[jmacdaddio]

The reason why brownstones have lasted to this day is because they were built to last. McMansions will be crumbling into dust by the time things get bad. The materials in use today are shoddy and the workmanship is terrible. Developers plan for a new house to last no more than 30 years while in the past structures were built to last a century or more. Sure, squatters might get shelter for a few years while the former luxury homes they occupy still stand, but when the McMansions are crumbling, they're SOL.

And no, reverse white flight won't happen in an instant. It's happening now, slowly, as people with the means and inclination choose to buy houses or apartments in cities.

And if the exurbs are destined to be the slums of the future, how will the future poor be able to exist in exurban sprawl with gas at $8 a gallon if you can even get it? Where will they work? Where will they get food? We're not going to see a role reversal where Hickory Hills and the South Bronx trade places. Most likely the exurban areas will become wastelands, perhaps monuments to our own greed and excess. I don't see how anyone other than drifters and hippie-like communes could exist under such circumstances. As for the future poor, I hear FEMA has unbeatable rates on cots, safely behind barbed wire for their own protection of course.

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jmacdaddio', 'T')he reason why brownstones have lasted to this day is because they were built to last. McMansions will be crumbling into dust by the time things get bad. The materials in use today are shoddy and the workmanship is terrible. Developers plan for a new house to last no more than 30 years while in the past structures were built to last a century or more. Sure, squatters might get shelter for a few years while the former luxury homes they occupy still stand, but when the McMansions are crumbling, they're SOL.

And no, reverse white flight won't happen in an instant. It's happening now, slowly, as people with the means and inclination choose to buy houses or apartments in cities.

And if the exurbs are destined to be the slums of the future, how will the future poor be able to exist in exurban sprawl with gas at $8 a gallon if you can even get it? Where will they work? Where will they get food? We're not going to see a role reversal where Hickory Hills and the South Bronx trade places. Most likely the exurban areas will become wastelands, perhaps monuments to our own greed and excess. I don't see how anyone other than drifters and hippie-like communes could exist under such circumstances. As for the future poor, I hear FEMA has unbeatable rates on cots, safely behind barbed wire for their own protection of course.

[Macsporan]

There is much merit here in the idea of rigging up MacMansions for medium density accomodation.

Not all of them need be preserved, the others can be cannibalised for materials and dug up for gardens , public buildings and spaces; workshops and shops.

Gradually the great city and its suburbs will become a small city surrounded by satellite towns joined by electric railway lines complemented by light-rail feeders, devoted increasingly to localised agriculture. People will spread out further afield and the cities will empty.

Where once SUV rumbled and supermarket trolleys clashed, the plough shall turn the earth and the birds sing amongst the flower-gardens.

[Liamj]

I'm interested in how propertyless people might be integrated into communities via idle or abandoned property in the 'burbs in the years to come.

Not by negotiating with distant banks or corporations (who i hope will gradually come a cropper cos so over-centralised their power, presuming ubiquitous transport), but with remaining residents, local government & law enforcement. My compulsory optimist says there must be some path balancing local soveriegnty (community self determination via direct democracy), the best use of land, capital and resources, and hopefully humane 'making room' for the dispossessed.

If communities had knowledge of where their idle land/property was, say thru a locally compiled geographic info database, and what the possible & popular land uses and local resources were, informed by as many perspectives as possible (open/indy media) and determined by said direct democracy, why shouldn't they take the reins from the fools on the hill?

[Daryl]

"The reason why brownstones have lasted to this day is because they were built to last."


I doubt you have seen a period brownstone in NYC that has not undergone massive renovations several times over the course of the 20th century. If you saw one, you wouldn't think it was built to last. Great place for rats to live, though.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Liamj', ' ')My compulsory optimist says there must be some path balancing local soveriegnty (community self determination via direct democracy), the best use of land, capital and resources, and hopefully humane 'making room' for the dispossessed.

[Daryl]

I'd like to thank all of the posters to this discussion thread for their contributions. This has been very interesting. I'd like to especially thank Macsporan, DigitalCubano, mommy22, Ibon, jtmorgan61, dbarberic, EnergySpin and jmacdaddio for making on-topic remarks.

My feeling is that if you believe the suburbs are going to be abandoned, then you are a Mad Max doomer. The cities and small towns cannot absorb these huge populations, therefore you are forecasting massive chaos and die-offs. I don't know the future, you may be right. However, the topic of this discussion is how the suburbs will adapt in case you are wrong and we see a slow transformation, cornucopian environment where a mix of efficient motorized personal/public transportation still exist. This is also an environment where a stable, but challenged economic infrastructure survives. If you want to discuss alternative scenarios, I'm sure there are many other places on these boards to post.

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', 'M')y feeling is that if you believe the suburbs are going to be abandoned, then you are a Mad Max doomer. The cities and small towns cannot absorb these huge populations, therefore you are forecasting massive chaos and die-offs. I don't know the future, you may be right. However, the topic of this discussion is how the suburbs will adapt in case you are wrong and we see a slow transformation, cornucopian environment where a mix of efficient motorized personal/public transportation still exist. This is also an environment where a stable, but challenged economic infrastructure survives. If you want to discuss alternative scenarios, I'm sure there are many other places on these boards to post.

[Daryl]

Fair enough. But the average suburban house is not a McMansion. On average they tend to be small 2-4 bedroom homes. I don't think the heating and cooling expenses for most of these homes will be prohibitive in the future we are describing. The key issues are transportation and jobs. Can the layout of these communities adjust to a limited/modified motorist environment that is supplemented by an extensive bus oriented public transportation. Can enough jobs be close enough? I think the answer is yes for many communities.

Others will no doubt become untenable. We will need new small town environments. Key suburbs will become the basis of the new towns. Unusable strip malls and parking lots will be used for new condiminiums that will increase the population density and make transportation more efficient. The populations from the untenable suburbs will migrate to the tenable ones. All the old style developers will be gone. Development will be run by the state in consultation with the employment sector, as it should have been all along. In that context, the McMansion neighborhoods that are located near areas that lend themselves to this transformation might be partitioned if no wealthier class remains that can afford to heat, cool and light the whole place.

Not sure if anyone continue to live in an untenable suburb though. If they go offgrid, only animals will occupy them. Non-grid human communities have to be near alot of fresh water, don't they? They might be demolished for scrap in that case, or turned into farmland.

[emersonbiggins]

When I think of the term 'McMansion', I'm usually thinking in terms of a 3,000+ SF house on 1/4-1/2 acre lots. The cost of extending services to such a neighborhood is prohibitive (even today), and is largely augmented by the introduction of big-box retail, which creates a tax surplus that augments the shortfalls that accompany McMansion development. The hundreds of miles of roads and streets (and utilities, emergency services, schools, etc.) that are laid to serve population densities of less than 250-500 sq mi (exurban) will be ill-funded by current property and fuel tax structures, assuming that a transition to hybrids/diesels/buses takes place. No funding mechanism in place = erratic degradation/elimination of services.

Older suburbs nearer the cities (1850s-1940/50s) will fare nicely though, and probably will continue to appreciate in value. I'm not as sure about modest newer suburbs, because most of those are built in exurban locales with horrible commutes as it is. If PO hits anybody hard, it will hit those with 1-2 hour daily commutes. A resurgence of streetcars, light rail and commuter rail will make some of the locales viable once again, at least once those communities embrace the aggregate development that will be inevitably built around transit stops.

On a tangent: we need to burn segregated zoning ordinances, and fast!

[holmes]

These optimists see it all yet they do not even take into consideration the reduction in quality of the ecosystems that our sprawl is built on. First we built our cities on the most ecologically prime land(the most productive fertility known in the last continent). There are documents of the natives laughing at this and wondering WHY!
Then our sprawl out has built upon the next highest productive land. we dug and grinded and filled in with unproductive infertile CONSTRUCTION FILL. The only buildings with "original" soil are the first built and ones build prior to the fill/construction craze. So These utopian suburbs better start composting en mass and piling up fertilizers now asap. Thats the only way to get high yeild crops out of your predominatley infertile fills/soils. So ya need to start bulldozing now and rehabbing the soils now if u want any chance at this green utopia.
and for the cities forget it. The soils are laced with lead, cadmium, mercury, etc...
But hey these things dont matter just meet supply and demand of the huddling masses. I am sure u can make profits off some more poor slobs. ge them in debt.
http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/farmland.html

[jmacdaddio]

I'm glad I can make some people here laugh.

What's clear is that US suburbia will need a massive investment in public transport that works for suburb-to-suburb commuting and errand running. Most suburbanites I've talked to say they would take public transit to their jobs if it were a viable option. Europe has non-metro areas with decent access to transport so there's no reason why we couldn't do it here.

Light rail could be built quickly. 4 lane main roads in suburbia could easily sacrifice their middle lanes for rails, especially if vehicular traffic is reduced by fuel price realities. NJ has completed a couple of light rail projects with good speed. I'm not sure how well they're used, but it takes time for people to adapt.

The larger issue of what to do with our highways remains. Unlike other nations, Americans in suburbs use our highways for just about everything, whether to go to another city or go get a quart of milk. In Germany you might bicycle to the town center for milk, take a tram to go to work, and use the Autobahn to go visit cousin Guenther in Mannheim if you didn't feel like using the trains. In the US you're on the highway for everything in a large number of areas. Ideally the market will force businesses off the major highways but it's hard to undo 50+ years of development in a short time.

If the P.O. crisis plays out as a gradual decline rather than a sudden collapse, we can do it. If it's a sudden collapse, hello Mad Max scenario.

[GoIllini]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jmacdaddio', 'T')he reason why brownstones have lasted to this day is because they were built to last. McMansions will be crumbling into dust by the time things get bad. The materials in use today are shoddy and the workmanship is terrible. Developers plan for a new house to last no more than 30 years while in the past structures were built to last a century or more. Sure, squatters might get shelter for a few years while the former luxury homes they occupy still stand, but when the McMansions are crumbling, they're SOL.

[jmacdaddio]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ure, they're cookie cutter homes, and put together very efficiently- one might argue they're mass produced. However, I'd argue that they're built decently. At least, they're designed to last a lot longer than a lot of the 100 year old wood Victorians you guys seem to respect were.

[Seadragon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Macsporan', 'T')here is much merit here in the idea of rigging up MacMansions for medium density accomodation.

Not all of them need be preserved, the others can be cannibalised for materials and dug up for gardens , public buildings and spaces; workshops and shops.

Gradually the great city and its suburbs will become a small city surrounded by satellite towns joined by electric railway lines complemented by light-rail feeders, devoted increasingly to localised agriculture. People will spread out further afield and the cities will empty.

Where once SUV rumbled and supermarket trolleys clashed, the plough shall turn the earth and the birds sing amongst the flower-gardens.

[Liamj]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Liamj', ' ')My compulsory optimist says there must be some path balancing local soveriegnty (community self determination via direct democracy), the best use of land, capital and resources, and hopefully humane 'making room' for the dispossessed.

[GoIllini]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jmacdaddio', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ure, they're cookie cutter homes, and put together very efficiently- one might argue they're mass produced. However, I'd argue that they're built decently. At least, they're designed to last a lot longer than a lot of the 100 year old wood Victorians you guys seem to respect were.

[mommy22]

There is actually a cute article on MSN Money about "How to take the bus" or something close to that. Yes, I think that if it's available to people and they learn how to use what's available, more people will ride.

[Daryl]

I have some experience owning both types of houses, older and newer. I renovated and maintained a 1905 Tudor for 5 years. Plusses were: fantastic doorknobs, glass handles with solid brass plates (black with tarnish - was a major project to remove them all and polish), solid wood doors, thick plaster walls. That's about it. Negatives are too many to mention, but the biggest was poor exterior wall insulation. Poor window insulation could be fixed easily with new windows, but to fix the walls, you would have to strip off all the original stucco and reinsulate. Prohibitively expensive. One shower that was up against an exterior wall used to freeze up every winter. I punched holes in the plaster between the joists and poured a ton of foam insulation behind the wall. Didn't help. Other major negatives - no copper plumbing - has to be installed bit by bit as the old stuff corrodes. Electrical wiring is a joke. General lack of closet space and electrical outlets is very annoying. Bad floor plan throughout.

Now I live in a house built in 1996. Plusses: Insulation is fantastic. 4 side brick exterior is great. Nice floorplan. Negatives - cheap doorknobs, hollow interior doors, sheetrock walls not as solid (I like them better though because it is easier to hang curtains and pictures). Consider the house very well built. Don't have to worry about the infrastructure. Over the long haul I think much of the infrastructure will survive much better than the homes from 1905. Copper pipes will last much longer, doubt if the electrical system will go of date. All houses will need to be renovated over time, and in some respects the older homes might be more durable but I would have to say that overall the edge goes clearly to the newer homes.

Of course, many new constructions are shoddy, but that mostly depends on the builder. The same was true in 1905 also.

[dbarberic]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', 'I') have some experience owning both types of houses, older and newer. I renovated and maintained a 1905 Tudor for 5 years. Plusses were: fantastic doorknobs, glass handles with solid brass plates (black with tarnish - was a major project to remove them all and polish), solid wood doors, thick plaster walls. That's about it. Negatives are too many to mention, but the biggest was poor exterior wall insulation. Poor window insulation could be fixed easily with new windows, but to fix the walls, you would have to strip off all the original stucco and reinsulate. Prohibitively expensive. One shower that was up against an exterior wall used to freeze up every winter. I punched holes in the plaster between the joists and poured a ton of foam insulation behind the wall. Didn't help. Other major negatives - no copper plumbing - has to be installed bit by bit as the old stuff corrodes. Electrical wiring is a joke. General lack of closet space and electrical outlets is very annoying. Bad floor plan throughout.

Now I live in a house built in 1996. Plusses: Insulation is fantastic. 4 side brick exterior is great. Nice floorplan. Negatives - cheap doorknobs, hollow interior doors, sheetrock walls not as solid (I like them better though because it is easier to hang curtains and pictures). Consider the house very well built. Don't have to worry about the infrastructure. Over the long haul I think much of the infrastructure will survive much better than the homes from 1905. Copper pipes will last much longer, doubt if the electrical system will go of date. All houses will need to be renovated over time, and in some respects the older homes might be more durable but I would have to say that overall the edge goes clearly to the newer homes.

Of course, many new constructions are shoddy, but that mostly depends on the builder. The same was true in 1905 also.