I was blog surfing this morning and started with a “link post” (one of those posts where the writer lists a bunch of links and perhaps includes a one-line comment. From there I followed it to a sane post (but not one I necessarily agreed with). And from there I got to an editorialized piece of crap at theAtlantic.com. I know, I know. I should remember our parents words … “if you can’t say something nice, then don’t say anything at all.” In this case - WHOO-IE !

In reality, the article has a bunch of real data and useful insight but it starts out with three paragraphs of 21st century “scare journalism”. The typical reader will get only get as far as the first part and never get to the real information - which says a lot for the modern attention span visa vi a 3000 word article. It’s also unfortunate the author makes reference to a number of sources but neglects to actually know anything about them. For example, there are numerous references and credits to work by Arthur C. Nelson of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech. From what I’ve read, Mr. Nelson goes by “Chris”. It took me all of 45 seconds to find that out.

So, if you’ve gotten this far, you are doing better than most. I deliberately spend two paragraphs on stuff unrelated to my post, in part to make a point and also to lambaste some of today’s journalists. Now for the real information.

Are people moving from the cities to the suburbs -or- are people moving from the suburbs to the cities. I think the answer is both. Perhaps the difference is the demographics of the cities vs the suburbs. It’s my supposition that the demographics undulate like some strange circadian rhythm.

The city offers “everything on one place” and ironically is more environmentally “green” than it’s suburban counter. In this case, my definition of “green” refers to the fact that a 100 people living in a condominium tower and walking or using public transportation, have a lower carbon footprint than those same 100 people living in individual homes and driving private automobiles to get everywhere - especially when you add up the the carbon footprint of building the dwellings, automobiles, etc. Further, you can make a much greener condominium tower for 100 people then you will make suburban homes for the same population.

Singapore is a perfect example of this “city center” engineered society.  By constructing high rise complexes for living; then clustering basic needs - first level schooling, food, basic shopping, etc. - at ground level; and connecting these centers to the major facilities via train, you leave a lot of open space for trees, grass, and outdoor areas. Plus, you have reduced the need for traffic for basic necessities to near zero and optimized public traffic at the same time.

Unfortunately, Singapore is a special case. There is very little “growth history”. Imagine how different Boston, Chicago, Francisco, or Seattle would be if you literally wiped them off the map and said; “go build it, new”.

Now for the rub. As a commenter wrote, “in many cities, like Austin, major employers are not necessarily all centered downtown”. My employer is just such an example. Over the past decade, they have moved further and further from the city. They once had a work population of 1000 in Boston, now they are making yet another step further out - even abandoning an established site to move another 10 miles down the road. Why ? Simple - it’s cheaper for them.

Most companies do not look at non direct costs (”green” or “greenbacks”). If they can get the job done for less, they will. As long as they can get a workforce to do the job, it does not matter if the work is done in a city center, the suburbs, or South Africa. I expect there will be a time not too far in the future, where “payment for work” will get a serious adjustment - downward in high paying areas just as it has gone upward in low cost geographies around the world. If Ford could build a car in Detroit for the same cost as in Mexico, they’d likely choose Detroit. Of course, it means the Detroit auto worker will have to make less than they do now. It also means the cost of housing, health care, etc. will need to get under control, which means insurance companies and drub manufacturers will need to be realistic, … and the flattening goes on and on.

So, what does this mean ? I think it means that cities and suburbs will ebb and flow. I think it means people will prioritized their needs and wants and then match those to the places where they live, the places where they work, and the impact they will have on world (this last one is deliberately nebulous since people will choose too prioritize their definition of that too).

Now, you can agree. You can agree to disagree. You can disagree outright. If you are still reading, surprise surprise, then you might want to read the original article, CNN’s “cities are hot” article, FoxNews’s “flocking to the suburbs” article, Men’s Style saying “move to the suburbs” article, Dayton’s “Gray to Green“, or Google for lots more including Down Under !

Related tangests ...   Are you a "Tigger" or an "Eeyore" ?   Guest blogger on "I don't have a poor attention span ! I'm multitasking"   Compact and Comfortable

Posted in Farms, Real Estate, Work/Life | Print

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.  Print