Page 1 of 13 12345611 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 260

Thread: The Conservative Case Against the Suburbs

  1. #1

    The Conservative Case Against the Suburbs

    From Chuck Marohn, one of my favorite writers on urban development issues:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.c...ampaign=buffer

    The sad reality is that, despite the marketing, the suburbs were never about creating household wealth; they were about creating growth on the cheap. They were born under a Keynesian regime that counted growth from government spending as equivalent to that coming from private investment. Aggressive horizontal expansion of our cities allowed us to consistently hit federal GDP and unemployment targets with little sophistication and few difficult choices.

    That we were pawning off the enormous long-term liabilities for serving and maintaining all of these widely dispersed systems onto local taxpayers–after plying municipalities with all the subsidies, pork spending, and ribbon cuttings needed to make it happen–didn’t seem to enter our collective consciousness. When all those miles of frontage roads, sewer and water pipes, and sidewalks fall into disrepair–as they inevitably will in every suburb–very little of it will be fixed. The wealth necessary to do so just isn’t there.

  2. #2
    Retired
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    1,301
    Yep. Interstate, TVA, Hoover Dam, WPA. Forcing people to pay for what they would not otherwise pay for eventually, in total, causes more harm than good. There may be times that tradeoff is worthwhile, but it is not often the case.

  3. #3
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    41,230
    great article; i was reading something similar to this a week ago; wish i could find the article

  4. #4
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    68,037
    Quote Originally Posted by tjcmd View Post
    Yep. Interstate, TVA, Hoover Dam, WPA. Forcing people to pay for what they would not otherwise pay for eventually, in total, causes more harm than good. There may be times that tradeoff is worthwhile, but it is not often the case.
    This may be the dumbest post ever. The interstate highway system made the US safer in defense. It also massively increased productivity and market sizes. It created millions of jobs and still does today. To think localities could have ever done this or that waiting was sensible is moronic.

    To think Hoover Dam , the TVA,etc., haven't been "worthwhile" weren't wise at the time and haven't helped our nation dramatically is also stupid.

    Projects of those sizes and scopes must be done by the government. No one else has the money or the skill. Plus each of those have paid for themselves thousands of times over their cost.

  5. #5
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    68,037
    the reality is without the suburbs almost no one could afford to own a home or even pay for an apartment in cities. The density of putting so many people in so little space would also increase things like crime and poverty.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    the reality is without the suburbs almost no one could afford to own a home or even pay for an apartment in cities. The density of putting so many people in so little space would also increase things like crime and poverty.
    What do the suburbs have to do with paying for an apartment in a city?

  7. #7
    Expanding Mod Powers
    BiffTannen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Hill Valley
    Posts
    32,915
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    the reality is without the suburbs almost no one could afford to own a home or even pay for an apartment in cities. The density of putting so many people in so little space would also increase things like crime and poverty.

  8. #8
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    68,037
    Quote Originally Posted by BeachBumDeac View Post
    What do the suburbs have to do with paying for an apartment in a city?
    If there aren't any or are dramatically fewer suburbs, then land in cities becomes at a much higher premium. This will make apartments in the city cost more. It's basic supply and demand.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    If there aren't any or are dramatically fewer suburbs, then land in cities becomes at a much higher premium. This will make apartments in the city cost more. It's basic supply and demand.
    Then developers would build more apartments to suit the demand and prices would come down.

    Population density is better in almost every single measure than spread out suburbs.

  10. #10
    Expanding Mod Powers
    BiffTannen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Hill Valley
    Posts
    32,915
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    If there aren't any or are dramatically fewer suburbs, then land in cities becomes at a much higher premium. This will make apartments in the city cost more. It's basic supply and demand.

  11. #11
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    68,037
    Quote Originally Posted by BeachBumDeac View Post
    Then developers would build more apartments to suit the demand and prices would come down.

    Population density is better in almost every single measure than spread out suburbs.
    On what land in a city? Try to build build high rises in NYC, Chicago, LA, SF and see what that costs. Prices would not come down. Land is finite resource.

  12. #12
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    41,230

  13. #13
    Expanding Mod Powers
    BiffTannen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Hill Valley
    Posts
    32,915
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    On what land in a city? Try to build build high rises in NYC, Chicago, LA, SF and see what that costs. Prices would not come down. Land is finite resource.
    Hey rj, have you ever considered that you could build at considerably higher density within close proximity to the center of the city and continue to proceed outward as needed on a block by block basis?

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    If there aren't any or are dramatically fewer suburbs, then land in cities becomes at a much higher premium. This will make apartments in the city cost more. It's basic supply and demand.

  15. #15
    Historically Competitive
    Wrangor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Mississippi Delta
    Posts
    12,389
    #density ... interesting article. Thanks for sharing.

  16. #16
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    68,037
    Quote Originally Posted by BiffTannen View Post
    Hey rj, have you ever considered that you could build at considerably higher density within close proximity to the center of the city and continue to proceed outward as needed on a block by block basis?
    Have you seen most cities? How about the cost of rebuilding the infrastructures like water, electricity, public transportation and other necessities in those cities?

    Also by adding massive density of people space would be needed for the businesses to employ the people who live nearby. This would also take land off the market.

    Should suburbs sprawl as far as they do? No.

    Should they cease to exist or be dramatically cut down? It would take decades and cost trillions of dollars. We shouldn't be incentivizing companies to move farther from cities and dense metropolitan areas.

    This is not an either or situation.

  17. #17
    I'm convinced that RJ is only sticking up for suburbs because the title of this thread says that a conservative is against it

  18. #18
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    41,230
    i'm a little confused, I didn't realize we were talking about expelling people from existing suburbs and forcing them to move to cities

  19. #19
    Expanding Mod Powers
    BiffTannen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Hill Valley
    Posts
    32,915
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    Have you seen most cities? How about the cost of rebuilding the infrastructures like water, electricity, public transportation and other necessities in those cities?

    Also by adding massive density of people space would be needed for the businesses to employ the people who live nearby. This would also take land off the market.

    Should suburbs sprawl as far as they do? No.

    Should they cease to exist or be dramatically cut down? It would take decades and cost trillions of dollars. We shouldn't be incentivizing companies to move farther from cities and dense metropolitan areas.

    This is not an either or situation.
    Have you not ever witnessed the redevelopment of a block with ten story buildings into a high rise tower with street level retail and a parking deck underneath? Of course cities are expensive. But the cost of maintaining suburbs is not low and is extremely inefficient and unsustainable. And that doesn't even begin to address the social costs and environmental cost of devouring land to fuel the economy.

    If suburban developers had to pay the true costs of sprawl (extending roads, water and sewer, schools), you'd see a lot more (even more) interest in medium density infill projects in desirable close-in locations.

  20. #20
    Expanding Mod Powers
    BiffTannen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Hill Valley
    Posts
    32,915
    Quote Originally Posted by ImTheCaptain View Post
    i'm a little confused, I didn't realize we were talking about expelling people from existing suburbs and forcing them to move to cities
    It's not you.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •