We are approaching a huge transition in america. Subrubia was built on the premesis of dir cheap ~80c gas prices. Without the automobile or affordable gas this would have never happened.

Now over the next several years gas prices will approach and pass the critical value for feasibility of suburban existence. At this point we will see a surge of people moving into central city areas and higher population densities. Areas that rely on 15-30 minute commutes will plummet in value. I have a vision of ghostwritten suburbias in the near future as busnesses fail and everything fails because of lack of commuting.

I really don't know whats going to happen but the triangle seems like it has no way out. Condos downtown still doesn't help when rtp is not really near any downtown. I think the entire area will take a heavy economic blow and cities like detroit, philadelphia, miami and boston will be back into prime value.

will this all just balance out with higher salaries in the triangle? will large suburban homes become cheap enough for people to still commute with 8.00/gallon?

4/5/2008 12:11:22 PM

yeah im pretty sure every suburban town in the us will die, only cities will remain

4/5/2008 12:14:39 PM

The only ones that will move back into the city are the people who can't afford to buy a house in the suburbs anyway. We'll see other "luxuries" take a dive before people start flocking closer to work.

4/5/2008 12:18:52 PM

and btw, gas has been this high in the past, and NOTHING permanent has changed...also, the people that cant afford the gas, are not going to able to afford city living...its a catch-22

4/5/2008 12:25:19 PM

nice troll Earl. You should sketch up a diagram to really bring it home

4/5/2008 12:25:21 PM

lol "cities like detroit, philadelphia, miami and boston will be back into prime value. "

4/5/2008 12:26:50 PM

I think it will be more of a reverse "white flight". In Raleigh neighborhoods near downtown that have been historically low income are slowly being gentrified. As the property value rise more and more people with low income will have to leave the city moving to cheaper places in the burbs. Some businesses will move with setting up pockets of low income suburbia (they're not moving into McMansions mostly trailers and older ranch homes.)

It will end up being very similar to France, all the rich people living in the large cities, with the poor under represented people living in suburban slums. Thats why most of the riots of the past few years haven't gotten a lot of press, it's been poor people damaging poor peoples property 25 miles away from Paris.

4/5/2008 12:42:08 PM

premesis

4/5/2008 12:43:18 PM

Quote :

"the people that cant afford the gas, are not going to able to afford city living...its a catch-22 "

4/5/2008 12:51:16 PM

^^^ I think myerlyn is largely right. Washington DC and Richmond are two prime examples of this right now. Raleigh is the case to a lesser extent, but Raleigh is a weird bird with RTP being the primary employment center. You'll probably see something similar happen in Charlotte as well. The suburbs immediately surrounding a city will have to become denser with the exurbs being reserved for those who work from home, the retired, or those who can simply afford the commute.

4/5/2008 12:56:51 PM

Quote :

"In Raleigh neighborhoods near downtown that have been historically low income are slowly being gentrified."

I've definitely noticed this in my search for rental houses. Specifically in the area in northeast Raleigh inside the beltline. Every single landlord Ive gotten in touch with who has a house for rent out there has talked about how its a "neighborhood in transition" and shit like that. Basically, all the lower income people are moving out (or in a couple cases, getting evicted because rent is going up) and people are fixing up the houses and renting them out.

4/5/2008 12:58:46 PM

[Edited on April 5, 2008 at 1:04 PM. Reason : oh god damnit... double post]

4/5/2008 1:03:33 PM

For actual discussion of suburbanization, not internet retards arguing, read Crabgrass Frontier by Kenneth Jackson; it's incredibly interesting.

4/5/2008 1:41:27 PM

wow, great thread

4/5/2008 1:50:32 PM

it was a pizza hut

now it's all covered in daisies

4/5/2008 2:09:27 PM

The unpaved the parking lot and put in a paradise?

^^^ I could only read the introduction of the book. The book is 20+ years old, I think most of his predictions came true. I'll have to hunt it down in the library.

4/5/2008 2:29:13 PM

Everybody is not thinking this sufficiently through. Imagine if Howard was right and everyone abandoned their suburban home for an apartment on the red-line. What would oil consumption be? Well, 50+% less than is consumed today (as cities become denser railroads dominate trucking). But if prices are high enough to send Americans running for the cities, then the same impact would be felt everywhere: Canada, Europe, China, etc. So, in this scenario, worldwide oil consumption would plumet to a fraction of what it is today. And with so much oil still flowing out of the ground and increasing worldwide production the price would crash long before we got there.

So, what should really happen is what we already see. The price of oil shoots up and cities that have established mass-transit systems expand them. Developers build up in hopes of cashing in on high oil prices, enabling people to move closer to work. After a few years these trends erode away at oil consumption until the price falls. Those that have moved downtown stay there, rail networks that have already been built keep operating, but the impetus for oil conservation come to an end.

So, what we see is a continuous cycle of oil price driven development. Cheap oil prices in the 50s and 60s fed white flight to the suburbs, leaving many urban cores depressed. In the 70s and 80s high oil prices revitalized downtown living, feeding a white return to many urban centers. In the 90s low oil prices once again drove a suburban housing boom which only recently came to an end. Over the next decade I suspect urban development to be a profitable investment. But, sometime in the 2010s the cycle will once again reverse, so be ready to cash out when the time comes, and watch the skies!

4/5/2008 2:51:10 PM

Quote :

"But if prices are high enough to send Americans running for the cities, then the same impact would be felt everywhere: Canada, Europe, China, etc."

This is already the case largely in Europe where fuel costs have long been higher than the United States. This is also assuming other governments, especially in emerging economies where low fuel prices are critical to sustained growth, don't subsidize petroleum. Our reduction in consumption, and the inelasticity of returning from a "post-suburban" city-scape to a suburban one, could encourage economies like China to pick up on our old model of sprawl, maintaining fuel prices at what they are now.

In a completely free global market, this would be the case, but we all know we're not living in such a market at this point.

I don't think you'll see rich white people nuts-to-butts in the city anytime soon, but movement back into older, denser neighborhoods and the rising value of housing close to employment centers is likely.

4/5/2008 3:25:34 PM

Or we'll just see a rise in people coming to their senses and buying fuel efficient cars and carpooling to work.

4/5/2008 3:37:28 PM

it would take a huge increase in gas prices to make it worth abandoning a house.

4/5/2008 3:47:44 PM

This theory I dont think holds true because the middle to high income class is heavily invested in the RTP, thus moving back into urban areas really wont help the commute since a lot of suburbs are actually closer to RTP. Also, since the downtown area is not a heavy industrial area you wont see many middle class people in the burbs running back downtown to be close to the factory. The de-industrialization of the 70s is another thing that helped fuel the explosion of the suburbs. I do however agree that gentrification is in full force in Raleigh, as the downtown area tries to build up and attract more affluent residents. And, gentrification is a GOOD thing because it helps break up the concentration of poverty in the poor urban areas. Poverty is not in and of itself the problem, but when it is concentrated and the whole community is poor it fuels gangs, drugs, drop outs, and the continuing cycle of the underclass.

4/5/2008 4:00:48 PM

interesting question - no immediate impact, but 30 years?

4/5/2008 4:59:29 PM

Well that would largely depend on whether, in 30 years, we're still largely reliant on gasoline for getting from point A to point B.

4/5/2008 5:50:19 PM

My first thought was that this guy has never been outside the US and I was going to call it, but it looks like everyone else has already picked up on how obvious that was.

4/5/2008 6:12:40 PM

what does being outside the us have to do with this? other countries are already centralized cities with everalasting countrysides. sprawl is an american thing. they drive small little cars in europe and ride trains. they go home for lunch in italy.

nobodys saying houses will be abandoned but if suddenly people start selling to get close to work then value will plummet and people who want to sell will be in a bind and owe more than they are worth.

4/5/2008 7:13:08 PM

I am not reading this whole thread, but if you haven't noticed, due to the rezoned land around RTP to the south on 55 and Davis Drive, etc. housing is booming and retail is beginning to sprout up. RTP is becoming a city unto itself.

4/5/2008 7:59:58 PM

Who needs to go to work when we have slaves and robots?

Seriously though, isn't the need to be at the work place physically going to be balanced by those who work at home? That must play some role in this discussion.

Seems to me that the only way for the really big cities to gain an advantage on the RTP area is for NC to over-regulate/tax this region like all those in the north east who have died. The success of this region has more to do with freedom from government and less to do with cheap transit.

If I was to start a business I would look for a state with a cheap cost of living and relatively little government interference. Comparatively NC has an edge over bloated liberal northern states.

Also you can get the sweet good old boys free tax moneys if you have the right hook up to fleece the NC-tax payers.

4/5/2008 9:12:00 PM

Quote :

"Or we'll just see a rise in people coming to their senses and buying fuel efficient cars and carpooling to work."

4/5/2008 10:00:27 PM

Mass transit system... and I'm not talking about that TTA crap

4/5/2008 10:21:30 PM

^^^ Depends.

A lot of folks who work for big companies who can work from home, can't do so all the time.
They're in the office maybe a day or two a week, but they are there. Commute plays a lesser but still present role for that subset of work-at-home folks. less but still a thought for folks who can work at home except for meetings etc etc etc.

It does have an impact but i think in this area, it wont be terribly overstated.

4/5/2008 11:06:02 PM

^^unless you have some type of bullet train. it would take hours to get aroudn the triangle on mass transit.

4/6/2008 12:29:45 AM

Mass transit doesnt just mean a train.

Its a combined system.

4/6/2008 3:34:51 AM

Quote :

"sprawl is an american thing."

Ok, so it is true. Howard has never been out of the country. Sprawl, to some extent, exists in every country on this planet.

4/6/2008 9:10:11 AM

and you've been to every country on the planet i can't compete.

4/6/2008 12:02:34 PM

Before Change:

/\

After Change:

\ / ___

WHOA Howard's RIGHT!1

4/6/2008 12:33:43 PM

Well, I have been to many of them. So I am generalizing. I cannot speak for certain for all the countries I have not been to, but sprawl has existed in one fashion or another in 100% of the 15 non-US countries I have been to. Meanwhile, your assertion that sprawl has not existed in 100% of the 0 non-US countries you have been to somehow seems less credible.

4/6/2008 1:58:17 PM

"sprawl" doesn't exist anywhere like it is in america. I mean techincally, there is sprawl in uganda but in no ways is there sprawl that matches american sprawl anywhere else.

[Edited on April 6, 2008 at 2:14 PM. Reason : context]

4/6/2008 2:13:39 PM

I wish this hadn't been moved to TSB, I think what most people have agreed on is a need for a combined mass transit system, trains, buses, light rail etc. It will cost $$$ but it would help to maintain parts of the sprawl, and allow for increased urbanization.

Get a national mandate similar to the highway initiative to connect each state to each other. (NOT AMTRACK, shitty shitty trains) Then we'd have nation wide mass transit.

We could recycle material from all the abandoned houses in the burbs.

4/6/2008 4:03:22 PM

^ No. Such one size fits all solutions will do nothing more than waste money and wreck the existing infrastructure.

Some cities will go mass transmit, most will simply expand road capacity to restore efficiency (cars in a traffic jam consume substantially more fuel than vehicles travelling on unconjested roads). That plus increased fuel economy comensurate with an expensive oil world will solve the problem for most cities and towns.

4/6/2008 4:52:58 PM

At this point gasoline is just not expensive enough for it to "kill" the Triangle.

The cost of commuting while rising is still a fraction of the cost of urban land in many old cities. Increasing gas prices will probably raise the value of urban lots and somewhat increase the attractiveness of locating a business downtown vs. in an suburban office park but the major impact will probably be tipping the scale in favor of more high rise development.

High rises are pretty close to the tipping point in terms of economic viability in Raleigh. I believe the constructed cost per square foot is somewhere in the low $200 range and ITB housing is starting to pass that mark on a widespread basis.

The trouble for Raleigh, however, is that the availability of construction loans is collapsing and that will of course make downtown development more difficult.

I would also guess that rising gas prices will give South Durham a boost relative to North Raleigh.

4/7/2008 1:11:19 PM

The value of oil hasn't risen so much as the value of the dollar has fallen. This isn't a global phenomenon, as Europe has not seen the sort of fuel price increases we are.

Another thought is that depending on the level of improvement in technological infrastructure, you could see employment decentralizing at the same time people people are making lifestyle choices on where to live.

4/7/2008 3:11:46 PM

^^ nice -- i'm moving from n.raleigh to s.durham.

4/7/2008 3:14:41 PM

Quote :

"Or we'll just see a rise in people coming to their senses and buying fuel efficient cars and carpooling to work."

Seriously, I'm not seeing the problem here, guys.

4/8/2008 3:37:15 AM

because hybrid cars are good for the environment and all but you end up spending a lot more money.

4/8/2008 12:28:10 PM

A hybrid civic (45mpg $22,600) does not get substantially better gas mileage than a regular civic (36mpg $15,610). The use of miles-per-gallon is itself misleading. The european system of reporting gallons per distance (100km) is more descriptive in my opinion.

For example, to drive 100 miles, increasing your fuel economy from 12mpg to 20mpg saves you 3.33 gallons. To save as much again you would need to increase your fuel economy from 20mpg all the way to 60mpg.

As such, upgrading a regular civic to a hybrid saves only 0.55 gallons per 100 miles, 1/10th the savings of replacing a Hummer H2 (12mpg) with a regular civic (5.55 gallons per 100 miles).

4/8/2008 4:05:16 PM