Veddy interesting forum over at the NYT’s Freakonomics blog on the future of the American suburb - whether, in the era of high energy prices, it’s destined to collapse, to evolve, or just keep on keeping on.

Perhaps the most interesting response to the question of what our suburbs look like in 40 years comes from Lawrence C. Levy, executive director of the National Center for Suburban Studies at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., and a former editorial writer/columnist at Newsday:

One thing for certain is that most suburban communities — wherever they are — won’t look like they do now. There will be more clusters of taller buildings, surrounding more public transportation, and populated by people who don’t look a lot like — or earn as much at least at first — as those now living next door….

<snip>

For nearly two decades, the inner-ring suburbs have been looking more and more like the cities they surround. They are nearly as physically dense, politically Democratic, and, unfortunately, socially and educationally dysfunctional.

That struck me, because I live in an inner-ring suburb and can tell you - to an extent, this is absolutely true.

If the federal government reduces incentives for sprawl (by shifting funds from highway building, for instance, to mass transit or to sewer construction necessary for “densifying” suburbs), the so-called “smart growth” movement will hasten and spread deeper into suburbia. If the oil cartels and our own consumption habits keep energy prices high, consumers will pressure builders into putting up smaller and “greener” units that may not look like my parents’ split level. Highways may not be as congested or at least they may be safer because people will be driving slower to save on gas. Increased purchases of hybrids and other energy-saving moves will reduce pollution and the “carbon footprint” of suburbia.

And with environmentalists and builders, along with politicians, agreeing on less sprawling tract housing and more “clustered” homes that preserve large swaths of land, the outer “ex-urban” rings may not look like the Levittowns of my parents’ generation that grew out of fields that once bore potatoes.

So how will the suburbs look in 40 years? It depends — on how smart and bold we are willing to be.

But then this goes back to the debate we’ve had time and again here. What I might consider “smart and bold,” you - the person who lives next door to the tract where a builder wants to construct a “greener” high-rise - are going to call foolish and reckless.

That goes back to what James Howard Kunstler (another participant in the forum) has termed the “psychology of previous investment” - meaning, you’ve got yours, you like yours, and you’re going to protect yours. You are going to do everything you can to ensure that if building occurs on land near where you live, it is as similar to your own neighborhood as possible. You will not permit anything “bold,” for “bold” may depress your property value - and “bold” may make your neck of the woods look a lot different, damaging your peaceful aesthetic. Which is the reason you moved there in the first place.

Which leads directly into a comment by Kevin Drum on the Freakonomics issue, on how liberals - such as me - find ourselves on a different side of this fence than we might have expected:

A focus on increased density is going to mean a funny political switcheroo for a lot of liberals. We’re mostly accustomed to fighting evil corporations on behalf of the little guy, but it turns out that most suburban (and many urban) zoning regulations have been put in place by exactly the little guys we’re used to teaming up with. Developers, on the other hand, would happily build out every last acre to the maximum possible density and maximum possible profit if only they were allowed to. So if we’re in favor of higher density, we’re frequently going to find ourselves siding with big developers and very much against local public opinion — and believe me, you haven’t really taken on the task of changing public opinion until you’ve sat through a planning commission meeting trying to out-talk an angry mob of homeowners who are dead set against a proposed zoning change that might affect their property values by 1%. Strange bedfellows indeed, but those are the bedfellows we’re going to have to get used to.

We’re still in the process. And it’s gonna take a while.