Kevin Drum and Freakonomics get future of ’burbs wrong

Drum, in summarizing a Freakonomics post on the future of suburbs in an era of Peak Oil, and the Freakonomics post itself, are both wrong, or at least potentially wrong on the future of the suburbs.

Going to the Freak source, quoting James Kunstler, with a pull quote from his long comments:

“The suburbs have three destinies, none of them exclusive: as materials salvage, as slums, and as ruins.”

And Thomas Antus, a New Jersey municipal government official:

“To pay for the expanded services taxes will also increase exponentially to the point where individual pay checks are made payable to the government and deposited directly in the general treasury.”

Next, Jan Brueckner, economics professor at Cal-Irvine:

“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.”

Kevin sums this up as:

A focus on increased density is going to mean a funny political switcheroo for a lot of liberals. We're mostly accustomed to fighting evil corporations on behalf of the little guy, but it turns out that most suburban (and many urban) zoning regulations have been put in place by exactly the little guys we're used to teaming up with. Developers, on the other hand, would happily build out every last acre to the maximum possible density and maximum possible profit if only they were allowed to. So if we're in favor of higher density, we're frequently going to find ourselves siding with big developers and very much against local public opinion — and believe me, you haven't really taken on the task of changing public opinion until you've sat through a planning commission meeting trying to out-talk an angry mob of homeowners who are dead set against a proposed zoning change that might affect their property values by 1 percent

Wrong. Or, at least potentially wrong, in the sense of, it doesn’t have to be that way.

Kevin, and Freakonomics folks, you’re talking only about quantity, and not quality on point 2.

Cities can be and should be focusing on building codes more than zoning ordinances, requiring MUCH higher insulation standards, more use of recycled material, etc.

New development, redevelopment, infill, etc., should all HUGELY tighten the quality side of the equation. Of course, in major metro areas, this is an invitation for suburbs to cheat on each other, which means state-level governments have to intervene.

Ultimately, it’s going to require the feds to intervene with tax credits for development quality features.

And, while Kunstler is good as a prophet of alarm, not so much as prophet of doom.

(In an e-mail, Drum dismissed the idea of talking about quality, rather than quantity, with the comment, “it’s a blog post, not a book.”) Well, the length of the Freakonomics post, if not a book, is longer than your typical newsmagazine article by a factor of 2.

John Archer is more optimistic at the Freak:

“Suburbia will be flexible, it will be smarter, and it will be hybrid.”

Of course, Kevin’s going to run out of water and electricity in the Southland, perhaps, or at least cheap electricity and halfway cheap water.