NPR: There's never been such a severe shortage of homes in the U.S.

[Cranky]

My last home (rented) had a fun problem a couple times a year, where the ridiculously old sewage system (which mixed rain water run off with untreated sewage) couldn't handle heavy rains, combined with water usage and building that sent more water into the system.  What did that mean?  Geysers of *untreated waste water* in the basement as the excess water in the system looked for any way to escape.  One time, we had about 2 feet of it.  Eventually, our landlord put in a backflow-preventer, which mostly solved the problem for that house, but just meant the neighbor's geysers shot even higher.    Now, if you tell the people in that neighborhood, "we just need to build more houses", are they selfish NIMBY's when they say they don't want that?  Or are they maybe just people who don't want their neighbor's urine and the run off from filthy streets to make a water feature in their basement?  And will the people who buy or rent those newly built houses be happy when they too have shit-fountains in their basement on rainy days?

Yes, we need to build more houses.  But we are never going to get neighbors to agree to that if it means even more brown-outs on hot days, or more fecal soup in their basement. 

In order to make "build more houses" feasible, we need to shore up water, sewage, electric, school, and transportation systems.  And that takes money.  A vacancy tax isn't going to cover it, but it would be a few drops in the bucket.  But we are going to need higher property taxes, and other sources of funding to make it happen.  And then when neighbors still don't want more density, they are just NIMBY assholes.

I agree with the general premise about infrastructure (and also all the points made about density).

But what I don't understand is the American obsession with basements.  Where does it come from?  Almost no new houses in the UK (billionaire mansions aside) are built with basements or cellars.  As far as I can tell basements are hard to build, hard to maintain free of damp and floods (and sewage fountains) and of limited use except for storing crap and exiling the kids.  Where's the value, or is it just an irrational hang-over from past practices?

An interesting question - basements are not at all universal. North of Virginia (draw a line across the entire US) generally most homes do have either a basement or dug out crawlspace. South of VA, and especially getting into the deeper south and west, most homes do not. I want to be clear that this isn't a universal rule.

As far as I can tell, there are two main reasons people started using basements:

1) Frost depth - in many northern states, you've got to dig down 4-5 feet to get below the frost line for your foundation. At the very least, this gives your home a pretty substantial crawlspace but at some point, someone figured out that if you just dug out a couple more feet you'd have a place that people could easily access, which leads to -

2) Cold storage. Your crawlspace/cellar is a great place to store perishables in northern climates, staying warmer than the outside in winter and colder than the outside during the summer. Where I live there are a lot of 100+ year old homes  that still have 5-6ft dirt floor cellars. There are people here (Amish) who do still use those cellars for food storage - mostly preserved food, but it's a good 'free' way to keep food in a more consistent climate.

There are a couple practical modern uses for basements:

-Severe weather shelter. While obviously many homes in tornado and hurricane prone areas don't have basements, if you've got one it makes for the safest place you can be in the event of a tornado or hurricane.

-Storage. Americans love their crap, and for better or worse there's no more ideal storage for a lot of junk than in a room in the basement where you don't really ever have to think about it. Similar to the food thing, there's a real benefit to this as opposed to attic storage - your 'stuff' (if you can control the humidity) is going to last longer.

-Mechanicals and laundry - not all, but many homes with basements will typically have the HVAC, hot water, boiler, etc. all in the basement where moisture and leaks are less of an issue and a good number will also have washer & dryer down there too.

Basements aren't all great though, no more obvious reason than the potential for water and sewage intrusion. Unless you have a fieldstone wall, dirt floor basement, you as the homeowner have to work to keep water out and to make sure that whatever is in the basement is at least somewhat protected in case there is standing water (or worse, sewage).

Thanks for the explanation. I too often forget about the awful weather you have over there, so yes, if you've got to dig down that far for foundations then a bit further for a basement makes sense - although perhaps building on piles rather than digging out a basement might make more sense these days?  But people like traditional in houses, so if basements are traditional then basements it probably is.

Don’t British houses have a “ground floor” that’s partly below street level?

[seattlecyclone]

Houses are the one thing that both rich and middle class people buy, so it is very important that increase in value.

What happens when houses have increased so much in value that middle-class people can't realistically buy them anymore? This is the natural result of houses appreciating faster than inflation. It is already the reality in many parts of our country, and it's trending that way in other places.

[LennStar]

The bottom line is that if you want developers to build more residential units, they need to make a profit.

Or you take out the profit motive and do it the "communist" way, like Vienna. You can rent modern homes in modern, eco-friendly developments for less than 10€/m² from the city's house building "company".
For comparison, my 60 year old house in low rent small town in Germany is roughly 7€. Berlin starts somewhere at 12€ I think for some rundown houses.

[PDXTabs]

Houses are the one thing that both rich and middle class people buy, so it is very important that increase in value.

What happens when houses have increased so much in value that middle-class people can't realistically buy them anymore? This is the natural result of houses appreciating faster than inflation. It is already the reality in many parts of our country, and it's trending that way in other places.

Also, houses appreciating way faster than inflation is a new phenomenon. What changed? Fed policy? Housing policy? Consumer behavior?

https://www.longtermtrends.net/home-price-vs-inflation/

[PDXTabs]

The bottom line is that if you want developers to build more residential units, they need to make a profit.

Or you take out the profit motive and do it the "communist" way, like Vienna. You can rent modern homes in modern, eco-friendly developments for less than 10€/m² from the city's house building "company".

I wouldn't even call it communist. That is not very far off of the Singapore model and no one would call Singapore a communist country.

[Michael in ABQ]

The bottom line is that if you want developers to build more residential units, they need to make a profit.

Or you take out the profit motive and do it the "communist" way, like Vienna. You can rent modern homes in modern, eco-friendly developments for less than 10€/m² from the city's house building "company".
For comparison, my 60 year old house in low rent small town in Germany is roughly 7€. Berlin starts somewhere at 12€ I think for some rundown houses.

Here in the US any sort of subsidized or public housing usually ends up being far more expensive to build precisely because there is no profit incentive. It's not your money so the point of view of the government workers is generally "how can I get a bigger budget" not "how can I save money".

I appraised a few subsidized apartment complexes that were being built and their construction estimates were always much higher than the developers looking to make a profit. Even if the quality of the improvements was lower.


It's not profitable to build a Class C building so everyone builds Class A and Class B. The Class C buildings are generally something that used to be nicer and overtime has degraded into a Class C building. Or, it was built at a time when the standards were lower and you could still make a profit building something that wasn't aimed at the top end of the market.

All things being equal if you can spend $1 million and get $1.2 million out of it, or spend $1.5 million and get $2 million out of it, people will always choose the latter. There's never going to be as much profit on the low end of the market because of all the overhead and fixed expenses when it comes to construction. The apartments renting for $2,000 per month are not twice as expensive to build as the ones renting for $1,000 per month - but they have a higher profit margin.

[Just Joe]

If you tax the value of vacant land suitable for development, it will just change the behavior of developers. Now they might wait to purchase and entitle the land (get zoning/planning permissions and approvals to actually build something) until they're ready to build. Maybe they'll just get an option on the land instead of buying it outright - pretty hard to justify taxing land that has an option to purchase - especially when that option is not publicly disclosed anywhere.

How would this work with rural land or would this only be a within city limits thing?

[Just Joe]

Houses are the one thing that both rich and middle class people buy, so it is very important that increase in value.

What happens when houses have increased so much in value that middle-class people can't realistically buy them anymore? This is the natural result of houses appreciating faster than inflation. It is already the reality in many parts of our country, and it's trending that way in other places.

They rent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEwxYvQVU5g

60 Minutes segment about Invitation Homes. We are a home owners but I fear our kids will be lifetime renters if homes here get too expensive. Rent here isn't much (any?) cheaper than mortgages but there is no equity being created at those rental prices.

[seattlecyclone]

Houses are the one thing that both rich and middle class people buy, so it is very important that increase in value.

What happens when houses have increased so much in value that middle-class people can't realistically buy them anymore? This is the natural result of houses appreciating faster than inflation. It is already the reality in many parts of our country, and it's trending that way in other places.

They rent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEwxYvQVU5g

60 Minutes segment about Invitation Homes. We are a home owners but I fear our kids will be lifetime renters if homes here get too expensive. Rent here isn't much (any?) cheaper than mortgages but there is no equity being created at those rental prices.

Yep. High home prices are reflected in the rent too. I think homeownership is a bit overrated, but high prices are bad for young people whether they buy or rent.

[Michael in ABQ]

If you tax the value of vacant land suitable for development, it will just change the behavior of developers. Now they might wait to purchase and entitle the land (get zoning/planning permissions and approvals to actually build something) until they're ready to build. Maybe they'll just get an option on the land instead of buying it outright - pretty hard to justify taxing land that has an option to purchase - especially when that option is not publicly disclosed anywhere.

How would this work with rural land or would this only be a within city limits thing?

It depends on the jurisdiction. I know of one city where the local government would not extend utilities beyond city limits. So if you had two fields right next to each other that were physically suitable for development, the one inside city limits would be far more valuable to a developer.

In appraisal and real estate this is part of the concept called Highest and Best Use. Basically, it boils down to what is the most profitable use of a piece of land and/or improvements based on the tests of physically possible, legally permissible, financially feasible, and maximally productive.

You wouldn't build a single-story building in Manhattan; you would build a skyscraper as that is maximally productive. If you had a field that was outside city limits that can't get zoning approval (legally permissible) the highest and best use might be agriculture or a handful of homes on well and septic. Change the legally permissible to allow a residential subdivision and now the value of the property is multiplied.

[waltworks]

Demographics will solve this in about a decade, but it sucks for now.

-W

[LennStar]

Demographics will solve this in about a decade, but it sucks for now.

-W

You assume that buildings never degenerate and no new one will ever be build because people's demands will not increase.

[waltworks]

You assume that buildings never degenerate and no new one will ever be build because people's demands will not increase.

I assume no such thing, I just look at the US population pyramid and draw conclusions based on how many boomers will be gone and how few younger Z's and such cohorts will be moving into homebuying age.

The US could change it's immigration policies drastically, or some kind of age-extending medical treatment could make boomers immortal, or whatever. But barring some drastic change, a lot of people are going to move out of their homes and not very many are going to be moving in to replace them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#/media/File:USA2020dec1.png

Note the bulges in the early/mid 60s (younger boomers) and early/mid 30s (prime homebuying age). Then look at the younger cohorts, which shink dramatically indefinitely.

We're at peak housing demand, it's downhill from here.

-W

[nereo]

You assume that buildings never degenerate and no new one will ever be build because people's demands will not increase.

I assume no such thing, I just look at the US population pyramid and draw conclusions based on how many boomers will be gone and how few younger Z's and such cohorts will be moving into homebuying age.

The US could change it's immigration policies drastically, or some kind of age-extending medical treatment could make boomers immortal, or whatever. But barring some drastic change, a lot of people are going to move out of their homes and not very many are going to be moving in to replace them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#/media/File:USA2020dec1.png

Note the bulges in the early/mid 60s (younger boomers) and early/mid 30s (prime homebuying age). Then look at the younger cohorts, which shink dramatically indefinitely.

We're at peak housing demand, it's downhill from here.

-W

Overall Walt makes some solid points, but demographics alone ignores the existing population moving from one place to another. People flock to where jobs are, and leave where they aren’t - that’s been happening for centuries, and I don’t see why it might stop just because of an overall population decline.
To get a broad idea, check out Japan, which peaked almost 20 years ago and continues to trend older. Prices have continued to trend up, particularly in the largest cities.

[ChpBstrd]

You assume that buildings never degenerate and no new one will ever be build because people's demands will not increase.

I assume no such thing, I just look at the US population pyramid and draw conclusions based on how many boomers will be gone and how few younger Z's and such cohorts will be moving into homebuying age.

The US could change it's immigration policies drastically, or some kind of age-extending medical treatment could make boomers immortal, or whatever. But barring some drastic change, a lot of people are going to move out of their homes and not very many are going to be moving in to replace them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#/media/File:USA2020dec1.png

Note the bulges in the early/mid 60s (younger boomers) and early/mid 30s (prime homebuying age). Then look at the younger cohorts, which shink dramatically indefinitely.

We're at peak housing demand, it's downhill from here.

-W

Overall Walt makes some solid points, but demographics alone ignores the existing population moving from one place to another. People flock to where jobs are, and leave where they aren’t - that’s been happening for centuries, and I don’t see why it might stop just because of an overall population decline.
To get a broad idea, check out Japan, which peaked almost 20 years ago and continues to trend older. Prices have continued to trend up, particularly in the largest cities.

What happens to HCOL areas when the place "where the jobs are" is on the internet? The metaverse sounds like a dystopian nightmare now, but it could make the physical location of workers' housing, commuting, and offices irrelevant. That trend has already started. In such a world, who would continue to pay quadruple the housing costs to live in a place like Seattle, San Diego, or Brooklyn?

[nereo]

You assume that buildings never degenerate and no new one will ever be build because people's demands will not increase.

I assume no such thing, I just look at the US population pyramid and draw conclusions based on how many boomers will be gone and how few younger Z's and such cohorts will be moving into homebuying age.

The US could change it's immigration policies drastically, or some kind of age-extending medical treatment could make boomers immortal, or whatever. But barring some drastic change, a lot of people are going to move out of their homes and not very many are going to be moving in to replace them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#/media/File:USA2020dec1.png

Note the bulges in the early/mid 60s (younger boomers) and early/mid 30s (prime homebuying age). Then look at the younger cohorts, which shink dramatically indefinitely.

We're at peak housing demand, it's downhill from here.

-W

Overall Walt makes some solid points, but demographics alone ignores the existing population moving from one place to another. People flock to where jobs are, and leave where they aren’t - that’s been happening for centuries, and I don’t see why it might stop just because of an overall population decline.
To get a broad idea, check out Japan, which peaked almost 20 years ago and continues to trend older. Prices have continued to trend up, particularly in the largest cities.

What happens to HCOL areas when the place "where the jobs are" is on the internet? The metaverse sounds like a dystopian nightmare now, but it could make the physical location of workers' housing, commuting, and offices irrelevant. That trend has already started. In such a world, who would continue to pay quadruple the housing costs to live in a place like Seattle, San Diego, or Brooklyn?

Exactly. Where the jobs will be in 10, 20, 50 years is the big unknown. If more workers can "live anywhere" then the desirable places to live will be determined by something other than available jobs.  Maybe school systems, or scenic beauty, or social scene, or climate. What we do know is that some areas will be more desirable to live in than others, and people will move there.

[OtherJen]

You assume that buildings never degenerate and no new one will ever be build because people's demands will not increase.

I assume no such thing, I just look at the US population pyramid and draw conclusions based on how many boomers will be gone and how few younger Z's and such cohorts will be moving into homebuying age.

The US could change it's immigration policies drastically, or some kind of age-extending medical treatment could make boomers immortal, or whatever. But barring some drastic change, a lot of people are going to move out of their homes and not very many are going to be moving in to replace them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#/media/File:USA2020dec1.png

Note the bulges in the early/mid 60s (younger boomers) and early/mid 30s (prime homebuying age). Then look at the younger cohorts, which shink dramatically indefinitely.

We're at peak housing demand, it's downhill from here.

-W

Overall Walt makes some solid points, but demographics alone ignores the existing population moving from one place to another. People flock to where jobs are, and leave where they aren’t - that’s been happening for centuries, and I don’t see why it might stop just because of an overall population decline.
To get a broad idea, check out Japan, which peaked almost 20 years ago and continues to trend older. Prices have continued to trend up, particularly in the largest cities.

What happens to HCOL areas when the place "where the jobs are" is on the internet? The metaverse sounds like a dystopian nightmare now, but it could make the physical location of workers' housing, commuting, and offices irrelevant. That trend has already started. In such a world, who would continue to pay quadruple the housing costs to live in a place like Seattle, San Diego, or Brooklyn?

Exactly. Where the jobs will be in 10, 20, 50 years is the big unknown. If more workers can "live anywhere" then the desirable places to live will be determined by something other than available jobs.  Maybe school systems, or scenic beauty, or social scene, or climate. What we do know is that some areas will be more desirable to live in than others, and people will move there.

I expect that a stable water supply will be a big determinant. Building huge suburban developments, complete with grass lawns, on land that is historically desert has never been a sustainable long-term housing solution.

[YttriumNitrate]

I expect that a stable water supply will be a big determinant. Building huge suburban developments, complete with grass lawns, on land that is historically desert has never been a sustainable long-term housing solution.

Speaking of water limitations, it looks like lake Mead might get to the Tier 2 threshold (1050 feet) this coming summer. I believe at that level, the first of Las Vegas' three water intakes goes dry.
http://mead.uslakes.info/level.asp

[roomtempmayo]

I expect that a stable water supply will be a big determinant. Building huge suburban developments, complete with grass lawns, on land that is historically desert has never been a sustainable long-term housing solution.

Speaking of water limitations, it looks like lake Mead might get to the Tier 2 threshold (1050 feet) this coming summer. I believe at that level, the first of Las Vegas' three water intakes goes dry.
http://mead.uslakes.info/level.asp

The pressure to build a pipeline from the Great Lakes is going to get intense.

[nereo]

I expect that a stable water supply will be a big determinant. Building huge suburban developments, complete with grass lawns, on land that is historically desert has never been a sustainable long-term housing solution.

Speaking of water limitations, it looks like lake Mead might get to the Tier 2 threshold (1050 feet) this coming summer. I believe at that level, the first of Las Vegas' three water intakes goes dry.
http://mead.uslakes.info/level.asp

The pressure to build a pipeline from the Great Lakes is going to get intense.

I don't see how that would be remotely viable, either politically or economically.

[zolotiyeruki]

It depends on the jurisdiction. I know of one city where the local government would not extend utilities beyond city limits. So if you had two fields right next to each other that were physically suitable for development, the one inside city limits would be far more valuable to a developer.

In appraisal and real estate this is part of the concept called Highest and Best Use. Basically, it boils down to what is the most profitable use of a piece of land and/or improvements based on the tests of physically possible, legally permissible, financially feasible, and maximally productive.

You wouldn't build a single-story building in Manhattan; you would build a skyscraper as that is maximally productive. If you had a field that was outside city limits that can't get zoning approval (legally permissible) the highest and best use might be agriculture or a handful of homes on well and septic. Change the legally permissible to allow a residential subdivision and now the value of the property is multiplied.

The problem I see with "highest and best use" is the hypothetical family farm in an area that has seen a lot of growth, and is now surrounded by residential development.  I've heard stories about folks who were forced to sell their land, thanks to skyrocketing taxes because some local bureaucrat had decided that the land would be far more valuable as residential or commercial land, regardless of actual market demand for such properties.  I suppose that you could handle that by tying "highest and best use" to actual zoning for that land, but then you're back to a situation where a developer could be simply holding on to ag-zoned land until the market is ready for them to build.

The problem with this solution, as well as so many of the other proposals in this thread, is that they represent an effort to thwart the laws of supply and demand, and to impose one person's set of values (for example, environmental concerns, walkability, community feel) on another person who may have different values (cost of housing, space to spread out, not sharing walls with neighbors).  If we want to attract people from the suburbs back into higher-density areas, we have to first identify why they prefer the suburbs, and figure out how to either meet those same needs (real or imagined)*, or convince them that the benefits of urban living outweigh the costs.

I think a lot of premises need to be challenged as well.  Covid-19 has brought into question the cost/benefit of centralized offices.  I definitely recognize the benefits of having coworkers nearby.  But let's take a step back: why does that office need to be downtown, if many of the employees would prefer to live in the suburbs?**  Or even further:  why do we need to have, for example, all the big tech companies headquartered in already-constrained west coast cities?***  Why are we (collectively, as a society/economy) trying to squeeze more and more people into the Bay Area?

* - Why do I live in a SFH in a sprawling suburb?  There are lots of reasons.  Because I can get a whole lot more house for the money.  Because I can (relatively) easily modify my house to meet my family's changing needs.  Because I have six kids, some of whom are very loud, and the idea of sharing walls or floors or ceilings with neighbors is laughable.  Because we homeschool, and DW hosts a weekly co-op with 60 people at our house. Because I can grab a ball and go play soccer in the front yard with my kids.  Because it's a quiet neighborhood, away from lots of traffic noise.  Because, while it is considered impolitic to say so, the fact that we're in a middle-class area means there's less crime to worry about.  Because I can plant and grow my own fruit trees.  Because having a decent-sized garage means I can maintain and repair our cars myself.  Because I can go out on my deck and enjoy the view of a muskrat paddling around the shore of the retention pond, hear the frogs croaking at night, and watch spectacular sunrises and sunsets in my bathrobe.  Because I don't need to commute to a high-density area for work.  And, among other things, the politics of my suburb agree with me far more than what I would deal with in a big city.  If you want me to give all of that up, you better have a freaking HUGE carrot to offer. 

** - About a decade ago, my former employer built a huge, brand-new campus 30 miles away from its former headquarters in downtown Houston.  Practically all of the employees lived in the suburbs anyway, so the move resulted in a lot fewer miles driven, plus took pressure off the highways into downtown.

*** - I have a relative who works for a MAANG, and recently got permanent approval for remote work.  He, with his family, moved halfway across the country in 2020, and bought a house in a quiet suburb.  He's taking a pay cut in the process, but is still ahead financially compared to before, and they absolutely love their location.  And his employer saves on his office space and his salary.  It's a win-win!

[FINate]

* - Why do I live in a SFH in a sprawling suburb?  There are lots of reasons.  Because I can get a whole lot more house for the money.  Because I can (relatively) easily modify my house to meet my family's changing needs.  Because I have six kids, some of whom are very loud, and the idea of sharing walls or floors or ceilings with neighbors is laughable.  Because we homeschool, and DW hosts a weekly co-op with 60 people at our house. Because I can grab a ball and go play soccer in the front yard with my kids.  Because it's a quiet neighborhood, away from lots of traffic noise.  Because, while it is considered impolitic to say so, the fact that we're in a middle-class area means there's less crime to worry about.  Because I can plant and grow my own fruit trees.  Because having a decent-sized garage means I can maintain and repair our cars myself.  Because I can go out on my deck and enjoy the view of a muskrat paddling around the shore of the retention pond, hear the frogs croaking at night, and watch spectacular sunrises and sunsets in my bathrobe.  Because I don't need to commute to a high-density area for work.  And, among other things, the politics of my suburb agree with me far more than what I would deal with in a big city.  If you want me to give all of that up, you better have a freaking HUGE carrot to offer. 

While I understand your point here, and suspect many (most?) Americans share the same thought process, I'll point out that these are all LIFESTYLE choices. Suburban sprawl is unequivocally bad for the environment and climate change, and it's generally bad for people (too much sedentary time in a car vs. walking). You can play soccer in a neighborhood park. Dense neighborhoods can be both low crime and quiet (e.g. many European cities). There are other models for hosting large social functions, such as community centers. You can get farm fresh produce at farmer's markets. You can still work on your own cars and do other projects by renting space at a community shop. These are all possible in a well designed and thriving city, we just aren't very good at creating these types of places in the US because so much of our energy goes into sprawl and an antiquated unsustainable vision of the "American Dream."

[YttriumNitrate]

The pressure to build a pipeline from the Great Lakes is going to get intense.

I don't see how that would be remotely viable, either politically or economically.

As someone who lives right on the Great Lakes, I'd be in favor of it. And, after the record high lake levels and flooding we've had over the past few years I'm guessing a lot of people who live near the lakes would be in favor of it. Depending on the situation with the Ogallala aquifer, many of the pass through states could end up begging for a water pipeline.

Of course, a pipeline to the west probably wouldn't help that much with flooding. Completely filling up an empty Lake Mead with water from the Great Lakes would only drop Superior, Michigan, and Huron by six inches.

[six-car-habit]

What happens to HCOL areas when the place "where the jobs are" is on the internet? The metaverse sounds like a dystopian nightmare now, but it could make the physical location of workers' housing, commuting, and offices irrelevant. That trend has already started. In such a world, who would continue to pay quadruple the housing costs to live in a place like Seattle, San Diego, or Brooklyn?

  Still plenty of people whose work will be location dependent.

 Anyone who works works 'hands-on' in construction or utilities -- bricklayer, roofer, electrician, large equipment operator, inspector.
 Folks in education + healthcare -- K-12 teacher, janitor, coach, nurse, pharmacy or rehab tech, dental assistant.
 Retail with a storefront -- hardware store, farmers market, hair salon, restaurants, consignment shops.
 

[chemistk]

* - Why do I live in a SFH in a sprawling suburb?  There are lots of reasons.  Because I can get a whole lot more house for the money.  Because I can (relatively) easily modify my house to meet my family's changing needs.  Because I have six kids, some of whom are very loud, and the idea of sharing walls or floors or ceilings with neighbors is laughable.  Because we homeschool, and DW hosts a weekly co-op with 60 people at our house. Because I can grab a ball and go play soccer in the front yard with my kids.  Because it's a quiet neighborhood, away from lots of traffic noise.  Because, while it is considered impolitic to say so, the fact that we're in a middle-class area means there's less crime to worry about.  Because I can plant and grow my own fruit trees.  Because having a decent-sized garage means I can maintain and repair our cars myself.  Because I can go out on my deck and enjoy the view of a muskrat paddling around the shore of the retention pond, hear the frogs croaking at night, and watch spectacular sunrises and sunsets in my bathrobe.  Because I don't need to commute to a high-density area for work.  And, among other things, the politics of my suburb agree with me far more than what I would deal with in a big city.  If you want me to give all of that up, you better have a freaking HUGE carrot to offer. 

While I understand your point here, and suspect many (most?) Americans share the same thought process, I'll point out that these are all LIFESTYLE choices. Suburban sprawl is unequivocally bad for the environment and climate change, and it's generally bad for people (too much sedentary time in a car vs. walking). You can play soccer in a neighborhood park. Dense neighborhoods can be both low crime and quiet (e.g. many European cities). There are other models for hosting large social functions, such as community centers. You can get farm fresh produce at farmer's markets. You can still work on your own cars and do other projects by renting space at a community shop. These are all possible in a well designed and thriving city, we just aren't very good at creating these types of places in the US because so much of our energy goes into sprawl and an antiquated unsustainable vision of the "American Dream."

Zolo, I don't want to pile on you specifically here, but this counterpoint has been brought up more than a few times and I think it's pretty important to spotlight.

On the topic of this thread - on a wide scale, nobody could ever successfully lobby the closure and bulldozing of existing suburbs, let alone existing rural living. What's built is built and apart from edge cases, it's going to stay that way.

Suburbs just aren't sustainable. They don't pay for themselves at the rate they're currently taxed. Ignoring the human capital they bring to an area, the cost of maintaining existing infrastructure is far too great for individual areas to maintain. Even if your, or my (because I live in the suburbs, too) neighborhood is fully of highly productive working adults who each bring a net positive benefit to the areas they live in, it's still overall a drain on the economic centers of a given area to maintain and service vast neighborhoods of SFH's.

It's a way of life that as a collective society, we need to move away from. I'll call BS on the demand side of things, because marketing sciences have demonstrated overwhelmingly that you can fairly easily steer the collective preference of a big group of people one way or another. In this country, we prefer big sprawling suburban houses because that's what we've become accustomed to. It's not some moral imperative that an individual must live by their preference and defend that preference until they die. My kids shouldn't expect to 'upgrade' over what they are growing up in, which is on the whole, what many people have consciously or subconsciously been trained to believe.

If nothing changes, because people who currently subscribe to a particular way of life don't want anything about that to change, then rising generations are inevitably going to come to prefer the same kind of environment, and things just get generally worse from there.

I recognize that I currently live in a suburb, and that I could do better for the environment, for my local economy, and for my family's finances if we were to downsize and live somewhere smaller. But because that version of smaller doesn't exist yet, where we are now is be best use for my family. And that doesn't stop me from being able to advocate for denser communities, better pedestrian access to services/stores/recreation/work, better public transportation. I want those things for my children (and if they so choose, grandchildren) because I recognize that the mindset that led to today's infrastructure is not the mindset that's needed for tomorrow's.

[innkeeper77]

I doubt that pipeline would be feasible…. The engineering challenge to lift water that high is massive- that would involve pumping water well over a mile uphill in addition to fighting gravity for over a thousand miles. Getting water from Denver to Chicago would be the default flow state, I can’t imagine what the pumping setup would look like to go the other way.

[roomtempmayo]

I expect that a stable water supply will be a big determinant. Building huge suburban developments, complete with grass lawns, on land that is historically desert has never been a sustainable long-term housing solution.

Speaking of water limitations, it looks like lake Mead might get to the Tier 2 threshold (1050 feet) this coming summer. I believe at that level, the first of Las Vegas' three water intakes goes dry.
http://mead.uslakes.info/level.asp

The pressure to build a pipeline from the Great Lakes is going to get intense.

I don't see how that would be remotely viable, either politically or economically.

I would hope so, but the idea has been out there for a long time.  And there's a whole lot of financial and electoral incentive now to keep the southwest irrigated.

Practically all of the employees lived in the suburbs anyway, so the move resulted in a lot fewer miles driven, plus took pressure off the highways into downtown.

The conclusion that either satellite offices or WFH reduces miles driven seems intuitive, but I'm not sure it plays out that way.

Miles driven initially fell during the pandemic, but now in spite of all of the WFH and hybrid setups we're back at all time highs for driving:



Somehow, the reduction in the need to commute hasn't resulted in any reduction in driving at all.

In general, I'm skeptical that WFH will be an environmental benefit, and I suspect it may be an environmental detriment as it prompts more people to live in low density, high driving regions.

[waltworks]

Overall Walt makes some solid points, but demographics alone ignores the existing population moving from one place to another. People flock to where jobs are, and leave where they aren’t - that’s been happening for centuries, and I don’t see why it might stop just because of an overall population decline.
To get a broad idea, check out Japan, which peaked almost 20 years ago and continues to trend older. Prices have continued to trend up, particularly in the largest cities.

To be clear, I am making no predictions about any specific area/city. Some places will be hip and cool and expensive, others will lose population and fade. But the *overall* tide is going out, so random houses in the upper midwest or whatever won't be exploding in value anymore as they have been for the last few years.

Someone mentioned Japan - there are wide swaths of rural Japan now where entire towns have just dried up and blown away. Places where the schools closed because there were no kids, and then the grocery store closed, and then that was it. This will happen in the United States, and just like in Japan, RE in Tokyo/NYC will still be expensive. But outside of those elite markets, houses in many places will be worthless.

Japan is on track to lose *half* of all it's municipalities (as in, town/city DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE) by 2040. There are millions (yes millions) of empty/abandoned houses. The US is a decade or two behind that, but we're on the same track.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-15/in-japan-s-vanishing-rural-towns-newcomers-wanted#:~:text=If%20current%20trends%20continue%2C%20by,beyond%20the%20point%20of%20viability.

-W

[chemistk]

The pressure to build a pipeline from the Great Lakes is going to get intense.

I don't see how that would be remotely viable, either politically or economically.

As someone who lives right on the Great Lakes, I'd be in favor of it. And, after the record high lake levels and flooding we've had over the past few years I'm guessing a lot of people who live near the lakes would be in favor of it. Depending on the situation with the Ogallala aquifer, many of the pass through states could end up begging for a water pipeline.

Of course, a pipeline to the west probably wouldn't help that much with flooding. Completely filling up an empty Lake Mead with water from the Great Lakes would only drop Superior, Michigan, and Huron by six inches.

But isn't piping water from the Lakes (which as someone who grew up in Michigan, I generally disagree with) just a bandaid fix for the underlying issues - too many people want to live somewhere that's just not sustainable for large populations AND the associated industries. Instead of recognizing that new development in deserts is not sustainable long-term, let alone irrigating massive farms, isn't the better approach to be more intentional about reducing water usage, even if it means that some areas need to consolidate?

The Lakes are a fairly fragile ecosystem, more so than people like to believe, and messing with the water levels because we want to continue to irrigate massive swaths of desert and keep lawns green out there smells like a short term fix at best.

[Villanelle]

You assume that buildings never degenerate and no new one will ever be build because people's demands will not increase.

I assume no such thing, I just look at the US population pyramid and draw conclusions based on how many boomers will be gone and how few younger Z's and such cohorts will be moving into homebuying age.

The US could change it's immigration policies drastically, or some kind of age-extending medical treatment could make boomers immortal, or whatever. But barring some drastic change, a lot of people are going to move out of their homes and not very many are going to be moving in to replace them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#/media/File:USA2020dec1.png

Note the bulges in the early/mid 60s (younger boomers) and early/mid 30s (prime homebuying age). Then look at the younger cohorts, which shink dramatically indefinitely.

We're at peak housing demand, it's downhill from here.

-W

Overall Walt makes some solid points, but demographics alone ignores the existing population moving from one place to another. People flock to where jobs are, and leave where they aren’t - that’s been happening for centuries, and I don’t see why it might stop just because of an overall population decline.
To get a broad idea, check out Japan, which peaked almost 20 years ago and continues to trend older. Prices have continued to trend up, particularly in the largest cities.

What happens to HCOL areas when the place "where the jobs are" is on the internet? The metaverse sounds like a dystopian nightmare now, but it could make the physical location of workers' housing, commuting, and offices irrelevant. That trend has already started. In such a world, who would continue to pay quadruple the housing costs to live in a place like Seattle, San Diego, or Brooklyn?

Exactly. Where the jobs will be in 10, 20, 50 years is the big unknown. If more workers can "live anywhere" then the desirable places to live will be determined by something other than available jobs.  Maybe school systems, or scenic beauty, or social scene, or climate. What we do know is that some areas will be more desirable to live in than others, and people will move there.

Isn't that already kind of happening?  Someone mentioned San Diego up thread.  People live there because the weather is incredible, it is close to the beach, but also to skiing, etc.  Not necessarily just because of jobs.  (SD was recently listed as the least affordable metro area in the US.  Lower prices than SF or NYC, but relative to salaries, housing is less affordable.)  The reason the coasts tend to be more expensive has a lot to do with more than just jobs. People want to be there for the weather/climate, the beauty, the culture, etc.   And some of the job/housing costs/desirability relationship may be a chicken egg situation. There are reasons Amazon didn't consider small town USA for their newer headquarters.  They wanted to be in a place where people want to be, to help them attract talent.  So are places with lots of good jobs located where they are because the area is desirable for other reasons?  Or do the jobs make it grow in desirability, due to both just having those jobs and having the resources that come with having good jobs?  It's tough to tell.  But I think many places in the US that are largely considered desirable are desirable for factors beyond jobs, and to some extent the jobs being located there may have been a choice based on the fact that the area was inherently desirable, outside of the employment situation.

[ChpBstrd]

It depends on the jurisdiction. I know of one city where the local government would not extend utilities beyond city limits. So if you had two fields right next to each other that were physically suitable for development, the one inside city limits would be far more valuable to a developer.

In appraisal and real estate this is part of the concept called Highest and Best Use. Basically, it boils down to what is the most profitable use of a piece of land and/or improvements based on the tests of physically possible, legally permissible, financially feasible, and maximally productive.

You wouldn't build a single-story building in Manhattan; you would build a skyscraper as that is maximally productive. If you had a field that was outside city limits that can't get zoning approval (legally permissible) the highest and best use might be agriculture or a handful of homes on well and septic. Change the legally permissible to allow a residential subdivision and now the value of the property is multiplied.

The problem I see with "highest and best use" is the hypothetical family farm in an area that has seen a lot of growth, and is now surrounded by residential development.  I've heard stories about folks who were forced to sell their land, thanks to skyrocketing taxes because some local bureaucrat had decided that the land would be far more valuable as residential or commercial land, regardless of actual market demand for such properties.  I suppose that you could handle that by tying "highest and best use" to actual zoning for that land, but then you're back to a situation where a developer could be simply holding on to ag-zoned land until the market is ready for them to build.

The problem with this solution, as well as so many of the other proposals in this thread, is that they represent an effort to thwart the laws of supply and demand, and to impose one person's set of values (for example, environmental concerns, walkability, community feel) on another person who may have different values (cost of housing, space to spread out, not sharing walls with neighbors).  If we want to attract people from the suburbs back into higher-density areas, we have to first identify why they prefer the suburbs, and figure out how to either meet those same needs (real or imagined)*, or convince them that the benefits of urban living outweigh the costs.

I think a lot of premises need to be challenged as well.  Covid-19 has brought into question the cost/benefit of centralized offices.  I definitely recognize the benefits of having coworkers nearby.  But let's take a step back: why does that office need to be downtown, if many of the employees would prefer to live in the suburbs?**  Or even further:  why do we need to have, for example, all the big tech companies headquartered in already-constrained west coast cities?***  Why are we (collectively, as a society/economy) trying to squeeze more and more people into the Bay Area?

* - Why do I live in a SFH in a sprawling suburb?  There are lots of reasons.  Because I can get a whole lot more house for the money.  Because I can (relatively) easily modify my house to meet my family's changing needs.  Because I have six kids, some of whom are very loud, and the idea of sharing walls or floors or ceilings with neighbors is laughable.  Because we homeschool, and DW hosts a weekly co-op with 60 people at our house. Because I can grab a ball and go play soccer in the front yard with my kids.  Because it's a quiet neighborhood, away from lots of traffic noise.  Because, while it is considered impolitic to say so, the fact that we're in a middle-class area means there's less crime to worry about.  Because I can plant and grow my own fruit trees.  Because having a decent-sized garage means I can maintain and repair our cars myself.  Because I can go out on my deck and enjoy the view of a muskrat paddling around the shore of the retention pond, hear the frogs croaking at night, and watch spectacular sunrises and sunsets in my bathrobe.  Because I don't need to commute to a high-density area for work.  And, among other things, the politics of my suburb agree with me far more than what I would deal with in a big city.  If you want me to give all of that up, you better have a freaking HUGE carrot to offer. 

** - About a decade ago, my former employer built a huge, brand-new campus 30 miles away from its former headquarters in downtown Houston.  Practically all of the employees lived in the suburbs anyway, so the move resulted in a lot fewer miles driven, plus took pressure off the highways into downtown.

*** - I have a relative who works for a MAANG, and recently got permanent approval for remote work.  He, with his family, moved halfway across the country in 2020, and bought a house in a quiet suburb.  He's taking a pay cut in the process, but is still ahead financially compared to before, and they absolutely love their location.  And his employer saves on his office space and his salary.  It's a win-win!

^ Some great questions here @zolotiyeruki .

The funny thing I've realized is that while 99% of people think the particular things they consider valuable are OBJECTIVELY valuable and OBVIOUSLY NECESSARY to have a good life, there are others who think a completely different set of things are objectively valuable and necessary. The urban/suburban/rural divide is only one such obvious example where members of each cultural camp feel lucky to have the beneficial things in their particular lifestyle, which tends to be a lot like the lifestyle/culture they grew up in, and they feel sorry for people who make the foolish decisions not to have such things.

One could make a list of "things valued" by these cultural divisions:

Rural:
   *agricultural / hunting self-sufficiency, hypothetically anyway
   *ability to be by oneself, and not have to constantly compromise with so many people around
   *the beauty of nature
   *not having to worry about crime
   *having particular things that only fit in a rural environment, like ATVs, big trucks, and agricultural equipment

Suburban:
    *having a big house with lots of stuff packed into the formerly 2-car garage
    *having a lawn and dabbling in gardening
    *having a nice car to commute in
    *"good schools" based on being co-located with similar taxpayers who can afford the cost of commuting
    *owning pets

Urban:
    *being on the frontlines of economic growth and cultural change
    *theatre, music, art, culinary adventures, and festivals all over the place
    *education and achievement
    *being able to easily hop on international flights and travel the world
    *for some, pride in being part of a city as an organizational and identity-giving unit

Obviously, there are people who are happy or at least think they should be happy in each environment, so there is no universal or objective set of valued things. Where then, does our concept of value come from? I suggest we're just picking up cultural norms from the people around us. Had our families, friends, and local advertising persuaded us to value a different set of things, we would have probably gone along with it. We get our values from others.

Lifestyles are collections of products just like the things on store shelves. Regardless of which exact products are being produced and consumed, economic activity and environmental destruction occurs. To people in each of these cultures that feels like progress. The things people are sooooo adamant about - cheap gasoline, zoning restrictions, rent controls - are merely the things they think they need to resolve dissatisfactions with the cultural configuration they've bought into, or been brought into by circumstances. Very rare is the rural farmer who questions why they should continue their work when they could earn more at an urban job, or the suburbanite who questions why mowing a lawn is worthwhile but attending a community theatre is not. Similarly, people living in urban environments rarely find themselves craving a farm tractor or a horse, or a garage full of holiday decorations, except perhaps as a fantasy. Nobody who is dissatisfied stops for a minute to question whether they should completely reject the set of values they obtained from the people around them and the media. They're more likely to spin their wheels for a lifetime struggling with the various costs and vulnerabilities they endure in each of their respective cultures.

[Villanelle]

It depends on the jurisdiction. I know of one city where the local government would not extend utilities beyond city limits. So if you had two fields right next to each other that were physically suitable for development, the one inside city limits would be far more valuable to a developer.

In appraisal and real estate this is part of the concept called Highest and Best Use. Basically, it boils down to what is the most profitable use of a piece of land and/or improvements based on the tests of physically possible, legally permissible, financially feasible, and maximally productive.

You wouldn't build a single-story building in Manhattan; you would build a skyscraper as that is maximally productive. If you had a field that was outside city limits that can't get zoning approval (legally permissible) the highest and best use might be agriculture or a handful of homes on well and septic. Change the legally permissible to allow a residential subdivision and now the value of the property is multiplied.

The problem I see with "highest and best use" is the hypothetical family farm in an area that has seen a lot of growth, and is now surrounded by residential development.  I've heard stories about folks who were forced to sell their land, thanks to skyrocketing taxes because some local bureaucrat had decided that the land would be far more valuable as residential or commercial land, regardless of actual market demand for such properties.  I suppose that you could handle that by tying "highest and best use" to actual zoning for that land, but then you're back to a situation where a developer could be simply holding on to ag-zoned land until the market is ready for them to build.

The problem with this solution, as well as so many of the other proposals in this thread, is that they represent an effort to thwart the laws of supply and demand, and to impose one person's set of values (for example, environmental concerns, walkability, community feel) on another person who may have different values (cost of housing, space to spread out, not sharing walls with neighbors).  If we want to attract people from the suburbs back into higher-density areas, we have to first identify why they prefer the suburbs, and figure out how to either meet those same needs (real or imagined)*, or convince them that the benefits of urban living outweigh the costs.

I think a lot of premises need to be challenged as well.  Covid-19 has brought into question the cost/benefit of centralized offices.  I definitely recognize the benefits of having coworkers nearby.  But let's take a step back: why does that office need to be downtown, if many of the employees would prefer to live in the suburbs?**  Or even further:  why do we need to have, for example, all the big tech companies headquartered in already-constrained west coast cities?***  Why are we (collectively, as a society/economy) trying to squeeze more and more people into the Bay Area?

* - Why do I live in a SFH in a sprawling suburb?  There are lots of reasons.  Because I can get a whole lot more house for the money.  Because I can (relatively) easily modify my house to meet my family's changing needs.  Because I have six kids, some of whom are very loud, and the idea of sharing walls or floors or ceilings with neighbors is laughable.  Because we homeschool, and DW hosts a weekly co-op with 60 people at our house. Because I can grab a ball and go play soccer in the front yard with my kids.  Because it's a quiet neighborhood, away from lots of traffic noise.  Because, while it is considered impolitic to say so, the fact that we're in a middle-class area means there's less crime to worry about.  Because I can plant and grow my own fruit trees.  Because having a decent-sized garage means I can maintain and repair our cars myself.  Because I can go out on my deck and enjoy the view of a muskrat paddling around the shore of the retention pond, hear the frogs croaking at night, and watch spectacular sunrises and sunsets in my bathrobe.  Because I don't need to commute to a high-density area for work.  And, among other things, the politics of my suburb agree with me far more than what I would deal with in a big city.  If you want me to give all of that up, you better have a freaking HUGE carrot to offer. 

** - About a decade ago, my former employer built a huge, brand-new campus 30 miles away from its former headquarters in downtown Houston.  Practically all of the employees lived in the suburbs anyway, so the move resulted in a lot fewer miles driven, plus took pressure off the highways into downtown.

*** - I have a relative who works for a MAANG, and recently got permanent approval for remote work.  He, with his family, moved halfway across the country in 2020, and bought a house in a quiet suburb.  He's taking a pay cut in the process, but is still ahead financially compared to before, and they absolutely love their location.  And his employer saves on his office space and his salary.  It's a win-win!

My spouse now works in a very large building (meaning 'many, many employees'), located in the suburbs.  Thus, we now live in the suburbs.  It's the first time in 20+ years of marriage we have lived in a single-family home.  It's not the right fit for me, but it does have it's upsides.  But the reasons we live here are the commute (less than 10 minutes, in a metro area where many, many people regularly drive over an hour each way) and the costs.  (We looked for smaller rentals, but everything we could find was closer to the city center and therefore more expensive, for a smaller home with a longer commute).  I think it is a great location for an employer because, even though it would't be my long-term choice, most people would be thrilled to be able to live in this area and not have a log drive to work.  But it still has the benefit of being in a large metro area that has just about anything anyone could want or need, so attracting employees isn't made more difficult by being in the middle of nowhere.  It seems like it is pretty much a best case location for hiring.    (When I say it is cheaper, that's relative to the area, as it is still probably way more expensive than 80+% of the country.)

[ChpBstrd]

What happens to HCOL areas when the place "where the jobs are" is on the internet? The metaverse sounds like a dystopian nightmare now, but it could make the physical location of workers' housing, commuting, and offices irrelevant. That trend has already started. In such a world, who would continue to pay quadruple the housing costs to live in a place like Seattle, San Diego, or Brooklyn?

  Still plenty of people whose work will be location dependent.

 Anyone who works works 'hands-on' in construction or utilities -- bricklayer, roofer, electrician, large equipment operator, inspector.
 Folks in education + healthcare -- K-12 teacher, janitor, coach, nurse, pharmacy or rehab tech, dental assistant.
 Retail with a storefront -- hardware store, farmers market, hair salon, restaurants, consignment shops.
 

The construction workers will have to go where their clients are paying to build things. It's the same for educators, healthcare workers, janitors, retailers, etc. If 10,000 software developers moved out of the Bay Area, or Seattle, and reappeared in Columbia, Missouri for example, they would bring with them a massive amount of economic demand and tax revenues which would create thousands of location-dependent jobs in Columbia, Missouri. 

Similarly, when densely populated-places depopulate due to migration, the demand for location-dependent jobs in those areas dries up and some percentage of workers move to where they are more in demand and better compensated.

[roomtempmayo]

Obviously, there are people who are happy or at least think they should be happy in each environment, so there is no universal or objective set of valued things. Where then, does our concept of value come from? I suggest we're just picking up cultural norms from the people around us. Had our families, friends, and local advertising persuaded us to value a different set of things, we would have probably gone along with it. We get our values from others.

Another way to think of it is that people do broadly share values.  Most people with resources want to optimize for space, security, and educational resources by keeping them private or local, while collectivizing other costs like infrastructure and pollution.

Most Americans live in the suburbs (there are more suburbanites [55%] than urban [31%] and rural [14%] folks combined by a fair margin) because the rest of society (past, present, and future) subsidizes the suburban lifestyle.  Create an economic incentive, and people act on it.

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/05/22/demographic-and-economic-trends-in-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities/

The only chunks of society who seem to be operating on a significantly different set of values are the urban professional class and the rural agrarian landowner class.

[zolotiyeruki]

* - Why do I live in a SFH in a sprawling suburb?  There are lots of reasons.  Because I can get a whole lot more house for the money.  Because I can (relatively) easily modify my house to meet my family's changing needs.  Because I have six kids, some of whom are very loud, and the idea of sharing walls or floors or ceilings with neighbors is laughable.  Because we homeschool, and DW hosts a weekly co-op with 60 people at our house. Because I can grab a ball and go play soccer in the front yard with my kids.  Because it's a quiet neighborhood, away from lots of traffic noise.  Because, while it is considered impolitic to say so, the fact that we're in a middle-class area means there's less crime to worry about.  Because I can plant and grow my own fruit trees.  Because having a decent-sized garage means I can maintain and repair our cars myself.  Because I can go out on my deck and enjoy the view of a muskrat paddling around the shore of the retention pond, hear the frogs croaking at night, and watch spectacular sunrises and sunsets in my bathrobe.  Because I don't need to commute to a high-density area for work.  And, among other things, the politics of my suburb agree with me far more than what I would deal with in a big city.  If you want me to give all of that up, you better have a freaking HUGE carrot to offer. 

While I understand your point here, and suspect many (most?) Americans share the same thought process, I'll point out that these are all LIFESTYLE choices. Suburban sprawl is unequivocally bad for the environment and climate change, and it's generally bad for people (too much sedentary time in a car vs. walking). You can play soccer in a neighborhood park. Dense neighborhoods can be both low crime and quiet (e.g. many European cities). There are other models for hosting large social functions, such as community centers. You can get farm fresh produce at farmer's markets. You can still work on your own cars and do other projects by renting space at a community shop. These are all possible in a well designed and thriving city, we just aren't very good at creating these types of places in the US because so much of our energy goes into sprawl and an antiquated unsustainable vision of the "American Dream."

Absolutely, a well-designed city can provide those things you mention, but that's a fraction of all the things I currently enjoy.  It's also worth pointing out that the way a denser city provides each of that limited set of amenities is less convenient.  Walking to the park is less convenient.  Renting a shared shop costs money, takes more time, is less convenient, may not be available, and interferes with other aspects of life, e.g. DW needs my help with something while I'm in the shop.  Community center? Again, less convenient.  If we find other ways to reduce commuting, what remaining environmental impact are we dealing with?  I suppose there's more pavement per capita here, but there's also a lot more green space.

Zolo, I don't want to pile on you specifically here, but this counterpoint has been brought up more than a few times and I think it's pretty important to spotlight.
...
Suburbs just aren't sustainable. They don't pay for themselves at the rate they're currently taxed. Ignoring the human capital they bring to an area, the cost of maintaining existing infrastructure is far too great for individual areas to maintain. Even if your, or my (because I live in the suburbs, too) neighborhood is fully of highly productive working adults who each bring a net positive benefit to the areas they live in, it's still overall a drain on the economic centers of a given area to maintain and service vast neighborhoods of SFH's.

...

If nothing changes, because people who currently subscribe to a particular way of life don't want anything about that to change, then rising generations are inevitably going to come to prefer the same kind of environment, and things just get generally worse from there.

I don't mind you piling on at all!  I *would* like to explore the thesis of "suburbs just aren't sustainable."  I'm guessing you're talking about infrastructure and public services?  I can't speak for other areas, but from what I can see, our town does a pretty thorough job of sustaining itself.  The vast majority of the roads in our town are maintained via local property and sales taxes.  Our school district is funded largely by local property taxes--the state isn't even providing the minimum legally-required level of funding.  Our water, sewer, trash, libraries, parks, snow plowing, police, fire, and EMS are all locally-funded.  And since we're mostly a bedroom community, all of that is done with a much smaller tax base from businesses than many of our neighboring towns and cities.  Perhaps this is not representative of all suburbs, but it sure feels pretty sustainable to me.

Absolutely, there's a lot cultural (and generational) inertia, and a lot of marketing that goes on (thanks, HGTV!).

[YttriumNitrate]

But isn't piping water from the Lakes (which as someone who grew up in Michigan, I generally disagree with) just a bandaid fix for the underlying issues - too many people want to live somewhere that's just not sustainable for large populations AND the associated industries. Instead of recognizing that new development in deserts is not sustainable long-term, let alone irrigating massive farms, isn't the better approach to be more intentional about reducing water usage, even if it means that some areas need to consolidate? The Lakes are a fairly fragile ecosystem, more so than people like to believe, and messing with the water levels because we want to continue to irrigate massive swaths of desert and keep lawns green out there smells like a short term fix at best.

Sure, it's a bandaid, but a much-much-much longer term bandaid then the ones we're using now since the scale of the lakes is so huge. For example, the Ogallala aquifer is getting depleted by about 7 million acre feet of water per year (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378377415301220). While that's a huge amount, even more huge is the 80 million acre feet of water that go over Niagara falls each year.

[GuitarStv]

Practically all of the employees lived in the suburbs anyway, so the move resulted in a lot fewer miles driven, plus took pressure off the highways into downtown.

The conclusion that either satellite offices or WFH reduces miles driven seems intuitive, but I'm not sure it plays out that way.

Miles driven initially fell during the pandemic, but now in spite of all of the WFH and hybrid setups we're back at all time highs for driving:



Somehow, the reduction in the need to commute hasn't resulted in any reduction in driving at all.

In general, I'm skeptical that WFH will be an environmental benefit, and I suspect it may be an environmental detriment as it prompts more people to live in low density, high driving regions.

This echoes my own viewpoints and observations.  I'm not going to believe that the occasional WFH model that most companies seem to be shifting towards will result in any serious reduction of driving long term.  There doesn't seem to be any real indication that has happened/is going to happen.

[zolotiyeruki]

This echoes my own viewpoints and observations.  I'm not going to believe that the occasional WFH model that most companies seem to be shifting towards will result in any serious reduction of driving long term.  There doesn't seem to be any real indication that has happened/is going to happen.

I'm curious--do you know what the USFHA uses as the source for this data?  I know our family drives as much now as pre-pandemic, but WFH isn't an effective option for me, and my commute is short anyway.

[former player]

Practically all of the employees lived in the suburbs anyway, so the move resulted in a lot fewer miles driven, plus took pressure off the highways into downtown.

The conclusion that either satellite offices or WFH reduces miles driven seems intuitive, but I'm not sure it plays out that way.

Miles driven initially fell during the pandemic, but now in spite of all of the WFH and hybrid setups we're back at all time highs for driving:



Somehow, the reduction in the need to commute hasn't resulted in any reduction in driving at all.

In general, I'm skeptical that WFH will be an environmental benefit, and I suspect it may be an environmental detriment as it prompts more people to live in low density, high driving regions.

This echoes my own viewpoints and observations.  I'm not going to believe that the occasional WFH model that most companies seem to be shifting towards will result in any serious reduction of driving long term.  There doesn't seem to be any real indication that has happened/is going to happen.

An organisation that had a big office in the middle of London once did a survey of where all its employees lived and found out that a significant number lived in a cluster around a satellite town about 10 miles out, so did a survey of that cluster to see whether they would want to work in an office in that town.  They got a high percentage in favour, but when they dug down into why they found it was because those people could then move a further 10 miles out of London and get bigger/cheaper housing for the same commute.  As the whole purpose of the exercise from the company point of view had been to be able to trumpet their green credentials in cutting down on commuting the whole idea was quietly shelved.

[roomtempmayo]

An organisation that had a big office in the middle of London once did a survey of where all its employees lived and found out that a significant number lived in a cluster around a satellite town about 10 miles out, so did a survey of that cluster to see whether they would want to work in an office in that town.  They got a high percentage in favour, but when they dug down into why they found it was because those people could then move a further 10 miles out of London and get bigger/cheaper housing for the same commute.  As the whole purpose of the exercise from the company point of view had been to be able to trumpet their green credentials in cutting down on commuting the whole idea was quietly shelved.

That's an interesting anecdote.  It would square with a number of people I know who are now only in the office one or two days a week and have gone full super commuter driving an hour or more each way, so that their aggregate commuting distance has actually increased.

I also wonder if there's some psychological element where if someone has a commute eliminated they become much more willing to engage in optional driving, maybe because of cost, maybe because of lack of fatigue, or maybe through some sort of weird addictive mechanism driving has on us.  I suspect an addiction lens might tell us a lot about how people make choices about driving.

[FINate]

Absolutely, a well-designed city can provide those things you mention, but that's a fraction of all the things I currently enjoy.  It's also worth pointing out that the way a denser city provides each of that limited set of amenities is less convenient.  Walking to the park is less convenient.  Renting a shared shop costs money, takes more time, is less convenient, may not be available, and interferes with other aspects of life, e.g. DW needs my help with something while I'm in the shop.  Community center? Again, less convenient.  If we find other ways to reduce commuting, what remaining environmental impact are we dealing with?  I suppose there's more pavement per capita here, but there's also a lot more green space.

Yesterday I walked with my daughter to our neighborhood park to shoot some hoops. Indeed, getting there wasn't as convenient as stepping into a backyard. On the other hand, it's a large manicured park with tons of green grass, mature shade trees, and assorted facilities. Unless we're talking large country estates, it far exceeds what suburban backyards offer. The best part: I don't have to cut the grass, maintain the facilities, care for the trees, or keep the irrigation system working. It took us a couple minutes to walk there, we had our fun, then we went home and it wasn't my problem to deal with.

While we were at the park, my daughter spotted some friends from school, so she had an impromptu play-date, and I chatted with some of the other parents. This spontaneous sense of community doesn't happen in a backyard, nor does it happen in neighborhood parks if everyone only ever hangs out in their own private yard.

I would suggest a similar dynamic happens with something like a community shop or gym or other shared amenities in the city. While it's inconvenient to go/from the community shop, you also don't need to buy all the tools and machines, and you don't need to maintain them. And you make serendipitous connections with other like-minded folks.

We rarely drive these days. We can walk to multiple restaurants, brew pubs, bars, shopping, etc., and we can even walk to downtown if we want more options. No worrying about parking, or who's going to be the designated driver if we have drinks. My kids walk to/from school on their own, so we don't have to drive them around or deal with pickup or drop-off routines. They just walk out the door in the morning, they meet up with friends along the way, then they show up at home after school. It's amazing.

IMO, it's all a mater of perspective, and I understand your perspective on it since we've also experienced life in the suburbs and didn't dislike it. But I would say that convenience is in the eye of the beholder, and now that we live centrally in a city I don't find much about suburbia convenient. 
 

[Cranky]

I expect that a stable water supply will be a big determinant. Building huge suburban developments, complete with grass lawns, on land that is historically desert has never been a sustainable long-term housing solution.

Speaking of water limitations, it looks like lake Mead might get to the Tier 2 threshold (1050 feet) this coming summer. I believe at that level, the first of Las Vegas' three water intakes goes dry.
http://mead.uslakes.info/level.asp

The pressure to build a pipeline from the Great Lakes is going to get intense.

We’re building a wall. ;-)

[nereo]

I doubt that pipeline would be feasible…. The engineering challenge to lift water that high is massive- that would involve pumping water well over a mile uphill in addition to fighting gravity for over a thousand miles. Getting water from Denver to Chicago would be the default flow state, I can’t imagine what the pumping setup would look like to go the other way.

This is the "economics" of building a water pipeline that i was speaking of. The rockies are in the way, and that's a massive lift which would require hundreds of pumping stations along the way.

Then there's the politics.  The great lakes are already a protected waterway with prohibitions on siphoning away water, and there are a minimum of 7 states in the way.

Desalination plants are massively expensive, but they'd be far cheaper than pumping water a mile up and then a couple thousand miles over, I suspect.

[Just Joe]

An organisation that had a big office in the middle of London once did a survey of where all its employees lived and found out that a significant number lived in a cluster around a satellite town about 10 miles out, so did a survey of that cluster to see whether they would want to work in an office in that town.  They got a high percentage in favour, but when they dug down into why they found it was because those people could then move a further 10 miles out of London and get bigger/cheaper housing for the same commute.  As the whole purpose of the exercise from the company point of view had been to be able to trumpet their green credentials in cutting down on commuting the whole idea was quietly shelved.

That's an interesting anecdote.  It would square with a number of people I know who are now only in the office one or two days a week and have gone full super commuter driving an hour or more each way, so that their aggregate commuting distance has actually increased.

I also wonder if there's some psychological element where if someone has a commute eliminated they become much more willing to engage in optional driving, maybe because of cost, maybe because of lack of fatigue, or maybe through some sort of weird addictive mechanism driving has on us.  I suspect an addiction lens might tell us a lot about how people make choices about driving.

You might on to something there. I assumed the leap in gas prices might lead people we know to stay close to home similar to when COVID was a bigger problem. Nope. Social media shows them rarely home. We've turned down a number of invitations to run up and down the highways with them.

DW and I are homebodies these days.

We've made our home a comfortable place that we like to relax in when not at work while others find enjoyment in rarely staying home. Maybe we are just in a different stage of life.

[Just Joe]

This is the "economics" of building a water pipeline that i was speaking of. The rockies are in the way, and that's a massive lift which would require hundreds of pumping stations along the way.

Tunnel under the Rocky Mtns, not over.

[OtherJen]

This is the "economics" of building a water pipeline that i was speaking of. The rockies are in the way, and that's a massive lift which would require hundreds of pumping stations along the way.

Tunnel under the Rocky Mtns, not over.

If we intend to keep supporting a bunch of southwestern developments that are poorly planned, overly populated, and ill-suited to the natural climate, doesn't desalination of the closer Pacific Ocean make more sense from various perspectives than tunneling through the Rockies?

[waltworks]

Tunnel under.... lol...

The Eisenhower tunnel (bigger and fancier, but same idea - and yes, I'm just talking about the westbound tunnel) cost about $120 million in 1973 dollars, and it's 1.7 miles long.

That's roughly, in today's dollars, $500 million per mile. And you *still* have to get the water to ~5000 foot elevation even if you only want to do a few hundred miles of tunneling.

-W

[ChpBstrd]

This is the "economics" of building a water pipeline that i was speaking of. The rockies are in the way, and that's a massive lift which would require hundreds of pumping stations along the way.

Tunnel under the Rocky Mtns, not over.

If we intend to keep supporting a bunch of southwestern developments that are poorly planned, overly populated, and ill-suited to the natural climate, doesn't desalination of the closer Pacific Ocean make more sense from various perspectives than tunneling through the Rockies?

Rail tankers would probably be the most economical solution for transporting water uphill or across long distances. It works that way for oil (pipelines generally go downhill). And you actually wouldn't have to go as far as the Great Lakes. East Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Missouri are soaking wet places with lots of lakes.

[Cranky]

Absolutely, a well-designed city can provide those things you mention, but that's a fraction of all the things I currently enjoy.  It's also worth pointing out that the way a denser city provides each of that limited set of amenities is less convenient.  Walking to the park is less convenient.  Renting a shared shop costs money, takes more time, is less convenient, may not be available, and interferes with other aspects of life, e.g. DW needs my help with something while I'm in the shop.  Community center? Again, less convenient.  If we find other ways to reduce commuting, what remaining environmental impact are we dealing with?  I suppose there's more pavement per capita here, but there's also a lot more green space.

Yesterday I walked with my daughter to our neighborhood park to shoot some hoops. Indeed, getting there wasn't as convenient as stepping into a backyard. On the other hand, it's a large manicured park with tons of green grass, mature shade trees, and assorted facilities. Unless we're talking large country estates, it far exceeds what suburban backyards offer. The best part: I don't have to cut the grass, maintain the facilities, care for the trees, or keep the irrigation system working. It took us a couple minutes to walk there, we had our fun, then we went home and it wasn't my problem to deal with.

While we were at the park, my daughter spotted some friends from school, so she had an impromptu play-date, and I chatted with some of the other parents. This spontaneous sense of community doesn't happen in a backyard, nor does it happen in neighborhood parks if everyone only ever hangs out in their own private yard.

I would suggest a similar dynamic happens with something like a community shop or gym or other shared amenities in the city. While it's inconvenient to go/from the community shop, you also don't need to buy all the tools and machines, and you don't need to maintain them. And you make serendipitous connections with other like-minded folks.

We rarely drive these days. We can walk to multiple restaurants, brew pubs, bars, shopping, etc., and we can even walk to downtown if we want more options. No worrying about parking, or who's going to be the designated driver if we have drinks. My kids walk to/from school on their own, so we don't have to drive them around or deal with pickup or drop-off routines. They just walk out the door in the morning, they meet up with friends along the way, then they show up at home after school. It's amazing.

IMO, it's all a mater of perspective, and I understand your perspective on it since we've also experienced life in the suburbs and didn't dislike it. But I would say that convenience is in the eye of the beholder, and now that we live centrally in a city I don't find much about suburbia convenient.

The interesting thing, to me, is that I think it’s possible to get all of those urban advantages in much smaller cities that aren’t all concentrated on the coasts.

I live in a very suburb-y neighborhood with the big yard and a short walk to school, but we can drive downtown in 10 minutes for many restaurants! Festivals out the wazoo! Museums! Education! (We don’t often do that because we’ve got plenty to do closer to home, but we could.)

My experience of urban life was in Manhattan and Pittsburgh, and I found that they were really a collection of neighborhoods anyway. You went to the stores and the library and the restaurants in your neighborhood and only occasionally ventured a lot farther.

I wouldn’t actually do different things on a regular basis if I lived in a very urban environment, it would just cost a lot more.

[FINate]

The interesting thing, to me, is that I think it’s possible to get all of those urban advantages in much smaller cities that aren’t all concentrated on the coasts.

Agreed. It's not as if there's Manhattan or suburbs with nothing in between. Small cities are great and there are a ton of great options all over the country.