Suburbs are winning because they are the environments that people prefer. They are greener, healthier and happier tha the city. And there are children.
The extent to which the success of suburbs in America is attributable to schools probably can’t be overemphasized. Commuting to and from many US cities (NYC among them) for work was a miserable ordeal for decades, but it was better for many families to buy a suburban home, get a tax break and then put their kid(s) in a decent, safe, free school in a suburb than it was to stay in the city.
> No city in human history has ever reproduced its population. Urban births are always lower than rural ones. All cities have always drawn their personnel from the surrounding countryside.
- Chad Oliver, "Transfusion", Astounding Science Fiction, June 1959
Chad Oliver was the Chairman of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Texas.
Britain is quite a different case. Suburbia and ‘garden cities’ have long been established. For example. Russian, East European and German Jews, fleeing first the Bolsheviks, then Stalin, then Hitler - poor, displaced, established themselves in the East End of London - a poor quarter. As they became wealthier they migrated to the suburbs of Golders Green, Finchley, Mill Hill. Post-war, in the 1970s onward, non-Jewish Eastenders migrated to Essex on the borders of London. Not forgetting too that London is now an amalgam of what were small villages and open fields, marshes and aits (small islands) which expanded and joined up. Garden Cities like Hemel Hempstead, Welwyn Garden City were built within easy commute just outside London as overspill, dormitory towns for those who worked in London. A similar state exists around the Country. Unlike the US, Britain has a very small land area, is greatly urbanised, these urban areas growing out of villages or open fields during and after the Industrial Revolution as people left the land to work in the mills, factories and other industries. Towns, cities, conurbations, very close together. The decay in some of the great British cities is linked to the disappearance of the old industries. Since many of these cities had grown up around steel making, ship building, heavy engineering, etc, once these activities ceased the work went, unemployment increased and the cities suffered. However what is described for the US, is not being repeated in the UK.
This is a great comment. Worth nothing too: the US south was poor, had a horrific history of racism (slavery, segregation) and was incredibly hot and humid throughout summer. Segregation ended, removing the shame & stigma, and air conditioning (invented in Houston, Texas) was made readily available.
The advent of air conditioning made a vast area (much, much bigger than the UK in sheer size) of the US that had once been ignored or shunned now extremely attractive. Everyone from retirees in NYC and Chicago to the families of out of work steel workers in Pittsburgh or factory workers in Detroit were able to leave the cold north for the sunny south where there was plenty of cheap housing and no snow or cold weather. Recently many black families (who had moved north in the early & mid 20th century) have returned to the south (often to suburban areas) from northern cities.
Truth be told, the south was also anti-union and anti-regulation in a morally dubious way that resulted in a (Liz Truss dream) culture that businesses like. But more than anything it was air conditioning that made a vast area, full of cheap land and the possibility of affordable housing, suddenly extremely desirable. Highways were then built or expanded. This in a nation with inexpensive gas, oil reserves and a culture that celebrates cars.
As you wisely note, the densely populated UK is very different from the US.
Britain having a maritime and temperate climate, and situated between a huge land mass and water mass (climate change consequently being a quarter-hourly event), temperature and climatic conditions are fairly even throughout the island, so movement of people to escape very hot, or very cold weather is not a factor as you describe for the US. There is a financial aspect however, property is less expensive in the countryside and generally speaking less expensive in northern Britain. Schooling also plays a part, with inner city schools having a poor reputation. Consequently property prices are higher in localities with good schools. That socialist, clapped-out nag, State-run education bringing equality to the poorer-off, falls at the first hurdle. The equalisers have even been talking about bussing pupils - from poorer areas with underperforming schools to more affluent areas with better schools, and vice versa for better-off kids to be sent into basket case schools: the notion being their presence will raise the standard, just as adding fresh milk to sour improves it no end. Now where has bussing school children been practiced pastimes?
I am a Yank from NY, in my 50s. Lean left of center politically. That said, “bussing” (court ordered desegregation, resulting in the human version of dropping some red ants in a colony of black ones and some black ones in a colony of red ones — only with children) was the single greatest “own goal” of my life for the Democrats.
In fairness, I just missed LBJ ramping up the Vietnam War and the draft, which admittedly would likely knock “bussing” to the two spot of “own goals” by Democrats.
People went insane and the end result was a mass exodus from our state schools. Urban schools throughout America still haven’t recovered.
Nor, interestingly enough, for that matter, has the city of Boston’s reputation, this after working-class Irish-Americans there had a particularly ugly and often appallingly racist response. The Kennedys and the patrician old WASP Brahmins all sent their kids to incredibly elite and expensive prepschools and wouldn’t be effected by the policy they were enacting. The policy was so divisive & counterproductive and the backlash in Boston so awful that nearly fifty years later many black NBA (basketball) payers are still wary of playing for the city’s team. These are players who were born decades later.
Again: just incredibly divisive and counterproductive. Stupid.
Prices in cities are higher because there is less land available. And more competition for uses. We know suburbia is preferred because when we build it people leave cities to live in it.
I live in the country. I don’t want city-dwellers to figure it out. Urban sprawl will become suburban sprawl and massive smaller municipalities will arise.
Interesting piece. It will of course always be the case that people want to move out to the suburbs with families, but the nature of those suburbs is likely to be different than the ones we grew up, denser and more walkable. And parents want their kids to get around more independently too - the Netherlands offers a case study there.
The extent to which the success of suburbs in America is attributable to schools probably can’t be overemphasized. Commuting to and from many US cities (NYC among them) for work was a miserable ordeal for decades, but it was better for many families to buy a suburban home, get a tax break and then put their kid(s) in a decent, safe, free school in a suburb than it was to stay in the city.
> No city in human history has ever reproduced its population. Urban births are always lower than rural ones. All cities have always drawn their personnel from the surrounding countryside.
- Chad Oliver, "Transfusion", Astounding Science Fiction, June 1959
Chad Oliver was the Chairman of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Texas.
Britain is quite a different case. Suburbia and ‘garden cities’ have long been established. For example. Russian, East European and German Jews, fleeing first the Bolsheviks, then Stalin, then Hitler - poor, displaced, established themselves in the East End of London - a poor quarter. As they became wealthier they migrated to the suburbs of Golders Green, Finchley, Mill Hill. Post-war, in the 1970s onward, non-Jewish Eastenders migrated to Essex on the borders of London. Not forgetting too that London is now an amalgam of what were small villages and open fields, marshes and aits (small islands) which expanded and joined up. Garden Cities like Hemel Hempstead, Welwyn Garden City were built within easy commute just outside London as overspill, dormitory towns for those who worked in London. A similar state exists around the Country. Unlike the US, Britain has a very small land area, is greatly urbanised, these urban areas growing out of villages or open fields during and after the Industrial Revolution as people left the land to work in the mills, factories and other industries. Towns, cities, conurbations, very close together. The decay in some of the great British cities is linked to the disappearance of the old industries. Since many of these cities had grown up around steel making, ship building, heavy engineering, etc, once these activities ceased the work went, unemployment increased and the cities suffered. However what is described for the US, is not being repeated in the UK.
This is a great comment. Worth nothing too: the US south was poor, had a horrific history of racism (slavery, segregation) and was incredibly hot and humid throughout summer. Segregation ended, removing the shame & stigma, and air conditioning (invented in Houston, Texas) was made readily available.
The advent of air conditioning made a vast area (much, much bigger than the UK in sheer size) of the US that had once been ignored or shunned now extremely attractive. Everyone from retirees in NYC and Chicago to the families of out of work steel workers in Pittsburgh or factory workers in Detroit were able to leave the cold north for the sunny south where there was plenty of cheap housing and no snow or cold weather. Recently many black families (who had moved north in the early & mid 20th century) have returned to the south (often to suburban areas) from northern cities.
Truth be told, the south was also anti-union and anti-regulation in a morally dubious way that resulted in a (Liz Truss dream) culture that businesses like. But more than anything it was air conditioning that made a vast area, full of cheap land and the possibility of affordable housing, suddenly extremely desirable. Highways were then built or expanded. This in a nation with inexpensive gas, oil reserves and a culture that celebrates cars.
As you wisely note, the densely populated UK is very different from the US.
Britain having a maritime and temperate climate, and situated between a huge land mass and water mass (climate change consequently being a quarter-hourly event), temperature and climatic conditions are fairly even throughout the island, so movement of people to escape very hot, or very cold weather is not a factor as you describe for the US. There is a financial aspect however, property is less expensive in the countryside and generally speaking less expensive in northern Britain. Schooling also plays a part, with inner city schools having a poor reputation. Consequently property prices are higher in localities with good schools. That socialist, clapped-out nag, State-run education bringing equality to the poorer-off, falls at the first hurdle. The equalisers have even been talking about bussing pupils - from poorer areas with underperforming schools to more affluent areas with better schools, and vice versa for better-off kids to be sent into basket case schools: the notion being their presence will raise the standard, just as adding fresh milk to sour improves it no end. Now where has bussing school children been practiced pastimes?
I am a Yank from NY, in my 50s. Lean left of center politically. That said, “bussing” (court ordered desegregation, resulting in the human version of dropping some red ants in a colony of black ones and some black ones in a colony of red ones — only with children) was the single greatest “own goal” of my life for the Democrats.
In fairness, I just missed LBJ ramping up the Vietnam War and the draft, which admittedly would likely knock “bussing” to the two spot of “own goals” by Democrats.
People went insane and the end result was a mass exodus from our state schools. Urban schools throughout America still haven’t recovered.
Nor, interestingly enough, for that matter, has the city of Boston’s reputation, this after working-class Irish-Americans there had a particularly ugly and often appallingly racist response. The Kennedys and the patrician old WASP Brahmins all sent their kids to incredibly elite and expensive prepschools and wouldn’t be effected by the policy they were enacting. The policy was so divisive & counterproductive and the backlash in Boston so awful that nearly fifty years later many black NBA (basketball) payers are still wary of playing for the city’s team. These are players who were born decades later.
Again: just incredibly divisive and counterproductive. Stupid.
I got as far as the word ´lurk’ and thought ´have been abandoned’ would offer a different perspective on the situation.
People prefer suburbia, as evidenced by the higher prices of land and housing in the sub... oh. No. The price signal indicates people prefer cities 😉
Prices in cities are higher because there is less land available. And more competition for uses. We know suburbia is preferred because when we build it people leave cities to live in it.
The why doesn’t matter. What does matter is that people are willing to pay that premium.
I live in the country. I don’t want city-dwellers to figure it out. Urban sprawl will become suburban sprawl and massive smaller municipalities will arise.
My countryside might then be placed at risk.
Interesting piece. It will of course always be the case that people want to move out to the suburbs with families, but the nature of those suburbs is likely to be different than the ones we grew up, denser and more walkable. And parents want their kids to get around more independently too - the Netherlands offers a case study there.
As a further point many booming US cities like SLC or Denver have excellent transit systems. They’re just underused, but the infrastructure is there