Suburban Sprawl and the Decline of Social Capital
Sunday 22 August 2010
by: Anthony DiMaggio, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

(Photo: shooting brooklyn; Edited: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t)
Why Long Commutes Are Bad for the American Body and Mind
Suburban sprawl has long been criticized by urban scholars and intellectuals as damaging to the American mind and environment. On the psychological level, it is seen as damaging to communities, preventing the development of closer relations between residents of suburbs who spend more and more of their time commuting to jobs, and suffer from living within "subdivisions" with little in terms of civic cultural experiences.
Sprawl, simply defined, consists of the outward expansion of metropolitan areas, accompanied by the rise of communities with lower population density. These new communities (suburbs) are heavily car-reliant, and often characterized by large home lots and other expansive uses of land such as golf courses, corporate industrial parks, and large mall complexes.
Sprawling suburban subdivisions are notorious for separating residences from other aspects of community life. The farthest of the outlying metropolitan suburbs - also known as exurbs, are typically are often referred to as "bed in" communities, since they are seen as places to live, while their inhabitants commute to middle and inner ring suburbs (in proximity to major cities) for work. These exurbs are often very far from individual bread earners' sources of occupational income, requiring commutes of between 30 to 60 minutes or longer. Exurbs have been implicated in further perpetuating metropolitan racial and economic segregation, as prosperous middle and middle upper income families flee from older "inner ring" suburbs that are experiencing increased racial integration, and move toward far off "outer ring" suburbs characterized by heavy sprawl.[1] Exurbs are merely intensifying an already-existing problem. In the case of Chicago, for example, more than 80 percent of metropolitan school districts for Cook County (the city's major county) are already segregated - defining segregation as the existence of black or Hispanic populations that are 20 percent higher or lower than the metropolitan average.[2]
Recent empirical evidence suggests that the sprawling suburbs may be exacting a negative effect on the public in ways that were entirely predictable, but rarely discussed by national (and many local) policy leaders. This data raises serious questions about the decline of "social capital," defined in the scholarly arena as the "social connections and the attendant norms and trust" that are vital to community-based living.[3] The Gallup polling organization reports that the "well being" of metropolitan Americans is apparently "lower among workers with long commutes." The study, released this month, finds that "lengthy commuters are more likely to experience a range of physical and emotional conditions," including "severe health problems," such as neck or back pain (especially for those commuting more than 20 minutes) and higher cholesterol and larger "body mass index(es)," due, no doubt, to over-consumption of fattening fast foods. This last finding is not surprising.[4] In a day and age where a commuter can buy fries, a sandwich, and a soda for less than $3 dollars, those spending long amounts of time commuting are more likely to be tempted with such unhealthy options over healthier eating of (less available) fruits and vegetables.
Emotional effects of sprawl are felt in many ways as well. Those with longer commutes are generally less likely to "experience enjoyment for much of the previous day or to say they felt well-rested" in their daily routines. Gallup warns that significant societal changes are needed in order to combat the harmful effects of America's sprawling social system. "The results imply that many employers may need to reevaluate their options for helping workers manage those effects, particularly in light of the costs associated with low wellbeing. Those who are hesitant to allow telecommuting, for example, may need to consider balancing the physical and emotional toll of long commutes against the social benefits of having employees together in the workplace. Employers should also recognize that it's not just the time lost in commuting that may have adverse effects. Particularly in tough economic times, commuting expenses - whether they go to gas and parking or mass transit fees - may contribute to elevated worry levels. Helping defray those costs may help employees make the long trek to and from work with greater peace of mind."
Proponents of "new urbanism," in which metropolitan towns and communities are constructed so as to allow work, living, and community civics to be more closely integrated,[5] have pointed to the need to spatially (geographically) reorganize suburban and urban living in order to reduce commute times, promote public transportation, and allow more time for individuals to ensure their physical and emotional health. Integrating shopping, community civic life, and residential living within individual communities pursuing new development projects may do much - when pursued alongside the Gallup suggestions above - in promoting a healthier lifestyle for America's increasingly exhausted work force. Such changes will represent a dramatic change, however, from current practices that increasingly isolate American suburbanites from friends, family, and themselves.
-----
End Notes:
[1] Danielle Gordon, "White Flight Taking Off in Chicago Suburbs," Chicago Reporter, 31 August 2007, http://www.chicagoreporter.com/index.php/c/Cover_Stories/d/%E2%80%98White_Flight%E2%80%99_Taking_Off_in_Chicago_Suburbs
[2] These calculations were arrived at by the author after examining the state of Illinois' report card documents for 2008, which provide data on the racial demographics of metropolitan schools for the Chicago land area. These data were then compared with metropolitan averages for the total white, Hispanic, and black populations for the city and its suburbs.
[3] Robert Putnam, "Tuning in, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America," PS: Political Science & Politics (Vol. 38, no. 4) December 1995; also see: Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000).
[4] Steve Crabtree, "Well Being Lower Among Americans with a Longer Commute," Gallup, 13 August 2010, http://www.gallup.com/poll/142142/Wellbeing-Lower-Among-Workers-Long-Commutes.aspx
[5] Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (New York: The Modern Library, 1993).

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.



Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
No one wants sprawl, but it
Sun, 08/22/2010 - 12:40 — drosera (not verified)No one wants sprawl, but it exists for good reasons. Crime, poor schools, pollution, lack of decent stores and shops, and joblessness explain why so many people want to leave the core city. Sprawl won't end until those problems are fixed. Suggestions for remedies: neighborhood policing and a registered drug user program that makes drugs in small quantities legal (for adults) within defined zones of the city; magnet schools, community gardens, subsidized housing; a system of taxation that results in taxing profits of stores/malls rather than levying property taxes; a strong federal stimulus to rebuild cities, thereby creating jobs. Won't change anything over five years, but by ten there will be notable improvements in people's quality of life.
drosera - you point out some
Sun, 08/22/2010 - 13:28 — City Gal (not verified)drosera - you point out some good suggestions but also sound like a classic case of urban paranoia (worse case scenario stuff - most of urban cities are great places to live, just like most rural, etc.). We also need to be strengthening critical urban-rural connections - understanding our reliance upon each other and moving away from things that split us. The "sub-dividing" of America - our culture, psyche, families, is what we should be rallying against. Those ka-jillion cheaply made homes out there on the landscape are going to be another rust belt, in a different kind of way, in the not too distant future. What are we going to do with that crap?
This piece supports the
Sun, 08/22/2010 - 14:32 — DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21 (not verified)This piece supports the agenda of New Urbanism, which is one piece of the United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development Program. This is the source of everything we are hearing about how bad our middle-class lifestyle is. Their all-encompassing agenda seeks to change every aspect of American living from our use of private cars, to where we live, what we eat, etc. There's a growing movement of people who are becoming aware of this overarching program, and who strongly oppose it.
In fact, much of UN Agenda 21 goals are inconsistent with our Constitution and Bill of Rights. We are in the midst of a planning revolution. The goal is to move us off of the rural lands, into condos in the city where we will be more dependent, less able to speak freely without fear of reprisal, and less mobile--more easily controllable.
For more information, visit our website. DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21 dot com
Drosera Actually, you have
Sun, 08/22/2010 - 14:56 — Robot Boy (not verified)Drosera
Actually, you have it exactly backwards: it was the devastation of the inner cities via housing projects and expressway building that caused white flight and the following social ills. The cities are only starting to recover now, a half century later.
Let's not forget very old
Sun, 08/22/2010 - 15:34 — Anonymous (not verified)Let's not forget very old housing stock that is no longer "way out in the burbs" as it may have been 60 years ago. Many of these areas have very tiny (by today's standards) houses. They usually need some fix up and care, but they should represent affordable housing if people care about gardening, rain barrels, and so on. Knocking all these down as aggressive developers want to do to replace them with "smart growth" condos on top of businesses is not environmentally wise.
Robot, that's right.
Sun, 08/22/2010 - 15:43 — Anonymous (not verified)Robot, that's right. Projects were designed to fail from the start. What we have now though is nicer cities, that are too expensive for most people to live in. The problems remain, places like Pruitt-Igoe were good ideas at first, structurally sound at least.
I'm amazed that the entire
Sun, 08/22/2010 - 15:51 — CityFuture (not verified)I'm amazed that the entire article somehow failed to mention automobiles, ie. cars.
I'm also impressed that it failed to mention - along with all the comments posted so far - traditional cities that do work, and why they work. Cities like Madrid, Tokyo and numerous others mostly located in old Europe, Japan, etc.
Visit these sites to really find out what makes these old cities work: people! And few cars, if any at all:
New World Economics
http://www.newworldeconomics.com/
The "new urbanism" is a
Sun, 08/22/2010 - 16:10 — Anonymous (not verified)The "new urbanism" is a developer's dream. They can cram as many people as possible into as little space as possible. It might be suitable for singles but not for families. This dream/nightmare does not take into account the fact that older people do not ride bicycles. And in the Midwest the weather is too cold for walking and who would want to live above a business? My husband grew up that way and it was far from idyllic. He could hardly wait to get away to some greenery. Also, my neighbors do not walk at all even though we live in a perfectly nice "subdivision." I grew up in the city and do not miss the housing of too big houses built too close together to let in the sunlight. What we need is not some kooky "new urbanism" but better architecture and landscape planning developed with ecological sensibilities.
Very good discussion. You
Sun, 08/22/2010 - 19:09 — SL-U (not verified)Very good discussion. You may also want to see:
www.sustainableland-use.org
...for more on this topic.
I am so utterly tired of
Sun, 08/22/2010 - 23:26 — AntiCoercionRationalist (not verified)I am so utterly tired of social planners. They use flimsy empirical evidence to concoct a problem. The problem happens to be very convenient for their aspirations to political power and social control. They invariably think that they can increase the happiness of others, assuming they are genuinely interested in this, by using coercion and social psychological tricks. The thought that anyone but they are rational beings is beyond the scope of their capacity. We are all little lost sheep who will run off of cliffs and be eaten by wolves but for our shepherds, lords and saviors, the planners. In fact, the planners themselves are the ones who drive us off the cliff and parasitically devour us in order to attain and maintain their own position of privilege, hypocritically disguised as 'helping'.
The column states that
Mon, 08/23/2010 - 14:01 — MR (not verified)The column states that employers must be more aware and adept when it comes to employee health due to commutes, etc. Sad fact is employers don't care about employees...at all. At least, they won't at that level. Of course, in a larger business the "employer" will show that level of care for its senior management, but to the line worker? Nope.
Employers only care for one thing when it comes to their employees: them doing their job for them. If you've ever worked for a family-owned company, you'll know what I'm talking about.
CityFuture is DEAD WRONG
Mon, 08/23/2010 - 19:27 — Anonymous (not verified)CityFuture is DEAD WRONG with his choices of traditional cities that do work.
Residents of cities like Madrid, Tokyo and numerous others mostly located in old Europe, Japan, et al. live in cramped, often dark, and inevitably horribly overpriced apartments where they live low quality lives of deprivation and poverty.
What makes these old cities work is the subjugation of the majority of their citizens and low living standards that are forced upon the poor, the working, lower and lower-middle classes, something that is not preferable, or even adviseable to be forced upon others.
Good point MR. It would be
Mon, 08/23/2010 - 19:34 — Anonymous (not verified)Good point MR. It would be great to stay at home away from the pit and pendulum and make a great living,
THIS IS UNITED NATIONS
Tue, 08/24/2010 - 00:20 — ResearchAgenda21 (not verified)THIS IS UNITED NATIONS AGENDA 21.
Don't buy this rhetoric that all of the ills of society can be solved by cramming us into condos. This is social engineering and it's being aggressively imposed in every state in the US.
Just google UN Agenda 21 and start reading. Sustainable development is a plan developed in the early 1990's by the UN to bring down the living standard in the west by restricting housing choices, limiting energy, restricting personal mobility, narrowing food options and more. This is the real deal. Knowledge is power. Educate yourself.
Wow. I am surprised by how
Tue, 08/24/2010 - 03:50 — Erika in the Pacific Northwest (not verified)Wow. I am surprised by how many comments here are dead set against the idea that we can live happy, productive lives WITHOUT taking up as much space as possible. I know it's our manifest destiny to pretend that the world has infinite resources for US citizens to plunder (provided we have enough money to do so), but is it really so outlandish to believe we can all live comfortably in more concentrated spaces? I'm pretty sure that with an average family size of 2.6-3.114 (depending on where you get your data), we don't all need 3,000 sq ft homes! Is the UN Agenda 21 really any more manipulative than all the heartless individualism we've been taught throughout US history?
After travelling the cities
Tue, 08/24/2010 - 14:53 — ghost dancer (not verified)After travelling the cities and countryside of Europe, the American landscape looks alienating and antisocial. Rural lives no less so than suburban or urban. In all European countries, rural life is centered in villages. Few live atomized on farms. It is very striking that almost no one lives isolated out on a farmstead.
To rebut, in European cities, the most expensive homes are "above businesses", because that is where the wealthiest people want to live, i.e. at the center of commerce and social life.
Furthermore, I've lived in the Midwest most of my life, and walked or biked everywhere, year round. I like winter in Minnesota.
Urban Sprawlas we currently
Fri, 09/03/2010 - 22:37 — BobM (not verified)Urban Sprawlas we currently know it is a mess, but I am more and more wondering if tehre's an even bigger mess looming in the future - - namely the aging of the suburban population. The people who moved out to the suburbs in the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's are getting older and many are facing the loss of mobility, both in individual terms, and in in losing the capability of driving cars. In another 10, 20 years, more and more then-elderly scattered around the suburbs are going to need some sort mass transit -- busses, etc. With the suburbs strung out around most cities as they are, I cannot see any economical way of transporting the future's elderly to doctors, grocery stores, the Social Security Office, etc. How are we going to get all us old folkss around in the future?
carrera
Fri, 04/26/2013 - 16:03 — carrera (not verified)it just screams Cup me May possibly more capital than I am aware of what direction to go with...