A Brief Defense of Suburbia

Your point about popular capitalism isn't necessarily incongruent with my criticism of the housing & roads policies of the 1950's. Ditto for the zoning facts, although those are important to keep in mind.

As for the American dream, I'd like to think that it doesn't necessitate the destruction of large swaths of cities the way massive housing & roads expansion did last century. But even on an individual or family level, what the structure of suburban life has taken away in terms of social capital (as detailed by diverse critics from Jane Jacobs to Robert Putnam to--gasp--P.J. O'Rourke) has not been compensated by the gains in material comfort and convenience. Those sorts of gains are never enough to make social life deep and rewarding.

I dunno. "Social capital" is a pretty ambiguous term, and to tell the truth I'm not even sure what you mean by it.

The reason suburbs are essential is twofold: businesses can be most efficient when they are centrally grouped; and people don't want to live next door to industry and dense commercial zones. Plus, people can't afford to live in an area once it starts being used for industry. Any land that could be practically utilized as a refinery or sky-scraper is going to be way too expensive for anyone to want to build a house on. It's simple economics.

I live in the suburbs, and my social life is very deep and rewarding! Not because of my neighbors, who are barely know, but because of my involvement with my church, my school friends, and my work. I have no real desire to socialize with the random people who happen to live near me, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

First a reference: Ian McHarg and the notion of entropy.

Now a joke: The rural community I grew up in was very pastoral and attractive. Soon people were leaving the city to go live in the country. When they all got there they looked around and realized the pastoral countryside was gone. But they did have plenty of roads, commercial shopping centers half vacant, and big houses stacked up one next to another.

Now an epistle: Suburbia is the worst of both the rural and the urban worlds. It is not conducive to energy efficiency. It is not conducive to efficient infrastructure. Like a drug it provides a quick, cheap fix but doesn't last. In its wake lay the ravaged lands of a rural past and the death of all but the largest cities as vibrant communities. And to it's inhabitants a great deal of denial is facilitated by closed off homes with quick access to automobiles that insulate them from all the worries that they flee.

Now the economics: A tragedy of the commons. Why not get a slice of the American Pie? The immediate cost is very low and the available lands seem endless. In the end the rural lands become more scarce, the cities stagnate, and the citizens flee for what vacant land is left. The phenomena of suburbia is about entropy. Perhaps if the rural lands were valued higher in the beginning than a rational ubanization would be a more obvious choice. Hence strong zoning.

Social capital is very ambiguous when evaluating hard capital. But that doesn't negate its value. Coase has shown that most economic models are terribly inadequate to account for the real systemic values in society. Suburbia is such a phenomena of inadequate economic valuation.

Rural lands are never going to become scarce. There's a lot of land out there.

Actually, to me suburbia is the best of both urban and rural living! I think we see the same things, but value them completely differently. I think it's great that the cities get bigger and spread out, it's inevitable! I've got a whole theory about how the advance of civilization is dependent on functional population density.

As you say, suburbs may be less energy efficient in some ways, but I don't think energy efficiency is some sort of holy grail. Cars are less energy efficient than bikes, but we use cars because even though they require more energy, the marginal benefit is worth it. Likewise with suburbs. Who cares if they're less efficient, if the net output is higher? Sure, efficiency is something to be taken into account, but it's not the only consideration.

You said that the cities will remain as vibrant communities, but then you also said that they'll stagnate. Personally, I think they'll remain vibrant. It's all dependent on shifting industry and economics. I don't see anything inherently virtuous about maintaining vibrant rural communities. I know I wouldn't want to live in some podunk farming town. If other people want to, then they're free to do so. However, people are voting with their feet, and moving to the cities. Freedom, yay!

In reverse order:

I did not say cities will remain vibrant communities then contradict myself. Prior to 1950, approximately, cities were vibrant because they were the center of both cultural and economic attraction. I mentioned that all but the largest(i.e. NYC, Chicago) will cease to become vibrant as a result of suburbanization. Neither did I mention vibrant rural communities. Freedom does not reside in ignorance of the larger picture.

I'm not sure who or what philosophy you abide by but efficiency in civil infrastructure is terribly important at the economic and social level. Again, only a denial of reality or a temporary postponement of consequences could assume otherwise. As to output, that seems as highly ambiguous as social capital, perhaps dubious, too.

You are right, we do value things in different ways which is okay as long as one does not step on the toes of the other, eh? I don't think it is right for either a majority or a minority to impose an income tax on my money. That is an imposition of another's values onto me. The same can be said for suburban sprawl. As it spreads it imposes its followers values on the rural tenants, who are increasingly pushed into smaller and smaller zones of habitat. I'm sure you have a theory as to why this is a triumph of civilization, too.

Again, it is a 'tragedy of the commons'. The fallacy is that there is still all this land out there. But when one realizes how mutually attractive land for uses in opposition to one another is scarce then a conflict occurs. Japan experiences this, as does Great Britain. When America finally realizes this it will be essentially too late. I suppose in a way the phenomena is a lot like our dependence on oil, too. We know it will run out, but we keep finding ways to squeeze a little more from what is left.

I think whatever you find of value in suburbia can be found in a well constructed urban environment. After all, what is it that seemed lacking in it? Trees?

Efficiency is not important if utility continues to increase. It's a question of how you define efficiency. For example, if I can make 10 gizmos for $1 each and sell them for $2, I can make a total profit of $10. However, if I can make 100,000 gizmos for (amortized) $1.90 each and sell them for $2, I can make $10,000 profit. Which is more efficient? Maybe (a), but (b) is more profitable.

Same with cities. Costs go up, but the net returns are higher. There is tons of unused land out there for rural types who really don't want to live in the city. It may not be ideal, but come on, the vast majority of the earth is uninhabited. Don't be so picky.

The less vibrant cities will continue to shrink. Eventually the US will probably be two giant coastal cities, and hundreds of towns in between built up around exploiting local natural resources. What's wrong with that?

Utility? Whose utility? Again, efficiency is important to the total system. Profit maximized for one does not define efficiency. Read Coase. Besides, the cute example of freshman economics doesn't make the case.

As to who should not be so picky it would seem the suburbanites have much less of a claim. They seemingly are at odds with nature and have all the opportunity to make better use of underutilized urban space. The only value they place on otherwise prime natural habitat is the marginal decrease in cost to acquire a small plot. But if one were to examine that closer they would see that often that is false compared to urban renewal. Never the raw land should escape the lustful gaze of the developer or all the consumers who must feed on more. It's the crack cocaine of real estate.

Now, what if we add back into the cost of a suburban development all the cost to add infrastructure then all the cost to remove those improvements when the suburb becomes underutilized what kind of bargain do we have? That is just some of the many transactional costs that don't get tabulated as a result of suburban sprawl.

The transcontinental suburbian utopia you envision won't happen simply because it is so inefficient. The end game in such consuming ideology is depletion. But in the process vast areas of prime natural habitat and agricultural resources will have been wasted on abandoned streets, parking lots, and buildings.

I haven't shared much about myself personally, but I can assure you that we come from two distinct environments. I have witnessed the process first hand and lived in rural, suburban, and urban areas. I choose to live in an urban environment today as a result of my desire to preserve natural habitat. There is nothing I can find in the city that I need to drag out to the country. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. What value does suburbia have to add to either?

Jody wrote:"Utility? Whose utility? Again, efficiency is important to the total system. Profit maximized for one does not define efficiency. Read Coase. Besides, the cute example of freshman economics doesn't make the case."

That indicates you're a socialist, in which case there's probably no point in discussing this with you. A capitalist believes that many individuals all seeking to maximize their own utility (profit) will arrive at the most efficient distribution of resources. Many governments have tried to ration resources more efficiently, but none have succeeded.

Efficiency is nice, but it's not as important as overall profitability. My earlier example illustrates how it is possible to be more profitable with decreased efficiency. You make some odd assertions (why would we spend money to remove infrastructure improvements just because they become under-utilized?) and I don't see what they're based on.

You talk about depletion, but depletion of what? What do cities use that isn't renewable? Agricultural resources? If land is more profitable as a farm then as a mall, you can bet it will stay a farm. If, as you assert, farmland will become more and more scarce, the value of suitable farmland will go up. Eventually an equilibrium level will be reached, and we won't "deplete" anything.

Got ya sucka. No, I'm not a socialist, nor a liberal. I understand the simple minded capitalist mantra as well as any. Capitalism has a place in this world, a very large place, but it has never been the panacea it's junior followers would make it to be. Sorry, but life has never been that easy.

If you seek narrow mindedly to assume that all any one cares about is profit then you are doomed to fail. There are so many other values that people find in life that do not break down to simple profit motive. So my assertion that profit is not the final arbiter is, arguably, correct.

The depletion I speak of are all the natural resources, including undeveloped land. Perhaps a trip to a class in thermodynamics might round your views out a little better. Take a course in systems theory while you are at it, you need one.

Your earlier example only proved a text book example of marginal utility and maximized profit. To connect output and profitability to the spread of suburbia is simply an assertion you cannot support with facts. It was a giant leap.

While you are blogging why don't you come clean on your objectivist philosophy. Perhaps you secretly revel in the romantic visions conjured up by Ayn Rand? Very few people will accept the tenets' of the objectivist as a good argument against government's role in society. To not buy that tripe does not make one a socialist or a liberal, period. Suburbia is a prime example of how objectivist views fail as it represents the manipulation of the masses by a few(for profit) that saddle the whole with costs not easily factored in dollars and cents. Quality of life is an issue for many and your arguments ring very hollow for them. Does that mean they are going to revolt in communism? No. They will seek to eqalize the transaction costs however they can and "enlighten" others as to the real costs associated with suburbia. Oddly, they are then behaving much more objectively then most junior capitalist do.

So go ahead, label me as you like to suit your defense of suburbia. It won't change the objective truth one iota. Millions of people find the quality of life in suburbia lacking, and they are seeking answers. No doubt some of those answers will be found objectionable. Perhaps in that discourse a better understanding of social organization will take place.

Oh goodness. Thermodynamics and systems theory? Do you realize that I've almost got a PhD in engineering? Junior Capitalist? Objectivist? Sigh.

I was pretty careful to talk about utility and not "profit" because I didn't want you to get caught up on mere money. So yes, quality of life concerns fall under "utility", and I never implied that they were irrelevent.

What natural resources will be depleted by suburbia exactly? From an economics perspective, as resources become more scarce their price will go up and new sources will become economically viable, and consumption will drop as the price rises. Depletion will never happen, it's a dooms-day prophecy used to manipulate people.

If millions of people don't like suburbia, and think that the costs of living there outweight the benefits, they'll leave and suburbia will disappear. Oh wait, that's not happening. Therefore, your assertion is factually false. The mere fact that suburbia continues to expand refutes your core argument.

I just posted about the myth of depletion.

I'm not particularly in favor of zoning but the widget example bothers me. What about the cost of capital? The world isn't just a one product economy and using up all that capital for widgets can take away from more profitable uses.

But zoning isn't the answer. The answer is education and superior design. There is nothing magical about a particular jurisdiction that says here was a city so here must be a city. That's a profoundly conservative statement but also fairly unintelligent. In Westchester County, NY you can see White Plains which looks an awful lot like suburbia but carries the label of City and is growing, functioning, and *becoming* a city in reality.

I think suburbia, per se, is simply not a static thing and well done suburbs will become cities while the poorly designed ones will rot, whither, and eventually be taken over by something better.

The key is to not restrict change via zoning but accelerate the change as fast as it can go so the early stabs at a better life for all can be sorted, ranked, and the failures put out of their misery. That's the pro-capitalist method of fixing failed community planning.

The objection could be raised that it is expensive to build and rebuild infrastructure. That's true, today. But infrastructure placement costs are much lower than in the past and likely to go lower still as energy costs will likely drop over the long haul, automation levels will likely rise, and methods are only going to get better.