Lets look at the history of the suburbanization of homes and jobs. After world war 2, land became more assessable in the suburbs because of the construction of the interstate highways. Automobile also became more available to people at cheaper prices. Government gave tax write offs to people that bought homes therefore there was an incentive for people to relocate to suburbs were housing was available at lower prices. As long as people are able to find housing at a cheaper cost than in most urban areas, there will always be an incentive to to live in the suburbs even if they have to engage in longer commutes from the city centers.

I believe I have an understanding of Leinberger article and his points seem valid to me. During the housing booms there was a large influx of homes being built on the outer suburbs of many cities. Along with these homes many investors believed that shopping centers within the vicinity would also be desirable for tenants living in the area. Believing that this trend will continue was in the minds of many investors, banks, and home owners. However since the housing bubble has popped, many people are now losing their homes, which leads to a lot of vacant shopping centers now. I believe that the surplus of expensive homes along the outer suburban area may take time to be find buyers and recover. Not many people want to live in vacant neighborhoods, or buy expensive homes. It makes sense that people want to live in higher density areas, where they can simply walk to the market.

I agree that the incentives Leinberger identifies are persuasive enough to motivate people to live in the center city or inner suburbs. However, I feel that his overall argument is based on a longstanding problem within the field of economics, using hindsight as future policy. Every indicator during the rapid growth of the suburbs supported those large investments, and as people seem to wind their way back into the inner city, it does not preclude the possibility of another rapid flight to the suburbs in a couple of decades or so. The gentrification that Leinberger mentions is often a reclaiming of historically middle-class neighborhoods, such as in San Francisco. Once those neighborhoods are bought out, where will future home buyers look other than in the suburbs? I am a millenial, I enjoy the community offered by diverse, walkable areas in Oakland and San Francisco. Will those communities still be intact after gentrification? Just as the moves to the suburb were based on a desired community and culture of living, so is the desire to move into inner cities. Detroit is being advertised by some as a future Silicon Valley, not as a mecca of technology but of entrepreneurship. The forgotten, disparaged housing markets are surely becoming attractive with the meltdown in the suburbs, but I expect the tide to swing back and suburbia will once again avail itself to those seeking a non-urban lifestyle. I foresee the outer suburbs to become a desirable market for first-time home buyers who can't keep up with the market in large cities.

OFF TOPIC

Has anyone noticed that the link for the Study Guide is not working ? If anyone has got the study guide downloaded please share.

Thanks

Mark

http://www.pogodzinski.net/SJSU_Fall_2011/sustainable-economics_website/THINGS_TO_KNOW_107_FINAL.pdf

@ Mark - I also was unable to get the study guide. I sent Dr. Pogodzinski and email but he hasn't responded yet.

Hey whats goin on everyone, has anyone heard from the professor lately? Ive been emailing him but have not heard anything from him. Also, arnt grades due already? Has anyone gotten their grade for this class yet?

I have emailed him too with no response. Grades were dues already but I'm still waiting on grades for this class and one other.

alright cool, i didnt know if i was the only one or not.