American Suburbia: A Failed Experiment
Understanding How the “American Dream” Ruined Us
The American Dream is dead and I’m glad it’s gone. Americans have been obsessed with obtaining their slice of the “picturesque” suburban pie that has defined modern America for 70 years. But as we’re finding out, this lifestyle is unsustainable, and the consequences of this failed suburban experiment have grown into an uncontrollable monster that is destroying our country’s stability.
Where Suburbs Began
Suburbs weren’t always the American way. Prior to the 1950s, cities were built as self-sufficient economic centers, where citizens both lived and worked. Anywhere a person needed to be was within walking distance or a few miles of the city’s heart.
But in the aftermath of World War II, America experienced an economic boom that gave millions of citizens — predominantly the white middle-class — a new start in large, single-family homes stretching across the country.
Cities aren’t perfect, of course, but as history has shown, the concept of the city block has withstood the test of time, changing relatively little in its fundamental design since the Roman Empire.
Suburban life, however, was seen as the reward for America being the most prosperous country in the world, the result of World War II making the country rich, pulling it out of the depression. Complete with yards, picket fences, and cars to commute to the city hubs that were still its economic centers, our infrastructure changed drastically.
While suburbs existed prior to World War II, the shift toward a suburb-focused society was a historical first, sending a clear message that the future was now, and the future was suburbs.
The model was so well received that it became the bar at which all success was measured. Soon enough, suburban life became synonymous with the “American Dream”. It was referenced in advertisements and the media as the ideal prospect of America. Never mind the implicit racism and classism of the model; if you didn’t have the house, the car, the family and the lifestyle of a suburbanite, you needed to work harder and dream bigger.
After decades of our country’s infrastructure built to perpetuate the suburbs, it was clear that the new “American Dream” was here to stay; for better or for worse.
But abandoning city planning experience that’s been iterated upon for centuries isn’t the smartest idea when a country is just recuperating from a great depression. Like most short-sighted planning, the suburban experiment created a wealth of problems that Americans have been paying for ever since.
Economically (in)Sufficient
Suburbs are wasteful and inefficient monstrosities when compared to cities and rural towns.
Cities historically started as small towns with temporary infrastructure, built in key locations along trade routes. In a time before large bank loans and mortgages, these towns had to find financial stability purely on physical wealth.
As these places became more densely populated, the accumulated wealth of its citizens allowed those thriving cities to expand outward, becoming the booming foundations of cities like Los Angeles, New York and other metropolitan cities that we see today. This growth was organic and economically sustainable.
People still live outside of cities, but rural areas do not have the same flow of money. Living rurally means sacrificing many “luxuries” that define modern city life. Instead of city sewage, water pipelines and electric grids, rural towns often have septic tanks, water wells and off-grid electricity. What makes these areas sustainable and useful is how the land is used to grow crops, raise livestock, or operate factories that produce marketable goods.
The suburbs are different. Suburbs attempt to bridge these two worlds; they offer some of the space and “freedom” of rural life, but with all the modern luxuries of city life. The problem, however, is in the costs.
With suburban properties being so spread out — known as the suburban sprawl — the amount of resources required to service suburbia is often triple or quadruple what it takes for the same number of citizens living in the city.
This means vital infrastructure such as pavement, pipelines, and electric grids cost triple or quadruple the cost.
This doesn’t even include how many extra resources are sunken into daily functions of suburban areas. Electricity for extra streetlights, hundreds of lawns to water and cut with electric and gas tools, extra rooms in houses that use electricity for lighting or air conditioning and heating… the list goes on and on.
Paying more for a bigger property makes sense, and it wouldn’t be an issue if infrastructure was just a one-time purchase. But every 15 to 25 years, all infrastructure must undergo heavy refurbishment to maintain usability, which compounds the costs to unmanageable levels. And when you total the costs from the millions of suburban homes across the country, this adds up to billions of dollars spent each year.
And who pays the extra costs for the privilege of living in the suburbs?
While many might think it’s the homeowner via taxes, it’s actually the federal government that foots the bills, as it gives subsidies to cities that build new infrastructure, such as the endless suburban sprawl.
Unfortunately, the federal government doesn’t pay subsidies for infrastructure maintenance, which means that these cities are on their on once their shiny new suburban neighborhoods are in need of some new pipelines or electric grids.
But local governments can’t afford to lose out on these federal subsidies, so they create new suburban sprawl while leaving their older suburban neighborhoods to rot after their 15 to 25 year lifecycle. This is a pattern seen all across the country; a suburban decay, if you will.
For any old suburban neighborhoods that need renovation after their lifecycle, the only hope is that their city doesn’t abandon them, and somehow comes up with the funds themselves. This often takes years, and most suburbs never fully recover. This is the reason American infrastructure is crumbling.
Take a look around any old suburb and you can see these effects for yourself; roads with tons of potholes, pavement with faded paint markings, buildings left abandoned for years, unchecked weeds and dying plants. The signs of abandoned suburbs are all around.
So, what about all of those tax dollars collected from home owners? Suburbanites pay so much in taxes to live in suburbs. Surely, that amount of money should cover maintenance costs! No. Not even close.
Like I said, the problem with suburbia is low density neighborhoods with extra infrastructure needed to cover these vast sprawls. If suburbanites were to cover the cost of their infrastructure themselves, they would be paying possibly double or triple what they’re paying now in property and homeowner taxes.
Lack of Transportation Options
I like cars. Rather, I like the idea of cars. I remember being excited to get my first car, a 1994 Toyota Corolla back in 2004. It wasn’t fancy by any means, and it already had over 100,000 miles on it before I got my hands on it, but it got me where I needed to go and gave me the freedom to travel the vast suburban distances to see my friends.
It wasn’t long in the suburban hellscape of California before that interest in cars completely disappeared.
Cars are useful machines; they allow us to travel long distances in relatively short periods of time, to carry large quantities of items over these distances, and — in some cases — can be a fun and freeing experience when driving on the open road. That is, if you can ever find a time of day to drive without traffic.
In American suburbia, a car is a necessity and is treated with as much care and consideration as a person — if not more. It is impossible to get anywhere without one; the distances between homes and businesses are too vast to travel on foot.
Some might think to take public transportation, but it is neither convenient nor reliable. Whatever distance is required by car, add another 30 minutes to 1 hour on that transportation time, and that’s assuming the bus or train goes directly to the area you need, or arrives on time.
Cars also take up a lot of space. In my suburban hometown, every house is equipped with a garage at the front, which is paved in cement that connects with the street. In fact, getting to the front door of these houses requires a walk behind the garage because the door is almost completely hidden from view. Truly poetic.
I should also mention the massive parking lots and multi-story structures meant to house the surplus of cars while people peruse their destination. At many businesses, the property designated for parking and driving is often double the size of the business itself, if not more.
Beyond the issue of space, cars themselves are one of the leading causes of pollution, a pleasant contribution to global warming. In 2017, cars became the biggest source of America’s carbon emissions. While transitioning to electric vehicles might slow the pollution, the production of new automobiles is its own pollution-heavy industry — but that’s another issue entirely.
Needless to say, suburbia is inextricably tied to the automotive industry. We have Henry Ford to thank for spearheading the suburban experiment with his Model-T automobile. But this creates another problem for the people living in suburbia; cars are expensive.
The number of Americans who don’t have access to a car is substantial — both in cities and out — because the cost of owning one is prohibitive. But our society is built strictly for the car, and it’s hurting our citizens.
Beyond the preliminary purchase a car, there’s the maintenance, insurance, and registration, which add up to thousands of dollars each year just to operate a vehicle. As Americans, we’ve accepted this cost as a necessity, but it doesn’t need to be, nor should it be.
The most sustainable forms of transportation are walking, biking, or public transit systems like trains, trams, and buses, which is something we must put at the forefront of our fight against climate change; but these transportation methods remain inefficient while suburban sprawls still dominate the American landscape.
If more money and effort were put into public transportation and bicycle infrastructure to make these options reliable and more convenient than cars — like other countries — suburbia might be much less inhospitable.
The Nuclear Model
Suburbs in and of themselves aren’t an issue. The concept of the suburb has been around in some form another since the Eastern Han Dynasty of China, back in A.D. 25. Suburbia in America is a little different, however, as it was the byproduct of the nuclear family.
Though a nuclear family it is defined as a family group of two parents and their children, the term conjures ideas of the glorious post-World War II America. Two parents living in the house the husband pays for, the wife cares for the children and the daily errands, and the children grow in their beautiful suburban home to become productive cogs in the machine that is the American way.
The nuclear family was more than just a type of family, it was the core of the “American Dream”. Despite many Americans living in alternative family groupings, it was difficult to escape advertising, media, and even politicians selling citizens on the perfect nuclear family, all made complete by their single-family homes.
But there is no reason why some suburban developments can’t coexist with the urban and rural worlds. Single-family homes are a bridge between urban and rural environments that many find desirable. Like I mentioned before, having the space of rural areas with the conveniences of city living is a dream come true; we know this because the “American Dream” was designed around it.
The reason American suburbia is unsustainable is the country’s complete reliance on the model and lack of options for other homes and business types existing within it. Enter, city zoning laws.
When a city is planned, land is sectioned into what’s known as zones. Zones dictate what types of structures can and can’t be built on plots of land. Simple.
There are many types of zones, with some being more restrictive than others, but the idea behind zoning laws was to prevent cities from falling out of balance with too many businesses or residences.
When the suburban experiment hit its stride, cities updated their zoning models to create room for these wonderful new suburban utopias, known as R-2 Zoning.
With R-2 Zoning, the only structures that can be built on property are single-family homes, otherwise known as suburban homes. So, why are so many places reliant on R-2 Zoning? Racism. Plain and simple.
At the end of the segregation era, the racism that spawned it didn’t disappear. It evolved; adapting to its changing social and political environment. If racist white people couldn’t keep Black Americans out of their neighborhoods legally by the color of their skin, they would keep their neighborhoods white through classism and money.
The “American Dream” was unobtainable for the vast majority of Black Americans. This systemically limited the opportunities for an entire race of people through zoning laws; the next best way to keep racism alive.
Like most racist endeavors, they hurt themselves and millions of others with their bigotry.
As time went on, old zoning laws were never removed, and so R-2 Zoning has become the standard for all new city developments used today.
Aside from the racism, new adults moving away from their parents and the family home to purchase a house has been a rite of passage into adulthood for Americans because of the suburban experiment. But with many of today’s suburban sprawls lacking affordable housing options such as duplexes, fourplexes and condominiums, new adults are being zoned out of these large areas and new developments.
It’s no secret that Millennials and the upcoming Gen-Z adults have been shrugging off homebuying or moving away from their family home. It’s also a common misconception that the reason is younger generations being lazy, or refusing to take on the responsibilities of adulthood. In actuality, one of the primary issues — aside from the lack of money these generations have — is the lack of house variety available in the suburban sprawl.
Out of Business
It’s not just the residential types; new and small businesses have also been squeezed out of land by Big-Box Retailers like Walmart or Target, who dominate what little space R-2 Zoning hasn’t already swallowed.
In well-designed cities, blocks are covered with dozens of small mom-and-pop retail spaces lining a walkable area. If one or two stores go out of business, the revenue flow of the area isn’t hurt by the absence, and it’s only a matter of time before another store, gym, office or residence will take over the space.
Even if the lot remains empty for a while, the single store is such a small piece of the total area’s revenue that it doesn’t matter. This is why cities designed centuries ago haven’t been left to rot like America’s suburban neighborhoods; they’re insulated against economic catastrophes because they are self-sufficient; they make money rather than lose money.
With dozens of tiny stores all making money and contributing to property and business taxes, the area creates more wealth than a single “Big-Box” store that has a car lot double its size.
Big-Box retailers like Target or Walmart create other problems too. In addition to taking up huge amounts of space and providing less competition, variety, and revenue for the square footage they occupy, these stores will also abandon their lots every 10 to15 years, leaving the property to rot until the city can accrue the funds to deal with the husk. It’s tax dollars wasted on garbage.
If you’ve noticed the trend, the “Big-Box” timeline coincides with the recession of suburban areas as they deteriorate. Unfortunately, when these big-box stores are the only resource people have in their suburban sprawl, this can be a death sentence to the town, causing a cascading collapse of revenue, leaving many of its residents stranded and impoverished.
Going Forward, Based on History
I despise American suburbia. There are millions of people who cling to the suburbs and the “American Dream” as they fight for survival while their world falls apart around them. America continues to dump billions of dollars into this failing model that we know does not work and will eventually lead to massive devastation with human collateral damage on an unprecedented scale. This isn’t okay.
As a white man who was born and raised in a California’s suburban sprawl, I understand that my contempt for this model is afforded to me because of my privilege. I have had the luxury of analyzing the cause and effects of American suburbia from a bubble of relative safety and comfort, because I do not face daily struggles that many people of color, disabled people or people living in poverty must face. Navigating suburbia is difficult for me as it is, and I am one of the lucky ones. I can’t begin to imagine the struggles I know other people must face in the suburban hell-scape.
Change of any kind is difficult; it’s scary facing the unknown possibilities of American life separated from the suburban model. There are those who will fight to keep American suburbia alive as long as they can, because this model is all they know. I don’t blame anyone that longs for the familiar comfort and illusion of security a suburban lifestyle has given them.
But we need to wake up from the “American Dream” and face our reality.
I am not a city planner, a civil engineer, an economist, or a politician, but it doesn’t take one to see all the harm suburbia has caused. There is no easy way to fix our problems; the suburban model is too entrenched into our way of life for it to be solved with a few simple changes.
The only way forward is to make sweeping shifts in our infrastructure. There is no scenario where people aren’t harmed financially in a transition away from suburbia, but it’s possible to make this transition without irreparably hurting our most vulnerable communities.
Change is possible.
It must happen if our country is going to survive the plethora of disasters coming its way. At the very least, we must insulate our cities so they can adapt and withstand whatever we may face.
I think Strong Towns president, Charles Marohn, explained the idea beautifully:
“I firmly believe that we have the ability to adapt, innovate and overcome. We will emerge from this a better people. But I don’t see a way through this that allows us to keep the same lifestyle, the same living pattern and the same lack of productivity in our places. Like our innovative and resourceful ancestors before us, we’ll find a way. But like those ancestors, it is going to involve a lot of painful change. Wishing for a miracle is fine, but depending on a miracle is irrational.”
— Charles Marohn, Strong Towns
