Increasing suburban housing density is a key issue for progressives under 35. It is a key issue because it connects directly to economic stability and the quality of life.
[Links fixed. Thanks Meteor Blades!]
Increasing suburban housing density is a key issue for progressives under 35. It is a key issue because it connects directly to economic stability and the quality of life.
Housing density in suburban areas is increasingly important because it can yield cheaper housing in older, developed suburbs, close to employment. In many areas that lack a clearly defined urban core, it is the older suburbs that contain many jobs. An example of this in California is San Jose, which although a suburb nonetheless has a high concentration of tech jobs and attendant support occupations. Housing in the areas close to work has escalated in cost, and in response, many people have chosen to move far from work so that they can afford a larger house in a neighborhood with good schools.
Despite the foreclosure crisis, we can expect that housing near centers of employment will remain relatively more expensive. Why? Two reasons-- the cost of transportation, and quality of life.
As to the cost of transportation, it is apparent that the cost of oil has risen precipitously in the last few years. As of this morning, the cost of one barrel of Light Crude on the New York market is 126.50. In 2003, the cost of oil was approximately $25 per barrel. Potentially there is a longer article on whether the rising oil price is due to the of recovering oil from the ground, or whether it is due to :speculation." However, note that much of the oil production is in unstable areas-- the Middle East, Venezuela, West Africa. Between the increasing cost of recovery (part of trend known as peak oil), and geopolitical instability, it seems safe to say that oil, and by extension, gasoline costs will continue to rise.
When driving becomes more expensive, it becomes a greater and greater portion of a person's monthly expenditures. One way to hedge against the rising costs of oil is to move closer to jobs. Living in a bedroom community/exurb is the worst bet one can take in this scenario because it exposes someone to long commutes and makes one hostage to rising energy prices.
As to the quality of life issues, talk to anyone who spends 1.5+ hours per day commuting. If a person is awake 16 hours a day and spends 4 of those hours in the car, that's 1/4 of the day. That is less time to spend with friends and family. It is also detrimental to personal health -- all that time spent sitting in a stressful environment is certainly a negative influence. Increased stress is a risk factor in high blood pressure and heart disease, major killers of Americans. I see more and more people my age who watched their parents or family friends do the super commute and want no part of it. I remember growing up I would occasionally talk to people who were working in San Jose but living out in Tracy or Manteca, and commuting in every day. It sure sounded unpleasant, and I made a mental note to avoid that situation. Thus, there is a strong case for living close to work. The problem is that as more people make the decision to live close to where the jobs are, it will drive up housing prices (or keep them high, relative to exurbs).
The solution is to allow greater density in the older suburban areas. This is because , all things being equal, the more housing units that can fit on a given area of land, the cheaper those units can be. Increased density also has the intriguing potential for significant economic advantages around green power and urban self-sufficiency, but those are over the horizon and beyond the scope of this discussion.
Unfortunately, efforts to increase density in older suburbs have run into significant roadblocks. If progressives are interested in increasing density and improving their quality of life, they should be cognizant of the potential roadblocks. In the Santa Clara county area, there has been significant resistance to increased density housing development-- even when those developments are private, and aimed at the middle class. For example, residents of one district of San Jose, Willow Glen, have engaged in protracted battle to prevent higher density development. What they are really saying is that they are going to price younger and less affluent housing buyers out of living near jobs, and force people to have longer commutes. That's what they're really saying.
Not far from San Jose, in Cupertino, there has also been significant resistance to increased housing and retail density. Notice that the about us page mentions "ensuring our suburban quality of life." This is a fully understandable concern-- the residents raise the issue that new development may increase the load on local schools without necessarily increasing the funding. For the sake of argument let's accept this premise for the moment. Now the question is, if new development could be structured to adequately pay for school costs, would these people still oppose it? And if so, then what are the real reasons for opposition?
Speaking broadly, I understand that some people want to maintain the 1950s exclusive single-family-home suburb as the model for living. However, maintaining a suburb of exclusively low density clashes with reality as it is today. No one is asking people to give up their single-family homes, but rather to accept that there will be new development around them. All I can say is this-- we're not asking you to give up your house. Not at all. But you are asking me, and millions of young (and not so young) Americans like me, to give up our chance to own a home located close to jobs. You're also asking millions of Americans to continue long commutes that impact not only our personal health, but the health of the environment as well.
The fact is that energy costs are rising dramatically, making the ever lengthening commute to an exurb prohibitively expensive. And it is also true that many of us under 35 have grown up watching people around us do the super commute and have seen how it can destroy the quality of life. Thus, for us, living close to work is an important issue. Increasing density is the clear path to reducing exposure to volatile energy costs, and improving our quality of life.
Kossacks Under 35 is a weekly diary series designed to create a community within DailyKos that focuses on young people. Our overall goals are to work on increasing young voters' Democratic majority, and to raise awareness about issues that particularly affect young people, with a potential eye to policy solutions. Kossacks of all ages are welcome to participate (and do!), but the overall framework of each diary will likely be on or from a younger person's perspective. If you would like more information or want to contribute a diary, please email kath25 at kossacksunder35 (at) gmail dot com