Suburbs in a post-capitalist society

[which doctor]

So, this is something I've been pondering for a while. I've been putting some of my thoughts down on paper and I hope to put it all into a more well-thought out essay. I'd like to hear what some of you have to say on the issue.

What would happen to suburbs after the revolution? I'm talking about the american type suburbs that are typically dominated by the white bourgeois and petty-bourgeois living in low-density areas outside large cities. They are some the least diverse areas in America. They are full of nearly identical homes all with perfectly manicured lawns. The commerical areas are full of chains and large ugly parking lots. Almost all of transportation must be done by automobile since public transportation, bike lanes, sidewalks, are nearly all non-existent in the suburbs.

The suburbs are more like the American Prison than the America Dream.

Suburnanization, urban sprawl, white flight, etc. have been some of the defining movements that evolved in post-war America. The rising petty-bourgeois class and popularity of the personal automobile have both contributed to this.

Some analysts say that the decline of cheap gas will contribute to the decline of the suburbs. We can only speculate.

Seeing as how the suburbs would be a very unattractive place to live in a post-capitalist society, what would become of them?

[which doctor]

here are two articles that share some of my similar thoughts

http://web.mit.edu/activities/thistle/v9/9.09/9burbs.html
http://www.cynicalbastards.com/cynic/suburbs.html

ps. sorry if this is in the wrong forum, I didn't know what I was thinking when I stuck it in practice

[socialistfuture]

I would assume that the suburbs will quickly break down and turn into ghetto's when oil runs out and it is no longer cost effective to live in them and bring good to them. tho it is also possible to re-wild them and use permiculture methods etc to grow food locally and make communities on a local scale that function. basically depends how things turn out and if people wake up and re connect with their surroundings.

[Everyday Anarchy]

Seeing as how the suburbs would be a very unattractive place to live in a post-capitalist society, what would become of them?How are they unattractive? Just because you say so?

I actually wouldn't mind living in the suburbs. A nice looking home, a peaceful neighborhood, and a good looking lawn are all things I think I might look for when I need to buy my own house.

[RevSouth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 10:49 PM
The suburbs are more like the American Prison than the America Dream.
The suburbs can also be seen as a contributing factor to depression in the youth (and adults for that matter) in America. They almost isolate people from the world. People go to work or school, come home, and watch TV. There is variation within this especially within different subcultures (most of which have evacuated the suburbs), but is the general method.

This makes me wonder if this is why its hard to radicalize American youth on a wide scale. The suburbs all but promote isolationist ideas, aside from a hello to the neighbors. Widespread action is hard when many of the people who would contribute to a movement in an urban area have accesability issues in the current suburban structure.

[PRC-UTE]

I look forward to reading your essay, FoB. Would you mind PM-ing me when ya post it?

I've always wanted to read more Henri Lefebvre and his writings on urban planning and production of space.

[Janus]

Urban sprawl is inefficient and costly. This is something that needs to be reduced if not eliminated in a revolutionary society. Once social stratification has been removed, more central housing within the cities needs to be emphasized rather than building isolated communities.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Probably a move towards self efficeny in the suburbs (bringing production there, having markets within the large neigborhoods, etc, to stop sprawl.) Suburbs themselves aren't inherently bad with a good public transportation system. We just need to design our cities like Western European ones.

[Demogorgon]

I don't think suburbs as they are in this counbtry (Scotland) are a problem. They are just built on the edge of cities and are not at all isolated. It's American style ones that worry me, the way they contribute to pollution due to the sheer amount of car use involved suggests to me they will have to be phased out.

[socialistfuture]

There are quite a few studies and so on done into alternate methods to suburbia.
Theres a film called 'the end of suburbia' I think thats what its called. its about cheap oil running out and how suburbs were created and the original intention behind them.
the thing is they fail, the fragmented communities and are very ineffecient and eneergy intensive to maintain. personally i prefer villages, other ways to make things work better include:
having shared cars.
nearby public transport,
locally grown food.
working from home or nearby - rather than communiting to other cities etc,
trains and cycle routes - rather than highways and constant traffic jams (as happens in auckland city where I live),
using solar etc so that some energy is generated in the community....
Using renewables to power the cities.
making houses that are effecient (ie well insulated, facing the sun etc)


i think long term they will crumble and new ideas will have to come about.
there was forests, they were cleared for farms, the farms got turned into suburbs or cities, everything gets slowly urbanised... so for us to still have a wild (eg untouched wilderness and greenbelts around the cities etc, there needs to be a way to house people, and have cities and areas that are not soo resource intensive - ie sustainability - and that can house large amounts of people in certain areas. otherwise everrywhere is up for grabs - ie oil driling in the alaskan wildlife sanctuary and mining, logging in the amazon....

so what will becomes of suburbia - can it be changed or does an alternate model need to be applied?

[The Grey Blur]

I say we take all the homeless people and give them each a white-picket house

There'll be plenty of empty ones after the counter-revolution is crushed :)

[which doctor]

Originally posted by socialistfuture+--> (socialistfuture)I would assume that the suburbs will quickly break down and turn into ghetto's when oil runs out and it is no longer cost effective to live in them and bring good to them. tho it is also possible to re-wild them and use permiculture methods etc to grow food locally and make communities on a local scale that function. basically depends how things turn out and if people wake up and re connect with their surroundings.[/b]

I sometimes think that too. It will be interesting to see how things pan out.


Originally posted by Everday Anarchy+--> (Everday Anarchy)How are they unattractive? Just because you say so?

I actually wouldn't mind living in the suburbs. A nice looking home, a peaceful neighborhood, and a good looking lawn are all things I think I might look for when I need to buy my own house.
[/b]
The suburbs are little more than ghettos for the bourgeois. I'm not opposed to nice looking homes or nice lawns (although I prefer a more wild, natural setting), but the environment of suburbia is what makes it so shit. The suburbs are concrete deserts. The geography is not very conducive to revolution at all. There is almost no adventure in the suburbs. They are almost 100% dependant on the personal automobile. These "peaceful neighborhoods" you speak of are not communities. People know about the lives of celebrities than about the lives of their neighbors. The children live in virtual prisons. Their freedom of movement is controlled by their parents/oppressors.


Originally posted by RedSouth
The suburbs can also be seen as a contributing factor to depression in the youth (and adults for that matter) in America. They almost isolate people from the world. People go to work or school, come home, and watch TV.
You're right, they further alienate people, especially the youth.


This makes me wonder if this is why its hard to radicalize American youth on a wide scale. The suburbs all but promote isolationist ideas, aside from a hello to the neighbors. Widespread action is hard when many of the people who would contribute to a movement in an urban area have accesability issues in the current suburban structure.
I've thought about this too. I see potential for youth living in the suburbs, especially among the various youth sub-cultures. I know all the youth around me want to get the hell out of here when they graduate high school.


Originally posted by PRC-UTE
I look forward to reading your essay, FoB. Would you mind PM-ing me when ya post it?

I've always wanted to read more Henri Lefebvre and his writings on urban planning and production of space.
Yeah, I will tell you when I publish it somewhere online, maybe even the che-lives ezine. Don't expect anything fantastic though, but yeah. I'm working on an outline for it now.


Originally posted by Janus
Urban sprawl is inefficient and costly. This is something that needs to be reduced if not eliminated in a revolutionary society. Once social stratification has been removed, more central housing within the cities needs to be emphasized rather than building isolated communities.
It's very inefficient, only made possible by the excess consumerism found abundant in North American suburbs. Cities now are characterized by central housing for the poor and large office buildings for the rich. There are lots of cases where the poor are shipped out to the suburbs to work in the service industries while the rich drive to the cities to work.


[email protected]
Probably a move towards self efficeny in the suburbs (bringing production there, having markets within the large neigborhoods, etc, to stop sprawl.) Suburbs themselves aren't inherently bad with a good public transportation system.
I'm not opposed to small cities outside outside larger cities. Many of them have their own production and markets, which is all good.


socialistfuture
so what will becomes of suburbia - can it be changed or does an alternate model need to be applied?
That's certainly a good question. I'd like to touch on it in the future.

[BreadBros]

I think the idea that the suburbs are a bourgeois or petty-bourgeois haven is an untrue assertion. While gated or upscale suburban communities definitely exist, I think the vast majority of suburbs (at least in the United States, Ive never visited Europe) are working class, probably more of the "middle class" variety of the proletariat. I used to live in Los Angeles and I know that the urban sprawl in the LA metro area is growing incredibly fast, stretching out to surrounding counties such as San Bernardino and Riverside. The overwhelming majority of people moving to those areas are Latino, working-class families. These suburbs are quite simply often the only affordable option in many cities. Even living in "the ghetto" makes no sense, as often a medium-sized old apartment in the poorer areas of the city costs far much more than a new 2-story house out in the suburbs. The low turnover of established residences also makes it easier to find housing outside of the main city. I also know that in NYC, the highest concentration of wealth and international bourgeois individuals exists in the Upper East Side, an extremely dense neighborhood in the center of the city. A lot of this suburbanization has been pushed by the reversal of "white flight", right now most American cities are experiencing a huge influx of upper-middle-class individuals who are pushing up rents and prices forcing a lot of working class people out. I really think whats happening to American cities right now is tragic, real meaning to urban life and community is being sapped out and replaced by an almost post-modern version of the American city. In New York City whatever aspects of real community and working-class life are increasingly being replaced by post-modern elements, whether its the preponderance of "faux-dive" "rustic" expensive restaurants and bars, or the increasing number of people deciding to move into lower-class neighborhoods out of some bizarre desire for a living area that somehow holds somekind of fake poverty or urban aesthetic and leads to extreme juxtapositions of wealth and power in a neighborhood.

I dont see whats wrong with suburban living at its core, communities can and do still form, and I definitely dont look down on people for wanting increased living space or amenities. In fact, if I remember correctly Marx calls for some sort of greater mean in living standards between urban and rural life in his 10 points in the Communist Manifesto. As for adventure or freedom, well suburban communities are more boring than cities because theres less things to do, thats obvious, but I see it as a flaw of capitalism, not of the structure of suburbs.

[Forward Union]

Moved to theory.

[socialistfuture]

i dont think those who support affluent lifestyles in white picket fence gated communities or other forms of suburbia understand what they were before hand (wilderness) and that more (ie the amazon, old growth rainforests etc) are carved up to make the materials to sustain unsustainable growth.

suburbs, are not well designed - they were made for city dwellers who moved to the city to get work to have a mix between the uses of the city and the beauty of the countryside - however they have a problems of the city (unsustainable) and continue to wipe out the countryside (urban sprawl+ counting down of forests to make matierials, damning of lakes for water supply, mining pristine areas for more resources - let alont to factor in when people have unsustainable jobs to pay for living in the suburbs - rent, to buy the two family SUVs etc),

sorry departing from the point - there are many problems with suburbs, maybe many are unseen to the average person. as oil prices continue and fossil fuels deplete u will understand. look at suburbs that loose money and income - very quickly turn to ghettos. they are not working class if the work leaves (industries collapse because jobs/companies are outcourced) - suburbs exist within capitalist confines which means - they exist while ints profitable and resources allow it.

they cannot last forever, no matter what capitalist aspirations say or marx thought when he was in favour of the industrial revolution.

[socialistfuture]

im sorry but for most people to have the luxary of living with that space - in a suburb would mean that there be no wild space left - factor in increasing populations, immigration + building to accomodate all that (+ urbanisation) of places like China and India and South America - + suburbs that follow the cities growth.

the end point is growth cannot go on forever, i like space outside too - community gardens, things to do etc. tho this is about more than our tastes - this is about how societies, their inhabitants and wildnerness exist together. if u wipe out everthing to accomodate human luxary, the humans will be wiped out next. western industrial society is on a one way trip at current.

[KC]

The suburbs should be eliminated, along with "the country". The suburbs, as well as the town and the country will be constructed together as one entity as to eliminate the division of labour between each.

[BuyOurEverything]

The suburbs are little more than ghettos for the bourgeois. I'm not opposed to nice looking homes or nice lawns (although I prefer a more wild, natural setting), but the environment of suburbia is what makes it so shit. The suburbs are concrete deserts. The geography is not very conducive to revolution at all. There is almost no adventure in the suburbs. They are almost 100% dependant on the personal automobile. These "peaceful neighborhoods" you speak of are not communities. People know about the lives of celebrities than about the lives of their neighbors. The children live in virtual prisons. Their freedom of movement is controlled by their parents/oppressors.

This paragraph speaks volumes about the lifestyle left. The upper middle class suburbs you see on TV might not seem to be a desirable place to live to you, but for many people they are. This is not neccessarily because they are "upper middle class capitalist drones", but for a whole variety of reasons (for example wanting to have a little bit of space but still wanting the services proded by a large city). If you approach socialism from the Adbusters perspective of "destroying suburban culture", you're never going to get anywhere. Many of these people are working their fucking asses off at two jobs and up to their eyes in debt trying to hang on to their house. They have real problems that the left can actually address, and branding them as "bourgious drones" and telling them to go live in a downtown apartment or somewhere in the middle of the woods with their family of five is just going to serve to alienate them.

All the problems with suburbia that you described are problems that exist everywhere in capitalism.

Not to mention, the vast majority of the world would trade several limbs in exchange for the "hellish suburbia" you've just described.

Furthermore, as has been mentioned here already, there are many, probably even a majority, of suburbs which could be described as anything but middle class. They are made up of people who cannot afford to live in the city because of astronomical property values. The only difference between these suburbs and rich ones is that they are a hell of alot more rundown, but I don't think anyone here would try and tell the people living in these places that suburbia is a "bad" or "innefficient" place/way to live.

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 02:48 AM
The suburbs are little more than ghettos for the bourgeois. I'm not opposed to nice looking homes or nice lawns (although I prefer a more wild, natural setting), but the environment of suburbia is what makes it so shit. The suburbs are concrete deserts. The geography is not very conducive to revolution at all. There is almost no adventure in the suburbs. They are almost 100% dependant on the personal automobile. These "peaceful neighborhoods" you speak of are not communities. People know about the lives of celebrities than about the lives of their neighbors. The children live in virtual prisons. Their freedom of movement is controlled by their parents/oppressors.








So, so true. Kids in suburbs become the inmates of a world where their TV and Playstation see more of their face thant their parents do. And if you would ask around, say in the average suburban high school, and ask about the latest celebrity or how's Jessica Simpson or Britney Spears or whoever "big celebrity" is doing it is almost guaranteed you will get more information about them than you will about their own neighbor living across the street and who they see everyday of their lives.


Very sad.

[Eastside Revolt]

I've always wodered what would happen with extremely wealthy suburbs, where every house has a pool, and a gym, and like 10 bedrooms. Just what the hell do you do with all that space!?

[The Grey Blur]

You give it to homeless people!

[socialistfuture]

i imagine a few of the suburbia supporters might be middle class and live in them themselves... ive been lucky enuff to mainly live in houses with large areas of land around them and things like the ocean and forests nearby.
to say its either the wilderness, city or suburbia is cutting out a lot of options.

i think adbusters is quite correct in a few assumptions they make, sorry but ppl living such a life should work less and live ina better way. real estate and private property are a stress - and working consumes much of peoples lives in western capitalism. would working less, owning less and sharing more make sense?

i dont think natice american indians and many other cultures suffered from bordom, school shootings and such high rates of suicide - + the same level of environmental distruction to sustain their cultures.

suburbia is stressfull to maintain, wastefull and exclusive. it is part of the modern fragmentation of society. there are many better ways to live, healthier and more meaningful. what the point of having a boat on the lawn if u dont have time to use it?

also we havent even gone into solutions to overpriced rent and property ownership, one being squatting.

[The Grey Blur]

Actually school shootings have occured on both Native American Reservations and, more recently, amongst the Amish community

[socialistfuture]

because native american indians on reserves live within capitalist means in a capitalist country - western materialism is killing cultures and their ways of live.

neway - heres an article about how humanity is not sustaining its lifestyle.


Earth's Ecological Debt Crisis: Human 'Borrowing' from Nature Hits New Record

Published on Monday, October 9, 2006 by the Independent / UK
by Martin Hickman

Today is a bleak day for the environment, the day of the year when humankind over-exploits the world's resources - the day when we start living beyond our ecological means.

Evidence is mounting that rapid population growth and rising living standards among the Earth's six billion inhabitants are putting an intolerable strain on nature. For the first time an organisation * a British think-tank * has sought to pinpoint how quickly man is using the global resources of farming land, forests, fish, air and energy.

The new economics foundation has calculated from research by a US academic group, Global Footprint Network, that the day when we use more than our fair share of the Earth, * when "humanity starts eating the planet," is October 9.

In other words, assuming that the world has a certain quantity of natural resources that can sustainably be used up each year, today is the date at which this annual capacity is reached. And environmentalists warn that just as a company bound for bankruptcy plunging into the red or a borrower "maxing out" on credit cards must face the consequences, so must humanity.

The biggest problem relating to the over-consumption of resources is climate change, but its other effects include deforestation, falling agricultural yields and overfishing.

Overfishing is one of the most easily understood examples of the abuse of nature. Catching too many fish has left species that were once common, such as cod in the North Sea and bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean, struggling to survive.

Although it is possible to make ever-increasing catches for a while, eventually only small, juvenile fish are left, and stocks become unviable. Similarly, emissions of greenhouse gases are rising, exacerbated by the growth of China and India, but the climate is poised to wreak its revenge. Already polar ice caps are melting at a rate that is startling scientists, and examples of extreme weather, such as Hurricane Katrina, which devastated New Orleans in August last year, are being attributed to global climate change. In February, when he was Defence Secretary, John Reid revealed that British military planners were already preparing for conflicts arising from the scramble for resources in 20 to 30 years' time.

Outlining the impact of global warming, he said: "Impacts such as flooding, melting permafrost and desertification could lead to loss of agricultural land, poisoning of water supplies and destruction of economic infrastructure."

Global Footprint estimates that the human race is over-using the Earth's resources by 23 per cent. While each individual should use up no more than the equivalent of 1.8 hectares of the Earth's surface, the actual area we use is 2.2 hectares per person.

Mathis Wackernagel, executive director of Global Footprint Network, which analyses 6,000 pieces of data from such sources as the United Nations, warned that the limit of the Earth's endurance had already been reached.

He said: "Humanity is living off its ecological credit card and can only do this by liquidating the planet's natural resources."

According to nef's analysis, the unsustainability of human behaviour has speeded up markedly. Humanity started living beyond its means on a global level in 1987, when the limit of sustainability was reached on 19 December. By 1995, the day was arriving by 21 November and began arriving in October shortly after the millennium.

Consumption is particularly profligate in the West, where individuals consume air-freighted food, buy hardwood furniture, enjoy foreign holidays and own cars. Global Footprint estimates the world would need five planet Earths to sustain a global materialistic society such as that in the US while almost three would be needed for the UK.

By contrast, developing countries such as Kenya use a fraction of the resources. Nef highlighted the energy wasted in trade. In 2004, for example, Britain exported 1,500 tons of potatoes to Germany and imported the same amount. We sent 10,200 tons of milk and cream to France and imported 9,900 tons.

Andrew Simms, policy director of nef, warned the world was living far beyond our environmental means.

Professor Tim Jackson, head of sustainable development at Surrey University, one of Britain's leading experts in sustainability, said the research was broadly right and that we are using resources faster than they can be replaced by the planet.

He said: "We are clearly drawing natural capital and the point about collapse is that we don't know when some of the systems in the global atmosphere and fish will collapse but we do know that collapse is a very real possibility."

Our dwindling natural assets

Fisheries

Degradation of the marine ecosystem is one of the world's biggest problems after climate change. Many fish population have shrunk by 90 per cent in 50 years. Species in particular danger are bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean and Atlantic and cod in the North Sea.

Energy

Oil reserves are fast running out: "peak oil" - the point from which oil reserves start to decline - is imminent, with world consumption of oil at 84 million barrels a day. In turn, the burning of fossil fuels is the largest source of emissions of CO2.

Some 13 million hectares of forest are lost every year, says the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation. Almost 20 per cent of The Amazon - the world's " lung" - has been felled. In 2004 the rate of forest clearance in the Amazon was the second highest on record, caused by the boom in growing soya beans. Deforestation of tropical rainforests may account for the loss of as many as 100 species a day.

Water

Population growth, pollution and climate change are making water a scarce resource. Only 2 per cent of water on Earth is fresh, the rest is salt or trapped in glaciers and snow. By 2050, 7 billion people in 60 countries could be short of drinking water.

Farming land

Overfarming drains the soil of nutrients, while the chemicals used in the process pollute waterways. Farming uses 70 per cent of the world's water supply: to provide 2,700 calories a day requires 4,300 litres (more than seven bathtubs) of water
http://rtc.revolt.org/node/430

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 15 2006, 03:58 PM
Actually school shootings have occured on both Native American Reservations and, more recently, amongst the Amish community
The person who committed the shooting was in no way connected to the Amish lifestyle.

[BuyOurEverything]

So, so true. Kids in suburbs become the inmates of a world where their TV and Playstation see more of their face thant their parents do. And if you would ask around, say in the average suburban high school, and ask about the latest celebrity or how's Jessica Simpson or Britney Spears or whoever "big celebrity" is doing it is almost guaranteed you will get more information about them than you will about their own neighbor living across the street and who they see everyday of their lives.


Very sad.

Right, and I'm sure inner city kids don't play video games, don't watch entertainment news, and spend tons of time with their families. These are all problems of capitalism that you've described, not of the "suburban lifestyle."


i imagine a few of the suburbia supporters might be middle class and live in them themselves

Actually, I live in a tiny apartment in the heart of downtown in a large metropolitan area. About as far away from suburbia as you can get.


ive been lucky enuff to mainly live in houses with large areas of land around them and things like the ocean and forests nearby.
to say its either the wilderness, city or suburbia is cutting out a lot of options.

Obviously it was an oversimplification, I'm not going to list every possible housing option available. The point is that certain things work for certain people. You mentioned that you like houses with alot of land near forests and the ocean. Personally, I would love that but I need to be closer to the city for the things that I do. The same goes for other people. Also, not everybody in the world can live on big lots of land. Just because you enjoy one particular lifestyle does not mean that it works for everybody.


i think adbusters is quite correct in a few assumptions they make, sorry but ppl living such a life should work less and live ina better way. real estate and private property are a stress - and working consumes much of peoples lives in western capitalism. would working less, owning less and sharing more make sense?

That will not work under capitalism. Most people are working their asses off to keep what they have and "living simpler" doesn't work for everybody. If it works for you, great, but as a system or an ideology it will not work.


i dont think natice american indians and many other cultures suffered from bordom, school shootings and such high rates of suicide - + the same level of environmental distruction to sustain their cultures.

Ah, yes, primitivism. You know why native americans didn't have school shootings? Because they didn't have schools! We can't turn the clock back on development and even if we could, we don't want to. Yes, there are negative aspects of an industrialized society, but the positives far outweigh them.


what the point of having a boat on the lawn if u dont have time to use it?

We're talking about suburbs, not mindless consumerism. Most people in most suburbs do not own boats.


also we havent even gone into solutions to overpriced rent and property ownership, one being squatting.

Squatting. Great. Tell that to a four or five person family with two working parents and you will realize why you aren't relevant to most of society.

[socialistfuture]

many tirbal cultures had their own school systems and ways of teaching -
the positives dont outway, industrialism caused bad work conditions (child slavery in large industrial factories, increased ways of making profit off workers - now their is sweatshops as modern slavery) yet to mention pollution, resource depletion, climate change and other factors.

its is not a cause of going bacwards, put of moving forwards beyond technocratic belief systems and faith in something that is not working.
WESTERN INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISM is failing the vast majority of those who life on earth. i can find u sources explaining how populations are outliving their natural surroundings and how humans are wiping each other out and all other species. if things continue at curren - unrestrainted growth, supported by excuses of - but we need the comfort - there isnt another way - we are better than we used to be etc,
the current world system is built on inequality. the whole world cannot live by western consumer standards- there simply isnt enuff space and resources.