Posted by Recently I’ve had numerous conversations with suburban and rural social progressives who lack the knowledge to understand that their desire to shield themselves from the nuances of population density flies in the face of their blue-leaning thought system. Social justice and environmental advocacy cannot be championed without the appreciation for just how detrimental the suburban and rural standard has been for the U.S. in the last 70 years.
If you’re reading this and have heard it all before, see this as simply a confirmation of what you already know. The truth about the density/sprawl relationship is one that has been around for many decades, and yet when people like me speak of it, we are typically speaking to the vast majority who has never heard of it, or chosen to ignore it for reasons of convenience. To hear it from another source reminds those of us in the know to keep going… that others speak the same language.
If this is your first time reading about this topic, know that this is simply a summarization on this very real issue, and that there are many other resources available that factually depict the extent of the damage suburban sprawl has done to this country.
What Happened When People Moved To The Suburbs?
I’ve written extensively about the migration of Americans from the city to the suburbs. I could go into great length about the postwar financial incentivizing of home building on the outskirts of cities, the transportation monopoly that the auto industry created, and practices like redlining and racial covenants that worked to segregate poverty in our country. These and dozens of other factors explained the well-documented “white flight” from the 50s through the 80s.
The urban response to the mass American suburbanization was to accommodate the daily commute from outlying residential areas to the employment hubs that still existed in our cities. To accomplish this, cities participated in what was known as “Urban Renewal” projects. These “improvements” demolished blocks of former housing, commercial and industrial space in favor of parking lots and garages to ensure easy suburban automobile access. Notoriously, downtown expressways were built, connecting the suburbs to the cities, and displacing entire black neighborhoods in the process.
Downtowns also attempted to draw suburban interests by creating urban malls and Meccas of nightlife, all easily accessible by car. Cities were no longer attempting to attract residents, they competed with the suburbs by attempting to remain employment hubs while appealing to party seekers, concert goers and museum visitors on Fridays and Saturdays. The rest of the time, cities fell silent.
Why Is This A Problem For Cities?
The important nuance to understand is this: what works for the suburbs doesn’t work for cities, and vice versa. Most relevant to this concept is that cities cannot be sustained if the same principles of parking and automobile access used in the suburbs are applied to our urban cores.
The suburbs have always been built around low population density, where space between housing, retail and industry is intentionally baked in. This dynamic means that nearly every trip to the store, to a friend’s house, to school or to work must be made by automobile.
Cities, on the other hand, function best when everything is physically close together. This the means that car ownership is optional rather than mandatory, and that public transit can thrive, supporting more people and jobs per square mile. Walking, biking, taking the bus or a train if available… or driving means that multiple mobility options are available for a myriad of socioeconomic, cultural and community needs.
But when we add suburban amenities like massive parking lots and garages, it voids the density that makes our cities function. That is, in part, why so many cities lost their grip between 1960 and 2000, and why so many cities are working hard to remove downtown expressways, parking lots, and add residential density in their place. For decades, we saw cities as places we visit, adding parking and automobile infrastructure as a result. Today, we are repurposing much of that infrastructure in an effort to re-imagine cities as places where people want to live again.
The Inconvenient Truth About Cities Versus Suburbs
THE ENVIRONMENT
The suburban dynamic is based on sprawling space, automobile dependency, and individualization. It is also in part why the carbon footprint of the suburban resident is far greater than that of the urban resident. This is often the most difficult concept for suburban-dwellers to understand, as they equate more green grass and open space with less environmental impact. But because houses are larger, energy for heating and air conditioning is greater than in cities. Most importantly, the further away people live from jobs, shopping, and one another, the more they have to use a car, which drastically increases their environmental impact.
Furthermore, population that is densely contained in a relatively small area means less overall infringement on natural habitats. The more area we consume with suburban sprawl, the more we impose our roads, highways, lights, noise, fast cars, trucks and SUVs on natural habitats. In short, suburbs are not better for the environment than cities… they are far worse.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND MUNICIPAL RESOURCES
Anyone who’s ever played SimCity knows that greater density means fewer roads, power lines, water and sewer pipes, fewer police stations, fire stations, libraries and community centers to maintain.
Greater population density leads to the building of urban street grids instead of the suburban “collector roads” which inherit traffic from low-density suburban development tracts. If there is traffic on a collector road, drivers have no recourse. In an urban street-grid scenario, drivers, cyclists and transit users can simply choose a wealth of other available streets to access their destination.
PUBLIC TRANSIT, EQUITY AND INCLUSION
For marginalized populations who can’t afford an automobile, urban density means that public transit can perform more efficiently. Not being able to afford a reliable vehicle in suburban and rural settings means people have little chance of holding a steady job or accessing community resources. But in a city, anyone can access these resources via public transportation more effectively, and without the costly financial burden of owning and maintaining a car.
True, most urban transit systems are terribly underfunded and struggle with the lack of urban density due to the aforementioned Urban Renewal efforts to make cities more accommodating to suburban motorists. But they give people of all socioeconomic statuses a fighting chance without the financial burden of owning and maintaining a car.
MAKING THE BETTER CHOICE
Even for a person like myself who is privileged to afford an automobile, I choose to use our extensive bike trails and on-road infrastructure, as well as our bus system to access destinations sustainably. Sure, I could drive, but I like the feeling that I’m making a difference… one fewer car on the road, one less person adding to the pollution of our planet. And if I enjoy a drink or two with friends, riding the bus ensures a safe journey to and from countless establishments.
Density allows me to access resources that are closer and thus reachable by a multitude of sustainable personal and public transportation options.
MOBILITY INDEPENDENCE
I always give a wry chuckle when people tell me that they like their cars because it gives them freedom and independence. Sure, an automobile gives the privileged driver instant and expedited mobility to any destination at any time.
Unless of course, your car is in the shop. At this time, you are relegated to asking family or friends for a ride, especially in the suburbs. Maybe you hit a deer and your insurance doesn’t cover a rental? Maybe you could buy a car but to do so would mean you are incredibly socioeconomically unstable? Maybe you have a family and believe that a two-car household is necessary. Maybe you don’t want a DWI, or maybe you get a DWI? Maybe you live in the suburbs but want to decrease your carbon footprint to combat the now-inevitable impact of climate change?
In any of the examples above and countless more that I haven’t mentioned, a suburban resident would likely be dependent on another person with a car in order to reach jobs and resources. That is the literal definition of dependence.
Independence is an ideal in which an individual has a wealth of options that cater to their lifestyle, ability and need. Mobility independence, something that is almost exclusively the result of dense urban living, is about having a wealth of mobility options instead of being forced to choose just one, which is the one that is the backbone of the flawed suburban low-density model. In sum, living the suburban life is literally the antithesis of mobility independence, as the freedom provided by a car is only as good as one’s access to the single most expensive and exclusive form of American transportation. If there was ever a pay-to-play scenario in the United States, the car would be heads and tails above all other constructs.
DENSITY AND SUICIDE RATES
I slid into my chair for the first college class I ever attended. Little did I know that 25 years later, Sociology 101 would be the engine for my social science approach to life. The professor led with a lesson in the research of Emile Durkheim, one of the pioneer architects of sociology in the late 19th century. Durkheim focused extensively on suicide rates in different areas of population density. What he found flew in the face of anecdotal impression.
In general, suicide rates vary inversely with population density. In the US, for example, the most rural states have the highest suicide rates, where the states that have the greatest population density have the lowest suicide rates. The exactness and consistency of this social dynamic is staggering. The narrative behind it is that, when people feel connected to others, they feel more of a responsibility and a sense of a purpose with the world around them. Conversely, in rural areas, it’s far more common to feel lonely and disconnected.
In Conclusion
Having space to live and sprawl is nice. It’s a luxury that most people in this world will never know. But it’s time for social progressives to understand that environmental sustainability and socioeconomic equity in the U.S. are virtually impossible outside of the urban environment. One’s preference to live the suburban life and still advocate for a just society and more environmentally responsible lifestyle is in serious conflict with the reality that dense living is the only sustainable solution to the most serious societal maladies.
The admittedly valid argument against urban density is that most cities have not catered to the urban family for decades. Housing, family-friendly amenities and good schools are areas in which cities are just now beginning to address as urban cores are transforming into livable options once again. Cities are finally realizing that the only way our urban cores are to survive is to make them attractive places for people to live, raise a family and thrive socially and economically.
But forward movement will not see the light of day until those who stand for progressive values understand that suburban living and environmental and social sustainability are in direct conflict with the comforts of space and square footage.