So the blogosphere is abuzz with some early entries to the Re:Burbia competition, and I thought I’d take this occasion to explain why I personally had no interest in the competition.  For anyone not familiar with the competition, the brief states “In a future where limited natural resources will force us to find better solutions for density and efficiency, what will become of the cul-de-sacs, cookie-cutter tract houses and generic strip malls that have long upheld the diffuse infrastructure of suburbia? How can we redirect these existing spaces to promote sustainability, walkability, and community? It’s a problem that demands a visionary design solution and we want you to create the vision!”.  My basic response to this question is that we don’t redirect these existing spaces to promote all those wonderful things; we redirect the people living in those spaces to to our existing urban centers.

There’s a great article in the Atlantic which gets to the heart of the reason I have no interest in ‘fixing’ the suburbs:

As conventional suburban lifestyles fall out of fashion and walkable urban alternatives proliferate, what will happen to obsolete large-lot houses? One might imagine culs-de-sac being converted to faux Main Streets, or McMansion developments being bulldozed and reforested or turned into parks. But these sorts of transformations are likely to be rare. Suburbia’s many small parcels of land, held by different owners with different motivations, make the purchase of whole neighborhoods almost unheard-of. Condemnation of single-family housing for “higher and better use” is politically difficult, and in most states it has become almost legally impossible in recent years. In any case, the infrastructure supporting large-lot suburban residential areas—roads, sewer and water lines—cannot support the dense development that urbanization would require, and is not easy to upgrade. Once large-lot, suburban residential landscapes are built, they are hard to unbuild.

There is a level of density beyond which redevelopment isn’t worth the energy, and as fuel prices increase over the next decade, that level of density is likely to increase dramatically.  One of the basic assumptions of the suburban model is that the inhabitants of the suburbs can commute from their houses to their jobs, then from their jobs to the big-box store to buy cheezy puffs, then to their favorite chain restaurant, and then back home to watch TV.  As the suburbs become less and less affluent, the inhabitants of these spaces will have less and less disposable income to spend on fuel (assuming they can afford transportation, or course).  In other words, the collapse of the suburbs is likely to be swift and catastrophic; without the benefit of low fuel prices and above-average levels of discretionary income, these developments will quickly become impossible to occupy at any cost.

Poverty cannot exist in isolation; in order for people to form slums, they must also have access to food.  I don’t see the suburbs becoming viable slums; they are too far removed from either sources of employment or dense population centers.  They cannot easily be turned into farmland, and even if they could farming has become a lost art in our society.  My guess is that the current pattern of abandonment will continue, and the suburbs will slowly decay and return to nature.

This future is not likely to wear well on suburban housing. Many of the inner-city neighborhoods that began their decline in the 1960s consisted of sturdily built, turn-of-the-century row houses, tough enough to withstand being broken up into apartments, and requiring relatively little upkeep. By comparison, modern suburban houses, even high-end McMansions, are cheaply built. Hollow doors and wallboard are less durable than solid-oak doors and lath-and-plaster walls. The plywood floors that lurk under wood veneers or carpeting tend to break up and warp as the glue that holds the wood together dries out; asphalt-shingle roofs typically need replacing after 10 years. Many recently built houses take what structural integrity they have from drywall—their thin wooden frames are too flimsy to hold the houses up.

The biggest wild-card in my mind is the future value of arable farmland.  Brad has some interesting thoughts about the steady decline in the effectiveness of industrial farming; it seems the use of intensive fertilization and pesticides is slowly degrading our farmland soil and killing off many of the microbes required to for plant life.  If we are forced to abandon high-yield farming and return to the agricultural yields of 20′s, feeding the recently-expanded population is likely to become a challenge which will make arable farmland much more valuable.  This may well be accelerated by decreasing oil reserves and increasing extraction costs.  If agricultural yields decline faster than the suburbs crumble, I can see a situation in which farmers actively clear suburban tracts; sort of like Amazonian slash-and-burn agriculture except full of noxious fumes.

UPDATE:

AMNP just linked to what I think is by far the best entry in the competition, titled “LET THEM BURN“:

Superstudio’s Seventh City (”Continuous Conveyor Belt City”) moves with its 8 million inhabitants. In front of the city is a factory that builds the new districts, and behind it, another factory that destructs the older ones. It is an image of the american suburb: its main characteristic is not to sprawl, but to move. Continuously, new suburbs are built, and old suburbs are abandoned (see Detroit).
This movement is older than the suburb itself: the US have a long tradition of ghost cities, aimed at a semi-nomadic population and left in place after use.

These ghost towns sometimes become attractions for tourists, such as the cities of the Gold Rush. The crisis has accelerated the process.

For sure, all the vacant developments will not become touristic attractions.

We propose to use the other ones for great popular parties, during which the houses will be set to fire one by one. This new ritual is inspired by the Detroit “Devil’s Nights” and european tradtional festivals.

This destruction-consumation is to become a huge potlatch.

Let the suburbs die. There is nothing left to do with the territories consumed by residential sprawl.