This story on CNN; America's suburban dream collapsing into a nightmare? is doing the rounds. The zomfg quote:

... estimates that in 2025 there will be a surplus of 22 million large-lot homes that will not be left vacant in a suburban wasteland but instead occupied by lower classes who have been driven out of their once affordable inner-city apartments and houses. The so-called McMansion, he said, will become the new multi-family home for the poor.

It should be noted the process of young professionals not wanting to live in the suburbs and choosing town centres such as Alexandria and Arlington (in DC anyway) is not a new process that happened in the subprime and foreclosure mess of the last year or so.

Developers recognised this process and starting changing their developments to try and attract the young professionals by building town squares that abutted commercial buildings, shops, and a country Australia style main road through the fabricated town.

It may be too late, and the process too far gone for developers to make a difference, certainly all the foreclosed homes will make it very visible, however it isn't the zomfg story that CNN has written.

I am not sure why suburbia cops so much in the way of hostility. I grew up in Sydney's north western suburbs, and other than a stint in Coogee/Maroubra, the rest of my time in Australia and the United States has been in suburban environments. Even now I am living in suburbia. I like it.

Normally the stereotypes of suburbia are thrown up, such as the row upon row of aesthetically similar houses, townhomes and condos. Like in the picture above which is a new suburb in Nth Virginia. What isn't seen in that picture is that those townhomes back onto a town-squarish type of mall.

The other arguments against suburbia are that it is boring, looks too similar, lacks culture, people are fleeing back to the urban environments because of gas prices, houses use too much gas/electricity, roads and petrol consumption, etc. While urban environments achieve green economies of scale the impact from suburbs is not that great. Most of our fossil fuel emissions are from stationary energy sources, not road transportation. Same with water consumption, agriculture is the biggest user of fresh water, not residential (urban or surburban).

There has been an exit from suburbia recently - as in the last two decades - as young people seek more cultural lives in the town squares of cities and the increasing cost of suburban housing followed by the foreclosures - have placed pressure on the suburbs. Historically there has been an ebb and flow from the urban and suburban centers. This is nothing really new. The urban-scapes will most likely one day become unpalatable for a multitude of reasons and the suburbs will grow again.

The other issue is that as technologies decentralise, whether it be transport of the 1950s, telecommunications of the 80s and 90s, or maybe solar technology of the future. The large land areas of the suburbs will most likely come to the fore as productive areas again. A roof is a large solar collector for instance, more than a condominium balcony can offer.

The suburbs contain a lot of land and space which is not being put to productive use other than as a living space. I expect as aspects of our modern life decentralise, such as energy, then we will see suburban communities go from sustainable solutions to productive ones.

It will probably not be too dissimilar to how I have adsense on this website. It doesn't make me a living salary, but it does cover the cost of the site. If solar cells could pay the property taxes and so on, then it would be more than useful for most people.

Ironically via the same website that prompted the hostility to suburbia post.