Collapse of Suburbia? The Next Slum? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 06-25-2008, 09:44 AM

Quote:

View: The Next Slum?
Source: The Atlantic
posted with the TFP thread generator

March 2008 Atlantic Monthly
The subprime crisis is just the tip of the iceberg. Fundamental changes in American life may turn today’s McMansions into tomorrow’s tenements.

by Christopher B. Leinberger

The Next Slum?

Strange days are upon the residents of many a suburban cul-de-sac. Once-tidy yards have become overgrown, as the houses they front have gone vacant. Signs of physical and social disorder are spreading.

At Windy Ridge, a recently built starter-home development seven miles northwest of Charlotte, North Carolina, 81 of the community’s 132 small, vinyl-sided houses were in foreclosure as of late last year. Vandals have kicked in doors and stripped the copper wire from vacant houses; drug users and homeless people have furtively moved in. In December, after a stray bullet blasted through her son’s bedroom and into her own, Laurie Talbot, who’d moved to Windy Ridge from New York in 2005, told The Charlotte Observer, “I thought I’d bought a home in Pleasantville. I never imagined in my wildest dreams that stuff like this would happen.”

In the Franklin Reserve neighborhood of Elk Grove, California, south of Sacramento, the houses are nicer than those at Windy Ridge—many once sold for well over $500,000—but the phenomenon is the same. At the height of the boom, 10,000 new homes were built there in just four years. Now many are empty; renters of dubious character occupy others. Graffiti, broken windows, and other markers of decay have multiplied. Susan McDonald, president of the local residents’ association and an executive at a local bank, told the Associated Press, “There’s been gang activity. Things have really been changing, the last few years.”

In the first half of last year, residential burglaries rose by 35 percent and robberies by 58 percent in suburban Lee County, Florida, where one in four houses stands empty. Charlotte’s crime rates have stayed flat overall in recent years—but from 2003 to 2006, in the 10 suburbs of the city that have experienced the highest foreclosure rates, crime rose 33 percent. Civic organizations in some suburbs have begun to mow the lawns around empty houses to keep up the appearance of stability. Police departments are mapping foreclosures in an effort to identify emerging criminal hot spots.

The decline of places like Windy Ridge and Franklin Reserve is usually attributed to the subprime-mortgage crisis, with its wave of foreclosures. And the crisis has indeed catalyzed or intensified social problems in many communities. But the story of vacant suburban homes and declining suburban neighborhoods did not begin with the crisis, and will not end with it. A structural change is under way in the housing market—a major shift in the way many Americans want to live and work. It has shaped the current downturn, steering some of the worst problems away from the cities and toward the suburban fringes. And its effects will be felt more strongly, and more broadly, as the years pass. Its ultimate impact on the suburbs, and the cities, will be profound.

Arthur C. Nelson, director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, has looked carefully at trends in American demographics, construction, house prices, and consumer preferences. In 2006, using recent consumer research, housing supply data, and population growth rates, he modeled future demand for various types of housing. The results were bracing: Nelson forecasts a likely surplus of 22 million large-lot homes (houses built on a sixth of an acre or more) by 2025—that’s roughly 40 percent of the large-lot homes in existence today.

For 60 years, Americans have pushed steadily into the suburbs, transforming the landscape and (until recently) leaving cities behind. But today the pendulum is swinging back toward urban living, and there are many reasons to believe this swing will continue. As it does, many low-density suburbs and McMansion subdivisions, including some that are lovely and affluent today, may become what inner cities became in the 1960s and ’70s—slums characterized by poverty, crime, and decay.

The suburban dream began, arguably, at the New York World’s Fair of 1939 and ’40. “Highways and Horizons,” better known as “Futurama,” was overwhelmingly the fair’s most popular exhibit; perhaps 10 percent of the American population saw it. At the heart of the exhibit was a scale model, covering an area about the size of a football field, that showed what American cities and towns might look like in 1960. Visitors watched matchbox-sized cars zip down wide highways. Gone were the crowded tenements of the time; 1960s Americans would live in stand-alone houses with spacious yards and attached garages. The exhibit would not impress us today, but at the time, it inspired wonder. E. B. White wrote in Harper’s, “A ride on the Futurama … induces approximately the same emotional response as a trip through the Cathedral of St. John the Divine … I didn’t want to wake up.”

The suburban transformation that began in 1946, as GIs returned home, took almost half a century to complete, as first people, then retail, then jobs moved out of cities and into new subdivisions, malls, and office parks. As families decamped for the suburbs, they left behind out-of-fashion real estate, a poorer residential base, and rising crime. Once-thriving central-city retail districts were killed off by the combination of regional suburban malls and the 1960s riots. By the end of the 1970s, people seeking safety and good schools generally had little alternative but to move to the suburbs. In 1981, Escape From New York, starring Kurt Russell, depicted a near future in which Manhattan had been abandoned, fenced off, and turned into an unsupervised penitentiary.

Cities, of course, have made a long climb back since then. Just nine years after Russell escaped from the wreck of New York, Seinfeld—followed by Friends, then Sex and the City—began advertising the city’s renewed urban allure to Gen-Xers and Millennials. Many Americans, meanwhile, became disillusioned with the sprawl and stupor that sometimes characterize suburban life. These days, when Hollywood wants to portray soullessness, despair, or moral decay, it often looks to the suburbs—as The Sopranos and Desperate Housewives attest—for inspiration.

In the past decade, as cities have gentrified, the suburbs have continued to grow at a breakneck pace. Atlanta’s sprawl has extended nearly to Chattanooga; Fort Worth and Dallas have merged; and Los Angeles has swung a leg over the 10,000-foot San Gabriel Mountains into the Mojave Desert. Some experts expect conventional suburbs to continue to sprawl ever outward. Yet today, American metropolitan residential patterns and cultural preferences are mirror opposites of those in the 1940s. Most Americans now live in single-family suburban houses that are segregated from work, shopping, and entertainment; but it is urban life, almost exclusively, that is culturally associated with excitement, freedom, and diverse daily life. And as in the 1940s, the real-estate market has begun to react.

Pent-up demand for urban living is evident in housing prices. Twenty years ago, urban housing was a bargain in most central cities. Today, it carries an enormous price premium. Per square foot, urban residential neighborhood space goes for 40 percent to 200 percent more than traditional suburban space in areas as diverse as New York City; Portland, Oregon; Seattle; and Washington, D.C.

It’s crucial to note that these premiums have arisen not only in central cities, but also in suburban towns that have walkable urban centers offering a mix of residential and commercial development. For instance, luxury single-family homes in suburban Westchester County, just north of New York City, sell for $375 a square foot. A luxury condo in downtown White Plains, the county’s biggest suburban city, can cost you $750 a square foot. This same pattern can be seen in the suburbs of Detroit, or outside Seattle. People are being drawn to the convenience and culture of walkable urban neighborhoods across the country—even when those neighborhoods are small.

Builders and developers tend to notice big price imbalances, and they are working to accommodate demand for urban living. New lofts and condo complexes have popped up all over many big cities. Suburban towns built in the 19th and early 20th centuries, featuring downtown street grids at their core, have seen a good deal of “in-filling” in recent years as well, with new condos and town houses, and renovated small-lot homes just outside their downtowns. And while urban construction may slow for a time because of the present housing bust, it will surely continue. Sprawling, large-lot suburbs become less attractive as they become more densely built, but urban areas—especially those well served by public transit—become more appealing as they are filled in and built up. Crowded sidewalks tend to be safe and lively, and bigger crowds can support more shops, restaurants, art galleries.

But developers are also starting to find ways to bring the city to newer suburbs—and provide an alternative to conventional, car-based suburban life. “Lifestyle centers”—walkable developments that create an urban feel, even when built in previously undeveloped places—are becoming popular with some builders. They feature narrow streets and small storefronts that come up to the sidewalk, mixed in with housing and office space. Parking is mostly hidden underground or in the interior of faux city blocks.

The granddaddy of all lifestyle centers is the Reston Town Center, located between Virginia’s Dulles International Airport and Washington, D.C. Since it opened in 1990, it has become the “downtown” for western Fairfax and eastern Loudoun counties; a place for the kids to see Santa and for teenagers to ice skate. People living in the town can stroll from the movie theater to restaurants and then back home. A 2006 study by the Brookings Institution showed that Reston’s apartments, condominiums, and office and retail space were all commanding about a 50 percent rent or price premium over the typically suburban houses, office parks, and strip malls nearby.

Housing at Belmar, the new “downtown” in Lakewood, Colorado, a middle-income inner suburb of Denver, commands a 60 percent premium per square foot over the single-family homes in the neighborhoods around it. The development covers about 20 small blocks in all. What’s most noteworthy is its history: it was built on the site of a razed mall.

Building lifestyle centers is far more complex than building McMansion developments (or malls). These new, faux-urban centers have many moving parts, and they need to achieve critical mass quickly to attract buyers and retailers. As a result, during the 1990s, lifestyle centers spread slowly. But real-estate developers are gaining more experience with this sort of building, and it is proliferating. Very few, if any, regional malls are being built these days—lifestyle centers are going up instead.

In most metropolitan areas, only 5 to 10 percent of the housing stock is located in walkable urban places (including places like downtown White Plains and Belmar). Yet recent consumer research by Jonathan Levine of the University of Michigan and Lawrence Frank of the University of British Columbia suggests that roughly one in three homeowners would prefer to live in these types of places. In one study, for instance, Levine and his colleagues asked more than 1,600 mostly suburban residents of the Atlanta and Boston metro areas to hypothetically trade off typical suburban amenities (such as large living spaces) against typical urban ones (like living within walking distance of retail districts). All in all, they found that only about a third of the people surveyed solidly preferred traditional suburban lifestyles, featuring large houses and lots of driving. Another third, roughly, had mixed feelings. The final third wanted to live in mixed-use, walkable urban areas—but most had no way to do so at an affordable price. Over time, as urban and faux-urban building continues, that will change.

Demographic changes in the United States also are working against conventional suburban growth, and are likely to further weaken preferences for car-based suburban living. 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. Young people are starting families later than earlier generations did, and having fewer children. The Boomers themselves are becoming empty-nesters, and many have voiced a preference for urban living. By 2025, the U.S. will contain about as many single-person households as families with children.

Because the population is growing, families with children will still grow in absolute number—according to U.S. Census data, there will be about 4 million more households with children in 2025 than there were in 2000. But more than 10 million new single-family homes have already been built since 2000, most of them in the suburbs.

If gasoline and heating costs continue to rise, conventional suburban living may not be much of a bargain in the future. And as more Americans, particularly affluent Americans, move into urban communities, families may find that some of the suburbs’ other big advantages—better schools and safer communities—have eroded. Schooling and safety are likely to improve in urban areas, as those areas continue to gentrify; they may worsen in many suburbs if the tax base—often highly dependent on house values and new development—deteriorates. Many of the fringe counties in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, for instance, are projecting big budget deficits in 2008. Only Washington itself is expecting a large surplus. Fifteen years ago, this budget situation was reversed.

The U.S. grows its total stock of housing and commercial space by, at most, 3 percent each year, so the imbalance between the supply of urban living options and the demand for them is not going to disappear overnight. But over the next 20 years, developers will likely produce many, many millions of new and newly renovated town houses, condos, and small-lot houses in and around both new and traditional downtowns.

As conventional suburban lifestyles fall out of fashion and walkable urban alternatives proliferate, what will happen to obsolete large-lot houses? One might imagine culs-de-sac being converted to faux Main Streets, or McMansion developments being bulldozed and reforested or turned into parks. But these sorts of transformations are likely to be rare. Suburbia’s many small parcels of land, held by different owners with different motivations, make the purchase of whole neighborhoods almost unheard-of. Condemnation of single-family housing for “higher and better use” is politically difficult, and in most states it has become almost legally impossible in recent years. In any case, the infrastructure supporting large-lot suburban residential areas—roads, sewer and water lines—cannot support the dense development that urbanization would require, and is not easy to upgrade. Once large-lot, suburban residential landscapes are built, they are hard to unbuild.

The experience of cities during the 1950s through the ’80s suggests that the fate of many single-family homes on the metropolitan fringes will be resale, at rock-bottom prices, to lower-income families—and in all likelihood, eventual conversion to apartments.

This future is not likely to wear well on suburban housing. Many of the inner-city neighborhoods that began their decline in the 1960s consisted of sturdily built, turn-of-the-century row houses, tough enough to withstand being broken up into apartments, and requiring relatively little upkeep. By comparison, modern suburban houses, even high-end McMansions, are cheaply built. Hollow doors and wallboard are less durable than solid-oak doors and lath-and-plaster walls. The plywood floors that lurk under wood veneers or carpeting tend to break up and warp as the glue that holds the wood together dries out; asphalt-shingle roofs typically need replacing after 10 years. Many recently built houses take what structural integrity they have from drywall—their thin wooden frames are too flimsy to hold the houses up.

As the residents of inner-city neighborhoods did before them, suburban homeowners will surely try to prevent the division of neighborhood houses into rental units, which would herald the arrival of the poor. And many will likely succeed, for a time. But eventually, the owners of these fringe houses will have to sell to someone, and they’re not likely to find many buyers; offers from would-be landlords will start to look better, and neighborhood restrictions will relax. Stopping a fundamental market shift by legislation or regulation is generally impossible.

Of course, not all suburbs will suffer this fate. Those that are affluent and relatively close to central cities—especially those along rail lines—are likely to remain in high demand. Some, especially those that offer a thriving, walkable urban core, may find that even the large-lot, residential-only neighborhoods around that core increase in value. Single-family homes next to the downtowns of Redmond, Washington; Evanston, Illinois; and Birmingham, Michigan, for example, are likely to hold their values just fine.

On the other hand, many inner suburbs that are on the wrong side of town, and poorly served by public transport, are already suffering what looks like inexorable decline. Low-income people, displaced from gentrifying inner cities, have moved in, and longtime residents, seeking more space and nicer neighborhoods, have moved out.

But much of the future decline is likely to occur on the fringes, in towns far away from the central city, not served by rail transit, and lacking any real core. In other words, some of the worst problems are likely to be seen in some of the country’s more recently developed areas—and not only those inhabited by subprime-mortgage borrowers. Many of these areas will become magnets for poverty, crime, and social dysfunction.

Despite this glum forecast for many swaths of suburbia, we should not lose sight of the bigger picture—the shift that’s under way toward walkable urban living is a healthy development. In the most literal sense, it may lead to better personal health and a slimmer population. The environment, of course, will also benefit: if New York City were its own state, it would be the most energy-efficient state in the union; most Manhattanites not only walk or take public transit to get around, they unintentionally share heat with their upstairs neighbors.

Perhaps most important, the shift to walkable urban environments will give more people what they seem to want. I doubt the swing toward urban living will ever proceed as far as the swing toward the suburbs did in the 20th century; many people will still prefer the bigger houses and car-based lifestyles of conventional suburbs. But there will almost certainly be more of a balance between walkable and drivable communities—allowing people in most areas a wider variety of choices.

By the estimate of Virginia Tech’s Arthur Nelson, as much as half of all real-estate development on the ground in 2025 will not have existed in 2000. It’s exciting to imagine what the country will look like then. Building and residential migration seem to progress slowly from year to year, yet then one day, in retrospect, the landscape seems to have been transformed in the blink of an eye. Unfortunately, the next transformation, like the ones before it, will leave some places diminished. About 25 years ago, Escape From New York perfectly captured the zeitgeist of its moment. Two or three decades from now, the next Kurt Russell may find his breakout role in Escape From the Suburban Fringe.

I grew up in the San Fernando Valley in the 70s and 80s. It was a sleepy bedroom suburban community. Van Nuys and North Hollywood were home to many families.

Over the years, gangs started to infiltrate the neighborhoods. What was worse than that was the fact that people were buying property and turning it into slums. My parents had owned a duplex which was situated in a blue collar neighborhood. Over the years it slowly turned into a barrio. Lawns turned into dirt. Homes turned into packed places for people to sleep. However many people could fit sleeping on the floor was how many people lived in the house.

When I made the last collection of payments they had converted the two single car garages into 2 more (illegal) apartments, cutting doorways directly into the garage door and afixing a doorknob.

Areas where drugs and gangs were prevalent, the LAPD fenced property and blocked roadways.

When I lived in Hicksville, the next town over New Cassel was considered an impoverished neighborhood. Similar things happened in that part of Long Island, and the police responded with the same kind of tactics.

As costs rise, is suburbia still attractive?

I love living in the city. I knew from the moment I started living in Singapore that city living was for me. I hated living in suburbia. Yes, the crowded sidewalks and throngs of people sometimes get to me. But all in all, it's mostly when I'm near my workplace. When I've lived in Greenwich Village, Forest Hills, or the Lower East Side, it is relatively quiet but still people are visible.

I can't say the same for when I was living in suburbia. It was sometimes rare to see or hear a car drive past in the middle of the day or middle of the evening once the commuters no longer were commuting. I do want to have a "country" home one day. Space outside of the city to reconnect with space and outside nature.

But I do connect with this article in some way. I have watched school test scores rise in Urban areas... because many of the poorest and hard to educate were driven out, not because the teachers got better. Homeless? Driven away by Guliani's quality of life initiative. The poor have been displaced and purged from all parts of the city.

LoganSnake · 06-25-2008, 10:20 AM

After living in the center of fourth (then third) largest city in Ukraine, it was mind torture for me and my family when we moved to the suburbs here. Instead of busy streets practically 24/7 right outside our windows, we seldom saw anything besides cars and small animals. It was like living somewhere deep in the woods. I feel...alive when I walk through the streets of Chicago or even lively college towns (Evanston) and even more alive when I walked the streets of Manhattan last year. It's just a great feeling.

snowy · 06-25-2008, 10:39 AM

Most of the construction projects around my town that remotely resemble suburbia have been canceled due to the economic downturn; one of the largest builders of such projects in Oregon, Legend Homes, is on the verge of bankruptcy (this is due to taking out too much credit and then not being able to pay it all back when the market went south and no one was interested in another development). I can't say I'm unhappy about that turn of events; we need to redevelop more than we need to expand in these parts. That said, property values here are still high, especially compared to the rest of Oregon, mostly because our town is compact and walkable. It's city living without a big city.

But as to the suburbs that surround the "big city", Portland: Suburbia in Oregon is different than elsewhere--we have strict land use laws in place to prevent overbuilding. Portland has an urban growth boundary, and it takes a great deal of finagling to prove to Metro (the government agency that oversees such things in the Portland area at large) that it needs to be expanded. This means that more often than not, there is extensive redevelopment of areas that have gone downhill versus just building more and more. It minimizes sprawl quite nicely. Other cities in Oregon also have urban growth boundaries to encourage smart growth; however, some expand theirs more often than they should (I'm looking at you, Deschutes County). But these land use laws have done us a lot of good with the recent downturn, as property prices in PDX and elsewhere in Oregon have remained stable and we have fewer foreclosures than elsewhere in the nation.

Here, suburbia is still attractive--it's connected to public transportation via Trimet (MAX trains, buses, the streetcar downtown) and city planners have been smart about making sure major roadways have bike lanes. The recent trend in suburbia in Oregon has been mixed-use development. We're looking at moving to Hillsboro, a suburb of Portland I used to live in, after my SO graduates, because it's also the home of the Silicon Forest. There are a number of mixed-use developments there we're interested in living in or near, and most of them are close to the MAX line. So here, suburbia isn't bad, and I don't think it'll be a slum any time soon.

Charlatan · 06-25-2008, 02:26 PM

The Malvern area of Toronto used to be a middle class neighbourhood. But since I moved out of the area in 1987, it has radically changed. It is now one of the toughest areas in the city (rivalling the Jane/Finch area for gang and gun violence).

Most of the people I know from there, or rather their parents, have moved further out of the city into the sprawl of Whitby, Pickering and Ajax (my Mom is included in this).

I would argue it's a cyclical thing except that most of the homes in the area were constructed around 30 years ago and are in worse shape than the house I lived in in downtown Toronto built 100 years ago.

djtestudo · 06-25-2008, 03:37 PM

I saw an article once (linked off of Wikipedia, I think; I'll try to remember where) that suggested as the development cycle changes, all of the office parks and big-box stores that are around now are going to go through the same type of changes as old downtown buildings did through the 20th century.

They will fall into disuse, then be taken over first by vagrents and the homeless, then by artists and others looking for cheap studio-type housing. They will eventually make those places into the chic places to live and they will be taken over by that generation's yuppies ("yosuppies"?).

Seems like a weird concept, but I doubt people in 1900 would think it could end up happening to those old textile mills and canning plants.

On the actual subject at hand, I feel the same way towards where I eventually want to live. I grew up in a suburb, but I also grew up across the street from a shopping center with a supermarket, drug store, and several restaurants, so I grew up walking to many of the places I needed to go.

I like the idea of being able to do that (and then having realistic mass transit available to go other places).

Plus, to with the other thread about the "green fad", there are a lot of people who probably see it as a way of being more environmentally-friendly.

ngdawg · 06-25-2008, 05:43 PM

I grew up in the 'burbs, a child of parents who grew up in the city. A lot of my life was spent in Brooklyn and as a kid, I really wanted to live in a city.
Now........pfffft. I like my house, my yard and the only gripe I have about it is my neighbors are too close.
When we bought our house a little over 20 years ago, we bought into a middle class blue collar older neighborhood in which many of our neighbors were twice our age. Well, the old folks either died or moved to retirement places; someone decided that our street was a goldmine and bought many of the homes left behind. He tore them down to the foundations and replaced them with multi-family units-apartments.
My neighborhood is on the border of a small city that is not known for its affluence. These units have been rented out to mostly transient immigrant families from that town; we have become an extension of the city, innundated with taxicabs, people cutting through from the local shopping center, even day workers congregating on the corners.
I don't want the urban life. I don't want the noise, the intrusions, the not knowing anyone walking by my house. My home value is going down; the housing market fall coupled with the change of the neighborhood can be blamed. The house next door to me has been up for sale since last summer and two houses up another went on the market a week ago-that probably won't move either. People who can't sell are forced to rent and renters don't generally make good neighbors.
On the other side of the coin, there's places like Bordentown, NJ. Thirty years ago, if you said you were from Bordentown, you were looked at like you had 3 eyes. "River Pineys" were from Bordentown. The houses in town were aluminum clad multi-apartment travesties. Most were over 200 years old, but cheaply "remodeled" with fake brick facades, yards not taken care off, driveways filled with cars long past any usefulness.
Then some gays moved in. Houses were in bad shape but cheap as hell. And, like that old shampoo commercial, they told some friends and so on and so on....today, after an amazing 20 year renaissance, Bordentown is an art mecca, a small town that thinks it's a big city, with high-end restaurants, antique shops and galleries. The multi-family travesties have been brought back to single family splendor.
Bordentown's rebirth was featured in the NY Times in their December 24, 2006 issue. Bordentown

ASU2003 · 06-25-2008, 05:56 PM

I view my city of something like 50,000 people (that is in the suburbs) to be self sufficient enough that very few people commute more than 20 minutes, most are living and working right in this town. There wasn't a really large upswing in new home construction, and the home prices aren't moving much because every place I need to go on a daily basis is within 5 miles of me.

Baraka_Guru · 06-25-2008, 06:17 PM

Related Documentary: The End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of the American Dream [2004]
(

trailer

) (

Full feature

- 51:44)

* * * * *

I've thought about this issue for a while now. I come to the conclusion every time that the suburban lifestyle is unsustainable. Suburban living is made possible not solely because of cheap oil; it's also because of cheap overseas labour. How much longer can the West stay so far ahead of everyone else once the energy crisis gets worse? What will happen when certain developing nations, well, develop?

I have Jane Jacobs' Death and Life of Great American Cities on hold at my public library. I've heard time and time again that it is still relevant today despite being written in 1961. Incredible. Maybe some of us will start taking what she taught a little more seriously.

QuasiMondo · 06-25-2008, 06:20 PM

I used to love living in the city, but now I can't stand it. I can't get a decent night's sleep because of loud people on the streets, somebody car stereo blasting at 1 am, sirens, trucks, house party gone wild, etc.

I'll be glad when I'm finished fixing up my house so I can get away from this crap. It's nice to hear crickets, ya know?

Baraka_Guru · 06-25-2008, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuasiMondo

I used to love living in the city, but now I can't stand it. I can't get a decent night's sleep because of loud people on the streets, somebody car stereo blasting at 1 am, sirens, trucks, house party gone wild, etc.

It sounds like it's more the neighbourhood than the city. I don't have much of that where I am. A few sirens, maybe, but I've learned to filter them out. I sleep less than 100 feet from Eglinton Avenue East, a major four-lane street in Toronto. A bus goes by every few minutes. None of this disturbs my sleep. I think it's because my building's windows and walls are fairly soundproof.

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuasiMondo

I'll be glad when I'm finished fixing up my house so I can get away from this crap. It's nice to hear crickets, ya know?

Will you be commuting?

Charlatan · 06-25-2008, 10:38 PM

I can say that, aside from the occasion disturbance, my urban home in Toronto was a lot quieter than any I lived in in the suburbs growing up.

roachboy · 06-26-2008, 04:01 AM

i dont think the question of whether you or i likes the suburbs is of much consequence if the claim in the op holds--that the conditions which enabled the suburban model are coming unraveled. it'll be the case that some folk prefer living in the city, others in the country and still others in that mass-produced nowhere that is suburbia. the notion of the homogenous "bedroom community" tied to an equally homogenous--what---"walking around while awake" are to a "production area" (or city, often) is not sustainable--the reliance on cars---the the longterm fate of the toll brothers cookie cutter housing---the idea that real estate is necessarily a generator or wealth...problems with these underpinnings or assumptions go way beyond whether you like relative isolation or prefer being able to walk to stuff, whether you can sleep while hearing people doing things outside or not.

the burbs are an extreme extension of the logics of separation of functions and specialization. they are a priori not sustainable simply because the logic that underpins them is the opposite of sustainable. one alternative future, the one outlined in the op article, the one in keeping with this logic of separation and specialization, is reversal--the burbs remain an expression of class warfare american style, but the signs gradually reverse as populations migrate from these spaces to what are (to my mind anyway) more sustainable/diverse spaces--like cities, but also more diversified smaller communities outside the reach of the burbs. another might be the transformation of these suburbs themselves into something more like small diversified towns--but that ain't happening without a plan. and typically, there is no plan.

then there's the question of shabby mass produced houses themselves and what happens to them physically over the long term---but that's another matter--if the op is right, they'll end up being elements within reservations for poor folk, fenceless camps where they'll be kept until fashion reverses and they get driven to another reservation. america's nice like that.

Charlatan · 06-26-2008, 06:43 AM

Separation and specialization was kind of the point of the suburbs. The highways act and the GI Bill made the suburbs possible. The suburbs gave birth to mass consumerism.

roachboy · 06-26-2008, 06:44 AM

well yes.
i think that's why they're a priori not sustainable. what the op article outlines is the crumbling of the model at its edges.

Charlatan · 06-26-2008, 06:54 AM

I remember reading an article in Wired Magazine a few years ago that postulated a post-suburban world. One of the things I thought was interesting was the repurposing of suburban shopping centres. I think they had a photo of what a WalMart would look like with the parking lots turned into gardens and the store itself turned into loft space. Sort of the reverse of what happened in the many inner cities. Old warehouses and factories were inhabited by artists and fringe dwellers. Bringing life back to teh disused spaces. They of course are followed by gentrification and yuppies.

It will be interesting to see of this sort of cycle plays out in the suburbs.

Baraka_Guru · 06-26-2008, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Separation and specialization was kind of the point of the suburbs. The highways act and the GI Bill made the suburbs possible. The suburbs gave birth to mass consumerism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

well yes.
i think that's why they're a priori not sustainable. what the op article outlines is the crumbling of the model at its edges.

The film I linked to covers this side of the issue. It actually relates quite closely to the OP. It helps fill out the issue a bit. (And is especially nice for those who enjoy documentaries.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I remember reading an article in Wired Magazine a few years ago that postulated a post-suburban world. One of the things I thought was interesting was the repurposing of suburban shopping centres. I think they had a photo of what a WalMart would look like with the parking lots turned into gardens and the store itself turned into loft space. Sort of the reverse of what happened in the many inner cities. Old warehouses and factories were inhabited by artists and fringe dwellers. Bringing life back to teh disused spaces. They of course are followed by gentrification and yuppies.

It will be interesting to see of this sort of cycle plays out in the suburbs.

The film addresses this too. (And it was made in 2004.) It shows you visualizations of how the sprawl could be transformed if someone would just plan it....

Cynthetiq · 06-26-2008, 07:06 AM

I just watched the trailer and disagree with some of the ideas and that it's the end of the "American dream."

Did these people travel outside the US?

There are many suburbias that have existed for many decades outside of the US where fuel and costs were already higher than the US counterparts.

I'll try to watch the rest when I can.

Baraka_Guru · 06-26-2008, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I just watched the trailer and disagree with some of the ideas and that it's the end of the "American dream."

There will likely be a few more things in there too. I wasn't able to swallow all of it either, though I think the point of the film is not to analyze so much as raise awareness.

I don't see the "American dream" ending either; what I do see is the end of the worst of suburbia--the kinds of places that are dysfunctional with or without a car.

roachboy · 06-26-2008, 07:47 AM

nice--i'll check out the film as soon as time permits of it.

there is a version of this "american dream" thing that is probably ending--but it's never been one thing, this "dream"--it's mutated continually, no?

nothing is stable--identity is an illusion, even when you think about rocks and stuff. it's also not quite an illusion. what it is, identity, is partial. that's all.

anyway, the version of this "dream" that was of a piece with the development of mass produced housing, accessible mortgages for working-class families--which was of a piece with the marketing of long production run-based appliances (for example)--so the dream that was constructed in the image of what the regulation school called fordism--that's ending.

if there was a rational synch between such dreams and the material conditions which enabled it (and most marxist-types assume that there is, so the assumption isn't particular to anyone, more a floating thing, kind of a zeitgeist residuum) it'd have been over for a while now. but it's happening now, a function (to wax marxian again) of the "dream"--or the model based on the dream--itself and it's own internal contradictions.

but there are no doubt other dreams. that there is a single american dream is one of them. that it will continue is another.

besides, there are lots of americans, in the biggest possible sense, and all of them dream things and who's to say which among them will shift from something fleeting to the status of the next organizing meme? could happen to anybody's, really, if you make yours repeatable.

Cynthetiq · 06-26-2008, 08:04 AM

I tried to watch the full feature... but Youtube says "We're sorry, the video is no longer available."

guys want us to consume the DVD apparently

http://www.endofsuburbia.com/index.htm

Baraka_Guru · 06-26-2008, 09:03 AM

Odd. The link I have still has access to the full feature:

YouTube - The End of Suburbia - 52 minute documentary on oil

.

It's been there since 2006.

Alta · 06-26-2008, 09:06 AM

It seemed to me to be one of those things where the author/creator takes the idea to its extreme to try and make the point.

Inner city housing tends to be very expensive, and really not very kid-friendly. It does not strike me as logical that the suburbs will be deserted except in certain places where other factors, such as regional employment issues, are in play.

QuasiMondo · 06-26-2008, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

It sounds like it's more the neighbourhood than the city. I don't have much of that where I am. A few sirens, maybe, but I've learned to filter them out. I sleep less than 100 feet from Eglinton Avenue East, a major four-lane street in Toronto. A bus goes by every few minutes. None of this disturbs my sleep. I think it's because my building's windows and walls are fairly soundproof.

The 'quieter' urban neighborhoods are significantly more expensive. Quite simply, I can't afford to live in a good neighborhood in the city.

Quote:

Will you be commuting?

I spend over half my workday on the road, so the commute is unimportant. To be honest, I'd rather have a garage so I can park my car and not worry about it being stolen or broken into. Besides, people don't know how to parallel park, it's obviously a skill that cannot be taught, no matter what any driving instructor says.

Baraka_Guru · 06-26-2008, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuasiMondo

The 'quieter' urban neighborhoods are significantly more expensive. Quite simply, I can't afford to live in a good neighborhood in the city.

"Good" is relative, of course, but isn't it possible to find an affordable neighbourhood that doesn't have the nasty things you've mentioned going on all the time? How big is your city?

Living in Toronto, our household income is below the average, yet we've found a couple of areas that were tolerable and affordable. (The last one was only a basement suite in a single-story house, but it was damned quiet.) But I know how hard it can be to find an ideal place to live.

Comparatively, I prefer the city vs. suburbia. I grew up in the latter. It sucks not having a car in that case, and unlimited access to a car isn't feasible for me, nor is it desirable. My hope is that Toronto will improve the public transit system and bike network. The bike network needs a lot of work especially.

I wouldn't mind retiring to a rural area, though, so long as I could do so sustainably.

Cynthetiq · 06-26-2008, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Odd. The link I have still has access to the full feature: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3uvzcY2Xug.

It's been there since 2006.

weird... now it works.

Charlatan · 06-26-2008, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alta

Inner city housing tends to be very expensive, and really not very kid-friendly. It does not strike me as logical that the suburbs will be deserted except in certain places where other factors, such as regional employment issues, are in play.

Actually, there have been studies done that show that while the housing is more expensive, the fact that you don't need cars (and the cost associated with cars: insurance, fuel, parking, maintenance, etc.) actually makes it a wash.

As for kid-friendly... one of the main reasons I moved downtown was that I didn't want my kids growing up in suburbs. The vast majority of crime and gang activitiy (in Toronto at least) is occurring in the Suburbs. I also liked that my kids had access to parks, rec centres, movie theatres, stuff to do, all without the need of a car. Most of these activities are either in walking distance or a very short transit ride away.

I recognize that not all inner city neighbourhoods are like this but many are.

My own experiences with suburban living are less than pleasant.

QuasiMondo · 06-26-2008, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

"Good" is relative, of course, but isn't it possible to find an affordable neighbourhood that doesn't have the nasty things you've mentioned going on all the time? How big is your city?

Living in Toronto, our household income is below the average, yet we've found a couple of areas that were tolerable and affordable. (The last one was only a basement suite in a single-story house, but it was damned quiet.) But I know how hard it can be to find an ideal place to live.

Comparatively, I prefer the city vs. suburbia. I grew up in the latter. It sucks not having a car in that case, and unlimited access to a car isn't feasible for me, nor is it desirable. My hope is that Toronto will improve the public transit system and bike network. The bike network needs a lot of work especially.

I wouldn't mind retiring to a rural area, though, so long as I could do so sustainably.

Five years ago, this would've been possible (I live in Brooklyn, BTW). Problem is that the semi-affluent residents of Manhattan have been pushed out because they couldn't stomach the idea of a $3+ million co-op, so now they've taken up residence in Brooklyn, and what was once affordable is no longer. It's the ugly side of gentrification.

Cynthetiq · 06-27-2008, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Actually, there have been studies done that show that while the housing is more expensive, the fact that you don't need cars (and the cost associated with cars: insurance, fuel, parking, maintenance, etc.) actually makes it a wash.

As for kid-friendly... one of the main reasons I moved downtown was that I didn't want my kids growing up in suburbs. The vast majority of crime and gang activitiy (in Toronto at least) is occurring in the Suburbs. I also liked that my kids had access to parks, rec centres, movie theatres, stuff to do, all without the need of a car. Most of these activities are either in walking distance or a very short transit ride away.

I recognize that not all inner city neighbourhoods are like this but many are.

My own experiences with suburban living are less than pleasant.

This is something we learned the hard way. Since we work in the city, when we moved to Long Island we had to buy a car. We also had to pay $250x2 every month for LIRR train tickets, PLUS NYC subway fare of $60+.

Did we save money? Not really. So it was kind of a wash. Well not from the commuting that's for sure, but we did manage to save funds so tha we could buy the place we live in now in the Lower East Side of Manhattan. Ironically we still have the car, paying to keep it in a garage is a bit more than 1 LIRR monthly ticket.

Entry into a 700sq. ft apartment in Manhattan is ridiculous now, even at $300,000 you still have to pay maintenance (similar to HOA, includes property taxes and building insurance) fees of about $400/month. Some of those maintenance fees can go as high as $3,000 is you have a doorman and other convenience staff.

Manhattan still has pockets of NYC Housing Authority (housing projects) so the poorest of the city still can have affordable housing. There are some questionable gangs and such there, but for the most part, seem to be less crime over the past decade.

06-25-2008, 10:20 AM	#2 (permalink)
LoganSnake We work alone Location: Cake Town	After living in the center of fourth (then third) largest city in Ukraine, it was mind torture for me and my family when we moved to the suburbs here. Instead of busy streets practically 24/7 right outside our windows, we seldom saw anything besides cars and small animals. It was like living somewhere deep in the woods. I feel...alive when I walk through the streets of Chicago or even lively college towns (Evanston) and even more alive when I walked the streets of Manhattan last year. It's just a great feeling. __________________ Maturity is knowing you were an idiot in the past. Wisdom is knowing that you'll be an idiot in the future. Common sense is knowing that you should try not to be an idiot now. - J. Jacques

06-25-2008, 10:39 AM	#3 (permalink)
snowy Kick Ass Kunoichi Location: Oregon	Most of the construction projects around my town that remotely resemble suburbia have been canceled due to the economic downturn; one of the largest builders of such projects in Oregon, Legend Homes, is on the verge of bankruptcy (this is due to taking out too much credit and then not being able to pay it all back when the market went south and no one was interested in another development). I can't say I'm unhappy about that turn of events; we need to redevelop more than we need to expand in these parts. That said, property values here are still high, especially compared to the rest of Oregon, mostly because our town is compact and walkable. It's city living without a big city. But as to the suburbs that surround the "big city", Portland: Suburbia in Oregon is different than elsewhere--we have strict land use laws in place to prevent overbuilding. Portland has an urban growth boundary, and it takes a great deal of finagling to prove to Metro (the government agency that oversees such things in the Portland area at large) that it needs to be expanded. This means that more often than not, there is extensive redevelopment of areas that have gone downhill versus just building more and more. It minimizes sprawl quite nicely. Other cities in Oregon also have urban growth boundaries to encourage smart growth; however, some expand theirs more often than they should (I'm looking at you, Deschutes County). But these land use laws have done us a lot of good with the recent downturn, as property prices in PDX and elsewhere in Oregon have remained stable and we have fewer foreclosures than elsewhere in the nation. Here, suburbia is still attractive--it's connected to public transportation via Trimet (MAX trains, buses, the streetcar downtown) and city planners have been smart about making sure major roadways have bike lanes. The recent trend in suburbia in Oregon has been mixed-use development. We're looking at moving to Hillsboro, a suburb of Portland I used to live in, after my SO graduates, because it's also the home of the Silicon Forest. There are a number of mixed-use developments there we're interested in living in or near, and most of them are close to the MAX line. So here, suburbia isn't bad, and I don't think it'll be a slum any time soon. __________________ If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

06-25-2008, 02:26 PM	#4 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	The Malvern area of Toronto used to be a middle class neighbourhood. But since I moved out of the area in 1987, it has radically changed. It is now one of the toughest areas in the city (rivalling the Jane/Finch area for gang and gun violence). Most of the people I know from there, or rather their parents, have moved further out of the city into the sprawl of Whitby, Pickering and Ajax (my Mom is included in this). I would argue it's a cyclical thing except that most of the homes in the area were constructed around 30 years ago and are in worse shape than the house I lived in in downtown Toronto built 100 years ago. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

06-25-2008, 03:37 PM	#5 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	I saw an article once (linked off of Wikipedia, I think; I'll try to remember where) that suggested as the development cycle changes, all of the office parks and big-box stores that are around now are going to go through the same type of changes as old downtown buildings did through the 20th century. They will fall into disuse, then be taken over first by vagrents and the homeless, then by artists and others looking for cheap studio-type housing. They will eventually make those places into the chic places to live and they will be taken over by that generation's yuppies ("yosuppies"?). Seems like a weird concept, but I doubt people in 1900 would think it could end up happening to those old textile mills and canning plants. On the actual subject at hand, I feel the same way towards where I eventually want to live. I grew up in a suburb, but I also grew up across the street from a shopping center with a supermarket, drug store, and several restaurants, so I grew up walking to many of the places I needed to go. I like the idea of being able to do that (and then having realistic mass transit available to go other places). Plus, to with the other thread about the "green fad", there are a lot of people who probably see it as a way of being more environmentally-friendly. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

06-25-2008, 06:20 PM	#9 (permalink)
QuasiMondo Wise-ass Latino Location: Pretoria (Tshwane), RSA	I used to love living in the city, but now I can't stand it. I can't get a decent night's sleep because of loud people on the streets, somebody car stereo blasting at 1 am, sirens, trucks, house party gone wild, etc. I'll be glad when I'm finished fixing up my house so I can get away from this crap. It's nice to hear crickets, ya know? __________________ Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer. -From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator

06-25-2008, 05:43 PM	#6 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	I grew up in the 'burbs, a child of parents who grew up in the city. A lot of my life was spent in Brooklyn and as a kid, I really wanted to live in a city. Now........pfffft. I like my house, my yard and the only gripe I have about it is my neighbors are too close. When we bought our house a little over 20 years ago, we bought into a middle class blue collar older neighborhood in which many of our neighbors were twice our age. Well, the old folks either died or moved to retirement places; someone decided that our street was a goldmine and bought many of the homes left behind. He tore them down to the foundations and replaced them with multi-family units-apartments. My neighborhood is on the border of a small city that is not known for its affluence. These units have been rented out to mostly transient immigrant families from that town; we have become an extension of the city, innundated with taxicabs, people cutting through from the local shopping center, even day workers congregating on the corners. I don't want the urban life. I don't want the noise, the intrusions, the not knowing anyone walking by my house. My home value is going down; the housing market fall coupled with the change of the neighborhood can be blamed. The house next door to me has been up for sale since last summer and two houses up another went on the market a week ago-that probably won't move either. People who can't sell are forced to rent and renters don't generally make good neighbors. On the other side of the coin, there's places like Bordentown, NJ. Thirty years ago, if you said you were from Bordentown, you were looked at like you had 3 eyes. "River Pineys" were from Bordentown. The houses in town were aluminum clad multi-apartment travesties. Most were over 200 years old, but cheaply "remodeled" with fake brick facades, yards not taken care off, driveways filled with cars long past any usefulness. Then some gays moved in. Houses were in bad shape but cheap as hell. And, like that old shampoo commercial, they told some friends and so on and so on....today, after an amazing 20 year renaissance, Bordentown is an art mecca, a small town that thinks it's a big city, with high-end restaurants, antique shops and galleries. The multi-family travesties have been brought back to single family splendor. Bordentown's rebirth was featured in the NY Times in their December 24, 2006 issue. Bordentown

06-25-2008, 05:56 PM	#7 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I view my city of something like 50,000 people (that is in the suburbs) to be self sufficient enough that very few people commute more than 20 minutes, most are living and working right in this town. There wasn't a really large upswing in new home construction, and the home prices aren't moving much because every place I need to go on a daily basis is within 5 miles of me.

06-25-2008, 10:38 PM	#11 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I can say that, aside from the occasion disturbance, my urban home in Toronto was a lot quieter than any I lived in in the suburbs growing up. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

06-26-2008, 04:01 AM	#12 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i dont think the question of whether you or i likes the suburbs is of much consequence if the claim in the op holds--that the conditions which enabled the suburban model are coming unraveled. it'll be the case that some folk prefer living in the city, others in the country and still others in that mass-produced nowhere that is suburbia. the notion of the homogenous "bedroom community" tied to an equally homogenous--what---"walking around while awake" are to a "production area" (or city, often) is not sustainable--the reliance on cars---the the longterm fate of the toll brothers cookie cutter housing---the idea that real estate is necessarily a generator or wealth...problems with these underpinnings or assumptions go way beyond whether you like relative isolation or prefer being able to walk to stuff, whether you can sleep while hearing people doing things outside or not. the burbs are an extreme extension of the logics of separation of functions and specialization. they are a priori not sustainable simply because the logic that underpins them is the opposite of sustainable. one alternative future, the one outlined in the op article, the one in keeping with this logic of separation and specialization, is reversal--the burbs remain an expression of class warfare american style, but the signs gradually reverse as populations migrate from these spaces to what are (to my mind anyway) more sustainable/diverse spaces--like cities, but also more diversified smaller communities outside the reach of the burbs. another might be the transformation of these suburbs themselves into something more like small diversified towns--but that ain't happening without a plan. and typically, there is no plan. then there's the question of shabby mass produced houses themselves and what happens to them physically over the long term---but that's another matter--if the op is right, they'll end up being elements within reservations for poor folk, fenceless camps where they'll be kept until fashion reverses and they get driven to another reservation. america's nice like that. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-26-2008, 06:43 AM	#13 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Separation and specialization was kind of the point of the suburbs. The highways act and the GI Bill made the suburbs possible. The suburbs gave birth to mass consumerism. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

06-26-2008, 06:44 AM	#14 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well yes. i think that's why they're a priori not sustainable. what the op article outlines is the crumbling of the model at its edges. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-26-2008, 06:54 AM	#15 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I remember reading an article in Wired Magazine a few years ago that postulated a post-suburban world. One of the things I thought was interesting was the repurposing of suburban shopping centres. I think they had a photo of what a WalMart would look like with the parking lots turned into gardens and the store itself turned into loft space. Sort of the reverse of what happened in the many inner cities. Old warehouses and factories were inhabited by artists and fringe dwellers. Bringing life back to teh disused spaces. They of course are followed by gentrification and yuppies. It will be interesting to see of this sort of cycle plays out in the suburbs. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

06-26-2008, 07:06 AM	#17 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	I just watched the trailer and disagree with some of the ideas and that it's the end of the "American dream." Did these people travel outside the US? There are many suburbias that have existed for many decades outside of the US where fuel and costs were already higher than the US counterparts. I'll try to watch the rest when I can. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

06-26-2008, 07:47 AM	#19 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	nice--i'll check out the film as soon as time permits of it. there is a version of this "american dream" thing that is probably ending--but it's never been one thing, this "dream"--it's mutated continually, no? nothing is stable--identity is an illusion, even when you think about rocks and stuff. it's also not quite an illusion. what it is, identity, is partial. that's all. anyway, the version of this "dream" that was of a piece with the development of mass produced housing, accessible mortgages for working-class families--which was of a piece with the marketing of long production run-based appliances (for example)--so the dream that was constructed in the image of what the regulation school called fordism--that's ending. if there was a rational synch between such dreams and the material conditions which enabled it (and most marxist-types assume that there is, so the assumption isn't particular to anyone, more a floating thing, kind of a zeitgeist residuum) it'd have been over for a while now. but it's happening now, a function (to wax marxian again) of the "dream"--or the model based on the dream--itself and it's own internal contradictions. but there are no doubt other dreams. that there is a single american dream is one of them. that it will continue is another. besides, there are lots of americans, in the biggest possible sense, and all of them dream things and who's to say which among them will shift from something fleeting to the status of the next organizing meme? could happen to anybody's, really, if you make yours repeatable. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-26-2008, 08:04 AM	#20 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	I tried to watch the full feature... but Youtube says "We're sorry, the video is no longer available." guys want us to consume the DVD apparently http://www.endofsuburbia.com/index.htm __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

06-26-2008, 09:06 AM	#22 (permalink)
Alta Upright Location: Ontario, Canada	It seemed to me to be one of those things where the author/creator takes the idea to its extreme to try and make the point. Inner city housing tends to be very expensive, and really not very kid-friendly. It does not strike me as logical that the suburbs will be deserted except in certain places where other factors, such as regional employment issues, are in play.