suburbia1_0808.jpg
On the Times’ Freakonomics blog, leading urban theorists are debating what we’ve been talking about around here lately: the future of suburbia. The “smart people” they gathered to pontificate include James Kunstler, Thomas Antus, Jan Brueckner, Gary Gates, John Archer, Alan Berube and Lawrence Levy, who offered these predictions: The suburbs have three destinies, none of them exclusive: as materials salvage, as slums, and as ruins. Or: If [gentrification] continues in a significant way, large numbers of suburban households looking for urban stimulation may end up switching places with minority central-city dwellers, stirring the ethnic pot in both places. Or, this vision: Suburbia will be flexible, it will be smarter, and it will be hybrid. So which is it?
What Is the Future of Suburbia? [Freakonomics Blog]
Suburbia. Photo by Stacy Magallon.


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. New Yawker – i too feel your pain. Big discussion in our household.

    lechacal – i have thought about queens. i actually like it alot. they do have some nice areas – good schools and close to good resturants. still tossing this one around.

    had to rule out the ‘burbs. too far from family. i can’t do the taxes or the commute. i love the subways and being able to ‘cab it.

  2. MM – “economic development programs are hardly pork to those who need it”

    But such programs in areas that will likely not be able to support economic development after the programs are ceased because of things like – inaccessibility, lack of human capital, lack of infrastructure etc…. are PORK.

    Most of the towns you are talking about were formed and developed during the 19th Century, because they were needed to support farming, had access to water power, were convenient for overland shipping west or to the Erie Canal, or were founded based on religious or other social reasons. These factor mostly no longer exist and therefore without some major change, the economic future for many of these communities is bleak – If they can survive today = GREAT but supporting them with “economic development funds” from the Government is Pork and IMHO a waste.

  3. lechacal – I have to disagree on future ‘gentrification’. First I think it can beargued that much of Queens is/was gentrified already – in fact it was built ‘gentrified’. As to the rest, the Bronx has far nicer housing stock than Queens and fewer Housing projects and less Housing Project residents than either Brooklyn or Manhattan. And while maybe you could argue it based on density – Queens has more Highways too. The Bronx is also far better served by Mass Transit (subway and Metro North) than Queens.

    I agree that Queens may be great for people looking for a more ‘urban’ suburbia – but in terms of what is the next borough (if any) to get gentrified – sorry just do not see Queens as offering that kind of upside.

  4. now this is interesting. a meaningful debate for the ages. what else does google tell us? the zip for el gran castillo and little miss muffin (both right at the B/Q entrance on the prospect heights side) is 11238. the zip for the deli/convenience store at 310 flatbush across the street (right at the other entrance of the B/Q on the park slope side) is 11238. conclusion: i am correct, but definitely prone to wasting my time.

  5. NewYawker — I agonized over all the same things before I left. Good luck with whatever you end up choosing.

    Have you considered Queens? I’m being serious. I have my money on Queens as the next borough to see a wave of gentrification. It is (1) diverse, with lots of good ethnic food and “genuine” neighborhoods, (2) actually quite safe in a lot of places, (3) reasonably priced, and (4) largely viewed as completely uncool, which can change overnight in this city. Staten Island is a wasteland by comparison, and Bronx is just too much of a tangle of highways and projects.

    This is mostly an ininformed armchair analysis. Anyone who actually goes to Queens on a regular basis is welcome to refute this.

1 2 3 4 5 12