant, while smaller efficient cars are on backorder. My guess is that in 10 years, as the new large vehicles start exiting the US car stock, there will be far more smaller efficient cars. Think Europe and Asia.

I would think residential developments in far-flung suburbs will slow to a crawl, as people want to live closer to jobs. Also, large McMansion style houses will not be as popular, as the rising fuel prices filter through to natural gas, electricity, etc. There will probably be a trend to smaller houses and condos. Again, think Europe and Asia.

Travel will be much different too, i think. I can't imagine that an average middle class person will be able to afford several quick weekend trips to Vegas, Miami, etc. each year. Airfares will be much much higher as the airlines cut capacity. So maybe your point about families staying closer together will turn out to be true.

I'd also think mass transit would gain in popularity, both in places that currently have a system (eg, Boston), to those that would require one (eg. Phoenix).

We'll also own less "stuff". Since our cars and houses will be smaller, we'll be less likely to go buy inexpensive (crapola) at Walmart, Christmas Tree Shops, and the like. So maybe we'll shop less and socialize more. Again, think Europe.

This would just touch the surface, but changes are certainly in store, and have already started.

It's a brave soul who tries to predict energy prices ten years out. And an even braver one to guess how Americans will react. If past is prologue, our corporate and political leadership will do as little as possible until it's too late to adapt.

That said, I can get into the spirit. For one thing, with higher heating costs, I predict the demise of the "great room," which allows you to enjoy your dirty dishes during dinner parties and struggle to hear the TV over your screaming children. Gone will be the detestable fad of "open floorplans" and "opening up walls," replaced by the return of that ingenious invention, rooms.

I don't know. I live in Natick which some Bostonians consider the "boonies" but it has a ton of jobs and the densest mile of retail in the state. I know many people who commute here from Cambridge and the inner suburbs. So it depends on how you define the suburbs. I think places in between Boston and Natick will do just fine; however places like Shrewsbury or Halifax might not fare so well.

Hey, no ragging on Halifax. I just checked the MBTA website. Natick offers a 46 minute commuter rail ride to South Station. The 7:00 am train from Natick arrives in South Station at 7:46.

The 6:29 train out of Halifax rolls into South Station at 7:17. By my math, that is 43 minutes and three minutes faster than from Natick.

I ride the train in to South Station from Halifax, and fill up my gas tank approx. once a month. My house is a newly constructed house and has insulated windows, walls, and roof, so it is much more efficient than the typical older homes you'd likely see in Natick.

I think Natick is very beautiful and mature, but just take a look-see at what you get for your money in Natick versus Halifax. The older sellers will try to get you to buy the hype so you overpay for these older "reputation" towns with tired housing stock. I didn't buy that nonsense.

I'm with Mike. Also, what some consider ex-hurbs (Westboro, Hopkinton, Northboro, Southboro, etc) are close to jobs both at the Pike/495 junction and Natick/Framingham. These areas have high paying jobs, 15/20 minute commutes, strong communities and schools, and people love their McMansions and split level neighborhoods for their families. Not everyone works in Boston. And, have you ever noticed the amount of business on 128?

People may feel squeezed and need to make some adjustments, but American families with 2 kids and a dog like suburban life and the homes there. The pattern of city living in the 20s, to suburban living in the 30s/40s when the kids come, then adult communities or urban in later life I think is our national MO. Look at some stats in these towns listed above. Median household income is in the six figures which is primarily supported by employers within a 15/20 minute commuting distance and the main household makeup is a family. I don't think these towns will overly suffer and turn to wastelands. And, as for the style and size of the home, probably the biggest factor of change may be green energy conversion or installation during new construction. New cars will be more efficient as well. So, let's put oil and energy prices in perspective. Compared to the 70's, we're seeing huge leaps in the adaptation and availability of hybrids, electric cars, and green energy options for our homes. It's not the 70's science experiment, sweaters, speed reductions, and backyard organic gardens. There are fundamental changes to how we consume energy that is permeating through mainstream America that in the long run will help us maintain some, if not most, of our lifestyle today.

Real Estate will be affected in this change, no doubt – we see it, but a complete reversal to urban living as the standard? I think this is wishful thinking of urbanites to help their falling home prices or maintain their bidding wars in micro markets in Arlington and Cambridge.

tired housing stock... not to jump on anyone in particular, but I find the american fascination with new houses, which are almost always more poorly built, to be fascinating.

We were experiencing the reverse of the garden city/suburban exodus movement in any case, as was clear back in the 90s. No surprise, that movement started in the 20s and peaked in the 50s. I've no doubt rising fuel costs will exacerbate things and re-create Paris.

Though american Ring Cities will throw something new into the mix, as a few above have alluded to.

Of course, to re-iterate my point in many previous posts, "Local" is only part of real estate. The effect of rising energy prices, an international phenomenon, shows that yet again.

I find that most Real Estate Agents who say "All real estate is local" are trying to get you to buy despite the mess in the rest of the country, or the next town over, or what have you. But I do agree that the most important thing in real estate is location - its just not the only variable, as it is so often portrayed.

I travel between IT cities in America and see a reverse happening in these places....Boston, Atlanta, Seattle, Denver. At one time the core of these cities were not very attractive. Now these cities have become cleaner, safer, and much more beautiful in many respects. 20 years ago I wouldn't have wanted to live in one of these cities....now I have no desire to spend any time in the suburbs. Poor transport, horrible architecture...just esthetically unpleasing to the eye.

I recently saw a documentary passed on to me by a friend called "The End of Suburbia". It was made several years ago and seems to be taking off in popularity now. The documentary made several predicitions in trends that are already starting to come to fruition. I highly recommend viewing this film.

Look, the distinguishing characteristic of a suburb is not that everyone drives to work. It's that everyone drives to buy a carton of milk, drop off dry cleaning, visit friends, go to a restaurant, pick up the kids, get stamps, cash a check, buy shoes, go to a hair salon, grab a sandwich, hit the gym, and perform every task and errand that a city or village dweller can complete on foot.

Gas is over $4 a gallon. Proctor & Gamble is raising product prices up to 16%. We can't begin to imagine the ultimate cost of home heating oil this winter.

Whether or not oil and commodities temporarily fall in price, we are nonetheless looking at the end of cheap energy. An oil economy is not going to be seamlessly replaced with a hydrogen economy or a solar economy. We are, at some point, going to be paying even more for energy than we do now.

Under those conditions, the suburban lifestyle as we know it is a dead end. Or a cul de sac, if you prefer.

I'm a dog park guy. When I was in Waltham, I would go to the West Newton Dog Park over by 128 and route 30. Now, I'm over on the Kinston/Duxbury Line. What my wife and I found interesting was the resounding incongruency between certain values of the Newton folks versus the Kingston folks. When the Newton people heard we were moving way down to the South Shore they would say, "My God, what a long commute". They obviously valued convenience and the wear and tear in the commute would be too much for them. The Kingston folks would say stuff like they couldn't unwind in such a congested area and they needed to hear crickets to unwind.

On top of that, many older folks remember Boston when it had a ton of gangs, drugs, muggings, and the combat zone. There was an exodus from the Cities once the highways were built. The children of this generation represent a lot of the younger native buyers have acclimated to the suburbs, having the freedom of a car and the convenience of getting parking at a supermarket etc. Lots of non natives who don't have family ties to a suburb might see them as sort of boring. Many enjoy the pulse of the City or want to get over on the Coast because family isn't a gravitational force.

Although the gas prices create more of a gravitational force closer to the City, the school systems close to the City as a whole are below average, which is why areas like Brookline, Newton, and the like get a premium because they have decent schools and have the convenience. Towns like Wakefield and Melrose are more affordable quality alternatives.

I think depending on the profile of the buyers and what their disposition is will unveil which "location" they value and ultimately choose. My wife and I both grew up in quiet areas so that is what we were looking for. I see a wider range in interest in my cohort, but a definite trend from urban living in the late 20's to early 30's and then a move to raise the family in the suburbs. I'm not arguing that this trend will continue, as the interests and values of the new crop of buyers and sellers will forge new trends and situations. Hell, maybe schools in the City might significantly improve in ten years.

When it comes to house construction related to energy efficiency, newer construction is far superior than older construction. We don't build some of the mahogany railings, or custom millwork, or brownstone work that you could get in the old days, but a modern house has vapor barriers, insulation, insulated windows, etc. Just wait and see how many people will be in deep yogurt when they are faced with home heating costs this winter. I am praying for a mild winter for lots of our lower income folks. Think about this, if a month's oil bill increases $375, that equates to 87.5 gallons of gas at $4 per gallon. That buys you 1,750 miles of driving at 20 mpg. That is approx. 40 miles a work day additional of driving. So when you balance things out, if a new house has a better insulated building envelope it might save you $200 per month in heating costs, which buys you the distance for the longer commute if you choose that lifestyle.

The boaters are bumming.

If city schools don't improve to the level of the suburbs it will make no difference about the price of gas. No decent parents would choose poorer schools to save money on gas.

Predicting the future is a fun game, but that's pretty much all it ever is. Still, I like games, so here goes...

If the 70's energy crisis taught us anything, it is that little will actually change. Sure, houses and cars will become more energy efficient, but people are unlikely to change where they want to live. People's desire for space isn't going anywhere. As long as the good schools and less expensive housing are in the suburbs, that's where families will live. If fuel prices actually get to the point where people can’t afford houses in the suburbs, we are in for a world of hurt, regardless.

The few communities which somehow offer the best of both worlds – lots of restaurants, dense living, (but still many single family homes with yards), and good schools, will continue to be popular for those who are willing to trade some space for more city-like living. Most of these communities (Brookline, Newton, Belmont) of course are very pricey, and will stay that way. Arlington is/was a unique town because it was priced lower due to its blue collar roots, and yet its school system is equal to the more expensive surrounding towns. That is why Arlington properties are still (relatively speaking) holding their value. Otherwise, as far as local vs. global real estate, all that I’ve seen is that the communities that have boomed the most have the furthest to fall. No surprises there.

One scary thing that may happen in the future is an increase in the separation between the have and have-nots. The haves will increasingly flock towards the communities which have the best schools (and the best other things), and the have-nots will be priced out. The affluent communities will have the $$ to maintain and improve their schools (and community) and the not so affluent communities will see their resources dwindle as the remaining moderately affluent people use their $$ to escape by any means possible. This is, of course, already true to some extent, but it could get a lot worse.

In the future, today's McMansions will look as dated as a 60's bilevel. This is inevitable- fashions change, whether it’s clothes, cars, or houses. The cost of energy may indeed influence what the new fashion becomes, but I can’t see the desire for big open spaces in a house going anywhere. People will probably just come up with clever ways of making these spaces more energy efficient. Whether or not open floor plans go away is anyone’s guess. Personally, I think the current trend of open public spaces with well separated private spaces works well for most people and is unlikely to change in the near future.

If I was to predict the future based on my personal preferences/experience, I’d say that houses are likely to loose the formal places: living room and dining rooms. People are more casual today, in general. My house has a living room, but we never use it. The only purpose for our dining room is when we need a larger table for guests – we never actually have a formal dinner. If you asked me, it’s all a waste of space. So, I predict we’ll see a trend towards a large combination kitchen/dining room which encompass the space for a large casual dinner, and we’ll see large family rooms/great rooms replacing separate family and living rooms. To some extent, open floor plans already do this, so maybe I’m not really predicting anything besides the continuation of a current trend.

To anyone who got this far, thanks for reading my long-winded musings.

It's shortsighted to think that businesses won't choose to relocate due to energy costs, as well. The higher oil prices go, the more a transit-inacessible location becomes a liability -- you're either limited to the local workforce, or have to pay extra to compensate people for their commutes. This migration has already started -- many companies are choosing to move to the city from the Route 128 office parks. Companies on 495 will likely choose to move to 128 when those vacancies make rates more attractive.

Will the exurbs be Paris-style slums? Probably not, but property values will decline as a function of their distance from the city center. A hundred years ago, towns like Halifax and their kin centered around their rail lines; it's likely they will again.

Look at a sample calculation for someone who travel in Zone 4 verus who has access to subway

Monthly Pass - $59
Zone 4 Pass - $186

Cost Diff - 186 - 59 = $127

say the time Diff between commuting subway and Commuter rail is 30 minutes
Per day a subway traveller will save 1 hour
Assue you have an hourly rate of $20 per hour
Per month (20 days) - 20 * 20 = $400

Monthly Savings:

$127 + $400 = $527

If you are a working couple you save $527 * 2 = $1054

Do the math, the above is not even considering the gas prices. Keep in mind that I am taking the fact that commuter rail traveller would have to stick to the commuter rail schedule rather than taking subway which runs almost every 5 minutes.

The above is just a comparision and in any way I am not tring to hurt anyone.

I live and work in Metrowest. 4 mile drive to work. Sometimes I'll bike or even run to the office. Great jobs out here, quiet, and good schools. Surrounding towns all in good shape, both with respect to fiscal issues, infastructure, etc... Companies may also get commerical space out here for much less than the cities.

We are considering a geothermal heating system for our home in 2009, which larger than the median. We predict 80% savings in our winter heating bill which will cover the costs in about 6-10 years when including financing. We'll never have to burn gas unless its colder than 10 degrees outside, and even then its only for auxillary heating.

Things are changing. I have nothing against the city, and Boston is one of the best ones out there. Some people like living there and some dont. Personally, I dont. And with all of the innovation on the way, there is going to be no reason for people to fight over living so close to each other unless they *want* to, as the *need to* wont apply. Those who think that high gas prices are going to singlehandedly kill the suburbs have little imagination, or are just wishful thinkers who hate the suburbs.

I see many folks imagine the problem is small, and limited to the recent run up in gas and oil prices. Those prices may, in fact, abate somewhat, in the medium term. That isn't the point.

This is the end of the Age of Oil, and the curtain is coming down regardless of whether the performers are ready for the next act or no. There is nothing, and will be nothing, to replace it, not for a very long time.

This energy scarcity will utterly transform America, a nation that holds 4% of the world's population but consumes 40% of its oil. Especially because our balance of payments deficit means that we will now be sharply, and permanently, cutting our consumption of all goods and services, energy included.

To hear people talking about their consumer wants and preferences and great room layouts in this context is simply funny, in a sad way.

The thing about the City is that you share your living environment with everyone else. I mean I can drive in to Boston on a Sunday, get brunch, and enjoy walking around and enjoying the "Garden City". I get to enjoy the garden city every day and people watch and enjoy conversation and city life and then go home, drive by beautiful lakes, cranberry bogs, horse farms etc. It is a really nice balance, and I think that you can like and have both in your life. Boston is magnificent, it is gorgeous and will only get better, so I don't think it is a bad idea to live in the City. My wife and I always talk about it when we're in the Charlestown Navy Yard or getting a cappucino in the North End. I don't see a strong trend going one way or another, but the traditional living in the City while you're younger and then the suburbs when kids come will most likely be the prevailing impression. However, if Mom has to work, being closer to home to pick up the kid at daycare might make the City living work out better. I think that the earlier posters are right about certain job cluster locations like along 128 and 495. People seem to work less at one particular job so being striking distance from Boston seems to be the most wise choice. When are we going to start telecommuting? That would change things huh? Awesome thread, great posts...

new houses have better insulation, but worse ventilation. Doesn't have to be that way, but 80-90% of new houses have no Heat Recovery Ventilator. Which means a high likelihood of a mold problem.

And OSB siding.

Its not just the moulding. A properly built new house is excellent, but most have no idea how to recognize such a thing.

I love living in the center of boston, but if/when I have kids, I'll almost certainly end up in Newton. So I understand that thought process.

Having moved from renting in Newton Corner (wicked convenient and easy commute to *everything* we needed) to what some consider the 'boonies' (Wakefield/Melrose area), I am compelled to point out that although some towns won't give you that 10 minute commute into Boston, there are many that still allow you to have walking access to most major needs. It isn't all cranberry bogs and horsefarms outside of 128 (or even just inside it, either.)

My husband and I live just on the cusp of 128 and manage to live with one subcompact car which we fill up maybe once per month. So it can definitely be done if you look in the right places.

I have to admit, i thought I was 'giving up' by moving so far away from the city but it's worked out really well thus far.

Don't be too quick to knock the Boston Public Schools. We live in Charlestown and have a wonderful, neighborhood school. Yes, it is very diverse in terms of ethnicity and socioeconomics, but isn't that the way real life is anyway? We have great teachers and loads of extracurricular activities that are free. I have heard of families in the suburbs having to pay extra for more teachers in their schools. Many families go to our school that could afford to go private, but don't. You don't have to leave the city when you have kids. There are plenty of playgrounds and open spaces to go to and you don't have to be the one to maintain them.

Suburbs next to public transportation with access to the city will hold there value, but ones far away will drop. Bigger houses in the burb's cost more to heat, and at some point it will start to cost more for good and services in outlying regions. Its costs more for overseas, for produce, and commuting.