And the Discussion on the Future of Suburbia Continues

There will always be a significant number of people who prefer life in either the city or the suburbs, and wouldn't switch for anything. They make up a core population that will keep both places intact no matter what trends or economic turns occur. I think that is good. We are not sheep to be herded into one pasture.

My needs and wants are not the same as my brother's, who moved with his family to Westchester for a yard, closeness to caregivers and extended family, good schools and the quality of life he and his wife want for their son. This from a couple who enjoyed living in their high rise in Manhattan, close to cultural events, restaurants, etc. They still come into the city whenever they want, and enjoy those things, so they feel they have the best of both worlds.

I see no good coming out of a depopulated countryside, however, as people flock to the cities. That happened before, 100 years ago, rural people, especially Southern black folks, surged up North, to Chicago, Detroit, Ohio, Pennsylvania, NY, etc, in search of factory and other jobs. They contributed to the boom years of industry, as did anyone who came to the cities for a better life, but their grandchildren and great grandchildren, if they were not able to be educated in a different world, for different skills, are now an underclass in those cities.

I think there will be new lower income suburbs, there already are, and unfortunately, they have the potential to be far worse for residents than an urban alternative. The isolation, disconnection from transportation other than cars, to any available jobs, medical attention, etc, will certainly contribute to these places looking more like East LA, ie low-rise ghettos. The problems of the poor can be moved from location to location pretty easily, as they have little recourse, but out of sight will not mean irradicated, by any means.

In the long run, this is so much more complicated that deciding whether or not to trade in one's Metrocard for an EZPass, and has long lasting repercussions for all of American society.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at August 14, 2008 11:05 AM

11217, I grew up in a very small town upstate. Whenever I go back to visit family, it is disheartening to see that most of the industries that kept small towns alive are gone, and more and more middle class homes have trailers in the yards, as people's kids can't afford to buy their own homes.

The companies that employed my father, and many of the people in the neighborhing towns, were not large by NY standards, they employed maybe a couple hundred people in small manufacturing, along with office staff, and attending jobs, and were the lifeblood of these towns. Most are now gone, or have downsized considerably. Almost all are now subsidiaries of much larger, and often foreign owned companies. The remainder of people are teachers, farmers, truckers,retail workers, health care providers and other service jobs.

A depopulated countryside might give a vision of the amber waves of grain, and deer running free, but it really is the destruction of small town America, which is different from suburban American. Small town farmers are a valuable link in our food chain. I don't want all of my milk and produce coming from Agrogiantamerica, Inc. Small towns,small cities and their productive countrysides, are important to our national health, too.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at August 14, 2008 11:30 AM

11217, I heartily agree with you regarding the McMansion subdivisions. I guess those are considered "exburbs?" We love to have a name for everything, don't we? Fortunately, up where I'm originally from (the Oneonta area) there hasn't been too much of that.

Dave, when I was growing up, those were called "people from the city". That wasn't a complement, either.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at August 14, 2008 11:46 AM

So, fsrq, what are you proposing? That the small towns and villages near places like Oneonta just turn into ghost towns? I don't think that will happen to most. Perhaps those villages that are only a crossroads that never had industry other than the village post office, a general store and a gas station (usually all in the same building, run by one family) will fade away, but most of these towns, which are all around 200 years old, will survive in some sense. Just as not everyone in the burbs wants to live in the city, town and village folk are quite happy the way they are, and will fight to keep their way of life. I think it will be tough, and many younger people will leave, but that has always been the case. On the bright side, as more and more people find that they can work from home, via the internet, people will stay or move back to the countryside.

I would't discount the economic effect of wealthier retirees or summer people, they are usually very welcome to the local economy, unless they start acting like the kinds of gentrifiers who want the world to change to suit them. Sometimes an artists' colony can save a town. The appeal of a small town: quiet, snail's pace, the beauty of the countryside, village life in general, certainly can be a wonderful alternative to the hustle and bustle of city life.

I think the variety of life offered by urban, suburban and country life is necessary to a strong country, as well as to our historic ability to find life where we choose, and make the most of it. Too much planning and overthinking is not going to change that for most people.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at August 14, 2008 12:33 PM

Frsq, by the same token, having the Gov'ment purposefully abandon the care of roads, or other infrastructure, for the sake of vague "sustainable" goal is short sighted and means operating with blinders on. Those roads not only take Joe Country to his Colonial, they also take his kids to school, transport everything to everywhere, support emergency vehicles, and provide a way for people to go anywhere. Like it or not, life in the country means driving a lot, for everyone. What we need are more fuel efficient vehicles, alternative energy vehicles smaller, more efficient trucks and service vehicles. People may drive less, but they will still need to drive. No one, especially any kind of government agency or mandate, is going to easily change the way people have to get around. When your town or home is miles from the nearest grocery store, or your kid is half an hour's school bus ride from the school, non-existant public transportation is not an option. Somebody is going to have to drive. This is far different from suburbia. They don't call it "the country" for nothing.

On top of that, these communities and the people living in them are not living some nostalgic Colonial Williamsburg type theme park life. They have jobs, careers, kids to raise and they pay taxes to have local and federal gov't programs to keep the roads paved and plowed. Why should they be made to feel that they are some kind of nostalgia exhibit? That is so condescending and just wrong. If anything, many are living the "green" life we city folk aspire to, and pay good money to emulate.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at August 14, 2008 1:14 PM

Fsrq, I think we are talking apples and oranges here.

Benson's GI Bill, and many other basically suburban programs had little or no effect on the economies upstate. Have you ever been to rural NY? To the towns that are not suburbs of cities like Syracuse, Buffalo, Albany and Rochester? Where I grew up, very small villages with populations of 600 or so are strung up and down Route 8, Route 23, et al. A small city like Oneonta, Binghamton or even Utica is a metropolis in comparison. People there are not affected by New York City, it is a 4 hour drive, and a world away.

Organic development is what has produced what is there now, and for many, that's just the way it has always been, and that's fine. I just don't see "unsustainable" having any place in life up there, no one has asked anyone to sustain them ever. Maintaining roads, or even economic development programs are hardly pork to those who need it. If you are going to be sustainable, there is plenty of fat to be trimmed elsewhere. Don't forget, people upstate vote and pay taxes, too. They should get their fair share of basic sustainance, as well.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at August 14, 2008 1:50 PM

Fsrq, the beauty of the country is that it IS the country, with all that entails - including lots of land sitting there being lived on, farmed on, used for pasture, hay, crops, and just plain scenery. For crying out loud, let it be. It doesn't need to be utilized, or colonized, or turned into a Texas oilwell. You sound like a Polemicist for the countryside. The origins of small upstate towns may have been religious, or commercial, or, even as my town was, because the founder got a land grant after the Revolutionary War, but those are the same reasons for the existence of our great cities: Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, and so on. The fact that the founder got some land did not build a town that is still viable 200 years later, the hard work of generations of people after him did that. Prayer may founded many a town, but God helps those who work hard, and make their towns and cities work, when the origins of that place are long forgotten.

A bridge to nowhere is political pork. Paving upstate roads, and working to bring new industry to areas that need it is good politics on the part of those representatives. That's what they are elected to do, and those people upstate have as much right to a future as we do here in the city. You are so wrong on this, and I don't think we will see eye to eye. Upstate NY is not the suburbs, it is as different from lower NY as night and day.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at August 14, 2008 6:24 PM