Death of new suburbs? Greatly exaggerated.

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

This blog has given plenty of space to the new theory that the bursting of the housing bubble, rising gas prices, traffic congestion and overbuilding spell trouble for newly built, far-flung suburbs. The case was best made, and maybe first made, in an essay by Christopher Leinberger in the March isssue of Atlantic magazine titled ‘The Next Slum?’

Now the counter-argument. Defending the vibrancy, or at least the staying power, of suburbs, Joel Kotkin writes in today’s L.A. Times, ‘Suburbia’s not dead yet.’

Highlight: ‘Not so fast,’ Kotkin writes. ‘The ‘out of the suburbs, back to the city’ narrative rests more on anecdote than demographic or economic fact. ... Even with economic growth slowing, many suburbs, exurbs and smaller towns, especially those whose economies are tied to energy, are continuing to do better than most cities in terms of job creation and population growth.’

More: ‘The problem for many cities is that they lack the jobs for people to move close to. Since the 1970s, the suburbs have been the home for most high-tech jobs and now the majority of office space. ... Of the 20 leading job centers in Southern California by ZIP Code, none are downtown.’

True enough. One small quibble: The more relevant argument, I believe, is specific to newly built, far-flung suburbs on the fringes of large metro areas. (Example: Temecula, which nearly doubled in population in the past decade and now faces a pretty big foreclosure problem). Kotkin’s piece is a defense of the economic health of suburbia in general and not these newer exurbs in particular. But the point he makes about the relative lack of downtown jobs is particularly relevant to Los Angeles.

Your thoughts? Comments? E-mail story tips to peter.viles@latimes.com
Photo credit: Sandler O’Neill & Partners