My point is that if you look at one thing like lineal miles of services you will get a very slanted view of reality. You need to look at all costs. As Wendell Cox and Joshua Utt show, when all costs are considered, suburbs are actually less expensive than denser areas.

I think that this data is rather broad stroke, lacking the specificity for a accurate comparison. There are many factors here that are unaccounted for. For example, your data states that space heating is by far the largest portion of energy usage. I would imagine (this is a guess without crunching the numbers) that the majority of the urban residents in the country are in the northern half, especially in the Northeast, where as suburban residents may be more prevalent in the southern half. You need a side by side building comparisons within the same region. The climate conditions of the country, and their effects on energy use, are too varied.

Per the data, it also seems clear that energy use per household drops significantly the more units you group together leaving suburban households at up to twice as much as denser buildings–marking increased efficiency on the family level.

You also continue to avoid my point which is simply that every lineal mile of services run (water, gas, power, sewer, even roads) will serve drastically more people than in a suburban setting, marking its use and installation as more efficient.

Once again, you write without checking the data. According to the Department of Energy’s Buildings Energy Data Book, single-family detached homes have the lowest energy consumption per square foot of any home type. 2- to 4-unit multifamily housing consumes 25% more energy per square foot than single-family, and 5-unit-plus multifamily consumes 8 percent more energy per square foot.

So denser development “saves” resources only because it is so expensive that it forces people to live in smaller quarters. But people who live in large apartments or condos are actually using more than people who live in single family of the same size.

It turns out that the cheaper solution IS the best one.

As you will note I am not talking about cost (of building, of living or of running services.) I am talking about energy and resource efficiency. I am not saying it is cheaper to live in the city, clearly that is seldom the case. I am talking about the resources expended per capita, per resident of each respective development type. Yes, it is cheaper to build and live on virgin land, but it requires more energy and resources per person than building in urban settings. The cheaper solution is not always the best one.

As I am an architect, commenting on the visual appearance of the product has to factor in somewhere despite it’s inherent subjectivity. I did not say they look ugly. The only comment about looks that I made was guessing that they follow a repetitive model of recycling store-bought drawings. Craftsmanship and remarkable integrity are seldom accolades of suburban, developer spec-housing.

You make the same mistake as planners everywhere: relying on hypothetical data and thought experiments rather than real data. Several studies have shown that the costs of urban services rise as population densities increase.

You also appear guilty of the design fallacy, that is, that “looks” are the relevant criteria. Even if they are, have you seen any New Urban developments lately? UGLY!

As the suburban allure is based in more space per capita the distance between your neighbor grows. One mile of infrastructure (sewers, fire hydrants, potable water, telecom) and all of the dollars and manpower that it takes to install and maintain serves a fraction of the people that it can in a more dense setting. Of course roadways have to bridge all of this which only cost more money and resources to build and upkeep. More energy has to be expended to travel anywhere because nothing is close. More square feet are tempered per capita throughout the year. If the benchmark for efficiency is urban dwelling (whether or not one thinks it should be the goal) then suburban living is inefficient in comparison.

As for your suburban examples, I do believe that whatever solution suburban planning has, it does not include developer driven homes. Their products are affordable because they are cheap where every fifth house looks remarkably similar. Our neighborhoods can be held to a higher standard. Better quality products are worth inducing a premium.

Enron espoused public policies just the opposite of the company you cite above–and Enron was quite self-interested in its climate alarmism and push for government favor after favor for wind, solar, etc.

So who is right? I have argued that it is not Enron and invite you to examine more closely the arguments at http://www.politicalcapitalism.org. The Left needs to abandon corporate welfarism that is handmaiden to (false) climate alarmism.

The only person I’ve heard talking about them is Randal O’Toole.

*****

Not only that, isn’t it interesting that the CATO Institute, founded and funded by Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries–a BIG OIL company–support research and publish books about how much we need the car culture?

And how bad the alternatives to car culture are?

Yup, I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that their concern for their fellow man just happens to overlap with their own financial interests.

In what sense is suburban development inefficient? That is just another canard spread by the anti-suburban crowd. This nation has given far more subsidies to cities than to suburbs, which pretty much pay their own way.

If you think the suburbs of Houston are not attractive, then you haven’t visited the same suburbs I have, such as Sienna Plantation and The Woodlands. These are not only attractive and affordable, virtually all of the infrastructure was paid for by developers and home buyers.

When it comes to “increasing congestion” you are noting city examples that do not have fully matured transit systems necessary to give an alternative to driving. One cannot simply making driving tough without having another way to get around. I do not think that congestion in New York City has increased in line with the population. On the contrary, the city strives to make it harder to drive on the island yet demand remains high because of the efficiencies that density offers when it is well-designed.

I will agree that simply making suburban houses closer together and smaller does nothing. However, making transit-oriented developments, barring development on rural land and promoting urban living can change a lot–which is the direction in which I think we should be moving.

As much of a proponent as I am for high speed rail, I agree we’re just not there right now. We should be supporting smaller scale transit systems (light rail, commuter trains, street cars) to relieve car traffic than jumping into an infrastructure we cannot afford or have the complimentary systems to fully utilize.