News   Jul 05, 2024
 3K     0 
News   Jul 05, 2024
 2K     13 
News   Jul 05, 2024
 701     0 

The Suburban Challenge

Brandon716

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
0
Location
Niagara Region
I didn't know where to put this article since it isn't a Canadian article, but its a good read from one of America's top News Weekly magazines.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/180028

The Suburban Challenge
Washington needs to recognize that many of the country's biggest problems—and biggest opportunities—have moved beyond the city limits to the burbs.

Bruce Katz and Jennifer Bradley
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Jan 26, 2009

The suburb is one of America's most treasured stereotypes. Writers can argue whether suburbs are the apotheosis of the American Dream or a suffocating nightmare of sameness, but there's general agreement on their defining characteristics. Suburbs are middle-class family values expressed in stucco, brick and carpet grass. They're all the things that America's noisy, diverse, striving, poor cities are not.

But the suburbs as we think of them are vanishing.

They no longer represent a retreat from the tumult of American life, but the locus of it. What do we do now that they resemble our cities, in good ways and bad?

Suburbs now provide more jobs than cities. Only about 22 percent of jobs in major metropolitan areas are located within three miles of a traditional downtown; twice as many are more than 10 miles out. Suburbs also host more immigrants: in the largest metropolitan areas, nearly six in 10 foreign-born residents now live in the suburbs. In places like Charlotte, N.C., Minneapolis, Sacramento, Calif., and Washington, the first address of many new Americans is most likely down a suburban lane.

Then there are the downsides. Nationwide, a million more suburbanites are living below the poverty line than city dwellers. Suburban St. Louis County, Mo., has 50 percent more working-poor families than the city of St. Louis itself. The mortgage crisis only adds to the problems. The foreclosure rate in Clayton County, which encompasses many of Atlanta's southern suburbs, is twice as high as that in Atlanta. Homes in neighborhoods close to downtown Chicago, Pittsburgh and Portland, Ore., have held their value, while prices for homes far from those urban cores have plummeted, according to new research by Joe Cortright, an economist at Impresa Consulting.

America can't ensure its leading place in the global economy unless we grapple with the problems and opportunities of our suburbs. Nonprofits, long focused on inner cities, need to reach out to poor families and immigrants in the suburbs. The federal government should support the production and preservation of affordable housing there. Even more important, Washington needs to recognize that suburban governments are being flattened by the housing crisis—they don't have the experience or the capacity to slow the tide of foreclosures or deal with neighborhoods strafed by vacancies. The Feds need to use some of the billions in recovery funding to help local governments buy up foreclosed properties and put that land to productive use.

The challenge goes beyond the current crisis. The mental line between city and suburb no longer makes much sense; policies need to treat metropolitan areas as a whole. Washington should support regional clusters for high-tech industries and other sectors. Such clusters foster innovation and economic growth, and they don't gather neatly in one municipality or another. That's why we speak of Silicon Valley and Route 128, rather than San Jose or Boston. Federal job-training funds should reflect the way metropolitan economies actually work: in clusters of firms that span boundaries.

And all levels of government need to reinvent the physical landscape. We need to create walkable communities and more public transit to link people in the burbs to jobs, schools, concert halls and sports fields that may be in the next neighborhood, the next municipality or the next county. As much as they may love their SUVs, suburbanites would benefit from lower greenhouse-gas emissions, less traffic and higher housing values (proximity to transit boosts home prices).

The federal government has a key role to play by providing funds and lowering regulatory hurdles. Certainly President Barack Obama seems aware of the challenge: he has decried the "outdated 'urban' agenda that focuses exclusively on the problems in our cities, and ignores our growing metro areas" and has pledged "a strategy that's about South Florida as much as Miami; that's about Mesa and Scottsdale as much as Phoenix; that's about Stamford and northern New Jersey as much as New York City." His office of urban policy promises to be the generator of that strategy.

The end of the (traditional) suburbs was inevitable. Hopeful, mobile Americans may once have thought they could leave behind the pressures, demands and compromises of city life. But social concerns inexorably follow society. Our leaders, starting with a metro-minded president, now have to make the mental jump across the urban-suburban boundary, and catch up.

Katz is a vice president at the Brookings Institution and founder and director of its Metropolitan Policy Program. Bradley is a senior research associate there.
 
I'm not sure how to take the article, because its characterizes cities as a places to want to run away from and that suburbs should see investment. But its interesting the article is the first major article pointing out suburban decline.

American cities and Canadian cities have always had very different dynamics for various reasons, but its obvious American suburbs are now facing huge problems.

Ironic, no?
 
We tend to think of Toronto's issues as having Toronto specific causes: socialist council drove business away, the mayor's an idiot, the province screwed us, the feds ignore us, etc. And yet the article makes it clear that many of Toronto's major issues (loss of prominence in the local economy, concentration of poverty in the older suburbs, concentration of recent immigrants in the suburbs) are local instances of continent wide issues.

The real drivers of suburban evolution must be very general social trends. Either that or an incredible synchronization of the policies of multiple layers of government in hundreds of jurisdictions.
 
American suburban decline will proceed more or less on its current trajectory with some suburbs hitting rock bottom and others remaining very wealthy enclaves. Canadian suburbs are not immune from this sort of stratification, but they are so jurisdictionally large that they won't face the same sort of financial pitfalls due to a tax imbalance. That doesn't mean that there isn't wealth segregation or stratification, it just means that a suburb of many hundreds of thousands will probably encompass a greater spread of socio-economic groups. For example, if it were a suburb of New York or Chicago, southeast Oakville would be its own municipality of 5,000, or so, and be fantastically rich. At the same time, some of the poorest parts of GTA suburbia, such as South Oshawa, would also be separate and independent cities in the US. Some of the worst neighbourhoods in the US are tiny suburbsan communities: Harvey, IL (where they filmed the mall chase scene in Blues Brothers) and the fading, segregated towns on the southern side of Chicagoland come to mind. That so many services in the US are funded through property and sales taxes within a municiplaity certainly doesn't help.
 
For example, if it were a suburb of New York or Chicago, southeast Oakville would be its own municipality of 5,000, or so, and be fantastically rich.

If it were akin to suburban NYC, I'd suspect more of a case where Old Oakville--maybe 10-15 thousand pop--stayed a discrete entity rather than amalgamating with Trafalgar Township back in '62. Meanwhile, Trafalgar remains an entity unto itself, not unlike Cheektowaga or Amherst or West Seneca.

Port Credit and Streetsville would also be discrete entities. Perhaps, too, enclaves like Lorne Park would have "village" status...
 
American suburban decline will proceed more or less on its current trajectory with some suburbs hitting rock bottom and others remaining very wealthy enclaves. Canadian suburbs are not immune from this sort of stratification, but they are so jurisdictionally large that they won't face the same sort of financial pitfalls due to a tax imbalance. That doesn't mean that there isn't wealth segregation or stratification, it just means that a suburb of many hundreds of thousands will probably encompass a greater spread of socio-economic groups...Harvey, IL (where they filmed the mall chase scene in Blues Brothers) and the fading, segregated towns on the southern side of Chicagoland come to mind. That so many services in the US are funded through property and sales taxes within a municiplaity certainly doesn't help.

No, I think Oshawa would be one consolidated city given that until the 1950s, it really was its own place, though it probably wouldn't be as large, probably dropping off right at Taunton and not having as much expansion land.

I see, if we were like most US metros, Toronto's burbs would have been similar to the boundaries as they were in the 1950s, though the larger towns and villages would have expanded into their surrounding townships, like Port Credit, Streetsville, Thornhill, Brampton (which they did later than most into the 1960s), Markham (village). Malton would be its own village (and would have been one of those failing suburbs). Vaughan Township would be all warehouses, as it wouldn't have the residential nuclei of Woodbridge, Maple and Kleinberg, Thornhill would be a town onto itself as well.

My goodness, I drove through Harvey. What a mess. Then there's fewer stark changes than crossing Alter Road from Detroit to the Grosse Pointes.
 
The Suburban Challenge...Long Island style....

Everyone: Interesting topic on suburban areas here!

Being from Long Island - one of the largest suburban areas in the USA
with a population in Nassau and Suffolk Counties around 2.8 million total I know that LI totally runs the gamut from wealthy communities like Great Neck and Garden City all the way to poverished enclaves like Hempstead and Roosevelt in Nassau County to wealthy Suffolk County communities like Cold Spring Harbor,Huntington Bay,Dix Hills and the Hamptons on the East End to places of poverty like Wyandanch,North Amityville and some of the Mastic-Shirley area as good examples.

Long Island-as some know-is the home of Levittown which was one of the largest and first post WW2 suburban enclaves built for returning veterans.
Nassau County-because it is older-is more urbanized today and has a older per-capita population then Suffolk County which is much larger and has more room to grow.

There are drawbacks to LI Suburban life we all know or understand like its extreme car dependency and its very high property taxes as good examples.

Much of Suburbia in the USA was created by those wanting to get away from a nearby City and its perceived problems like crime. Many Suburban communities tend to be very racially segregated and less diverse then the Cities they are near-LI is definitely no exception here.

The way things are becoming today Urban areas with ample amenities are becoming more desireable as places to "Go Back To" instead of moving even further away to exurbs with McMansions with a solitary sense of life and the type of places that you can NOT live without a car.

I fully understand the lure of the Suburbs-My family moved out to LI from NYC in 1967 in a decade-the 60s-where getting away from the City was THE thing to do.
I wonder now - if it was MY choice - if I would have left NYC for LI - with the drawbacks of today like traffic and sprawl and high housing costs-More then likely NO.

One of the things I have always liked about Toronto is that it never really suffered from massive "White Flight" like many US Cities have with a large central area of poverty surrounding a central core Downtown per se.
I understand that there are impoverished areas as mentioned by other UT posters here but they do not dominate an area like the Hamilton-Toronto Golden Horseshoe area I believe-correct me if I am missing something.

- Observations and insight by Long Island Mike -
 
The suburbs were a product of a certain climate, and were fueled by cheap gasoline, affordable cars, ever-rising real estate prices and a desire to escape cities filled with polluting factories. Flight to the suburbs was a luxury that only the middle class or wealthy could afford, which created a cycle of urban decline. In much of the US, this is still the norm to some extent: the suburbs are better alternatives than the vacant, crime-ridden downtowns. But the gap is narrowing.

In Canada, as well as in some US cities, the climate is changing rapidly. Cities are no longer centres of filthy manufacturing, but rather sources of better paying creative jobs (insert obligatory Richard Florida reference here.) The few smoke-spewing factories that remain on this continent are now in the suburbs and exurbs near airports, not in city centres. Former factories are becoming desirable loft conversions. The recent temporary dip in gas prices aside, the costs of commuting by car is still rising. The affordability of cars is dropping. The suburbs were designed as an abode of the wealthy, and when suburbanites become comparatively less wealthy they will suddenly realize that the suburbs are an unpleasant place to be if you cannot afford to heat or cool your 3,000 square foot home, or afford to own several cars, or afford to commute 50 miles each way to work. Living cheaply is difficult when there is no public transit to speak of and zoning laws have located the nearest shops and workplaces miles from your home, reachable only by vast sidewalk-free roads.

As the article hints, the sad truth is that to save the suburbs they need to be made more like the urban centres they were build to oppose. Real sidewalks. Bike lanes. Mixed used zoning. Public transit that can actually be used by the middle class, not just as a last-ditch resort for the poor. Since in the past there was always a "minimum cost of entry" in terms of income level to live in the suburbs, there's been little investment in infrastrucure to support the poor, like homeless shelters or food banks. If you were too poor to live in the suburbs, you stayed in the city. The costs of actually acknowledging and dealing with poverty was pushed back on urban areas.

However, changing any or all of these things on a large scale will be enormously expensive and difficult, because suburbs were built to be sprawling, segregated and exclusive. Aside from a few wealthy enclaves, I suspect many suburbs will take the brunt of the new economic reality and may become far less pleasant to live in than the comparatively vibrant, dense downtown centres they surround. Of course, for the many US cities that seem to have declining suburbs *and* downtown centres, the distinction might be irrelevant.

A pessimist might say that the cost of our previous decades of extremely poor collective planning will soon have to be paid in full.
 
Last edited:
even with the massive slide in gas prices, it appears TTC and GO train ridership is growing.
 
More about the Suburbs...

PG: Good opinion and insight about Suburbia-I feel that we are heading toward the day that living there may become a problem-with more scarce fuel supplies at the top of the list. Higher costs of living will take their tolls there...

HD: I noticed you mentioned the car chase scene in the movie "The Blues Brothers" - it happens to be one of my all-time favorite movies and I will mention that the Mall demolition scene was filmed at the Woodfield Mall in Schaumburg-a NW Cook County suburb. it is perhaps one of my favorite parts of the entire movie! It is a good distance from Harvey-a S suburb.
Insight from LI MIKE
 

Back
Top