Top Story
Fareed Zakaria: Wanted—A New Global Strategy
My Journey to the Top
 
 
Latest News
Giants' Pierce to meet with NYC investigators
 
 
expand

Driving Down Real Estate

Will higher commuting costs kill the suburbs?

By Daniel McGinn | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jun 30, 2008 | Updated: 8:03  a.m. ET Jul 1, 2008

« Return to Article

 
Discuss
 
Member Comments
  • Posted By: aullman @ 07/26/2008 8:12:08 PM

    Comment: There is another option besides moving back to the city to fight the high cost of gas. Rather than move your home, you can move your office. The office does not have to move for everyone ??? just you.

    Rather than work in a centralized office, ask your boss if you can work in a remote office. Remote Office Centers provides office facilities, internet and phone systems to workers from different companies in shared centers located in the suburbs. There is a free web site for people who want to find a remote office near where they live.
    http://www.remoteofficecenters.com

    With the price of fuel as high as it is, people are going to have to move closer to work or move the office closer to home. Sometimes, moving is not an option or it is too expensive an option. The technology is already available. There are office buildings and under utilized commercial real estate facilities all over suburban America. Why drive to work through crowed roadways, when there are plenty of offices located within a mile of where you live?

  • Posted By: Island Press @ 07/15/2008 1:26:12 PM

    Comment: For more from Chris Leinberger about the move from suburbs to cities:

    http://blog.islandpress.org/author/christopher (his contributions to Island Press' Eco-Compass Blog),

    http://islandpress.org/bookstore/details.php?isbn=9781597261364 (his book, The Option of Urbanism)




  • Posted By: Island Press @ 07/15/2008 1:23:21 PM

    Comment: For those interested in more from Chris Leinberger about the migration from suburbs to cities:

    http://blog.islandpress.org/author/christopher (his contributions to Island Press' Eco-Compass Blog)

    Or read his book, "The Option of Urbanism" (http://islandpress.org/bookstore/details.php?isbn=9781597261364)




  • Posted By: ivoneill@hollandhart.com @ 07/08/2008 5:59:56 PM

    Comment: The problem is that teh commute is just one small part of teh urban/suburban equation. Most major urban centers have third world level school systms and a complete dirth of amenities for anybody except young urban childless singles. A great example of this woul dbe Chicago, where there is no longer a single toy store in the city, and all toy stores have been repelaced with H&M and Urban Outfitter stores.

    The "millenials" make teh baby boomers look altruistic...and they're equally blinkered. A mass shift back to urban centers would first require a massive upgrade and investment in infrasturcture and schools. For example, in Chicago, Gas can hit $40 per gallon and teh commute would still be cheaper than paying for a private school in the city if you wanted to live in teh city but still keep your kids out of the war zone.

  • Posted By: ivoneill@hollandhart.com @ 07/08/2008 5:59:40 PM

    Comment: The problem is that teh commute is just one small part of teh urban/suburban equation. Most major urban centers have third world level school systms and a complete dirth of amenities for anybody except young urban childless singles. A great example of this woul dbe Chicago, where there is no longer a single toy store in the city, and all toy stores have been repelaced with H&M and Urban Outfitter stores.

    The "millenials" make teh baby boomers look altruistic...and they're equally blinkered. A mass shift back to urban centers would first require a massive upgrade and investment in infrasturcture and schools. For example, in Chicago, Gas can hit $40 per gallon and teh commute would still be cheaper than paying for a private school in the city if you wanted to live in teh city but still keep your kids out of the war zone.

  • Posted By: mbr1516 @ 07/07/2008 11:33:07 PM

    Comment: Leinberger's argument about people moving back into urban areas was not just based on fuel prices, though that helps, but also a demographic shift towards seniors, young singles, and young married couples with no children. These groups tend to seek smaller homes and often walk and use transit. The classic nuclear families that helped build many suburban communities are not as economically powerful as they once were.

    • Posted By: kshortSD @ 07/08/2008 12:41:10 PM

      Comment: You're right, but I'm really hoping that cities will consider schools, parks, etc, in their efforts to revitalize the urban core. Certainly, it's not impossible to raise children in the city.

  • Posted By: Jim Bullis @ 07/07/2008 7:50:47 PM

    Comment: Having "driven down real estate for many years," I was motivated to find a way to preserve suburban life styles. My solution along with a variety of others are contenders for the Progressive Automotive X Prize competition. The goal of 100 mpg is within reach of many of these contenders. Nearly all, especially mine which is the Miastrada, will require motorists to rethink their concept of the automobile. See www.miastrada.com for an early view of an interesting solution.

  • Posted By: washchadblip @ 07/07/2008 5:17:39 PM

    Comment: "Grow small" is what I've been telling people for years. I live in a small house and drive a small car and even make a small income, but I'd doing fine and expect to continue to do so.

  • Posted By: mnjam @ 07/07/2008 5:10:31 PM

    Comment: You is screwed dude. Exercise your second Amendment Rights. Live off the land--squirrel with fresh sage is delicious. Shoot a Republican. Tough, but good if smoked for 12 hours, thinly sliced and accompanied by lentils.

  • Posted By: fsilber @ 07/07/2008 4:26:04 PM

    Comment: Automobiles and highways allowed people to leave the cities, but 1960s social changes forced people to take that opportunity. Cities have yet to become friendly to middle-class families with children.

    For example, middle-class families moving back to the city must be able to afford private school tuition in addition to the extra cost of a housing in a safe urban neighborhood -- thanks to the sharp reduction in academic and behavioral standards in urban public schools during the 1960s, That is a _huge_ expense. If private school vouchers were available, then maybe we'd see a more massive gentrification movement pushing the poor out into the suburbs, but I don't think that will happen.

    Instead, I think we'll see people buying little tiny gas-efficient or electric cars for each wage-earner solely for use in commuting or shopping, in addition to the family car used on weekends. The collision risk of driving a tiny car is small compared with the risk of muggings and burglary in an affordable urban neighborhood.

  • Posted By: ecinaj55 @ 07/07/2008 2:47:05 PM

    Comment: If the suburbs are to be saved, mass transit must be brought to them. Myself, I really don't want to give up my suburban (actually almost country) living, and all the peace and quiet that comes with it, and go to the city. The development of a transit system in the long run would be a lot less expensive than "suburban blight".

  • Posted By: D-Rome @ 07/07/2008 11:40:26 AM

    Comment: Buggie, your synosis of the suburbs are wrong and your post reeks of class envy. You hate the suburbs for reasons other than what you are saying. There is no proof that suburbian life leads to anything you are talking about. Now, if you want to have a sensible discussion as to how low gas prices this country enjoyed for many years lead to the creation of suburbia then by all means we can have that discussion. Suburbia was created due to the outrageously high costs of living in the city and the low costs of commuting. Why would a person rent a 700sq. ft. one bedroom apartment in a major metropolis for $1600 a month when they could own a home for hundreds less a month and reap a return on investment?

  • Posted By: D-Rome @ 07/07/2008 11:38:34 AM

    Comment: Buggie, your synosis of the suburbs are wrong and your post reeks of class envy. You hate the suburbs because you can't afford to live there. There is no proof that suburbian life leads to anything you are talking about. Now, if you want to have a sensible discussion as to how low gas prices this country enjoyed for many years lead to the creation of suburbia then by all means we can have that discussion. Suburbia was created due to the outrageously high costs of living in the city and the low costs of commuting. Why would a person rent a 700sq. ft. one bedroom apartment in a major metropolis for $1600 a month when they could own a home for hundreds less a month and reap a return on investment.

    • Posted By: kshortSD @ 07/08/2008 12:38:23 PM

      Comment: I think you are contradicting yourself. You accuse Buggie of hating the suburbs because he can't afford to live there, but then go on to say that people who live in the suburbs are smarter because they are getting more for there money than they would in the city. So which is it? In fact, you are correct in your second point. It is generally more expensive to live close to or within the city. So maybe you are jealous because you can't afford to live close to work?

  • Posted By: kevin79 @ 07/07/2008 11:32:40 AM

    Comment: As a city planner I think the high gas prices may be one of the best things for revitalizing our downtowns and curbing the incessant sprawl and poorly built housing associated with the suburbs. But, while I hope this pattern of thoughtless inefficient development slows, I also hope the answer to this article is a resounding NO. We can not let the suburbs die. We need to learn from the mistake we made when we abandoned our downtowns in the decades after WWII. Suburban growth resulted in urban blight. We face a new suburban blight if we kill the suburbs. Sprawling mile after mile of crumbling housing, poverty, and crime. No. Instead we need to learn from the past, make use of ALL that we have built, reinvigorate downtown and retrofit our suburbs so they are more liveable.

    There is no way we can accomodate the masses of people in most cities in their downtowns alone, unless they suddenly come to resemble Manhattan, which I find highly unlikely. We need to push for higher density development downtown, add a mix of uses in close walking, biking, or car ride distance to our suburbs. Add greenspaces, recreation, true small town centers so they don't have to commute downtown for everything. Mass transit and other alternatives must be brought to these once auto only neighborhoods so they actually become a closely connected part of the larger city and true neighborhoods. Lastly we need to push for infill development both in our downtowns and in our suburbs. We need to stop the leap frogging development pattern that has strained our infrastructure and put us in the situation we are in. I think the high gas prices could ultimately be the one of the best opportunities for us to invest in and improve both our cities and suburbs, but we have to do it right and we have to start now.

  • Posted By: buggie @ 07/07/2008 10:06:11 AM

    Comment: This is the best possible result of high gas prices. Suburbs are inefficient, horrible for the environment, lead to obesity, and degrade the sense of community. Hooray for high gas prices!

  • Posted By: Nins @ 07/06/2008 11:23:09 PM

    Comment: Did you know that if McCain is elected you will have to pay income tax on the value of the medical insurance that your employer gives you? Worse still, he is offering a tax break for people who pay their own insurance, BUT only $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families.

    Let's say you have a family of four. Your insurance policy costs would be at least $1,500-2,500 per month under a self-pay plan, which cost more than employer group plans. So, you pay $18,000 -$30,000 per year for insurance, and you get to deduct only $5,000 of that. If you paid $25,000 for you insurance, you would be out of pocket $20,000 per year. This is FAR WORSE than the current system, where if you are self employed you can deduct 100% of you medical insurance costs.

    So, if you're not self employed, you would stick with your Employer's plan. Employer plans for a family of four have a value of $900-$1,500 per month totaling 10,800-$18,000 per year. Surprise! On April 15th, you owe tax on all of that as INCOME to you. Say your bracket is 25%, and the value of your Employer medical plan is $14,000. You will OWE THE IRS an additional $3,500, and that's ON TOP of whatever monthly premium you already pay to your employer for your insurance.

    Many analysts say that McCain's new rules would encourage employers to stop offering health benefits. If that happened, then far fewer Americans would be insured than are insured today, because what family of four can afford $18,000-$30,000 out of pocket per year for self-pay health insurance?

    Furthermore, McCain's plan does not require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions of people who self-pay their insurance. People under employer group plans have all of their pre-existing conditions covered. This is a hugely unfair aspect of the current system. Insurance companies can afford to cover the pre-existing conditions of the much larger pool of people with group insurance, but they refuse to pay the pre-existing conditions on the smaller pool of self-pay customers. They have been allowed to price gouge the self-pay customers, which is a form of market manipulation that should be illegal.

    So let's say one of your kids had diabetes and you have high blood pressure, then your employer stops offering insurance. You now have to buy your own, but you and your child are INELIGIBLE due to pre-existing conditions. Oh, yeah, they will let you buy the insurance, but you can't use it for any pre-existing condition until you have paid on time every month for two years. And you know what happens at one year and 11 months? You get a letter saying your policy has been cancelled. I have many patients this has happened to.

    McCain's plan SUCKS.

    It does nothing to help middle class working Americans afford or obtain medical insurance. In fact, it makes the current system WORSE.

  • Posted By: alankent64 @ 07/03/2008 3:37:41 PM

    Comment: trams subways and intracity rail and s-trains check out munich germanys suburban connections they didnt have anything until 1972 when the subway and tram system was built for the olympics.
    now any city within an hour by train is an easy commute its like a giant spider web that works well and is very efficent.
    fares are cheap and cars are only for weekend trips to france italy or the alps ...in boston it would be the your locaL ESCAPE spots.
    all across america there are ten of thousands of jobs just waiting to be created by state and local gov floating bond issues supported by federal backing IF of course SOMEONE in the upper reaches of the federal government ever GETS A CLUE about what it takes to move people and goods efficently.
    dont take my word for it just look at germany it is an example of a country that has completly modernized its transportation system.
    its safe as well.

  • Posted By: YouHaveToLiveSmart @ 07/03/2008 3:28:16 PM

    Comment: It would be fanciful to believe that moving near your job would be effective. Given the propensity of companies to 'trade' out employee every time the market farts, you would be forced to move every couple of years. Now just being closer could definitely be a plus. I know that here in Colorado, there are three or four areas of employment, all at opposite ends of the city. Our public transportation is very poor. My wife would use it if it didn't extend her comute over an hour each way. Luckily, I'm only 10 minutes away from work. With kids, I just cannot justify having them in daycare another two hours a day, just to save a few bucks on gas, so we drive. My time has more value than that. My car is paid off; the cost of an extra $100+ in gas per month is nothing compared to a $600 car payment for a hunk of metal that costs over half as much as my first house did in '82 and will depreciate to nothing in a few years. If Tata can make a $2500 car, why can't we? Because 'we' don't want to. We are overly paranoid about safety. OMG.. What would happen if I rolled my car at 80 mph? Ooo! Better have 8 airbags! Hey! Don't hose cost $800 a pop? And the list goes on. Maybe. Just Maybe, we should drive better, maybe, a little slower. Why in the wolrd does your average passenger car need to get to 60 in 7 seconds and have a top end of 150mph? You can't go that fast! As if getting to that speed in 12 seconds instead of 6 is criminal. There just isn't any real reason to need that. And you don't need a pickup truck, if all you ever put in it is groceries. Most of the things we think we need, are just proof of how well advertising works. The rest is just a sickness, thinking we can buy happiness, or need to keep up with our neighbors. Why not just let them go into dept yo their ears, and smile as you watch them place that for sale sign up. Afterall, by living wisely, you would never be in the situation of HAVING to sell your house because you would have a savings account and not be leveraged to the hilt!!

  • Posted By: sparky716 @ 07/03/2008 12:29:40 PM

    Comment: gas $1.17 when bush took office...gas $4.00+ today...good thing we elected a oil man for president and vice president or it might be more....

  • Posted By: Bruce from DC @ 07/03/2008 10:48:16 AM

    Comment: This concept only works for the classic 1950s center city surrounded by a ring of bedroom suburbs -- think New York, Boston, etc. Newer cities, like Atlanta, the big Texas cities, and Washington, DC have dispersed employment locations as well as a "center city." You can live and work in the suburbs. And Los Angeles has no central core worthy of the name. Finally, if you value your time, the cost of a long commute is more than dollaros.

  • Posted By: Bruce from DC @ 07/03/2008 10:42:01 AM

    Comment: This

  • Posted By: feman185@yahoo.com @ 07/03/2008 8:23:25 AM

    Comment: I cannot believe all of this gloom and doom rhetoric that I am hearing these days with the price of gas and the change in the world. First off the price of energy and food commodiities to sustain if forever. The bubble in all the commoidities will burst and prices will agian fall, maybe not back to the level before the run started, but they will fall. The cost of commodities had outpaced the actual demand by 10 fold....especially in oil.

    If supply and demand where the actual driving force in prices then the demand in the last 5 years for oil would have gone up 700% along with the cost. That is obviously not true as actual demand may have increased by 10% if lucky. Specs are running you into the ground but most people would rather listen to the crap that those in the financial markets tell them S&D....S&D ...China & India...Blah, Blah, Blah

    • Posted By: kshortSD @ 07/03/2008 1:27:19 PM

      Comment: I think you are probably right about some prices coming down, but I for one think this energy crisis is just the wake up call that we need. No doom and gloom from me! Things are great when the economy is good, but it's kind of gross the way people become so utterly WASTEFUL when STUFF is plentiful and our wallets are full. When I have a good year, I save money or put it into home improvements to increase the value of my home. Or I invest other ways. I do not spend every weekend in the mall trying to spend my hard earned money on crap that I don't need, like many Americans. This crisis is a good thing. Let's get our priorities straight and our house in order.

  • Posted By: whs806 @ 07/03/2008 6:58:20 AM

    Comment: Jobs will continue to be lost due to USA tax policy that is the 2nd worst in the world. Our tax policy is designed to export American Jobs and import everything else from energy to food. Yes, that includes high gas prices. Congress is against energy development. Don't list to what they say, look at what they do!
    Congress nixes offshore drilling, oil shale development, Clinton nixes ANWR, Carter nixes nuclear. Enjoy your commute while you still have a job. Want to fix it? Implement the Fair Tax Plan

  • Posted By: wildlifeusa @ 07/02/2008 8:12:51 PM

    Comment: Just like the author, americans do not know what is important. What is important, is to have a roof, no matter how small it is as long as it is confortable. The main things are shelter and healthy food in life. Without those two, you cannot have a quality of life. Just like driving a big car does not bring happiness. Most people in this country live above their means.
    Also if you want to have an idea of what may happen to the suburbs, google LinkTV.org and watch the documentary named: the end of suburbia. Not a pretty picture!

    Americans have to start seeing small. Small homes, small cars. because in the end, what is important is to be healthy and have a good qualite of life and the dimension of your house or your car, does not give you those.

  • Posted By: Marchbanks @ 07/02/2008 8:06:07 AM

    Comment: There were *many* reasons I fought, ten years ago, to buy a house in an older neighborhood in downtown Austin, Texas, and now it appears my choice is vindicated. My home's Walk Score comes in at 63/100, which stacks up very nicely against Mr McGinn's 3/100. Now if I can only get my employer to telecommute, instead of forcing me to drive fifteen miles each way to get to my job (in the suburbs, yes), or find a job downtown.(which I'd really rather have).

    • Posted By: kshortSD @ 07/02/2008 1:41:02 PM

      Comment: My older home has a Walkscore of 65. It looks like great minds think alike!

      I drive about 7 miles to work, which is not bad, but I'd love to either telecommute a couple of days a week, or bike to work if I could. But it's not feasible for my route.

  • Posted By: jath123 @ 07/02/2008 7:19:44 AM

    Comment: Mr. McGinn, you make an excellent point about mass transit. It is a thread of sanity for those stuck making commute from the suburbs to downtown anywhere. But having lived in Boston for a few years myself, I think you protest too much about the commuter rail. It is absolute luxury compared to the cattle cars, er, I mean the Red Line, that I used to take from in from Quincy every day. Bring a cup of coffee and a newspaper, and enjoy the ride.

  • Posted By: kshortSD @ 07/01/2008 5:51:10 PM

    Comment: I have so many friends who insisted on buying homes out in the "burbs" because they HAD to have a brand new house with walk-in closets and granite counter tops. Some of them think I'm weird to have bought an older house closer to town, but I've always hated the idea of driving a lot, and now I know I was right! I can always add granite countertops...

  • Posted By: junkmail6 @ 07/01/2008 5:33:41 PM

    Comment: Watched the doomed suburbs thing in the early '90s in L.A. Rancho Cucamonga turned from upscale to slum when the housing market collapsed. People paid $30k just to buy out so they didn't have to live there...

  • Posted By: kicbuy @ 07/01/2008 1:57:22 PM

    Comment: To add to my last post: I paid $200,000 over the amount that it would have cost me to buy a TH or SF hse in the burbs.

  • Posted By: kicbuy @ 07/01/2008 1:49:07 PM

    Comment: I bought a townhouse close to the Wash DC metro area for the reason of alleviating any commute time. After I closed on the house, I tried to justify paying over $200,000 for a TH rather than a TH or SF house in the burbs. Today, I have no regrets. I don't stress out during rush hour, I stretch my full tank of gas of my SUV for at least 2 wks. And my house scored 72 out of 100 on the walkscore.com. I appreciate this article. I have a peace of mind that I made the right decision.

  • Posted By: C. MacLean @ 07/01/2008 10:20:43 AM

    Comment: Hopefully what this trend will really do is revive trains, not doom suburbs.

    We are so addicted to a lifestyle revolving around driving our own car that even the author doesn't mention the possibility of using mass transit until the very end of the article.

    Where are the candidates talking about this issue, instead of the same tired old arguments about more drilling for oil, cleaner coal plants, etc? Where is the discussion of conservation? In all the hoopla about Obama and McCain's so-called energy platform, there is no mention of conservation or mass transit, specifically, trains, just the same old arguments and the same lack of real solutions.

    Maybe gas will need to go to $6/gallon before America wakes up.

    • Posted By: kshortSD @ 07/01/2008 5:55:21 PM

      Comment: I agree with you. This current situation may seem bad, but I really believe this is a good development. Let the price of gas go up, if it will force us to rethink the way we live. Allowing oil companies to start drilling off the California coast is little more than a bandage on a severed limb. Why don't companies start letting people telecommute a couple of days a week to save gas? Why don't we add trains to metropolitan areas that don't have them? Why don't we have more options when it comes to fuel efficient cars?

      • Posted By: Marchbanks @ 07/02/2008 8:10:24 AM

        Comment: The difficulty with "reviving trains" (a move which I, personally, would applaud) is that commuter rail, like buses, subways, trolleys, or any other form of mass transit, are predicated upon a dense population, and when you get out into the middle of my home state, Texas, there simply *aren't enough people* to EVER make the numbers come out in black ink no matter how many times nor how many ways you add them up. The same problem obtains all over the West--there aren't enough people per square mile to make any kind of mass transit a feasible proposition.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/01/2008 9:26:27 AM

    Comment: Home is where the horse lives.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/01/2008 9:24:14 AM

    Comment: We missed the creak of leather and the honest smell of a steed who was part of the family when we retired him to the pasture and cranked the Model-T, not realizing that it would grow into a consumptive giant of an SUV that belches a stench into the very air that we breathe. The SUV doesn't have leather that creaks and it has no soul to blend with the family and when is becomes useless it retires to a pasture littered with unsightly junk after its planned obsolescence renders it dead before its time. What will we ride next? Something will turn up, as it always does, and as we ride in the new conveyance we will look back in our dotage at the good old days when we smelled the newness of the Old SUV as we drove it from the New Car Sales establishment on its laborious and pre-planned obsolescent way to the junkyard, belching corruption into the air that we breathed. But we cannot travel without making some kind of a mess. From horse apples to carbon dioxide, into the new polluter, what will the new mess be? We always find a way.

 
 
Reply
Cancel
 
 
Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

Cancel
 
The Peek
 
 
STRATEGIES
Daniel Lyons

Isn't it ironic: Xerox is hoping it can profit by teaching companies how to reduce their printing.

Sponsored by
 
 
 
 
NATIONAL SECURITY
John Barry, Dan Ephron and Richard Wolffe
Sponsored by
 
 
 
loadingLoading Menu