Death of new suburbs? Greatly exaggerated.

This blog has given plenty of space to the new theory that the bursting of the housing bubble, rising gas prices, traffic congestion and overbuilding spell trouble for newly built, far-flung suburbs. The case was best made, and maybe first made, in an essay by Christopher Leinberger in the March isssue of Atlantic magazine titled "The Next Slum?"

Now the counter-argument. Defending the vibrancy, or at least the staying power, of suburbs, Joel Kotkin writes in today's L.A. Times, "Suburbia's not dead yet."

Highlight: "Not so fast," Kotkin writes. "The 'out of the suburbs, back to the city' narrative rests more on anecdote than demographic or economic fact. ... Even with economic growth slowing, many suburbs, exurbs and smaller towns, especially those whose economies are tied to energy, are continuing to do better than most cities in terms of job creation and population growth."

More: "The problem for many cities is that they lack the jobs for people to move close to. Since the 1970s, the suburbs have been the home for most high-tech jobs and now the majority of office space. ... Of the 20 leading job centers in Southern California by ZIP Code, none are downtown."

True enough. One small quibble: The more relevant argument, I believe, is specific to newly built, far-flung suburbs on the fringes of large metro areas. (Example: Temecula, which nearly doubled in population in the past decade and now faces a pretty big foreclosure problem). Kotkin's piece is a defense of the economic health of suburbia in general and not these newer exurbs in particular. But the point he makes about the relative lack of downtown jobs is particularly relevant to Los Angeles.

Your thoughts? Comments? E-mail story tips to peter.viles@latimes.com
Photo credit: Sandler O'Neill & Partners

Comments

[geomath]

Hank, I lived in LA for 10 years. My husband and I got out about four years ago, near the height of the bubble.

We miss our friends and the winter weather, but we don't miss how much it costs to live out there, in particular how much it costs to own even a modest house out there.

[geomath]

--------the NONworking poor will do great in those cheap houses, and they'll need them as they get gentrified out of the cities. Hope you like having the neighbors everybody was running away from when they moved to the suburbs in the 70's.---------

A friend of mine is unlucky enough to own a home in the Lancaster/Palmdale area. She's also unlucky enough to have bought said home near the peak of the bubble.

Anyway, she's now watching her neighborhood go right down the toilet as the people who are willing to work for a living move out, and the chronically unemployed Section 8 people pile in.

[Mike]

One huge factor in creating jobs in the central city is the availability of cheap but acceptably maintained commercial real estate. Just as there are no new cheap residences being built in downtown, there is no cheap commercial real estate being created there either. What new construction there is tends to be higher end, and older buildings lack amenities that can be had for a reasonable price in the suburbs.

In central LA commerce, as in housing, a two-tier system of commercial real estate has emerged, fancy and low-end. For middle tier business, suburban industrial parks and commercial buildings are easier to find in the suburbs.

[yours truly, Johnny Dollar]

A few years ago, there were hundreds of picketers at
city council meeting protesting a new Wal-Mart in their
neighborhood.

I see those same picketers today inside that Wal-Mart...
as customers with their shopping baskets overflowing.

Talk about two-faced. Wal-Mart has done more for the
middle-class American household in 35 years than the
Democrats LBJ society has done in 40 years. And,
Wal-Mart didn't use one your tax dollars to do it.

Wal-Mart will open up real estate offices next.

[brady westwater]

Joel is equally right and wrong. He is right that jobs are following people out to the suburbs; they are not dying. And more people will live there than in the heart of the cities because there is a limit to how many people can live in a small area.

But he is wrong about the numbers of people who will also soon live in the core of the city within walking distance - or a very short commute of their jobs and all the other activities than only a major city center can host.

He is also wrong in his claim that Downtown is not the main jobs center in Southern California.

His zip code gambit is fatally flawed due to the sprawling nature of suburban zip codes which now have miles and miles of factories and offices. In contrast, within Downtown, due to the density of jobs, you can walk six blocks and cross through three different zip codes. In addition, the highest income zip code in LA is in Downtown

[DCB]

It was crazy to believe the suburbs could continue to expand unimpeded. Living in Moreno Valley and working in LA... that's absurd. We are seeing a collapse of the far-flung suburbs and those people are going to need to move in closer. So either downtown will become more dense, or the suburbs (the Valley, etc) will become more dense. I believe both will, but denser suburbs means that your current neighborhoods won't look like they do now for long. That's why I don't understand cul-de-sac loving suburbanites not pushing for a denser downtown.

[Julia]

I visited downtown for the first time in many years this weekend. I live in Thousand Oaks and went downtown for a convention. I can not imagine anyone passing up the suburbs for downtown. Sure, there are a few nice areas downtown, but it's surrounded by squalor and homelessness. I found the whole area depressing and rather scary at night. I certainly would never subject my family to living there, I'd move out of state before living downtown.

I don't work downtown, I don't know a single person who does. I've always worked in Burbank or the West side. TO was a decent compromise. Not that far of a commute, with somewhat more affordable housing, safe neighborhoods, good schools, and a high quality of life. I would never live crammed into high density housing. I want a nice backyard for my kids.

But not all suburbs are created equal. Places like Palmdale and Filmore, even Oxnard, have increasing problems with gangs, crime, and failing schools. I can see why the property values are dropping there. I wouldn't live there if my life depended on it. I know folks who moved to Filmore at the height of the real estate market and are now bailing on their home because of the crime and bad schools. They wanted a quiet, country life style and instead they got a mini version of Oxnard. Add in the long commute and being cut off from everything else, and I think a lot of people aren't fighting to save homes they really don't like the location of.

[Julia]

I visited downtown for the first time in many years this weekend. I live in Thousand Oaks and went downtown for a convention. I can not imagine anyone passing up the suburbs for downtown. Sure, there are a few nice areas downtown, but it's surrounded by squalor and homelessness. I found the whole area depressing and rather scary at night. I certainly would never subject my family to living there, I'd move out of state before living downtown.

I don't work downtown, I don't know a single person who does. I've always worked in Burbank or the West side. TO was a decent compromise. Not that far of a commute, with somewhat more affordable housing, safe neighborhoods, good schools, and a high quality of life. I would never live crammed into high density housing. I want a nice backyard for my kids.

But not all suburbs are created equal. Places like Palmdale and Filmore, even Oxnard, have increasing problems with gangs, crime, and failing schools. I can see why the property values are dropping there. I wouldn't live there if my life depended on it. I know folks who moved to Filmore at the height of the real estate market and are now bailing on their home because of the crime and bad schools. They wanted a quiet, country life style and instead they got a mini version of Oxnard. Add in the long commute and being cut off from everything else, and I think a lot of people aren't fighting to save homes they really don't like the location of.

[ThresherK]

"Talk about two-faced. Wal-Mart has done more for the middle-class American household"

Is this the same Wal-Mart which instructs millions of its lower-paid employees to apply to healthcare for the indigent?