"The United States is the first suburban nation," he said. "In the end, these are the places ... where we are going to live, no matter what."

 

I find that doubtful. We're the most mobile society on earth. No one can predict where we will live in the future. Look how much this country changed over the last century. Who's to say we won't change again? If there's one thing that's obvious about American history, it's that it can rapidly change in unpredictable ways. We roll with the punches, and oil is a serious punch in the face for most of us. Suburbia absolutely needs cheap oil, and that's unlikely to continue. Of course the major automakers like Ford, GM, Chrysler, Honda, and Toyota have figured out ways to make better automobiles, but oil is still a major expense that will increase in cost. Summer 2007 wasn't all that long ago...

 

I don't think we'll give up cars, but I do think we'll see a reduction in driving mileage and an increase in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit activity. We're going to be more mixed modal, and sooner or later, density will probably go up because it has to.

 

I agree that we'll be mixed modal, but I strongly doubt we'll see that much of a reduction in driving mileage, if any.  I'd be inclined to bet on an increase.  As you said, we're the most mobile country on the planet.  We also like that fact, and it's in our culture to invest in keeping it that way, and support the investments of those who offer a chance to allow us to stay that way.

 

<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37263680/">Tesla Motors and Toyota just announced a major partnership</a> that will see a shuttered California auto plant reopened to produce electric cars--not the sporty Roadsters that are out of reach for all but the well-to-do, but more midrange luxury sedans that will be within the range of many young and mid-career professionals and will look increasingly attractive on the cost front as oil prices rise.

 

The Nissan Leaf has <a href="http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1046708_2011-nissan-leaf-misses-june-30-deadline">missed some pre-release deadlines</a>, but is nevertheless generating a substantial amount of buzz, and the Nissan brass have been putting advertising dollars behind the launch, including in new advertising media like <a href="http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=131343">Apple's iAds</a>.

 

<a href="http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20100704/BUSINESS/7040317/1003/Tesla-IPO-offers-beacon-for-Fisker">Fisker may be on the rocks</a>, but even if it fails, it will have advanced the ball on electric car technology a good distance, and another firm will be able to acquire it and not have to burn a tremendous amount of capital retreading paths that Fisker already blazed.  Even if Fisker can't survive on its own, it will be a tempting acquisition target.

 

The Chevy Volt is <a href="http://www.conceivablytech.com/1632/products/chevy-plans-to-ship-10000-volts-in-2011/">getting close to production</a>.

 

And literally just last week, <a href="http://electrovelocity.com/2010/07/05/bmw-entering-the-electric-car-market-megacity/">BMW announced that it was jumping into the game</a>.

 

I feel like those who denounce or dismiss the promise of the electric car are the making the same mistake that people made shrugging off the Internet based on CompuServe.  Within a decade, I feel fairly confident that we'll be driving more than ever--we'll just be in electric cars, and therefore burning far less oil to do that driving.  The electric car will allow suburbanites to maintain autocentric lifestyles past the point that rising oil prices would permit--and I am fairly certain that they'll pay the costs necessary to make that transition rather than the transition that I'm guessing many people here wish they would all make, i.e., abandoning the suburbs to the weeds and moving back into the cities.

"Size, safety, and schools.  Until the urban core can deliver them, it's going to continue to hemorrhage families to the suburbs.  No amount of sanctimonious lectures or snide remarks about suburbanites is going to change that."

 

^This.

Good thing households with school-age children comprise a relatively small percentage of the total. But we have been programmed to think this is the majority of households.

 

And yes, housing is often more expensive in the cities where the costs of living are often the same or less because not every driving-age member of the household has to own a car. Read the Center for Neighborhood Technology's reports on this. Or for a quick appraisal, check out...

 

http://htaindex.cnt.org/

Within a decade, I feel fairly confident that we'll be driving more than ever--we'll just be in electric cars, and therefore burning far less oil to do that driving.  The electric car will allow suburbanites to maintain autocentric lifestyles past the point that rising oil prices would permit--and I am fairly certain that they'll pay the costs necessary to make that transition rather than the transition that I'm guessing many people here wish they would all make, i.e., abandoning the suburbs to the weeds and moving back into the cities.

 

Why is it always an all or nothing situation?  I don't want to see all the suburbs abandoned, because that means a huge number of people will have lost the equity and investment they poured into those areas.  Look at what abandoning our cities to the weeds has gotten us, after all.  That fallout would be an enormous burden on our society, which we've already seen with the spectacular devaluation of such far-flung burgs and the effect it's had on our recent economic woes.  However, I would like to see the suburbs stop growing, and investment going back into the cities which are so depopulated that they could absorb a huge share of a region's growth, and do it on infrastructure that's already in place. 

 

Also, the electric car is not a panacea, nor are biofuels, or solar/wind energy, or nuclear power.  The solution is going to come from ALL those sources, PLUS living in denser areas that require less travel for daily life.  While cars get a lot of attention for pollution and energy use, because they're visibly manifesting their use of those resources when on the road, they aren't our biggest use of energy, buildings are.  No matter how much time you spend behind the wheel, most people still spend the vast majority of their time in their home or workplace.  Powering the lights, computers, appliances, heating, and air conditioning are what consume the most of our resources, and most of that is electricity.  We have an insatiable demand for electricity, and if we suddenly switched from petroleum to electric vehicles, it's still going to be more expensive to operate them. 

 

Oil is just one component of the overall "energy" system in the world, and it's naive to think that when oil gets expensive the other sources won't follow suit.  Even if the production of gasoline was completely independent of all other fuels, electricity prices would still increase markedly from the demand imposed by everyone switching to it.  Also, our utter dependence on oil for so many things besides a fuel source raises further questions to the viability of our auto-centric way of life.  Yes, gasoline and diesel are main products, and things like heating oil could be substituted with propane or natural gas (at least until we start running out of those too, which we'll do much faster when oil is no longer viable).  There's many many other things made of oil that you don't really think about though.  Asphalt is an obvious one, and as oil gets more and more scarce and expensive, so will road paving.  Concrete is a lot more expensive already, but it also requires a lot of energy to produce and transport as well, and it won't be getting cheaper.  Synthetic rubber for tires is made of oil, as are our synthetic fabrics, plastics, foam insulation, even paint.  As if that's not bad enough (and it's nowhere near a comprehensive list) many of our fertilizers and pesticides also come from oil.  Industrial farming is already a very energy-intensive operation, let alone needing all the petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides on top of that. 

 

You do make a good point though, Gramarye, that we'll do whatever we can in this country to try to maintain the status quo of happy motoring, as James Howard Kunstler would put it.  Unfortunately, we're putting all our resources into that effort, and it's bankrupting us.  There's a growing number of people who are realizing that it's not worth paying out the nose for a mortgage on a house you can't afford that's miles away from work and shopping.  The dream of the perfect suburban lifestyle is just that, a dream, and it's not shared by everyone.  There will still be suburbs, but all our cities have decentralized to such an extent that in many cases there's nowhere left to go but back to the core.  It doesn't have to be a win-lose situation either.  Electric cars and alternative energy will help us to maintain what we have, but even without the looming energy issues, the pendulum is swinging back to a bit more of an urban-centered lifestyle. 

 

Even ignoring all the subsidizing of suburban development, unfunded liabilities, deferred payments of externalities, etc., a part of the reason it costs more to live in the city is because there's more demand for it.  The suburbs are cheap because there's so much of it out there, while nice urban neighborhoods are much more difficult to come by, and thus they're pricier.  If we can get more of those nice urban neighborhoods, which is no small feat considering the reluctance of many regions to invest in needed transit systems and retooling their antiquated suburban-focused zoning codes, then the cost and viability of city living will improve and the city's whole region will benefit from it.

I agree that we'll be mixed modal, but I strongly doubt we'll see that much of a reduction in driving mileage, if any. I'd be inclined to bet on an increase. As you said, we're the most mobile country on the planet. We also like that fact, and it's in our culture to invest in keeping it that way, and support the investments of those who offer a chance to allow us to stay that way.

 

The mobility and the affordability of this mobility is what makes this nation great, and what sets it apart from other, less prosperous nations. We have the freedom to travel wherever we want, at a cost that is within reach for most Americans, on-demand, which allows us to support not only our urbanized areas, but our rural countrysides, national parks and other recreation areas, and so forth. We may look to Europe for an answer to everything, but their price of fuel heavily subsidizes other modes of transport, and driving is not as affordable as it is here.

 

Try driving in a country with a lack of modern infrastructure. Russia, a supposed developed country, has no major east-west route to connect its cities. It has something of a dirt road that bogs down with deep mud in the summer. Other major cities (e.g. ones over 10,000) in the northeastern part of the country are not even accessible but during the summer due to the harsh winters, and even then it is something of a chore. But look at Alaska, with its freeways, railways and airport access. We have it pretty damn good here.

 

<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37263680/">Tesla Motors and Toyota just announced a major partnership</a> that will see a shuttered California auto plant reopened to produce electric cars--not the sporty Roadsters that are out of reach for all but the well-to-do, but more midrange luxury sedans that will be within the range of many young and mid-career professionals and will look increasingly attractive on the cost front as oil prices rise.

 

O_o $49,000 is mid-range but not affordable to the young. The costs are heavily subsidized by the government. And why California as a hub for automobile manufacturing? The costs and the unions there make it practically unaffordable. Move production to a right-to-work state, like Alabama.

 

The Nissan Leaf has <a href="http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1046708_2011-nissan-leaf-misses-june-30-deadline">missed some pre-release deadlines</a>, but is nevertheless generating a substantial amount of buzz, and the Nissan brass have been putting advertising dollars behind the launch, including in new advertising media like <a href="http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=131343">Apple's iAds</a>.

 

A good start, but the buzz is mostly around it's large reservation deposits of $100. Which are refundable. The car only has a 100-mile range, which is good for 75% of commuters, but is useless as a vehicle that goes anywhere further. Even with EV charging stations, it would be a pain to travel anywhere far.

 

The Chevy Volt is <a href="http://www.conceivablytech.com/1632/products/chevy-plans-to-ship-10000-volts-in-2011/">getting close to production</a>.

 

The best bet of them all, but a vehicle that is heavily subsidized and will be selling at a loss. The second-generation is already in design.

 

And literally just last week, <a href="http://electrovelocity.com/2010/07/05/bmw-entering-the-electric-car-market-megacity/">BMW announced that it was jumping into the game</a>.

 

Eh, they have been showing off their hydrogen 3-series for a while now, but it sacrifices nearly 1/2 of your trunk space.

 

Give us a decade and we'll see. There needs to be major advances in battery technology, and the manufacturers need to build a vehicle that drives like a gasoline-powered vehicle with the same amenities and storage space that we all expect. But it's a great start.

As far as I can tell the growth of the suburbs come down to two things, the notion that new is better and the cost of "percieved safety". I think the cost of city vs suburb vs exurb in Ohio is pretty much leveled out by market forces in Ohio. Price per sqft of land maybe cheaper in the burbs. But I think total cost per sqft of livable space for the average buyer once you factor in taxes, utilities and private school tutition is pretty close. At least what is availible to the middle class.

 

 

 

I know that size is important to a lot of people, but when they get the size they want (not need) they just end up wasting it.

As soon as I stop seeing the qualifiers to stick to "certain parts" of Ohio City or Tremont or Detroit Shoreway or all other of the traditional urban neighborhoods, then I'll put some credence in all of the criticism of suburban life.  But the fact of the matter is people who love urban living won't even live in all urban areas, so why are you so critical of suburbanites don't want to live where you don't want to live either?

 

Not to mention more people work in the suburbs than work in the city, so why wouldn't they live close to where they work?  The parking garage in my condo building is pretty much empty during work hours...should they move closer to their workplace too?

As far as I can tell the growth of the suburbs come down to two things, the notion that new is better and the cost of "percieved safety". I think the cost of city vs suburb vs exurb in Ohio is pretty much leveled out by market forces in Ohio. Price per sqft of land maybe cheaper in the burbs. But I think total cost per sqft of livable space for the average buyer once you factor in taxes, utilities and private school tutition is pretty close. At least what is availible to the middle class.

 

I'm having trouble envisioning what you're positing as comparable properties in terms of living space.  In the suburbs, $250,000 gets you more living space *and* a better school system without having to shell out more for private school.  In the city, $250,000 gets you less space, you *still* pay the taxes for the urban public school system, and you're probably going to have to factor in private school tuition on top of that.

I'll say it- growth in the suburbs is *partially* (with emphasis on partially) fueled by fear.  I'll point to the accelerated white flight which has occurred in Euclid over the past 5 years.  5 years ago, the city had a relatively stable white middle class... that ended when the foreclosure crisis hit.  Around 2006, you would be hard pressed to not find a residential street in this city without 2 to 3 homes with for-sale signs in the front yard, and this doesn't even account for the homes which were being foreclosed on.  As the white middle class moved out, "investors" bought up the properties and rented many of them out to anyone and everyone, with many going through Section 8.  Afterwards, many white homeowners began to sell not just because of depreciating housing values due to the glut of available homes on the market, but also because of the fear of living in a neighborhood which had a growing black population.  The cycle has continued until this day, and I would not be surprised to see the City of Euclid actually have a black majority with this next census (though the city council and school district still do not reflect this).

 

Edit:  Many of the former residents of Euclid have moved further east to areas such as Mentor with it's "new" housing stock.  It is amazing to me to see home values in cities bordering Euclid such as Wickliffe and Eastlake remain relatively stable, along with a low foreclosure rate.  Of course, I'm well aware that certain areas of the county were TARGETED by the banks regarding sub-prime loans... sort of a legal red-lining tactic.  I just don't understand why they targeted stable eastern neighborhoods (like North Collinwood) and eastern suburbs such as Euclid and Maple Heights- of course that's another topic.

 

 

 

 

Within a decade, I feel fairly confident that we'll be driving more than ever--we'll just be in electric cars, and therefore burning far less oil to do that driving. The electric car will allow suburbanites to maintain autocentric lifestyles past the point that rising oil prices would permit--and I am fairly certain that they'll pay the costs necessary to make that transition rather than the transition that I'm guessing many people here wish they would all make, i.e., abandoning the suburbs to the weeds and moving back into the cities.

 

Why is it always an all or nothing situation? I don't want to see all the suburbs abandoned, because that means a huge number of people will have lost the equity and investment they poured into those areas. Look at what abandoning our cities to the weeds has gotten us, after all. That fallout would be an enormous burden on our society, which we've already seen with the spectacular devaluation of such far-flung burgs and the effect it's had on our recent economic woes. However, I would like to see the suburbs stop growing, and investment going back into the cities which are so depopulated that they could absorb a huge share of a region's growth, and do it on infrastructure that's already in place.

 

Why does that have to be an all-or-nothing situation?  "The suburbs" should stop growing?  Every last one of them?

 

Also, absorbing a "huge share," or even any share, of a region's growth is a bit of a laugher in Ohio at the moment--most of our regions are either static or shrinking.

 

However, even if you simply say that you wish that our current suburbs would stop growing, then you're implicitly conceding that a very large portion of the population will remain in autocentric neighborhoods and lead autocentric lifestyles.  Our existing suburbs would see to that, though they could become more transit-friendly with well-designed park and ride systems.  I think you'll also get your wish, at least for a while--our suburban housing stock has expanded to the point where market forces will militate against significant expansion for a while now.

 

Also, the electric car is not a panacea, nor are biofuels, or solar/wind energy, or nuclear power. The solution is going to come from ALL those sources, PLUS living in denser areas that require less travel for daily life.

 

Except that you just said that those existing suburbs will still be there.

 

I'm hoping that daily travel requirements will decrease in part due to an increase in the cultural acceptance and technological viability of telecommuting, which would allow for reduced travel mileage no matter where one lives.

 

While cars get a lot of attention for pollution and energy use, because they're visibly manifesting their use of those resources when on the road, they aren't our biggest use of energy, buildings are. No matter how much time you spend behind the wheel, most people still spend the vast majority of their time in their home or workplace. Powering the lights, computers, appliances, heating, and air conditioning are what consume the most of our resources, and most of that is electricity.

 

True, but electricity is a much better horse to bet on over the long term because it can be generated in many different ways.  It is, in many respects, the ultimate flex fuel.  Also, a 2500sf house in the suburbs is going to burn as much energy as most 2500sf houses in the city--possibly more, unless you confine your view of "the city," as shs already said, only to those neighborhoods where the housing stock was superior quality to begin with and has been well-maintained by people with the resources and dedication to do so.

 

We have an insatiable demand for electricity, and if we suddenly switched from petroleum to electric vehicles, it's still going to be more expensive to operate them.

 

Every source I've read says differently.  The cost per vehicle-mile is substantially cheaper with electric vehicles, and electricity would have to more than double in price, and oil increase not a dime, for it to be more expensive to operate electric vehicles.  The exact opposite is more likely to happen, given that oil is unlikely to get much cheaper absent a double-dip recession.

 

Oil is just one component of the overall "energy" system in the world, and it's naive to think that when oil gets expensive the other sources won't follow suit. Even if the production of gasoline was completely independent of all other fuels, electricity prices would still increase markedly from the demand imposed by everyone switching to it.

 

See my above comments.  We have many, many different ways of getting electricity, so even if the cost of one source goes up, it's not as big a system shock as an oil shortage is.

 

Also, our utter dependence on oil for so many things besides a fuel source raises further questions to the viability of our auto-centric way of life. Yes, gasoline and diesel are main products, and things like heating oil could be substituted with propane or natural gas (at least until we start running out of those too, which we'll do much faster when oil is no longer viable). There's many many other things made of oil that you don't really think about though. Asphalt is an obvious one, and as oil gets more and more scarce and expensive, so will road paving. Concrete is a lot more expensive already, but it also requires a lot of energy to produce and transport as well, and it won't be getting cheaper. Synthetic rubber for tires is made of oil, as are our synthetic fabrics, plastics, foam insulation, even paint. As if that's not bad enough (and it's nowhere near a comprehensive list) many of our fertilizers and pesticides also come from oil. Industrial farming is already a very energy-intensive operation, let alone needing all the petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides on top of that.

 

All true, but little or none of this makes for a compelling anti-suburban argument if the suburbs (and everyone else) switches primarily to electricity for consumer transportation.  People are still going to need to eat whether they're in the suburbs or the cities, so the farming demand is going to be roughly similar regardless of our land use patterns.  Ditto synthetic fabrics, plastics, and paint.  Asphalt and tires alone aren't enough to make a significant dent in petroleum consumption either way.

 

You do make a good point though, Gramarye, that we'll do whatever we can in this country to try to maintain the status quo of happy motoring, as James Howard Kunstler would put it. Unfortunately, we're putting all our resources into that effort, and it's bankrupting us.

 

Not even close.  At the public level, it's the entitlement state that is bankrupting us, with defense spending a distant second and everything else combined a distant third and further.  You have to draw dubious and politically charged connections (e.g., "our defense spending is really oil spending, because all of our wars are obviously for oil") in order to make spending on maintaining the autocentric lifestyle a direct financial threat to the country.  At the private level, it's true that people trying to maintain "happy motoring" lifestyles can get themselves in financial trouble, but so can people racking up more credit card debt on shopping sprees at Nordstrom than they can ever afford to repay--and it's just as easy to overspend on a $700,000 suburban condo as a similarly-priced McMansion in Richfield.

 

There's a growing number of people who are realizing that it's not worth paying out the nose for a mortgage on a house you can't afford that's miles away from work and shopping.

 

This is true.

 

However, it is also true that it's not worth paying out the nose for a mortgage on a condo you can't afford that's right next to work and shopping.

 

The dream of the perfect suburban lifestyle is just that, a dream, and it's not shared by everyone.

 

I agree; I don't particularly share that dream myself, considering where I live and where I intend to keep living.  That said, the negativity towards suburbs on these boards is excessive, counterproductive, and frankly, often offensive--I may live downtown and extol the benefits of doing so, but most of my coworkers, who are also my friends, are suburbanites, and I often feel vicariously maligned on their behalf reading some of the comments on these boards.

 

There will still be suburbs, but all our cities have decentralized to such an extent that in many cases there's nowhere left to go but back to the core. It doesn't have to be a win-lose situation either. Electric cars and alternative energy will help us to maintain what we have, but even without the looming energy issues, the pendulum is swinging back to a bit more of an urban-centered lifestyle.

 

Here, we agree, mostly.  I would also say that the electric car will enable a decent amount of continued suburban growth, but at a lesser rate than the real estate bubble years (a rate that people should have known wasn't sustainable without a population increasing significantly faster than America's today).

 

Even ignoring all the subsidizing of suburban development, unfunded liabilities, deferred payments of externalities, etc., a part of the reason it costs more to live in the city is because there's more demand for it. The suburbs are cheap because there's so much of it out there, while nice urban neighborhoods are much more difficult to come by, and thus they're pricier. If we can get more of those nice urban neighborhoods, which is no small feat considering the reluctance of many regions to invest in needed transit systems and retooling their antiquated suburban-focused zoning codes, then the cost and viability of city living will improve and the city's whole region will benefit from it.

 

Don't count on this.  If this dynamic were actually factual, shouldn't some of it have happened already?  Has the growth of other urban neighborhoods in Columbus actually contributed to any reduction in prices in Victorian Village, the Short North, and German Village (the urban neighborhoods that gentrified first)?  Hardly.  The rises of Harrison West, Italian Village, Merion Village, the Brewery District, etc. have actually increased the prices in the early-gentrifying neighborhoods, because now those neighborhoods border respectable neighborhoods instead of questionable or troubled areas.

 

In addition, urban construction, even urban renovation, is a more procedurally complex process than greenfield construction.  You can add 1500 units in the suburbs more easily than 50 units in the urban core.  Changes to zoning and permitting laws could help level this, but even non-bureaucratic obstacles are higher in the city.

However people end up transporting themselves, and however much they must do it, I just hope that we end up with suburbs without gates and fences and self-contained backyards and basements, and with clotheslines, gardens, bikes, parks, public swimming pools, and kids running in the streets.  That's the suburb I grew up in, and even though I am now a dedicated urbanist, that's one I think is much healthier than many of the suburbs we have today, which can be extremely isolationist.  The suburbs are the same, but the people have changed.  Sometimes I believe that the suburbs have steadily changed the people over the past 6 decades (to be more fearful and isolationist), but that's just my speculation.  Could just as easily be technology as the format of suburban life.  Or maybe it is our nature to want to be isolated and we're just getting what we want.

As far as I can tell the growth of the suburbs come down to two things, the notion that new is better and the cost of "percieved safety". I think the cost of city vs suburb vs exurb in Ohio is pretty much leveled out by market forces in Ohio. Price per sqft of land maybe cheaper in the burbs. But I think total cost per sqft of livable space for the average buyer once you factor in taxes, utilities and private school tutition is pretty close. At least what is availible to the middle class.

 

I'm having trouble envisioning what you're positing as comparable properties in terms of living space.  In the suburbs, $250,000 gets you more living space *and* a better school system without having to shell out more for private school.  In the city, $250,000 gets you less space, you *still* pay the taxes for the urban public school system, and you're probably going to have to factor in private school tuition on top of that.

 

Gramayre, I am basing this on what I have seen in Cleveland and the suburbs.$250k buys you a lot of house in Cleveland unless you are right on the Gold coast or buying into a new construction.  Cleveland is a bit of a different animal. The city proper is actually in the lower half on tax rates compared to the rest of the county. And the housing prices are lower allowing some additional room for tuition all other things being equal . The inner rings have good to decent public schools so the housing prices are a little bit higher than the city proper but are repressed by the tax rate. The outer rings have good schools and lower tax rates (for now) but the housing prices are a step higher for a similiar sized house in a development. This may be a result of all the feifdoms in Cleveland but that is what my observations are based on. Feel free to pick these apart but like I said this just my observation after many hours looking at realtor.com.

 

I'll pull some examples later if I have some time.

 

 

One of the problems I have with the urban/suburban arguement when it comes to commuting, is that the arguement assumes all jobs are near the urban center.  This just isn't true, from my experience.

 

When you live downtown and your job moves 15 miles away to a suburb, then the commuting arguement is mute.  And this happens a lot, based on my experience.  Plus, it's a lot shorter commute from a large number of suburbs to my work than it would be from downtown to my work.

 

There are nice advanatages to living downtown, but unless you are real sure your job is going to stay there for the next 30 years, then I think the whole commute arguement is questionable. In Ohio's big cities, I think that's a difficult thing to bet on.

I live in the city of Cleveland & work in the city, run all my errands in the city, go to church in the city, etc.  My wife & I rarely leave the city to do much of anything if we don't have to.  It's funny but when I do leave to go visit friends who live in Westlake for example, I'm shocked by the amount of traffic and time wasted sitting at stop lights with dozens of cars in front of me.  My wife & I look at each other and say "We never have to do this in the city."

 

One other spin that might've already been mentioned, I apologize for not reading atll 36 pages, but new construction in Cleveland is eligible for 15 yr tax abatements.  You can get this also if you buy an old home and spend something like 2x the value in improvements.  Hopefully someone can correct me, but I know several folks that have done this in Ohio City & Tremont.  The numbers work very well if you can buy an old crappy home for about $50k or less...  In either situation, you have a great "new" home, and can take the thousands you'd pay in property taxes and put it toward a great private school education.

 

For the record, I wouldn't send my kids to the public schools of most inner ring suburbs either, so living in the city and springing for private school costs aren't a huge hurdle.

"I live in the city of Cleveland & work in the city, run all my errands in the city, go to church in the city, etc"

 

What would you do if your job was transfered to a location in Strongsville?

 

(edited - originally said Parma, but I think Strongsville is a better example of a job moving to a new location on the edge of a metro area)

No, I wouldn't live in the city if I worked in Strongsville, but I probably wouldn't live in Strongsville either.  I bought my first house in the suburbs and after being there for 3 years, I realized I hated everything about it.  I consider myself a bit of an urban pioneer and doing so has it's risks & rewards.  I had my gas grille stolen this past weekend after leaving it outside for only a few hours, which really sucks.  But I'm seeing change for the better overall, at a pretty good rate.  City living is exciting.  It may not always be for me, but right now I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

Even if a person's job was out in the suburbs, living in the city still isn't all that bad.  Reverse commuting is pretty cool, I did it when I worked in Mentor for 2 yrs.  Nothing like leaving work and there's 4" of snow on the ground to get back to Cleveland and it barely dusted.

One of the problems I have with the urban/suburban arguement when it comes to commuting, is that the arguement assumes all jobs are near the urban center. This just isn't true, from my experience.

 

When you live downtown and your job moves 15 miles away to a suburb, then the commuting arguement is mute. And this happens a lot, based on my experience. Plus, it's a lot shorter commute from a large number of suburbs to my work than it would be from downtown to my work.

 

There are nice advanatages to living downtown, but unless you are real sure your job is going to stay there for the next 30 years, then I think the whole commute arguement is questionable. In Ohio's big cities, I think that's a difficult thing to bet on.

 

Fair enough, but what if your job was "only" going to stay there for three or five years?  That's a respectable tenure at a job and a respectable tenure at a residence.  So I'd still tell someone to consider living downtown, if their living situation is conducive to it, for a few years--and then, if and when their job *does* move out to the suburbs, just move then.  You get some good years out of the city that way and then adjust when your employer does.

 

There is such a thing as worrying too far in advance.

Size, safety, and schools. Until the urban core can deliver them, it's going to continue to hemorrhage families to the suburbs. No amount of sanctimonious lectures or snide remarks about suburbanites is going to change that.

In the real world, in 2010, you can easily get all those things in Ohio's big cities.  Real estate is a bargain in these places, at least so far.  I have very affordable 2300SF in the middle of Cincinnati, and my kids enjoy the finest in public education, (CPS magnet program). 

 

Cities in Ohio are not New York city aka 1979.  Actual crime is less an issue than the fear like when your first kids are born and worrying about them living amongst people who poor and all the cultural baggage. In retrospect the neighbor peer thing is nothing to worry about.  It's not like you let your kids run all around the neighborhood with the punks smoking weed.  For better or worse, childhood today is more about playdates, schoolmates, team mates etc, and less about hanging out in the neighborhood.

"I live in the city of Cleveland & work in the city, run all my errands in the city, go to church in the city, etc"

 

What would you do if your job was transfered to a location in Strongsville?

 

(edited - originally said Parma, but I think Strongsville is a better example of a job moving to a new location on the edge of a metro area)

 

My fiance and I live in downtown C-Town.  He works in Mentor, I am in University Circle.  When I finish school, if I get a job where I want to, it will be in the southern burbs.  Downtown's still looking pretty convenient for us!  You can get anywhere in the Cleveland metro area within 30 minutes max.

"I live in the city of Cleveland & work in the city, run all my errands in the city, go to church in the city, etc"

 

What would you do if your job was transfered to a location in Strongsville?

 

You'd be better off than if you lived in Mentor.

 

I work in Beachwood in a small office. The people from the suburbs/exurbs here have much further drives than those of us who live in the city or an inner ring suburb. They come from Medina (really far), Stow (really far), Uniontown (really far), Parkman (really far), and Macedonia (not very far). So I don't think people move to a suburb to be close to work. Either that or they transfer jobs after moving, and often times end up really far from where they live.

 

Where I live, I can walk to a rapid station to go downtown or bike to Beachwood (I drive about 8-10 minutes when the weather is bad). When I was switching jobs, I found most of the jobs in my field were in either of these two locations. I didn't even consider the very few positions not in these areas. I guess if I had chosen to live in Medina or Mentor or Westlake or Strongsville, I would have been SOL if I didn't want a long commute.

One of the problems I have with the urban/suburban arguement when it comes to commuting, is that the arguement assumes all jobs are near the urban center.  This just isn't true, from my experience.

 

When you live downtown and your job moves 15 miles away to a suburb, then the commuting arguement is mute.  And this happens a lot, based on my experience.  Plus, it's a lot shorter commute from a large number of suburbs to my work than it would be from downtown to my work.

 

There are nice advanatages to living downtown, but unless you are real sure your job is going to stay there for the next 30 years, then I think the whole commute arguement is questionable. In Ohio's big cities, I think that's a difficult thing to bet on.

 

Fair enough, but what if your job was "only" going to stay there for three or five years?  That's a respectable tenure at a job and a respectable tenure at a residence.  So I'd still tell someone to consider living downtown, if their living situation is conducive to it, for a few years--and then, if and when their job *does* move out to the suburbs, just move then.  You get some good years out of the city that way and then adjust when your employer does.

 

There is such a thing as worrying too far in advance.

 

Living near the core gives you more options when you switch jobs as well.  That is why it is the core.  You are within a 15 mile radius of MANY more jobs in the core than in a suburb, and you are within many more jobs within a 1 mile radius than ANY suburban location.

I don't know why it has to be an argument that nobody will ever win. Some people like living in an urban environment for the benefits it gives them, as perceived by them, and they deal with whatever negatives there are. Same thing for suburban people.  People are different. Expecting everyone to love urban OR suburban living is like expecting everyone to like the same flavor of ice cream.  I understand the detriment that can happen to urban cores with major exurban sprawl, but I also understand personally the reasons for that sprawl and the desire to go away from the unpleasant side (perceived or real) of urban living.  This is one of the reasons I like LA - yes, everyone has to drive everywhere, but there are many little cities/areas where there is a lot of business; if you can score a job and home in the same "area," you've got it made.  If you can't, you're driving like everyone else.  When I lived in West LA I tried hard to get a job in Century City or Santa Monica, it would have been great.  But I ended up working downtown.  So what, everyone likes living where they live for whatever reasons they like it.  I personally liked that there were cities with businesses where you had a decent chance of landing a job and it didn't all radiate out from the downtown core; you could work in venice, you could work in the valley, you could work on the W side, all feasible options.  I know we don't have the mass of people to make that work on a big scale, but I'm just saying I liked that, because it offered more choice. 

I am not saying there aren't valid complaints about urban areas that need to be addressed before people will want to move back in to the urban core en masse, but claiming people living in the suburbs do so for shorter commutes is just plain false most of the time.

Size, safety, and schools.  Until the urban core can deliver them, it's going to continue to hemorrhage families to the suburbs.  No amount of sanctimonious lectures or snide remarks about suburbanites is going to change that.

In the real world, in 2010, you can easily get all those things in Ohio's big cities.  Real estate is a bargain in these places, at least so far.  I have very affordable 2300SF in the middle of Cincinnati, and my kids enjoy the finest in public education, (CPS magnet program).

 

I know nothing about the latter; is that a magnet program a la Columbus Alternative?  CAHS is as good a school as you'll find--but only if you're lucky enough to get in.  (They really need to give it a bigger building.)

 

Also, while schoolmates and teammates definitely matter, there's also likely to be a substantial amount of overlap between those crowds and the kids from "the neighborhood" unless you're in a situation like yours where your children go to a magnet school instead of the neighborhood school.

I don't know why it has to be an argument that nobody will ever win. Some people like living in an urban environment for the benefits it gives them, as perceived by them, and they deal with whatever negatives there are. Same thing for suburban people. People are different. Expecting everyone to love urban OR suburban living is like expecting everyone to like the same flavor of ice cream.

 

If people were willing to live and let live--which I am--you would be right.  That does not appear to be the case, however.  Many on these boards, and elsewhere where people with a similarly pro-urban mindset congregate, openly and unapologetically promote legal institutional reforms that would shift power and resources away from the suburbs, whether based on animus against the aesthetic, environmental concerns, or a belief that the suburbs get "too much" in the way of resources now so it is only "fair" that they lose it as soon as the Urbanist Party takes power.

 

"Suburbia is not for me" is different than "suburbia delenda est."

>Living near the core gives you more options when you switch jobs as well.

 

Living in a downtown allows you to ride the buses out to many suburban jobs.  As uncomprehensive as the bus systems are in Columbus and Cincinnati (the two Ohio cities where I've lived), it's usually possible to ride a bus to a suburban job or do a combined bus/bike reverse commute. 

 

That is, of course, if your employer tolerates it.  I've lived in enough places and worked enough places to know that merely doing a city>suburb reverse commute on the bus blows people's minds.  Throw a bicycle into the situation and your really, really weird.  Meanwhile, when I lived in Boston, driving to work was really, really weird.  I walked, biked, or took the subway every day. 

 

 

 

Many on these boards, and elsewhere where people with a similarly pro-urban mindset congregate, openly and unapologetically promote legal institutional reforms that would stop subsidizing the suburbs at the expense of cities, restoring a more natural balance and giving true choice, instead of just this suburb vs. that suburb.

 

There, fixed that for ya.

 

It's not about starting a war against the suburbs, it's about ending the war against cities.

About two years ago I was looking for a new job and went to a recruiter with the specific requirement that any job opportunities be in downtown Cincinnati (to continue my existing walking commute).  The recruiter seemed a little frustrated at first when I turned down a couple of interviews out of hand that fit my skill set, but were many miles away.  Ultimately they were able to find a handful of positions that were downtown (including my current position).

 

In my experience while there are plenty of jobs in suburban/exurban communities, they almost exclusively require rush hour driving or long biking commutes.  I believe over time there will be more people who will be just as discerning on jobs close to home or on good mass transit routes.  Certainly when I explain my current commuting situation to friends, family and co-workers there is some jealousy and grumbling about their long commutes.

"Living near the core gives you more options when you switch jobs as well"

 

A very valid arguement.  But with Ohio, companies seem to move locations every 15 years when the next city/town gives them a 15 year tax abatement to relocate.  This phenomina seems more prevelant in Ohio than in other parts of the country.

 

The situation I see right now is that companies are moving out of Cincy north toward WestChester and Mason.  And companies are moving out of downtown Dayton south to Miamisburge area.  As a result, you are getting a second "core" of residency developing midway between the 2.  If you live in Middletown (OK, who wants to live in Middletown?), you are then about 12 miles between Westchester and Miamisburg, along I-75. 

 

Now, you could live in downtown Cincy, but the commute out to Westchester/Mason would be worse than the commute from Middletown to those 2 employment centers. And livining in downtown Cincy means that you can't get to Miamisburge for a job (not in a reasonable time).  Ture, living in Middletown means you can't get to Northern Kentucky, and even downtown Cincy is no longer feasible.

 

My point is that due to sprawl, there are multiple job centers popping up in the region.  While downtown may remain the largest congregation of jobs, it no longer has a huge advantage over other areas.  And for certain job types (engineering, IT, etc), it may not be the best place.  Companies have shown a pattern of moving every so often, especially their back-office staff. Heck, even P&G transfers people all over the metro area every 4 years. 

 

So, the short commute often painted as an advantage to living downtown is increasingly being nullified by circumstances.  If you want to move often, then you are free to follow jobs anywhere (but you better count on renting, which is usually a good thing).  But if you want to stay in one place (school district, family, architectural/neighborhood, what-ever), then many other areas offer the same commute or better than downtown living does over the couse of 20 years.

 

Don't get me wrong.  To a certain degree I'm playing Devil's Advocate to counter an arguement that has continually puzzled me (the commute advantage).  Personally, I don't like neighbors of any sort and prefer to live as rural as possible. Expecially after spending 4 days at my in-laws last week where I was awakened every morning at 7 am by power tools as the neighbor across the street was rebuilding their front porch.

I don't know why it has to be an argument that nobody will ever win. Some people like living in an urban environment for the benefits it gives them, as perceived by them, and they deal with whatever negatives there are. Same thing for suburban people. People are different. Expecting everyone to love urban OR suburban living is like expecting everyone to like the same flavor of ice cream.

 

If people were willing to live and let live--which I am--you would be right. That does not appear to be the case, however. Many on these boards, and elsewhere where people with a similarly pro-urban mindset congregate, openly and unapologetically promote legal institutional reforms that would shift power and resources away from the suburbs, whether based on animus against the aesthetic, environmental concerns, or a belief that the suburbs get "too much" in the way of resources now so it is only "fair" that they lose it as soon as the Urbanist Party takes power.

 

"Suburbia is not for me" is different than "suburbia delenda est."

 

The problem that I have with the current model is that cards are stacked against the established cities.

 

The infrastructure issues that outward expansion create are almost always payed for under some for of socialization. Think gas tax and waterdistrict rates, even gas and electric socialize most of the costs expansion over the whole region. The developers are on the hook for their direct costs ie. utilities in the development proper and maybe a connection charge but the cost to meet the growth in the region  (ie the new transmission line in Geagua County) falls on all of the region.  The current structure really hides the cost of the new devlopment to the homeowner/business owner. The developer recoups his cost in the sale price of the house but the cost to support the development falls on everyone in the region/state.

 

The argument for this model is that it promotes growth, but is really growth if you merely stealing business/residents from a city 10 miles away? It seems that growth should be in addition to what is already there not simply moving it.

The situation I see right now is that companies are moving out of Cincy north toward WestChester and Mason.

 

It always bothers me that I can look out my window in the morning and see the Kroger corporate office, but as an IT professional if I wanted to work at Krogers I would need to commute to Mason some 35 minutes away.

If cities don't want people leaving them, they will have to change some things that I don't think will ever happen.  I mean, downtown parking costs will never just poof disappear, therefore suburban jobs are almost always going to have an edge over downtown jobs in that respect. 

My point is that due to sprawl, there are multiple job centers popping up in the region.

 

This is true, and I would argue that people should move near these new job centers.  The problem is that they aren't designed with density in mind, so hardly anyone can live near these new sprawling job centers.  That is the advantage downtowns will have until new "centers" are built as dense, mixed-use areas.

Suburban anything is going to have an advantage over central cities if your only criteria is free parking.  That's why cities need to stop trying to compete with the suburbs in that respect, and instead focus on the things the suburbs CAN'T provide.  To quote The Urbanophile, "By definition, downtown can never out-compete the suburbs on suburban, automobile-based terms. By necessity, parking takes up a tremendous amount of land, creating lots of dead, open space, which the suburbs have plenty of. In fact, that’s the suburbs’ main asset: lots of open space. A city’s main amenity is not open land, but density, walkability, a diverse mix of uses, and the quality of the streets and other public spaces. These are the areas in which the suburbs cannot out-compete downtown." 

 

Trying to "bring suburbanites downtown" by providing acres of parking is a losing game.  When you do that you get downtowns like Columbus, which have tons of surface parking lots and little worth going to.  To quote the same article as before, "we can have a vibrant downtown where everyone complains about parking, or we can have a dead downtown where everyone complains about parking." 

My point is that due to sprawl, there are multiple job centers popping up in the region.

 

This is true, and I would argue that people should move near these new job centers.  The problem is that they aren't designed with density in mind, so hardly anyone can live near these new sprawling job centers.  That is the advantage downtowns will have until new "centers" are built as dense, mixed-use areas.

 

That is exactly correct.  Near Cincinnati, for example, West Chester could have decided to build out it's "downtown" like an actual downtown that could support increased density (and all of the things that come with it), instead of like a fancy suburban strip mall geared completely toward auto traffic.  That may yet come at some point.  Downtown Cinci wasn't always like it is now.  It was torn up and rebuilt. 

 

Thing is, it's hard to imagine that happening anytime soon, given the perceptions that increased density will only bring bad things.  These same people that moved out to West Chester did so for the grass and isolation, so it's hard to imagine them voting to spend money to provide density supporting infrastructure.  Frankly, that's good for the future of Cincinnati.

 

One of the problems I have with the urban/suburban arguement when it comes to commuting, is that the arguement assumes all jobs are near the urban center.  This just isn't true, from my experience.

 

When you live downtown and your job moves 15 miles away to a suburb, then the commuting arguement is mute.  And this happens a lot, based on my experience.  Plus, it's a lot shorter commute from a large number of suburbs to my work than it would be from downtown to my work.

 

There are nice advanatages to living downtown, but unless you are real sure your job is going to stay there for the next 30 years, then I think the whole commute arguement is questionable. In Ohio's big cities, I think that's a difficult thing to bet on.

 

Fair enough, but what if your job was "only" going to stay there for three or five years?  That's a respectable tenure at a job and a respectable tenure at a residence.  So I'd still tell someone to consider living downtown, if their living situation is conducive to it, for a few years--and then, if and when their job *does* move out to the suburbs, just move then.  You get some good years out of the city that way and then adjust when your employer does.

 

There is such a thing as worrying too far in advance.

 

Living near the core gives you more options when you switch jobs as well.  That is why it is the core.  You are within a 15 mile radius of MANY more jobs in the core than in a suburb, and you are within many more jobs within a 1 mile radius than ANY suburban location.

 

Are jobs going to continue to move out to the suburbs like they have in the past, especially in the long term?

 

I don't know why it has to be an argument that nobody will ever win. Some people like living in an urban environment for the benefits it gives them, as perceived by them, and they deal with whatever negatives there are. Same thing for suburban people.  People are different. Expecting everyone to love urban OR suburban living is like expecting everyone to like the same flavor of ice cream.

 

If people were willing to live and let live--which I am--you would be right.  That does not appear to be the case, however.  Many on these boards, and elsewhere where people with a similarly pro-urban mindset congregate, openly and unapologetically promote legal institutional reforms that would shift power and resources away from the suburbs, whether based on animus against the aesthetic, environmental concerns, or a belief that the suburbs get "too much" in the way of resources now so it is only "fair" that they lose it as soon as the Urbanist Party takes power.

 

"Suburbia is not for me" is different than "suburbia delenda est."

 

The problem that I have with the current model is that cards are stacked against the established cities.

 

To someone who is happy with the current status quo, however, that is exactly what I've been talking about--this mentality naturally leads not just to greater support for cities, but to directly decreasing support for suburbs as well.  As in, not taking money from entitlements or foreign military commitments or agriculture subsidies or what have you to promote urban causes.  The #1 place urbanists seem to want to get money from for urban infrastructure improvements is from the parts of the budget that currently support suburbia.  The #2 place seems to be new taxes, whether on gasoline and carbon or what have you.

 

The infrastructure issues that outward expansion create are almost always payed for under some for of socialization.

 

This is not unique to suburbia.  Almost all infrastructure in this country is either completely publicly owned or heavily publicly subsidized.

 

The argument for this model is that it promotes growth, but is really growth if you merely stealing business/residents from a city 10 miles away? It seems that growth should be in addition to what is already there not simply moving it.

 

"Stealing" is a telling word here.  You can only steal something if it has a rightful owner.  Your analogy sets up the cities as the rightful owners of businesses and residents, which the suburbs are somehow expropriating, apparently using the master thief's tools of free parking, good schools, lower crime rates, and larger houses on larger lots.  That's not the way it works.  Just because the cities might have had them "first" (starting, tautologically, at some point in our past at which the cities did in fact have these things--go back far enough and the vast majority of the population was rural) doesn't mean that they have an eternal right to them.

 

It's a lot easier to accuse the suburbs of "stealing" residents and businesses than it is to concede that the cities have been doing a lot (or neglecting a lot) to drive them out.

This is not unique to suburbia. Almost all infrastructure in this country is either completely publicly owned or heavily publicly subsidized.

 

Yes, but the infrastructure costs per capita are much higher when everything is spread further apart.

>they will have to change some things

 

By "they" you mean the state and the federal government. They keep funding road widenings and new highways even though car ownership and miles driven are on the decline.  Funding for rail transit is minimal -- there is not enough for every city, or even half of them, and so cities must battle for it.  Then the losers end up paying for construction of the systems in the winner cities. 

 

The 3C's could immediately commence construction of comprehensive rail transit networks if ODOT simply diverted part of its $5 billion annual budget toward that end.  But that won't happen because there's some federal money out there to be had, and critics would attack such a scenario by asking why we're not pursuing those funds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

">they will have to change some things

 

By "they" you mean the state and the federal government. They keep funding road widenings and new highways even though car ownership and miles driven are on the decline.  Funding for rail transit is minimal -- there is not enough for every city, or even half of them, and so cities must battle for it.  Then the losers end up paying for construction of the systems in the winner cities. 

 

The 3C's could immediately commence construction of comprehensive rail transit networks if ODOT simply diverted part of its $5 billion annual budget toward that end.  But that won't happen because there's some federal money out there to be had, and critics would attack such a scenario by asking why we're not pursuing those funds."

 

Oh so true.  Follow the money.  I think that is the real key to explaining sprawl.  Private developers and land brokers can make a lot more money by purchasing perfectly good farm land at low prices, convince local politions to widen roads and build new interchanges, and then flip the land to commercial builders.  I suspect his is a heck of a lot easier and more profitable than renovating existing structures.

 

I think the whole way the government (local, state, federal) incentisese (is that a word?) developers is a big cause of sprawl. 

 

Incentivizes is the word you're looking for.

"Incentivizes is the word you're looking for. "

 

now if I can only remember that!

 

Thanks.

>the whole way the government (local, state, federal) i

 

Prewar all subway lines were either built by cities or by some combination of city and private funds.  The only examples of state funding were in the granting of right-of-ways, such as the canal subways in Newark, Rochester, and Cincinnati.  There was no federal funding except in Chicago.  Federal funding was basically legally impossible during that era since nearly all streetcar companies were still privately owned. 

 

The last city to launch a rapid transit network without federal funding was San Francisco.  BART was originally funded through a huge multi-county bond issue (approved by a 60%+ vote), some state funds, and excess revenue from the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.  Only its very late stages (mostly the cheaper surface suburban sections) received federal funding after passage of the Urban Mass Transit Assistance Act of 1970. 

 

There were advantages to this way of doing things, since the whole system wasn't designed to score well on the FTA's metric.  The big problem now is that it's basically impossible to build a subway in a mid-sized city, since it will almost certainly score poorly according to their criteria.  I wouldn't doubt that if ODOT funded construction of downtown subways in the 3C's, that that infrastructure could then be used to the advantage of future FTA applications.  But the problem with that is that by the time they were finished, the FTA rules will probably have changed, hopefully for the better. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  "Electricity is a much better horse to bet on over the long term because it can be generated in many different ways.  It is, in many respects, the ultimate flex fuel."

 

  Electricity is not a fuel, but a carrier of energy. Electricity cannot be easily stored. The primary benefit of hydrocarbons is that they can be stored and used on demand. Even nuclear doesn't have this benefit, because of the long start up and shut down times.

 

   

  "Many on these boards, and elsewhere where people with a similarly pro-urban mindset congregate, openly and unapologetically promote legal institutional reforms that would shift power and resources away from the suburbs..."

 

  You might be surprised how much animosity there is in the city toward the suburbs. When all the new construction occurs in the suburbs while the city slowly deteriorates, and the Census says that population is more or less stagnant, then the obvious conclusion is that the development in the suburbs is occurring at the expense of the city. There is something wrong here, yet no one can tell exactly what to do about it, if anything.

"Electricity is a much better horse to bet on over the long term because it can be generated in many different ways. It is, in many respects, the ultimate flex fuel."

 

  Electricity is not a fuel, but a carrier of energy. Electricity cannot be easily stored.

 

This is changing--more rapidly than many people appreciate now.  The nature of technological developments is that many people don't see them coming until they go mainstream, at which point they seem to be everywhere at once.  No one noticed the Internet growing from 40,000 nodes to 80,000 nodes--but it made the jump from 40 million to 80 million in roughly the same span of time, just a few years later, and suddenly people caught on that this was more than something for Ivy League and DARPA geeks.

 

Capacitors capable of powering a full-size car for 250+ miles, fully loaded, will arrive before the decade's end.  I have very little doubts about that.

 

The primary benefit of hydrocarbons is that they can be stored and used on demand. Even nuclear doesn't have this benefit, because of the long start up and shut down times.

 

Well, I'm as big an advocate for nuclear power as anyone, but even I might have a few problems with thorium-powered cars ...

 

However, nuclear power can be generating the electricity that travels to homes and garages and through the grid into the capacitors of one's electric car.

 

  Assuming that electric cars with a 250 mile range are available, that's STILL a game changer. If the car is going to make a 250 mile round trip, that is only 125 miles in each direction - barely enough to make it from Cincinnati to Columbus and back - better not be going to the outer ring suburbs!

Extended range vehicles, utilizing petroleum and another form of energy, is your best bet. The Volt is a series hybrid vehicle -- unlike the Prius, which is parallel, in which the gasoline engine fuels not the engine but the electric motor, so it has a very large range. Substitute gasoline for another fuel in the future, and you have a winner. You eliminate the need to wait an hour or so to charge the vehicle at the end of its range (using industrial charging units, not residential units), and you eliminate the "electric vehicle panic."

"Stealing" is a telling word here. You can only steal something if it has a rightful owner. Your analogy sets up the cities as the rightful owners of businesses and residents, which the suburbs are somehow expropriating, apparently using the master thief's tools of free parking, good schools, lower crime rates, and larger houses on larger lots. That's not the way it works. Just because the cities might have had them "first" (starting, tautologically, at some point in our past at which the cities did in fact have these things--go back far enough and the vast majority of the population was rural) doesn't mean that they have an eternal right to them.

 

It's a lot easier to accuse the suburbs of "stealing" residents and businesses than it is to concede that the cities have been doing a lot (or neglecting a lot) to drive them out.

 

Perhaps poaching is a better word? 

 

The purpose the current method of infrastructure cost allocation is socialization in the name of growth with the theory that positives of the additional residents and business would outweigh the cost of the subsidization. When the net growth of a region is static the costs of socializing infrastructure falls on the existing residents/businesses raising their costs with no benefit.These costs are in addition to the fixed costs they are already paying for their infrastructure that was designed to support more residents.The less people you have paying, the higher the rates are. Which in turn drives more people away again raising costs. It's a vicious cycle.

 

The perverse thing about the current system is the cities should be able to offer lower overall costs based on density ie infrastructure costs are divided by a higher number of payers but can't because they are straddled with excess fixed costs and the additional cost of socializing the outward expansion. While those who are directly receiving an overwhelming majority of the benefits from the new infrastructure are paying a tiny portion.  The price signals are wacky.

 

The other thing that seems to happen is that "growth" or at least as defined here as new construction is "sexy" but maintenance is not.  ODOT is great at this. They are installing 5 miles of sound barrier walls along I-77 where they are widening it but the sound barrier walls along I-71 between the turnpike and W 150th are literally crumbling and falling down. Which seriously looks like sh!t. I am sure that the stimulus money was the main reason that the I-77 project is being built but the point is that ODOT wants to build new and better that's why that project was put on the table for the funds instead of the replacement project.