Too Good to Be True: Debunking Suburban Legends

The Washington Post published an article over the weekend that has no place on a blog: sane, optimistic—even relaxing—and truly counterintuitive, at least about the suburbs. In "5 Myths About Suburbia and Our Car-Happy Culture," Ted Balaker and Sam Staley, both contributors to the libertarian magazine Reason, argue that if we really want to solve the global warming crisis, driving less isn't the place to start. This isn't the place to debate their scientific claims, and anyway, we think driving less is a life-affirming goal apart from what it might do for the planet. (So, it seems, do they.)

But along the way, Balaker and Staley put to rest some anti-suburban truisms that are ripe for debunking. To wit: "Americans aren't addicted to their cars any more than office workers are addicted to their computers," they write. "Both items are merely tools that allow people to accomplish tasks faster and more conveniently." It isn't as much fun to talk about the suburbs without this cliché, but it sure is refreshing.

Suburbanites don't even depend on cars more than other Americans, the two point out. Cars are the dominant form of transportation for all types of communities, and have been for a long time. In the 1930s, when suburbia in the modern sense had yet to occur, three of four households owned a car.

Balaker and Staley betray their libertarian worldview when they argue that, while herding people in cities might be more efficient use of land, "single-family houses, malls and shops would have to make way for a stacked-up style of living that most don't want." The implication being that suburbia is not a deleterious side-effect of freeway building and developers' greed: people live in suburbs because they like to.