Hacker News Reader

"However, the suburbs that provide a balanced business, commercial, and housing ecosystem and have diverse transportation options to the main destinations outside will actually thrive and prosper."

Technically, then, it's not a suburb. Depending on population, it's closer to an edge city. The fact is that suburban sprawl like one of the examples specifically decried in the article (Windy Ridge is less that 45 minutes from where I live) consists of acre upon acre of packed chipboard-and-vinyl houses that aren't designed to last without extraordinary upkeep. It's predicated upon the notion of cheap, readily available energy, never-ending road construction, and a continual stream of both upwardly-mobile homebuyers looking to move up to something nicer, and first-time homebuyers looking for something cheap they can sell at a profit in a few years.

It's simply not a sustainable model. Sooner or later the market will bust, and in the interim, there's a good chances these cheap-and-cheery neighborhoods will come apart at the seams. They aren't built worth a damn, and they're miles from critical services and commerce. It's already starting to happen here. I hate to think what'll happen if gas spikes and sticks.

(In the interest of full disclosure: I skipped right over "suburban" to "exurban" living. I have over an acre on the outskirts of a small town about 25 miles from the nearest big city. So I'm happy out here, too. But gas bills are already putting a crimp in my lifestyle, so that might well change.)

>Perhaps, I'm just lucky to live in the RIGHT suburb!

yes. eden prarie was a tiny town until the 1970s that just happened to get swallowed up by the twin cities sprawl. thus it does have some history and character of its own. other suburbs in the twin cities are already slummy: richfield, robbinsdale, fridley, crystal, brooklyn center, etc. any suburb in the midwest where more people rent than own is not a good place.

>The news of the death of the suburbs has been greatly exaggerated ... The simple fact is that not everyone likes nor wants to live in more densely populated areas.

The article addresses this issue head-on with actual data, did you see that?

> the suburbs that provide a balanced business, commercial, and housing ecosystem and have diverse transportation options to the main destinations outside will actually thrive and prosper.

There are only a handful of places that match this description, and they're mostly pre-WWII vintage and right next to cities. Suburbia is overwhelmingly about strict zoning of housing, businesses, and entertainment and the use of highways to shuttle between the zones. This paradigm is breaking.

Suburbia never really worked in the first place. It was built because it made developers and road contractors rich, and they control local politics. At the national level the auto and highway lobby beat the street-car lobby.

Contrary to the claims of this article, there's little evidence people originally preferred the suburban paradigm. People had to move to suburbia in the post-war era because A) big businesses relocated jobs outside cities on sites requiring a car commute (the businesses moved first, not the housing); B) Suburban housing was all that was built. Loads of aging urban housing was simply ripped down and never replaced. The new housing was built in the suburbs. It's easy to spin this change in supply as a simple response to changing demand, but it was really concerted by all levels of the government along with politically connected business interests.

Arguably, there's also a reason C: city governments got too dysfunctional. But it's difficult to distinguish that as cause or correlation relative to A and B.