The NCSS on NYTimes.com
In Nassau County, an Influx of Democrats Threatens a G.O.P. Stronghold
By Michael Schwirtz
July 7, 2013
Green and Greener in Suburban Towns
By Mireya Navarro
October 9, 2009
On Long Island, Free Parking for Fuel Efficiency
By Mireya Navarro
October 9, 2009
In Suburbia, a Megaproject Offers Hope
Peter Applebome
June 17, 2009
From Albany, Taxes Raised Enough to Hurt
Ross Goldberg
April 3, 2009
Obama Conquers the Crabgrass Frontier
By Lawrence Levy
November 7, 2008
Race and the Suburbs
By Lawrence Levy
October 30, 2008
A Regional Perspective
By Lawrence Levy
October 14, 2008
The Votes Are in the Suburbs
By Lawrence Levy
September 19, 2008
What Is the Future of Suburbia? A Freakonomics Quorum
By Stephen J. Dubner
New York Times "Freakonomics" blog
August 12, 2008
Excerpt listed below
...What will the future hold for suburbs? In an interesting article about Clifton Park, a suburb of Albany, N.Y., that has swollen mightily in past decades (and where I, during one long, hot summer, helped build new houses), here's what a local architect and urban planner, Dominick Ranieri, thinks may happen to suburbia: "If we don't change the patterns, we're in for a long and slow and arduous collapse."
Several months ago, we ran a quorum here about urbanization, pegged to the fact that more than half of the world's population now lives in cities. Given the economic changes of the past several months, particularly those in the housing market and in energy prices, it seemed like a good idea to run a new quorum on suburbia, even if it might cover some of the same ground. (Indeed, we even invited two participants from the first quorum to respond to this one as well.) So we gathered up a group of smart people - James Kunstler, Thomas Antus, Jan Brueckner, Gary Gates, John Archer, Alan Berube, and Lawrence Levy - and asked them the following:
What will U.S. suburbs look like in 40 years?
Their answers are informative and often fascinating. As always, Kunstler is vastly entertaining as he advocates what one critic calls "apocalyptic utopianism," while Antus gets a bit Swiftian on us. Brueckner and Archer are far more measured (and, if I had to lay money on the future, closer to reality), although Archer borders on his own utopianism. Gates takes a surprising and compelling angle, Levy is brutally realistic, and Berube is prescriptive in a way that I wish political candidates could learn to be. I hope you enjoy their replies, and learn from them, as much as I have...
Lawrence C. Levy, executive director of the National Center for Suburban Studies at Hofstra University® in Hempstead, NY, and a Pulitzer Finalist as senior editorial writer and chief political columnist at Newsday.
"It depends - on how smart and bold we are willing to be."
In my former life as an editorial writer at a Great Suburban Newspaper, I hated when politicians or even academicians (as I am now at Hofstra University) would answer one of my questions by saying, "It depends." And I swore I wouldn't do that to other journalists, as well as their viewers and readers, when I found myself at the other end of a question.
So I guess I will have to hate myself: How the suburbs will look in 40 years depends * on everything from local, state, and federal policies to the price of a gallon of gasoline.
One thing for certain is that most suburban communities - wherever they are - won't look like they do now. There will be more clusters of taller buildings, surrounding more public transportation, and populated by people who don't look a lot like - or earn as much at least at first - as those now living next door.
The suburbs are the locus of change in America - dynamic demographic change that is being driven by migration from nearby cities, counties, and, in a shift from prior generations, directly from other countries. (My family spent a generation after leaving "the old country" before moving to the "new suburbs." Now, legal and illegal immigrants alike are bypassing that cramped apartment in a central city for a cramped subdivision, or sometimes, a subdivided house in suburbia.)
Overall, although not always, this change is pushing out in waves that are changing each subsequent suburban ring.
For nearly two decades, the inner-ring suburbs have been looking more and more like the cities they surround. They are nearly as physically dense, politically Democratic, and, unfortunately, socially and educationally dysfunctional. In more recent years, more of the outer rings of suburbia have acquired more of the characteristics of the inner rings. A recent study by the Brookings Institution, which is drawing attention to the need for cities and suburbs to work together to create stronger metro areas, found that there are more poor people in suburbia than the central cities.
These demographic trends should continue but not all of them have to be a negative for the people living there, rich and poor. The challenges of the changing suburbs can lead to smarter solutions that could transform the suburbs into cleaner, less congested, more liveable, more economically viable, and more welcomingly diverse communities for old and young, black and white, English speakers and non English speakers.
The energy price crisis, which is battering suburbia harder than other areas because of its dependence on the car, has hastened a trend toward building higher rise housing in village downtowns near commuter rail lines - aka "transit oriented development."
The units are more affordable because builders can acquire land in depressed village downtowns more cheaply than in other areas and because they are usually allowed to build more units per acre. The affordable apartments in hipper, walkable urban-style neighborhoods become a magnet for young, well educated workers that many suburbs have been losing. Independent elderly couples, who no longer need or want a big single family house, also are drawn to these cheaper, more interesting neighborhoods.
And so it goes - a cycle of survival and renewal that will save the suburb from itself.
Success will breed success and courage. As more of these new suburban spaces succeed, without substantially changing the single-family home character of most of the rest of the community, they will become easier to sell politically. And as NIMBY uproar diminishes, politicians will more likely approve projects that they wouldn't have dared let through a generation or even a year ago.
But the future of the suburbs depends (sorry about that word again) on more than the actions of local village, town, and county officials.
If the federal government reduces incentives for sprawl (by shifting funds from highway building, for instance, to mass transit or to sewer construction necessary for "densifying" suburbs), the so-called "smart growth" movement will hasten and spread deeper into suburbia. If the oil cartels and our own consumption habits keep energy prices high, consumers will pressure builders into putting up smaller and "greener" units that may not look like my parents' split level. Highways may not be as congested or at least they may be safer because people will be driving slower to save on gas. Increased purchases of hybrids and other energy-saving moves will reduce pollution and the "carbon footprint" of suburbia.
And with environmentalists and builders, along with politicians, agreeing on less sprawling tract housing and more "clustered" homes that preserve large swaths of land, the outer "ex-urban" rings may not look like the Levittowns of my parents' generation that grew out of fields that once bore potatoes.
So how will the suburbs look in 40 years? It depends - on how smart and bold we are willing to be.